[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-16]
=====================================================================
IMPACT OF THE CONTINUING
RESOLUTION, SEQUESTRATION,
AND DECLINING OPERATIONS
AND MAINTENANCE BUDGETS
ON MILITARY PERSONNEL AND
FAMILY RELATED PROGRAMS
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 13, 2013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-186 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
Colin Bosse, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2013
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, March 13, 2013, Impact of the Continuing Resolution,
Sequestration, and Declining Operations and Maintenance Budgets
on Military Personnel and Family Related Programs.............. 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, March 13, 2013........................................ 23
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013
IMPACT OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION, SEQUESTRATION, AND DECLINING
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGETS ON MILITARY PERSONNEL AND FAMILY
RELATED PROGRAMS
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, G-1, U.S.
Army........................................................... 6
Jones, Lt Gen Darrell D., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Manpower and Personnel, U.S. Air Force......................... 8
Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr., USMC, Deputy Commandant for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps................ 8
Van Buskirk, VADM Scott R., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations, Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education, U.S.
Navy........................................................... 7
Woodson, Dr. Jonathan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs........................................................ 4
Wright, Hon. Jessica L., Acting Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness........................................ 3
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Bromberg, LTG Howard B....................................... 59
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 29
Jones, Lt Gen Darrell D...................................... 93
Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr................................ 84
Van Buskirk, VADM Scott R.................................... 73
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 27
Wright, Hon. Jessica L., joint with Dr. Jonathan Woodson..... 30
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mrs. Davis................................................... 109
Mr. Jones.................................................... 109
Mr. Scott.................................................... 110
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Ms. Shea-Porter.............................................. 113
IMPACT OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION, SEQUESTRATION, AND DECLINING
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGETS ON MILITARY PERSONNEL AND FAMILY
RELATED PROGRAMS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 13, 2013.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.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, once again, focus on the
challenges of maintaining an All-Volunteer Force in a budget-
constrained environment by looking at the impacts on military
personnel and family related programs.
These programs such as morale, welfare and recreation,
childcare, military exchanges, commissaries and family
services, which include Department of Defense, DOD schools, are
vital to maintaining the readiness of the military.
Since most of these programs are staffed by civilians, the
furloughing of military civilian personnel has a huge impact on
these programs to include our medical treatment facilities.
Although the Department and the Services have made
commitments to minimize the impact a continuing resolution and
sequestration will have on these programs, especially those
impacting wounded warriors and families, there will be
reductions and it will affect the daily lives of our service
members and their families to include retirees.
The committee will hear from the witnesses on how the
continuing resolution and sequestration and declining
operations and maintenance accounts will impact the military
personnel and family programs, which have been crucial for
maintaining an All-Volunteer Force of extraordinary people
during the more than 10 years of war.
Although the House has passed a defense appropriations bill
for the remainder of fiscal year 2013, the Senate has yet to do
so and the threat of a yearlong CR [continuing resolution] is
still there.
It is a challenge for the Services to manage these programs
without a timely budget and, unfortunately, CRs have 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, and I do want to note also
a 35-year veteran of the Army National Guard of Pennsylvania
and a retired major general. Wow, what a background. So we
appreciate your service.
It is wonderful to have Dr. Jonathan Woodson back,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. We have
Lieutenant General Howard B. Bromberg, Deputy Chief of Staff
(G-1), Department of the Army.
We have Vice Admiral Scott R. Van Buskirk, the Deputy Chief
of Naval Operations, Manpower, Personnel, Training, and
Education, Department of the Navy.
Lieutenant General Robert E. Milstead, Jr., the Deputy
Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, United States Marine
Corps; and Lieutenant General Darrell D. Jones, Deputy Chief of
Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, Department of the
Air Force.
Ms. Davis, did you have any opening comments?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 27.]
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mrs. Davis. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome to all of you for being here. Thank you, again,
for joining in with us this morning and also for your service.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, this is the second hearing that
we are having on the impact the Budget Control Act and the
additional impact sequestration and uncertainty surrounding the
remaining fiscal year 2013 budget is having specifically on
military personnel and family related programs.
As I noted at our first hearing, the Budget Control Act has
already had an impact on the Services, particularly the Army
and the Marine Corps.
The impact of sequestration has just added another
challenging dimension for the Services and, in particular, the
many personnel and family programs including potentially the
military medical programs and services.
On March 1st, sequestration became a reality for this
country and the significant effects are just now slowly being
seen in Federal programs across the country.
The Department of Defense is not exempted from its effects
and although military personnel accounts are not subject to
sequestration in fiscal year 2013, these accounts are not
protected over the remaining 9 years nor are the myriad of
family and service programs that support our Armed Forces
exempt from the impact of sequestration.
These significant reductions will only be compounded when
the continuing resolution under which our Government, including
the Department of Defense, are operating under ends and that is
at the conclusion of this month.
The full committee has a held a number of hearings on the
impact of the Budget Control Act, sequestration, and the
continuing resolution, but none of the hearings, including our
subcommittee, has focused on potential solutions to this
dilemma.
Unfortunately, the only people who have the ability to
resolve this issue is Congress. We must find common ground and
be willing to compromise for the long-term stability of our
Nation.
Today, we will be able to hear the unfortunate impacts that
this lack of compromise is having on our Armed Forces and their
families. I look forward to 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, again, we look forward to
hearing from our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mrs. 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. And, again, thank you
all for being here today.
STATEMENT OF HON. JESSICA L. WRIGHT, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS
Ms. Wright. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, distinguished
members of the committee, we thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the immediate and long-term impacts of sequestration as
mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the potential
ongoing continuing resolution for fiscal year 2013 on the
Department of Defense military personnel and family programs
and total readiness.
We testified before this subcommittee on February 27th
about the negative impacts to our military personnel and force
structure. And, today, we are here to provide specifics on the
wide range of military and civilian program impacts.
This includes recruiting, training, medical and support
programs that sustain our All-Volunteer Force and that are
relied on every day by service members and their families.
On 1 March, the President ordered the Joint Committee
sequestration as required by law affecting immediate reduction
of the budget authority of approximately $41 billion across our
Department.
And there is a potential additional $6 billion across the
Department. Combined, this would be $46 billion in 2013 for a
total of 9 percent of the total budget to be implemented in the
last 7 months.
In order not to break faith with our service members, the
President used his authority to exempt the military personnel
accounts from sequestration.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with this decision, the
results are larger decrements on other defense accounts and,
most notably, the O&M [Operations & Maintenance] accounts to
compensate for this.
While we are going to protect our warfighters' military
pay, we cannot do this without the cost of readiness for our
force. The backbone of this great military institution is our
people.
Active, National Guard, and Reserve service members as well
as the civilians who serve throughout the country and the world
are the Department's greatest assets.
However, due to the O&M cuts in our military, personnel
will receive reduced training leading to diminishing readiness
and ultimately diminishing morale.
Even as we seek to protect our family programs where
feasible service members and family support programs will be
impacted across the board because of funding decrements and
that will affect the quality of life.
Our career civilian workforce has not seen a pay raise in
several years and they are likely to be subject to 22 days of
furlough beginning late April through September.
This equates to a 20-percent reduction in their pay and
significant impacts to their families and the economic impact
to the communities which they live.
We are currently reviewing the priority of family programs
and how to minimize the impact and the effects of sequestration
to our service members and families.
Although the purpose of sequestration is to evenly cut all
programs, we will seek to preserve these services as much as
practicable. We have to make hard trade-off decisions to lessen
these impacts and determine how to absorb these impacts.
We understand the Department of Defense must do its part in
addressing the Nation's budget cuts and we must do it in a
responsible and judicious manner.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today and I look forward to your questions. I now turn to Dr.
Woodson who will provide a statement on the Defense health
program.
[The joint prepared statement of Ms. Wright and Dr. Woodson
can be found in the Appendix on page 30.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Woodson.
STATEMENT OF DR. JONATHAN WOODSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS
Dr. Woodson. Good morning. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member
Davis, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to discuss the immediate and long-term impacts
of sequestration on the Department of Defense's military health
system and our medical mission.
The President, the Secretary of Defense, and now the Under
Secretary, Ms. Wright, have outlined, in stark terms, both the
short- and long-term negative effects that sequestration will
have our national security, our military readiness and the
public servants in our Department who serve so selflessly and
deserve better.
Before I discuss the specific consequences for military
medicine under sequestration, I want to highlight that we
cannot and will not compromise care.
First, our commitment to quality of care is sacrosanct. We
will not allow quality to suffer or place any patient at risk,
period. The Department will also ensure that care provided to
our wounded warriors is maintained.
Our continued focus on their medical treatment and
rehabilitation will continue. It is our goal to make sure that
the wounded warriors, from their perspective, they shall see no
difference in care they receive before, during, or after
sequestration.
And we will sustain our close collaboration with our other
Federal and private partners, specifically the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Finally, to the greatest extent possible, we will sustain
our access to our military hospitals and clinics for service
members, their families, retirees and their families.
But sustaining patient care functions during sequestration
comes at a cost. The Department will reduce funding from a wide
range of other essential investments. This could produce
significant negative long-term effects on the military health
system.
By directing all resources to the provision of patient care
under sequestration, we will have less funding to address
military medical facility maintenance and the needed
restoration and modernization projects. This will negatively
affect the health care environment and potentially drive
substantial bills for facility maintenance in the future.
While we will continue to fund projects that directly
affect patient safety or that affect emergent care, we could
see a degradation in the aesthetic quality and functionality of
our medical facilities.
This can impact the morale of both medical staff and
patients and can degrade the patient's experience of health
care within our military health system.
Many of our facilities are older and require substantial
upkeep. To delay these medical facility projects only
exacerbates the problem and, ultimately, the medical staff and,
more concerning, the patients suffer the consequences. This is
not a sustainable strategy.
In order to continue our health care operations, we will
reduce our investment in equipment. This means our equipment
will be used longer and require more maintenance.
Research and development will also be affected and to
minimize the impact on care, we will be taking monies from the
research and development programs to fund the delivery of care.
Forty percent of our military medical centers are staffed
by civilians and as a result of the furlough program access may
be impacted.
While we understand the Department of Defense must do its
part in addressing the Nation's budget concerns, however, we
have a responsibility to do this smartly and judiciously. The
path forward with sequestration is neither.
We hope that Congress will take the required action to
avert the sequestration and its full impact. I thank you for
the opportunity to speak with you today on these matters and I
look forward to your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Dr. Woodson and Ms. Wright
can be found in the Appendix on page 30.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Woodson.
General Bromberg.
STATEMENT OF LTG HOWARD B. BROMBERG, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF, G-1, U.S. ARMY
General Bromberg. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of America's
Army. The magnitude of today's fiscal uncertainty will have
grave consequences on our soldiers, civilians, and families.
If nothing is done to mitigate the effects of operations
under the continuing resolution, shortfalls in our overseas
contingency operations, and the enactment of sequestration, the
Army will be forced to make potentially dramatic cuts to
military personnel and family programs funded by the
Operational Maintenance Account.
The shortfall in OMA [Operational Maintenance Account] in
the last 7 months of fiscal year 2013 will impact on our
ability to continue to recruit high-quality soldiers vital to
the all-volunteer Army.
Sequestration will cause high risk to our effort in fiscal
year 2013 to recruit the future soldier entry pool and may
result in mission failure into fiscal year 2014.
Much of the Army's officer corps is commissioned through
and initially trained at the United States Military Academy and
through ROTC [Reserve Officers' Training Corps] programs at
colleges and universities across the country. Sequestration
will adversely impact scholarships and training and subsequent
commissioning of lieutenants.
Under sequestration, there will be a significant impact on
professional military education that officers and non-
commissioned officers need to advance their career.
Loss of training, as you know, is not recoverable and leads
to untrained soldiers and units, a negative impact to near-term
readiness and also a loss of confidence in the stability of the
Army that it provides could damage recruiting and retention for
many years to come.
Family programs provide a comprehensive network of
resources that allow soldiers, civilians, family members, and
retirees to successfully navigate their way through Army life
and deployments.
We will focus on delivering programs that provide the most
benefit to our Army family; however, we anticipate many
programs will be impacted such as child abuse preventions;
intervention programs and other family advocacy programs;
support to families with children with special needs;
resiliency training that assists soldiers and families in
building stronger relationships; post recreation centers;
bowling alleys; libraries and such.
Sequestration is not in the best interest of our country,
our soldiers, or our national security. Our current fiscal
uncertainty has already resulted in the cancellation of
training, through reduction of services to Army families, and
reductions in the civilian workforce.
I ask for your support to find viable solutions to economic
hurdles that face our Army. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member
Davis, and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Bromberg can be found in
the Appendix on page 59.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, General. And we proceed to 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. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis,
and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for
holding this hearing.
The confluence of sequestration and the continuing
resolution is causing reduced levels of operations, canceled
maintenance and training and constraining investment in future
capability and capacity.
The situation has caused adjustments in deployment
schedules resulting in uncertainty and disruption in the lives
of our Navy families.
Additionally, the furlough of the nearly 186,000 civilians
and the attendant 20-percent pay reduction will significantly
affect them and their families.
The absence of this highly skilled workforce impacts our
ability to sustain critical family support programs and operate
our educational institutions and learning centers. The hiring
freeze and the release of over 650 temporary workers aggravates
the situation.
As we go forward to the maximum extent possible, we will
minimize impacts on family and sailor readiness programs.
We will remain determined to avoid adverse impacts in the
programs that address sexual assault prevention, alcohol
awareness and deglamorization, drug detection and abuse
prevention, Navy Safe Harbor wounded warriors support, suicide
prevention and resiliency, casualty assistance and funeral
support and child care.
However, reductions to Navy recruiting, marketing and
advertising have already reduced capacity to build awareness
and generate leads. We also expect to reduce summer training
for U.S. Naval Academy midshipmen and cancel science,
technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, camps.
We expect similar impacts at the War College and
postgraduate school, each of which plays a critical role in
developing our sailors and supporting our mission including
joint education, research and war gaming.
We are currently reassessing our tuition assistance program
to ensure we can continue to meet current educational
obligations and fulfill the educational goals of every sailor
who desires to enroll.
Our hiring freeze has brought to a virtual standstill our
highly successful efforts to provide jobs for veterans,
severely hampering our ability to recruit a quality and skilled
workforce.
Sustaining discretionary cap reductions through 2021 would
fundamentally change the Navy as currently organized, trained,
and equipped, and drive further reductions in strength and
implementations of force management tools that break faith with
our All-Volunteer Force.
As such, we rescue enactment of the fiscal year 2013
defense appropriations bill as soon as possible and we ask for
greater flexibility to reprogram funds between accounts so we
that can allocate reductions in a manner that protects our
sailors and their families while sustaining current operations
pursuant to defense strategic guidance and national defense
strategy.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Van Buskirk can be found
in the Appendix on page 73.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Admiral.
And General Milstead.
STATEMENT OF LTGEN ROBERT E. MILSTEAD, JR., USMC, DEPUTY
COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS
General Milstead. Good morning. Chairman Wilson, Ranking
Member Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it
is my privilege to appear before you today.
I have previously submitted my written statement for the
record and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of General Milstead can be found in
the Appendix on page 84.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, General.
General Jones.
STATEMENT OF LT GEN DARRELL D. JONES, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF FOR MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, U.S. AIR FORCE
General Jones. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis and
distinguished members of the committee, it is my honor to once
again appear before you today representing the 690,000 total
force airmen serving this great Nation around the world.
Two weeks ago, I expressed the growing angst our force is
experiencing over the uncertainty of sequestration. Now, we
find ourselves in uncharted territory.
Their concerns continue to grow as the short- and long-term
effects of sequestration become a reality. The Air Force is
committed to our role of training and equipping the highest
quality airmen for our combatant commanders.
This commitment requires a continuous and focused
investment to recruit, train, support, and retain a world-class
All-Volunteer Force. Unfortunately, sequestration frustrates
these efforts which, ultimately, undermine the readiness and
responsiveness our Nation expects of our fighting forces.
Specifically, sequestration will have an immediate and
long-lasting impact on recruiting and accession efforts. We are
particularly concerned about the impact furloughs will have on
the military entrance processing center's support to
accessions.
Further, we many not be able to fully fund vital
developmental programs for our airmen as we have in the past.
As an example, on Monday evening, the Secretary of the Air
Force, after the discussions with OSD [Office of the Secretary
of Defense] and the other Services, came to the difficult
decision to suspend military tuition assistance for the
remainder of fiscal year 2013.
This action, along with other potential limitations in our
developmental opportunities, will impact our ability to harness
the full potential of our airmen as they continue to operate in
increasingly complex threat environments.
Although we intend to guard airmen and family support
programs as much as possible, they, too, ultimately will
realize the effects of sequestration.
This may force us to make hard decisions to determine what
support services we can afford to provide under sequestration
versus the programs our airmen deserve. All of us before you
today have served during lean times. Those of us serving during
those periods recall the frustration we felt with the lack of
resources needed to build and sustain a world-class military.
The result was an Air Force with degraded readiness levels
and waning morale which led to growing recruiting and retention
problems. We realize the fiscal challenges we face are real and
require all of us to take action.
However, sequestration dictates arbitrary impacts on
military readiness. We urge Congress to take appropriate action
and find an alternate solution.
Our airmen, officers, enlisted, and civilians remain
dedicated to this Nation. They are the same dedicated and
innovative hard-working professionals I have witnessed since
the day I joined the Air Force.
However, I am concerned we are sending them the wrong
signal as they are the ones burdened with the threat of
furloughs, decreased training opportunities, and reduction in
support programs.
I know you share my concerns and I appreciate your concern
for our airmen and look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Jones can be found in
the Appendix on page 93.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, General.
And thank all of you for being here today. And I
particularly appreciate the very positive comments by Ranking
Member Susan Davis and that we will, in every way, I look
forward to working with her, to work with you to address the
very serious challenges that each of you face.
And we have worked together in the past and I am just
confident that this subcommittee will continue to be available
to you.
As we proceed, I have said so many times, because I have
seen it with my family, I know what military service meant to
my dad, to my sons, to me. Military service is opportunity for
people to achieve their highest ability, a fulfilling life.
And, indeed, General, to have world-class personnel make a
difference protecting American families but also opportunity
for fulfillment. And I just truly am grateful for your service.
We will be on a 5-minute question and I have already gone
through my first minute and we have someone, Craig Greene, who
is very proficient at maintaining time. So this is good.
As we face the issues, General Bromberg, General Milstead,
the impact of sequestration on accessions, the impact of
reducing marketing and advertising budgets, how do you see this
affecting our ability to recruit, indeed, world class
personnel?
General Bromberg. Yes, sir. First, our first challenge will
be on training our newest crop of recruiters. Given where we
see ourselves right now with sequestration and the budget
affecting the Operational Maintenance Account for travel and
TDY [Temporary Duty], we will have about 900 less recruiters
that we will be able to put in the field.
We won't send untrained recruiters to the field obviously,
but we will just have to with fewer recruiters and that reduces
your ability to penetrate the markets we need to penetrate
across America.
The second place is the military entrance processing
stations. Given the furlough situation, we estimate that we are
going to have to close those centers down about 1 day a week,
about a 20-percent reduction given the furloughing.
What that means across the Services, the Army's the
executive agent, it means it will affect all the Services when
we close it down. We are going through the analysis right now,
but it could affect up to 10-14,000 less recruits being
processed across the Services at this point there.
And the third thing I would point out, as you mentioned,
sir, is the advertising. As we lose that advertising capability
over the year and the ability to penetrate into those markets,
it not only affects this year, but what I am concerned about is
that future pool that you get, what we call the delayed entry
pool or the future soldier pool.
Those are the soldiers we get this year that go on to help
us build for force for next year.
I think those are the three biggest impacts to accession.
It is a long-term effect here of not putting recruiters in the
field, slowing down the processing stations, and also the
marketing. Thank you for the question, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
And General Milstead.
General Milstead. Yes, sir. We are already at a lean amount
this year. We are about $80 million for our advertising. We
couldn't get it any better. Next year, we hope to get back up
to 90, but that is above and beyond sequestration.
So we are challenged with a reduced advertising budget.
What this equates to is lead generation and lead generation
equates to the numbers of contracts and the numbers of
contracts equates to the number of people that you can put
those yellow footprints--their feet on the yellow footprints.
And as the Army has just mentioned, you know, I echo
everything that they say. Our recruiters are already working
hard. They are working in excess of 60 hours a week already and
this is just going to put an additional burden on them.
I would, very quickly, like to use the analogy of an
iceberg because advertising is more than just what you see on
TV. Like an iceberg, the majority of it is below the water
line, what is not seen. And is the mail-outs, it is the call
center, it is the Web sites, it is all that sort of support
that goes into getting young men and women to become
interested, lead generations and to join the Marine Corps.
And I guess the last thing I would want to echo is the MEPS
[Military Entrance Processing Station], those processing
centers. We are already seeing that they are going to come off
on a Friday. So, now, we are losing one-fifth of the day. We
are not going to get Saturdays anymore. And so this is going to
be a significant challenge for us.
Mr. Wilson. And, again, thank both of you. I have the
privilege of representing Fort Jackson. I have represented
Parris Island so I have seen firsthand the opportunities
provided for young people.
I have actually stood on the yellow footprints--footsteps
where young marines as they have the privilege of their first
formation, that is where they stand.
And so I want to thank you both for what you are doing.
However we can help on that.
And, Dr. Woodson, you indicated that military health care
will be maintained for our personnel to the highest of
standards and I appreciate that commitment and I know that must
be reassuring to our military service members and families.
I am concerned though that Secretary Hale has suggested
that, as of August, the Department may not be able to pay
physicians who provide services to retirees under TRICARE
[defense health care program].
Can you tell us if that is accurate and what other impacts
of sequestration that the--on health care services for TRICARE
beneficiaries?
Dr. Woodson. Thank you very much for that question. As you
know, under sequestration and the mandatory reductions in
budget, the defense health program gets assessed about a $3.2
billion reduction, with about half of that coming out of the
private-sector-care account. Without flexibility to do
reprogramming, we would in fact see a shortfall as based upon
prior years' experience in paying those accounts.
What we clearly need to do as part of the strategy to
ensure continuity of payment is to have, number one,
flexibility in moving money around. We would like sequestration
to be detriggered. That is clearly the most important thing.
But we need flexibility. If we don't get flexibility, then
we could see a shortfall. And then that has second- and third-
order consequences. It could slow the paying of claims.
Now, one of the things that TRICARE can be most proud of,
and why we have good network support from private-sector
physicians, is that we pay on time. We don't want to erode that
trust and do irreparable damage to our networks that would take
years to repair. So we need to have flexibility moving money
around in order to prevent shortfalls. We are carefully looking
at utilization rates, because that will also influence how much
money is available to pay claims. If by some chance we have a
marked rise in utilization, of course, that represents more
money that is needed to pay in the private sector.
Right now, our inflation rate is at a reasonable amount of
about 3 percent to 4 percent. And so if we get flexibility in
terms of moving money around, we will probably be able to meet
the claims need. But that is clearly a risk going forward.
Mr. Wilson. And you believe you would be able to pay after
August with flexibility?
Dr. Woodson. With flexibility in moving substantial money
out of other investment accounts, we probably can meet that
requirement if everything else remains the same.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And Congresswoman Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. And thank you again for being here.
I wonder if you could take us to the decisionmaking table, if
you would, and talk a little bit more about the family-related
programs, the impact from sequestration on the immediate, and
then going out over the next several years.
And I wonder if you could share with us that decisionmaking
based on the merit of programs. Do you have information that
would suggest that, you know, we have been going with these
programs for a while, we haven't seen a real impact? We maybe,
you know, want to change the way we approach this particular
family program, or something else? Do you have some data that
you are using? And on what basis are you making those
decisions?
I think the other question is about reprogramming. So given
the ability, the authority to reprogram, where you see programs
that are working well, where do you go for some of that
reprogramming? Secretary Wright, would you care to start?
Ms. Wright. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chuck Miland is the deputy in
our family program network. And he is embarking upon a 120-day
review of all the programs within the family system, because,
you are right, there are programs that have met the metrics and
produce great results.
And then there are programs that maybe cost a lot of money,
but haven't met specific metrics. I can't tell you which ones
those are presently, because we are doing the review. But we
recognize the need that after 10 years of protracted war, and
the development of multiple programs that support our families,
that some are excellent, and some may not produce the results
that we need.
So when that 120-day review is done, then we will be able
to give you a better understanding of where we need to shift
our efforts, and maybe do away with some, or combine some to
give the bigger bang for our buck to our members of our
families.
Mrs. Davis. When did that 120 days start? How long have you
been looking at that?
Ms. Wright. I think we have about 2 more months to go. But
may I get back to you on the exact date? Because I don't have
it off the top of my head.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 109.]
Mrs. Davis. Does that mean--just to follow up, does that
mean that we really haven't been evaluating programs all along?
Ms. Wright. No. I think that we have been evaluating
programs. But I think this is where we take the OSD broadband
perspective of the programs, and look at all of them.
And we are doing them through the Family Readiness Council
that we have established, where services are represented,
family members are represented, NGOs [Non-Governmental
Organization] are represented. So this is not just an exclusive
OSD look. We are very inclusive to how we are doing this--this
100-day review.
Ms. Davis. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else want to respond in
terms of how you see that, your decisionmaking table?
General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am. I would like to--from the
Army's perspective, first of all, just the furloughing piece to
put in perspective, that is how most of these services deliver
through civilian employees down at the installations, the post-
camps and stations, whether it be a weekend training for
families, or whether it be prevention through spouse abuse,
domestic violence, or those types of things. So there is going
to be an immediate impact just in the overall amount of service
we can deliver.
As far as assessing the programs, we are also doing that as
we speak. We have just announced our Ready and Resilient
campaign plan. The Secretary of the Army did that earlier this
week. And one of the purposes of that program is to put all our
programs together, start comparing and contrasting.
Because in some cases we have anecdotal data, some places
we have hard analysis, and some places we don't have any
analysis. So we know that there is some complementary programs,
but there is also some that are probably redundant as well.
And so we are going to go through that during the first
phase of the campaign plan, is to lay all those programs out.
Example, we know Strong Bonds, which works on family
relationships during deployments and other stressors, is very,
very popular. It is also very important. And it has reduced
domestic violence, as well as it has reduced divorce rates and
some other things.
But we haven't done the hard analysis with Strong Bonds, is
the best example. So we will be partnering with OSD as we go
through this.
Mrs. Davis. Okay.
Admiral Van Buskirk. Yes, ma'am. I would like to just add
one point, and that is one of the great things about my job--
and I am sure it is the same with my colleagues--is that we get
to go out and engage, and meet our sailors, and whole town
halls, and all-hands calls, and hear from them about their
concerns.
And what is interesting is what I don't hear about often.
And what I don't hear about right now is our quality-of-life
programs, and our family-and-sailor-support programs.
I think that is indicative of our strong investment that we
have made in these programs throughout the years. Ten years
ago, 15 years ago, I think that would have been a different
case. So I think that is really critically important, that
those have been meaningful programs, and we have invested
wisely in our sailors and their families.
That said, most recently, though, as I have gone out to
meet and conduct town halls, it is the biggest question out
there is, are those services going to remain? What is going to
be the impact on the families? What is going to be an impact on
the services? What hours of operation?
So I think in terms of metrics, that is something that we
should think about in terms of so often what we don't hear
about in terms of how well the programs are working. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mrs. Davis. And we now
proceed to Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much. And to each one at the panel, thank you for your service
and your commitment to young men and women in uniform.
I sit here in amazement to think about the problems that
you have. And here we are having Mr. Karzai trying to injure
our new Secretary of Defense. We are spending roughly $6
billion to $8 billion a month in Afghanistan. It is a failed
policy.
We in Congress will certainly be debating sequestration,
and where we are going to make the cuts or not, keep putting
pressure on you to provide our men and women in uniform, their
families, adequate programs. And yet, I doubt if Mr. Karzai's
worried a bit about his budget.
I come from Eastern North Carolina, the home of Camp
Lejeune. I did a radio show this morning at 8 o'clock. And this
issue came up, the sequestration. And I talked about being here
today to listen to you and my colleagues, and just how
ridiculous it is that our men and women in uniform who are our
heroes, as you are, who deserve so much, and here we are
hearing you worried to death about, can you provide the quality
they have earned. And yet, Karzai is over that. I do not
understand why the Congress does not say ``cut the money off.''
Let's spend the money here in America. Let's rebuild our
military. Let's rebuild our equipment. Let's give them what
they were promised.
And I hope as we move forward on this--this year, with this
sequestration, and how we are going to balance the budget, that
there will be enough members of Congress in both parties to
start cutting the funding in Afghanistan, and have that funding
come back here to America, and help you take care of our men
and women in uniform.
It is going to take the American people to put pressure on
us. Because obviously, you are in uniform. You cannot do it.
You are with the Administration. You cannot do it.
But the American people need to understand that the
problems you are facing today, there are no problems for the
government of Afghanistan. They are going to get their money.
And when John Sopko, the Inspector General for
Reconstruction, testified recently, spoke at some group
meeting, and he said we are spending $235 million a day in
Afghanistan, very little accountability. And I hear you today
worried to death about your people, our people, our heroes. It
doesn't make any sense.
That brings me to a point, Dr. Woodson, and thank you, sir,
for being in my office many times to talk about issues. I do
appreciate that. The book written--excuse me--by Joe Stiglitz
called The Three Trillion Dollar War [The Three Trillion Dollar
War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict], co-authored by Linda
Bilmes, professor at Harvard, this book was written 6 years
ago. And they were talking about the wounded, both physically
and mentally, coming back from Afghanistan.
They didn't even factor in--excuse me, Iraq. They didn't
even factor in Afghanistan. And they are talking about $3
trillion. If you factor in Afghanistan, I have been told that
the book title would be closer to $5 trillion.
With this sequestration coming forward, my biggest concern
is those who are sitting in the barracks, some in the wounded
warrior barracks, who have severe mental problems, obviously
when they leave the military, you would have nothing to do with
them. That is usually the V.A. [U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs], I understand that.
But do you have a concern that as this moves forward--and
it is not going to be fixed overnight. It is not going to be
fixed overnight,that we are going to run into a problem in a
couple or 3 years with those who are still in the military that
have PTSD [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder] or TBI [Traumatic
Brain Injury]. Can we take care of them?
Dr. Woodson. Thank you very much for that question and the
example. About 52 percent of our behavioral health specialists
are civilian. And if sequestration goes forward with its full
impact, I do have concerns that over the long term, how we
sustain our robust capability to provide mental-health care to
the force, and by extension, to family members or retirees that
we serve, for a couple of different reasons. One, most
immediately, is the impact of furloughs that these civilians
will be impacted. But also, as we discuss these very thorny
issues relative to sequestration, remember our workforce is
looking at what we are doing.
And many of these talented individuals have options. They
have options to seek employment elsewhere. They have been
committed to wounded warriors and the military of the United
States in these challenging times. But they have options.
And I worry about sustaining the workforce, particularly
the most talented individuals who can go elsewhere. So it is
about the impression we leave in our commitment to them, and
recruiting and retaining individuals to support the Nation's
military. So I am concerned.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Mr. Jones. And we proceed to Ms.
Tsongas of Massachusetts.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you all for being here, and for your
testimony. You certainly are living through very challenging
times. And I come from a district in which we have a tradition,
a multigenerational tradition of service.
I am always so proud of those who serve on our behalf. And
I appreciate all that you are trying to do as you assess the
impact of sequestration on the services that we provide for
those who are serving.
I have a follow-up question, really, to Mr. Jones'. Several
months ago, I had the opportunity to visit Walter Reed. And I
have to say I was so impressed with the quality of care I
witnessed.
Clearly, a significant amount of progress has been made
since the unfortunate out-stories we heard, and the national
outrage that emerged a few years ago, which came in response to
those reports of dilapidation and unacceptable standards of
care for our recovering wounded warriors.
But one of the things which impressed me the most at Walter
Reed in this most recent visit was just the care provided to
amputees. The facility provides state-of-the-art prostheses.
I have never seen anything like it; lightweight and
tailored for any number of different applications, enabling our
recovering heroes to live as normal a life as possible under
unimaginable circumstances.
And it was pointed out to me during this visit that these
devices are the state of the art. They are the product of
robust research and development, which as we know, takes
tremendous financial investments to make, and in all
likelihood, more advanced than anything, funded through the
V.A.
So my impact--my concern then is what the impact would be
of sequestration have on future medical R&D [Research and
Development], whether it is continuing around those who have
suffered and sustained such horrific physical losses, but also,
as Mr. Jones talked about, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, again,
the issue of suicide and suicide prevention, the product of
long service in our Services, just how you see your capacity to
continue to make the kinds of investments that help these
wounded warriors go forward with their lives?
Dr. Woodson. Again, thank you very much for that question
and that comment, though. As you have indicated, the military
health system has much to be proud of in terms of its history
of research, particularly in those areas that affect military
personnel and the combat-wounded.
You know, it is very important to recognize that the
military health system, with all of its collaborators, have
achieved the lowest disease in non-battle-injury rates every in
recorded warfare, and the highest survivability rates in any
recorded warfare. So there is much to be proud of.
But that is threatened by sequestration. Because in order
to pay the bills for immediate delivery of care, as indicated
earlier, we are going to have to shift those funds from our
investments in research to the provision of care. That is going
to slow or stop many of these research projects.
Now, our strategy does prioritize wounded warrior research.
But the cuts will be deep and steep, and delay progress. So,
you know, we have already mentioned the impact of furloughs.
Many of our researchers are part of the civilian community
as well. We have collaborators in the civilian sector. And the
grants will be slowed. So this is a real serious issue that has
potential long-term negative consequences. And that is why this
process, this budgeting process, is so illogical.
Ms. Tsongas. Does anybody else want to comment on what
their concerns are?
General Milstead. Our wounded warrior regiment has 62 GS
[General Schedule] employees. So they will be susceptible to 22
days of furlough. We are also about 80 percent of our wounded
warrior, we use mobilized marines, reservists. So and that--I
have to pay them. That comes out of my small sliver of
discretionary money.
The Marine Corps, as of yesterday, we have had 13,362
marines have, you know, are wearing a Purple Heart, and have
been wounded, anything from a single bullet wound to, you know,
bilateral amputation. We are going to take care of them.
But besides them, you know, 44 percent of our wounded
warrior regiment are noncombat. It is the young lance corporal
as she pulls out of a stoplight, she gets T-boned by a drunk
driver. We are going to take care of her. It is the master
sergeant that has cancer that we are working with.
So this is going to be around for a while. And as Dr.
Woodson said, we are concerned that there is going to be some
challenges in maintaining the care. But to the maximum extent
possible, we are going to take care of our wounded, ill, and
injured. And we will do so at the expense of lesser-priority
programs.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. I think I have run out of time. But
I think you have made very real, the impact of sequestration,
across-the-board cuts.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Ms. Tsongas. And we
proceed now to Mr. Scott of Georgia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, I
am sorry that I had to step out for a second.
I want to talk to you, General Jones, specifically about
the 116th Air Control Wing, and the JSTARS [Joint Surveillance
Target Attack Radar System]. They are at Robins Air Force Base,
which is the heart of my district. As you know, that platform
flies continuously. I don't think they have stopped in 20
years, that there hasn't been a day without one of those planes
in the air.
The impact of the furloughs on the entire workforce is a
concern to us. But specifically to the JSTARS, it is Active
Duty and National Guard. It has a tremendous number of dual
status technicians. It is a crucial ISR [Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] platform that we have to have
in multiple regions of the country.
And so my question is, is the Air Force looking at ways to
mitigate the impact on these types of furloughs that are
mission-critical? And do you have sufficient flexibility to
exempt certain personnel in those mission-critical areas?
General Jones. Sir, thank you for that question. We all
appreciate the importance of the JSTARS, and its companion
aircraft, AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System], is
around the world. I have a personal commitment. My son has an
air-battle manager that rides in the back of the AWACS. So I
know exactly what you are talking about.
We would be unable to completely mitigate the effects of
the 22-day furlough on these units, because to do that, we
would need something in the order of 144,000 man-days. And
historically, the Air Force has had about 5,000 man-days in the
normal course, not counting OCO [Overseas Contingency
Operations] funds.
So we wouldn't be able to totally mandate--exempt them from
the effects of sequestration. However, we do have a program in
place that allows the Guard and the Reserve and the Active Duty
to come forward and ask for exceptions to the program. We have
done that. And the Guard and the Reserves have been able to use
that to ask for exceptions.
When I say ``exceptions,'' I don't mean a total exemption
from the effects of the furlough, but maybe a lessening of the
impact for their most mission-critical units, and their most
mission-critical activities.
So there will be some mitigation of the impact. But it is
related mostly to the mission, not to the impact on the
individual. Although, everyone will feel the pain.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, General. And I will tell you, I voted
against the sequester. I say it every time I get the
opportunity. I think it is bad policy. I think that there is
room in the DOD for savings. I think the procurement process
can certainly be improved.
It is somewhat beyond me how much we spend, for example,
$10 million for the development of the sniper rifle, when quite
honestly, think we could have gone to Fort Benning at the
sniper competition and simply asked those men and women that
were shooting in it, what they would like to have, and could
have saved a lot of money.
But I appreciate your concern about this issue. And I am
extremely concerned about the fact that the sequester is going
to affect mission-critical operations while we are engaged in
so many conflicts throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for time to ask that question.
Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate you being here.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And because of the
extraordinary issues that you are raising, I know several of us
have follow-up questions.
I, in particular, again, Dr. Woodson, I share with Ms.
Tsongas my visits to medical facilities. It really is world-
class. And the wounded warriors, I want to thank all of you for
working with our young people to truly get them back on track
and leading fulfilling lives.
In regard to moving funds around, there have been excess
funds in the private-sector-care account, Dr. Woodson, the last
3 years. Could some of that money be used to ameliorate the
$3.2 billion reduction?
Dr. Woodson. Thank you. As you know, we have put in place a
number of management controls to try and reduce the rise in the
cost of care. And many of these management strategies have paid
off. And as a result, last year, because of pharmacy rebates
and a number of other initiatives, we had additional funds.
We have already factored in these management strategies in
looking at the availability of funds for the private-sector
care. And even factoring them in, we realized that we would
come up short. And that is the reason we will need to reprogram
money in order to pay all the private-sector-care bills.
Mr. Wilson. Well, whatever we can do on the reprogramming,
please let us know. And again, I want to commend you on the
excess funds, is not necessarily negative. It is that you are
being very responsible.
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I wanted to just turn for a minute
to the--to suspension of tuition assistance. I know the Marine
Corps, Army, and the Air Force, could you share with us how
important is that, the number--maybe not the actual number, but
how many service members are really counting on this tuition
assistance?
And if in fact that is suspended, what other options do
they have? And how impactful is that really in terms of the
integrity of the Service itself in trying to provide that as
really a kind of promise, I think, that we have made to our
service personnel?
General Milstead. Well, the Marine Corps, we have $47
million in it this year. To date, as of the beginning of this
month, we had obligated $28 million. So we spent $28 million.
So that is 5 months. So we have got 5 months into the year, and
we have already spent over half of the money.
Again, you know, we have our Category A programs. We had
those mission-essential programs for the families. We have all
talked about them here. We have talked about health care for
our wounded warriors, sexual assault prevention, suicide
prevention, combat-operational stress, family readiness, all
these key programs.
We are going to have to rob Peter, if you will, to pay
Paul. You know, once a marine has got 3 years of service, he
rates 100 percent of his post-9/11 GI Bill. We--it is just a
matter of priorities. And if everything is a priority, nothing
is a priority.
And so we have made the decision to truncate the program,
and to take that money, and to use it to shore up a Category A
program, and help us maintain our high-priority programs.
General Bromberg. Ma'am, in the Army, our budget is about
$383 million for tuition assistance. And that goes for Active
Duty soldiers, as well as National Guard, United States Army
Reserve soldiers. It also helps pay for nonscholarship ROTC
cadets, to help them offset the cost of tuition.
Similar to the Marine Corps, we have spent over half
already. So we felt we had to turn it off at this point. Right
now, we are actually out of money in that program, and to look
at reprioritization across the force.
The soldiers do have opportunities for GI Bill,
particularly soldiers who have been in over 3 years. So that is
another option for them. And also, they have other options they
can look at through in Reserves and National Guard through
State and local programs that are separate funds by the States.
It is just a sheer matter of prioritization. It has been a
very good program for many, many years. But for us, $383
million, is that the right amount? We are going to go back and
relook at the program. Should we--how do we prioritize it?
I think we can probably take at least $115 million in
savings in this program, and still turn some back on, but
probably not to the same extent that we have it today. But the
soldiers have come--become very reliant on the program. And it
is a big culture change for us. But in these times, it is----
Mrs. Davis. Are we able to provide the kind of information
to them, where there are some other options out there, at least
to work with some of our counterparts?
General Bromberg. Particularly for the Reserves soldiers,
yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. That would be helpful. Just quickly on
the reprogramming, and talking about the medical situation,
there is not one service member who should come back and not
have all the services that are there.
But I am wondering, as we see fewer really egregious
injuries coming back, are the numbers going down to the point
that some of the services that are available and are
particularly high level of care could be shifted to another
area? Or are all of those personnel being used today, even
though those numbers fortunately are down, are down from
certainly the height of the war?
Dr. Woodson. Yes. That is a great question. And so we have
looked at that. And, you know, one of the signature or two of
the signature issues coming out of the current decade of war
have been mental-health issues and TBI issues, which are not
solved by sort of short-term care, and require a more enduring
set of services to really address the complicated issues.
So specifically to your question, yes, we have seen a
reduction in casualties coming back. But we haven't seen a
reduction in the need for mental health and behavioral health
services.
We are staffed to certainly deliver all of the medical care
that individuals need. But over time, the effects of
sequestration will erode those, and make those inadequate for--
--
Mrs. Davis. I guess part of the concern is we may have more
medical specialists, but fewer behavioral specialists.
Secretary Woodson. Well, that is exactly the point. If you
look at the increases in medical personnel, far and away, the
increases have been in behavioral health, that behavioral
health component.
So we haven't expanded necessarily, let's say, the number
of trauma surgeons, or the number of urologists, et cetera. But
we have expanded dramatically the number of behavioral-health
specialists, recognizing these issues are going to be
persistent for some time.
Mrs. Davis. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Mrs. Davis. And we proceed to
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And
General Bromberg and General Jones, I think in relationship to
what Mrs. Davis was saying, I got a call this past weekend from
a grandmother in my district wanting to know why her son in the
United States Army, I think he has been in about a year--that
he and a buddy went to a local community college, and they were
encouraged to take a course or something. I don't know the
details, I really don't.
But anyway, her concern was what she shared with me, was
after they went to the community college, and they signed up
for classes, they were then told by the Army that they could
not continue. I guess what I am trying to ask is, as we move
forward and I don't expect you to have that today.
But if the Services could, if you got this information,
based on sequestration, the number of young men and women in
the branches that are being told they cannot continue, if there
is any way to get that kind of information, I think the
committee, at least I would, maybe Mrs. Davis as well, and the
Chairman and other members would like to kind of see it. You
know, seeing helps some of us, maybe not all, understand.
And if there are going to be these numbers, and if the
sequestration continues, which apparently it is going to for a
period of time, if we could see, just get an idea or a trend of
young men and women who are applying to take some additional
courses that have been told we cannot fund it any longer, if
that is possible, I would appreciate it if we could get some
numbers on that as we move forward, not today, but as we move
forward.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 109.]
General Jones. Congressman Jones, when we made the decision
last night, I think it speaks to the fact that how urgent
sequestration and the impacts are for us.
We made that decision which impacted 115,000 airmen which
were signed up for tuition assistance. They were taking 277,000
courses at 1,200 universities across the Nation. And so that
was a real impact at that moment.
Now, we did not shut off the program for anybody who is in
the program now. They could continue that course they were in.
If we had said the course was funded, we certainly met that
obligation and funded that course. But it is the next course
that they would try to sign up for.
And we only suspended it for this fiscal year. And we are
going to reevaluate it for fiscal year 2014 to decide how much
we can offer. We feel like we are going to do everything we can
to offer a program in fiscal year 2014. But realistically, we
are going to have to adjust the parameters of the program to
lessen the budgetary impact on our Air Force.
General Bromberg. Yes, sir. Same here. When we made the
decision to suspend it for the rest of the year, it was for
those that had not enrolled yet. And there has been some
confusion--I have gotten some feedback as soldiers tried to run
down to colleges and universities, and sign up right away, but
they weren't actually enrolled yet through the official site.
That was one disconnect.
But I can tell you, in the last couple days, we announced
it, and tried to get everybody at least 72 hours' notice, we
were burning through $500,000 an hour. And so we quickly--
actually, we did overspend. And we will take care of that
internally.
But that was the kind of activity there was, and how
popular of a program it is. So we did shut it off at that
point. And we will be very happy to come back and brief or
provide in great detail. We have over 200,000 soldiers across
all three components enrolled on a daily basis in tuition
assistance.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina. I would appreciate that. Thank
you both.
Mr. Wilson. And yes, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Just very briefly, General Bromberg, you said
that your cost of the tuition was $383 million a year, is
before the cut?
General Bromberg. Yes, sir. That is what we programmed as
we budgeted $383 million for fiscal year 2013.
Mr. Scott. And how much is your cut?
General Bromberg. Right now, we stopped at a little over
$200 million of what we spent so far. I can get you the exact
numbers where we ended up on----
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 110.]
Mr. Scott. $183 million, somewhere around $180 million.
General Milstead, you said yours was $47 million, and you
stopped it at $28 million?
General Milstead. That is correct, sir. $47.5 million is
what we budgeted in the fiscal year 2013 line. And when we
truncated the program, we obligated $28 million.
Mr. Scott. So about a $20 million cut?
General Milstead. About, yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. Admiral, what would your numbers be on that?
Admiral Van Buskirk. This year, we are targeted to spend
about $84 million for that. That gets tuition assistance for
all people who are eligible, who desire to pursue tuition
assistance. So $84 million.
As of this point, we are about a little over about $40
million have been spent. We have not suspended tuition
assistance in the Navy at this point. And for us, it is about
45,000 people who participate in a year.
Currently, we have about 27,000 participating. So if we
were to suspend it, it would immediately affect 20,000 people
who have planned, based upon their deployment schedules, based
upon their lives and their families, to pursue it. So it would
be affecting them if we were to suspend the program.
Mr. Scott. Yes, sir. General Jones.
General Jones. Sir, we had spent about $196 million in
fiscal year 2012. And fiscal year 2013, we thought it would be
$198 million. But with the truncation, it is going to be less
than that. I will have to get you that exact number. I don't
have that in front of me.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 110.]
Mr. Scott. General Milstead, I think you summed it up with
what I think is a frustration that every American is feeling
right now as we watch the impact of the sequester. We are
cutting mission-critical things. We are cutting things like
tuition for our men and women that are serving.
You said that when everything is a priority, nothing is a
priority. And the reason we are in this situation we are
fiscally, is because over the last several years, we have not
been able to figure out what the priorities of the budget
should be.
You are talking about somewhere just above $200 million in
what is going to be taken out of this program, that is going to
have a tremendous impact on men and women that are out there
serving. $183 million from the Army, $20 million from the
Marines. Obviously there will be an impact from the Air Force
as well.
That is approximately a tenth of what we spend on free cell
phones in this country a year. And that, ladies and gentlemen,
is the problem. The men and women that are out there fighting
for this country are paying a price, because Congress has
refused to get rid of things that we never should have been
paying for in the first place.
With that, I yield my time back to the chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. And I want to
thank, again, all of you for being here and the extraordinary
challenges and issues you are facing. And I know that we have
faith in you, that you will make every effort for our service
members, military families, and retirees.
If there is no further comment, we shall be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 13, 2013
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 13, 2013
=======================================================================
Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing on
Impact of the Continuing Resolution, Sequestration,
and Declining Operations and Maintenance Budgets
on Military Personnel and Family Related Programs
March 13, 2013
The Subcommittee today will once again focus on the
challenges of maintaining an All-Volunteer Force in a budget-
constrained environment by looking at the impacts on military
personnel and family related programs.
These programs, such as Morale, Welfare and Recreation;
Child Care; Military Exchanges; Commissaries; and Family
Services which include DOD Schools, are vital to maintaining
the readiness of the military. Since most of these programs are
staffed by civilians, the furloughing of military civilian
personnel has a huge impact on these programs, to include our
medical treatment facilities. Although the Department and the
Services have made commitments to minimize the impact a
continuing resolution and sequestration will have on these
programs, especially those impacting wounded warriors and
families, there will be reductions and it will affect the daily
lives of our service members and their families, to include
retirees.
The committee will hear from the witnesses on how the
continuing resolution, sequestration, and declining operations
and maintenance accounts will impact the military personnel and
family programs, which have been crucial for maintaining an
All-Volunteer Force during more than 10 years of war. Although
the House has passed a Defense Appropriations bill for the
remainder of fiscal year 2013, the Senate has yet to do so and
the threat of a yearlong CR is still there. It is a challenge
for the Services to manage these programs without a timely
budget, and unfortunately CRs have become a norm.
I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses:
LThe Honorable Jessica L. Wright, Acting Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness;
LDr. Jonathan Woodson, Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs;
LLieutenant General Howard B. Bromberg, Deputy
Chief of Staff, G-1, Department of the Army;
LVice Admiral Scott R. Van Buskirk, Deputy
Chief of Naval Operations, Manpower, Personnel,
Training, and Education, Department of the Navy;
LLieutenant General Robert E. Milstead, Jr.,
Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, United
States Marine Corps; and
LLieutenant General Darrell D. Jones, Deputy
Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services,
Department of the Air Force.
Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis
Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing on
Impact of the Continuing Resolution, Sequestration,
and Declining Operations and Maintenance Budgets
on Military Personnel and Family Related Programs
March 13, 2013
Mr. Chairman, this is the second hearing that we are having
on the impact the Budget Control Act, and the additional impact
sequestration and uncertainty surrounding the remaining fiscal
year 2013 budget is having specifically on military personnel
and family related programs.
As I stated at our first hearing, the Budget Control Act
has already had an impact on the Services, particularly the
Army and the Marine Corps. The impact of sequestration has just
added another challenging dimension for the Services, and in
particular, the many personnel and family programs, including
potentially the military medical programs and services.
On March 1st, sequestration became a reality for this
country, and the significant effects are just now slowly being
seen in Federal programs across the country. The Department of
Defense is not exempted from its effects and although military
personnel accounts are not subject to sequestration in fiscal
year 2013, these accounts are not protected over the remaining
9 years nor are the myriad of family and service programs that
support our Armed Forces exempt from the impact of
sequestration.
These significant reductions will only be compounded when
the continuing resolution under which our Government, including
the Department of Defense, are operating under ends at the end
of this month. The full committee has held a number of hearings
on the impact of the Budget Control Act, sequestration, and the
continuing resolution, but none of the hearings including our
subcommittee hearing has focused on potential solutions to this
dilemma. Unfortunately, the only people who have the ability to
resolve this issue is Congress. We must find common ground and
be willing to compromise for the long-term stability of our
Nation. Today, we will hear the unfortunate impacts that this
lack of compromise is having on our Armed Forces and their
families.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
committee and in the House to develop a rational, commonsense
approach to resolving these challenges. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80186.076
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
March 13, 2013
=======================================================================
RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES
General Bromberg. With the passing of H.R. 933, Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013, each of the Services is
fully funding tuition assistance programs through Fiscal Year 13, up to
$250 a semester hour and with a $4,500 annual cap.
The Military Services' tuition assistance program enables service
members the opportunity to achieve their academic goals, contributes to
their professional development, and facilitates transition from the
Armed Forces.
Each Service is responsible for funding and administering its
tuition assistance program in accordance with the law and the
Department of Defense tuition assistance policy. [See page 20.]
Admiral Van Buskirk. Navy has been steadfast in its commitment to
sustain the Tuition Assistance (TA) program. The Chief of Naval
Operations has assured Sailors that TA will ``remain intact and
available''; therefore, Sailors should not expect to be told they
cannot continue. While fiscal pressures will necessitate continued
scrutiny of all investments, we are committed to our original fiscal
year plans to meet Sailor education requirements.
Additionally, we continue to invest in related programs that ensure
the success of each Sailor who benefits from these funds. Our course
completion rate is well over 90 percent, which we attribute in part to
the exceptional support our Sailors receive from trained Navy education
counselors. Each Sailor, working with a qualified counselor, must
develop an appropriate educational plan, which the counselor must
approve before TA funding can be approved and classes begin. Counselors
ensure that Sailors are prepared for academic requirements associated
with each Sailor's approved plan and help them streamline an attainable
degree completion
process. [See page 20.]
General Milstead. The Marine Corps is not able to determine if any
marines attempted to enroll in courses but were subsequently impacted
by the cancellation of the Tuition Assistance (TA) program between
March 4, 2013 to April 8, 2013.
The Department of Navy announced the immediate cessation of Marine
Corps enrollments in the TA program and the Marine Corps immediately
ceased new enrollments on 4 March 2013. As of 8 April 2013, TA funding
has been restored and new enrollments are being accepted as announced
in the Marine Administrative Messages (MARADMIN) 203/13 Voluntary
Education Services and Tuition Assistance. The TA program cannot be
retroactively applied. Marines who had requested TA prior to 4 March
were not denied funds. [See page 20.]
General Jones. Congressman Jones, our best estimate to determine
how many Airmen might be affected by this decision moving forward is
based on our fiscal year 2012 data. During the timeframe from 12 March
2012 through 30 September 2012, 76,144 Airmen used Military Tuition
Assistance. Since suspending our program 11 March 2013, we estimate a
similar number of Airmen will be affected through the end of fiscal
year 2013 should the program remain suspended to the end of the fiscal
year. [See page 20.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS
Ms. Wright. The Common Services Task Force held its first meeting
on February 6, 2013, and is currently expected to complete its work in
120 days. As background, in November 2012, my office established this
Task Force to review the total cost and methods of providing common
services for military member and family support programs Department of
Defense-wide. These programs include NAF procurement and accounting,
lodging, fitness and family program management to, to name a few. The
objectives of the Task Force are the following:
Maintain the Department of Defense's strategy and
commitment to the well-being of military members and their
families, delivering the same or better levels of programs and
services
Improve effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in the
delivery of programs within the purview of the Office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community
and Family Policy, along with their related overhead and
headquarters functions
Drive down both the appropriated fund and the
nonappropriated fund (NAF) unit cost of providing programs and
services to military members and their families
Through shared services or similar models for common
support, enable greater economies of scale than the individual
military departments can achieve independently
Retain a portion of the initial savings to cover
transition costs and offset program shortfalls
[See page 12.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
General Bromberg. With the passing of H.R. 933, Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013, each of the Services is
fully funding tuition assistance programs through Fiscal Year 13, up to
$250 a semester hour and with a $4,500 annual cap.
The Military Services' tuition assistance program enables service
members the opportunity to achieve their academic goals, contributes to
their professional development, and facilitates transition from the
Armed Forces.
Each Service is responsible for funding and administering its
tuition assistance program in accordance with the law and the
Department of Defense tuition assistance policy. [See page 21.]
General Jones. As of 11 March 2013 when the decision was made to
suspend Military Tuition Assistance, the Air Force had expended
approximately $109M for the program. [See page 22.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 13, 2013
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER
Ms. Shea-Porter. In your testimony, you note that while the
Services' Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program funding is protected
under Overseas Contingency Operations, the OSD's Yellow Ribbon Program
office will likely be impacted by sequestration and the CR and that
this ``will reduce our ability to support events for deploying/
reintegrating service members and their families.'' Our New Hampshire
National Guard has an outstanding Yellow Ribbon program that helps
post-9/11 service members and their families address issues before,
during, and after deployment. These programs need to be robustly
funded. Can you talk about the specific impact of sequestration and the
CR on our Nation's Yellow Ribbon programs?
Ms. Wright. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Ms. Shea-Porter. How will Professional Military Education at the
military academies or other defense educational institutions be
impacted by sequestration cuts and furloughs? Many professors are
civilians. Our cadets and midshipmen at the academies, and military
officers at the other institutions, need to receive instruction to
complete their degree requirements. It matters greatly if they are less
well trained and educated because of these cuts. Are you extending the
academic year? Will there be furloughs of the civilian professors? If
so, how will you manage with the loss of 20% of teaching time per
civilian professor? What other impacts will there be to Professional
Military Education at the academies and other defense educational
institutions?
Ms. Wright. Unfortunately, the reality of the budget situation
precludes excluding significant core programs from reduction, despite
the negative impact on the development and sustainment of the All-
Volunteer Force. Nearly all education and training programs are
affected and degraded to some degree. Potential civilian furloughs will
reduce faculty available for teaching classes and staff that support
the academic mission of the PME schools. In some cases, military
faculty may have to fill the void developed by the loss of furlough
days of teaching time per civilian professor, leaving minimal time for
curriculum development.
The Service Academies are similarly affected with broad cuts
affecting many programs. They have implemented plans to assign military
personnel from other duties at the Academies to cover academic
training, but will not extend the academic year. The sequestration and
the current CR will limit faculty research and professional
opportunities negatively impacting PME faculty. Civilian faculty
members, like their Service Academy colleagues, are expected to conduct
scholarly research and remain engaged with their scholarly communities.
Limiting faculty development may also adversely affect the relevancy
and currency of PME curricula. The inability to do research and faculty
development may lead to faculty losses as those individuals may seek
better opportunities in the civilian academic world.
Finally, limited funding will impact a variety of programs focused
on ensuring a diverse learning environment. An example is the Visiting
Professors program, which contributes to accreditation. An uncertain
budget environment precludes adequate planning and creates the
perception of instability and could make the Academies a less
attractive option for the highest quality candidates. Additionally,
summer and military training opportunities will be curtailed along with
outreach and recruiting efforts negatively impacting current and future
classes of cadets and midshipmen candidates. Facility and
infrastructure projects necessary to provide an effective educational
environment will also need to be deferred.
Ms. Shea-Porter. In your testimony, you note that while the
Services' Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program funding is protected
under Overseas Contingency Operations, the OSD's Yellow Ribbon Program
office will likely be impacted by sequestration and the CR and that
this ``will reduce our ability to support events for deploying/
reintegrating service members and their families.'' Our New Hampshire
National Guard has an outstanding Yellow Ribbon program that helps
post-9/11 service members and their families address issues before,
during, and after deployment. These programs need to be robustly
funded. Can you talk about the specific impact of sequestration and the
CR on our Nation's Yellow Ribbon programs?
Dr. Woodson. The OSD Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP)
Office provides services and resources to the Reserve Components
designed to take advantage of the economy of scale and the benefit of
standardization. These services and resources are funded through the
OSD YRRP base budget and will be impacted by sequestration in the
following ways (percentages are based on current projected budget
cuts):
Awareness of and access to the Hero2Hired (H2H)
program to assist unemployed service members will be
diminished. Specific impacts are decreased use of the H2H
Mobile Job Store and kiosks at YRRP and other events; loss of a
new H2H mobile application; and a reduced number of events for
Employment Initiative Program outreach.
OSD YRRP's Cadre of Speakers contract, which provides
trained, vetted instructors and briefers for the Services' YRRP
events, will be decreased currently the cadre support 30 events
per month this will be reduced to 20 events per month.
Funding for the OSD YRRP fulfillment contract will be
cut by 39%; this contract provides standardized event materials
and handouts for the Services, including hand-held scanners
that provide accountability at YRRP events.
OSD YRRP's ability to create and implement in-depth
surveys of program effectiveness, as well as the creation of
standardized training curriculum, will be reduced by half and
this will delay the implementation of the YRRP overall program
effectiveness evaluation.
The field staffing contract funded through OSD YRRP
will be reduced from 12 months to 10 months. Field staff
provides assistance to Service event planners and resource
providers throughout the Nation.
No funding (100% reduction) will be available for
advertising, market research and studies to support increased
awareness of YRRP and the resources it offers to service
members and their families.
Ms. Shea-Porter. General Bromberg, in your testimony, you talk
about the sequestration's impact on Transition Assistance, and indicate
that the sequestration cuts to the ``Department of Labor, which assists
the Department of Veterans Affairs and DOD with providing mandated
transition assistance services, could impact compliance with VOW
[Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) to Hire Heroes Act of 2011].''
Please tell me specifically what program cuts you envision and how they
could harm our soldiers as they transition to civilian life.
General Bromberg. I cannot address the specifics of what cuts
Department of Labor (DOL) is considering. I can say that any reduction
in the frequency of the 3-day DOL Employment Workshop or a reduction in
the number of DOL counselors would directly impact delivery of
services. Reduced frequency of classes or lack of counselors would
create a backlog of Soldiers required to complete transition services.
This backlog could have the potential for Soldiers to separate before
they meet Career Readiness Standards and be VOW Act compliant.
Additionally, the VOW Act increased the mandatory components of the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) that Soldiers must attend. We
increased the throughput which has increased demand for follow-on
classes and training. We are expected to reduce Department of the Army
Civilian TAP staff hours by 20% due to furloughs.
Warrior Transition Unit Soldiers, who often face expedited
separation procedures, will find it even more difficult to find seating
in TAP classes. These Warrior Transition Unit Soldiers will face an
even higher risk of unemployment and other consequences faced by those
in the high-risk populations. Lack of government employees due to
furlough could require 1-day-a-week closure of TAP training facilities,
decreasing frequency of the 3-day DOL Employment Workshop, Veterans
Administration Benefits Briefing, and other TAP classes. Follow-on
classes that teach interview skills, resume writing skills, salary
negotiation, and dress for success would have to be curtailed in order
to meet the basic tenets of the VOW Act.
Ms. Shea-Porter. I am concerned when you mention that sequestration
cuts could impact compliance with the law. With respect to military
personnel in particular, can you describe other instances in which the
Army may not be able to comply with the law due to sequestration cuts?
General Bromberg. I cannot address the specifics of what cuts
Department of Labor (DOL) is considering. I can say that any reduction
in the frequency of the 3-day DOL Employment Workshop or a reduction in
the number of DOL counselors would directly impact delivery of
services. Reduced frequency of classes or lack of counselors would
create a backlog of Soldiers required to complete transition services.
This backlog could have the potential for Soldiers to separate before
they meet Career Readiness Standards and be VOW Act compliant.
Additionally, the VOW Act increased the mandatory components of the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) that Soldiers must attend. We
increased the throughput which has increased demand for follow-on
classes and training. We are expected to reduce Department of the Army
Civilian TAP staff hours by 20% due to furloughs.
Warrior Transition Unit Soldiers, who often face expedited
separation procedures, will find it even more difficult to find seating
in TAP classes. These Warrior Transition Unit Soldiers will face an
even higher risk of unemployment and other consequences faced by those
in the high-risk populations. Lack of government employees due to
furlough could require 1-day-a-week closure of TAP training facilities,
decreasing frequency of the 3-day DOL Employment Workshop, Veterans
Administration Benefits Briefing, and other TAP classes. Follow-on
classes that teach interview skills, resume writing skills, salary
negotiation, and dress for success would have to be curtailed in order
to meet the basic tenets of the VOW Act.
Ms. Shea-Porter. How will Professional Military Education at the
military academies or other defense educational institutions be
impacted by sequestration cuts and furloughs? Many professors are
civilians. Our cadets and midshipmen at the academies, and military
officers at the other institutions, need to receive instruction to
complete their degree requirements. It matters greatly if they are less
well trained and educated because of these cuts. Are you extending the
academic year? Will there be furloughs of the civilian professors? If
so, how will you manage with the loss of 20% of teaching time per
civilian professor? What other impacts will there be to Professional
Military Education at the academies and other defense educational
institutions?
General Bromberg. There is no intent to extend the Academic Years
for 2012-2013 or 2013-2014 at this time. The current furlough plan for
the Military Academy allows flexibility for civilian professors to take
their furlough days in the summer months after the end of the current
academic year and before the start of the new academic year; however,
many will elect to follow a 2-day-per-pay-period furlough to minimize
financial impacts.
The impact of furloughing civilian instructors as well as academic
support staff will lead to reduced cadet contact hours, loss of
instruction or condensed instruction, limited classroom preparation
time, degraded new instructor training, changes in cadet schedules,
reduced dedicated laboratory support for scientific labs and reduced
weekday hours of operation for the library, closing the facility on
Saturdays with limited hours on Sunday.
Furloughs may disrupt work to ongoing accreditation preparation and
development of self-assessment reports for the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology (ABET) and the Middle States Commission for
Higher Education (MSCHE) with scheduled assessments in Fall 2014 and
Fall 2015 respectively. These accrediting bodies could cite the Academy
deficient in the lack of predictable funding and inconsistent faculty
work schedules related to furloughs.
Furlough requirements may reduce the number of civilian instructors
available to teach summer term academic programs. This may divert
available military instructors from supporting cadet summer training
(Cadet Field Training, Cadet Basic Training and Cadet Leader
Development Training) missions requiring additional Army task force
support. Sequestration and furlough will also impact military training
courses which support the Army accessions mission and readiness.
Current Academy funding is insufficient to send the Graduating Class of
2013 to initial military training Basic Officer Leadership Course
(BOLC) within the first 6 months following graduation.
Ms. Shea-Porter. How will Professional Military Education at the
military academies or other defense educational institutions be
impacted by sequestration cuts and furloughs? Many professors are
civilians. Our cadets and midshipmen at the academies, and military
officers at the other institutions, need to receive instruction to
complete their degree requirements. It matters greatly if they are less
well trained and educated because of these cuts. Are you extending the
academic year? Will there be furloughs of the civilian professors? If
so, how will you manage with the loss of 20% of teaching time per
civilian professor? What other impacts will there be to Professional
Military Education at the academies and other defense educational
institutions?
Admiral Van Buskirk. Navy and its educational institutions are
evaluating possible impacts to academic programs resulting from
sequestration, to include furlough of civilian professors along with
most other civilian personnel employed within the Department of Navy.
There are currently no plans to change the current academic year for
the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) or other defense educational
institutions. If a furlough is implemented, it would not take place
until after the current academic year is complete, though it would
impact the academic year commencing August 2013. Mitigation efforts are
currently under review.
In addition to furloughs, the USNA may reduce summer training to
include fleet experiences with submarine, aviation, surface warfare and
Marine Corps communities; and seamanship and navigation training
aligned with a reduction in USNA Yard Patrol craft operations and
maintenance. The USNA has already canceled language, regional and
cultural exposure for midshipmen during the spring semester and reduced
opportunities during the summer training periods.
Ms. Shea-Porter. How will Professional Military Education at the
military academies or other defense educational institutions be
impacted by sequestration cuts and furloughs? Many professors are
civilians. Our cadets and midshipmen at the academies, and military
officers at the other institutions, need to receive instruction to
complete their degree requirements. It matters greatly if they are less
well trained and educated because of these cuts. Are you extending the
academic year? Will there be furloughs of the civilian professors? If
so, how will you manage with the loss of 20% of teaching time per
civilian professor? What other impacts will there be to Professional
Military Education at the academies and other defense educational
institutions?
General Milstead. At the Marine Corps University, the most
immediate impact will be the cancellation or reduction in the courses
as follows:
Reduction of Senior Enlisted PME student throughput
Reduction of Senior Leader Development Program
Senior Planner Course reduced from two to one per
year
Elimination of the Reserve Officers Course
Elimination of all conferences and symposia
A significant long-term effect due to sequestration will be felt at
Marine Corps Command and Staff College, the School of Advanced
Warfighting, and the Marine Corps War College. While delivery of core
professional military education (PME) curricula will continue, there
will be a substantial decrease in depth of education due to:
Absence of civilian faculty due to furloughs
Cancellation of some classes due to reduced faculty
availability
Reductions in information education technology
support
Significant reduction in curricula related travel for
all programs
Reduction in international engagement opportunities
All civilian professors and support staff will be subject to
furlough in accordance with policy.
The Marine Corps University does not plan to extend this academic
year.
Sequestration impacts will likely have a wide ranging effect on the
schools. Due to differences in both student body size and teaching
methodology, each school will be addressed individually.
Command and Staff College (CSC). Through the end of the current
academic year, CSC will not be significantly impacted. CSC has a
balanced military and civilian faculty, and classes will continue as
scheduled. Classes with a civilian faculty lead instructor will be
completed before furloughs are scheduled to begin. The same is true
with Spring exams. However, furloughs will have an impact on the
capstone exercise NINE INNINGS, which is scheduled for May. The
College's leadership will mitigate the impact by the close management
of faculty so as to not to disrupt the exercise in any fundamental way.
If sequestration and furloughs continue past the August start date
for the next academic year, momentum will be slowed going forward in
faculty and curriculum development in both the short term and long
term. We also anticipate having to modify next year's curriculum by
providing more individual study and research time to balance the
required furlough of faculty.
School of Advanced Warfighting (SAW). In light of a small (three
professors) resident civilian faculty at SAW, the only viable plan is
to furlough professors on days they are not scheduled to teach. As with
CSC, anticipated furloughs will have a limited impact on the current
class since we are nearing the end of the academic year. However, if
furloughs continue through the end of the fiscal year, they will have a
significant impact on the AY13-14 class. Reduced faculty availability
will negatively impact seminar preparation, staff rides, and planning
exercises.
Marine Corps War College (MCWAR). The current class should see
limited impact, but the course will need to be restructured in order to
accommodate furloughs of civilian faculty. As with the other schools,
MCWAR will be attempting to accomplish 100% of their requirements in
80% of the time. This has second- and third-order consequences;
specifically, limited feedback and mentoring time with the
students.
Other impacts include:
Travel restrictions. Reduced travel from
sequestration and furloughs will have a negative impact on
faculty development, university outreach programs to civilian
institutions, and participation by visiting faculty designed to
enhance and develop the curricula of the MCU schools. Lack of
international travel is a concern as it plays an important role
in the MCWAR and SAW curricula and the education of officers.
Faculty accession/recruiting. Sequestration will
adversely affect the ability to recruit and retain high-quality
faculty. Lack of adequate, competent faculty will jeopardize
MCU's regional accreditation from the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools (SACS) and the ability to issue masters
degrees in three courses. Job security and stability is
essential to maintain quality faculty. Sequestration and
furloughs will degrade, if not eliminate faculty development
opportunities, essential for the instructor currency.
IT Support. Sequestration will jeopardize our ability
to provide IT support for the new Warner Center for Advanced
Military Studies, designed to house CSC, SAW and History
Division. Construction for this facility begins April 2013. A
62% reduction in IT funding is anticipated if sequestration
occurs.
Curriculum development and review. Currently the
Marine Corps University is undergoing a 2-year process of a
zero-based curriculum review, designed to thoroughly assess all
aspects of the curricula. This effort will be slowed or halted
due to reduced faculty availability.
Ms. Shea-Porter. How will Professional Military Education at the
military academies or other defense educational institutions be
impacted by sequestration cuts and furloughs? Many professors are
civilians. Our cadets and midshipmen at the academies, and military
officers at the other institutions, need to receive instruction to
complete their degree requirements. It matters greatly if they are less
well trained and educated because of these cuts. Are you extending the
academic year? Will there be furloughs of the civilian professors? If
so, how will you manage with the loss of 20% of teaching time per
civilian professor? What other impacts will there be to Professional
Military Education at the academies and other defense educational
institutions?
General Jones. Sequestration cuts and furloughs will have limited
impact on the United States Air Force Academy's Professional Military
Education (PME) courses and civilian professors. Currently, PME
requirements are covered both in Commandant of Cadets courses and in
Dean of Faculty core academic courses.
Sequestration presently does not affect PME courses provided by
Commandant of Cadets since they are taught by Active Duty squadron
commanders during commissioning education periods.
If the Dean of Faculty does declare a shortfall in meeting the
education requirements due to sequestration, the Commandant of Cadet
programs would review existing capacity and lesson plans. Learning
objectives that could no longer be taught in the Dean of Faculty core
courses would be added to the PME courses.
United States Air Force Academy civilian professors will be subject
to furloughs. Under furlough they will have 20% fewer hours during the
14-week furlough period beginning in June for contact with cadets for
tutoring, lesson planning, and additional duties. As a result, our
Active Duty members will cover the gaps. The United States Air Force
Academy has no plan to extend the academic year due to sequestration
cuts and furloughs.
Although the Air Force has taken significant steps to mitigate the
short- and long-term impacts of the sequestration cuts and furloughs to
Air University (AU), impacts to AU PME courses and civilian professors
cannot be avoided entirely. Currently, all short-term temporary duties
for officer and enlisted PME, e.g. Squadron Officer School and
Noncommissioned Officer Academies will be either considered for
reduction and/or cancelled. A reduction to our short-term PME schools
means fewer Airmen will be armed with the competencies deemed necessary
to execute their duties and responsibilities.
Long-term AU PME, which are usually courses 10-months or longer and
require a permanent change of station, are considered mission critical.
The Air Force will continue these education courses as scheduled. These
include other sister service/joint Intermediate Developmental Education
(IDE)/Senior Developmental Education (SDE) courses, Air Force
Fellowships, and Advanced Academic Degrees (AADs). If the restrictions
continue, this will have a long-term strategic effect on the
credibility, retention, and academic credibility of the university's
faculty and student production.
At this time, Air University has no plans to extend the academic
year. However, should these restrictions become protracted, it would
potentially delay academic year 2014 graduation by 3 weeks, delay the
start of academic year 2015 by 2 weeks, and possibly reduce student in-
resident opportunities by 20%.
Other potential impacts include the potential for production will
be delays for new curriculum across all programs, negatively affecting
the currency and relevancy of PME. More importantly, the Air Force
could have fewer strategists and warrior scholars at the Ph.D. level to
leverage for mission accomplishment.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
