[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-139]
MILITARY PERSONNEL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 17, 2010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-335 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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
Craig Greene, Professional Staff Member
John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
James Weiss, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2010
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, March 17, 2010, Military Personnel Legislative
Priorities..................................................... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, March 17, 2010........................................ 27
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010
MILITARY PERSONNEL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
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
Bostick, Lt. Gen. Thomas P., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1,
U.S. Army...................................................... 5
Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III, USN, Chief of Naval Personnel,
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy.................... 6
Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Manpower and Personnel, U.S. Air Force......................... 9
Stanley, Hon. Clifford L., Ph.D., Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense............ 3
Zilmer, Lt. Gen. Richard C., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps......................... 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Bostick, Lt. Gen. Thomas P................................... 91
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 31
Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III............................. 108
Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III............................. 147
Stanley, Hon. Clifford L..................................... 37
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 34
Zilmer, Lt. Gen. Richard C................................... 128
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mrs. Davis................................................... 161
MILITARY PERSONNEL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 17, 2010.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan Davis
(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mrs. Davis. Good afternoon. The meeting will come to order.
Today the subcommittee will turn its attention to the important
issue of maintaining an all-volunteer force during a protracted
war with a focus on end strength, recruiting and retention and
families.
Prior to fiscal year 2008, the services experienced a
stressed recruiting environment due predominantly to relatively
low unemployment, a protracted war, a reduced propensity for
youth to serve and a reluctance for influencers to recommend
military careers.
The services responded with an increase in spending in
order to maintain an all-volunteer force, but not without a
reduction in the quality of the force.
It is an unfortunate reality today that the economic
hardship that has impacted so many families in America has
reversed those trends and caused both recruits and currently
serving members to view career opportunities in the military
more favorably.
As the service continues to enjoy record recruiting and
retention performance, budget managers have sought to reduce
resources for those programs.
The committee is extremely concerned about the future of
these critical programs and whether the services are postured
to react rapidly to an improving economy with the resources
that will be necessary to be competitive with a reenergized
private sector job market.
Other issues of interest to the subcommittee today include
spouse education and employment programs; family readiness
before, during, and after deployment; the status of ``don't
ask, don't tell'' study group; reliance of the services on
supplemental appropriations; and pay raise and retiree
compensation budget proposals.
We have an excellent panel consisting of the undersecretary
of defense for personnel and readiness and the four personnel
chiefs of the military services to help us explore these
issues.
I request that you all keep your remarks, to the extent
that you can, oral comments, to three minutes, and we will
certainly have time for questions.
Without objection, all written statements will be entered
into the record.
Mr. Wilson, would you like to add some remarks?
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 31.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Wilson. Mrs. Davis, thank you for welcoming our
witnesses, two of whom, General Bostick and General Zilmer,
appear before us for the first time in their current
capacities.
I want to thank all of you for your service to our nation.
Also, I am so grateful to see Secretary Stanley here. He is a
graduate of South Carolina State University, which--from my
home state--we are very grateful provides the largest number of
officers of any historically black college in the United
States.
And so we are so proud of the heritage, Secretary, and you
also graduated in an excellent year, 1969. I identify with
that, so--and you are from my home town--our home town,
Charleston.
We have been at war for nine years, and it is a remarkable
testament to the efforts of these men and women and their
predecessors that the all-volunteer force has weathered the
severe wartime trials.
The effort to recruit, retain and in some cases grow the
armed forces is never easy in the best of times. During most of
the last nine years of conflict, a bad economy and the reality
of war made the effort even more difficult.
Nevertheless, each of the military services succeeded to
such a degree that in 2009, for the first time since the
beginning of the all-volunteer military, every recruiting goal
both in quantity and quality was met or exceeded in both the
active and reserve components. That is a remarkable
achievement, and you and your predecessors deserve a lot of
credit.
I personally identify. I represent Parris Island and I
represent Fort Jackson, and so I know as the young people come
to serve it is so extraordinary to go to graduations and see
their family members not recognize the graduates. These young
people look like a million dollars.
So thank you for what you do, and I know how fulfilling
military service is, with four sons currently serving in the
military, and I had the privilege and opportunity to serve 31
years. And the people you get to meet--it is such a wonderful,
fulfilling experience of life.
Today's hearing is principally focused on recruiting,
retention, and end strength, as well as the department's
legislative priorities.
In that context, I would ask Dr. Stanley in his opening
oral comment to comment on three legislative issues. First, why
it is important for Congress to pass the president's proposal
to provide concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA
[Department of Veterans Affairs] disabilities pay for Chapter
61 military disability retirees.
Second, whether the department supports legislation to
repeal the widow's tax, which is the required offset between
annuities received from the survivor benefit plan and the
Veterans Administration payments for dependency and indemnity
compensation.
And third, whether the department supports legislation for
a retroactive early retirement credit for certain wartime
reserve components prior to January the 28th, 2008.
Mrs. Davis, I thank you for holding this hearing and I look
forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 34.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our outstanding panel.
First is the Honorable Dr. Clifford L. Stanley, Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Thank you for being here.
Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, Deputy Chief of
Staff, U.S. Army.
Vice Admiral Mark Ferguson III, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval
Personnel, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Total Force.
Lieutenant General Richard C. Zilmer, Deputy Commandant for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps.
And Lieutenant General Richard Y. Newton III, U.S. Air
Force, Deputy Chief Staff Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters,
U.S. Air Force.
Thank you all very much.
I want to welcome General Bostick and General Zilmer
because this is the first time that you are here in these new
roles, and we appreciate your being here. Thank you so much.
And please begin, Secretary Stanley.
STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD L. STANLEY, PH.D., UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
Dr. Stanley. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Davis, Mr. Wilson,
and Mr. Kline, distinguished members of the panel. We are here
today at a military subcommittee--personnel subcommittee. It is
an honor to appear before you to speak with you concerning the
Department of Defense's [DOD's] personnel programs and
readiness.
For the past four weeks now, as the Undersecretary of
Defense, I have had the honor of working with and interacting
with some of our greatest men and women in uniform, Department
of Defense civilians and contractors and families. It is truly
a privilege to serve them in this position.
I first want to thank you for your strong support of these
men and women over the years. They have fought our wars and
protected our interests and our allies around the globe. I look
forward to working closely with this committee to improve
support for those in uniform, the civilian employees of the
department and their families.
In terms of military personnel, the services are
experiencing historic successes in recruiting and retention. It
is a tribute to both the dedication of our military personnel
and the patriotism of our nation's citizens that we continue to
maintain an all-volunteer force of unprecedented quality for
more than--after more than eight years of active combat
operations.
I am happy to report that we have improved overall
entitlements to the point that all of our personnel are paid at
or above the 70th percentile of their civilian counterparts.
Our challenge today is--as you have alluded to already, is
to maintain this position without imposing greater long-term
bills and offsets while using targetable tools such as special
pay and bonuses to shape and manage our force.
Similar to our efforts to target and define the impacts of
each pay with our active personnel, we must continue to ensure
that we support those we have already are serving. But again,
we must do so in an equitable manner and one that is consistent
with the overall demands of the department.
As an example, the Department continues to oppose efforts
to eliminate the offset between the survivor benefit plan and
dependency indemnity compensation programs.
Allowing concurrent receipt of the survivor benefit plan
and the dependency indemnity compensation without offset would
create an inequity with one select group receiving two survivor
annuities while survivors of most military retirees and
survivors of veterans who died of service-connected cause but
were not retired would actively--would receive only one or the
other.
At the same time, in seeking that broader equity and
department-wide impact, we see a win-win opportunity in
expanding the concurrent receipt program to include military
disability retirees with less than 20 years of service,
regardless of disability rating.
This expansion would cover our most challenged retirees by
allowing them to receive retired pay for their years of service
performed and VA disability compensation for their future
reduced earning capability.
Our military forces maintain an exceptionally high level of
readiness, but multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan
have certainly increased the stress on our services and their
families.
And we have a number of initiatives under way to address
the stress and have set clear limits and goals for deployment
lengths, the amount of time, or dwell between deployments.
We have also committed to the further improving of support
of our military families. For fiscal year 2011, we have
requested a 41 percent increase in the family assistance
baseline funding across the department.
Unfortunately, we have had some stumbles in this area, and
I am sure you are aware of My Career Advancement Account
[MyCAA], where the program had some unforeseen, unprecedented
but welcome demand in the enrollment. It overwhelmed the
infrastructure of the system.
Over the past few weeks, the Department of Defense mapped
out solutions for both the short and long term that honors our
commitment to our military spouses while accounting for our
fiscal realities.
This past Saturday the MyCAA program restarted for over
136,000 spouses currently in the program to continue their
career training plans, and we are preparing options for the
long-term management of the program, and we intend to seek
input from our program stakeholders before making a final
decision on a long-term plan.
With this plan and other programs we oversee, we know we
must make a concerted effort to restore our faith and our
credibility and confidence in the military spouses, service
members and the American public.
The department also is proactively working on child custody
issues that our service members may face as a result of their
service to our nation, and I appreciate the efforts of the
subcommittee in this regard.
Secretary Gates sent letters urging action to each of the
governors of the states that have not passed any military-
specific child custody legislation. Also, child custody has
been listed in the Department's 10 quality-of-life issues
presented to the governors and other officials.
I want to stop there and look forward to the questions and
get to more--maybe some specifics that Mr. Wilson asked later
on. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stanley can be found in the
Appendix on page 37.]
Mrs. Davis. General Bostick.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. THOMAS P. BOSTICK, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF, G-1, U.S. ARMY
General Bostick. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Davis,
Representative Wilson, Representative Kline, and Representative
Snyder. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
On behalf of our Secretary, the Honorable John McHugh, and
our Chief of Staff, General George Casey, I would like to thank
you for your unwavering support and demonstrated commitment to
our soldiers, our civilians, and our great family members.
Our all-volunteer Army is now in its ninth year of
continuous combat operations. And despite the challenges such
an incredible demand poses, America's Army remains resilient,
professional, and combat-seasoned.
Our senior leadership, however, recognizes the strain this
operational tempo has placed on the force and the vital need to
restore balance. Consequently, we have set two key objectives
in this area. First, to sustain our all-volunteer force in an
era of persistent conflict. And second, to provide the best
possible care, support, and services for our soldiers,
civilians, and family members.
Our first mission is sustaining the force, and that has
been to recruit and retain the highest possible quality
civilians and soldiers for service in our Army. With the
support of Congress and the nation, we are very proud to report
that America's Army achieved 104 percent of our recruiting
goals for 2009, while also achieving all benchmarks with regard
to recruiting highly qualified soldiers.
Moreover, all components of the Army exceeded 105 percent
of their reenlistment goals. Your support of incentives have
been key to this success. As the pace of economic recovery
increases, we will carefully review incentives and seek your
support to ensure we remain highly competitive in the evolving
job market.
In a related effort, the active Army is implementing a
temporary increase to our end strength of up to additional
22,000 soldiers. This measure was approved by the Secretary of
Defense in July of 2009 and it addresses the increased number
of non-deployables in our formation and helps to ensure the
readiness of those deploying. It also improves the dwell time
between deployments for our soldiers and families.
Our second mission has been to increase the quality of
care, support, and services to the Army team. To this end, we
have aggressively pursued a number of programs to better care
for and increase the resiliency of our soldiers, civilians and
family members.
From increasing behavioral health counselors to address
post-traumatic stress syndrome, to pilot programs to improve
the delivery of substance abuse counseling and treatment, and a
holistic approach to suicide prevention, we are moving on a
broad front to address what some have termed the invisible cost
of our current conflict.
Consistent with the spirit of our Army values and warrior
ethos, we have also pursued the OSD [Office of the Secretary of
Defense]-led effort to execute our Sexual Harassment/Assault
Response and Prevention Program in order to educate our force
on this critical issue; de-stigmatize reporting of incidents,
whether in garrison or during contingency deployments; and to
ensure that allegations are properly and promptly investigated
and resolved.
Together with the other programs such as Comprehensive
Soldier Fitness, the Strong Bonds Program, the Army Family
Covenant, and expanded survivor outreach services to assist the
families of our fallen brothers and sisters, we are putting
into place a network of programs to promote resiliency and
well-being.
To conclude, I wish to thank all of you for your continued
support which has been vital in sustaining an all-volunteer
Army through an unprecedented period of continuous combat
operations.
With your support, we will continue to work towards
restoring balance and sustaining the high quality of our Army
for the duration of the current fight and for the foreseeable
future.
Chairwoman Davis and members of the subcommittee, I thank
you for your generous and unwavering support for our
outstanding soldiers, civilians, and their families, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Bostick can be found in
the Appendix on page 91.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Admiral Ferguson.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. MARK E. FERGUSON III, USN, CHIEF OF
NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, U.S. NAVY
Admiral Ferguson. Chairwoman Davis, Representative Wilson,
and distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to review our fiscal year 2011
budget request.
The extraordinary people of our Navy are serving around the
globe with over 40 percent of our ships currently underway or
deployed. Sailors remain engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, with
more than 21,000 active and reserve sailors serving afloat and
ashore in the region.
Demonstrating our operational flexibility, more than 4,000
active and reserve sailors and Navy civilians responded quickly
in January to the devastating earthquake in Haiti with our
hospital ship Comfort and other naval units.
Current operational demands and a high operating tempo have
placed added stress on the force. Providing a comprehensive
continuum of care for our sailors and their families,
therefore, remains a constant priority. Navy Safe Harbor, the
Associated Anchor Program, and our Operational Stress Control
Program are critical elements of this continuum of care.
Our leadership remains focused on providing support to our
sailors and their families to foster resilience as well as
family readiness.
We believe that family readiness and personal readiness
supports war fighting capability and directly impacts job
performance, satisfaction, and retention. We continue to adapt
our personal and family readiness programs to meet the needs of
our sailors and their families.
We monitor the health of the force through surveys and
retention data which indicate that sailors overall are
satisfied with their leadership, their benefits, and their
compensation. Your support of our people has made this
possible.
We continue to focus our efforts on sustaining this
balanced force in terms of seniority, experience, and skill
sets. Our fiscal year 2011 end strength request of 328,700
represents a stabilized end strength level to meet our
operational commitments.
Like the other services, we continue to be successful in
recruiting and retaining high-quality sailors. Targeted
investments in special and incentive pays and bonuses are
fundamental to this success as we sustain this extraordinary
force.
While we must continue to apply targeted bonus programs to
selected critical skills, we have been able to make reductions
in recruiting and retention bonuses over the last year. We
continue to adjust them on a dynamic basis as we respond to
changes in the broader economy.
We also continue to benchmark our programs against those in
industry and government to ensure we reward our people's
service with the very best our nation has to offer.
Your Navy has received 20 national awards over the last 20
months, recognizing accomplishments across the areas of
workforce planning, life-work integration, diversity, and
training. Our strategic imperative remains to sustain the
world's finest naval force.
On behalf of the men and women of the United States Navy
and their families who faithfully support them, I would like to
extend my sincere appreciation to the committee and the
Congress for your unwavering support. Thank you, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Ferguson can be found in
the Appendix on page 108.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Zilmer.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RICHARD C. ZILMER, USMC, DEPUTY
COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS
General Zilmer. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is my privilege
to appear before you today. I would like to make a few brief
points.
First, the Marine Corps achieved unprecedented success in
fiscal year 2009, completing our end strength growth to
202,000, two years early. Our challenge now is to shape our
force to make sure we have the right grades, experience, and
skills necessary to fulfill the operational requirements.
Even with the current economic conditions, we will need to
increase retention in targeted and specialized occupational
specialties so that we may maintain the vital Marine Corps
leadership in critical skills that are necessary.
To accomplish this, we must rely on enlistment and
reenlistment incentives, and we appreciate your continued
support for these programs.
Second, I want to reiterate that taking care of our Marines
and their families remains one of our corps' highest
priorities. With your support, we initiated many personnel and
family readiness program improvements during fiscal year 2009,
and have built these programs in to our baseline budget.
We have hired 400 family readiness officers. We have
established school liaison officers at all of our major
installations. We are increasing child care spaces. We are
improving our already well-regarded exceptional family member
program. We are integrating our behavioral health programs to
provide a holistic solution to suicide, sexual assault, and
combat stress prevention.
Lastly, 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 as well. Despite the challenges they face as they
recover, our wounded, ill, and injured Marines are highly
motivated to contribute to our war fighting mission and to our
society.
From our recovery care coordinators and other wounded
warrior care staff to our Department of Defense best practice
Sergeant Merlin German Call Center, we will be there for our
wounded warriors through all phases of their recovery.
As we continue to deploy and fight in Afghanistan and other
parts of the world, we must always remember that our individual
Marines are our most precious asset. Marines are proud of the
eagle, globe and anchor and what it represents to our country.
With your support, a vibrant Marine Corps will continue to meet
our nation's call.
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Zilmer can be found in
the Appendix on page 128.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Newton.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RICHARD Y. NEWTON III, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, U.S. AIR FORCE
General Newton. Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking Member
Wilson, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, let me
add my thanks also for this opportunity to discuss the Air
Force efforts related to the fiscal year 2011 budget to ensure
we attract, and recruit, and develop, and retain a high-quality
and diverse fighting force.
Airmen are the focal point for providing the critical
capabilities that the Air Force contributes for winning today's
fight, and while the Air Force has innovated technologies and
equipment, it is the hard work of our dedicated men and women
in uniform and our civilians and the support of our families
who underscore our success.
Without a doubt, the tremendous talent of our total force
airmen and civilians is the backbone of the United States Air
Force. As such, I am focused on ensuring our airmen possess the
necessary skills so they can deliver the best possible support
to our combatant commanders.
We must ensure we have the proper end strength to meet
current, new, and emerging missions. And for fiscal year 2011,
our active duty end strength will be 332,200 airmen, with
71,200 airmen in the Air Force Reserve, and 106,700 airmen in
the Air National Guard. This is a slight increase for active
duty and Air Force Reserve from fiscal year 2010.
Simultaneously, we will continue to strive for balance in
our workforce, with particular emphasis on stressed career
fields and mission areas that need our attention, such as
intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance, contracting,
security forces, to name a few.
For instance, we have added contracting officers to the Air
Force list of low retained career fields, and these officers
will begin receiving critical skills retention bonuses this
year.
The growth in authorized end strength goes hand in hand
with an increase in our recruiting efforts, and it goes beyond
finding just the right numbers. We must also ensure the right
quality and the right skills are present in potential
candidates. And in short, we need to be a leading competitor in
the search for America's talent.
Despite the weak economy, we expect fiscal year 2011 to be
a critical retention environment for several reasons: an
increased need to retain specific skill sets in certain
specialties, previous end strength decreases and corresponding
decreases in--increased operational demands, and new and
emerging missions.
Our commitment includes continued support for special pay
and allowances to address recruiting and retention concerns in
our health professional skills and our most critical war
fighting skills such as pair rescue imagery analysis, tactical
air control party, explosive ordinance disposal.
Finally, we are committed to taking care of airmen and
their families, including our wounded warriors, to whom we have
a never-ending obligation. During this Year of the Air Force
Family, we tackled a host of issues critically important to our
families, such as expanding child care capacity, developing
more robust programs for special needs families, and
invigorating the support we provide for developed members'
spouses and children.
We have focused these efforts in our Airman and Family
Readiness Centers at each of our installations, which serve as
a central hub for airmen and family support issues.
The Air Force is fully committed to providing for the
nation's defense wherever the mission leads us. Your continued
support of our initiatives to attract, develop and sustain
talented and diverse airmen, and to care for their families is
mission essential, and it is most appreciated.
Our efforts to effectively manage end strength, recruit and
retain, develop and care for airmen and their families will
ensure we continue to provide the world's finest air space and
cyberspace power in the world.
Thank you for your unfailing support to the men and women
in the United States Air Force, and I also look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of General Newton can be found in
the Appendix on page 147.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much. We certainly appreciate
all of your accomplishments and the incredible men and women
who you continue to lead. Thank you very much for that.
You have all, I think, mentioned the need for some
flexibility, I think, in recruitment and retention, and
certainly there is changing economic conditions. I wonder if
you could expand on that further, particularly Secretary
Stanley, whether--do you believe that you have all the
authorities that you need to really respond to all of these
challenges as they occur?
There is some concern, of course, that we sometimes cut
back at a time that it is obvious we can do that, but then you
need to be able to gear up again. Are there some authorities
that you could speak to and that you think could--that we could
work with a little closer?
Dr. Stanley. Chairwoman Davis, if I understand the question
correctly, I am not aware of any authorities that we don't have
to be able to work together not only with the services but also
with Congress to be able to accomplish, I believe, our end
strength goals, balancing our force, as we look to the future.
But I will tell you that we look forward to working very
closely with the Congress and the services to achieve our end
strength balances.
Mrs. Davis. Are there any initiatives--and I guess
everybody on the panel could speak to this--are there any
initiatives that would be even more helpful as you respond to
those needs to flex in recruiting and retention?
I might add, General Zilmer, it is my understanding that in
terms of bonuses that you actually are looking at a cut in
fiscal year 2011 budget of about $300 million. Is that going to
be problematic as you look to special career fields where you
need that additional support?
General Zilmer. Madam Chairwoman, thank you. We are
concerned as--and we are, in fact, bringing down SRBs [Select
Reenlistment Bonuses] from fiscal year 2009 through 2011.
Where we are projected right now, we think we can sustain
the force, but the importance of still maintaining those SRBs
for the critical MOSs [Military Occupational Specialties]--the
intelligence, the linguists, the EOD [Explosive Ordinance
Disposal]--those will still be necessary, as well as the
enlistment bonuses on the front end, to bring in those
qualified people.
So we are shaving it down, but we think that is probably
about as low as we are going to be able to go and still sustain
the quality of the force that we have today.
Mrs. Davis. Are there any other comments in terms of
specialties that you are looking for?
General Bostick. Chairwoman Davis----
Mrs. Davis. General Bostick.
General Bostick [continuing]. I was going to comment from a
recruiting end and really, the opportunities you gave us in
National Defense Authorization Act 2006 where we had pilot
program authorities. And those pilots were unnamed, but we
could go out and develop four different pilots, and we tried
different ones.
One, you will remember, was the recruiter incentive pay,
where we made the decision that we would pay recruiters based
on achieving over the mission that they were required to do. We
no longer need that, but I think it is important to have the
opportunity to have those pilots on the shelf so that if we
want to pursue them that we can.
You also remember the home ownership program that we had.
We currently have the military assistance to the national
defense, the MAVNI [Military Accessions Vital to National
Interest] program--military accessions that are important to
the national defense. I think those types of programs--they may
narrow an aperture, but it is important to have them available
to us.
We have decreased bonuses as well, but we are focusing the
bonuses on those critical specialties where we need to recruit
significantly.
Mrs. Davis. Okay.
Anybody else want to comment? You don't have to, but----
General Newton. If I may, ma'am, also we are--this year we
have 27 stressed career fields, 11 in our officer ranks, and 16
in our enlisted ranks, and so the--but we believe we have the
authorities in our selective enlistment bonus, particularly for
our enlisted remains about steady for this year.
But as we look at it in a broad sense, we have met our
recruiting goals writ large and our retention goals, but the
challenge is within those specialties, those high demands,
those stressed career fields--those enablers, if you will, that
are required downrange in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would make one comment also of a very select group, and
that is our health professionals, and I think all of us are
dealing with challenges in the health professional--not only
the recruiting but the retention.
But it is also based on a--you know, a limited supply with
a great demand, you know, out in the United States as well.
Admiral Ferguson. I would just say we feel we have the
authorities and then we will adjust amounts in response to what
happens in the broader economy. Our focus areas are also in
those critical skills--our nuclear operators, the medical
personnel, the SEALs, and Special Forces operators, where the
training and initial accession criteria are so high that we
have to continue to compete for those in the broader economy.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
I might just quickly--we didn't go on the clock right away,
and I am on the clock as well as my colleagues, but if we--I
could just wrap up quickly, because, Secretary Stanley, you
mentioned My Career Advancement program. We know that that ran
into some difficulties.
What do you actually envision in terms of how we move
forward with that? Clearly, the need is far greater than we
anticipated, so where really should those budget--what should
the numbers be?
And are there some other programs that are helping to focus
the spousal population to really take a look at some options
that they may have that they may not have even thought about
and might be in some career fields that we would actually like
to have them engage in, but perhaps they haven't had the kind
of support to do that?
Dr. Stanley. Chairwoman Davis, you are absolutely right.
First of all, we ran into what I would call the unexpected good
thing about a program that became wildly successful and
popular.
They are looking at a whole range of options that, first of
all, include the use of other programs that can--you know, that
can complement MyCAA, still helping out, also looking, though,
at how we would fund even what we have if we continue along the
same line, which would be up to four billion dollars. And so
there are offsets to that as we go forward.
But everything is on the table right now. We made a
commitment to bring the rest of it online--I am talking about
phase two--by the 1st of April. So within this next week plus,
we are actually looking at coming forward with some
recommendations to the Secretary and, of course, working with
Congress as we work together.
In fact, I will be over here next week talking and working,
you know, sort of behind the scene to work this, but you are
absolutely right, there is more to this than just the MyCAA in
taking care of our families in particular as we move forward.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I think we might be, you know, happy
to look at some authorization language--and maybe there are a
few pilots that we might think about in terms of that
transition period and really preparing for the next step in a
few select areas, so----
Dr. Stanley. Absolutely.
Mrs. Davis [continuing]. Thank you for that.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank all of you for your testimony, and it really
impressed me how sincere you are in your service and, again,
the opportunities that you are providing young people to have
the privilege and opportunity to serve in the military.
Dr. Stanley, you mentioned the department and military
services' concern--and it was referenced by others, too--of the
situation of suicides in active and reserve forces. And you
indicate that there is a personnel gap analysis by military
service.
I am concerned that there is a connection between the
access to military health services and the incidence of
suicide. How is the Department assisting the military services
in providing mental health care to our troops and their
families?
Why does the Army have such a significant gap in the number
of mental health providers needed and the number assigned?
Dr. Stanley. Mr. Wilson, what I will do is I will--first of
all, I will defer the part of the Army question to our Army
representative, but let me just address in macro our concerns
dealing with health, the stress that are on our forces, and
although suicide happens to be part of the issue, there is a
much larger issue here dealing with how we take care of our
troops from--everything from dwell time to the stress on the
forces and the commitment, pay and compensation.
All these things have some impact on this, and so we are
looking at this holistically. We have a quadrennial review that
is actually starting here very shortly that will take in part
of this.
And the first thing that I did--I hope I mentioned this the
last time I was here--was that we brought on someone
immediately in the medical profession to help take over the
health affairs part temporarily till the candidate got through
to make sure that we addressed the issues of health affairs,
taking care of our troops and their families primarily.
Those are macro statements as I work my way into learning
more about what we can do in working with Congress. This is
part of my agenda for coming over next week also to work with
you.
Mr. Wilson. All right.
And, General Bostick.
General Bostick. Yes. Suicides is a tragic situation in any
unit, in any family, and one suicide is too many. Our Vice
Chief of Staff of the Army has taken the leadership on this in
developing the campaign plan for health promotion, risk
reduction and suicide prevention and has laid out an aggressive
strategy on the way ahead.
Part of that is counselors. Also, we are looking at alcohol
and substance abuse and the counselors that are required there.
Some of the challenge in hiring is due to location and some
of the challenge in hiring is this is a small select group that
is out there and it is a very competitive environment. But we
are working it very hard.
In the area of suicides, we have about 250 counselors in
that area. We expect to get up to about 290 in the May time
frame. The challenge for us really is that the right
requirement, and we are studying with the medical professionals
to determine whether the requirement is correct.
And it could be much higher than that. So we are working
that closely with the medical professionals and the hiring in
my office.
Mr. Wilson. And I want to thank whatever you do, and I
wanted to bring to your attention that there is an organization
in our community in the Midlands of South Carolina called
Hidden Wounds, and they are volunteers.
It was developed by Anna Bigham in memory of her brother,
Lance Corporal Mills Palmer Bigham. And yesterday their
director, Chris Johnson--Dan Ramsey came by, and they are
providing mental health assistance and also suicide prevention
assistance, and I thank them for what they are doing as a
safety net and backing up DOD, the services and VA. But I am
just grateful for what they have done.
Another interest I have, Secretary Stanley, is the widows
tax, and I have run into it where I have met families, the
widow, and the children, and it affects them substantially,
like $1,000 a month. And so what is the department proposing to
help on this?
Dr. Stanley. And just a question for clarity, are we
talking about the survivors' benefits----
Mr. Wilson. Absolutely.
Dr. Stanley [continuing]. And the indemnity compensation?
Mr. Wilson. That is right, yes. Offset.
Dr. Stanley. Offset. In my time there--now, I know I
represent the Department's position, and as I have said
already, I know that the Department's position now is opposed
to addressing any repeal or change in where we are looking at
this, because there is a 10 percent over--you know, overlay or
gap in terms of what is going on at SBP [Survivor Benefit Plan]
as well as--the survivors benefit plan as well as what is going
on in the indemnity compensation.
I have not personally had an opportunity to look at the
numbers, to look at where that--what that really means. And
because, as I shared with you offline, I guess--because I have
lived this life before, and if I left this world today, I know
there might be some impact on my family.
So, I mean, I can own that personally, but I also represent
the Department right now, and so I am--I have to state--say
that right now. But I am actually committed to working closely
with you to move forward.
Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you very much, and of course,
Congressman Solomon Ortiz has also been very interested in this
issue. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
While we are on that, I think one of the perhaps
inconsistencies--and you might want to just, for your
information--I think we see concurrent receipt being discussed
without an offset, and yet we see the SBP-DIC [Survivor Benefit
Plan/Dependence and Indemnity Compensation] not being supported
in terms of trying to actually, you know, deal with the
situation before us.
And so is that an inconsistency or is that--how would you--
is it not confusing that one would see it as an inconsistency
actually?
Dr. Stanley. Well, I will be up front with you. In my time
here, I see some of that in my studies and am committed to
saying, ``Okay, here is what I want to say right now,'' as
where the department is.
I haven't been there long enough to say how rigid things
are going to be where I am working, but we are going to give
this a good, hard look and work with you as we move forward.
The Department's position right now is we don't want to
repeal that. But the bottom line is we are going to give it--we
are going to continue to work with you. I hope that is not
confusing.
Mrs. Davis. Yes. Thank you. I think it is really,
certainly, a challenge from where we sit, because we are
looking at some offsets. I think everybody feels strongly that
this is an important thing to address. And we would like to
move forward, and yet we are--we have some constraints now.
Dr. Stanley. I agree.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. I will just add onto what Mr. Wilson and the
chairman said. I mean, we are hearing from military families
who had people die overseas, and it is impacting on young
parents with young children, and it is a program that they have
paid at least part of the premium on. They all recognize they
haven't paid all of it, so I think that is why it has got our
attention so much of late.
I appreciate you all being here. I have known most of you,
I guess, for some time now, and for the last 8\1/2\ years you
have been in a military that has been at war. You all's careers
will end still being serving a nation at war. And that is
really unprecedented in our history, and we appreciate your
service and of all the folks that work for you.
I wanted to ask--as you know, our--one of our subcommittees
has been looking at the professional military education [PME]
issues.
Secretary Stanley, if you were trying to judge which of the
services are doing the most efficient job of providing
professional military education, do you have the ability--do
you have numbers that you could look and say, ``General Newton,
General Zilmer, Admiral Ferguson, General Bostick, I have got
your numbers here, it is costing you this much for a 10-month
course, or this much for a 12-month course for an individual,''
or, ``The master's degree program that you are offering at an
in-residence military PME school is this much, and it is''--I
mean, do you have the ability to actually compare apples to
apples to apples to apples, or are those numbers non-existent?
Dr. Stanley. Dr. Snyder, I am smiling because I don't have
those numbers right now. Those numbers may be resident in the
staff. But I know enough about the different branches of the
service to know that we are sort of comparing some apples and
oranges when it comes to mission, how we approach the mission,
and doing it.
So it is not one of those--even if I had the numbers, I
know from my experience that I would have to do some
extrapolation in terms of how I would interpret those numbers,
and I would obviously ask the services to maybe comment on
that.
I hope you understand what I am trying to----
Dr. Snyder. No, I understand what you are saying, and I
understand that it is different learning to fly a C-130 than it
is learning to----
Dr. Stanley. Yes.
Dr. Snyder [continuing]. Do an infantry operation in the--
in the Marine Corps. On the other hand, we have been visiting
these schools. A classroom is a classroom. A study group is a
study group. A book is a book.
And yet we don't seem to be able to get the numbers to
compare--that is what I am talking about comparing, not
comparing what are clearly dramatically----
Dr. Stanley. I understand.
Dr. Snyder [continuing]. Different activities, and those
numbers might be helpful to have----
Dr. Stanley. I agree.
Dr. Snyder [continuing]. In terms of helping the services
understand whether some of their sister services are being more
efficient or less efficient.
For the uniformed personnel, one of the issues that we have
spent a lot of time talking about in our study--and we are
actually about to release the report here in the next two or
three weeks, I hope--is the issue of personnel policies and how
that impacts on PME.
And so if you all would discuss given that we are a nation
at war, how do your personnel policies impact on your
professional military education? How do you select the people
to go into a--an in-residence PME course, based on where they
are at in their career and what job comes off--comes after, and
how good a job do you think you are doing at meeting the
combatant commander's request for the level of education that
they want for the folks they are getting?
I mean that to be more general than maybe it sounds, but
the issue is we have heard some complaints from both students
going in that it didn't hit it right in their career, from the
folks on the receiving end that maybe they didn't have the
educational level that they would have liked to have had when
they got to their billet.
General Newton, want to start with you?
General Newton. Yes, sir. For the longest of time have
selected generally to go to intermediate development education
about the top 25 percent, roughly, of our field grade officers
at the major level to attend those schools, also giving them
the opportunity--a number to--when they graduate from an in-
residence--mention Air Command and Staff College--to go on to
the School of Applied Aerospace Studies course, the SAAS
course, which we found to be very beneficial not only to the
individual in their--developing their own potential, but also
their ability to go out and serve, as you mentioned, the
combatant commanders in a very--at the operational art level
and above.
And so we have begun over the past 12 months, however, to
be more diligent in tracking those individuals, for instance,
at the SAAS course, who receive those degrees to follow them
not only on their post assignment from the School of Applied
Aerospace Studies but throughout a career now.
That said, to go to those who have--they graduate and they
get from intermediate development education [IDE] to those who
do senior development education--we closely track them as well.
And as you go from the intermediate school--then you go out
to a staff assignment or to a command, and then you have an
opportunity, by and large--the IDE graduates then have the
opportunity to go to the senior development education program.
Those are about our top 15 percent. And those we clearly
earmark for command at the colonel level and beyond.
From our view, in terms of how we develop our future
leaders, we look to those who have attended an in-residence
program either through the Air Force or the other service in-
resident programs starting at the major, and then we track
them.
And we generally like to have our senior leaders to have
both an intermediate development education opportunity as well
as a senior development education opportunity.
All that said, there is a small window of time, as I am
sure you have earmarked, in terms of giving our men and women
and officers an opportunity to serve not only in those schools
but also then perhaps if they wanted to do follow-on
scholastic--or scholastic opportunities, say, at a Harvard or
to get an MBA at an MIT and so forth.
And so we are wrestling with how to fit all those in,
because we greatly value that education development
opportunity.
Mrs. Davis. Go ahead. That is fine. Anybody else want to--
--
General Bostick. One of the challenges and one of the focus
areas for the Army and, the Chief, and the Secretary is to
restore balance in the force. And when we talk about balance,
we have been very focused, rightly so, on the fight.
In restoring balance, we need to bring the force back to a
deployment of one year and redeployment at home station for two
years. We would like that to be three years for the active
force, but our near-term goal is two years. We think we can do
that in 2011.
For the reserve component, back home for four years as the
near-term goal, long-term five years. Without that, we are
having a tough time on the professional military education.
And the Chief, as one of his objectives, has gone out to
TRADOC [Training and Doctrine Command] and General Dempsey and
asked him to look at leader development and to look at
professional military education and see, within the Army Force
Generation model that we have to deploy forces, when can we
bring soldiers and leaders into the schools that they need to
participate in.
But this is one of the major areas that we are looking at.
To answer your question, Senior Service College for the
military, for the Army, is a centrally selected board that
determines that, for our intermediate level education, all of
our captains and majors go through there.
But we are looking at all of that to make sure we are doing
the right thing and growing the right leaders for the future
assignments that they will have.
Admiral Ferguson. I would offer that within the Navy
unrestricted line communities, which are aviation, submarine,
and surface, is that there is a balance between the demands of
fleet operational requirements as well as the numbers of
individual augmentees and staff officers who we are providing
forward in the fight today, combined with JPME [Joint
Professional Military Education].
Probably the most limiting case would be our nuclear-
trained aviators, who spend 15 to 18 years flying in the
cockpit, and then we transition them through the entire nuclear
power pipeline, and then grow them to be our aircraft carrier
COs [Commanding Officers].
There is a restriction on time that is available for those
officers, and so we have to manage it very carefully, and we
generally require that any officer prior to going to command in
those communities has to complete JPME I, and then under the
current policy that in order to be selected for flag they will
have to complete an in-residence JPME II.
And we manage it within the time constraints, and what ends
up happening, by community, there are greater opportunities in
some, and lesser in others, but balanced with the war fighting
and the education that we can do.
General Zilmer. Congressman Snyder, to the first point, I
think, again, the metrics that we need to compare about the
efficiencies is something that we would be happy to look into
and try to find some perspective there that is helpful.
There are a number of factors--whether it is career level,
intermediate level or top level school throughout a--an
officer's career, we look at the timing, and there are a
variety of issues, in order to make sure that we get the
officer at the right time to prepare he or she for the future
challenges they are going to see in their next expected rank or
position they are going to.
The opportunity to go to school is--we can't get everybody
into a resident school, although we would like to. But the
importance of the education itself--sometimes it is difficult
to pull a warrior out of an expectation that he or she will be
forward deployed to the--to the theater of operations and then
bring them into a school environment.
But it is so important that what we accomplish in that
year, if that is the time in the school, that we prepare them
for those future challenges that they are going to see.
We perhaps have less control over that as we get to the
more senior ranks, the senior Majors, the Lieutenant Colonels,
who are now trying to fight those other requirements to also
perform a joint tour, also to perform a command opportunity, so
our window gets more difficult, so the timing, perhaps, in some
cases would appear not to be optimum in some individual cases.
But the education itself and what we are doing to prepare
our warriors for the future--arguably, there is not much more--
that is more important than that.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Snyder. I know that that has been a concern
and part of the working group in looking at oversight and
investigations, and I think it is rare to have this kind of
concentration on the education of our services and the
professional military education, so I am really glad that he
has taken that on. It has been a challenge, I know.
I wanted to turn--there are always a few issues that are of
concern. One is the role of the women in the military. And we
are seeing that change. Women recently have been called on to
serve on select types of submarines, and we are working through
some of those issues.
We know that there is going to be a different role for
women perhaps even in Afghanistan. A group has been training in
Pendleton. I am wondering what kinds of changes you are
generally seeing.
Secretary Stanley, if you could respond, and also personnel
chiefs, whether you anticipate any changes concerning the role
of women in the military that is being proposed by your
respective services.
Dr. Stanley. Well, I will speak generally, Chairwoman
Davis, and then ask the services to be more specific.
I have watched over the years as the role of women has
expanded, and I am encouraged by it. I know Congress already
has a combat exclusionary law in place, so there are things
that women are not allowed to do by law right now.
But having said that, warfare is changing. What used to be
a forward edge of the battle area and things like that is not
the same anymore. So that evolving right there will tell you
that there is going to be some big changes.
But there has also been, I would say, some growth in our
services with regard to the role of women and where they are,
because ultimately, you know, I can foresee women being at the
top of our services, and I will say that very openly in the
sense that they are fully engaged. They are a part of our armed
forces. And I think that is very important for our total force
and our all-volunteer force.
And I will let the services talk.
General Bostick. I was a cadet at West Point when women
were first allowed to come to the academy, and I have stood in
great amazement as we have seen--amazement and pride and joy to
see women come through the academy and then the recruits that
we brought in, the females, and to see that they are serving in
positions of great responsibility, from private to General
Dunwoody, a four-star general.
I think it is a great tribute to the services and to women
and to our men who support them in their roles. They are doing
a terrific job. And our Chief and our Secretary have directed
that we take a look at women in the military and their
positions and what could be opened up.
We are looking at our three-year cyclic review. That is
going to start in April. And we think that would take anywhere
from 90 to 120 days. And we will come back to the Secretary and
the Chief with recommendations on what could change.
But I would fully expect that their positions that they are
serving in now that are closely related to other positions that
they are not allowed to serve in but could serve admirably in,
and we look forward to----
Mrs. Davis. Could you share, how do you get that
information? Do you go to individuals? Are there focus groups,
surveying? How do you bring in the services, the men and women,
to really assess that issue?
General Bostick. The way I can tell you, I did a manning
review for the Chief, and I went all across the Army and in
some of our deployed locations and talked to our senior
commanders, and they would like to see in some positions--they
feel clearly that there are positions that women could serve in
that are not--they are not able to now.
So one is talking to the commanders. The other is we have
to go out to our Training and Doctrine Command, General
Dempsey, and he will work with all of the different branch
proponents, whether it is engineers, MP [Military Police],
military intelligence.
And they will take a hard look at the positions that are
opened or closed and make recommendations based on what we are
seeing operationally now, because there is no front line, as
you know, and we have women serving admirably all across the
battlefield.
So they will look at that, make a recommendation and it
will come back to the chief and the secretary.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Anybody else want to add to that?
Admiral Ferguson.
Admiral Ferguson. Certainly. We think what we see in the
demography of the nation and what is happening with women
earning 57 percent of the college degrees, nearly half the
advanced degrees, and in our own application process at ROTC
[Reserve Officers' Training Corps] and at the Naval Academy,
applicants that are women are extraordinarily well qualified,
committed to serve. It is 28 percent of the entering ROTC class
this year, 20 percent at Annapolis.
We see that it is a talent pool that we cannot ignore in
the future to serve the nation. You know, we have made the
announcement and notification pending the time for women in
submarines on our SSBNs and SSGNs in the officer force.
We announced this year that the first woman admiral will
command a carrier strike group. Admiral Nora Tyson will take
command this summer. And we see, as the other services, that
women are rising to the challenge to serve with great ability
and great performance.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Zilmer.
General Zilmer. Madam Chairwoman, while we remain in
compliance with the law, if we look back over the recent years
and the roles that women have increasingly played in our
forces, and we look at the decorations that our women are
wearing in combat--Bronze Stars, combat action ribbons, Purple
Hearts--we have had women killed in combat.
So clearly, the face of war has changed. The role of women
in those war zones has to change by definition. So there is
great promise to what our women are going to do today and in
the future, and we are willing to be part of any efforts to
look at that further. Thank you.
General Newton. Madam Chairwoman, I would echo that. We,
too, have women who have earned the Purple Heart and been
killed in action as well. As we look at the opportunities for a
long period of time, opportunities have opened up and remain
very wide for women serving in a variety of capacities.
I, too, went to the Air Force Academy when women were--
first had the opportunity to go there, and just a few months
ago we promoted our first woman Lieutenant General from the
Class of 1980, Lieutenant General Janet Wolfenbarger.
And you talk about assessment. I lead the officer
development panel for our Chief, and we have--in fact, General
Wolfenbarger sits on that panel to help us assess not only from
her core acquisition logistics background but also to give us
the broad perspective that we need. It is very helpful.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
And, Secretary Stanley, you have got so many interesting
issues on your plate as you come into your position. An issue
that has always been of interest to me--it is so uplifting as I
see guard members, reservists, active duty serving together.
Particularly in theater, you cannot tell--I cannot tell who is
what.
But there is a difference on--in their retirement benefits.
For guard and reserve, it begins at age 60. We did have a
little chink which provided that persons who serve 90-day
increments after January the 28th, 2008 that those 90 days
could be subtracted from age 60, so that is a start.
And I have got legislation that would make it retroactive
to 9/11, and I have previously introduced much more extensive a
flat 55, a provision for 55 to be earned one year for every two
years over 20. I have tried everything I can, Mr. Secretary.
So that is why just this modest little change--can you
comment what your view is about that?
Dr. Stanley. Yes, Mr. Wilson. First of all, our all-
volunteer force, of which the reserve and guard are part of--
and this war brings it home probably better than any other
time. And then we look at equity and pay and the seriousness
that goes into the deliberations regarding that pay equity.
That is very significant.
The Quadrennial Review is literally starting almost as we
speak, within the next day or so. This is a very top-line,
front--it is a priority. It is an issue that we are looking at,
because this issue is going to require study, not a delayed
study, not something that is saying we are going to kick the
can down the road.
But this is not a new issue. This is an issue that has been
around for quite some time. And we are going to address it. We
are going to work with Congress. I don't know what the answer
is right now. But the issue of pay and equity is one that we
take very seriously and one that we are going to wrestle with.
And this is one of, as you have already alluded to, many on
the plate, but a very significant issue in an all-volunteer
force.
Mr. Wilson. And I appreciate you looking into it, because
guard and reserve members are very proud to be serving and it
just--but that would be very helpful.
Additionally, I believe the department is, Secretary,
committed to providing world-class health care to our returning
wounded while adopting the new world-class facility standards
incorporated in the fiscal year 2010 National Defense
Authorization Act.
Will the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
at Bethesda meet the world-class standards when it opens
September 2011?
Dr. Stanley. Mr. Wilson, I have--since I have been on board
in my month, I have actually been trying to add some
granularity to the word ``world class.'' I know it is going to
be a good facility. I know the commitment is there for it to be
a solid, you know, facility.
But I have actually--that has been an issue I have been
wrestling with, of finding the definition for ``world class.''
I don't know what that answer is right now as I sit here, but I
know that the commitment, the resources, the intent of the
department is for it to be, as I have read, world class. I am
just personally trying to define that, that understanding.
Mr. Wilson. Well, I have faith in you, and I do believe
that military medicine is world class. And I know what it means
to service members, so thank you so much.
And I yield the balance of my time.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
And since Mr. Wilson mentioned guard and reserve and pay
equity issues, I wonder if we could just for a second focus on
the raises or basically the pay grades of 0.5 percent above the
employment cost index which we have been working at for the
last 11 years to try and, you know, bring the private and the
military together.
And this year I know we are not hearing a recommendation
that we bump that up a half a percentage point, and I wonder if
you could--could speak to that, whether you think this is a
good time to discontinue that practice, and how you think,
essentially, that is going to impact the services.
Dr. Stanley. Well, I would be interested--since I have not
talked to the service Chiefs about the impact on the services,
I--when I joined the staff, the recommendations were already
there. I believe I understand them and understand that what has
been recommended by the President will be, in fact, equitable
and very supportive of our committed troops as they serve.
I have still a lot to learn about what that impact really
is, so I am not answering the question as much as it is
understanding that this whole issue of pay and equity is a very
serious issue.
Personal opinion, you can't pay people enough. But I am now
trying to balance that with all of the things that deal with
what we pay, because we are wrestling with how much we can pay.
That becomes part of--one of the challenges that we have right
now.
But I am going to allow or ask the services maybe to weigh
in.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. I mean, you can--you can approach it
either way. I mean, what impact will it have to increase it by
that percentage? Because that obviously has an impact on other
services, health care, et cetera.
I think that there is always a push to do that, and because
we are looking to do very much what you say--I mean, we agree
that we want to make certain that it is fair and that the
issues that you face over recruitment and retention are not
necessarily based on questions of pay alone but other benefits
that people have to, you know, look at as they look at their
futures.
Would any of you like to comment on that? I mean, because
it may be that we are looking to try and do that this year, or
that is the recommendation.
But I think the Congress is--I can assure there is probably
going to be some pushback from the Congress on it. We would
like to know what you think.
General Bostick, do you have----
General Bostick. Well, just in terms of the impact, if we
were to raise it another half a percent, it would be about $200
million for the Army in fiscal year 2011 and about $1.3 billion
over the POM [personnel operation and maintenance] 2012 to
2017.
We would first like to thank the Congress and the nation
for closing the gap in relation to civilian pay. When you look
at from 1999 until now, we have gone from about a 13 percent
gap down to 2.5 percent.
And the way we are looking at it, like Dr. Stanley said, I
think no one would turn down a--an increase in pay, but
understanding the fiscal realities, when you look at how we
have closed the gap, where we stand today, and you consider the
benefits that we provide in housing and in commissary and PX
[Post Exchange] privileges and wrap that all together, we
actually think we have a surplus when looking at our pay for
our soldiers in comparison to the civilians.
Where we would like to focus and keep a lot of energy and
resources focused on is in the quality-of-life programs, and we
have received a lot of help there as well.
And if you talk to our soldiers and families, the things
that are making a difference when they come back from
deployment are the quality housing, the quality health care,
the access to that health care, education, the schools,
counselors. Those sorts of things are very important,
especially at this time, for our military.
Admiral Ferguson. I would agree that in our surveys of our
service members and their families, they are very satisfied
with their levels of compensation compared to the broader
economy at the present time, and that the bill for Navy of the
0.5 percent increase would be about 71 to 72 million dollars
and then, you know, that is just in fiscal year 2011.
I agree with General Bostick that the quality-of-life
programs, child care, health care, access to it, education,
continue to rank at the very top of the concerns that we hear
from our service members for their desire to stay with us for a
career.
General Zilmer. Likewise, I believe the indications in our
first term reenlistments and our subsequent term reenlistments
would suggest that our service members and families are very
happy with the pay and compensation.
While we haven't advocated for that 0.5 increase above the
ECI [Employment Cost Index], just the same we thank you for
your interest to ensure that the compensation is appropriate
for the great work that they do for us and our nation.
General Newton. From the Air Force standpoint, I believe
the 0.55 would equate to approximately $90 million for fiscal
year 2011. But again, I go back--I think echo all the service
personnel chiefs here--is our men and women feel that they are
adequately paid and compensated for, but at the same time, the
people account does continue to rise with regard to follow-on
costs with regard to TRICARE and so forth.
And so what we have focused on in the Year of the Air Force
Family is not only the member in uniform but their family
members as well. That is where you get a lot of the opportunity
to--you know, you recruit the member, you retain the family.
And it has really enabled us to focus on our families who
we find that are--that are under a lot of stress as well as the
members serving, particularly in high operations tempo
environments. So I would ask that--it is a holistic approach
that we need to focus on as well.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
You mentioned families, and we did meet with the Military
Family Association earlier this week, and one of the issues
that they raised is the extent to which you assess family
readiness, not just the service member. And I am wondering
whether you have been thinking about that within your services,
and is there a way to do that, especially for those in pre- and
post-deployment.
The Military Family Association was suggesting that they
could help the services more by actually, you know, being asked
and being helped, I think, as they are preparing and certainly
when--in the post-deployment as well, that they are--what we
know from some of the studies that are being done with young
people is the extent and the health of--the mental health,
really, of the non-deployed parent and how important that is.
Are there some ways that you would really like to try and
get at those issues in a way that haven't--hasn't been done
before?
General Newton. If I may, I will----
Mrs. Davis. General Newton.
General Newton [continuing]. I will start off. We conducted
our--really, it was groundbreaking--our first active duty
spouse survey back in 2009. We had RAND go out and do a very
thorough review and study. We are going to also do a--we are
going to continue that.
We have our second annual Caring for People forum that is
going to be occurring here in April. We are actually doing a
Caring for People study to understand the challenges that our
family members have not only from our spouses' standpoint, not
only those on active duty but guard and reserve as well, as
well as youth.
And so as we carry forward--and, really, this is what this
Year of the Air Force Family has helped us do, is to focus on
not only those broad things we do, but where can we close some
of those small gaps that have a big impact on individual family
members.
The second point I would raise is that this focus has
created this sense of community in the Air Force that is so
very important, particularly in the high operations tempo
environment that we find our men and women serving in. Again,
it is not just in active duty. There is guard and reserve as
well.
And so the last point I would make, and the point of your
question, really, is it is very important that we do the deep
data dives and that we continue to analyze and survey our men
and women who are serving and find out where are those things
that we can close with regard to school liaisons at our base
installations, Exceptional Family Member programs.
We are going to hold the--we had been dormant for a while.
There is going to be a youth rally that we are going to have.
We are going to take--from 81 of our installations the Youth of
the Year at those installations are coming to Washington, D.C.
We are going to put on--they don't know this yet, but on
the second day of the conference in June, we are going to ask
them how they can help their fellow youth out there in the
United States Air Force to be more resilient. What are the
stresses they are facing and then how can we go ahead and help
solve those for them?
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Zilmer. Thank you. While we have been amazed by the
resilience of the service members themselves, we have been even
more amazed by the resilience of the families throughout this--
throughout these last eight years.
And many of our children, service members' children, the
spouses, have gone three, four, five, six times with their
spouse deployed. That is not done without an impact left at
home.
So to the degree that we are looking at a number of new
initiatives in terms of counselors at our community services,
counselors in the schools where military children are going,
attending those schools, programs that in the past have just
focused on spouses now allowing children to come in and talk
about the deployment stress is certainly recognition that it is
something that we have got to put more effort and more
understanding into.
The commandant--one of his initiatives when he came--became
commandant was we need to get our--all of our family services
on a wartime footing, and invest the effort, invest the
resources, which we have done.
So we certainly do not take it for granted. So to the
degree that we have surveys that provide--inform what we are
doing, we are absolutely committed to doing that, to make sure
that our families remain as strong and resilient as they have
throughout this last eight years.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Admiral Ferguson. We also survey spouses. We did that in
2009. And for some period of time we have been using a report
for senior leadership, the three- and four-star level headed by
the vice chief of naval operations, what we call the Tone of
the Force Report.
And we look at family readiness indicators, but they are
not the standard readiness. I mean, are we seeing things such
as use of payday loans, bounced checks, use of financial
counseling services, domestic abuse or reporting incidents,
spousal abuse--those types of parameters.
And we have about 30 of them that we look at to see when we
start to see stress levels appear in certain areas, what is the
child care waiting list at various bases and facilities, and
what we find is the use of those types of metrics elevated to
very senior levels allows you to quickly put resources and to
focus leadership attention to address those issues before they
get severe.
And I think that type of approach we would be welcome to
work with the military families group and discuss that with
them.
Mrs. Davis. All right, thank you.
General Bostick. When we look at the Army team, its
soldiers' families and civilians and their families, and while
some of the initial parts of our programs will focus on
soldiers, the intent is really, in all applicable areas, to
extend that to our civilians and to all of our family members.
As we look at the stress on the force, we have talked about
suicides. We have talked about substance abuse and the need for
counselors, and a lot of that is on the reaction end, and where
a lot of our focus is today is on the preventive side, to look
at the strength of our soldiers and families to assess that,
physically, emotionally, socially, spiritually, and with their
family.
We start that off with a global assessment tool. You go
online. We have had about 390,000 soldiers take it and 1,800
families, so while it has taken off with the soldiers, the
families have worked in parallel. They are able to assess their
psychological fitness.
And we have risen the psychological fitness of a soldier
and a family and a civilian to the same level as physical
fitness, and--which has always been strong for the Army, so we
are heavily engaged with our families. They are an important
part of our team, as are our civilians.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, because
I think, you know, there is obviously a lot more focus on these
issues today, and I think that the committee obviously is very
concerned, but we hear from so many people out in our districts
as well.
And while there are just the most incredible resilience
that is being demonstrated out there, the reality is that we
have put unbelievable stress on our families, and I think that
we need to do everything that we can.
And we certainly hope that you will work with us as well to
be certain that we are putting the appropriate resources into
that, because it is worth it. Our families are worth it, and we
need to continue to do that.
Mr. Wilson, did you have any other questions? Okay.
Thank you so much. We appreciate your all being here. And
if we have any additional questions, we will continue to follow
up. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 17, 2010
=======================================================================
?
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 17, 2010
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7335.073
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 17, 2010
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS
Mrs. Davis. The Navy has recently announced a proposal to authorize
women officers to serve on select types of submarines so you anticipate
other changes for women in the military?
Dr. Stanley. Yes, the Department anticipates future changes for
women in the military. The Department is considering a request from the
Department of the Navy to allow USMC enlisted and warrant officer women
to serve in two Counterintelligence/Human Source Intelligence
specialties previously closed to women. The Army is also conducting a
3-year cyclic review of their regulatory guidance for assignment of
women. If changes are necessary, the Department will discuss with the
Congress and comply with statutory notification requirements.
Mrs. Davis. The Department has submitted a supplemental request for
$33 billion dollars to fund the surge in Afghanistan, of that $1.9
million is for military personnel accounts. If the supplemental bill is
not passed what would the consequences be on the military personnel
accounts? In other words--what programs would have to be suspended?
Dr. Stanley. If the supplemental bill is not passed there would be
significant consequences on the military personnel accounts. Reduction
to our military personnel account request will give us no choice but to
reallocate funds.
Where exactly that degradation to readiness or essential support
might occur is difficult to predict. Under any circumstance, it is
essential we maintain the viability of the All Volunteer Force, while
prosecuting our Nation's wars.
Mrs. Davis. The Department has submitted a supplemental request for
$33 billion dollars to fund the surge in Afghanistan, of that $1.9
billion is for military personnel accounts. If the supplemental bill is
not passed what would the consequences be on the military personnel
accounts? In other words--what programs would have to be suspended?
General Bostick. The Army's manpower program, Active, Guard and
Reserve, is sized to meet the operational requirements in FY2010. Based
on those substantive operational requirements, the Army cannot reduce
its strength without putting mission accomplishment at risk. Therefore,
if the supplemental is not passed the Military Personnel Army, National
Guard Personnel Army and Reserve Personnel Army appropriations will
require emergency reprogramming from other appropriations to ensure
that the Army payroll can be met. In previous years Army programs such
as equipment purchases, Operational Tempo and depot maintenance have
taken significant reductions to make sure that Soldiers were paid.
These types of reprogramming actions severely hamper operational
commanders preparing their units for combat operations.
Mrs. Davis. The Department has submitted a supplemental request for
$33 billion dollars to fund the surge in Afghanistan, of that $1.9
billion is for military pesonnel accounts. If the supplemental bill is
not passed what would the consequences be on the military personnel
accounts? In other words--what programs would have to be suspended?
Admiral Ferguson. Of the $1.9B for DOD supplemental request for
military personnel, Navy's request is for $40.5 million. The Navy would
have to defer $40.5 million in Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
orders. Approximately 96% of the Military Personnel, Navy appropriation
is comprised of entitlements, either by law or by contract. The PCS
program represents most of the remaining 4% of the non entitlement
programs. Deferring PCS orders would have a negative impact on unit
readiness, morale and training. This delay would also have a fiscal
impact to Fiscal Year 2012.
Mrs. Davis. The Department has submitted a supplemental request for
$33 billion dollars to fund the surge in Afghanistan, of that $1.9
billion is for military personnel accounts. If the supplemental bill is
not passed, what would the consequences be on the military personnel
accounts? In other words--what programs would have to be suspended?
General Zilmer. Approximately two-thirds of the supplemental
request is comprised of special pays and allowances governed by federal
statute, to include: Basic Allowance for Housing, Hazardous Duty Pay,
Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay, Family Separation Allowance, and
Death Gratuities. As a result, since the Marine Corps would not
withhold or curtail such deployment-related pay and allowances, we
would be required to find a funding source from other critical programs
(to include procurement and operations and maintenance programs) and
request Congressional approval to reprogram funds to pay Marines and
their families for such entitlements.
Mrs. Davis. The Department has submitted a supplemental request for
$33 billion dollars to fund the surge in Afghanistan, of that $1.9
billion is for military personnel accounts. If the supplemental bill is
not passed what would the consequences be on the military personnel
accounts? In other words--what programs would have to be suspended?
General Newton. The Air Force MILPERS supplemental request was
$96.8M (Active--$94M; Reserve $1.3M; Guard $1.5M). The Air Force's #1
priority is to support the war effort. If the supplemental bill is not
passed, the Air Force must fund the requirements included in the
supplemental from our baseline MILPERS account. To source the
requirements the Air Force would take the following actions:
a) Curtail military permanent change of station (PCS) moves from
Jun to Sep. Cancels approximately 25,000 moves and negatively affects
readiness throughout the Air Force and the ability to support emerging
mission requirements such as cyber and nuclear. This action could
result in freezes to assignments for mission ready personnel worldwide;
cancels initial skills and professional military education (PME),
graduate, and joint staff officer development; moves associated with
normal gains and losses; and creates a long-term financial and force
turmoil bow wave into FY11.
b) Curtail Critical Retention Bonuses Likely to lower retention in
critical career fields including: Para-rescue, crypto-linguist, combat
controller, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, aerial gunners, and air
traffic controllers. Negatively impacts readiness in key units
supporting OEF/OIF missions.
c) Transfer funds from investment accounts. This action delays
capability delivery by stretching programs, increases program costs,
and pushes bow wave of weapons system procurement bills into the
outyears.
The Air Force urges support for the Department's FY10 supplemental
request.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
