[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-12]
RECRUITING, RETENTION AND END STRENGTH OVERVIEW
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 3, 2009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-088 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:
Tuesday, March 3, 2009, Recruiting, Retention and End Strength
Overview....................................................... 1
Appendix:
Tuesday, March 3, 2009........................................... 49
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009
RECRUITING, RETENTION AND END STRENGTH 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
Bergman, Lt. Gen. John W., USMCR, Commander, Marine Forces
Reserve........................................................ 27
Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps........... 7
Debbink, Vice Adm. Dirk J., USNR, Chief, Navy Reserve............ 26
Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III, USN, Chief of Naval Personnel,
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Total Force.................. 6
Gilroy, Dr. Curtis, Director, Accessions Policy, Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness......... 4
May, Rear Adm. Daniel R., USCG, Chief, Coast Guard Reserve Forces 29
Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III, USAF, Deputy Chief 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........................................ 5
Stenner, Lt. Gen. Charles E., Jr., AFR, Chief, U.S. Air Force
Reserve........................................................ 28
Stultz, Lt. Gen. Jack C., USAR, Chief, U.S. Army Reserve and
Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve Command.................. 25
Vaughn, Lt. Gen. Clyde A., ARNG, Director, Army National Guard... 24
Wyatt, Lt. Gen. Harry M., III, ANG, Director, Air National Guard. 28
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Bergman, Lt. Gen. John W..................................... 165
Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S................................... 101
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 53
Debbink, Vice Adm. Dirk J.................................... 146
Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III............................. 80
Gilroy, Dr. Curtis........................................... 57
May, Rear Adm. Daniel R...................................... 196
Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III............................. 110
Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D................................. 68
Stenner, Lt. Gen. Charles E., Jr............................. 178
Stultz, Lt. Gen. Jack C...................................... 134
Vaughn, Lt. Gen. Clyde A..................................... 122
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 56
Wyatt, Lt. Gen. Harry M., III................................ 172
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Jones.................................................... 205
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mrs. Davis................................................... 209
Mr. Loebsack................................................. 213
Mr. Murphy................................................... 212
RECRUITING, RETENTION AND END STRENGTH OVERVIEW
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 3, 2009.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2118, 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. The meeting will come to order.
Today, the subcommittee will turn its attention to the
important issue of end strength within the active and reserve
components of our armed forces and the personnel programs that
are the building blocks of those forces' recruiting and
retention.
During the fiscal year 2005 through 2007, the recruiting
environment had been difficult. That is something that we are
all familiar with. Relatively low unemployment, a protracted
war on terrorism, and increased interest in college attendance
all contributed to a reduced propensity for youth to serve and
a reluctance for influencers to recommend military careers.
Recruiting and retention programs were under great stress, and
the services resorted to increased spending to keep the
volunteer force on track. Many of those funding increases were
supported with wartime supplemental appropriations; and the
uncertainty of supplemental funds to support critical programs,
such as recruiting and retention, had been a concern of the
subcommittee.
During fiscal year 2008, a new environment began to take
shape as housing markets and financial institutions began to
crumble and the national economy slipped into recession. The
unemployment rate grew 7.6 percent in January; and payroll
employment has declined by 3.6 million since December, 2007.
This new economic reality--and I must say this is not something
that we are happy about, but it has had an upside in many ways,
and we will be talking about that. This new economic reality
has been shaping the attitudes of young recruit candidates and
service members and their families about enlisting and
reenlisting in the military in the same way that continues to
shape the attitudes of millions of Americans about employment
and job security.
The effect on recruiting and retention has been remarkable.
Recruit quality programs that had been of such great concern to
this subcommittee just a few short months ago have virtually
evaporated. With only a few exceptions--and there are some--
goals are being achieved, end strengths are growing, and forces
are being reshaped to meet the demands of this global war.
During the hearing today, we hope to learn more from our active
and reserve leaders about what needs to be done to create the
most effective and efficient forces possible.
Unfortunately, this bright picture has a dark side that
cannot be escaped. Budget managers will now begin to stalk
these programs for savings and, rightly so. Because, as
recruitment and retention become easier, one must assume it can
be done more cost effectively. The question before us today is
how all the goals, growth, and reshaping will be achieved with
far less funding than what has been available up to this point.
We have two excellent panels to help us explore these
issues. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to
discuss our reserve forces in greater detail during the second
panel when we will hear testimony from our reserve component
chiefs.
I would request that all witnesses keep their oral opening
to three minutes as much as you can. We know that is difficult.
You have a lot to say. There is a lot of history here. But if
you can keep it to that, it will help us out.
Without objection, all written statements will be entered
into the record.
I now want to turn to the ranking chair, Mr. Wilson, for
any opening comments.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 53.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis.
We have two excellent witness panels today, and I really
can't wait for the American people to see each of you. I have
been so impressed in meeting with you individually; and, as I
look out, I'm just in awe of the professionals who are here
today who provide extraordinary opportunities for the young
people of our country to serve. Your efforts have directly
contributed to the extraordinary success of the active and
reserve components in not only sustaining the All-Volunteer
Force during a highly stressful time but, also, in the case of
the Army and Marine Corps and Army National Guard, in
substantially accelerating the growth of the force. I want to
thank each of our witnesses for their efforts.
With regard to growth, the Army and Marine Corps sought
strengths of 547,400 and 202,000 respectively to be achieved in
2011 or beyond. Amazingly, they will achieve those strengths
before the end of the year. The Army National Guard has already
exceeded its 2013 strength goal of 358,000. This accelerated
growth reflects the effects of the final budget submitted by
President Bush and the subsequent fine work by our witnesses
today.
I represent Fort Jackson for Army training, and I'm
grateful to represent Parris Island for Marine training, so I
have seen it firsthand. And I do know firsthand of the
rewarding experience of military service, having served 31
years in the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.
I am grateful I have four sons who know of the fulfillment
of military service. My oldest is a national guard veteran of
Iraq. My second is an active duty member of the Navy, who I
visited a year ago today in his service in Iraq. My third is a
national guard signal officer currently in training at Fort
Jackson. And my youngest is Army Reserve Officers' Training
Corps (ROTC) at Clemson University; and, in December, he joined
the national guard simultaneous drill program. And I, of
course, want to give credit to my wife for inspiring them to
serve.
Your recruiting and retention efforts are providing
wonderful, life-long opportunities for the young people of
America. The challenge for President Obama's 2009 supplemental
funding proposal and for the 2010 budget request is to sustain
that accelerated growth in the Army, Marine Corps, and Army
National Guard. Moreover, I understand that both the Navy and
the Air Force will seek to increase strength in 2010 and
beyond. I look forward to the details of the President's budget
request next month to see if that additional Navy and Air Force
growth is provided.
I firmly believe that our military needs to be larger to
address the full range of missions we have levied upon it and
the threats we face, and to ensure that this stress on the
force and the families who support it is minimized. Any calls
now to reduce military manpower to fund modernization would be
shortsighted. Both the Air Force and Navy have reached that
conclusion. I would hope that Congress will, too.
The keys to sustaining increasing military manpower are
recruiting, retention, and control of unplanned attrition. Our
two panels today can help us to understand the challenges in
each of those areas. So I want to join you, Madam Chairwoman,
in welcoming our witnesses; and I look forward to their
testimony.
Additionally, last year, I was very grateful, with the
chairwoman, to visit the recruiting and retention school at
Fort Jackson, South Carolina; and we saw firsthand, again, the
extraordinary personnel who are working to provide opportunity
for the young people of our country.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 56.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
I would like to introduce our first panel: Dr. Curtis
Gilroy, who is the Director of the Accessions Policy, Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness;
General Michael Rochelle, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1,
Headquarters, U.S. Army; Vice Admiral Mark E. Ferguson, Chief
of Naval Personnel, Deputy Chief of Navy Operations, Total
Force; Lieutenant General Ronald Coleman, Deputy Commandant for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps;
and Lieutenant General Richard Newton, Deputy Chief of Staff,
Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force.
Thank you all for being here, and we look forward to your
comments.
Mrs. Davis. Doctor Gilroy.
STATEMENT OF DR. CURTIS GILROY, DIRECTOR, ACCESSIONS POLICY,
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND
READINESS
Dr. Gilroy. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson,
distinguished members of the subcommittee and staff, thank you
for inviting us to discuss our recruiting and retention
programs with you today. I'm delighted to report to you that
the state of recruiting and retention for our active duty
force, as we are one-third of the way through fiscal year 2009,
is a success.
Let me make three points in the limited time that I have.
Point number one, the services have done a remarkable job
in recruiting a quality force in an environment that has been
characterized by most as the most challenging since the advent
of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973. I know this because I have
studied this, I have written about the volunteer force, and I
have helped manage the volunteer force for 30 years.
As the economy continues to dip and unemployment rises,
recruiting should be somewhat less difficult. We know this. But
the economy is not the only driver of our retention and our
recruitment programs. We have other significant challenges that
are facing us today, and let me just talk briefly about those.
Influencers of youth, for example--Madam Chairwoman, you
mentioned that just a moment ago--are much less likely to
recommend military service to young people today than they did
two, three, four years ago--parents, teachers, coaches,
guidance counselors. And we know that propensity among youth
themselves is much less than it is today--than it was two,
three, four years ago. We also know that we have a declining
pool of eligible and qualified young people in America today
who want to serve, owing mostly to health and physical fitness
issues and education problems.
We have a crisis in this country, don't we? We have an
obesity problem amongst our youth, and we have an education
crisis as well. Seventy to 75 percent of young people today
have a high school diploma, a bona fide high school diploma.
That is a sad state of affairs.
So when we add all of the qualifiers we find that only 25
percent of our young people today age 17 to 24 are qualified
for military service. Not a good situation.
We have an ongoing Global War on Terror and the associated
operations tempo; and, lastly, we have the need to maintain end
strength for the Army and the Marine Corps at relatively high
levels. These are our challenges, despite the fact that
unemployment is rising and the economy is slacking.
Point number two, to the extent that there will be pressure
for budgetary realignment and budget cuts, if you will, and
these will be directed to our recruiting and retention
programs, I ask that we move cautiously and deliberately when
we consider these. Historically, when the economy weakens and
recruiting and retention became less challenging, these
programs have been ripe for cuts. Recall the crisis in the late
1970s, as a result of significant and I should say careless
cuts during those times. Recall the problems in the mid-1980s
for the same reason. And recall the issues in the late 1990s
when all four services missed their recruiting goals in either
1998 or 1999 for the very same reason.
These lessons from the past showed us that it is easy and
quick to cut budgets during times when recruiting and retention
are successful, but we also learned from those lessons of the
past how difficult and how time consuming and how expensive it
is when we need to ramp up, when recruiting and retention
failed, as a result of those budget cuts.
If we do not pay attention to the history lessons, we are
doomed to repeat these sins of the past. And that is why we are
working together, the services and Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD), to review our recruiting and retention programs
to ensure funding adequacy without excess.
Finally, in conclusion, the success of our voluntary
military during good times and during challenging times results
directly from this subcommittee's continued support for which
we are very, very grateful. We have recently celebrated 35
years, our 35th anniversary of our volunteer military; and we
thank you for your significant role in the success over those
years.
We stand by to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gilroy can be found in the
Appendix on page 57.]
Mrs. Davis. General Rochelle.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. MICHAEL D. ROCHELLE, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF, G-1, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY
General Rochelle. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking
Member Wilson, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Good
morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear today and thank you
for your wonderful and continued support.
The past few years have been a significant era in the
history of our Nation's Army as we have faced the multiple
challenges to keep the Army vibrant, balanced, and successful,
while able to defend our country against some of the most
persistent and wide-ranging threats in our Nation's history.
Our success in those endeavors has been due in large part to
the support of the Congress and the support the Congress has
given us through the many programs that have been instituted
since the Nation went to war in 2001.
First and foremost, you have given us the means to recruit
and retain an agile Army. As a result, for the past two years
we have met or exceeded our recruiting and retention goals for
the total Army. You have supported initiatives that have
allowed us to transform our force into one Army that
consistently uses the talents of our active, reserve, and
national guard soldiers as well as our civilian team members.
We could not have succeeded without your support. You have
given us the means to improve the quality of life for our
soldiers and their families, and soldiers are remaining in the
Army because they see it as a higher calling of service and a
great place to raise a family. You have given us the means to
care for our wounded soldiers; and, paraphrasing the prophetic
words of George Washington, one of the strongest indicators of
a healthy force is the way the Nation cares for its wounded.
Our Wounded Warrior programs have proven to our soldiers
and their families that this Nation will not forget their
sacrifices, nor will they be forgotten. This support has helped
us sustain the health of an Army that has endured the longest
period of combat and conflict in our Nation's history. The Army
continues to face challenges, but it is our intent to stay in
front of those challenges, anticipating them and developing
strategies and programs that will keep America's Army strong.
The eligible population to serve in our armed forces has
declined over the past decade, and we must continue to work
hard to attract and retain the very best. The challenging
environments that our soldiers serve in require more targeted
recruitment, and we must remain ever vigilant that our force is
manned to meet the various crises that continue to develop
around the globe. We must also deal with such issues as--such
painful issues, I might add, as suicides over the past few
months. I'm confident, however, that the operational and
institutional agility of this Army--that this Army has
developed over the past eight years, with it we will meet the
challenges that will come our way.
In closing, your leadership and your support have been
unwavering. I have appreciated the discussions we have had over
the years concerning the health of the Army, and I look forward
to your questions today.
Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Rochelle can be found in
the Appendix on page 68.]
Mrs. Davis. 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 House Armed Services
Committee, it is a pleasure to review with you today the Navy's
recruiting and retention efforts as well as our end strength
projections for this year.
We remain a global Navy, with over 40 percent of our forces
under way or deployed. We have increased our operational
availability through the fleet response plan and are engaging
in new mission areas in support of the joint force. We continue
to play a key role in support of joint operations in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and across the globe by providing
approximately 14,000 sailors as individual augmentees. With
this high operational tempo, we remain vigilant concerning
stress on our sailors and their families. We ensure that
sailors have adequate opportunity to rest and spend time at
home between deployments and provide them a comprehensive
continuum of care.
The tone of the force is positive. Sailors and their
families continue to express satisfaction with the morale and
leadership at their commands, their health care, benefits, and
compensation.
Over the past year, we have been successful in recruiting
high-quality sailors. In 2008, we achieved our enlisted and
officer goals across both the active and reserve components,
while exceeding Department of Defense (DOD) quality standards
in all recruit categories. For the first time in five years, we
achieved overall active and reserve medical officer recruiting
goals.
Beginning in 2008 and continuing into this year, the
comprehensive benefits provided by the Congress for our service
members, combined with the current economic conditions, have
resulted in an increased retention and lower attrition across
the force. To ensure the long-term health of the force, we are
transitioning from a posture of reducing end strength to one we
term ``stabilizing the force.'' To meet global demands and
minimize stress on the force, the Secretary of the Navy used
his end strength waiver authority for 2008 and 2009. We project
to finish 2009 within two percent above our statutory end
strength limit.
Our stabilization efforts have been directed at sustaining
a high-quality force able to respond to new mission areas
within our fiscal authorities. We are guided by the following
principles: one, continue to attract and recruit our Nation's
best and brightest; retain the best sailors; target incentives
to retain those with critical skills; balance the force in
terms of seniority, experience, and skills matched to projected
requirements; safeguard the careers of our top performers; and
provide the fleet and joint force stable and predictable
manning.
On behalf of all the men and women in uniform who sacrifice
daily and their families, I want to extend my sincere
appreciation to you and the members of the committee for their
unwavering support for our Navy.
Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Ferguson can be found in
the Appendix on page 80.]
Mrs. Davis. 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 a privilege to
appear before you today along with Lieutenant General Jack
Bergman, Commander of the Marine Forces Reserves.
I would like to make a few key points, first with regard to
our end strength growth. The Marine Corps achieved
unprecedented success in fiscal year 2008, growing by over
12,000 marines. We have since surpassed the 200,000 mark and
fully expect to reach our goal of 202,000 during fiscal year
2009, two years ahead of schedule. We owe this historic success
in large part to our recruiters, who met all succession goals
in fiscal year 2008, while maintaining the highest quality
standards. Thank you for your continued support of our
enlistment incentives which make these achievements possible.
Active component retention has also been successful. We
achieved an unprecedented 36 percent retention rate among our
first-time marines, exceeding our 31 percent in fiscal year
2007 which in itself was an historic high.
We thank you for your support of our selective reenlistment
bonus (SRB) program. It is the foundation of our retention
efforts. We will continue to require a robust level of SRB
funding to increase retention in targeted and specialized
Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) so we maintain a vital
Marine Corps leadership and experience.
While we did miss our reserve authorized end strength by
approximately 2,000, this was due in large part to the focus we
placed on return and reserve personnel to the active force. As
we close in on our 202,000 plan, we will now refocus our
efforts on increasing our reserve end strength.
Lastly, I want to personally thank you for your staff's
recent visit to our Wounded Warrior Regiment West Battalion. I
know our Nation's wounded warriors are a top priority for you;
and I can assure you that they are for the Marine Corps, too.
With our 202,000 end strength success in the near horizon,
I want to thank you and other Members of Congress for your
support and partnership. The increased funding and flexibility
authorizations that you provided are central to the strength
that your Marine Corps enjoys today. We will continue to rely
on them as we grow and maintain 202,000 and we work to shape
the Marine Corps for the 21st century so we will always remain
the most ready when the Nation is least ready.
I look forward to your questions.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of General Coleman can be found in
the Appendix on page 101.]
Mrs. Davis. 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
members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to
discuss our efforts to ensure we attract, recruit, develop, and
retain a high-quality and diverse fighting force for the
world's most respected Air Force.
Today, airmen are fully engaged in joint operations across
the globe and stand prepared for rapid response to asymmetric
threat as well as unconventional conflicts. Our priorities are
clear: reinvigorating the Air Force nuclear enterprise;
partnering with the joint and coalition team to win today's
fight; developing and caring for airmen and their families;
modernizing our air and space inventories, organizations, and
training; and recapturing acquisition excellence. These
priorities will shape the strategic landscape that currently
provide significant challenge to our organization's systems,
concepts, and our doctrine.
Regardless, today's airmen are doing amazing things for the
joint war fighting team. Our aim is to improve capability by
tapping into all available sources so we do not lose the war
for America's talent. As such, the Air Force has made diversity
a strategic imperative to ensure we remain prevalent as the
greatest combat-ready Air Force in the world.
As we prepare for an uncertain future, we are transforming
the force to ensure we are the right size and shape to meet
emerging global threats with joint and battle-trained airmen.
For fiscal year 2008, our active duty officer corps met or
exceeded all aggregate retention goals, while overall active
duty enlisted retention rates finished below annual goals.
Whereas retention is strong within our officer corps, a few
pockets of concern exist among control and recovery, health
professionals and contracting.
The Air Force continues to develop both the accession and
retention incentives to ensure the right mix of health
professionals. Additionally, our most critical war-fighting
skills require special focus on enlisted retention due to
demands on the high operations tempo placed on airmen who
perform duties such as para rescue, command and control,
tactical air control party, and explosive ordnance disposal.
Just as important, we are committed to taking care of families
and our wounded warriors as an essential piece of retaining an
effective force.
In conclusion, our airmen are doing amazing things to meet
the needs of the joint war fighter. They execute the Air Force
mission and keep the Air Force on a vector for success against
potential future threats in that uncertain world of ours. The
Air Force must safeguard our ability to see anything on the
face of the Earth, range it, observe it or hold it at risk,
supply, rescue, support or, in cases, destroy it, all the while
assessing the effects and exercise global command and control
of all those activities.
Rising to the challenges of the 21st century is not a
choice. It is a responsibility to bequeath a dominant Air Force
to America's joint team that will follow us in service to the
Nation. We appreciate your unfailing support to the men, women
and families of our Air Force, and I look forward to your
questions.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of General Newton can be found in
the Appendix on page 110.]
Mrs. Davis. We certainly appreciate all the leadership that
you have all brought, and I want to just let you know you have
been so good about keeping within those time frames. At the end
of our discussion, I want to invite you to share with us any
additional thoughts that you have that might not have been
covered as we entertain a number of questions from the members.
Thank you for that.
One of the things that we are obviously very concerned
about is, as you work within the budgets right now, are you
being asked to operate recruiting and retention below the
levels of 2008 and even below the levels perhaps of the first
few months of fiscal year 2009? Are you being stalked, as we
said earlier? And how comfortable are you with that? Do you
think that we are in a position so that you are able to reduce
those budgets? And, more importantly, whether or not you feel
that the emergency supplementals will be required to help you
out as we go along here? Where are you? Are you feeling that
this is going to be something that is actually going to cut
into your ability to do your jobs properly?
Dr. Gilroy, do you want to start? General Rochelle.
General Rochelle. That is a fairly wide-ranging question,
Madam Chair. Let me respond to it in this way.
First of all, the wisdom and the advice given by this
subcommittee, and I would also mention the appropriations
committee as well, to migrate recruiting and retention
completely into the base a few years back was wise counsel. We
are on track to do that in fiscal 2010. Having said that--
completely, I should say, across all components in fiscal 2010.
Having said that, we have not significantly begun to throttle
back yet, but we obviously will have to in terms of meeting end
strength. That will not be constrained. That will not be a
direct result of budgetary impacts in the Army.
Mrs. Davis. General Coleman.
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am.
Ma'am, I believe that as we reach--we, the Marine Corps,
reach our 202,000, which was a far-reaching goal, and to be
able to reach it two years ahead of time, is a direct
reflection on Congress' willingness and ability to provide us
the incentives that we need. I think as we get closer and as we
reach the 202,000, the big part of the assignment then is to
shape the force the way we really actually need it to be. So I
foresee that supplementals will certainly go away.
I would, as a manpower person in the Marine Corps, in order
to get those military occupational specialties that we need to
reenlist, such as your linguists and your explosive ordnance
personnel, we will need help. We will need continued help. But
I think we fail you if we don't admit that, as we reach our
goal, we would be able to throttle back somewhat, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Admiral Ferguson, do you want to comment?
Admiral Ferguson. The Navy takes a very tailored and
strategic approach to both enlistment bonuses, retention
bonuses. We look by skill set, by rating and specialty; and we
have already taken actions, beginning in last September and
again last month, to reduce or eliminate, for example, some
selective reenlistment bonuses where we see individuals
reenlisting at greater than required levels.
So we feel very comfortable with the amount of support we
have in the budget, but I want to assure you we have an ongoing
practice of assessing and evaluating those levels and adjusting
them in response to what we see happening in the force.
General Newton. Madam Chairwoman, for the United States Air
Force, we are very much focused on, obviously, our people and
our people programs. So, as I'm sure the other services do, we
do not separate, for instance, recruiting and retention and so
forth. It is very much for, as you well know, we are on a glide
path to reduce our end strength down to 316,600 on active duty
rolls, where now our proposed budget now have us around 330,000
active duty. So part of the challenge is to recruit to, not to
a 316,000 number, but now to a 330,000 number, as well as
retaining our men and women across the force.
Generally, for recruiting, we feel very confident we are
going to meet our recruiting goals. We also feel confident we
will meet our retention goals through fiscal year 2009. But it
is not just going after that end strength of 330,000. It is
focused on again how we shape the force for doing specific
tasks at hand not based on a legacy force of several years ago
but, as we look forward, how do we shape that force to do what
the joint warfighter requires. So we have set our priorities
focused not only on across the force but some specifics and
having clear insight into the data of who we need to maintain
an active force.
Dr. Gilroy. So, in sum, Madam Chair, the Department is
indeed committed to eliminating the requirement for
supplemental funding for recruiting. There will be a transition
period required to do this, but the commitment is clearly there
to make recruiting budgets and funding out of the base.
Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. And you have authorities within your budget in
terms of those areas where you feel that you can ramp up
bonuses and there is no problem with that, is that correct?
Admiral Ferguson. We have the flexibility we need.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
General Rochelle, the Army is to be commended for very
likely achieving its accelerated manpower growth by the end of
the year.
Also, I have been very impressed by the significant
resources for the Wounded Warrior program. I have had the
opportunity to see the facilities, the dedicated personnel,
particularly at Walter Reed at Bethesda, at Montcrief Hospital
at Fort Jackson. It is wonderful to see the attention given to
our heroes.
But with the objective of 547,400, what is the status of
providing for deploying units and maintaining proper personnel
for such crucial programs as the Wounded Warrior program?
General Rochelle. Thank you for your question, Ranking
Member Wilson.
We are absolutely committed to our wounded warriors. As I
said in my oral statement and as you certainly may have already
found in my written statement, that is a commitment that is
immutable. Our Fragmentation Order Number Four, which was
recently staffed, will move us closer to being able to take our
wounded warriors from our reserve components as well as our
active components and move them closer to family member or to
home, thus reducing the strain on the facilities and the
infrastructure of which you spoke but, at the same time,
providing a better environment for the soldier in which to
heal.
Today, our wounded warrior population is down from a high
of roughly 12,000 active, guard and reserve to 9,000 and
declining even further both as we ramp up and continue to
provide the best medical care we can and the best medical care
on the planet to our wounded warriors.
With respect to readiness, we will continue to ensure
through active retention, which I spoke in my oral statements,
as well as recruiting to provide our deployers with the
qualified soldiers, the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-
led to serve on our front lines.
Mr. Wilson. Additionally, General Coleman, the success of
the Army, the success of the Marine Corps in achieving the end
strength of 202,000--and nothing is more inspiring than going
to Fort Jackson or to Parris Island to see the young people
graduating, to see the families and the success, but is 202,000
sufficient for the threats that our country faces in the
future?
General Coleman. Yes, sir, we believe that as when General
Conway, the Commandant, came on board what he wanted to do was
right size the Marine Corps. And we felt that 202,000 was the
right-size, the right number to right-size the Marine Corps to
allow us to do the things that we aren't able to do right now
as we fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. As we get to that
number, we feel that 202,000 is, in fact, the correct number to
allow us to fight and train for the next fight.
Mr. Wilson. And, for both of you, I would like to commend
you on what is being done for families. With the highest
percentage ever of married troops, families are truly given a
priority in housing, on schools, day care. Thank you for what
you have done.
For Admiral Ferguson and General Newton, the Navy and the
Air Force end strength, there has been a decline over the years
prior to 2008 but now there is an increase in end strength; and
the question would be, should the end strength, should manpower
be increased, or should there be more emphasis on
modernization? And if each of you could answer that.
Admiral Ferguson. Representative Wilson, the challenge that
all the services face and the Navy in particular is we have to
balance the capitalization and replacement of equipment with
operations and maintenance costs and depot maintenance, as well
as repairs to existing facilities as well as the people
accounts. And so when we looked at our end strength about six,
eight months ago, we assessed that, due to the increased
demands that were placed on us for the joint force for
enablers, we decided to flatten out our descent and to
stabilize; and we assessed that approximately 329,000 or so in
the foreseeable future will provide us that adequate support
where we can meet the joint force requirements and the
operational force.
General Newton. Also, in the United States Air Force, it is
a balanced approach. As we put forth in our proposed end
strength of 330,000, the issue is not so much the end
strength--that is important enough--but also how are we going
to shape that force and to compel that force to do what in
support of the joint war fighter.
We have put our priorities in terms of providing
intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities
as we reinvigorate the nuclear enterprise towards irregular
warfare, towards bringing back some more of our maintenance,
particularly on our flight lines and so forth. And so, as we
look towards this end strength, it is also how are we going to
shape that force again over not only for the current fight but
for future fights as well. And so it is indeed a balanced
approach.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you all.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today, for your
testimony, for answering the questions, and for your terrific
service to our Nation.
I want to explore for my brief time here the issue of
access of recruiters to colleges and to high schools. I have a
couple of comments and then a question.
The laws are different a little bit regarding college and
high school, so my first question would be, what is your
perception--and it can be any of you. We have sort of limited
time. Maybe Dr. Gilroy or perhaps General Coleman or General
Rochelle could address it. How is access to the colleges
working out today? Is it restricting our ability particularly
to recruit highly qualified individuals for the officer corps,
for example?
And then a more pressing concern is access to students in
high school. As you know, there is some debate here in Congress
and there are some proposals out there that would restrict
access of recruiters to information; and recruiters would only
be provided student information when parents give their written
consent. So the point is, there are proposals out there; there
are some different views. I would be interested in knowing what
your perception is of how it is working now as far as access
and what changes in the law such as I have just suggested what
that might do.
And I will yield to whoever would like to answer that
question.
Dr. Gilroy. Congressman Kline, I will begin and then yield
to my colleagues as they choose.
With regard to the college declinement first, as governed
by the Solomon Amendment, clearly, there have been some cases
in which access has been hindered to some extent or made more
difficult than we would like. But typically what happens is
that through diplomatic discussions between the services and
OSD and the university or college, those differences seem to be
eventually straightened out. So we are pleased about that.
There is a mechanism in place which governs the discussions
between the university leadership and the services and OSD.
As you know, the Solomon Amendment provides for the
violators of that law or amendment to become ineligible to
receive Federal funds. We have two universities that fit that
category today. They have not in the past received Federal
funds, so it probably doesn't matter a whole lot to them. But,
nonetheless, we enforce the law when it is appropriate to do
so.
With respect to access to high schools, again, we have a
mechanism in place under the Hutchinson Amendment; and we have
protection under the No Child Left Behind Act which provides us
access.
Now, all high schools, 22,000 of them roughly in number,
are technically in compliance with that. But some go to lengths
to limit access. Some teachers and guidance counselors will
hand out opt-out forms to students and request them to fill
them out before leaving class, for example. Or some will
encourage anti-military groups to set up booths alongside
recruiters. These, as I should categorize, are annoyances, to
be sure, but typically we can work with the schools, the school
districts, the superintendents and even the school board
sometimes to iron out some of these differences.
We think that the current law opt-out is very, very
important to maintain. We will be very much opposed to any
change which would yield to the so-called opt in arrangement.
So that is particularly important to us.
Mr. Kline. I'm about to run out of time here. Any of the
rest of you have anything differ or modification to that? The
concern would be in the opt-in is that you might lose access to
a great many students and really have an adverse impact on
recruiters. Is that the widely held view there? You can nod
or----
General Coleman. Yes.
General Rochelle. That is certainly my impression, sir,
yes.
Mr. Kline. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Loebsack.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all of
you for your service.
I just have a question about dwell time; and I would like
to get your thoughts on that, all of you, but in particular if
I could begin with General Coleman and General Rochelle.
Obviously, over the course of the past several years, that
has been a very important issue, a lot of thoughts, a lot of
ideas, some legislation proposed to increase dwell time because
of the, obviously, the concern for retention of service members
who are on multiple deployments. Generals Coleman and Rochelle,
could you speak to that issue and what you see perhaps coming
down the pike as far as any increased dwell time for active
members, not to mention our reserve and guard as well?
General Coleman. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question, sir.
Sir, speaking for the Marine Corps, the dwell time is not
yet where we would like it to be. That was part of the
Commandant's call to increase the size of the Marine Corps so
we could in fact right-size and do the dwell so that we could
have a one to two for every month in the fight, another month
home. We are not there yet, sir. We are getting closer. As we
grow to 202,000, we believe by the end of this year, we will
have increased our numbers by three battalions' worth of
infantry battalions, which would certainly make a difference.
But the point to remember is that when we in what we
believe in July get to 202,000, some number of those Marines
are at Parris Island. It takes about a year from the time a
recruit gets to Parris Island to the time he or she gets to the
fight. So relief is on the way, but we are not there yet, sir.
General Rochelle. Representative Loebsack, let me first of
all say I would not see the need for legislation with respect
to dwell time which was embedded in your question. The Chief of
Staff of Army and the Secretary of the Army are committed to
balancing the Army, restoring balance to the Army no later than
2011.
What does balance mean? What it means basically is two
years dwell for every year deployed for the active component,
four years dwell for every year deployed for our reserve
components. We are committed to that.
Fundamental to achieving that is the growth of the Army,
and I mean that in two sense--in two different terms. The
first, of course, is the growth of the end strength, which has
been spoken of already. But the other is the growth in
capability and units able to answer the mail and the call for
our Nation.
Mr. Loebsack. Admiral Ferguson and General Newton, could
you speak to that issue, too?
Admiral Ferguson. For the Navy, the average dwell time in
the units is an excess of two to one; and we very closely
monitor those units that are under stress. For example, we have
some squadrons of EA6B aircraft that are approaching one to
one, but in no cases do we exceed one to one without the Chief
of Naval Operation's (CNO) specific approval. And we also
monitor the time in home port. So we feel we have very good
control of the issue.
General Newton. The Air Force would echo that. We are on
much of an expeditionary footing in terms of being able to
provide, again, airmen to whatever the joint fight may require.
So it may be on an individual basis, a joint expeditionary
tasking but also to the unit. But at this time we are not--we
don't--are either involved with nor do we foresee a challenge
or issues with dwell time.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Madam Chairman; and, to the panel,
thank you very much for being here today. Thank you for your
service.
And, Dr. Gilroy, my question does, I think, impact on
recruiting, especially. What are the number of military with
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?
Dr. Gilroy. I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. Jones. What is the number of our troops--primarily, I
guess, Marine Corps and Army--that have been verified by a
doctor, whether it be Army or Navy, that have a mental issue
called PTSD?
Dr. Gilroy. I don't have those numbers with me, and I would
like to take that back for the record to respond in full and
accurate. Thank you.
Mr. Jones. That is fair.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 205.]
Mr. Jones. Again, the reason I'm bringing it up is because
I do think it impacts on recruiting. The number that I have
received is 42,000. That came from the Department of Defense.
I think--and I want to bring this up before the committee
as well as the panel--we have got some real serious issues with
the policy that relates to those coming back from Afghanistan
or Iraq that have been designated with the mental challenge
known as PTSD. And mainly my colleagues, I'm sure, as I have,
have been made aware of young men who are going into the
military--and I actually read this letter on the floor of the
House recently; I did not use the name of the mother or the
young Marine--but going into the Marine Corps at 18, good
student, Eagle Scout, grandfather was a Marine and fought in
Vietnam. The kid had been to Iraq and Afghanistan a total of
three times in both countries. Comes back, develops a problem
of alcohol abuse. A Navy doctor--I have the report--recommends
that he have counseling. Somewhere along the line the ball was
dropped.
And, actually, General Rochelle, working with a young lady
from my district down in Georgia who is in the Army, a very
similar situation.
I think that somewhere along the way--and I'm not sure
that, Dr. Gilroy, it is your responsibility, but somewhere
along the way, the military has got to come together on this
issue of PTSD. Because Joe Stiglitz, who wrote the book The
Three Trillion Dollar War, has already said that the tsunami
that is coming----
And I do think this does impact on recruiting, quite
frankly. Because if this mom is writing a Congressman--the only
reason I'm involved is because he is stationed out in Camp
Lejeune. But if this word gets out that the military wants you,
but once you cannot do your job because of a mental wound then
they don't need you, we have got to deal with this.
And, again, I'm not sure this is your area of
responsibility. But this is a problem that I think is going to
impact at some point in time if we continue to build up in
Afghanistan. And I'm not discussing that policy today, but if
we do and we still have somewhat of a presence for the next 19
months or 24 months in Afghanistan, there is still going to be
fighting. We are going to see more and more of these people--
these young people coming back that have some type of mental
challenge and some type of PTSD.
And I hope that you will and this fine panel sitting here
today will say that we need to review our policies. Because
there is no reason to say to someone that has PTSD, we are
going to discharge you for dishonorable discharge or misconduct
and therefore you lose your benefits. And that is not helping
society.
Dr. Gilroy. You are absolutely right, Congressman Jones.
That is a serious issue and one that I know my colleagues at
the table have dealt with specifically. We take this extremely
seriously. There is just no question about it.
The impact that you imply on recruiting is clearly there,
too. Because these young men and women who return as veterans,
having served in theater, become ambassadors for us when they
return to the community. So it is extremely important that we
make sure that they are receiving all of the benefits to which
they are entitled. So I will take that back with me with all
earnestness and with the greatest amount of seriousness.
Thank you.
Mr. Jones. Madam Chairman, I will end on this. But, Dr.
Gilroy, I really would like to have a discussion with you at
some point in the future. Maybe you could get this situation to
the right people and say we don't need to wait any longer on
this. Because it is going to grow, and it is going to expand,
and it is going to create more problems for this country but
also recruiting.
I yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
I want to return to the issue I think that you have touched
on a little bit, the fact that we have been able to reach our
numbers in terms of end strength and early, but the second part
of that is really to have the dollars available to do the
training. I would like you to speak to that and whether you
feel that there is adequate capacity there to do that. Are
there slots available in training schools? We know that in some
cases reserves do not have the ability to also participate in
those training arenas. So I would like you to--where are the
problems here that we are encountering and how concerned ought
we to be about that?
General Rochelle. Madam Chair, you have actually addressed
or asked two or three questions in that single one, the first
being resourcing. There is always tension between investment
accounts, modernization, if you will, people and then, of
course, operational tempo; and the Army balances that within
its authorized hot line in order to do, as I said before,
deploy the best-trained, the best-equipped and the best-led
forces our Nation can deploy. That is our mantra, and we will
do that.
Your question also addresses reserve component; and I
simply would like to point out that at the beginning of 2009
the backlog for Army National Guard--I will mention Army
National Guard; the Army Reserve does not have an appreciable
backlog--was 28,900 soldiers who had yet to enter training, to
become a full-up round, as we would say. The Army added 8,300
seats to the Army National Guard's allocation of training
seats, ostensibly reducing that backlog by the end of 2009 to
no greater than 9,600. So it is a total force of approach we
are taking.
Mrs. Davis. Where do you anticipate, though, the problems?
Because part of the difficulty is still that there is stop
loss, is still an issue within the Army.
General Rochelle. Stop loss is still an issue for the Army,
and we are actively engaged----
Mrs. Davis. Could you quantify that for us a little bit
better in terms of those numbers and how that interfaces with
the issue we are talking about?
General Rochelle. Seven thousand stop loss today in the
active component--bear with me one second--7,000 in the active
Army, 1,400 in the Army Reserve, and 4,400 in the Army National
Guard. And we are committed and we are actively working at at
the senior levels of the Army to work our way out of stop loss.
In the past, what I have been asked by this committee and
others is, General Rochelle, is 547,400 enough? And my answer
has always been, let us get there, and then we will see.
Because we don't know what demand will look like. Well, as
Representative Wilson mentioned in his opening statement, we
are there. What remains the unknown today is the demand.
Mrs. Davis. When can you anticipate that you think we will
have fewer troops who are needed to fill in essentially some of
those slots? Can you project that for us a little bit?
General Rochelle. I am not sure I understand your question,
please.
Mrs. Davis. Do you have your own time line in when you
would like to see us having far fewer troops that are part of
stop loss, that are in units that are being pulled out
essentially that are leveling and filling in those units?
When--is there a time that we can anticipate that? Or where
should we be? What would be the anticipated numbers even after
we are able to have the end strength and the training following
through in the kinds of numbers that we would like to see?
General Rochelle. Relative to the demand I would submit
that we are doing a near miraculous job of keeping stop loss to
the low level that it is. Now any number of stop loss is an
egregious number. But we are really--given the demand that is
on the Army today, we are doing in my estimation, my humble
estimation, a remarkable job of keeping it to the minimum
number possible.
To your specific question, going forward it depends upon
the demand. And I can only say that since my time as the Army
G-1 every estimate of declining demand has proven false.
Mrs. Davis. I appreciate that.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. I just thank all of you for your hard work in
providing opportunity for the young people of our country, and
I look forward to the next panel which are Reserve units.
But thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Loebsack.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just like to draw the obvious connection between my
question and my good friend Walter Jones--Congressman Jones'
question. Clearly, there seems to me to be an intimate link
between dwell time and the lack thereof and issues of PTSD and
strain on the family; and you are all very aware of that,
obviously. And you know I'm really appreciative of the fact
that Congressman Jones asked the question he did after I asked.
We didn't coordinate it, but I'm really glad that he did. That
we all have I think very similar concerns on this panel.
I have another question but more controversial, perhaps.
The end strength levels that we are talking about, the goals
that we are talking about, were established prior to the Status
of Forces Agreement (SOFA) agreement in Iraq, if I remember
correctly. Prior to what appears now to be a serious drawdown
of our troops in Iraq--again, fully aware that there will be
other conflicts that we are going to ramp up some in all
likelihood in Afghanistan, although that still remains to be
seen just how much because the administration is conducting a
strategic review of the situation there--do any of you foresee
any modifications of the kinds of end strength numbers that we
are now assuming we are going to need in the coming few years
or so based on any potential strategic review of the situation
around the world? Or are you just sort of assuming that we are
going to continue to work along the lines that you are now
working?
Any thoughts on that from any of you.
General Coleman. Sir, for the Marine Corps, I believe that
the 202,000 is about right. When General Conway came in, his
desire, as I said before, to right-size the force, was to
ensure that we had the one to two dwell. But since this long
war, the Marine Corps as a service has been able to fight the
war and train for the war. But we have not done jungle
training. We have not done cold weather training. We have not
done fire exercises. We have only had the number of folks to
fight, to come home, refit and go back.
The 202,000 is to give us three mirror-image MEFs, marine
expeditionary forces, so that we can do jungle training and
cold weather training and do the things that we haven't done.
So, until we know what is next, I would say that, yes, the
202,000, we believe, 202,000 is correct; and I would be
surprised if we went higher or requested higher or lower in the
three- to five-year term, sir. That is just General Coleman,
though.
Mr. Loebsack. General Rochelle.
General Rochelle. Sir, you are asking a strategic risk
question; and my first response to it would be I'm optimistic
that the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) will take
that into account and then, of course, make recommendations
with respect to service sizes for all of us that are prudent.
You are also asking a question in more tactical sense as
you say deliberations; and my answer would be, except for
ongoing discussions on the subject of stop loss and how the
Army might come out of stop loss, no, there is nothing beyond
547,400.
Admiral Ferguson. For the Navy, we continuously review our
end strength in terms of the requirements; and it is an issue
of balancing fleet manning of the ships and the support
personnel needed to operate the force, combined with our
contribution to joint enablers. And so we, within that
calculation, assume a level of risk, as General Rochelle
referred to, that we assess in those manning levels and that
the nature of our demand is support personnel in theater. We
see that demand continuing, and so we feel comfortable with the
levels that we proposed for the foreseeable future.
General Newton. From an Air Force standpoint, much like as
Admiral Ferguson just mentioned, it is a balanced approach.
Again, you cannot predict the future; and certainly the enemy
gets a vote in that regard. But as we look across our end
strength, as I mentioned, our proposed end strength from
330,000 from an active duty sense, we in the United States Air
Force also take a total force end strength as well in terms of
being in very synchronized and integrated with our active duty,
our Guard and our Reserve.
That said, again, what you need the United States Air Force
to be engaged with is, sure, in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) particularly on irregular
warfare but also across a spectrum of conflict as well. So we
are again focused on that balanced approach to how we not only
look at our end strength but again how we shape that force
inside those end strength numbers.
Mr. Loebsack. Thanks to all of you.
Dr. Gilroy. In summation, General Rochelle mentioned the
forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review, and we await that
document, clearly, under the new Administration which will
indicate to us the planning that it has for contingencies. And
it will provide alternative scenarios, so that we go with what
we know right now as the current planning and await that
document.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
General Rochelle, I believe your answer to Madam Chairman
Davis about the stop loss, would you repeat the numbers? I
think you said 7,000. I was a little bit late in listening to
your response of 1,400, I believe you said, reserve, and 4,400
national guard. Is that right?
General Rochelle. Those are the correct numbers, sir.
Mr. Jones. I will never forget going to Walter Reed years
ago with Representative Gene Taylor, I believe. And a kid from
Florida was in the hospital, and he was very, very--he was a
sergeant in the Army. And as we got ready to leave, we talked
to him, we thanked him. And he had his fiancee sitting at the
end of the bed, and he asked us about stop loss. He said, who
has this authority? Is it the Congress, or is it the Department
of Defense? And one of us said, well, the Department of Defense
has this authority. Then he pulled the sheets down, and both
legs had been blown off. He was in the sixth week or seventh
week of being stop lossed.
It has always bothered me, and I don't know why I didn't
think of it but I thank the chairwoman for doing it. How is
that soldier notified that he is going to be extended? How does
that process work? Are they told two months out, three months
out? Is it an orderly process? Or are they told within three
weeks: We have decided that you are not going to be going home?
How does that mechanically work?
General Rochelle. Stop loss goes into effect for a unit
that has been alerted to deploy, whether it is a guard unit or
reserve unit or an active component unit, in effect, 90 days
prior to the latest arrival date for the unit.
Now, that doesn't mean that on that date every soldier in
that, take a brigade combat team, is effectively stop lossed.
What it means is that as that brigade deploys or as that unit
deploys, the members of that unit who arrive at their
expiration term of service throughout the 12-month or 15-month
deployment will effectively go into the condition we refer to
as stop loss.
You posed the question in the point of the authority. And
the authority is inherent and clearly stated in the enlistment
contract that it is the authority of the Federal Government, of
the national command authority to employ stop loss.
Mr. Jones. General, this might not be fair. But this has
become a very, very--it has become a national issue of great
concern to many people. And I realize contracts, and maybe the
majority of people that read the contracts, they read them. I
haven't read as many insurance policies as I should and I sign
the dotted line. But that is my problem, not anybody else's.
But I guess the point I am trying to get to is that maybe
the Congress and maybe most of my colleagues wouldn't agree.
But maybe we ought to have some law or something that says that
if the DOD is going to have the authority, that they would have
to come to an Armed Services Committee and say that our
situation with our ranks are so desperate that we are going to
have to institute the policy of stop loss. I think that would
give more confidence to the American people than an
Administration--I am not being critical of the previous, and
the new one hasn't been in but six weeks so I can't be too
critical anyway. But the fact is that when this policy went in
place a few years ago, it was almost like the soldier and I
guess the Marine as well, but the soldier primarily was
somewhat caught off guard. Yes, it is in the contract, but the
contract, they either forgot it or they didn't read it.
I think on that kind of issue, that if America is going to
send their kids to die and be wounded, that the Congress ought
to be more involved. And I am not saying that the Congress, but
if the DOD Secretary came in here and said to an Armed Services
Committee, listen, we are in dire situation. We have got to put
a stop loss program in place, I think the Congress would give
that authority. But the way that this had worked in this war in
Iraq especially, I think truthfully it really caught a lot of
families way off guard.
And I don't expect you to make a decision whether Congress
should be involved or not, but I think that Congress itself
ought to look into this and really discuss what is our role,
what is the role of the Department of Defense. Because what it
is is a draft, anyway, or it is an extension of somebody's
service. And maybe they should have known it, but many times
they forgot it or didn't know.
I yield back. Do you want to answer?
General Rochelle. Well, sir, I would like to comment, if I
may.
First of all, I would like to reiterate that we are
committed, as soon as demand permits, to get the Army out of
stop loss.
From a personal perspective, I would like you to know that
just a few short years ago, to the point of recruiting and
impacts on recruiting, indirect impacts, just a few short years
ago I had the privilege of leading the Army's recruiting force
for almost four years, starting roughly 100 days after
September 11th. I can tell you that every time the Army
reemployed, tightened, or tinkered with--that is a technical
term--stop loss, I felt it in recruiting. We don't like it. We
would be off it today if the demand permitted so. It simply
doesn't. And it is a technical provision of the enlistment
contract that applies to all of us. We all signed the same
enlistment contract, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Army Reserve and
Army National Guard.
To our soldiers, I would say--and I am always cognizant
that they too are watching these hearings and these
proceedings--we will get off stop loss as quickly as we
possibly can. We are committed to that.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Gilroy. Congressman Jones, let me add something from
the Office of the Secretary of Defense perspective, and to
support General Rochelle in his views about ending stop loss as
soon as practically possible.
Secretary Gates has gone on record as being committed to
ending stop loss as well; and of course he has been in serious
discussion with the Army leadership, including General
Rochelle, within the last two weeks on specific proposed dates
for both the active Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army
National Guard, about when it would be practically reasonable
to expect the elimination of stop loss. There is great
commitment within the DOD leadership as well as the Army to end
this, and we are very cognizant of the political ramifications
to this policy as well, of course, as the military
ramifications for keeping it.
The Secretary is also committed to the payment, given new
authorities, for the payment to those who are engaged in stop
loss.
So there is a lot of discussion ongoing at the present
time, and I expect within several weeks we will have some
official notification of the Department's plans for stop loss.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. You can tell there is great concern
on the committee on that issue.
I know that we have our next panel and we want to move to
that. But before I do that quickly, and I also said that I
would give you a chance to make sure that you leave us with a
message or thought, a concern, as we wrap up. As we will be
looking forward to fiscal year 2010 budget, we know that it
does not today, as I understand it, represent the enhanced .5
pay for the military above the Employment Cost Index (ECI). And
I wonder whether you have, how do you see that? Do you think
that that is going to be a concern in terms of recruiting?
Would you like us to know about that issue?
Dr. Gilroy. I think that the 2.9 percent pay raise, which
is equivalent to the Employment Cost Index as published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, is appropriate and fair for this
fiscal year. We would not as a Department ask for the ECI plus
one-half. The reason being is not for budgetary purposes, but
simply because the 2.9 percent keeps us at the 70th percentile
of civilian earnings, which in the ninth quadrennial review of
military compensation established as the reasonable and
appropriate earnings profile for military members commensurate
with the earnings profile of civilians with the appropriate
education and experience. So we are happy with the 2.9 percent.
We would not think it necessary to go anything above that.
Mrs. Davis. It is a departure from where we have been, and
so I think that will get everybody's attention.
Dr. Gilroy. I understand that.
General Rochelle. I will respond to your secondary
question, which is impact on recruiting. I would predict none.
General Coleman. I would echo that, ma'am.
Admiral Ferguson. I would assess minimal to no impact on
recruiting.
General Newton. Agree.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. The other issue, and I know we have
talked about it before, is just your ability to recruit within
medical professionals. And is that taken care of through
bonuses that you are able to offer? And do you believe that
there are other issues that would impact that? And I am
curious, but I think I don't want to ask you now because we
want to move on, is what solutions you have where in fact that
opportunity for recruiting medical professionals is a very
difficult one given the situation today. Anything we should
know about, quickly?
General Rochelle. I would like to give you a very quick
response. There is a critical shortage of medical professionals
across our Nation. I am reminded of our book, Will the Last
Physician Please Turn Out the Light? The authorities given the
Army, the services, I should say. The authorities given the
services to use innovative approaches, especially those
innovative approaches that allow us to offer things that are a
little bit exotic to medical professionals is very, very
critical. And I would simply add that those expire at the end
of 2009.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. And I know throughout the services
that is an issue. Is there anything that you wanted to add
quickly to the testimony this morning that we will want to know
more about?
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. I would, if that is okay.
Ma'am, the Commandant's greatest challenge is to fight and
win the war, and his second priority is to take care of his
families. And I would like to personally thank you and the
other Members of Congress for what you have done to ensure that
we are able to take care of our families. And it has been
absolutely phenomenal the way that the response has come in to
taking care of our families.
And secondly, on a personal note, last year you and
Congressman Kline spoke to me about casualty reporting. And I
think the Marine Corps has it fixed. And I think, on behalf of
the families, thank you for jabbing your finger in my chest.
General Rochelle. I would not like to miss this opportunity
on behalf of the 1.1 million men and women who served in the
United States Army and their families to thank this committee
for its magnificent support.
Dr. Gilroy. I, too, share the General's view of thanking
this committee for unfaltering support over the years from both
sides of the aisle. It is absolutely critical that we have that
support, and you have never, ever let us down.
As a closing thought, however, let me end where I began. To
the extent that there are pressures for budgetary cuts in the
light of our recruiting and retention success, our recent
success, let us go about them judicially, carefully, slowly,
and base them on empirical evidence. Thank you for your
support.
Admiral Ferguson. I would also like to echo the support
from the Navy for the committee and the Congress. I personally
am in awe of the performance of our sailors around the globe.
They are the finest Navy that I have seen in my career in 30
years.
We must continue to make investments in the critical skills
that we require in a very high-tech and demanding Navy, such as
a nuclear power, such as in medical and dental, as you
mentioned, our SEALs and special operators that are at the tip
of this spear in this war we are engaged in. And we will
continue to do that and ask for your support in that.
In the upcoming budget, as you mentioned, we will take a
balanced approach in looking at our investment accounts, our
readiness and maintenance, as well as personnel.
And then, lastly, you will hear my counterpart Dirk Debbink
in the next panel. But we are driving to a seamless total force
in the Navy, and we could not achieve a lot of the missions we
do without our reserve component. And I would just like to
thank them for all they do for the Navy.
General Newton. In closing, thank you also on behalf of the
United States Air Force. Our topic today has been recruiting
and retention and end strength and so forth, and this is I
believe what you have heard from my colleagues here is it is a
balanced approach. It is a balanced approach that is clearly
integrated not only from the services, but speaking for the
United States Air Force integrated it is a total force approach
as well.
As we make those contributions to the joint fight, we have
got to be balanced in our approach to not only today's fight in
our contributions to the joint and the coalition warfare, but
also how we prepare for the future. Those unknowns out there
really I think behooves all of us in this room to make sure
that we focus on that joint contribution.
The last point is, it is not just our men and women in
uniform and our civilians, but our family members as well. That
balanced approach, you will see from the United States Air
Force, and I am sure speaking for my colleagues here, it is a
balance. I am challenged by that, not only focusing on those
who volunteered to serve their country, but their loved ones,
their family members are serving alongside, and we need to pay
the same amount of attention and put the same priorities in
their service as well.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I want to thank you all,
particularly your focus on families. We will have a hearing on
family support as well. We will have some families that we want
to be here and testify. We know that there are some remarkable
programs around the country where people have really taken on
the delivery of services to families in a way that I think
values them greatly, and we want to look at some of those
programs as well. But thank you so much. We appreciate your
work and certainly the extraordinary service of the men and
women of our country. Thank you very much. And we look forward
to the next panel.
I want to invite our panel to please take your seats. We
are delighted to have you with us. Thank you very much for
being here. I want to introduce our next panel. And you might
have--if you were listening in, I think we did a good job of
keeping within three to four minutes at the extent, and that is
very helpful to us. If you can continue that, it would be
great. And we will go back and ask you at the end if there is
anything that you--a message that you really want to leave us
with. We are not looking for thanks, actually. What we are
looking for is just to be sure that we have an opportunity to
focus on an issue that perhaps didn't come up in the course of
discussion.
I want to introduce now Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn,
Director of Army National Guard; Lieutenant General Jack
Stultz, the Chief of the U.S. Army Reserve and Commanding
General for the U.S. Army Reserve Command; Vice Admiral Dirk J.
Debbink, the Chief of Navy Reserve; Lieutenant General John
Bergman, Commander of Marine Forces Reserve; Lieutenant General
Harry Wyatt, Director, Air National Guard; Lieutenant General
Charles E. Stenner, Jr., Chief, U.S. Air Force Reserve; and
Rear Admiral Daniel May, Chief, Coast Guard Reserve Forces.
Thank you all for being here.
Please proceed, General Vaughn.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CLYDE A. VAUGHN, ARNG, DIRECTOR, ARMY
NATIONAL GUARD
General Vaughn. Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson,
distinguished members of the subcommittee. Mike Rochelle, my
buddy, just talked about the 1.1 million members of this great
Army. I want to introduce one person. Behind me is the
Outstanding Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) of the Year for the
entire 1.1 million soldier Army, and it is a National Guardsman
from the State of Montana, Staff Sergeant Michael Noyce Merino.
Mrs. Davis. General, I just heard that perhaps you are
going to be leaving in about 60 days. Is that correct?
General Vaughn. I hope so, if I get the right support from
everyone.
Mrs. Davis. Well, we wish you well. We thank you for your
tremendous service.
General Vaughn. It has been a privilege to serve as the
Director, and it has really been an honor to come over here and
testify. I assure you that we talk to all the youngsters about
what a great privilege it is to sit here and take these
questions from you and to help shape this force.
Along that same vein today, we find ourselves at 367,000
soldiers in the Army National Guard, significantly over
strength, a far cry from the 2005 years that we all remember
when we were 20,000 soldiers under strength. And you all had so
much to do with that.
The pieces that I would talk to today as we go forward is
the fact that we are going to continue to reshape our Guard in
terms of capability as we bring our end strength down to the
authorized numbers. We are on track to try to do that. This is
a new era for us. We have never been in this position with this
kind of strength. This is the strongest Army Guard we have ever
had. We have never found ourselves over strengthed like this,
and we are in the position that we can actually, at the same
time trying to get to authorized levels, grow the readiness of
our force, and we are going to take that challenge on. So thank
you very much.
I will shorten the rest of it, and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Vaughn can be found in
the Appendix on page 122.]
Mrs. Davis. General Stultz, please.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JACK C. STULTZ, USAR, CHIEF, U.S. ARMY
RESERVE AND COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY RESERVE COMMAND
General Stultz. Madam Chairman, Congressman Wilson, and
others, thank you for the opportunity to come and speak to you
today. I am honored to represent over 202,000 Army Reserve
soldiers. And just as my friend Clyde Vaughn has said, I echo
the comments that he has made; the growth in our force has been
tremendous.
When I took over as Chief of the Army Reserve back in 2006,
we were at about 186,000. Today, we are over 202,000. That is a
growth of 16,000 in a little under three years. So, a
tremendous success in our recruiting and retention, which is a
byproduct of the support we have gotten from Congress, the
incentives we have been able to pay our soldiers to recruit and
retain them. But, more importantly, it is 16,000 growth of the
right type of soldiers. It is the quality of the force that I
am in awe of today in the Army Reserve, great men and women who
leave their jobs, leave families, and volunteer to go and risk
their lives.
And just as most recently when I was visiting soldiers over
Christmas in Iraq and talking to a young E-4 from Maryland, I
asked him what he does back home, and he says, ``I am finishing
my degree.'' And I said, ``What are you majoring in?'' And he
said, ``I am getting a doctorate in physics.'' That is what we
have got out there. It is the right 16,000 that we have grown,
and we are well on our way to meeting our end strength of
205,000, 206,000 by the end of this fiscal year.
So I am proud to represent those soldiers, and look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Stultz can be found in
the Appendix on page 134.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Admiral Debbink.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. DIRK J. DEBBINK, USNR, CHIEF, NAVY
RESERVE
Admiral Debbink. This is my first appearance before
Congress, and I want to begin by thanking you for your
fantastic support for the 67,000 Navy Reservists and,
importantly, their families that I represent.
There would be three things I would like to try to
communicate with you today, and first and foremost in my
written testimony I go into quite some length as to what we are
doing today for our Navy and by extension our Nation.
As I testify this morning, Navy Reserve SEALs are operating
in every corner of the world. And you see our sailors in the
news, but you don't see the moniker ``reserve'' down at the
bottom because, as Admiral Ferguson testified just previous to
this, we are a fully integrated force and utilize a total force
concept of operations.
From helping to certify our strike groups as they deploy
from home base to our Navy SEALs that are literally integrated
with the teams in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the
world, we are making significant contributions across the full
spectrum of naval and joint operations. We are also linked
closely with our active component and the civilians that make
up our Navy, and we are constituting a total force to execute
our maritime strategy and national tasking.
The second thing I want to tell you about is just the
outstanding sailors who are doing our work of our Navy Reserve,
and provide a quick assessment on our recruiting, retention,
and end strength.
The Navy Reserve has seen end strength fall nearly 25
percent since 2003. We are executing end strength right now of
just under 67,000 by the end of this fiscal year.
Improved retention, lower attrition, and successful
recruiting has left us in the position of enacting force
shaping measures in order to maintain specific skill sets and
the experience that satisfy our total force demand.
Central to our manpower strategy is the establishment of a
true continuum of service culture. We believe this will offer
our sailors the opportunity to be truly a sailor for life no
matter what life brings at you, that they will be able to flow
back and forth between the active component and the Reserve
Component, satisfying their personal needs, their family needs,
while at the same time allowing us to make sure we maintain the
proper skill sets in our own total Navy force.
Finally, a bridge quick from what we are doing and who is
doing it to what I believe is the real value proposition of our
Navy Reserve. We are proud of what we bring to the fight today.
We are also acutely aware that we have a long-term commitment
to the Navy and our Nation, and we are trying to demonstrate
daily the incredible return on investment that the Navy Reserve
represents. We have proven ourselves to be a ready, responsive,
and adaptive operational force while maintaining the strategic
depth. This is an important and I believe a very meaningful
time for us all to be serving in our Nation's defense and
especially as a Reservist.
I thank you for your continued support, demonstrated
commitment to our Navy Reserve and Navy, and I look forward to
your questions. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Debbink can be found in
the Appendix on page 146.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. General Bergman.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JOHN W. BERGMAN, USMCR, COMMANDER, MARINE
FORCES RESERVE
General Bergman. Good morning, Chairwoman Davis,
Congressman Wilson, distinguished members of the panel, the
committee. Thank you, thank you on behalf of the roughly
100,000 Marines, Marine Forces Reserve, their families and,
equally important, their employers across the country.
The fact of the matter is for the last two years the Marine
Corps Reserve has not made their end strength numbers. I would
like to put three footnotes on that statement, if you will
allow me to.
First, as you heard General Coleman say, in the effort to
build the active component Marine Corps to 202,000, we have
participated in that as the Marine Corps Reserve. Roughly about
1,950 Reserve Marines have reaffiliated with the active
component. That is footnote number one.
Number two, during the past three years we have cadred
approximately six units of 4th Marine Aircraft Wing to support
the aviation transition plan to the V-22 Joint Strike Fighter
Yankee and Zulu Cobras, both with people and airframes. That
equated to about 600 still uninvested billets that will be
invested within the next 12 to 18 months; in other words, 600
more folks in the units.
And, third, I think you would all agree there is nothing
more adaptable than the marine in the fight. And that is true
today. What lags sometimes is the policies that support that
marine in the fight.
The operational reserve is now a reality. About 80-plus
percent of the Marine Corps Reserve paychecks are an
operational reserve. We are now just beginning to catch up, as
General Coleman referred to, focusing on Marine Corps end
strength issues with the policy that will allow us to man,
equip, train, and, more importantly, fund.
I have a copy of this fourth generation model slide I would
like to leave all of you with at the end of this, because this
talks about, most importantly, the five-year dwell time that
will allow us to manage our force, train our force, and be
predictable for those marines, their families, and employers,
over a six-year cycle. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Bergman can be found in
the Appendix on page 165.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. General Wyatt.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. HARRY M. WYATT III, ANG, DIRECTOR, AIR
GUARD
General Wyatt. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, staff, it is my
honor and a privilege to testify on behalf of the 106,700
members of the Air National Guard. Actually, our strength right
now is approaching 109,000. We have had a very good recruiting
year, thanks to the support of Congress, the American people,
and the United States Air Force. 106,700 is our authorized
strength, the airmen deployed forward in support of our United
States Air Force and our combatant commanders, but also
deployed forward in the 50 states, territories, and the
District of Columbia as we support our governors and the
President.
It is an honor and privilege to be here today and talk
about some people that I am extremely proud of, members of the
Air National Guard, and look forward to your questions. Thank
you for this privilege.
[The prepared statement of General Wyatt can be found in
the Appendix on page 172.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. General Stenner.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CHARLES E. STENNER, JR., AFR, CHIEF, U.S.
AIR FORCE RESERVE
General Stenner. Madam Chairman, Congressman Wilson, and
committee members, fellow service members, thank you very much
for the opportunity to be here to address you on these
important matters of recruiting, retention, and end strength.
Before I say my remarks, I would like to take the
opportunity to introduce you to Chief Master Sergeant Troy
Macintosh right here, who is with me today. Chief Macintosh
serves as the Air Force Reserve Command Chief, and helps me
keep track of the issues regarding the welfare, readiness,
morale, and progress of the command's outstanding airmen.
Thanks for being here today, Chief.
Members of this committee, I am indeed honored to be here
today to advocate for the interests of our more than 67,000
citizen airmen. Our airmen have been continuously deployed and
globally engaged in combat missions for over 18 straight years.
They are not only responding to the asymmetric threats we
currently face, but stand ready to respond to conventional
threats as they arise. By any measure, our airmen are
performing admirably.
The Air Force Reserve is a repository of experience and
expertise for the Air Force. We are a mission ready force,
training to the same standards, and maintain the same
currencies as those of the regular Air Force. And we are a cost
effective force, comprising nearly 14 percent of the total Air
Force authorized end strength for only 5.3 percent of the
military personnel budget, or roughly 3.5 reserve airmen to one
regular airman.
Our priorities are clear, and they fall within the Air
Force priorities overall. We must provide an operational combat
ready force while maintaining a strategic reserve. We must
preserve the viability of the triad of relationships Reservists
must sustain with their families, the Air Force Reserve, and
their employers. We must broaden total force initiatives, and
we must modernize our equipment and facilities. Each of these
priorities is vital to preserving our value and sustaining our
forces.
As we prepare for the future, we will continue to transform
our force to meet the requirements of the Air Force and the
joint warfighter. Over time, we have evolved into an
operational reserve, but we must not lose sight of the fact
that we, along with our Air National Guard brothers and
sisters, provide a strategic capability as well, and must be
available in times of national emergency.
For us to serve as both a strategic reserve and provide
operational forces for current and increasing requirements, it
is critical that we find the right balance between the two and
have sufficient manpower and resources to support those
requirements. Just as important as having the right manpower
and resources, we must ensure that the right people with the
right skills at the right time to meet Air Force needs are
available. We are evolving our force mix to ease the strain on
our stressed career fields and to grow into emerging mission
areas, including the nuclear enterprise, cyber space,
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, unmanned aerial
systems, and space, to name a few. Opportunities still exist to
become more efficient and effective, and we will work as a
total force to determine the right balance and mix of regular
guard and reserve in these new mission areas.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of this
committee for the authorization and legislation to provide our
readiness and combat capability. We appreciate your unfailing
support to the men and women of the Air Force Reserve, and I
look forward to working with each of you in the future on the
challenges facing the Air Force Reserve, the Air Force, and the
Nation.
I stand by for any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of General Stenner can be found in
the Appendix on page 178.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Admiral May.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. DANIEL R. MAY, USCG, CHIEF, COAST GUARD
RESERVE FORCES
Admiral May. Good morning, Chairwoman Davis, Congressman
Wilson, and distinguished members of the House Armed Services
Committee. It is truly a pleasure to have this opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Coast Guard Reserve, its
contribution to our national defense and homeland security, and
the issues that face the men and women of our Coast Guard
Reserve.
I would like to thank the committee for tackling the tough
military personnel issues, and congratulate you on the
legislation that you have done to improve the lives of all of
our members. I would also like to thank the reserve component
master chiefs, reserve component sergeant majors, and reserve
component chief master sergeants that are all with us here
today.
As you know, the Coast Guard is one of our five Armed
Forces of the United States, and has a long and distinguished
history of service at home as well as abroad.
Because of its mix of military and civil law enforcement
authorities, the Coast Guard is uniquely positioned to serve as
the lead federal agency for maritime homeland security while
also acting as a supporting agency to the Department of
Defense. In fact, over 80 percent of our 8,100 Selected Reserve
force is directly assigned to Coast Guard shore units, where
reservists hone their skills through classroom instruction and
on-the-job training side by side with their active duty
counterparts. The remainder of our Selected Reserve force is
dedicated primarily to supporting our defense operations.
The integration of our active and reserve components enable
us to respond quickly when and where operational reserve forces
are needed, aided in part by the authority that is vested in
the Secretary of Homeland Security under title 14 of the U.S.
Code. Under title 14, the Secretary may recall reservists for
up to 30 days at a time for domestic contingencies, including
natural and manmade disasters and terrorist attacks. This
unique authority helped facilitate a rapid Coast Guard response
during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
As one of the Armed Forces, the Coast Guard also plays a
significant role in the homeland security and in our national
defense. Reserve components serve as an absolute force
multiplier for our entire force.
After the tragic events of September 11, and in the wake of
our largest mobilization of our Coast Guard Reserve since World
War II, nearly 50 percent of our force, we have examined all of
our systems, including recruiting, training, mobilizing, and
demobilizing our reserves.
We also undertook a recent comprehensive review of our
Coast Guard Reserve that resulted in a policy statement that
embodies the three core strategic functions of our Coast Guard
Reserve; that being maritime homeland security, domestic and
expeditionary support to national defense, and domestic or
manmade natural disaster response and recovery.
This policy statement provides a clear focus for our Coast
Guard Reserve, and will ensure that we continue to have a well
trained, ready force, with the right people, the right skills,
and the right places to aid our Coast Guard force for any
contingency.
The Coast Guard is our Nation's premier maritime law
enforcement agency with broad multi-faceted jurisdictional
authority. It is on behalf of our men and women of the Coast
Guard that I thank you for your continued support of the Coast
Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral May can be found in the
Appendix on page 196.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much. Thank you again to all of
you.
I want to begin with the question that I asked the earlier
panel; whether or not you believe that the budget managers will
be looking very suspiciously perhaps at the budgets for
recruiting and retention; and whether or not you are going to
be able to do the work that needs to be done with lower budget
levels. Could you talk about that, and whether you think that
in the end you might need to lean on emergency supplementals as
well to allow you to do the work that is at hand? Can you
manage with those lower? I really want to know, really, how in
fact you are being approached to deal with this issue.
General Vaughn. Chairwoman, we were not successful over the
last couple years of getting everything we needed into the
base. I know in the first set of testimony you heard that. We
are not crying about it, because we work awfully close within
the Army, and they have helped us on this.
Our view is that if we participate together with the Army
solutions, we think, if we can get help out of this particular
supplemental, then we can lower our bonuses probably. We will
have to lower them in order to hit the authorized marks that we
have got out there in front of us. But we think it is going to
be substantial. But we can't do it alone. We can't do it
without any help. And we have a promise from the Army to help
us with this particular situation.
General Stultz. I would just say that we in the Army
Reserve during the past year have migrated a lot of our
recruiting and retention incentives into our base. Still, we
had to do some workarounds for additional funds as required.
And I would be very cautious. As people look at the economy and
say, well, you don't need all the incentives because the
economy is in poor shape, I am not sure an individual loses
their job goes and joins the reserve component as a part-time
job. They probably go and look for the active service for a
full-time job. And, in fact, I am concerned that it could end
up having soldiers in the Reserve who lose their civilian job
go on active duty and could actually be an attrition factor for
us.
I think what we have got to do in the Army Reserve, as we
approach our end strength, this year my focus is really going
to be on shaping the force and using those incentives that we
have got to get the right capabilities.
You mentioned earlier to the other panel about medical
recruiting. We have a large medical force in the Army Reserve.
We supply a lot of the medical capability for the Armed Forces.
Those are critical shortages for us, also. So we need to
reallocate some of the incentives we have got, not reduce them
but reallocate, to attract for medical capabilities in our
service.
Military policemen. Civil affairs capabilities that call on
people that are city managers or utility directors or things
like that that they can use those same skill sets for us in
nation building.
So what I am trying to carry the message of, we have got to
maintain the incentives we have got; and within the Army
Reserve let me reshape them to get the capabilities this Nation
needs.
Mrs. Davis. Let me just follow up quickly. And others might
want to respond. Do you have the flexibility to do that? And
are there some new ideas to really tap those individuals that
you spoke about?
General Stultz. Yes, ma'am. Within the Army policy in a lot
of cases we can in some cases realign. Obviously we do critical
skill retention bonuses, and we target certain skill sets with
our enlistment bonuses. As we get enough of certain
capabilities, we lower the bonuses there and increase bonuses
in other areas. So we do have some flexibility.
However, I will give you a couple things that we are doing
in the Army Reserve.
Obviously, we have got the employer partnership program we
started where we are talking to America's industry, for
instance, the medical industry of America, and say what are
your shortages? And where they are short medical technologists,
respiratory, Emergency Response (ER), surgical techs, x-ray
techs, we are helping fill their needs by recruiting soldiers,
training them, and giving them a civilian job. So we are
putting capability back into America. It is a unique spin on
instead of going to America's business and asking for their
help to give us soldiers, I am saying: Let me give you
employees.
But the other thing I am doing, I am working with some
medical universities to say give me scholarships basically so I
can go and recruit individuals to be doctors or nurses or
whatever, and I will give you adjunct faculty. Because I have
got a lot of wonderful docs in the Army Reserve who are pretty
well known throughout the Nation and the world that a lot of
these universities would love to have as adjunct faculty. So,
if you will give me some spots in your medical school, in turn
I will give you some adjunct faculty. We are getting ready to
sign an agreement with Pacific University in the Northwest, and
we have just signed one with the University of North Carolina
for the nursing school.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Let me just go ahead and let the
rest of you respond, if you could, quickly to that.
General Stenner. Madam Chairwoman, I can very quickly. As
an Air Force Reserve, we ended last year at the lowest point we
will be at as a result of the base realignment and closures and
the Program Budget Decision (PBD) 720 reductions.
Right now, we are at the foundation and the floor and
growing, and we are going to grow based on a lot of non-prior
service folks that we are not necessarily used to getting. We
have likely all counted on that prior service talent coming to
us. So it is not the recruiting dollars that we will be able to
get the folks; it is the second order effect that I am more
concerned about, and that is the subsequent training to get the
folks to that level of capability we need them to. So we can
get them on board. Now, we need to train them.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. We will try and deal with that in
another question.
General Bergman.
General Bergman. Very briefly, going back to my comment
about transitioning from the operational--to the operational
from the strategic reserve. As the manpower planning and
policies which allocate the bonus money, which we have right
now, catch up to where we need it in the operational reserve,
we will be okay. It is a matter of refocusing that effort
within the Marine Corps.
Mrs. Davis. Anybody else?
Admiral Debbink. In the Navy, we believe our funding is
adequate. In fact, we are constantly readjusting our selective
reenlistment bonuses as well as other incentives we have to
target the fit that we are looking for. As you know, we are
coming down from just over 67,000 to 66,000. So we have some
luxury there perhaps. But even more importantly, the long-range
view that we have is we have about 40,000 sailors who leave the
active component every year, and we estimate about 17,000 of
those would be eligible to join the Navy Reserve or transition
to the Navy Reserve. And we need about 9,000 a year. So our
real goal is to target those prior service sailors that are
serving now today and bring them into our reserve component and
thereby become even more efficient with our funding for
recruiting and retention.
General Wyatt. Madam Chairwoman, on behalf of the Air
Guard, our recruiting and retention as far as the baseline has,
in my opinion, has not been what it should have been in years
past. But we are taking steps to remedy that. We are moving
some monies out of the supplement into the baseline budget. But
we face the same temptations I think that all of the
individuals at this table face, and that is the threat of the
economy and the effect that it will have on those recruiting
and retention budgets.
We also recognize that the Air Force is growing from 316 to
330. The Air Force Reserve perhaps will be growing back to
levels that it enjoyed prior to some base realignment and
closure actions. The demand for the capability is there, and as
a member of the total force, United States Air Force, we need
to be poised and ready to accept those missions as they come
our way. Right now, if you looked at the missions that we have
on behalf of the United States Air Force and our
authorizations, we already need 2,228 positions just to do the
missions that we are currently doing for the United States Air
Force. As the Air Force grows, we are poised to grow with them.
So now is not the time, in my opinion, to cut the recruiting
and retention budgets. But we do need to get more focused on
getting the right airmen in the right place. We need to focus
on prior service. We are doing that by increasing the number of
our end service recruiters on active duty Air Force bases with
the help and with the consent not only of the United States Air
Force but with the States that are allowing their recruiters to
be used in such a fashion.
Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Admiral May, do you want to comment?
Admiral May. Madam Chairwoman, we don't expect a lot of
changes for the Coast Guard. We do our recruiting in our kind
of one-stop shop operations all over the country where
recruiters do active duty and reserve at the same time. So when
someone walks in the door, they will talk to them. It may be
that the active duty component will not work for them; however,
the reserve will.
So we don't anticipate a lot of changes there. We have been
very fortunate that we have had strong interest in the Coast
Guard, especially both active duty and reserve. We don't have
that many bonuses. The ones that we do are for our
expeditionary forces, our port security units. We have had very
good response and strength in support for filling those out,
and we don't anticipate any changes here in the coming year in
our ability to still force those.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And General Vaughn,
I want to wish you well on your upcoming retirement. I want to
thank you for your service. What a time to depart, with
extraordinary success in recruiting, retention, end strength. I
am so happy for you. I am so happy for your recruiters. As a
guard veteran, a guard parent, I particularly appreciate your
success, and I believe a lot of it relates to working with
families. And so getting families involved has had a remarkable
success. I know that our Adjutant General, Stan Spears, and his
wife, Dot, have been so encouraging of families. It should also
be noted that for the first time in 10 years that DOD quality
standards for new recruits has exceeded all levels. So thank
you. What a way to leave office. And so, congratulations.
In fact, the Army National Guard at 367,000 members exceeds
the force level of 2013, which was to be 358,200. What should
be the strength size? Do you believe that 358,200? Or should it
be higher?
General Vaughn. Congressman, thank you. Thank you for the
comments, first of all. I think that, and given your experience
you will know that we are in a position for the first time to
shape our force in a way that hasn't been done in 50 years. We
are all about readiness, we are all about trying to cut down on
the amount of cross leveling, which really messes families up
and everything that falls out after that.
We had several things to overcome. End strength, the force
structure end strength deviation. As you heard my buddy Mike
Rochelle talk about, we needed more training seats so that we
can get the training pipeline down. But you know as well as I
do, one of the real bad issues we have is that we swear
youngsters in at day one, and many times these youngsters
encumber that slot for maybe as much as a year before they go
to training. So we are going to institute something that the
Army has done for many years, which is a delayed entry program.
We will take youngsters that are at 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 months,
all the way out, and we will not swear them in on day one. So
this is one of the levers, and what we are trying to do is
force up the number of soldiers that are basically in our
formations.
Now, once we have done that, then we need to approach the
next piece, which is the over strength of the Trainees,
Transients, Holdees, and Students (TTHS) account, just like
mother Army in order to grow the great readiness. And then the
debate will be, what does the strength or the authorized
strength of the Guard really need to be? We have pegged that to
371,000, with an additional 12,500 in what we call a Recruit
Sustainment Program (RSP).
But, again, we have work to do over the next year to two
years to figure that out. And then I predict that mother Army
and whoever succeeds me will come back and they will have that
discussion with you, because that is the basis for
operationalizing the Guard, in my view. And that is 100 percent
trained soldiers in your formations, and not folks that aren't
ready to go when you call them to go. And we have been in that
model, and we are just now to that point, after four years of
working at this we are just now at the point to push that over
the goal line.
So I appreciate the question.
And I would like to say that we would like to have another
12,500. I would like to have done that on my watch. It is not
time for that. We have one more thing that we need to do before
we come back, and there is two ways to do it: You either grow
the end strength, or you take down some force structure. And
that will be a good debate for all of us to have.
So thank you very much.
Mr. Wilson. Well, and I have never been prouder of the Army
National Guard and know of their capabilities. And General
Stultz, congratulations to you on your building the end
strength of the Army Reserve. I also want to commend you with
your civil affairs units. They have never been more important,
working to build local governance in Iraq and Afghanistan. I
have seen it firsthand. A challenge, though, for you is the
lack of captains and majors. How is that being addressed?
General Stultz. Yes, sir. The challenge we have got, as you
mentioned, as we are approaching our 206,000 end strength, we
are still short almost 10,000 captains and majors in our force.
Part of that is because the active Army has placed a lot of
incentives to retain captains and majors that normally would
have left active duty, as well as in the ROTC programs they are
assessing most of the lieutenants coming out of ROTC onto their
active duty roles. So we are just not getting the flow that we
used to.
We are addressing that in a number of ways. One is that we
are instituting now a three-year ROTC scholarship. We are
pushing the Army to go to a four-year ROTC scholarship. There
is some argument, does that require legislation or policy? We
will get to the root of it and we will figure it out. But we
want to be able to offer an individual that wants a civilian
career but also wants to serve their Nation the same four-year
scholarship that the active Army offers them. So we are pushing
for more authority there.
Secondly, we are working aggressively to approach the Army,
as Dirk mentioned, the continuum of service where we want to
talk to officers and NCOs that are thinking about leaving
active service 6, 9, or 12 months before their Expiration Term
of Service (ETS), to talk to them about transitioning, not
getting out but transitioning into the reserve components, and
use our employer program to transition them into a civilian
career where they can use those skills they developed in the
active Army civilian life with a company that is very
supportive of the reserves.
Those two things are very critical to us. Because we talk
about direct commissioning, but every time I direct commission
an officer out of my ranks I lose an NCO. So that is not the
answer. I think the answer is also in respect to the civil
affairs community, and what we are exploring is we direct
commission a lot of medical professionals, doctors, a lot of
them over 50 years of age who want to join our force and serve
their Nation. What we need to do is go after those other skill
sets that our civil affairs forces needs, things like bankers,
things like city managers, people that are out there that have
tremendous civilian skills, and be able to direct commission
them as a major or a captain and bring them into the uniformed
services. We are working that very hard right now with the Army
to get that authority, and the Army G-1, General Rochelle, who
was here earlier, is working with us on that.
Mr. Wilson. And if there are any congressional initiatives,
I look forward to working with my colleagues on that.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your years of service and for
being here today. And General Vaughn, let me say it has been a
great pleasure working with you these years, and we wish you
great success as you move forward.
Mr. Kline. If your successor is as successful as you have
been, then the Army Guard is in great shape for some time to
come. So thank you very much.
I couldn't help but notice when the first panel was here
that my friend here, Joe Wilson, was bragging about how he is
personally responsible for the end strength of several
services, and I want to thank him and his offspring for doing
that. I can't compete with that. And unfortunately or
fortunately, it depends on which panel I am talking to, my son
and my nieces are all in the active component of the Army. So
now my challenge will be to get my niece, who is an Army nurse,
when she completes her act of service, to move into the Army
Reserve. But I, like Mr. Wilson, am very proud of the
contributions of my son and my family to the Armed Forces. They
are happy to serve, which is sometimes not understood by many
people in America.
My son and my nieces are happy to serve. They are proud to
serve, and I think that is true of the vast majority of the men
and women in uniform today. And that is evidenced by our
retention numbers, which are quite frankly very, very
impressive, and I am sure that I and others have marveled
sometimes that the largest reenlistment occasions occur in
places like Baghdad. These terrific young men and women want to
serve. They are serving, and they are serving well.
I have been interested in the discussion in both panels. We
have talked about issues with dwell time and operational tempo
and personnel tempo and bonuses and pay and all of those
things, questions that the Chair has asked and other members. I
am going to throw just a broad question out there. It is a
softball or a hard ball depending upon how you look at it.
When you look at the challenges coming up this year and
next year particularly, 2009, 2010, perhaps in 2011, what is
it--in view of recruiting and retention only, what is it that
is your biggest concern or what you would, your biggest wish
that you could impart to us of what it is you need to see
happen or what it is that you are desperately afraid might
happen that is going to adversely impact? And I just ask
everyone. This is one of those lightning rounds. You have about
20 seconds here.
General Stenner. I will start, Congressman Kline. I think
that for the United States Air Force as we in fact attempt to
grow in new mission areas, the biggest issue we are going to
have is getting the right balance of the active and reserve
components in all of those mission sets so we can be that
strategic reserve, that we can leverage to do the operational
capability so that we provide on a daily basis and in the Air
Force construct of the AEF, the Air Expeditionary Force, that
we provide that on a rotational basis and so we can do that in
a sustainable manner, and if we can do that with
predictability, then we can sustain that for quite some time.
Whatever we can do to drive predictability into the dwell,
drive predictability into the length of tour, provide
predictability for the family and for the employer, we will be
able to tell our folks and the expectation control that comes
with that will allow us to sustain that operational capability
that we are all providing on a daily basis.
General Bergman. Sir, no question, predictability is the
number one driver for the reservists because they are planning
a parallel life that they--we all have families. It doesn't
make any difference whether you are active or reserve, but the
reservist has that employer. So for them to balance that
civilian career, predictability is number one. Recruiting and
retention are continuous. A good unit, a good command is always
focusing on that. Equipping is sequential. If you are in year
one of dwell time, just getting back from a year of deployment,
you don't necessarily need the equipment at that point in that
dwell time that you will need in year three, four, or five. So
we just need to make sure that there is a consistency, again,
in the planning of the predictability of the dwell time.
General Stultz. Yes, sir, my fear, the Army Reserve is the
enabling force for the combat force. We are the combat support,
service support. As we decrease force structure, our forces in
Iraq, we don't see the same level of decrease in the enablers.
So they still have to have the doctors. They still have to have
the logisticians, they still have to have the military
policemen. At the same time when you see increases in, let's
say, Afghanistan, first thing they ask for is the enablers to
get in there first to set the theater before they bring in the
combat force. So that is my concern.
And what I would agree with Jack here is we have got to get
predictability, but it is like Mike Rochelle said, the appetite
that is out there just does not go down. And so my soldiers
when I get out to visit with them, they are proud of what they
are doing but they are saying what are you doing for me? Are
you going to do anything about the retirement age? Are you
going to do anything about medical care? Are you going to do
anything about any of those things? Because you are asking more
of me. But I don't see in return you giving back as much.
So that is what I am focused on.
General Vaughn. Sir, just as a comment, this thing about
great pride in the force is exactly right. In our communities
it just runs over. And it goes back to the predictability thing
that we took off so hard after, and part of that is making sure
our formations are completely full so we are not cross leveling
and next thing you know somebody doesn't have the
predictability. They think they are not going and here they
come. And so that is why we have attacked seriously with the
great change in our organization that we have got going and why
we are attacking this delayed entry program in TTHS thing is
next. In order to get there I just hope we don't, you know, let
the air completely out of the tires on recruiting and
retention.
Now we all know that we are going to take this down some
and we will all feel for where that is at. But to attract
today's great soldiers and families, you know, there is a value
proposition that still has to be there. And at some point in
time if we let it all the way out, and I am not saying we got
to keep our bonuses all the way up and I am not saying that we
need the same amount of advertising, but there are some things
you have got to do to keep it up there in the face of America.
And so I would just ask that you watch that very closely.
Thanks.
Admiral Debbink. I think you are right on that our sailors
are terrifically proud to be able to serve today, and I think
the most important thing we need to continue to do is to give
them what I call real and meaningful work to do every day when
they are employed by the Navy. And that also goes right to the
mobilizations that we make sure we are completely and fully
validating every billet and that we send them to a job they are
trained and qualified to do such that when they come home or
they call home and their spouse or family asks them, how are
things going, they say great. It couldn't be better and thank
you for allowing me to serve.
And that leads me into the other piece, and that is to make
sure we keep supporting our families. I know all of us at the
table here have that joint commitment to each other that we
would support any service members' family any time, anywhere
they need it.
And those are the two most important pieces I offer, sir.
General Wyatt. Congressman Kline, on behalf of the Air
National Guard I share the sentiments of General Stenner, Air
Force Reserve. Everything he said is right on target with
predictability.
My concern is that we need to continue focusing on the real
strength of all of our services, and that is our people. We
have created an environment that is composed of not just
salary, but bonuses, medical benefits, how we approach sexual
assault, PTSD, Wounded Warrior, Yellow Ribbon reintegration
programs, and we have created an environment that they like and
that they are willing to deploy in record numbers and stay with
us in record numbers. I think we need to be cognizant that when
we change any one of those elements we change the entire
environment. And I think we need to be cognizant of that.
And let me close by just saying that not only do we need to
continue to focus on airmen, soldiers, sailors, Marines but we
also need to continue focusing on their families and in the
case of the guard and the reserve especially the employers. We
can never forget the employer piece.
Mr. Kline. Thank you. Admiral.
Admiral May. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to
comment. I would say that our best recommendation is that we
don't cut any existing programs and we support the budgets that
we have in place. One of the unique things that the Coast Guard
enjoys is a strong propensity from our active duty members to
move over from the active duty component to the reserve
program, and they do that for a number of reasons. And as
General Stultz pointed out, we invest heavily in our people.
The Coast Guard, when young men and women come into our
service, we invest in their education. We invest in their
training. We treat them as if they are going to be a lifelong
member of our organization. And many are. But we also have the
ability for those folks to move from the active duty over to
the reserve component, medical, all those sort of services that
you all have supported and made available for our young men and
women and their families. All enter in those decisions that
they make as who their employer is going to be.
So I would say we need to continue up on those benefits and
those services for our young men and women that serve in our
military.
Thank you.
Mr. Kline. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair, for
your indulgence.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I appreciate the question. And we
are always trying to identify what it is that, number one,
keeps you up at night and that we need to try and resolve with
you.
You mention predictability, several of you did, and there
are some elements of that I know that we can't control. But of
those that we can, what do you find to be the biggest obstacle
to try and impress upon people we need to get right? You may
have addressed this, but of those elements what is it you know
certain things and yet maybe those are issues that we have a
difficult time identifying, and particularly I think, General
Vaughn, as you are exiting as well, are there some things that
you know to be true that you just want to go out on the top of
rooftops and let people know about?
General Vaughn. Well, Madam Chairwoman, on predictability,
and I think you can tell from the other answers, you know, the
things that keep me up and going on this is exactly what I have
said, and I am not going to come off of it. We have been on a
strategic plan for four years to get this right. We entered
into this with the greatest bunch of soldiers that you could
possibly have. But we were a 75 percent force. Even at 100
percent or 90 percent we only had 75 percent soldiers in our
formations. And so taking the strategic moves along with this
subcommittee that gave us the tools to do that has been an
enormous thing. And the predictability thing, and I talked
about a second ago, in order to get our system, our flawed
system, correct, we are asking for a huge culture change from
the Army National Guard and you know across the whole 54 that
is a big deal. We tell the 54 you are--you know, the 50 States,
the three Territories and D.C.--the 54 is the weakest thing we
have, you know getting everybody together, but when you get
them all organized on the objective it is the strongest thing
we have. And we are organized on whipping this delayed entry
program and then going for the TTHS, which will give
predictability within means to those formations, and whatever
the Nation asks us to do, and that is the job of everybody up
here, to be ready you know when the Nation or the state says I
need this formation then we have got to give it to them. And I
am telling you we are so much better but we still not quite
there yet. And so we are going to get this predictability thing
done right within bounds. I wish it was 5 years back, I wish it
was 4 years back, I wish it was 3 years back, but I don't want
the thing that says 25 percent of those soldiers that are
really going in that formation and they don't know it yet
because they are going to be cross leveled in there. And that
is what we have to fix. That is a family problem. I saw it
years ago. We would come home and have these great formations
that would come back, Congressman Kline. And we would hit 80
percent of them, and 80 percent of the families would be there.
But there would be onesies and twosies getting on buses going
some place back to their families and they weren't getting the
welcome home ceremonies, and they weren't part of the family
readiness groups either that took place during that time.
So we have owed it to our families and soldiers to fix
those things and you have helped us fix those things. And we
are close to it and we just want to stay on track.
General Stenner. Madam Chairwoman, if I could,
predictability is one to one, is one to five dwell but I would
dearly love to not have to tell anybody that it is predictable
at one to one. There are stress career fields, there are low
density high demand career fields, there are places that we
need to add additional capability, whether for the Air Force be
in a unit program or for the Air Force Reserve individual
mobilization augmentees, where we can make it predictable at
the level that we need them or would like them to participate
as opposed to a continuous participation. To get to that point,
we need to look at those additional assets that we might need
for the future to go to those particular areas where we can
serve the capability the best. If we don't, we end up
offsetting within the current portfolio, which again will add
the risk to others and continue in the stressed and low density
high demand arenas.
So the additional resources required to fix those would be
one of the things that I would be after, first of all, to get
the predictability to the place we want it, a one to five, one
to four, one to three dwell, somewhere in there.
Admiral Debbink. And I would offer that right now with the
Navy Reserve we have about 27,000 sailors that are mobilizable,
that they are ready and they are outside of their dwell and
that sounds great, but what happens is you get into the one
eaches, the particular communities that, say for example intel
and other areas where we know where our red lines are, and
provide that we don't push our sailors past those red lines,
the one to five, and if we do then we give them the added
benefits which are in the law and if we need to push them even
further that we look at making sure we are compensating them
for it, they will continue to come to the fight for us.
General Wyatt. Madam Chairwoman, on behalf of the Air
National Guard I think the thing that keeps me awake at night
is trying to assess and answer the question, are my airmen
properly trained? Are they properly equipped? And are they
properly led? And I think the answer to that is yes, I know it
is with the help of the United States Air Force and the Air
Force Reserve, the total joint force, especially as we focus on
the overseas fight. My concern though is that the fight we
cannot lose is the fight here in the homeland. And I think a
recognition from a guard perspective that we are a dual mission
force, that we have not only the fight overseas to be concerned
with but the fight here at home in support of our governors is
one that I hope we don't lose focus on because I have got to
answer that question for my airmen in both fights, not just
one.
Admiral May. Madam Chairwoman, our biggest concern is our
capacity. That is the only thing that is really limiting us. It
is our great challenge every day in our business, where we
spread ourselves. As Admiral Allen, our Commandant, often likes
to say, business is good but the Coast Guard needs to grow, and
that is both our active duty and our reserve component
together. If you look at our 41,000 active duty and our about
8,000 reserve, that is a total force of less than 50,000. To
give that a little perspective, that is about the size of the
New York City Police Department, only our jurisdiction is
worldwide.
So that is our biggest concern we have for the future. And
I think through our long history of service to the American
people, the unique capabilities that the Coast Guard brings not
only to national defense but also to our homeland security, we
are a great investment for the American public.
So I would say if there is an opportunity that the Coast
Guard would be a great investment for the American people.
Mrs. Davis. May I just follow up for a second, Admiral?
Your request authorization, is that, do you see that as being
actually quite different from where you really anticipate and
expect to be at that 10,000 level?
Admiral May. Ten thousand is where we hope to be. We have
had obviously budget challenges in getting there. We continue
to be on that track to get to 10,000. We certainly would like
to get there, as I said. We hope to grow the active duty. The
reserve needs to grow right along with that. And each year we
look for opportunities to do that, and we will continue to do
so.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. And Admiral Debbink, thank you for
being here today, your first appearance. I wanted to commend
your personnel. I had the opportunity to see the Seabees in
Fallujah, and they were helping build the infrastructure, a
civil society, and so the Navy Reserve, sand sailors, have
really made a difference and I want to commend you.
Also, Admiral May, I am happy to be here with you to have
the Coast Guard involved. I grew up in the neighborhood of the
Coast Guard base at Charleston, South Carolina. I was always
impressed by the professionalism of the young people I saw
serving. And I represent now the communities of Beaufort and
Hilton Head Island. And so it is really reassuring to know of
your capabilities and professionalism of the Guard. It is
something that people need to know. Indeed the Coast Guard
Reserve is unique. And also you need to point out that it is
nonredundant compared to the other DOD reserve components. Can
you go through that?
Admiral May. Yes, sir. Thank you for asking and thank you
for your comments on our Coast Guard folks in South Carolina,
and especially Charleston. Coast Guard Reserve is unique in
that we certainly are very similar to the other reserve
components in that we are a surge capability, we are an
additional force for active duty component. We are there for
all aspects of title 10. What makes the Coast Guard reserve a
little bit unique is that we also can be involuntarily recalled
under title 14. That is a statute that the Secretary of
Homeland Security enjoys where he can recall reservists in
support of a national emergency of any nature. That is what we
have used to respond to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and that
provides an extra level of opportunity for members of the Coast
Guard Reserve to respond in support of the country for whatever
the need may be.
Mr. Wilson. And during Katrina, what was the level of
search and rescue that--it was a record, wasn't it, that the
Coast Guard performed?
Admiral May. Yes, sir, 33,000 individuals saved, which was
a record for the Coast Guard. On an average year it is about
one seventh. So that is about 7 years worth of rescue within
that short period of time.
Mr. Wilson. Well, the American people need to know the
extraordinary success.
General Wyatt, I am really grateful to have visited the
joint air base, the McEntire joint air base, and the esprit de
corps, the pride of persons, serving in the Swamp Fox Squadron
there is phenomenal. In fact two weeks ago, I visited Iwo Jima,
which is now a Japanese air base. And when I entered, there was
a picture of the Swamp Fox Squadron on the wall as you come in
to the right, and it is the only picture. And it was signed by
D ``Dog'' Pennington and the others of the squadron and it made
me very proud that our Air National Guard is renowned around
the world.
Also I want to congratulate you that for the first time
since 2002 the end strength has been achieved by the Air
National Guard. But a concern that was expressed in your
message to us was the lack of a personnel strategic plan
linking recruiting and retention programs to an organizational
strategic plan.
Can you explain why a lack of a strategic personal plan,
that this needs to be addressed?
General Wyatt. Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. The situation in the
past has been that in my opinion the Air National Guard was
reactionary in a lot of the recruiting and retention efforts
that we had. We were reacting to Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC), we were reacting to certain downsizings, we were
reacting to events that prevented us from being a look forward
force. We have taken steps over the last couple of years
initiating what we called strategic planning system.
It is a field driven process primarily worked by the
assistant adjutants general in each of the 54 jurisdictions
with subject matter expert advice from my staff to formulate a
plan that meshes extremely well with what the United States Air
Force sees in emerging missions. And the objective is to take
our recruiting and retention plan and link it up with the
vision that we have as an organization now in concert with the
United States Air Force so that we can more effectively
leverage the dollars that we do have in recruiting and
retention. Instead of just going for end strength, we will now
target different job skills, different skill sets, different
civilian acquired skills that make the Air National Guard
strong. We can do that while we look forward to emerging
missions and instead of being a reactionary force, being a
proactive force.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Kline, do you have any questions?
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was thinking about the
officer balance issue, General Stultz, that you were talking
about and there was sort of competition moving back and forth
between the active components and the reserves. And the Marine
Corps has done this very differently for a long time. There
aren't any lieutenants in the Marine Corps Reserve. Maybe there
is one. I don't go, but fundamentally they go, in the Marine
Corps the officers go in the active component and then move
into the reserves and they are either very senior lieutenants
or captains. So the whole force structure or the officer
structure is a little bit different.
I am not suggesting that the Army adopt that model, but I
am suggesting that we explore every opportunity as we are
trying to get the leadership that we need into the Army Reserve
and any other component. We need to be open to perhaps a little
bit different way of thinking about it. And again I am not
suggesting this, this is not a matter of record here, I am not
suggesting the Army adopt this, but I would encourage all of
you to look at nontraditional ways of adjusting the force. I
know that the Army National Guard, for example, in Minnesota
aggressively, years ago, went to high schools to recruit, some
would argue in competition with, using General Vaughn's words,
Mother Army, but it has paid some dividends, where Army
National Guard in some other states relied on prior service.
And so again I have a personal preference for one model or
the other, but the importance that I would just offer to you,
and I am not going to ask a question because I went way over my
limit last time, but just offer to you that we really ought to
be looking across services and across components for the best
practice and be willing to move out of the traditional realm.
And I will just throw that out there, and again thank you
for your marvelous service and for the unbelievable service of
the reserve component in ways that we never dreamed of ten
years ago. Truly remarkable.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Kline. You know one of the
issues that you have all touched on I think in numerous ways is
in many ways that the reserve competes with the active duty and
vice versa. There is a real tension there. Do you also see that
there is a great deal of duplication and is there some way that
we need to get a handle on that? What would you like to do?
General Stultz. Yes, ma'am. I will speak, and I think I
will speak for my buddy here Clyde. You are exactly right. One,
to your point, sir, we have to break down this competition. We
have to say, listen, in this day and age individuals flow back
and forth. They change jobs every four or five years. That is
the model that this generation grew up on. So this idea of
recruiting a soldier for life, he is probably not going to stay
on active duty for life. He may flow into the reserve, try
civilian life for a while, he may flow back into the active
force after a while. We need to make that transparent, make
that continuum of service work. Right now the continuum of
service from my perspective is a one-way street. They wanted to
go to the active side, but making it easy to flow into the
reserve is not because of just trying to hold on to them. But
recruiting, the other panel, the question came up about the
high schools, our soldiers are already in the high schools. We
recruit them when they are juniors in high school. And both the
Army Reserve and the Guard had started the program, the Guard
started it first, I will give them full credit, GRAP, Guard
Recruiter Assistance Program. We replicated it on the Army
Reserve side, Army Recruiter Reserve Assistance Program
(ARRAP). This past year we got 5,000 soldiers out of that. That
is why our end strength is growing the way it is. And it is
kids in high school recruiting.
Now there was concern just recently because of a high
suicide rate among a recruiting unit down in Texas. And the
question comes back why, you know, what are you doing? You are
bringing a soldier back that has been on two or three
deployments, and now you are putting him into recruiting
command and you send him out to some remote area to recruit
where he has no support base or whatever. Our soldiers are
already there. So what Clyde and I have told them is, ``look,
let us do the recruiting for the active Army using our
soldiers,'' I can take a soldier and say ``do you want to go on
active duty for a couple of years in your hometown and recruit
for the Army? Stay in your reserve unit while you are there,
drill with them on your monthly drills and everything, but do
recruiting the other time and free up the active Army to take
these NCOs and everything and put them back in their force.''
Those are the kinds of things we need to look at where we
are duplicating----
Mrs. Davis. Is that idea resonating?
General Stultz. We are going to do a pilot test. General
Ben Freakley with Accessions Command and I have agreed along
with the Guard to do some pilot tests for hometown recruiting,
using guard and reserve soldiers instead of active duty
soldiers to recruit for the Army because who knows better that
community than our soldiers who live there.
Admiral Debbink. And your question goes right to constant
dialogue we have in the Navy. Let me give you two examples, one
is our logistics community, our Fixed Air wing squadron (VR),
which is almost 100 percent reserve, and the active component
said we need you to fly the C-40s and fly the C-130s for us,
and that is a conversation we had with them and that is where
the capability resides. And in contrast perhaps to Congressman
Wilson's point, our Seabees, our fighting Seabees, which I will
have the opportunity next week, I am going over to theater
myself, I am very eager to follow your trip as well, sir, and
congratulate them on their great support. They make up a part
of our NECC, our Navy Expeditionary Combat Command,
headquartered down in Norfolk which is right now today 51
percent reserve and 49 percent active, and they are doing some
great work down there, some analytics to say is that the right
mix or not, and is it the right mix for today when we are in
the middle of these two fights, or what is the right mix for
three or four years from now?
So it is a very important question for us to get at, and we
are working hard to answer that question.
Mrs. Davis. One of the other issues that comes up as well
is retirement pay and whether or not moving towards a
retirement pay where reserve officers are able to pick that up
much earlier than their 60s, than 60, which we are trying to
pick off a few months here and there, is that something that
you feel actually is a positive? Does it give you more
officers? Or does it also add another element of competition
that perhaps maybe from the active personnel would suggest that
that is not the right direction to go?
General Bergman. If I could address that, Madam Chairwoman,
our goal, and I think I would speak for the folks at this
table, is to increase the length of the careers of fine,
qualified, serving enlisted and officer, whether they be
soldiers, sailors, marine, guardsmen, coast guardsmen,
whatever, the pay and the retirement systems that they buy into
should be recognizable to this generation of millennials, that
says as I go through my life I am going to have my personal
finance bag that I can add to and it is set up in such a way
that those who are serving very well should reap the benefits,
if you will, of that system.
Mrs. Davis. Any comments on that?
General Stenner. Can I jump in for just a second? Back to
your original question as far as the seams or the apparent
competition between active and reserve, when you look at it
from a lens of what we are calling in the Air Force the
association, where we have the similar, the same equipment, the
same mission set, and we combine the active component with
either a guard or reserve or vice versa, what you have got at a
single installation, at a single unit, is both flavors of
active and reserve, which gives you the--if you can get
somebody on board, you put them in a place there is no
competition, it is additive to the capability that is there. It
is very fiscally efficient, very much an efficient way to
deliver that capability, and when you hire somebody you have
got them and they see each side of the house.
Now I also think that the retirement piece is a very big
incentive right now for not only those who we are bringing on,
but for those who are currently in and are looking at
alternatives that will allow them to bridge that time from the
time they leave the service until they have to feed the family
with the retirement check. And that is helpful, keeping them
in, retention wise as well as recruiting.
Mrs. Davis. General Wyatt.
General Wyatt. I think your question, Madam Chairman, was
in the context of retirement benefits. And I think what my
airmen are telling me is that because of what they are being
asked to do now as opposed to what they were asked to do 20
years ago, they are not necessarily looking for equal, but they
are looking for equitable, which means fair. And I think we
have taken some steps recently to move in that direction. I am
not sure we are totally there yet. And I think when the airmen
have the feeling that the retirement system is equitable, then
we will be able to compete with maybe a full-time retirement
that might not be equal but at least it will be fair and
equitable.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and General
Stultz, I am glad you brought up about the GRAP program. I have
two sons who are participating in that program, and these young
people have credibility with their peers and colleagues and
they are able to explain about the training opportunities, the
educational opportunities, the leadership opportunities. One
can tell firsthand of a year serving in Iraq. Another has
served in Egypt, an extraordinary opportunity for this young
fellow.
Also, I am very interested in and we have legislation
pending relative to the age of retirement. And would you see
that by reducing the retirement age from 60 to more conforming
to with the active forces, would this help in terms of
retention and in particular be a benefit that spouses would
appreciate?
General Stultz. Yes, sir. I look at the retirement age
being exactly that, a retention tool, and it gets to what Jack
Bergman was just saying, being able to retain those quality
individuals that we want to keep. Because the challenge we have
got in the reserve, if you have gotten 20 good years of service
but you are not going to draw your retirement until 60, and
there is no incentives, reenlistment bonuses or anything else
beyond 20 years, so what is the incentive to stay?
And as I have related a story, I was talking to a young
sergeant who actually was an Army National Guard sergeant, when
I came back from Iraq, and I asked him what he was going to do
and he said I am going to get out and I said why and he said
the Army doesn't want me. And I said that can't be true. I
said, sir, you are an NCO, you are an 88 Mike (truck driver), a
critical skill, a combat veteran. He said, but, sir, I have 22
years in and there is no incentive for me to stay, and, to
Congressman Wilson's point, he said I have to go home and face
my wife. And if I tell her I am reenlisting, she is going to
say what are they going to give you, and when I say nothing,
she is going to say, you are going to say you are volunteering
to go back.
So there has to be some connectivity to say, hey, there is
a reason to stay once you have earned the eligible retirement
because we are going to give you something. And I think
lowering the retirement age for staying beyond 20 in some kind
of formula would provide that incentive, not just for the
individual soldier but also the family, to say, yes, we are
going to be able to do things earlier in life because you are
staying and you are standing at risk of another deployment but
there is a reason.
Mr. Wilson. I am really encouraged, and I look forward to
working with Chairwoman Davis. There are different formulas out
there, the flat 55, the proposal of one year for every two over
20, which I think would be so helpful with spouses, by using
retirement points as a formula, and of course adjusting, as
General Wyatt has urged, that we provide for retroactivity and
equity for persons deployed to September the 11th, 2001, as
opposed to what we finally got a breakthrough last year.
And, again, thank you all for what you do for the young
people of our country.
General Stultz. Yes, sir. As I travel around Iraq,
Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa, whatever, and talk at town
hall meetings, the number one question they ask me is what are
we going to do about retirement. It is on the minds of our
soldiers.
Mrs. Davis. I think it is on everyone's mind right now,
sir. I appreciate that. I had mentioned earlier that as we wrap
up, you have something that you just really wanted to be
certain to say today that you didn't have an opportunity to,
please take that opportunity right now and then we are going to
wrap up.
Anybody have anything? You don't have to. I just want to be
sure you have that opportunity.
General Stenner. Madam Chairwoman, very quickly, we are
looking at challenging times today, we are looking at new
mission sets for tomorrow, we are looking at growing in the
appropriate mission sets to do what we need to do in unmanned
aerial systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(ISR), and that Air Force, three component Air Force, that
stays proportional with every one of those mission sets is
going to need an increase one way or another in all three. The
Reserve is a very cost effective and efficient way to sustain
that strategic reserve and leverage that to the operational
force that we are today. So I am ready, willing and able to
take this Air Force Reserve to the future.
Thank you very much for your help.
General Bergman. Madam Chairwoman, the Marine Corps is
never going to let you down, whether it be active or reserve.
Thank you for the continued support of the entire committee and
the Congress.
General Stultz. Just briefly, thanks obviously for all that
you are doing for us and your support. You asked what keeps me
awake at night? It is worrying about those soldiers who are out
there that need our help, they have come back, they have
demobilized, they are back in their civilian life and then they
discover or we discover they have problems. And we have got to
take care of those soldiers and we have got to make it easy,
that when we identify a soldier that has PTSD or Traumatic
Brain Injury (TBI) or something else that we can get them into
the medical treatment system they need without the bureaucracy
that is out there right now. That keeps me awake at night. But
thanks for your support.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. We will be having some hearings on
that.
General Vaughn. Madam Chairwoman, same thing. Thank you for
your support. I agree with Jack. The youngsters are coming back
and are facing the dilemmas ahead with jobs and families and
what not. I think it keeps us all awake at night. Thank you.
Admiral Debbink. Chairwoman Davis, I just want echo that
too, that the Yellow Ribbon reintegration programs and our
support for our wounded, ill and injured sailors and all of our
service members, and your support helping fund those programs
is extremely important to us.
And the other comment I would have back to the retirement
benefits, and I believe we are working on this, but to look at
that gray area, whenever someone retires, whether it is 55 or
60, to cover or allow them to take TRICARE Reserve Select
through that period even at full cost, which is some $700 a
month, but that allows them the continuity of care so that once
they go on TRICARE if they are injured or there is a problem
that occurs while on active duty and they are no longer
eligible to move back to their reserve health care, they have
TRICARE that can take them through the retirement age, Ma'am.
And other than that, thank you for your support.
General Wyatt. Chairwoman Davis, on behalf of the Air
National Guard, thank you for the honor and privilege of
testifying before you and Ranking Member Wilson and members of
the subcommittee. I am thankful we have a constitutional
provision that is displayed there in the panel below your name
that sets the rules of the game, if you will. I am comforted by
that fact. And I trust that Congress will do its job. We will
do our job. And I thank you for your support.
Admiral May. Chairwoman Davis, I have two thank yous.
First, thank you and the committee for all that you do for our
men and women of our military services. And we could not do the
things that we do without your support and the help that you
have provided to them.
And secondly, thank you for having the Coast Guard here
today as part of this hearing. Even though we are in the
Department of Homeland Security, nearly all of the provisions
and the regulations and policies that affect military members
affect the Coast Guard as well as our other services. So by
having us here today you have reiterated your recognition of
that. And I thank you dearly for that. It has been an honor and
a pleasure to represent the Coast Guard here today. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you
for your service, and we look forward to working with you as we
have a number of issues that come before us. Thanks so much.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 3, 2009
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 3, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0088.149
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
March 3, 2009
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES
Dr. Gilroy. 42,600 Servicemembers have been clinically diagnosed
with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder following a deployment to Operation
Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom between October 1, 2001 and
December 31, 2008. [See page 15.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 3, 2009
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS
Mrs. Davis. There has been a suggestion that the reserve components
have the capability to begin basic training programs and allow newly
accessed service members the opportunity to delay attendance at active
duty schools when class slots are not available. This would allow
active duty training schools to design abbreviated courses for such
members and reduce waiting times and student loads at the active duty
schools. All Panel Members, is there an opportunity to save time and
resources for training of new accessions by developing a hybrid
training program to begin basic training within the reserve units and
have the active component schools complete the training using an
abbreviated schedule?
Dr. Gilroy. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness) does not have visibility into the Services training
syllabus. And since the Reserve Components determine student
availability, we defer to the Services on this question.
General Rochelle. The Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and
the Army National Guard (ARNG) are developing a pilot program for
evaluating a split base training program between ARNG units under the
Recruit Sustainment Program (RSP) and an active Army Training Center.
The objective of the RSP is to retain and engage new recruits by
providing preparatory military training prior to attending Basic Combat
Training (BCT). The intent of the Pilot program is to leverage the
basic combat skills received from the RSP in order to shorten the
duration of basic training. This program involves only the ARNG and not
the Army Reserve. TRADOC and the ARNG are looking at the feasibility of
this program through a cost benefit analysis.
Admiral Ferguson. Navy approaches training for the Total Force by
providing the same training to both Active and Reserve enlisted
Sailors. This produces Sailors that are trained alongside one another
in common accession and skill training programs so they may be fully
integrated into the Navy whether sent to a first active duty assignment
or placed in drill status within the reserve component. This approach
enables these fully trained Reservists to be qualified to immediately
fill billets within their Reserve units and have completed sufficient
active duty service for deployment eligibility. Development of a hybrid
training program would be a step backward and likely increase costs
related to conducting support for additional training tracks. Navy used
a similar approach before 2006 when non-prior service Reserve recruits
were sent to a shortened basic training course, then completed skill
training with their Reserve units. However, Navy found that higher
attrition resulted among these new Reserve Sailors due primarily to
dissatisfaction with the lengthy time required to fully qualify in
their rating. Costs associated with support for today's integrated
Active/Reserve training approach are an investment in our young
enlisted Sailors and are viewed as critical to Total Force mission
success.
General Coleman. The Marine Corps does not believe that time or
resources can be saved by implementing hybrid training programs for our
Reserve component members. The Marine Corps has long maintained a
single standard for basic training and follow-on school training.
Deviating from this standard by having Reserve members undergo modified
curricula will, ultimately, detract from our Total Force competency and
require the expenditure of additional time and resources ensuring our
Reserve members are of the same professional caliber as our regular
component members.
General Newton. The Air Force Reserve (AFR) and Air National Guard
(ANG) both have a program where the potential applicant signs a split-
training agreement prior to enlistment. Once enlisted, the member will
attend Basic Military Training on his/her chosen departure date. If the
AFR or ANG cannot secure a technical training school for the member
while at Basic Military Training, the member will return to home unit
until a technical training school can be secured. However, if the AFR
or ANG can secure a technical training school then the member will go
directly from Basic Military Training to technical training school if
at all possible without returning to their home unit.
There is no opportunity to shorten courses specifically for reserve
components. The AFR, Active Duty Air Force and Air National Guard are a
Total Force and train to the same level of readiness. All members must
attend and complete required training in order to be fully successful
in their career field, and most importantly to be mission ready at all
times.
Mrs. Davis. The initial budget submission just received suggests
that the pay raise proposed for fiscal year 2010 will not be the
enhanced raise with the .5 percent above the Employment Cost Index that
the Congress has adopted over the past 10 years. All Panel Members, the
Subcommittee understands that you do not believe the absence of the
enhanced pay raise will have an effect on recruiting. Do you also
believe that the absence of the enhanced pay raise will also not have
an effect on retention?
Dr. Gilroy. The Department believes that the absence of an
additional 0.5 percent pay raise in FY 2010 will not impact retention.
FY 2009 retention has been strong in the active force, with all
Services having met or exceeded their overall retention missions. We
anticipate continued strong retention for the foreseeable future. All
Services continue to closely monitor and manage retention bonus
programs and continue targeting vital skill areas. These retention
bonus programs provide a far more effective and economically focused
tool for managing and influencing retention than small additional
increases in basic pay.
General Rochelle. We do not anticipate any impact on retention due
to the current FY10 budget (which was published May 11, 2009) now
including the .5 percent raise. However, based on the economy we do not
see a significant adverse impact on retention if the additional pay
raise of .5 percent were not included.
Admiral Ferguson. The current economic state has contributed to
historic retention rates at all levels of seniority, and our current
projected loss rate of 4.4 percent is the lowest in the past ten years.
Because Navy is a counter-cyclical employer, the recruiter corps has
enjoyed a significant increase in both quality and quantity of
applicants in the past six months, when compared with previous years.
Similarly, a generally greater interest in service has allowed for
overall reductions in retention pays, although we still require them to
target certain hard-to-fill critical skill specialties.
Additionally, DoD, with Congressional support, has made significant
strides in the last decade to close the previously existing pay gap
between Sailors and their peers in the private sector. A recent
Congressional Budget Office report estimates that DoD Regular Military
Compensation for enlisted personnel is comparable with the 70th
percentile of earnings for civilian men of similar ages, education, and
experience. An April 2008 Defense Manpower Data Center survey reports
that 62 percent of Navy personnel are in a comfortable financial
position, second highest among the Services. It appears that regular
military compensation combined with strong job security and the
comprehensive non-monetary benefits package associated with military
service have allowed Sailors to weather the recent economic downturn at
least as well as, if not better than, the comparable public at large.
Historically, the enhanced pay raise has been used to combat broad,
sweeping shortfalls in retention numbers across the Service. At this
time, we assess that the absence of the enhanced pay raise will not
significantly affect either retention or recruiting.
General Coleman. Yes. The Marine Corps does not believe the absence
of the enhanced pay raise will have a negative effect on retention.
Eligible Marines are expected to reenlist at required rates during
FY10.
General Newton. While it is difficult to delineate the exact effect
any specific compensation measure has on the overall retention of our
Airmen, we do not anticipate this action having a detrimental effect on
retention. Overall, in the aggregate, AF retention has been trending
upward in 2009 and we expect this trend to continue. That said we still
have some critical warfighting, emerging mission areas, and stressed
specialties (low manning, retention, or extremely high operational
demand) which do require increased attention to retain. We're
continuing to address these needs largely through the use of retention
bonuses.
Mrs. Davis. Fiscal year 2008 is the second consecutive year that
the Marine Corps Reserve has failed to achieve its end strength and the
shortfall has doubled from 1,043 during fiscal year 2007 to 2,077
during fiscal year 2008. The Navy Reserve has sustained a 23 percent
reduction in end strength since 2003, the largest reduction of any
component.
Admiral Debbink and General Bergman, both the Navy Reserve and the
Marine Corps Reserve would seem to have taken a back seat to active
duty requirements in recent years. This treatment would seem to be
inconsistent with your statements which outline the important
contributions to wartime missions made by your respective reserve
components. What is your strategic perspective regarding the future
role of your components in support of your active duty counterparts and
how do you reconcile that perspective with the decisions that
deliberately targeted the end strength of your component in recent
years?
Admiral Debbink. The Selected Reserve (SELRES) remains the Navy's
primary source of immediate mobilization manpower and Operational
Support, and is therefore an integral element of the Total Force. With
over 5,100 Reservists presently mobilized and over 55,000 Reserve
activations since 9/11, the Reserve Component (RC) continues to fill
critical roles in the Navy's Total Force missions.
Since 2004, the Navy Reserve has experienced reductions and
alignments in end strength, most of which were realized between FY04
and FY06. The majority of these reductions were a result of an
extensive Zero Based Review of Navy Reserve capabilities as part of
Active Reserve Integration efforts conducted by U.S. Fleet Forces
Command. Through this process, the Navy was able to validate Reserve
manpower and equipment requirements and determine the ability of the
Navy Reserve to deliver the required capabilities.
More recently, the Navy established a working group to develop
initiatives for institutionalizing the Operational Reserve, which
completed a Reserve Capabilities Review (RCR) in December 2008 that
successfully defined and assessed reserve capabilities as being
strategic, operational or both, based on historic, current and planned
employment. Using a concept that supports both the strategic and
operational employment of the Reserves, the RCR documented and
confirmed how the existing Reserve force structure is meeting current
Navy operational and strategic demands and provided a baseline for
future force structure refinement.
While the Navy Reserve has progressed towards completing a planned
24.1% end strength reduction from 2003 levels, it should be noted that
the Active Component has also experienced significant manpower cuts
during that same time. The Active Component has shed almost 50,000
billets, or 14.1% of FY03 manpower totals, closing in on a planned
15.8% total end strength reduction by the end of the FYDP. Both the
Active and Reserve Component reductions were planned and consistent
with Active Reserve Integration and Total Force initiatives to support
the Fleet and Combatant Commanders. As a total force, the Navy is
beginning to approach a steady-state in which the Reserve Force will
remain a true force multiplier while enhancing the Navy's war fighting
wholeness.
As we look forward, the RC will continue to provide strategic
depth, ready to surge forward anytime and anywhere, and will deliver
operational capabilities to our Navy and Marine Corps team from peace
to war. In addition, as emergent requirements develop, the Navy is
poised to leverage the current, relevant, and adaptable skills the RC
brings to the fight. This synergy ensures flexible, responsive, and
agile capabilities ready to serve now, across a wide spectrum of
operations and enhances the Navy Total Force.
As the Navy continues to respond to today's dynamic environment,
both active and reserve manpower requirements will be continually
reevaluated for war fighting unity and effectiveness. The size of each
component of the Navy's Total Force (Active Duty, Full-Time Support,
SELRES, Civilian, and Contractor) will change to meet the evolving
requirements and capabilities throughout the Planning, Programming,
Budgeting and Execution process.
General Bergman. The decisions that deliberately targeted our
Reserve component in recent years were in keeping with our strategic
perspective regarding the role of the Reserves. In our effort to build
the active Marine Corps to 202,000 we deliberately sought out our
Reserve members in keeping with our Reserve mission to augment and
reinforce the regular component. Our Reservists responded in strength
with 1,755 Marines returning or awaiting return to active duty in
Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. There are approximately 191 pending return
in 2009. This has been a great contribution to the Marine Corps
achieving our desired end strength ahead of schedule. Additionally, we
shifted some of our recruiting focus from the Reserves to further
support the active force build up. Despite these facts, we were still
able to meet all of our mission requirements in support of wartime
operations. Given our current state, we have now refocused our efforts
by increasing our Non-Prior Service Reserve recruiting mission,
doubling our Reserve incentives budget and expanding the eligibility to
receive those incentives to help us recover our authorized strength of
39,600. We believe this strength will allow us to continue making
important contributions to wartime missions while achieving the 1:5
deploy to dwell goal established by the Secretary of Defense.
Mrs. Davis. The Army National Guard is reporting to have 367,000
servicemembers assigned to the Selected Reserve. General Vaughn, given
your ability to recruit and retain at higher levels, the Army National
Guard would seem to be in reach of implementing a trainees, transients,
holdees, and students (TTHS) account which would potentially eliminate
the need to cross level qualified manpower to meet the deployment
requirements of a unit. Ultimately, what end strength would be required
by the Army National Guard to support a TTHS account?
General Vaughn. An end strength of approximately 371,000 would
support a TTHS account. This increased end strength would allow for a
trained and ready force of 358,200 and a TTHS account of 12,500
Soldiers. Having a higher end strength would create a more cohesive and
ready force, the need for cross-leveling is minimized and recruits
still awaiting training or in the training pipeline are not counted
against our actual trained end strength.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MURPHY
Mr. Murphy. The Air Force has applied internal budget reductions or
budget shifting through Program Budget Decision 720 (PBD 720), that
directly affect base operating structures (BOS) through the elimination
of fire protection positions. Does the AF feel that these fire
protection reductions will affect the Air Force's ability to adequately
respond and mitigate a catastrophic event that could occur at an Air
Force facility?
General Newton. The Air Force does believe that we have sufficient
AF firefighter authorizations to provide the required emergency
response capability consistent with AF and DoD policy guidance. Without
question, the Air Force has adequate and appropriate resources to
respond and mitigate any emergency event that is likely to occur at an
Air Force installation.
Air Force conducted a comprehensive assessment of our fire fighting
operations based on five years of emergency response data and found our
people and facilities are much safer today because of the continual
building improvements, with emphasis on fire prevention and early
intervention at fires.
The success of fire fighting operations relies on timely rapid
intervention to prevent large fires from developing rather than relying
on large numbers of firefighters to arrive after a large fire has
already developed.
Mr. Murphy. A CONOPs which the Air Force has distributed
demonstrates that the Air Force intends to rely heavily on outside
municipal resources for assistance in fire protection, rescue and
emergency medical service responsibilities for Air Force facilities as
part of the base operating structure reductions. Does the AF have an
inherent responsibility to provide adequate emergency service response
capability for the protection of Air Force assets and personnel? Should
that responsibility be levied on municipalities and States?
General Newton. The revised Air Force Fire Emergency Services (FES)
CONOPS does not rely on increased support from municipal resources to
protect our facilities and personnel. In fact, the Air Force continues
to provide more mutual aid support to local communities than we receive
by a factor of nearly 6 to 1.
In developing our FES CONOPS, we conducted a comprehensive review
and risk-based analysis of our fire departments based on emergency
response data. Our analysis revealed the Air Force possessed the
capability to respond to multiple events simultaneously and that the
likelihood of such an occurrence was extremely low. This posture
exceeded DoD requirements, affording us the opportunity to reduce
firefighter manning while deliberately managing risk.
During our evaluations, we looked at the support provided through
mutual aid by local communities and concluded that municipal fire
departments do not meet DoD requirements. Most municipal departments do
not have the capability to support the aircraft fire protection
mission. They don't have the proper equipment, are not trained to
perform aircrew/passenger rescue, and can't meet DoD response times. By
comparison, to support our flying mission the Air Force provides an
extremely robust firefighter capability, both in equipment and
personnel. On a per capita basis, the Air Force postures four times the
number of firefighters than the average municipality.
The Air Force has always included mutual aid from local
municipalities in our planning and continues to do so, as is the normal
practice of municipal fire departments throughout the United States. In
most cases however, the aid we receive is not in the form of initial
response. For large fires, municipal departments provide additional
support services such as additional agent delivery, water resupply, and
additional breathing air cylinders.
Air Force Medical Groups are responsible to provide Emergency
Medical Response for base assets and population, as appropriate, to
support local mission requirements. Depending on various local factors,
the Medical Groups utilize either AF Medical personnel (blue suiters or
civilian employees), contract personnel, AF fire department EMTs and/or
off-base mutual aid agreements to meet emergency medical response
needs. At 13 AF bases, the Air Force Medical Service spent a total of
$3.486M for contract ambulance services.
Mr. Murphy. Reductions, regarding fire and emergency services
appear to directly affect the Air Force's capability to affect an
aircraft rescue or mitigate an aircraft incident. A review of the
CONOPs shows that the AF will reduce staffing on aircraft firefighting
vehicles from three (3) personnel to two (2). This appears to conflict
with DoD requirements (DoD instruction DoD 6055.6) which establishes
that such vehicles will be staffed with three (3) personnel. Does the
Air Force intend to violate DoD Policy regarding these reductions?
General Newton. Air Force Fire Emergency Services (FES) concluded
sufficient AF firefighter staffing authorizations exist to provide the
required emergency response capability is not in conflict with DoD
requirements and does not violate DoD policy.
Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6055.06 prescribes
staffing requirements but does not establish the number of people
assigned to individual vehicles that respond together as a Company. In
accordance with paragraph E2.12 a company is defined as a group of
members: (1) under the direct supervision of an officer; (2) trained
and equipped to perform assigned tasks; (3) usually organized and
identified as ARFF, engine companies, ladder companies, rescue
companies, squad companies, or multifunctional companies; and (4)
operating with one piece of fire apparatus, except where multiple
apparatus are assigned that are dispatched and arrive together,
continuously operate together, and are managed by a single company
officer.
Our practice of staffing and dispatching aircraft firefighting
vehicles insures that they are dispatched together and operate together
under a single fire officer.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOEBSACK
Mr. Loebsack. Lieutenant General Vaughn, you stated in your written
testimony that: ``Since we are currently above our authorized end
strength, and we don't have the resources to keep our strength at this
level, we are taking measures to scale back our strength within our
legal limit by the end of FY 2009. Some of these measures include
significant reduction to the enlistment and reenlistment bonuses that
we are offering to the Soldiers.'' (Vaughn Testimony, page 3)
Is your intention to scale back the Guard's end strength based
solely on available resources or have you considered operational
requirements as well? Will the reduction still allow the Army National
Guard to meet its operational requirements while also reducing the use
of cross-leveling and mitigating stress on the force? If your resources
were increased and authorization for increased end strength was
provided, would you prefer to maintain and/or increase your end
strength levels? What would be the benefits of such an increase?
General Vaughn. The decision to scale back rests solely on the
authorized funding for 358,200 Soldiers. Operational requirements
should not be affected by a reduction in end strength.
The Army National Guard will meet its operational requirements. The
reduction in end strength coupled with the termination of the current
Stop Loss Policy may create further stress on the force and affect unit
cohesion. Without a Stop Loss Policy Soldiers nearing the end of their
enlistments or eligible for retirement will have to voluntarily extend
before deploying.
If both resources and authorization are increased it would be
preferable to increase our end strength to 371,000. The benefits of the
increase would be a relief on our strained ranks and create a more
ready force by having a trained standing force and minimize cross-
leveling. Ultimately this increase in end strength would increase
personnel readiness and deployability of our formations.
Mr. Loebsack. The FY 2009 National Defense Authorization Act
authorized the largest increase in Army National Guard full-time
manning in 22 years. Please describe the benefits of full-time staffing
to the Army National Guard.
General Vaughn. Full time support (FTS) Soldiers serve as a nucleus
for the 54 States and Territories and at the National Guard Bureau. The
primary function is to provide support to the ARNG force ensuring the
Citizen Soldiers are ready to perform the state and federal missions
when called upon. FTS Soldiers are responsible for assisting in the
organization, administration, recruitment, instruction, training,
maintenance, and supply support to the ARNG, the Armed Forces on active
duty, members of foreign military forces, Department of Defense and
civilian employees. FTS Soldiers facilitate the ARNG's ability to
perform several critical functions including: the transition from a
Strategic Reserve to an Operational Force; unit modularity; growing
assigned strength to 358,200. FTS personnel also coordinate training,
mobilizing and deploying approximately 55,000 Soldiers annually in
support of contingency operations. Full-time manning is the largest
contributor to Army National Guard unit readiness.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
