[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-9]
THE IMPACT OF THE CURRENT BUDGET-CONSTRAINED ENVIRONMENT ON
MILITARY END STRENGTH
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 27, 2013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-951 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
Craig Greene, Professional Staff Member
Debra Wada, Professional Staff Member
James Weiss, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2013
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013, The Impact of the Current Budget-
Constrained Environment on Military End Strength............... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013..................................... 21
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013
THE IMPACT OF THE CURRENT BUDGET-CONSTRAINED ENVIRONMENT ON MILITARY
END STRENGTH
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel..................... 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1
WITNESSES
Bromberg, LTG Howard B., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, U.S.
Army........................................................... 4
Jones, Lt Gen Darrell D., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Manpower, Personnel and Services, U.S. Air Force............... 7
Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr., USMC, Deputy Commandant, Manpower
& Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps........................... 6
Van Buskirk, VADM Scott R., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations, Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education, U.S.
Navy........................................................... 5
Wright, Hon. Jessica L., Acting Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense............ 3
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Bromberg, LTG Howard B....................................... 48
Jones, Lt Gen Darrell D...................................... 80
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 27
Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr................................ 70
Van Buskirk, VADM Scott R.................................... 60
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 25
Wright, Hon. Jessica L....................................... 28
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Dr. Heck..................................................... 97
Mr. Wilson................................................... 97
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
THE IMPACT OF THE CURRENT BUDGET-CONSTRAINED ENVIRONMENT ON MILITARY
END STRENGTH
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 27, 2013.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, the hearing will come to
order. The subcommittee today will focus on the harsh realities
of maintaining an All-Volunteer Force in a budget-constrained
environment, reducing end strength of the military services.
Although I understand the fiscal realities, as I have made
clear in the past, I have serious reservations about the end
strength and force structure reduction plans for our military.
America remains at war today and will continue at some level of
persistent conflict globally with a ruthless and committed
enemy for the foreseeable future, encouraged by outlaw rogue
regimes. We must not forget the attacks of September the 11th,
2001.
Nevertheless, the task of reducing manpower is not easily
accomplished, and must be done with great care and compassion
to ensure the services keep faith with the service members and
their families who have served our Nation through more than 10
years of war. The committee will hear from the witnesses on
which authorities the Department of Defense [DOD] and each of
the services plan to use to reduce end strength over the next
several years.
We will also explore the impact of a yearlong continuing
resolution and sequestration on the services' current end
strength plans. As a reminder, the military personnel accounts
are exempt in fiscal year 2013 from cuts under sequestration.
But that does not guarantee there will not be a long-term
impact on end strength levels. Of significant concern to me is
that increasing fiscal pressure on the military services,
especially the Army and Marine Corps, will compel them to move
from gradual reductions in manning levels to precipitous
declines. I am also concerned that if the military services are
compelled to make more significant reductions than now planned,
that the use of involuntary separation authorities will become
the norm.
I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses. The
Honorable Jessica L. Wright, Acting Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness; Lieutenant General Howard B.
Bromberg, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, United States Department
of the Army; Vice Admiral Scott R. Van Buskirk, Deputy Chief of
Naval Operations, Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education,
U.S. Department of the Navy; Lieutenant General Robert E.
Milstead, Jr., Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs,
United States Marine Corps; Lieutenant General Darrell D.
Jones, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and
Services, U.S. Department of the Air Force.
I would also like to recognize that today is the first
appearance before the subcommittee for Lieutenant General
Bromberg and Secretary Wright. Welcome to both of you.
Ms. Davis is our ranking member, Congresswoman Susan Davis
of California.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 25.]
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for holding this hearing for the impact of the Budget
Control Act and the impact that it is having on the force
structure and end service strength of the services. And then
what sequestration and the uncertainty surrounding the
remaining fiscal year 2013 may also have on our budget and your
operations. I also want to thank all of the--most of the
witnesses for the opportunity to spend some time with you in
the last few days.
The Budget Control Act [BCA] has already made the services,
particularly the Army and the Marine Corps, take a hard look at
their ability to sustain the current force. And while their
decision to reduce end strength was based on the reduction in
operational requirements, it was also a result of the reduction
in funding imposed by the BCA. What concerns me is the
additional reductions that are expected if and when
sequestration sets in on March 1st. These significant
reductions will be compounded when the continuing resolution
under which our government, including the Department of
Defense, are operating under. And that, as we all know, ends on
March 27th.
The full committee has held a number of hearings on the
impacts of sequestration and the continuing resolution, but
none of these hearings have focused on potential solutions to
this dilemma. So while I appreciate having this hearing to
learn more of what sequestration and the potential impact of a
full year CR [continuing resolution] could have on the
Department, the only people, quite honestly, who can resolve
this issue are the Members of Congress.
We must find common ground and be willing to compromise for
the future benefit of our country. Political posturing should
not come at the expense of our brave men and women in uniform
and their families. I look forward to hearing all of you and
working with my colleagues on this committee and in the House
to develop a rational, a commonsense approach to resolving
these challenges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to our hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 27.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
Secretary Wright, we will begin with your testimony. As a
reminder, please keep your statements to 3 minutes. We have
your written statements for the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. JESSICA L. WRIGHT, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ms. Wright. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ranking Member Davis,
thank you very much. Distinguished members of the committee. It
is a pleasure to discuss the effects of sequestration as
mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, and the ongoing
continuing resolution for fiscal year 2013, on the Department
of Defense and military personnel readiness of our total force.
Sequestration, which is scheduled to go in effect in 2 days,
would result in $46 billion funding reductions across the
Department, a reduction of 9 percent of the total budget for
2013. This is the steepest decline of obligating authority in
history. And an ongoing continuing resolution would compound
that fiscal devastation.
On February 13th, Deputy Secretary Carter and Chairman
Dempsey, all four service chiefs and the National Guard Bureau
chief appeared before the full House Armed Services Committee.
They testified on the significant impacts both on sequestration
and the continuing resolution would have on our national
readiness. Whether it is a canceled deployment of an aircraft
carrier or reduced training of Army troops to maintain
proficiency or the degradation of our Reserve Components, the
results of the impact on readiness in our armed forces will be
disastrous.
Managing readiness after a decade of war was bound to be a
challenge, irrespective of our fiscal considerations. Now the
services are beginning the difficult process of resetting and
restoring our forces' ability to conduct a full range of
military operations as required by the current defense
strategy. I believe there is a very real possibility that the
readiness and effects of sequestration or an operation under a
continuing resolution would be devastating. These effects are
likely to reduce readiness directly through the reduction of
operation and training and indirectly through the effects of
personnel and equipment. Some of those indirect effects are
especially those that impact personnel pipelines, and it will
take years to realize what they are and even longer to
mitigate.
Moving forward, I do want to thank you for the legislative
authorities that the Congress gave us in NDAA 2013 [National
Defense Authorization Act], which allows us greater flexibility
to manage our force structure and to ensure the least impact to
our service members and our readiness.
Chairman Dempsey argued that we need flexibility to
allocate our resources to our highest priorities. And when we
are not allowed by legislation to touch individual pieces of
our budget, readiness accounts inevitably, we pay the price.
This is especially true in the terms of our military end
strength. If sequestration is allowed to go forward with
ongoing continuing resolution, the collateral damage will be
seen in three major areas: Force readiness; impacts on force
level, capabilities and morale; and impact on support programs.
However, the President made it clear that we will exclude
military personnel accounts. And Secretary of Defense has given
guidance that the Department will protect to the greatest
extent possible caring for our wounded warriors, providing
quality medical care, and, in addition, the Department is
committed to such efforts as sexual assault prevention and
response, suicide prevention, service member transition. Our
warfighters, their families, our Nation's security should not
and could not be put at risk by this fiscal policy such as
sequestration.
Sir, and ma'am, thank you so much for the opportunity to
speak with you today. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wright can be found in the
Appendix on page 28.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Wright.
And Lieutenant General Bromberg.
STATEMENT OF LTG HOWARD B. BROMBERG, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF, G1, U.S. ARMY
General Bromberg. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis,
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you on behalf of today's Army.
Throughout our history, United States Army has never failed to
respond to a threat to our Nation. Today, the greatest threat
to our military readiness is the current dire fiscal
uncertainty. The combined effects of yearlong continuing
resolution and sequestration, along with the need to protect
wartime operations, may result in particular severe reductions
in funding to programs directly relating to the readiness of
our force and the well-being of our soldiers and families. If
not addressed, the current fiscal uncertainty will
significantly and rapidly degrade Army readiness for the next 5
to 10 years, putting national security at risk. The continuing
resolution and funding to the Military Personnel Army, or MPA
appropriation, is in excess of requirements. And the President
has exempted it from sequestration.
So military pay, pay raises, housing allowances,
subsistence, and other pays are adequately funded. However, it
will become necessary to move funds from the MPA account to
cover additional funding shortfalls for critical programs. It
is imperative that we preserve the readiness of our force. We
simply cannot send soldiers into harm's way who are not
trained, equipped, or ready for contingencies. Cancellations in
training or reduction in support network required to feed,
clothe, and maintain the health of initial entry soldiers would
create a backlog within the personnel inventory that will exist
well past fiscal year 2014.
This backlog would impact the Army's ability to maintain
grade structure and future readiness. Loss of training is not
recoverable and will have a negative impact for near-term
readiness. Subsequently, a loss in confidence in the Army's
ability to train, equip, and care for soldiers would damage
recruiting and retention for many years to come. Under the
Budget Control Act of 2011, the Army will have to cut $170
billion over 10 years and will reduce our Active Duty end
strength from 570,000 to 490,000. The National Guard will be
reduced from 358,000 to 350,000. And the Army Reserve will be
reduced from 206,000 to 205,000. This would accumulate to a net
loss with our civilian reductions from 272,000 to 255,000 to
about 106,000 soldier and civilian positions.
If sequestration occurs in 2013 and discretionary caps are
reduced from 2014 to 2021, the Army may be forced to reduce an
additional 100,000 personnel across the Active Army, National
Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve in order to maintain a balance
between end strength, readiness, and modernization. The
Military Personnel Account may be exempt, but the second and
third order effects are detrimental and will have direct impact
on our future readiness.
While we must transform to a smaller Army, it is imperative
we do so in a planned, strategic manner, without sacrificing
programs that impact readiness and support for our people.
Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and members of
subcommittee, I look forward to your questions and thank you
for your the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of General Bromberg can be found in
the Appendix on page 48.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, General. And we have Vice
Admiral Van Buskirk.
STATEMENT OF VADM SCOTT R. VAN BUSKIRK, USN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS, MANPOWER, PERSONNEL, TRAINING, AND EDUCATION,
U.S. NAVY
Admiral Van Buskirk. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson,
Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the
committee. Thank you for holding this hearing to discuss the
potential impacts of the current budget-constrained environment
on military end strength. We are operating in a time of
unprecedented uncertainty as we face the prospect of
sequestration and the ongoing continuing resolution. Though
military personnel accounts are exempt from sequester, impacts
to sailors and their families can already be felt as we curtail
deployments, make adjustments to training and maintenance.
These actions, while necessary, are disruptive and are a
source of increased anxiety for our Navy families. Compounding
these concerns is the potential for furlough of our Federal
civilian employees, who are the backbone of many of our vital
sailor and family support programs. While the Chief of Naval
Operations has committed to protecting these programs, in many
cases, the absence of the expertise and the corporate knowledge
of our civilians that they deliver will be sorely felt.
While we do not anticipate that a CR or sequester will
adversely impact near-term plans for achieving our end strength
target, mitigation actions already taken and others about ready
to be executed will significantly affect our ability to
attract, recruit, develop, assign, and balance our highly
skilled workforce beyond fiscal year 2013. Our force management
actions have us closing the gap as we work towards our fiscal
year 2013 Active end strength authorization of 322,700, and our
Reserve end strength of 62,500.
We do not anticipate the need to further reduce aggregate
end strength for either component this year. We are applying
various force management levers as we balance and distribute
the force and will, to the extent possible, apply voluntary
measures before resorting to involuntary measures. As we
stabilize the force, we will adjust future end strength to pay
anticipated force structure changes that may result from
actions taken to meet sequestration requirements.
We have already begun taking actions. We have reduced
advertising outreach and engagement opportunities, which are
fundamental to attracting and recruiting our future force.
Likewise, we are making tough budget decisions regarding
training, education, and travel that inhibit our ability to
deliver trained sailors for timely assignment, deployment, and
distribution. If authorized to transfer funds with the fiscal
year 2013 budget, we would apply funding for investments to
restore the most critical operation and maintenance
requirements.
We ask that Congress act quickly to enact the fiscal year
2013 defense appropriations bill, or, at a minimum, provide us
with the flexibility to reprogram funding between accounts to
best position us to meet requirements for the national defense
strategy.
I remain committed to working with Congress, particularly
with this subcommittee, to provide information on the effects
of the continuing resolution and sequestration. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Van Buskirk can be found
in the Appendix on page 60.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Vice Admiral.
And we have Lieutenant General Milstead.
STATEMENT OF LTGEN ROBERT E. MILSTEAD, JR., USMC, DEPUTY
COMMANDANT, MANPOWER & RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS
General Milstead. Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, Ranking
Member Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it
is my privilege to appear before you today.
As our Commandant recently testified to you, sequestration
will have a significant impact on our Nation's readiness,
especially in the long term. It creates risk to our national
strategy, our forces, our people, and our country, risks that
will be further inflamed by a yearlong CR. We will have to make
some tough decisions about which programs to maintain and which
to streamline, or which to cut. We will do everything we can to
maintain our highest priority programs that support our
Marines, especially our wounded warrior care. But even some of
these programs may be impacted if our civilian Marines are
furloughed. Over 90 percent of our civilian Marines work side
by side with our uniformed Marines in the operating forces, not
walking around the halls of the Pentagon.
Approximately 68 percent are veterans, and they are
security guards, our firefighters, teachers, therapists, and
transition support personnel. However, no matter the
implications, there are some things that must endure. We will
continue to be our Nation's expeditionary force in readiness.
We will be ready to rapidly respond to crisis around the globe
and to ensure continued security to the American people. We
will be always faithful to the trust which the American people
have vested in us, and we must keep faith with our Marines to
draw down in a measured and responsible manner. Your Marine
Corps will continue to give you the best capability that can be
squeezed from the precious resources you have allocated to us
for our national defense. Our individual Marines are the Corps'
most sacred resource, and they will always be so. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Milstead can be found in
the Appendix on page 70.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, General. And as a Member
of Congress who has had the privilege of representing Parris
Island, I know what quality personnel you have.
We now proceed to Lieutenant General Darrell D. Jones.
STATEMENT OF LT GEN DARRELL D. JONES, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND SERVICES, U.S. AIR FORCE
General Jones. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and
distinguished members of the committee. It is our honor to be
here before you and testify today and to represent the 690,000
total force airmen serving this great Nation around the globe.
The military, the men and women of our great service, and the
Air Force are dedicated and innovative and hard-working.
Without their selfless efforts, we could not succeed.
Unfortunately, today our budgetary standoff is sending the
wrong signal to our workforce. The sheer threat of
sequestration brings uncertainty and angst to the force and as
1 March fast approaches, their angst is reaching a fevered
pitch. Whether it is furloughing up to 180,000 dedicated
civilian airmen, reducing our flying hour program within
operational and training units, or cutting temporary duty
funding to attend mission readiness training and professional
development, the visible effects of sequestration will be
significant and widespread. Less measurable but visible will be
the chilling effect this measure has on the morale and
institutional confidence of those 690,000 airmen I spoke of
earlier.
We all recognize the significant fiscal challenges facing
our Nation and agree we must all contribute to the Nation's
solution. However, using arbitrary across-the-board cuts to
achieve our fiscal goals is shortsighted and will impact our
readiness levels in the near and the long terms. We urge you to
do all that is necessary to avert the arbitrary cuts of
sequestration and pass an appropriations measure. If
sequestration is inevitable, we ask you to grant us
reprogramming flexibility, relief from measures like the depot
50/50 rule and the acquisition 80/20 rule and other
restrictions that were enacted in a normal budgetary
environment but today limit our flexibility to mitigate the
significant impact of both sequestration and the yearlong
continuing resolution.
The Air Force has been in sustained combat operations for
22 years. I am deeply concerned about our people as they
struggle even more with the stress and uncertainty of a looming
sequestration and a continuing resolution.
Thank you for the opportunity to represent the Chief of
Staff of the United States Air Force and all airmen today. And
I look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Jones can be found in
the Appendix on page 80.]
Mr. Wilson. I want to thank each of you for your heartfelt
comments, and I know that we all appreciate your extraordinary
service.
We will be proceeding with 5 minutes of questions from each
person, and then I appreciate very much that Mr. Craig Greene
will be maintaining the time. And we shall follow the time as
we proceed.
Many of the drawdown authorities involve greater capability
to involuntarily separate and retire service members with
significant consequences on morale, as has been cited.
Secretary Wright, what measures, if any, is DOD taking to try
and maintain some parity across the services with respect to
which separation measures are being used? Do you see an
imbalance in these plans between the use of voluntary and
involuntary separations? If not, do you see any challenges with
fairness perceptions?
Ms. Wright. Sir, thank you very much for the question.
The Secretary and the Deputy Secretary across DOD have
indicated that they are striving for consistency across the
Department. We have reached out to the services from the OSD
[Office of the Secretary of Defense] level and have an
understanding that the first method that they need to use when
separating military members from the force is clearly in the
voluntary zone. We have reviewed all of their plans, and they
are consistent with that, to use a voluntary method to separate
the service members.
Mr. Wilson. I am very concerned, though, that what we will
see is involuntary separation. And so for each of our military
witnesses, and beginning, General Bromberg, with you, to the
right, on my side, and if your service is employing or forced
to employ involuntary reduction measures, what special efforts
do you intend to use to communicate with the force and mitigate
the morale problems that are inevitable. Certainly, military
families not just service members, but their families are so
concerned.
General Bromberg. Yes, sir. With respect to the Army, our
first plan is to use or reducing our accessions to try to limit
how many we bring in by year. And then let people naturally
attrit out of the service through retirement or they decide not
to stay with us. As we know, about 36 percent always leave the
service after their first term of enlistment. Then after that
point, in the case of the Army, we will come to a point where
unfortunately we will have to use some involuntary separation
measures. In the case of the Army, it will probably be about
24,000 enlisted and about 7,000 officers. What we plan to do,
sir, is we plan to have constant dialogue, both through the
press, through individual leadership being involved. In the
case of officers who would be asked to retire early, we will
have senior leaders talk to those officers. The same with
noncommissioned officers. Senior noncommissioned officers will
talk to everybody to ensure they understand the meanings.
In all cases, we are trying to maximize, to the greatest
extent possible, in some cases, up to 18 months early warning
or early notice that that person may have to retire.
Unfortunately, not everybody will be retirement-eligible. But
we do have the authority granted in the National Defense
Authorization Act that will allow us to do early retirement at
15 years, so some people will be able to apply for that. There
will be some that will have to leave the service,
unfortunately, with just separation pay at the end of the day.
We think we are being very aggressive, we think we are being
very open, but again we are trying to use our accessions and
our normal attrition to get to where we need to be by the end
of 2017 under today's Budget Control Act, not counting
sequestration or other activities.
Mr. Wilson. Admiral.
Admiral Van Buskirk. Chairman Wilson, after two decades of
reducing our force structure and our personnel in the Navy, we
are at a point where we were stabilizing our workforce. So
currently that is based upon the force structure that we
predict that we will have.
As we look at the impacts of sequestration, we anticipate
that if we have to reduce our force structure that we would do
that, reduce our force structure, we would reduce, accordingly,
our manpower. But currently we see no need to use involuntary
measures at this point. And, hopefully, as we can continue to
stabilize the workforce, we will be in a position to where we
are just maintaining voluntary measures that we will use to
shape our workforce.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
General Milstead. In the Marine Corps, we are taking down
to 182,100. That is our figure. And as I have stated in my
written testimony, we see no need at all to use involuntary
measures. We are confident that we can maintain this measured
and gradual descent without the need for involuntary measures,
you know, and thank you very much for what you have given us to
be able to do that. You have given us the force-shaping
measures so that we can do this. The temporary early retirement
authority, the VSP, Voluntary Separation Pay. These are paid by
OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations], and so they are not
coming out of the funds. You have given us early release
authority, you have given us time and grade waivers. And these,
we are confident, will be sufficient to get us down to that
182,100 by the end of 2016 without involuntary separations.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. And concluding.
General Jones. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force for the last 2
years has been on a multiyear program to get us to our end
strength by the end of fiscal year 2012. We are very fortunate
to meet that goal and basically be right on target at the end
of the year. Our goal for fiscal year 2013 on the Active side
is 3,340 less. With the reduced amount of time, once we have a
budget solidified to get to that, we do have concerns whether
we will be able to reach that at the end of the year using
voluntary programs, but we believe we will. We will be using no
extraordinary involuntary programs this year.
In fiscal year 2014, we are not sure if we are going to be
able to meet our end strength without possibly having to resort
to the Selective Early Retirement Boards. But ours is more of a
force-shaping program where we are looking at year groups and
specific career fields to reduce our forces while maintaining
our accessions. We are cutting accessions on the enlisted side
by 2.6 percent in fiscal year 2013 and no reduction on the
officers' side of the house, because we think it is very
important to maintain our seed corn as we go forward so that we
don't create bathtubs that we have to live with for 20 years.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, each one of you, for your comments.
And we now proceed to Ms. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you have been
talking about your drawdowns. I am just wondering, if
sequestration does move forward, could you expand on some other
timelines that you would be looking at? And would those, any of
those include any additional drawdowns?
Ms. Wright. Ma'am, I am going to have to defer to the
services individually when they talk about their particular end
strength and how sequestration would affect that particular end
strength.
Mrs. Davis. Okay.
General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am. In the case of the Army, we
are examining right now if sequestration takes effect, would we
have to accelerate our ramp, our downturn ramp right now away
from the plan that we currently have. We could potentially have
to do that in order to balance readiness, modernization, and
overall end strength. In that case, we could see ourselves
blowing by the estimates that we have right now for end
strengths for each year. And if sequestration happens, just
looking at the overall balancing again across all the budgetary
requirements, we could see ourselves coming down as much as
100,000 out throughout the future years. Still doing the
research on that, and we could provide you more information.
But that is what we are right in the middle of doing right now.
Mrs. Davis. What is the timeline? When would you have to
begin to make those decisions? We are looking at, obviously,
March 1st and then the 27th in terms of the CR. What timeline
are you looking at to actually make those decisions?
General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am. If the discretionary cap is
not going to be lifted, then we will probably make the current
downturn path decision probably in the next 30 to 60 days.
Because we just know we won't have the money to maintain that.
As far as the larger reduction decisions, those would come out
as we further develop the budget for 2014 through 2018 and
beyond.
Mrs. Davis. Is that the same basically for all of you? Or
is there anything else you would like to add?
General Jones. In the Air Force side of the house, ma'am,
unless sequestration would were to go for an extremely long
time that would cause significant reductions in force
structure, we wouldn't need to take the force any smaller.
General Milstead. For the Marine Corps, 182,100. We have
done a detailed analysis through a force structure review group
and other such measures to see what the Marine Corps needs to
be to meet our defense strategic guidance. And that number is
182,100. We are confident, regardless of sequestration, even
regardless of a continuing resolution, that we can get down to
182,100, given those force-shaping measures that you have given
us. But it is important to point out to go back what Chairman
Wilson stated, that the President has chosen to protect the MIL
PERS [Military Personnel] accounts in this fiscal year. Given
that, we can maintain this glide slope.
Should that not be the case in the outyears, then, yes,
ma'am, there is some hard decisions are going to have to be
made. Because you are going to have to take that 2.3 cents on
the dollar right out of those MIL PERS accounts and you are
going to have to get rid of people. But for the time being, we
are optimistic that we will continue to have the MIL PERS
accounts deferred.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. It is one thing not to have those
accounts touched through this. But we have also talked about
the fact that many civilians may be furloughed. And this
affects our families. And so I wonder if you could talk a
little bit more about that. And what is the I guess the
perception, too, in terms of the questions that you are getting
in terms of other benefits that might be affected by this.
Admiral Van Buskirk. Ma'am, I just came from Norfolk this
past Friday where I had a chance to, all hands calls, not just
with the Active and Reserve Components, but the civilians as
well. And I will tell you the mood is angst, concern. The
Active Duty Components and Reserve looking at the civilian
workforce that they work side by side with on a day-to-day
basis in our home port and our fleet concentration areas,
looking at them as they are facing the decisions that they are
going to have to make within their own families and the choices
they have to make as they take a potential pay cut if a
furlough should occur.
Additionally, it shouldn't be underestimated the effects of
the hiring freeze that we have. The hiring freeze is
significantly impacting our ability to bring in new talent to
backfill the people who are choosing to leave our service. And
the civilian workforce is vitally important, the 180,000-plus
civilians that work within the Navy total force construct are
critical to achieving our mission. So there is a concern among
all the components about our ability to continue to meet our
readiness and to fulfill our mission as we go forward.
Mrs. Davis. Anybody else, quickly? Yes, Secretary Wright.
Ms. Wright. Yes, ma'am. I would like to add that, the
furloughing, should we have to do it, of our civilians,
oftentimes, people believe it is a Washington, DC, phenomenon.
And I will tell you out of the 800,000 great civilians that are
employed by our Department, the majority of them, 80 percent of
them, work outside of the Military District of Washington. And
so they fix our aircraft and our tanks and our ships. They
provide services across the Nation. So this will be felt, you
know, from this Washington to the State of Washington equally
across our area.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I think my time is up, and maybe if
you want to pick that up later with someone else. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Davis. And we now proceed to
Congressman Joe Heck of Nevada.
Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
being here, for your service and for the forthright and stark
assessment that you have presented to us. Certainly with the
significant end strength reductions, more so Army and Marine
Corps than the other services, they are going to come with
certain risks to being able to execute our national military
strategy the next time the balloon goes up. Certainly in the
past, that risk has been mitigated somewhat by the use of Compo
[Component] 2 and 3 in the Reserve Components. And over the
last decade, we have built some incredible capabilities within
the Reserve Components going from that transformation of a
strategic reserve to an operational force, but it was done with
OCO money, not baseline budgets.
So now we see baseline budgets getting cut, OCO money is
going away, no more CO-ADOS [Contingency Operation for Active
Duty Operational Support] tours. And then that is going to be
compounded with the capabilities not being able to train to the
same level that they had.
So it seems like our risk mitigation force is also taking a
significant hit in being able to execute our national military
strategy. And I will say that I don't ever want to find us in a
position again where I hear the quote that ``You don't go to
war with the Army you want, you go to war with the Army you
have.'' But I am fearful that that is the path that we are
going down. I mean, certainly, in the Army Reserve, with 83
percent of the transportation assets, 74 percent of medical
assets, 70 percent of civil affairs assets, Army is not going
to war without the Reserve Component. What steps are being
taken, if any, to try to be able to maintain the capabilities
in Compo 2 and 3 to try to offset the risks that we are going
to incur by the drawdown in the Active Duty force?
And I am sure it is across the board. I will use Army
Reserve because it is the one I am most familiar with, but I am
sure it is going to be an impact on all of the Reserve
Components.
General Bromberg. Yes, sir. As you have clearly
articulated, the risks are great in executing our national
strategy. Some of the things we are looking at right now as we
look at how we balance the readiness, the modernization, the
end strength account, preserving those critical resources need
the Reserve Component. But clearly those are at risk. As we do
our analysis in the coming weeks and months, as we see what the
budget is, we will have to see where we end up. And we will do
some follow-up with you, if that is okay.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 97.]
Ms. Wright. Sir, I would like add, too, that if we go into
sequestration and we do have to institute a furlough, that will
also affect those military technicians, those excepted civil
servants that work for the Reserve Component. So that is
another issue that the Reserve Components will be dealing with,
just like the Department or the Active Component is dealing
with.
Dr. Heck. I appreciate you bringing that point up. And I
guess, has there been any discussions of whether or not the
dual status individual, if one status is going to be affected
because of a change in the other status due to sequestration?
What if the MILTECH who has got to maintain their Reserve job,
is going to lose the Reserve job, or vice versa, if it is a
MILTECH [Military Technician] who is going to lose their
MILTECH position, are they still going to be able to maintain
their Reserve status? Has there been any discussion about what
might happen in that regard?
Ms. Wright. Their military job is protected with the MIL
PERS account. So they will be paid as the military part of
their responsibility, their Reserve Component position. If the
furlough goes into effect, they will be furloughed along with
the other DOD employees.
Dr. Heck. Any other, on the Reserve Component side, on the
effects on your respective services?
General Milstead. The Marine Corps Reserves, we are going
to hold at 39,600. That was all part of that same analysis on
what we need. You know, we look at things as a total force.
They are spread across 180 sites across this country. They
do have civilians. And as Secretary pointed out, some of these
positions are just one or two deep. So they will be affected by
possible furloughs. But we have them about $665 million in the
Reserve, the RPMC [Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps] account, if
you will, this year. So we have them in baseline. And we are
trying to live within the baseline. But in my total TOA [Table
of Allowance], only 3 percent of that is discretionary in my
manpower account. And out of that 3 percent, I try and also
feed the Reserves, to go to your question. Those reenlistment
affiliation bonuses, the MOS [Military Occupational Specialty]
retraining, the travel reimbursements, the IMA [Individual
Mobilization Augmentee] costs to pay to activate a Reserve, to
help support the Active Component or whatever. So we will be
challenged significantly with sequestration for the management.
But the basic 39,600 is covered.
Dr. Heck. Then just quickly, if the Admiral or General
Jones if you have anything to add differently for your
respective components.
Admiral Van Buskirk. For our Reserves, as you know, sir,
they are fully integrated with our Active Component. So they
are seeing the impact as we reduce our training opportunities.
Their training opportunities are reduced as well, flying hours,
their ability to do the mobilization training that is critical
for supporting the total force mission.
General Jones. Sir, we will see an equal impact on the
Active, the Reserve, and the Guard side when it comes to flying
hours. An 18 percent reduction in flying hours for the year
really equates to a 30 percent reduction in flying hours,
roughly 203,000 flying hours. Units will very quickly go down
to flying only basic qualifications for their aircraft, not
combat ready for the aircraft. And we will see that effect. And
it will take 6 months to spin them back up to be combat ready.
Add on top of that the dual status technicians who will be
furloughed if we go to a furlough. And the impact will be felt
for a long time.
Dr. Heck. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Heck.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Niki Tsongas of
Massachusetts.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
being here today. We are here because we are all too aware that
sequestration is now only 2 days away from being implemented.
And we all have our particular concerns about its harmful
effects. But in this context, I am particularly worried about
the impact that it would have on our civilian and uniformed
acquisitions workforce.
In an Armed Services Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee hearing yesterday, one of our witnesses spoke
about what Fareed Zakaria has called ``the democratization of
violence.'' This is the idea that increasingly sophisticated
weaponry is becoming more and more readily available to
emerging global competitors, Third World countries, and even
non-state actors. So, for example, Hezbollah is now using UAVs
[unmanned aerial vehicles] and increasingly sophisticated long-
range missiles, and as a result, poses a very significant
regional threat.
In this kind of threat environment, it seems to me that it
is essential for our Nation to continue its robust investment
in R&D [research and development] and efficient acquisitions
management of cutting-edge defense technology in order to
retain our leadership on the world stage, even as we cut end
strength and draw down from Afghanistan.
And I would like to direct this question to you, General
Jones. I know that this is an issue that has been of importance
to you given your previous command of the 66th Air Base Wing at
Hanscom Air Base. This is a base that is located next to my
district in Massachusetts. And Hanscom, as you know, manages
the Air Force's Vital Electronic Systems Acquisition, also
known as C4 ISR, as part of the Air Force Materiel Command's
Life Cycle Management Center. As we continue to move away from
a generation of dumb bombs and towards drones and cyber
capabilities, these acquisitions functions will become more
important than ever.
And, General Jones, you note in your testimony that
sequestration will ``hobble'' the Air Force's modernization
efforts, a major priority which the Air Force has cut end
strength to fund.
Could you elaborate on how it could hamper efficient
acquisitions management, particularly of electronic and cyber
systems, which are so extraordinarily complex and quickly
evolving technologies?
General Jones. Yes, ma'am, I will be happy to. First off,
let me tell you that being stationed at Hanscom was really one
of the best assignments my wife and I ever had. The area, being
southerners, we weren't sure what we were going to expect when
we got up north. That was a very cold place for us. But it
really was truly one of our great assignments, and some
wonderful people.
But if you walk around Hanscom Air Force Base, as all of
our acquisition bases and our depots, you see a lot of
civilians and you don't see as many people in uniform. Seventy-
four percent of all of our acquisition professionals are
civilians. If we go to furlough and we furlough them for 2 days
per pay period, or basically 20 percent of their productivity
for the rest of the year, that is going to have a huge impact
on our ability to acquire and complete the acquisition
programs, and delay the delivery of different programs because
they just won't be there to do the job. It is a 20 percent cut
in productivity. If you look at the depots, we have 24,000
civilians working in our depots. The number of days they will
take off through furloughs will be significant for us, and it
will have an impact. And that impact in the depot processes
will take years to overcome because it is a very much the
aircraft are coming in at max capacity. We are working them the
best we can, getting them out quickly.
So any delay in that process is going to send a bow wave
and a ripple effect that we will live with for a long time. We
understand the importance of acquisition professionals in the
Air Force, whether they are in uniform or civilians. We closely
monitor them. We have, obviously, through DAWIA [Defense
Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act] we watch their promotion
opportunities, their career progression. And we know how
important they are to what we do in the Air Force, whether it
is in cyber, whether it is in aircraft. And it is something we
can't do without. It is going to take years if we go to the
full effects of sequestration and furloughing the civilians to
overcome what will happen.
Ms. Tsongas. Would you be impacted on a freeze by hiring as
well?
General Jones. We are already impacted on our hiring.
Ms. Tsongas. The backfill?
General Jones. We started hiring freezes on 16 January. And
there is basically, there were 5,000 vacancies in the Air Force
a few months ago. That didn't count critical temps and term
employees. That is another 3,200 employees that are not at
their job. And so every day we continue in the hiring freeze
with the waiver authority held at the vice commander, the
three-star level of the command, so it is being used very
sparingly, it is having an impact on what we do every day.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And in consultation with
the ranking member, we will proceed with another round of
anyone who would like to ask further questions, because this is
so important for the security of our country.
I would like to ask each of the services to clarify what
decisions will have to be made in 30 to 60 days if the
sequester goes into effect? Is the decision that will be made
one concerning end strength for cuts for fiscal year 2014 and
beyond? If sequester goes into effect, when will the decisions
be made about when additional end strength cuts for fiscal year
2014 have to be made?
And actually it is quite appropriate we begin with the Army
because that is where the greatest impact would be. So General
Bromberg.
General Bromberg. Thank you, sir. I think if sequestration
goes into effect and the discretionary caps aren't lifted for
the future, the first piece we are going to have to look at how
fast do we change the speed at which we are approaching 490
based upon the Budget Control Act of 2011. And that will force
us potentially to use more involuntary incentives to have
people leave sooner to get us down to that 490 number. That is
the first question that we will have to answer. I think we will
have to answer that in the next 30 to 60 days as the budget
unfolds for fiscal year 2014 and the rest of 2013. So as soon
as we have that information, we will go ahead and start moving
down that direction.
The greater question, if the discretionary caps aren't
lifted and they continue out through 2021, if we do have to
reduce the size of the Army by over by up to 100,000, both the
Active Component and the Reserve Component, National Guard and
United States Army Reserve, that decision will take a little
bit longer as we work through the summertime, I imagine the
spring and the summertime. It is very hard for me to put an
exact date on it, sir. But we will have to work through that
once we know that is in effect. But clearly, we think the
number is right around 100,000. And we will have to balance
that with what capabilities we need, both Active and Reserve
Component, to be able to respond to contingencies. And, again,
balancing that so we don't hollow out the force tied to
modernization, tied to the training base, as well as tied to
overall readiness of the Army. So that is how I see it
unfolding, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Vice Admiral Van Buskirk.
Admiral Van Buskirk. Mr. Chairman, similar, sir, with the
way we would go about this is to take a look at what choices we
have to make to be able to meet sequestration targets.
Certainly, that is in our investment accounts. That may not
have as big an impact to our manpower accounts. But if we
choose to do it via force structure, force structure reductions
in terms of ships and aircraft, ideally, we would, in order to
not hollow out our force, both either on the capability side or
on the people side, is that we would draw down consistent with
the force structure reductions that we would choose to execute.
Those decisions have not been made. And those would be part
of our decisionmaking process for the 2014 budget and 2015 and
beyond that we are working on right now, sir. So I don't have a
good timetable for the exact cuts we would have to make for our
personnel and our end strength, because that would be tied to
the decisions associated with where we would cut in terms of
force structure or capability for the future.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. And General Milstead.
General Milstead. Yes, sir. We are going to have to
maintain a balance across all five pillars of our readiness. We
can't overly focus on one. But that said, we are confident that
we can maintain this measured and gradual glide slope that I
have spoken of before in that sequestration will not have an
adverse effect on our ability to maintain that glide slope,
maintain faith with our Marines and their families, and get us
down to 182,000 by the end of 2016.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
And General Jones.
General Jones. Sir, we are very close to our end strength
as it is. Really any changes for us from the people side will
be driven by force structure adjustments which might come from
a prolonged sequestration. So, like the Navy, once we decide
how long we would be in this situation and what adjustments we
might have to make for force structure, we would then be able
to react from a personnel standpoint.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. And Vice Admiral Van Buskirk, in
your statement, you mentioned that sequestration could cause
the Navy to have up to 50 less than the current shipbuilding
plan. How does this equate to the end strength numbers?
Admiral Van Buskirk. Mr. Chairman, I will have to take that
for the record, sir, to give you the exact number that that
would equate to. But certainly, we would take a look at all the
crews that are associated with that and then there would be
tail associated with that as well that would go with a
reduction in the force structure of the ships and aircraft that
would be part of that, sir. I don't have a good number for you,
sir. I have to take that for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 97.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. And I want to express concern,
again, back on the number of ships. We are sadly going back to
what was existent in 1916. Concerned about the Army, Marine
Corps, that we are going back to where we were in 1939. And for
the Air Force, going back to when the Air Force was created in
1947. And I am just very concerned for our country.
I now yield to Ms. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. And just going
back to Ms. Tsongas's point for a moment. I know a few years
ago when we spent a lot of time with procurement and the
ability of trained, experienced professionals to do their job
and to have the kind of consistency in terms of the things that
they were being asked to do. And I certainly worry and I
suspect that you do, too. I don't know that we necessarily lose
that workforce, but they certainly can't be working at peak in
their ability to do that. And we often are critical, and I
think, you know, for some good reason, in terms of the way
contracts are let and some of the difficulties that we have had
over the years. But at the same time here, we are doing
something that obviously is going to impact that process. And I
don't know if you have any other thoughts about that. But it is
something we certainly need to look out for.
We have talked a little bit about authorities that you are
granted, and certainly when it comes to any additional
drawdowns or the reshaping of the force. Are there some
authorities that you feel you have that you could use to make
some changes as we go forward? And in that context, do you have
to find offsets in order to do that? Because if you do, where
would those offsets come from? I mean, if you have some
authorities to move some of the funds around, you have to back
that up with additional offsets in order to do that? And what
then? How do you work that? Secretary Wright, do you want to--
overall?
Ms. Wright. Right now with the continuing resolution there,
the pots of money aren't necessarily in the right place.
Mrs. Davis. Right.
Ms. Wright. And so in order to--if we are in a yearlong
continuing resolution, without the ability to move the money to
the appropriate appropriation makes it very difficult for us to
manage the force, to manage our readiness. And then to add onto
that the potential, the very real potential of the $46 billion
sequestration, that is where we see that huge degradation in
readiness in most of the programs that we run. If we would get
sequestration, that would be extremely painful for us in
running our programs. The fact that it would be doubly hard was
if we had the continuing resolution without the ability to move
the money or it to be placed in the right accounts.
Mrs. Davis. Are there some authorities that you have that
would allow you to do that? Are there any in any areas at all?
I just wanted to clarify that so that we----
General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am. Follow on. For current year,
we could use the reprogramming authority that allow us--if I
have an excess in one account that I could move it to cover
training, for example. We already have a training shortfall for
units that have to deploy in the fall timeframe. But I can't
move money out of any other place to do that. So that could
help us mitigate some things within this current year.
For the Army, it is even more complicated, because not only
do we have the continuing resolution challenge and
sequestration, but we also have an increase in our overseas
contingency operating costs as we close down in Afghanistan,
second destination transportation costs, fuel costs, and so
forth. And that gives us an additional $6 billion shortfall
that we have to overcome. So we have a threefold problem that
gives us about an $18 billion shortfall within the last 6
months of the year. So those combined together for just 2013
are creating our challenges.
Admiral Van Buskirk. Yes, ma'am. As the CNO [Chief of Naval
Operations] has testified, ours is also an imbalance. It has
got to do with the way bringing forward 2012 into 2013 with the
continuing resolution in that we have more money in the
investment accounts there that we could be using right now for
our operations account. And so having the transfer authority
would enable us to----
Mrs. Davis. What happens to those funds?
Admiral Van Buskirk. Those funds wouldn't be there. For
instance, for the continuing resolutions, we are not able to do
new starts on things we thought we were going to be able to do
this year. So that money is there and available. And we won't
have time to execute that money for this year. So not to
obligate it. So as a result, that money could be utilized if a
transfer was available to our operations account potentially to
offset the furlough.
General Milstead. We are the same way, ma'am. We just need
the increased transfer and reprogramming authorities. Realign
those dollars, move them around, as General Bromberg spoke
about. Take them from an area that----
We are going to protect our higher priority programs. But
we are going to do so at the expense of the lower priority
programs. But to rob Peter to pay Paul, you need to be able
sometimes to reprogram, to be able to shift some monies around.
And as my brother to my right mentioned, you know, the ability
to begin multiyears, to--no cold starts. For the Marine Corps,
the F-35, the MV-22, we cannot get into our multiyears nor into
the MILCON, do the MILCON we need to the hangars to support
that. And that is remaining within the annualized CR. So for
us, the alligator that is closest to the canoe is that CR. I
mean, give us an appropriations bill.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. We now proceed and
conclude with Congressman Heck of Nevada.
Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have talked a lot, and
rightfully so, about the impacts on manning, training, and
equipping. What about the impacts on MWR [Moral, Welfare, and
Recreation], family support programs? I mean, I know what the
answer is, but I would like to have your answers on the record.
So, ma'am, if you want to start.
Ms. Wright. As I have said before, I truly believe that
when you take such a significant bill as $46 billion, there is
not a program that is not going to be affected in some way.
Saying that, we have been very cautious when we are doing,
for example, the furlough plan. And I will give you a specific
example when it comes to schools. You know, we run DOD schools
across the Nation, across the globe. Our schoolteachers will be
affected by the furlough. But we are working it in such a way
that the children will get an accredited school year. Because
that is very important, to preserve that education for our
children.
But when it comes to things like commissaries, which are a
family benefit, we may have to close a commissary one day a
week. Those plans are still being vetted and they are
contingent upon going into sequester, they are contingent upon
the potential of a furlough. Our Secretary has made it
perfectly clear that we are to protect as much as possible
those programs that affect our families and our warfighters.
And so we are trying to do that working through this fiscal
crisis.
General Bromberg. Yes, sir, very similar for the Army, we
are trying to protect those critical family programs and make
sure that adequate support across the force. But clearly there
is going to be reduction of hours. There is going to be some
pullback of capability in lesser critical programs. Even when
we were looking to get support we give for child development
centers all the way across, you may have to remove some flex
hours or close down lesser hours or whatever the case may be.
But, clearly, we were going to do what is right for the
families within the limits of the budget. But there will
definitely be impacts.
Admiral Van Buskirk. Yes, sir. I think the key thing in
addition to those comments are that we won't mortgage our
future. What we will do is we will defer the maintenance of all
those infrastructure that is there that supports these
programs. When things break, we won't fix them, we won't do new
construction on where we need to be doing new construction.
That will be the first thing that happens in order for us to
bias ourselves towards service in the near term, to keeping the
hours as much as possible available to provide the services. We
will protect the key family programs, but I think you will see
it first in MWR programs, gym closings at different times,
perhaps, and programs will be the first to go after we do
deferred maintenance and reduce new starts.
General Milstead. Sexual assault; behavioral health; combat
operational stress control; suicide prevention; Wounded Warrior
Regiments, our Wounded Warrior Regiments; our family readiness
officers, the 380 we have; the transition assistance that we do
for our Marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen that are
transitioning out--all of these will be protected to the
greatest degree that we can at the expense of those lower
priority programs. Again, we will rob Peter to pay Paul where
we can. But will there be some risk, will we take risk in
those? Yes, sir, we will take risk in those.
General Jones. Sir, we will certainly try to maintain and
protect our family programs and our services programs, but as
all my colleagues have said, there will be impacts. When you
look at child development center and youth programs, 25 percent
of all the people that work in those programs are dependents of
service members. They will be furloughed in many cases, as they
are furloughed, that will have an impact on the family budget.
The family budget, the money they are able to spend at the
commissary which may be closing for a day every week at every
installation. It just begins to trickle down. As facilities
restoration modernization are not done, you can impact 50
percent reduction first annually in 2013, but that is basically
a 90 percent reduction in the last 5 months, 6 months out of
the year. Ninety-three projects just won't start at 52
different bases, and all those have an impact, some of those
would be in the family programs, but most of them are work-
related. But it has an impact on the overall stability, the
overall comfort level with serving the government.
Back to Ms. Davis, what you said earlier, we are talking
furloughing civilians which sounds really easy to say. We are
really talking about cutting their pay for 20 percent for the
next 6 months of the year, which is a huge hit. Many of these
families have two jobs, many of these families are living
paycheck to paycheck, and a 20 percent cut no matter how much
we advertise it, someone asked earlier if we would be able to
use--what publicity we would be able to use to get the word out
on what is coming. There is no publicity that can mitigate the
effect of a 20 percent pay cut in a civilian employee, it will
be tough.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman Heck. Thank you General
Jones for pointing out that it is military families that work
at the MWR facilities and will be significantly impacted. As we
conclude, for the Navy and the Air Force in the event of
sequester, if this could be provided for the record, I would
like to know when the determination would be made as to force
structure for fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 97.]
Mr. Wilson. I want to thank all of you for being here.
Under the extraordinary circumstances we are facing, I know
that we all appreciate your compassionate and heartfelt service
with our military service members and military families. Thank
you. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 27, 2013
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 27, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
February 27, 2013
=======================================================================
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON
Ms. Wright. The Marine Corps is in the process of drawing down its
end strength from the height of 202,000 to 182,100 by the end of fiscal
year 2016. The Marine Corps is conducting the drawdown at a measured
and responsible rate of approximately 5,000 Marines a year. This active
duty force will be complemented by the diverse depth of our reserve
component that will remain at 39,600 strong. Our emerging Marine Corps
will be optimized for forward presence, engagement and rapid crisis
response. It will be enhanced by critical enablers, special operators
and cyber warfare Marines, all necessary on the modern battlefield.
[See page 20.]
General Bromberg. The Army is in the final process of determining
force structure changes in Fiscal Year 2014 (FY2014) and FY 2015. The
Army anticipates releasing the FY 2014 and FY 2015 information this
summer, provided there are no significant changes in anticipated
resourcing. [See page 20.]
Admiral Van Buskirk. The number of people impacted by a reduction
in shipbuilding depends on which types of ships are eliminated and how
Navy manages the current ship inventory in response to changes in
shipbuilding plans. In general, fewer ships means fewer Sailors will be
needed to man the ships.
The number of people assigned to a ship is determined generally for
each ship class and individually for each ship, based on the expected
mission and equipment. The impact of changes in the Fleet size can have
a wide range of impact on end strength. Littoral Combat ships have a
crew of fewer than 50 in their core crew while Aircraft Carriers have
crews of about 3,000.
To fully determine the effects of force structure reductions on end
strength, Navy must also assess the impact on the shore activities
supporting the fleet. Reductions in ships, submarines or squadrons
likely have corresponding changes to these support organizations. In
many cases, functional activities such as training, maintenance,
shipyards and logistics activities support multiple ship classes. The
workforce mix military, civilians and contractors makes the
determination process for military reductions more complex. And,
depending on which ships are retained, there are a wide range of
maintenance requirements with corresponding and varied military end
strength required. [See page 16.]
Admiral Van Buskirk. Force structure decisions for the Department
for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 were made during the recently completed
program and budget review as part of developing the fiscal year 2014
budget request. While the President has not yet submitted this budget
request to the Congress, I can tell you that it will reflect force
structure decisions; as well revisions to those force structure
decisions made last year. These include those driven by a reduced
fiscal topline, as required by the Budget Control Act 2011 and by
Congressional requirements included in the fiscal year 2013 National
Defense Authorization Act. However, as with all programs, the
operational readiness associated with the Department's force structure
is at significant risk as a result of the sequestration. [See page 20.]
General Milstead. Adjustments will be made to the force structure
once the full extent of resource constraintimposed by a new budget is
determined. [See page 20.]
General Jones. Our force structure for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 will
be presented in the FY14 President's Budget (PB). The Program Objective
Memorandum process for FY15 will determine force structure for the
following year and will be presented to Congress via the FY15 PB. Force
structure in both years is subject to change depending on how
sequestration is implemented. [See page 20.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. HECK
General Bromberg. The Army is continuing to expand upon the
Department of Defense Directive 1200.17 (Managing the Reserve
Components as an Operational Force) by ensuring the Reserve Component
(RC) participates across the full range of military operations at home
and abroad. For the Army to meet the National Defense Strategy, the RC
must provide operational capabilities and be incorporated into a
revised Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) Model. The Army is in the
final stages of developing this new ARFORGEN Model which specifically
identifies those capabilities critical to meeting the National Military
Strategy, regardless of Component (COMPO), allowing the Army to apply
scarce resources at the correct time and place to minimize risk and
ensure readiness. By the end of FY 18, the RC will comprise more than
53% of the total Army end strength and will be organized, trained,
sustained, equipped and employed to support the new ARFORGEN Model.
[See page 12.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
