[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 110-117]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST ON OVERVIEW OF RECRUITING, RETENTION, AND COMPENSATION
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-338 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
NANCY BOYDA, Kansas THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire JOE WILSON, South Carolina
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
Michael Higgins, Professional Staff Member
John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
Rosellen Kim, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2008
Page
Hearing:
Tuesday, February 26, 2008, Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense
Authorization Act--Budget Request on Overview of Recruiting,
Retention, and Compensation.................................... 1
Appendix:
Tuesday, February 26, 2008....................................... 39
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008
FISCAL YEAR 2009 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST ON
OVERVIEW OF RECRUITING, RETENTION, AND COMPENSATION
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California,
Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee.................... 1
McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative from New York, Ranking
Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee........................ 2
WITNESSES
Chu, Dr. David S.C., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness...................................................... 3
Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps........... 10
Harvey, Vice Adm. John C., Jr., USN, Chief of Naval Personnel,
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Department of the Navy....... 6
Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff,
Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force........... 8
Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1,
Headquarters, U.S. Army........................................ 4
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Chu, Dr. David S.C........................................... 49
Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S................................... 132
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 43
Harvey, Vice Adm. John C., Jr................................ 92
McHugh, Hon. John M.......................................... 46
Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III............................. 120
Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D................................. 77
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted for the record.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Jones.................................................... 157
Ms. Shea-Porter.............................................. 155
Dr. Snyder................................................... 155
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mrs. Davis................................................... 161
Dr. Snyder................................................... 161
FISCAL YEAR 2009 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST ON
OVERVIEW OF RECRUITING, RETENTION, AND COMPENSATION
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, February 26, 2008.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mrs. Davis. Good morning. The meeting will come to order.
Today, the subcommittee will turn its attention to recruiting,
retention and compensation programs, these essential building
blocks of military manpower. As you all know, this is a very
challenging recruiting and retention environment. We believe
that a relatively low unemployment rate, a protracted war on
terrorism, a decline in propensity to serve, and a growing
disinclination of influencers to recommend military service
will cause the environment to remain difficult during fiscal
year (FY) 2008 and in the years that follow.
As you might expect, the subcommittee is concerned about
the need to achieve the number of new recruits needed to meet
mission requirements, particularly now that we are engaged in
adding forces to both the Army and the Marine Corps. In terms
of the narrow objective to simply meet the number requirements,
the armed services and their National Guard and Reserve
components were remarkably successful during fiscal year 2007
and during the first four months of fiscal year 2008. However,
those recruiting and retention successes continue to be
accompanied by sacrifices in recruit quality and increasing
costs.
The subcommittee has become increasingly troubled that the
erosion of recruit quality over an extended period will result
in long-term consequences for force management and leadership
development. For a number of years, the subcommittee has also
expressed concern about the increasing reliance of recruiting
and retention programs on emergency supplemental funding. This
trend contributes to the steadily increasing cost because
fragile recruiting and retention programs require strategic
planning and timely execution. We seem destined to learn again
and again that these programs cannot be optimally managed with
supplemental funding inserted at the eleventh hour.
The subcommittee was not alone in observing that recruit
quality has suffered and that the cost of maintaining the All-
Volunteer Force has increased. Representatives of the
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves have cited these
trends when justifying their conclusions that the current
personnel management model and retirement system is not
competitive in the employment marketplace and cannot be
fiscally sustained and therefore must be reformed.
So we are anxious to discuss with you these issues today,
and we certainly are very glad and honored that you are here
today.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 43.]
Mr. McHugh, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
YORK, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. McHugh. Madam Chair, I thank you. I think you summed up
the broad perspective very well. Let me just ask unanimous
consent that my formal statement be entered in its entirety in
the record.
Mrs. Davis. Without objection.
Mr. McHugh. I do want to say to Dr. Chu and Admiral Harvey:
gentlemen, I can't promise you this is your last appearance
before us. Were it in my power, I would. Clearly, it probably
does present one of, if not the only opportunity we will have
to thank you both publicly. Your appearances before this
subcommittee for such a period of time have been very, very
helpful to us, very instructive. More than that, your
leadership in the challenges that face our volunteer armed
services are legendary, and we wish you very best in the
future.
Also, we welcome General Newton. This, I promise him, is
his first, probably not his last appearance. General, we wish
you well and thank you for being here today.
As you noted, Madam Chair, the challenges and the issues we
are about to discuss per your opening statement are not new to
this subcommittee. The concern we have, as in the past, about
various recruit standards are something we want to talk about
here today, amongst other issues. So, as I said, those are
outlined in my opening remarks, and they are now formally
within the record. So I would be happy to yield back so we can
get to the testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McHugh can be found in the
Appendix on page 46.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. McHugh. I wanted to introduce
our panel again. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here.
We thank you all for your service over the years, and we look
forward again to a good hearing today.
I want to introduce the Honorable David Chu, Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Lieutenant
General Michael Rochelle, Deputy Chief of Staff for the U.S.
Army, G-1 Headquarters; Vice Admiral John Harvey, Chief of
Naval Personnel; Lieutenant General Richard Newton, III, Deputy
Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel for the U.S. Air Force;
Lieutenant General Ronald Coleman, Deputy Commandant for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps.
Thank you again.
General Newton, I know that this is your first opportunity
to testify before us, and we welcome you for being here.
Dr. Chu.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID S.C. CHU, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
PERSONNEL AND READINESS
Dr. Chu. Good morning, Madam Chairman. Thank you for your
kinds words. Mr. McHugh, likewise. Thank you for your very
gracious thoughts. I am privileged to appear this morning on
behalf of the Department of Defense (DOD) and be joined by my
colleagues, the four Deputy Chief of Staffs for Manpower and
Personnel of the military services. We do have statement for
the record. I hope, Madam Chairman, that you would accept them
as part of the committee record of this hearing.
The volunteer force, as we all know, has served the Nation
well; served it well in the longest conflict in which we have
used a volunteer force that involves use of active military
forces in a combat. We purposely have as a country set high
standards for the quality of that force and for the motivation
of the young people that seek to join the American military. I
believe we see the payoff to those high standards in the
performance of this force in the field, which has been truly
remarkable. It is a tribute, in my judgment, to this young
generation of Americans, and to some not so young Americans,
that American forces in terms of their conduct in the field
have been widely praised, whatever the controversy might be
about the underlying policies that they serve.
The fact we have been successful in sustaining this
volunteer force is, in my judgment, very much a reflection of
the partnership between the executive and legislative branches
over the last seven years. You have given us the flexibility
that we needed to have so that we could be successful in
recruiting and retaining military personnel. You have enlarged
the space within which we operate so we could offer a broader
range of incentives, especially the better set of special and
incentive pay authorities you gave us just this January with
the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year 2008.
If you look at the specific legislative proposals we have
advanced in fiscal 2009, you will see that is the same theme we
are pursuing, to seek additional flexibility, to seek
additional latitude in terms of how we use the classic tools
that have been so successful in recruiting and retaining
qualified young Americans to serve.
You mentioned, Madam Chairman, in your opening statement
the quality issue. I think to the extent there is a quality
issue, it is largely in the Army, and it is largely about the
proportion that are high school diploma graduates. I would want
to emphasize that the military as a whole insists that everyone
is a high school graduate, whether by diploma or by General
Educational Development (GED). In that regard, it stands well
above the national average, which is believed by census to be
on the order of 80 percent that enjoy that high school status.
We do recognize that the decision to stay in the military,
to continue serving is very much a family decision, and if the
family is satisfied, the military person is more likely to
pursue what he or she has seen as a calling. In that regard,
our conclusion is that the two most important issues for a
family are the education of its children and the opportunity
for the spouse to pursue a career. Not just a job, but a
career. It is in that regard, as you all know, the President in
his State of the Union Message advanced several propositions
regarding how we better support the education of military
children and the opportunities for spouses to pursue a career.
Notable among those is the notion that there should be some
degree of transferability of the member's GI bill benefits to
the family, and that we as a government should give better
support to the career aspirations of military spouses through a
form of preferential hiring in the Federal Government and
through an expansion of what we do in terms of offering day
care support to the children if the spouse should indeed seek
to work.
We look forward to the ongoing dialogue with you, Madam
Chairman, on the best way to meet the Nation's need for a
quality Armed Service forces. We are confident we can succeed
in building on the successes in the past.
I thank you, and I turn to General Rochelle.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chu can be found in the
Appendix on page 49.]
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. MICHAEL D. ROCHELLE, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF, G-1, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY
General Rochelle. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member McHugh,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you once again
for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished body
and report on the Army's personnel posture, representing our
magnificent soldiers, and for your continued support of the
Army.
Without question, our Nation's Army is still the best
trained, best equipped, best led Army in the world. But as we
enter the seventh year of war, the third longest period of
armed conflict in U.S. history, there is little question that
our Army is out of balance. Your Army soldiers and their
families are remarkable, having endured lengthy and repeated
deployments and hardships. Many have been injured, and many
more have made the ultimate sacrifice. In spite of the
tremendous burdens they bear, they remain resilient and
committed to serving our Nation. Indeed, they are today's
heroes, truly a national treasure, and I look forward to our
dialogue regarding how best to support and sustain them, and
thank you for this opportunity.
Restoring balance and creating readiness is our top
priority, after winning the war on terror. Regaining our
``boxer stance,'' as it were, the ability to shift our weight
and respond decisively requires that we apply the Army chief of
staff's four imperatives: Sustain, prepare, reset, and
transform. Key is growing the Army to 547,400 as soon as
possible. We are on target to meet this goal by the end of
fiscal year 2010. Thanks to your support, Army growth will help
us return to shorter deployments, increased time at home
between deployments, and greater predictability for soldiers
and families in both the Active and Reserve components.
We must grow to become a modular expeditionary force that
is fully capable of supporting combatant commanders in meeting
the full spectrum of contingencies. Our efforts to grow the
Army are challenging. Only 3 in 10 of our 18- to 25-year-olds
today are fully eligible for enlistment. The remainder fall
short in some element of the standards for health, education,
or character.
Our recruiting mission is difficult, given the lowest
propensity for military service, as you have observed, in two
decades; declining support from those who influence our youth;
opportunities for post-secondary education; and a competitive
job market, all you have in your remarks, Madam Chairwoman,
noted. In spite of what is happening in the United States, we
are on track to meet our recruiting goal for fiscal 2008.
I am personally concerned about the Nation's ability to
produce the highest possible caliber of military recruits,
declining high school graduation rates, and alarming rates of
obesity in our young adult population, all of which I have
testified or commented on before this committee in the past.
I share your concerns about quality, and am committed to
recruiting a force with the highest possible educational
attainment and aptitude scores. Our current analysis, which I
would be delighted to discuss during the testimony, and our
commanders in the field tell us that soldiers assessed in
fiscal year 2007 are performing exceptionally well. Every one
of these soldiers is qualified in their military occupational
specialty, and demonstrated performance on the battlefield
speaks for itself. I believe that a willingness to serve in the
Army at this place in time portends a unique aspect of quality
that accession metrics simply cannot measure, the heart of a
well-led, well-trained volunteer soldier.
While equipment and technology are certainly vital to
readiness and transformation, people are the Army. Retaining
soldiers starts at home. We must sustain soldiers and their
families with a quality of life commensurate with their quality
of service and the service they provide. This is absolutely
essential to both near-term readiness and the ability to
attract a quality force for the future. With support from the
Congress, the Army has made tremendous strides in this regard.
From funding for improved housing facilities and essential
services, to increased pay and benefits, and improvements to
health care, the results are tangible and meaningful. Our
soldiers and families recognize and deeply appreciate the
actions taken by their military and civilian leadership to
improve their quality of life in these areas.
These targeted improvements to policies, programs and
services, services delivery, mitigate risks exacerbated by
prolonged conflict and the many stresses it entails. We ask for
continued congressional support for these programs that provide
our soldiers and families with the quality of life they so
richly deserve.
If I may relay a short story, we had a visit to the
Pentagon recently by wounded warriors from Walter Reed and
Bethesda. And as I was speaking to several of the wounded
soldiers and their family members, I encountered a young
soldier who had been shot through the leg, had part of his bone
removed, had an extension, and was recovering very, very well.
He and his wife were from the 172nd Airborne from Vicenza,
Italy, which caused me to ask a question about children. And I
simply asked, You came from Italy to be at your husband's side,
and you have been here for several weeks now. Are there
children? And she responded, No. I forced my husband to agree
that we would not start a family until we had been together for
six consecutive months; we haven't started a family.
In closing, restoring balance means restoring our ability
to eliminate circumstances like these endured by heroes who
have given so much, not only answering the call to serve but
also deciding to continue to serve during this period of
persistent conflict.
I thank you for the opportunity to once again appear. I
also thank you for the partnership and the support that this
committee has demonstrated time and again on behalf of our
soldiers. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Rochelle can be found in
the Appendix on page 77.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Admiral Harvey.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. JOHN C. HARVEY, JR., USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
PERSONNEL, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY
Admiral Harvey. Thank you, ma'am. Chairman Davis, Ranking
Member McHugh, distinguished members of this committee, I thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of
the 330,000 active duty and 70,000 Reserve component sailors
now serving our Nation.
Sir, I thank you for those kind remarks. Were it up to me,
I would be looking forward to as many sessions before this
committee as you could arrange. But as the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO) explained, orders are orders, and even the
Chief of Naval Personnel gets his. So subject to confirmation
by the other body, other duties await. But this is a wonderful
committee with which to engage in our common cause, both at the
member level and certainly at the staff level of extraordinary
professionals. It has been a real pleasure to do business here
and represent our people to you.
In large part, because of your work and the extraordinary
support you have given to your Navy and to all the services, I
am very pleased today to report that your Navy is ready,
relevant and responsive. We are recruiting a high quality
force, and we are retaining those high quality sailors we need
to sustain a quality force, and we intend to keep it that way.
Now those are pretty straightforward words, and I would
like to back up the words with just a picture to illustrate
what they mean to us. We are sustaining our Nation's engagement
in Iraq and Afghanistan both directly and in support of Army
and Marine ground forces, and we are simultaneously
strengthening our engagement around the world in keeping with
the guidance contained in our new cooperative maritime strategy
for the 21st century.
Now let me give you an example of what your Navy is doing
on any given day. Last week, on 20 February, our Nation's
attention was focused on the USS Lake Erie, one of our Aegis
cruisers in Hawaii, as it successfully engaged a failing
satellite with a Navy standard missile launched by Fire
Controlman Second Class Andrew Jackson of Raytown, Missouri.
But also on 20 February, just as Lake Erie was engaging the
satellite in an extremely challenging and complex real world
scenario, our Navy was also operating newly developed riverine
forces up Euphrates River near the Haditha Dam. Navy SEALs were
pursuing al Qaeda deep in Afghanistan and all throughout Iraq,
and the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group and the Tarawa
Expeditionary Strike Group were supporting Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in the
Arabian Gulf.
February 20 was a day in which 127 of our 279 ships, about
46 percent, were underway or deployed, including 2 aircraft
carriers and 5 big deck expeditionary warfare ships. That day,
20 February, your Navy had 54,000 sailors forward deployed
overseas, including about 24,000 sailors in U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM), of whom 10,000 were afloat and about 14,000
were boots on ground in various capacities. And on 20 February,
we had approximately 10,000 sailors on individual augmentation
missions serving in roles ranging from our traditional
expertise in intelligence, medical support, explosive ordnance
disposal, and combat zone destruction, to delivering new
capabilities in areas like civil affairs, provincial
reconstruction teams, running detainee operations, and
combating Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) while embedded in
Army and Marine tactical units.
Also on that day in the CENTCOM area of operations, three
of our surface combatants were engaged in anti-piracy
operations in and around the Horn of Africa, sustaining the
flow of relief supplies to people in drought and famine.
Sailors in the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) region
supported President Bush's trip to Africa with Operation Nomad
Fire, while the USS Fort McHenry and the high speed vessel
Swift continued the inaugural deployment in support of Africa
partnership stationing in the crucial areas in the Gulf of
Guinea where 15 percent of our Nation's oil generates.
On 20 February, we had frigates and P-3s partnering with
the Coast Guard conducting counternarcotics in the Caribbean
and off the coast of South America, resulting in 4.4 metric
tons of drugs seized in January and February.
Closer to home, in Newport News, construction continued on
our newest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS George
H.W. Bush. Finally, we had about 870 of our newest recruits
conducting Battle Station 21 at Great Lakes on the 20th of
February, the culminating experience of their initial training
at bootcamp.
On that day, 20 February, the common element in all of
these missions, from the high end operations of our Aegis
weapons system, to the low tech but certainly no less demanding
riverine mission, was our people. It is the Navy's people who
are making it all happen, executing these important missions
and achieving great success. It is the same Navy that
accomplishes all these very diverse tasks, and our Navy's
people, our young men and woman, Active and Reserve, who have
volunteered to serve a cause much larger than themselves,
deserve all the credit and our gratitude for the immeasurable
achievements made in the defense of our Nation.
In the years that have passed since 9/11, again, with the
strong support of the Congress and this committee, your Navy
has undertaken a significant reshaping in order to develop the
capability to engage worldwide at every level of warfare while
maintaining our ability to dominate the blue water anywhere
around the globe. And so, as we approach our steady state force
levels of 322,000 sailors in our Active component, 68,000
sailors in our Reserve component, it is clear we will simply
not be a smaller Navy, we will be a different Navy, and to get
the essential manpower, personnel, training and education
pieces of this different Navy right, we are putting together
all the component parts of our value chain for people to ensure
we have the right sailor in the right job at the right time, a
concept we call FIT. Our efforts will ensure we are ready to
respond to any mission at any time, anywhere, from the deep
ocean to well beyond the shore line.
Your Navy is a service whose routine forward presence
around the world, actively supporting our friends and allies,
pursuing our enemies, and maintaining the global maritime
stability upon which our economic well-being depends, clearly
illustrated by the many missions we accomplished on a typical
day in February, is a fact now and will certainly remain so for
the indefinite future.
On behalf of all our sailors, Active and Reserve, I wish to
thank this committee for their steadfast support for all our
Navy people who are doing so much for so many every day. I have
submitted a written statement for the record, ma'am, and I
stand ready to respond to your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Harvey can be found in
the Appendix on page 92.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, very much.
General Newton.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RICHARD Y. NEWTON III, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF, MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE
General Newton. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member McHugh,
and distinguished members of the committee. As you mentioned,
ma'am, this is my first opportunity to testify before this
committee, and I have been in my current duties for just what
seems to be a brief few weeks, but certainly gained a lot of
insight in terms of not only the inner workings of our Air
Force, but having had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Chu on a
number of occasions, as well as the opportunity to latch up
with my fellow colleagues here, I am very honored to be here,
and look forward to, again, a long venture with this committee.
Again, thank you for the opportunity for me to discuss our
efforts to ensure we recruit and develop and retain high
quality airmen for the world's most respected air space and
cyberspace force. Our men have been continuously deployed and
globally engaged in combat missions for over 17 straight plus
years, since the first F-15 touched down in Saudi Arabia in
August of 1990. Today, airmen are fully engaged in the
interdependent joint fight and stand prepared for rapid
response in conflict across the globe to provide capabilities
for our joint combatant commanders.
Our priorities are clear. We win today's fight, developing
and caring for our airmen and their families, and preparing for
tomorrow's challenges. Today's airmen are doing amazing things
to execute the Air Force mission, to meet Air Force
commitments, and keep the Air Force on a vector for success
against potential future threats in a very uncertain world. Our
aim is to improve capability while maintaining the greatest
combat-ready Air Force in the world. I look to accomplish this
by recruiting and retaining the highest quality airmen
throughout the airman's life cycle.
As we prepare for an uncertain future, we are transforming
the force to ensure we are the right size and shape to meet
emerging global threats with joint and battle-trained airmen.
In order to dominate in the domains of air and space and
cyberspace throughout the 21st century, we must recruit,
develop and organize America's diverse and brightest talents
for very complex, multinational and interagency operations of
the future.
Our recruiting force has met the enlisted recruiting
mission through persistence and dedication. Since 2000, the Air
Force has enlisted over 258,000 airmen against a goal of almost
255,000, for approximately 101 percent mission accomplishment
in recruiting. For fiscal year 2008, the active duty
requirement was 27,800, and just over 9,000 airmen have
accessed up to this point, with about 9,500 waiting to enter
basic military training down at Lackland Air Force base in
Texas. We are on track to meet our goals this year.
For fiscal year 2007, active duty Air Force officer
retention finished 11 percent above our goal, while enlisted
retention fell about eight percent below our goal, still within
acceptable margins. The Air Force Reserve fell short of its
enlisted retention goal by three percent, and was less than
one-half percent shy of the officer retention goal. The Air
National Guard met their overall officer listed retention goals
for fiscal year 2007. Even with these successes, some enlisted
specialties in the Active Air Force did not achieve their
overall retention goal, including air traffic control and
Mideast crypto linguists, structural civil engineering,
pavement and construction equipment vehicle operations, and
contracting.
Our most critical warfighting skills require a special
focus on retention to maintain combat capability due to
critical manning and the demands of increased operations tempo
placed on career fields such as pararescue, combat control, and
explosive ordnance disposal. Budget support for retention
programs is critical to effectively manage the force and
preserve needed warfighting capability. These programs are
judiciously and effectively targeted to provide the most return
on investment in both dollars and capability.
Retention in the Air Force Reserves is also becoming a
concern, although we missed our goal in FY 2007 by only a
slight margin, less than one-half percent. However, this marked
the second year in a row that we did not reach our Reserve
retention targets. We have seen an increase in turnover rate
via gradual decreases in first term and career reenlistments
over the last 3 years, with reenlistments dropping nearly 10
points. We believe this is partly due to fallout from Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC), some budgetary issues with
regard to Program Budget Decision (PBD) 720, but will monitor
closely to identify opportunities to influence our airmen's
behavior as they reach key career decision points.
The Air Force's ability to retain experienced health care
personnel past their initial commitments has declined, and that
is compounding our recruiting challenges as well. Retention at
10-year point is 26 percent for physicians, 18 percent for
dentists, 34 percent for nurses, 36 percent for biomedical
officers, and approximately 52 percent for administrators. The
Air Force continues to develop accession and retention
incentives to ensure the right mix of health care
professionals. As part of our Air Force transformation, we are
reviewing and synchronizing our developmental efforts to
realize efficiencies in how we utilize developmental tools,
educational training, and experiential to produce our stellar
airmen, military and civilian officer, and enlisted and Active
and Reserve components. We are dedicating resources to ensure
our most important weapons system, our airmen, is prepared to
deliver air space and cyberspace power wherever and whenever it
is needed.
In conclusion, the Air Force is often the first to fight
and last to leave in many cases. We give unique options to all
joint force commanders. The Air Force must safeguard our
ability to see anything on the face of the Earth; range it;
observe it or hold it at risk; supply, rescue, support or
destroy it; assess the effects; and exercise global command and
control of all these activities. Rising to the 21st century
challenge is not a choice. It is our responsibility to bequeath
a dominant Air Force to America's joint team that will follow
us in service to the Nation.
Again, I greatly appreciate your unfailing support. We in
the United States Air Force greatly appreciate your unfailing
support of the men and women in the United States Air Force,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Newton can be found in
the Appendix on page 120.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, very much.
General Coleman.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RONALD S. COLEMAN, USMC, DEPUTY
COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, HEADQUARTERS, U.S.
MARINE CORPS
General Coleman. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member McHugh,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is my
privilege to appear before you today to discuss Marine Corps
recruiting, retention, and other personnel issues. On behalf of
the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Conway, I would
like to first thank you, ma'am, for you and your subcommittee
members visiting Camp Lejeune yesterday, and especially our
wounded warrior regiment.
Our new wounded warrior regiment is quickly becoming what
you envisioned, a comprehensive and integrated approach to
caring for our wounded, ill, and injured Marines and sailors
through all phases of their recovery. As you know, we have
recently implemented a 24 by 7 wounded warrior call center to
reach out to our wounded warriors, including those who have
already left service, and a job transition cell to help them
find satisfying work. We are very proud of how the regiment has
progressed in such a short time, and are thankful for the high
priority you have given it.
Today, I would like to make a few key points. First, in
regard to our end strength growth, the Marine Corps achieved
unprecedented success in fiscal year 2007. We exceeded our goal
of growing to 184,000 Marines, and ended the year with an
active duty end strength of 186,492. We fully expect to exceed
our next milestone of 189,000 during fiscal year 2008 as we set
our sights on 202,000.
We owe our success in large part to our recruiters, who met
all our accession goals in fiscal year 2007 while maintaining
our high quality standards. We expect to meet this challenge
again this fiscal year. Thank you for your support for our
enlistment incentives, which make these achievements possible.
Retention should also be viewed as a success. We reenlisted
3,700 more Marines in fiscal year 2007 than in the prior fiscal
year. Nevertheless, retention will continue to pose a
significant challenge as our goals become more and more
aggressive. We thank you for your support of our selective
reenlistment bonus program. It is the foundation of our
retention efforts.
The funds provided to us have increased significantly in
recent years, and is money extremely well spent. These funds
have enabled us to increase retention in targeted and
specialized Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) that allow
us to maintain the leadership and experience necessary for
combat and other operational requirements, as well as for the
new units stood up in support of our 202,000 growth.
I want to emphasize today our efforts toward Marine
families. Thanks to your support, we are putting our family
readiness programs on wartime footing, increasing steady state
funding, and making a host of improvements. We are establishing
school liaison officer capabilities at every Marine Corps
installation to advocate our Marine children. We are also
expanding our exceptional family member program to improve
support and provide respite care to those special families.
These and other initiatives will help ensure that we fulfill
our obligation to our Marine spouses, children, and other
family members.
Overall, the commitment of Congress in supporting our
202,000 end strength growth and to improve the quality of life
of Marines and their families is central to the strength that
your Marine Corps enjoys today. Thanks to you, the Marine Corps
remains the Nation's force in readiness, and will continue to
fulfill its mission of being the most ready when the Nation is
least ready.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Coleman can be found in
the Appendix on page 132.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony
that you have all brought to us today. I think you highlight
for us all the extraordinary men and women who serve this
country, and their families, because we know that they
sacrifice greatly. That is the reason I think that we are all
on this committee, because we know that the men and women are
the heart of our efforts, and our national security, and we
must do everything that we can to be sure that they are getting
what they need, and we also have to be sure, and I think it is
perhaps even the sober introduction that I had, that we want to
be sure that we are providing for the kind of funding and the
needs that we have to be recruiting and getting the best that
we can. And we know that you are all very much focused on that
effort. We saw that at Camp Lejeune yesterday, and I want to
thank the members who were able to go with us for the day to
speak with many of the Marines that were there and to
understand the needs that we have in terms of our education of
our children, as well as the services that are provided to
families.
So I wanted to mention that again because I think it was a
good trip, and we will have many others to see how illustrative
many of the members' communities are, the issues that we are
going to be focusing on.
I want to turn to the supplemental because that is an area
that I think we continue to try and understand. What is going
on here; how can we best provide for the recruitment needs
across the services? We know that within the Army and the
Marines, perhaps the problem is a little more acute. But what
are we really dealing with? Because repeatedly we see that
there are shortfalls in the recruitment dollars that are
needed, and when those dollars come in with the supplemental,
albeit even a late supplemental, that presents problems.
We saw where even the Army National Guard I think had been
paying out some larger enlistments, and then they weren't able
to do that. They had to stop these efforts. What is happening?
Are we worried about this in a way that is not reflected in
your concerns. And if that is a concern that you have, why is
that happening? Are we shortchanging some of those efforts when
we are certainly trying to cover the needs in a whole host of
other areas?
Dr. Chu, what is your feeling about this? Is this something
that we are overly concerned about that?
Dr. Chu. Thank you for raising that point and issue, Madam
Chairwoman. I would say as long as I have been serving the
Defense Department, it has been a debate for a number of years.
Every constituent element would like to have its entire budget
in the base budget of the Department because that does
facilitate execution and it makes it easier to move forward.
That said, the Comptroller and Secretary of Defense
recommend to the President how we are going to finance the
overall defense program. As we all appreciate, a significant
portion of the Defense Department the last several years has
been financed with supplemental funding. I do think in the
specific case of the recruiting monies for fiscal 2008, the
early enactment of the second tranche of the so-called global
war on terror funding is really the solution so that we do have
the money in a timely way in order to execute well.
I have talked with my colleagues and specifically with the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau about the importance of
keeping the recruiting effort on track by, as people phrase it
in the finance community, cash flowing from other accounts
within the same appropriation lot. Certainly in the case of the
National Guard Bureau it is committed to doing that.
We all understand that what is important in terms of
recruiting success is a steady effort. This is not like
cramming for final exam. You can't make it all up at the end of
the year. So I am confident we will execute well. We would like
to see the second half of the global war on terror funding
enacted as soon as possible.
The issue of how the Department divides its budget between
the base budget, the supplemental, the funding vehicles like
the global war on terror funding mechanism, are issues, as
people say, above our pay grades. We would obviously always be
comfortable by having as much as possible in the base budget,
and the Department is moving to put more of the programs that
had been funded in supplemental vehicles into the base budget.
But that is a multiyear job.
Mrs. Davis. If all of you would like to comment, we
appreciate that. But the Army particularly has a shortfall. I
believe staff is estimating about $1.8 billion more than the
$3.8 billion budgeted for recruiting programs. I guess that
includes both the Army and Marines as well.
General Rochelle. That amount is larger than just the Army,
Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to
that question. We would clearly wish to have all of our budget
in the base budget, all the requirements met in the base
budget, but the reliance on supplementals is likely to
continue, at least throughout the global war on terror, would
be my estimation.
Nonetheless, and I would echo Dr. Chu's comment, the
reliance on that necessitates timely receipt of those
supplemental resources in order to be able to plan and execute
efficiently and effectively.
Mrs. Davis. General Rochelle, basically I think what you
are saying is within the foreseeable future we would be having
the supplemental reflect that.
General Rochelle. One more point, if I may, Madam
Chairwoman. I am pleased to report, however, that the Army
senior leadership has decided that we will resource recruiting
and retention 100 percent out of the base beginning in fiscal
2010. In spite of what I foresee as the continuing reliance on
supplemental for critical resources, we are moving our
recruiting and retention into the base in fiscal 2010.
Mrs. Davis. Do you have any trouble trying to predict that
in fiscal 2010? Why are we not doing it earlier then?
General Rochelle. It is going to take a measured response
and a planned execution to wean ourselves off reliance on the
supplemental for recruiting and retention. And I will end with
that comment.
Mrs. Davis. My time is up. Did anybody else particularly
want to comment on this? Because we want to pick up your
comments later, if necessary.
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. I would say as far as the
Marine Corps, ma'am, we would love for it to be in the
baseline. But as with Lieutenant General Rochelle, we certainly
need and see the need in the foreseeable future for
supplementals, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You heard the chairwoman speak, and Dr. Chu and others
speak about the concerns that have been raised with respect to
erosion, so-called erosion of recruit quality, and the various
standards, the waivers that have been increasing. Rather than
color my question with my opinions, let me just start with you,
Dr. Chu. How do you view these standards? Do you think the
traditional standards are still relevant? Do you have data that
suggests maybe we ought to be looking and measuring at other
things? What is the perspective you have?
And let me add a second part to that. Given the current
standards, what do leaders like yourself look for? What kind of
things happen when we are falling below the standards that
cause you concern and a need to react.
Dr. Chu. I think you have raised the fundamental issue, how
do we set these standards, why are they as they are, and in a
developing situation, how should we keep reexamining the
validity of those standards. The present standards, as I know
you appreciate, come out of the 30-some year experience with
the volunteer force. That is a different situation from a
conscript.
We discovered fairly early on that one of the key issues is
retention, because we want a more senior, more experienced
force. We found, and we have tried a variety of different
indicators, but we found one of the best predictors of the
individual's willingness to stick with a military choice,
through the first term of service especially, is the possession
of a high school diploma.
Separately, thanks to experiments done in the 1980's,
experiments in which we sent people down, for example, in the
case of the Army, in front of patriot consoles, and tested
their ability to respond to simulated events that would in fact
replicate what they do in the field, we found that there is a
continually increasing payoff to the score on the Armed Forces
qualification test. It doesn't flat out, doesn't fall off, just
keeps going up. So you would like that set of scores to be as
high as possible.
That all said, the more you want to drive to the very top
of the ability distribution, the more you are increasing the
compensation needs of the Department. There is a balance here.
There is also a secondary issue. Some people do not do well on
paper and pencil tests, and the Armed Forces Qualification Test
(AFQT) is a paper and pencil test. Most of our tasks are
actually physical in nature. So it is not a complete predictor
of performance.
The National Academy of Sciences was asked to advise the
Department in the 1990's about how do we strike a balance among
these criteria: Measures of stick-to-itiveness, motivation
perhaps is another way you might phrase it, versus measures of
ability, and the cost of same. Out of that experience came our
contemporary standard that we would like to see new non-prior
service enlistees all have a high school diploma. Ninety
percent. Some allowance for various other situations that might
be out there where people don't earn a diploma. We are not
trying to be overly rigid about this.
Sixty percent should score above average on the Armed
Forces Qualification Test, and as the statutes provide, we do
not enlist from the lowest 10 percent on the Armed Services
Qualification Test. And the further standard that was imposed
is that we would limit to 4 percentage points those who score
between the 10th and the 30th percentile, the so-called
Category IV. We have had experience with that in the draft as
well in terms of these standards, which informs the AFQT
findings specifically.
We also have, as you indicated in your question about the
waivers, a broad set of screening questions. We want to know
when we are enlisting in the Armed Forces. We asked them rather
intrusive questions about their personal life, including have
they ever tried drugs. We set fairly high standards. If you say
yes, I did, and in the case of Marine Corps, I think it's just
once, it requires a further review. One of the reasons is we
acquire the highest number of so-called waivers. Perhaps waiver
is not the right word. This is a positive response on a
screening question. I think the Army allows you to say twice,
and then it says we want a review of this particular case.
Those are important reviews. The fact that the incidence
has risen in the case of the Army and Navy doesn't necessarily
mean we have lower quality. We have to be sensitive to what is
the background rate of behaviors among American youths. So if
you see an increase as we have at various times in history in
drug experimentation, you are going to see a higher rate of
people saying yes.
The Army has now done some research, and I will defer to
General Rochelle on this issue, and I really think this is
where we ought to be focused, on what is the actual performance
of people to whom we have given what we call a waiver. My
understanding of the result is that on average performance is
equal to perhaps slightly better than actually the rest of the
population. That might seem counterintuitive at first. But
after you reflect, I think it is persuasive. After all, these
people honest enough to answer these questions accurately, that
is one issue out there. We do test for drug usage as well, I
might add. Second, they pass through a stronger filter than has
everybody else. We look more deeply into their background.
So, yes, it is something to watch very carefully. We are
constantly asking ourselves could we do better. And I want to
specifically mention two pilots the Army is carrying on. One is
an Assessment of Recruit Motivation and Strength (ARMS) test,
looking at the physical fitness issue. Not entirely clear that
our measures of weight are the right way of judging your
fitness. And so the Army has a set of physical tests it can
administer instead and enlist under those standards. We will
track those people for several years and see how they do.
Likewise, we are looking at the question of is there a set
of indicators that could be a substitute for the diploma as a
predictor of first term attrition. That is the so-called Tier
Two Attrition Screen that we are using today. We set aside a
certain portion of Army enlistments we will run for several
years before we conclude yes or no. I think you need to run it
for at least three years to get a good sense of is this
working.
Just to sum up, we think the standards set are the right
standards. We are constantly reexamining whether they are the
best standards, the best predictors to use, because there are
some costs, particularly on the front, to that standard. And we
do know this is a major inhibition in terms of recruiting as
high a fraction of Hispanic youth as we would like to see in
the military today.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Perhaps we will want to return to
this later on.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thanks, gentlemen, for your service to our
country. General Newton, I welcome you. My brother is actually
about to deploy overseas in the Air Force, he is a Major, this
weekend. Keep doing a great job. We appreciate it.
Gentlemen, I spoke before last year when you testified and
I talked about after I came back from my first deployment when
I was in active duty how I helped with the recruiting efforts
up at West Point and then up in New York. I am concerned though
about what the chairwoman said about the supplemental.
As you know, we gave the money, the $3.8 billion, which was
in the base, but then $1.8 billion for the supplemental. I know
last year in the testimony I mentioned it to all of you about
my concerns with the supplemental. I happen to be one of those
Blue Dog Democrats, fiscal conservatives, and I want to make
sure we are wrapping our arms around the budget and cutting out
fraud, waste, and abuse.
But I was told last year and the testimony was by the
Marine Corps, who said it was their goal to have everything in
the baseline by fiscal year 2008, and the Army said it was
going to be their goal to get as much in the base budget as
possible.
I just think that there is an excessive reliance on this
supplemental spending. And I know that was against what the
pledge was originally with the new Secretary of Defense. I just
want to make sure that we correct this. I am happy that,
General Rochelle, you said by fiscal year 2010. That is
terrific.
Are there specific instances that not having a
predictability of what recruitment funding is going to be, how
it hurts your efforts to recruit. And if you could all describe
that, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Chu. Let me defer to my colleagues. I do think the
Department is very sensitive to the need to execute well on
recruiting programs. We report monthly to the Secretary of
Defense in some detail where do we stand. I know the Secretary
of the Army has made a practice of a deep dive into the
recruiting matters.
We know we are being held to account, and that we have
partnered with our financial colleagues to make sure that there
is enough cash on hand to execute where we will not be hobbled
by this structure.
Mr. Murphy. Dr. Chu, before they comment, in your
testimony, I copied down, it says when you have these in the
baseline budgets and not rely on the supplemental, that it is
easier for you to move forward. But you also mentioned and said
it is above your pay grade. You say you report once a month.
Dr. Chu. The President's budget request is the President's
budget request. It is the product, as you appreciate, of
everyone's advice as to how we should move forward both
substantially and in terms of a financing vehicle. The
supplemental issue is essentially a financing issue, not a
matter of our intent.
What I would underscore in terms of execution is we all
understand that we need to use money in a variety of accounts
to assure recruiting and retention within the appropriation
purpose statutes, et cetera, I should rush to emphasize. But we
need to use the monies available to ensure that recruiting
stays on the right path. We have an energetic conversation with
our financial colleagues to make sure that happens.
That all said, that all said, that is an additional effort.
That means more liaison, more care, more focus. It would, of
course, from our perspective as the manpower community, it
would be easier to have it in the base budget. That is
certainly true. However, we are executing well with the
structure we have. As General Rochelle testified, the Army is
moving to put more in the base budget. I think the Department
as a whole is moving to put more of the ongoing program in a
base budget as a strategic matter. It will not all happen in
one year.
Mr. Murphy. Is it accurate to say that you are moving
toward that and your higher chain of command is not moving
toward having it in the base budget?
Dr. Chu. That would not be fair at all. The higher chain of
command understands we have to put more in the base budget. It
won't all happen at once. There is excess demand to go in the
base budget. That is the truthful situation.
Mr. Murphy. But, Dr. Chu, who in the Department of Defense
cannot foresee there is going to be recruitment challenges? We
have all known about the recruitment challenges that we face.
We all know about what was already mentioned earlier. Who
couldn't foresee challenges?
Dr. Chu. We all know it is a challenging recruiting
environment. This is a question of how is it financed, not what
are we proposing to do. A most useful step at this juncture
would actually be the prompt enactment of the second half of
the global war on terror funding for fiscal 2008. That is where
we really to focus now, not how did the budget originally get
presented.
Mr. Murphy. That is the easy solution. There is no one on
this committee that doesn't support the military and want to
give you every single dime we can give you. I think the rub is,
Dr. Chu, would be every single year we ask you to give us the
projections for the year, what you need, anticipating where the
challenges are going to come from, and anticipate that so we
can have the hearings and have the proper oversight that we
need to do, and we ask this year after year, and we are not
getting it.
Dr. Chu. I think we have provided that. I think had the
global war on terror funding tranche been all appropriated at
once, earlier on, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Mr. Murphy. There is a rub though, Dr. Chu, with $3.8
billion, which was in the base, and an additional $1.8 billion,
almost 50 percent more in a supplemental.
Dr. Chu. That request was forwarded early to the Congress.
It is now for the Congress to act.
Mr. Murphy. Through a supplemental, Dr. Chu.
Dr. Chu. Absolutely correct.
Mr. Murphy. So if I could ask the specific departments. If
you can just give me, so I can understand better, where this
rub hurts you as far as where you can't foresee the challenges
when you don't have the funds up front in the base.
Admiral Harvey. Sir, in the Navy we have a base of about
$217 million, with about $120 million that comes in the
supplemental. What I have done with the folks who control the
actual flow of the dollars, another organization, we laid out
in our annual program and I said I am executing on the
assumption that I will have this money. And so the agreement we
have had is that among equals and claims on the supplemental
dollars, that the money comes my way first to maintain the
essential people programs; in this case, the recruiting
programs. So I operate as if I have the full amount in hand.
We lay it all for advertising that is trying to counteract
the drastic drop in propensity that has occurred over the last
five years. So we lay out our plan and operate on the
assumption that the money will be forthcoming when we need it.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Murphy, I know you have gone over your
time. This is always difficult because we actually do want to
hear from all of you. I am going to go ahead. If there are any
very specific comments, we will go ahead and hear that and
perhaps come back later on and that. Ms. Drake has a question,
I know. Any specific example or concern that comes to mind that
you really want to relate?
Okay. Ms. Drake.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First of all, Admiral Harvey, I want to congratulate you on
shooting down the satellite.
Admiral Harvey. I had a little help on that one, ma'am.
Mrs. Drake. Well, and the young man's name was Andrew
Jackson. I thought that was interesting, too.
When we were briefed on that there was a lot of doubt in
our minds about, number one, would we be able to do it, would
it take three tries, and really the consequences if it were to
land in a populated area. That just shows we do have the best
fighting force in the world, the best trained, the best
equipped, and we are very proud of what you were able to do.
Admiral Harvey. Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Drake. A couple of things. First, Dr. Chu, I just want
to ask you a little bit about our Special Operations Forces,
especially with the focus on them now, their high operational
tempo. If you could speak to us on recruitment and retention,
and if you think you have the tools in place to be able to do
what we recognize we need to do there.
But I would also like to ask you in regards to the last
question, because I have sat here on the committee before and
it appeared to be clear to me that a decision has been made to
fund our military, number one, through a base budget, and
number two, through a supplemental, because it would be easier
for you to identify needs and what we need rather than just you
trying to anticipate for an entire year and not being able to
hone in.
So from the tone of the last question, I am curious. Has
something changed, or is that something Congress would need to
change if we decided we didn't want to continue supplemental
funding? My understanding on it is it is sort of a decision
prior to me coming to Congress that we would fund in a double
step to be more specific and targeted on how much the military
needs to accomplish our goals.
Dr. Chu. Thank you for both questions. Let me start with
the bottom line issue that you raised on the Special Operations
Forces, do we have the tools we need? I think the short answer
is yes; particularly with recent changes we think we have the
instruments that will ensure continued success.
We did use the tools that you have given us starting about
three years ago in a different way than we had before. I
particularly appreciate therefore the actions in the fiscal
2008 authorization bill that gave us more latitude on this
front. That specifically is the energetic use of the critical
skills retention bonus at late stages of the career. We have
found with the special operations community, because in several
of its lanes people come to that area of specialization later
in their careers, we want to keep people beyond 20 years of
service. So we have broken new ground by offering significant
retention incentives for people to stay beyond 20 years. That
is a first in the Department.
My conversations with both General Brown and Admiral Olson
suggest that it is succeeding. It is doing what we wanted to do
in retaining experienced special operations personnel beyond
where they might normally have taken a retirement.
On the recruiting front, again, I think your willingness to
enlarge the size of the recruiting bonus is very helpful. I
think as far as special operations personnel are concerned, one
of our issues has been the successful completion of training
rate. The Navy I know has specifically worked on this because
it has been an issue in the SEAL community. I defer to Admiral
Harvey on that matter.
On the supplemental issue, you are absolutely correct that
early in this conflict the Department did seek to put more
money in the base, and was advised by the Congress, there was
some to and fro really with the appropriations community, now
the preference, including for the reasons that you outlined,
ought to be put more related costs in the supplemental. Of
course, we view a substantial part of the recruiting premium we
need to pay as being related to the current conflict and its
effect on propensity to serve and the attitude of influencers.
There has been, one can only characterize it, as an
energetic dialogue at the Secretary of Defense level between
the Department and the Congress about what is the right
balance. I do think over time, as we have testified, the
Department believes we ought to put more of the ongoing program
in the base. How much, for exactly the reason you raise, I
think has yet to be determined.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank all of you
for being here, Mr. Secretary, Generals, Admiral. I really want
to thank you because it is my view that the opportunities that
you provide for young people are unparalleled, and I say this
as a veteran myself of 31 years. I have four sons who have
served in the military; two who have served in Iraq. By having
military service, I know I, I know they, have received the best
of education. And, Admiral, I do have a graduate of the Naval
Academy.
I just am grateful for the educational opportunities, the
travel opportunities, the opportunity to meet people within the
military, out of the military, to have lifelong friends. People
are very capable and patriotic. You are providing that
opportunity.
I also know this because I represent the bases of Fort
Jackson, very proud of Parris Island, General, and I am very
proud of the Marine Air Station, Beaufort Naval Hospital. When
we visit these facilities, when we visit our troops overseas in
Iraq, Afghanistan, around the world, we go and maybe inspire
them, but they inspire us. So, again, thank you for the
opportunities presented.
I do have an interest, Secretary Chu, that you just touched
on in regard to retention by way of maintaining the wonderful
people who serve in the Guard and Reserve. There has been a
real question about the age of retirement. Currently it is 60.
There are different proposals that I have supported that it
would go straight to 55 due to the seamless nature of the
Active forces and Guard and Reserve.
Additionally, I have supported, and you touched on it, and
that is persons who serve over 20 years, that for every 2 years
that they serve there would be a reduction of 1 year from the
time of retirement. Additionally, there has been an effort,
which was partially successful last year, and that is to reduce
the age of 60 by the period of deployment. The opportunity has
now been created where it can be reduced. Unfortunately, it was
proactive rather than retroactive for the conflict that we are
in.
Indeed, we all, both political parties here, want to assist
you with the success that you have had in recruiting and
retention. But what would be your comments about how can we
help you reduce the retirement age for Guard and Reserve?
Dr. Chu. Sir, thank you for raising that issue. I know it
has been a matter of great concern to the Reserve community for
some years. I will be plain. The Department has not been
enthused about proposals to lower the age at which Reserve
members would be eligible for an annuity from age 60. Our
calculation, supported by a lengthy study by the RAND
Corporation, are that it would actually reduce overall
retention in the Reserve, and not increase it.
That all said, the chairwoman in her opening remarks did
raise what is really the fundamental issue, just the whole
retirement program, Active and Reserve, in the right place as
we go forward in the 21st century. It is a very fundamental
question. I am not saying that we have endorsed that proposal
in the Department. I do think it is the meritorious subject of
an extended debate. It is a subject that the second volume of
the Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) now
ongoing will take up. I would hope we put any further changes
to Reserve time into that, rather than trying to debate it
separately.
I think there is a real risk if you take just a piece of
the retirement system, because it is so essential to how
careers are shaped militarily, and start changing it. You will
have a number of unintended adverse consequences that will
require new Band-aids to fix. So if we are going to deal with
retirement, we ought to deal with it in a holistic way, not a
piece at a time.
Mr. Wilson. Well, as you look at it, I am somewhat
astounded that the researchers came to the conclusion they came
to because, knowing my colleagues who have served or are
serving, it would be such a great incentive for them to
remaining longer. These are trained personnel, dedicated,
physically capable.
It is just a real gold mine, Madam Chairwoman, of persons
who want to serve, and what a great incentive to provide them
with a retirement program similar to the Active forces.
Again, thank all of you for the opportunities that you
provide to the young people of our country. I yield the balance
of my time.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Shea-Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. I thank you all for being here
and for your service.
I do have some concerns, and I want specifically to
concentrate on what is happening to the Army right now. Dr.
Chu, I listened to your testimony and you said that these
recruits who are below the level that we normally recruited
just 4 short years ago, for example, in 2004, 92 percent of the
recruits were high school graduates. We are now down to what I
consider to be a worrisome 79 percent.
Even more troubling for me is the number of new recruits
who fall in Category IV, the lowest mental category that we can
accept them in. That has increased, I think, an astounding
amount. It went from one-half to four percent in a period of a
few years. My worry here is your comment that they are actually
in many instances, I am putting my word in, out-performing
those who have high school diplomas and those who have scored
in a higher mental category. You say it is counterintuitive,
but it seems to be happening. Could you explain that to me,
please?
Dr. Chu. First of all, let me clarify, Madam. Thank you for
raising these important issues. My comments about performance
are based on the Army study. I would hope we do more work of
this kind that looked at the high school diploma credential.
One thing I would emphasize, this is something we in the
Department often gloss over as well. We set the standard that
everyone has to be a high school graduate. Whether that is by a
diploma or by a GED is the issue for attrition purposes. That
is the matter I was speaking to. The standard of 90 percent,
and we were above 90 percent in the Army a few years ago,
having a high school diploma is a standard set for motivation
because it predicts attrition.
The Armed Forces Qualification Test issue is a wholly
different matter. Yes, the proportion in mental Category IV,
when was the 10th to 30 percentile, has risen, but it has risen
to our standard. In other words, our norm was no more than four
percent, for a variety of reasons that we have set.
I do think we have to keep the whole quality issue in a
broad historical perspective. I have had the privilege of
watching the volunteer force since its inception. In its early
years we had much higher, as much as half of the Army's non-
prior service enlistees were in mental Category IV. So we have
been in a different place. The change from one-half percent to
four percent is not by historical standards all that
significant.
Yes, I think the Army has pursued a skillful strategy as I
look at its challenging recruiting environment. If it needs to
take risk, and it has taken some risk, as General Rochelle
effectively testified, it is better to take risk on the
attrition factor, because we can work on that issue, rather
than on the AFQT quality indicator as a measure of underlying
ability. So we will take the person with better AFQT scores
even if he or she doesn't have that high school diploma.
We do insist, we do insist that that person pass the GED,
which is a national standard and in fact, you might argue, a
better way of ensuring the person really has gotten to the
place he or she wants to through his or her high school. So
everyone is a high school graduate, whereas only 80 percent of
the country can claim that.
Ms. Shea-Porter. It does seem to me that if we are
accepting people in the lowest mental category, and it is a
pretty dramatic increase in the past four years, I don't think
it is fair to compare it to historical levels because isn't the
equipment more complicated, aren't the requirements of a
soldier more complicated now, the technology is at a higher
level? Is this a fair comparison?
Dr. Chu. It is not the lowest mental category by statute,
and we observe that statute faithfully. We do not recruit from
the lowest 10 percent points. That is mental Category V. That
has been a longstanding statutory prohibition.
Ms. Shea-Porter. The lowest one that you can access?
Dr. Chu. Statutorily.
Ms. Shea-Porter. The lowest you are allowed to access?
Dr. Chu. There is always an issue out there of people who
don't test well. They may be dyslexic, for example.
Ms. Shea-Porter. I understand that. But I don't believe
that level has changed dramatically in four years, so there is
a problem.
Dr. Chu. I don't call it a problem, Madam. I do think the
larger issue here, and General Rochelle and my colleagues spoke
to it in their testimony, the larger issue is: Is the country
willing to argue that its best young people ought to step
forward for military service? Our unfortunate reality is that
fewer, as we phrase it, influencers are willing to do that
these days.
Ms. Shea-Porter. That is another debate for another day.
Dr. Chu. But that is the solution, Madam.
Ms. Shea-Porter. I would like to ask you while I am still
using my time, please, about moral waivers. Could you tell me
exactly what are you giving moral waivers for, and what
percentage of people right now are coming into the Army with
moral waivers?
Dr. Chu. Let me ask General Rochelle to speak to the Army's
moral waiver percentage, if I might. The overall picture of all
types, medical, moral, et cetera, is, if I recall these numbers
correctly, up in the case of the Army and the Navy all across
the last four-year period, 2003-2007, down in the case of the
Marine Corps and the Air Force. You have got different trends
in the different military services.
Moral waivers basically have to do--a lot of them have to
do with drug experimentation. Have you ever used illicit drugs?
That is a question answered by many Americans these days, and
we require review if you admit such usage. They may involve
have you had any brush or contact with the criminal justice
system. Most of those are for arrests, not convictions. Most of
those are for arrests, not convictions. They also deal with
convictions for misdemeanors, not for felony offenses.
Mrs. Davis. Do the services have those numbers available,
and perhaps we can get those for the record.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 155.]
Mrs. Davis. Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think my
microphone is working. It kind of fell here on the desk a bit
ago.
I will only make two or three quick comments and two or
three questions. Dr. Chu, I appreciate your discussion both now
and a while ago about the issue of waivers. I think you made a
comment some people probably should not be considered a waiver,
it is more just a serious look at folks. As you know, and
everybody on this committee knows, this is a tension in terms
of how you evaluate people, and we don't want that tension to
go away. I haven't heard anybody say anything wrong on either
side here. You want us to keep talking about quality and help
you get the quality you want. On the other hand, we don't want
you to be unfair to people that could have good military
service. So this tension is not going to go away. But I
appreciate your discussion.
I do want to make the comment, Admiral Harvey, that missile
that shot down the satellite was put together by the good
people of Camden, Arkansas. So they were very proud of your
shoot-down also.
Admiral Harvey. A team effort every step of the way.
Dr. Snyder. Just one question about the issue of budget
that I think began by Chairwoman Davis. It came out when
Secretary Gates testified that Mr. Spratt pointed out that the
President's projected budget actually in real dollars goes down
over the next several years. Well, nobody thinks that is going
to happen. The Marine Corps is going to have more personnel,
the Army is going to have more personnel, the Air Force wants
more personnel. The number is going to go up. We all know that.
What is going to happen is this is a way to punt this to the
next Administration.
I think, General Rochelle, your comment about we are all
planning on this being in fiscal year 2010, you know, we can go
back years here when Mr. Hefley was talking about, before he
left, about the need to have more and more of the budget of
your needs in the baseline budget, but it hasn't gotten done.
Now we are going to start a period in the next Administration.
I don't think there is any mystery what is going on here. I
think the next Administration will deal with it. But it allows
the current deficit numbers not to look so bad.
My questions I wanted to ask are first to you, General
Newton. In page two of your written statement, and I am sorry I
wasn't here for your opening statement, I was at a Veterans'
Affairs meeting, you say, quote, that the Air Force undertook
significant personnel reductions to generate billions of
dollars to reprogram toward recapitalizing and modernizing
essential air space and cyber systems congruent with our three
mission priorities. The impact on our warfighting airmen has
been significant. We have been compelled to make some very
difficult choices with respect to our people. And you go on
from there.
We can always say we have difficult choices, and military
people always step forward. I am concerned. I would like an
articulation both right now but then in written form, what are
those difficult choices. Last week we went to the ribbon
cutting for a wonderful new child care center that we all
worked on getting funding. There is a waiting list on all kinds
of bases. So what is going to happen? There is not the
personnel to staff the full child care center. They have a
waiting list for military families that want to get in the
center, but the staff is not there to--the facility is there,
they have got toys, they have got cribs, but because of these
personnel reductions. So we now say we are now compelled to
make difficult choices. We are screwing some kids. That is a
difficult choice.
What other facilities are like that? What are these
difficult choices that are being made?
General Newton. The difficult choices I was referring to
have to do with mission effectiveness. You hit on one:
effective child care and not only how we equip but also provide
men and women to serve in our child development centers (CDC).
Yes, it is a quality of life issue. But it is also a mission
effectiveness issue. In fact, it is the number one quality of
life issue among our enlisted men and women who are serving
today.
Dr. Snyder. As some of you know, even with this old gray
head, my wife and I have a 21-monther and we battle this stuff
all the time with child care centers. If one of us are pulled
out for 6 months or 12 months and sent 10,000 miles away, child
care becomes difficult real fast. What else is going on here?
This is very concerning, is it not?
General Newton. Yes, sir. In fact, as I previously
articulated, our mission within the child development centers
are very important to us because, if anything, it is the
demographics of our Active duty men and women who are serving
and not necessarily just in the garrison but in much more
expedition in the Air Force, which kind of compounds the issue
as well.
We made a conscious decision in terms of rather than
deferring modernization recapitalization of our equipment and
our capabilities, we made a really tough decision a couple of
years ago to pay for that recapitalization modernization of our
equipment. That is why we reduced our end strength of
approximately 40,000.
The specific issue, however, you are referring to is not
necessarily Active duty men and women serving in the child
development centers but our ability to hire civilians in order
to work in the CDCs. That is what I have discovered in my just
brief couple weeks in my current duties. There is a backlog in
our United States Air Force in terms of being able to bring on
board civilians. I am taking an active role, and I would take
for the record and perhaps even address what we are doing at
Little Rock. But it is very much on my scope in terms of making
sure that we provide and are effectively enabling to bring on
civilians in capacities such as child development centers and
elsewhere.
Dr. Snyder. My time is up. When this discussion came up
several years ago of cutting personnel, nobody said oh, by the
way, we are going to build brand new wonderful child care
centers and then not staff them in order to build fighters.
That was not how this was presented to us.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Mr. Jones, I wanted to thank you
particularly for the trip to Camp Lejeune yesterday. We enjoyed
you being our host. Certainly child care issues were important,
and discussed, and I think we came away feeling a little sorry
that we have not been able to do what we need to do, and
particularly at Camp Lejeune that was a big issue. So, Walter,
thank you.
Mr. Jones. Madam Chairman, thank you. I would say, General
Coleman, I was humbled and honored that this committee, many
members came down to Camp Lejeune. I dictated a letter to
General Dixon today and told him how proud I was and humbled to
be able to say that Camp Lejeune is in the Third District of
North Carolina. It was very impressive.
As the chairman said, Mrs. Davis, we had a great,
informative six, seven, eight hours down at Camp Lejeune, and
we interacted with the Marines and talked about family issues.
I wanted to just say thank you again.
Admiral, one of the questions that kept coming up
yesterday, and I know that there is no easy answer to the issue
of psychologists and psychiatrists, but it was said over and
over yesterday, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly,
that many of our men and women who are serving in Afghanistan
and Iraq, the numbers coming back with some form of Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is, from a percentage point of
view, maybe even greater than Vietnam. In addition, the family
situation, the need for counseling.
I know that the Navy is doing everything they can. You
cannot get as many psychiatrists or psychologists who have been
in uniform overseas. It would be a wish that maybe it was that
way, to be able to sit down with a soldier or Marine and talk
about their situation. But it doesn't happen that way. We have
got to have those who come out of college, those who are
professionals, contract type arrangements.
If it is true at Camp Lejeune, it is true at every military
base. I will go to you since Camp Lejeune is the base we
visited yesterday, but the issue of how are we going to provide
the adequate mental health to our men and women in uniform and
their families. I know you don't have a crystal ball.
Admiral Harvey. I don't have a crystal ball, but I have
been able to use the tools that were provided in the
authorization bills in 2007 and 2008 that have significantly
increased the activity that we are seeing from coming out of
the medical schools, dental schools, and the like. We haven't
turned that into results yet, but those tools have changed the
game for us in terms of the recruitment piece, at which we had
been missing the mark for about the last four to five years as
the war picked up. So recruiting, number one, has been
extraordinarily challenging. It is my number one recruiting
priority. But I have got tools now that I am beginning to see
are having an impact.
The other piece of this is what we have learned in terms of
what the servicemen and women, in particular, who they want to
talk to. You talk about the contract hires. Certainly that is
what we are using to fill the gaps that exist. I am at 78
percent manning right now in psychologists across the Navy, and
about 98 percent in psychiatrists, and 96 percent in social
workers. I am responsible, and we provide obviously to the
Marine Corps, as you saw yesterday.
Also, we have learned that the young men and women are not
satisfied with simply talking to a contract person. Unless you
have been there, done that, got the T-shirt, then they have
great doubts as to the quality of the conversation that they
have to have. Now we are also doing this servicewide screening
on all returnees for PTSD and the required follow-up. That is
six months, one year and two years. So while we have been
learning, we have also expanded the population of those we are
trying to reach and who have to be reached with quality care
just for the checkup. At the same time, it has been very
challenging to recruit them.
I do note that we have significantly reduced our loss rate
of these individuals. The psychologists and psychiatrists have
been carrying quite a load in the last four to five years. For
a while there I was really getting concerned that we were
unable to bring in enough even to maintain a steady state
level. But we have seen the loss rate come down gradually over
the last couple years. Again, the tools you have given us to
sustain the medical force have been exceptionally helpful in
that regard.
So it is a full court press, sir, and you have correctly
identified, it is a shortfall we have got. It is number one on
our scope. We have tools that make sense, that can compete. But
I just noticed today on the cover of USA Today we talked about
the shortage of surgeons across the country, and particularly
in rural areas. It is symptomatic of where we are in the Nation
and what we have to compete with to provide the required
counseling services to the men and women.
So the situation is certainly as you saw it. But I am
hopeful, sir, that we are going to make a turn in that and
sustain an effort that will bring us to the manning levels we
need to be to provide the care we have to provide.
Mr. Jones. Admiral, would it be possible, maybe after
Easter, if my staff and I could get a briefing on this
recruitment effort and how you feel like it is today and how
you see it?
Admiral Harvey. That is a great time. January, February,
and March is when all the acceptances and all the issues come
out and we will find out just what our scorecard is. That is a
great time. We will be at your disposal to provide you all this
information.
Mr. Jones. I would appreciate that very much.
Mrs. Davis. Really as a follow-up to that issue, I think we
were very concerned, and we know that there is a national
problem here as well, but it certainly affects men and women
who are serving and the inability to have professionals
available. What is interesting is that in many ways I think
they were suggesting that we don't always need to rely on
professionals. They should be there to back up with a host of--
in a host of ways, certainly to be able to prescribe. But the
mentoring that can go on is very critical as well.
I think we need to be perhaps doing more to capture those
individuals who have a great aptitude to work with their fellow
military colleagues and comrades and to be able to perhaps
develop their own skills in this area, which could be extremely
beneficial and perhaps help with their education and to go on
and do something that they hadn't planned certainly to do in
their careers but in fact they may be well suited for that and
be able to contribute a great deal.
I wanted to just turn to one of the reasons that we are
having this problem of course is because of the continuing
stress on Army personnel and their families and the
continuation of the 15-month tours and in the combat zone. We
know this is no secret. Army Chief of Staff General Casey has
repeatedly reflected the increase in discipline, divorce and
suicide rates, the erosion of recruit quality and junior
officer retention rates that all combine to create alarm, I
think, in terms of what is happening for our service members.
It is interesting, in the U.S. News and World Report it was
quoted that Congress tends not to ask tough questions because
we are afraid that if we do so we would be accused of not
supporting our troops. Clearly, the intent is to find out how
we can do this better.
And so I would like to ask you, Secretary Chu, what you
believe is the current status of efforts to reduce the 15-month
tour in Iraq for Army personnel. What is happening? General
Rochelle, I know you also were concerned about the stress on
the force. Could you give us an assessment of how close we are
to doing serious long-term damage to the Army?
Dr. Chu. Madam chairman, thank you for those questions.
First of all, let me ask for the name of the U.S. News and
World Report reporter because I would like to challenge the
proposition Congress doesn't ask tough questions, specifically
many of these such questions.
On your issue of when can the Department, as General Casey
very much wants to start backing away from 15-month tours. This
depends, as I know you and the members appreciate, on the
balance, are three factors: first, are we successful in growing
the Army and Marine Corps so we have more capacity for deployed
forces; deployed ground forces specifically. Second, will the
demands in Iraq particularly stay at the levels they now are,
or lower. In other words, can we continue down to the 15
brigade level, 15 Army brigade level, which is the goal, and
stay at least at that level, if not south of that level, as the
Secretary has said repeatedly that he hopes we can get. And
third, are there any other contingencies around the world that
will demand more ground forces to upset the calculations of the
first two.
We are hopeful that we can get to this goal at an early
date, but I think it would be rash to make any promises at this
juncture.
General Rochelle.
General Rochelle. Madam Chairman, thank you so much for the
question and the opportunity to comment. I would like to come
back and start if I may with a comment made by Representative
Jones, and that is with respect to the need for medical and,
most especially, behavioral health professionals. As my good
friend and colleague has already stated, we are nationally on
the brink of what I would consider to be, personally,
nationally on the brink of disaster with medical health
professionals, as a rule. I would commend to anyone to read the
book ``Will the Last Physician Turn Out the Lights.'' It is
enough to really scare you.
To your question how close are we, we are asking ourselves
that question, and we don't know the answer just yet, because
it is not quite as clear as pointing to a statistic, nor quite
as clear as pointing to a single metric of the many that we
track and monitor: Divorces, separations, obviously attempted
suicide, suicides, and the like, all of which alarm us greatly.
It is not that simple, nor is it as simple as comparing to
Vietnam, because our abilities today to identify individuals
who are at risk far surpasses any capability we had back in the
sixties and seventies. So we are better able to identify at-
risk soldiers and address their needs.
Our families are telling us that 15 months deployment, way
too long. Our soldiers are telling us that as well. In addition
to that, they are also telling us that 12 months back
following, or less, 12 months back following a 15-month
deployment is simply not enough. So we are in a bit of a
quandary, and it is our challenge and our commitment to answer
the combatant commanders' requirements for trained and ready
forces. That is our obligation to the Nation.
So how close are we? Again, we are asking ourselves that
question. My only concern, frankly, is that as history has
shown, and it has shown it in the Army in the past, we may have
crossed that point before we realize it, and we are trying
desperately not to have that happen.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. My time is up. I just wonder, very
quickly, General Coleman, when will you know that the force has
been pushed too hard, before their lines are crossed?
General Coleman. Ma'am, I think in the items that you spoke
of, I think we would see it in a great increase in domestic
violence. I think we would see it in suicides, I think we would
see it in unauthorized absences (UAs), I think we would see it
in desertion. The Marine Corps has not seen that yet. We were,
and it is our ethos, we were always a 6-month deployment and an
18-month back, and that was based a lot on our sister service,
the Navy.
In the beginning of this fight, then Commandant General
Hagey was pushed toward a we will deploy for 12 or 15 months,
and we held off on that. I think the seven-month, for most of
our Marines, and most Marines go out for seven months and we
try to get them back for at least seven. We try for a two to
one dwell. So we are not there yet, ma'am, and we are very
thankful for that.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We have heard a
little bit today about health care, mental health care in
particular. But switching to the broader issue. Certainly that
has been a topic of discussion in previous hearings. We have
seen in the national media lately some stories with respect to
frustrated members of the services as they try to work their
way between the DOD disability system and the Veterans Affairs
(VA) system. The President, as far as my understanding goes,
totally endorsed Dole-Shalala, the commission reports. We have
heard repeatedly about how the distinction between medical
retirement and medical separation employed in the VA and the
DOD systems is patently unfair. General Schoomaker appeared
before the committee just a couple of weeks ago and spoke about
that fundamental problem.
So, Mr. Secretary, where are we with the implementation of
Dole-Shalala, and I would say particularly with respect to
eliminating those distinctions in the medical separation versus
medical retirement?
Dr. Chu. As you know, sir, and I think if we are raising
this issue, the President's State of the Union Message did call
for the enactment of the full Dole-Shalala set of
recommendations, and did submit legislation last fall to that
end, and has advocated for it, and we continue to advocate for
it. We would like to see the central element of Dole-Shalala,
which would address exactly this issue, why do we have under
the statutes separate systems, we would like to see that issue
addressed. We would like to see early enactment of those
central provisions.
We recognize some of them are controversial with the
veterans service organizations. But I do think as a country we
would be far better off if we get to that conclusion so there
is a single system. Dole-Shalala, as you appreciate, would
simply have those leaving military service by reasons of
medical unfitness all be retired under a simple system and that
the question of compensation and getting forward with your life
would be the Veterans Affairs Department lane, and they would
operate that more or less exclusively instead of it being a
hybrid as we now have.
Within what we can do under current statute, we have
inaugurated, and the first cases have been reviewed, a single
examination system to the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA),
meaning VA does the exam, and does it to its standard. We take
its ratings and use them under the current statute for the
medical unfitness percentage that DOD must by law apply. Early
returns from that pilot are very encouraging. It should be
faster for the prospective veteran. It should be easy to
navigate. The Secretary has asked that we, as soon as we are
confident about its features, that we start proliferating it
beyond the National Capital Region which it now applies. But it
all performs under current statutes. We would be eager to see
Congress enact the remaining portions of the Dole-Shalala
agenda, really this central set of provisions that deals with
the hybrid we have today and creates a more thoughtful system
for the future.
Mr. McHugh. My understanding is that the pilot program can
be expanded to test a fully integrated system. Is that your
understanding?
Dr. Chu. We fully anticipate expanding the pilot program,
which is a single exam program, to our disability evaluation
system nationwide. We do want to make sure that it all works
correctly; the procedures, the administrative aspects are in
place before we do it.
Mr. McHugh. But my point is, and I may be mistaken here,
and if someone wants to correct me, I stand ready to have that
occur, but the difference between the medical separation and
medical retirement is a key issue.
Dr. Chu. It is.
Mr. McHugh. That does affect or does require a legislative
solution at the end of the chain. But you are looking at
harmonizing those in the pilot?
Dr. Chu. We are in the process of harmonizing those as much
as we can in the current statutes. The key element is a single
exam so we don't have different ratings for the two agencies
for the same condition. So going forward in the pilot and
eventually nationwide, one rating. So a bad knee, the VA decide
that is 20 percent disability; we just accept that number and
implement the current statute. What it does not give us, and
that is why we need the statute change, is a truly integrated
system as the Dole-Shalala system would create.
Mr. McHugh. Madam Chair, this would be a question I guess
for us, because I think Dr. Chu would answer it in a pretty
obvious way, we may want to look at extending them an
additional amount of limited authority to fully, totally
integrate, including taking it a step beyond the limits that
the Secretary has just suggested as we go forward.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Madam Chairman, thank you.
Well, first to General Rochelle. Thank you for the
suggestion of the book. I have written it down. I would like to
suggest a book to you that I think you would find very
interesting. ``Day of Reckoning,'' by Pat Buchanan. Anyone that
reads this book I think will fully understand, based on his
excellent knowledge of history and facts, I think they will
find this book very interesting as it relates to the present
and the future and why we are having so many problems trying to
fund some of these programs and the military is having problems
just trying to meet its need to fight the war on terrorism.
Dr. Chu, a couple of questions. One is, can you provide for
this committee the deployment record of the 3,200 Marines that
are going to Afghanistan?
Dr. Chu. I can, sir, yes, sir.
Mr. Jones. I would appreciate that for the committee, and
certainly my staff and I would appreciate it.
Dr. Chu. Sir, you mean the prior deployment record?
Mr. Jones. Right. Whatever their prior record.
Dr. Chu. How long before and how long back. We can do that.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 157.]
Mr. Jones. Dr. Chu, last year Congressman Edwards and I put
in a bipartisan bill to stop any type of increases on the
TRICARE participants. I realize that you and others are
grappling with some very, very difficult times, as we are as a
Nation and we are as a Congress. I am going to make more of a
statement than a question after I ask about the 3,200 Marines.
I don't know how this country and how the Congress can, quite
frankly, do what is necessary to fight for the American people
until we get a handle on our priorities in this country.
The Constitution does require that we have a strong
military. That is a given, I think. In Buchanan's book he makes
a profound statement that is going to lead to another statement
I am going to make. He says that, in the history of the world,
that any great nation that has to borrow money from other
governments to pay its bills, will not long be a great nation.
That is where we are as a Nation. I am not getting into the
policy of Iraq, whether we should or should not. Let's make
that clear. There definitely is a fight in Afghanistan that is
justified. But my point of this is that I want to ask you not
as a Secretary of Defense Personnel but ask you as an American
citizen, take off your DOD hat, is it a great concern to you
that our Nation has to borrow money? And let me give an
example, we owe China, now China and Hong Kong, we owe them
$440 billion in debt. I am not asking you as a professional in
the Department of Defense, but as an American taxpayer, as I
am, not a congressman, but a taxpayer, does this bother you?
Dr. Chu. Sir, you raise a very fundamental question. I
think the issue is not so much where the borrowing occurs but
the extent to which the Nation has offered a larger set of
commitments to its population than are likely to be easily
financed as we go forward. I think that is merely the big
budget issue in our country today and for the next 10 years,
the promises we have made to the nonworking generation. That is
Social Security, that is Medicare, military retirement, health
care for military retirees, pensions for civil servants. They
will take several percentage points more of the Gross Domestic
Product than the Federal Government currently spends. No one
thinks that is sustainable. The big issue is how do we deal
with it as a country.
That is why in our narrow lane we try to take a first step
with the TRICARE program, and that is why we welcomed what you
directed last year, this Task Force on Defense Health Reform. I
am very grateful to Congressman McHugh and Chairwoman Davis for
actually sitting down and listening to Dr. Wolenski, the co-
chair of that group, give her report. We are not necessarily
advocating that as the unique solution, but I think it has
identified a set of steps that we ought to as a country and you
in your committee's jurisdiction ought to consider.
I think we need to start that journey to bring these
various entitlement programs under a degree of control that
allows us to offer to the nonworking generation the benefits it
ought to have. We want to honor the spirit of those promises.
We may not be able to do everything exactly as we do it today,
and that is really the essence of the quarrel we have had the
last several years about the TRICARE fees issues.
Mr. Jones. Madam Chairman, my last point, I said this to
Secretary Gates, who we have great respect for. The sad thing
is and the frustration to those of us on this committee, and
the frustration more so than even we, is the American people.
The American people read the same papers that we read. And as I
said to Secretary Gates, who I have great respect for, two
weeks ago, USA Today, and this has just frustrated me to death
and I went to the American Legion in North Carolina last week
and I held this paper up. Our allies, primarily the Middle
East, has paid only 16 percent of their pledge to help rebuild
Iraq. In other words, they have paid $2.5 billion out of a
pledge of $15.8. Good old Uncle Sam has already paid $26
billion to help rebuild Iraq, and obligated another $16
billion.
So there the Middle East is getting richer and richer and
their kids are not dying in Iraq or Afghanistan, but primarily
Iraq, and therefore here we are footing the bill for a country
that we are paying every time we pump gas in our cars. And the
American people are frustrated. I know you are frustrated, and
I am not even speaking for you. You cannot do what you need to
do when we can't even get our allies to pay their bills.
That is not a statement to you, sir, personally. It is my
frustration on behalf of the people of the Third District and
the military in this country. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Shea-Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
Dr. Chu, I had some problem with the word ``nonworking''
generation. They are called retired because they worked. So I
think when you frame a debate as nonworkers, it suggests
possibly that there are people just kind of taking from the
system. So I just wanted to say that as somebody who worked
with elders for many years. I prefer to call them retired. They
built this country.
Dr. Chu. I wouldn't in any way want to denigrate their
efforts.
Ms. Shea-Porter. I know that. I want to say that because
the phrase sort of struck me wrong, and I am sure you didn't
intend it that way, but it sounds like we have people who did
not work. So I want to call them retirees.
Anyway, what I really wanted to ask you about was I had an
opportunity to listen to military spouses a week ago and they
had a long list of issues that they were struggling with, not
the least of, the small but actually critical insults such as
if their spouse is overpaid, then they have to return it from
the check so quickly that the family feels this terrible impact
instead of staging it over a period of time. There were lots of
things like that this were really upsetting them.
I listened to what you said about the problem seems to be
the influencers are keeping people from going into the
military. I think really that the people are reacting to what
is happening right now in the military and in this country. The
influences are not the problem, the problem is obviously deeper
and they are just reacting to that.
I would like to say that what I just heard Congressman
Jones state is certainly what I am hearing in my district as
well. I am from a military family. I was a military spouse. I
am eternally grateful for those who stand there in our defense.
But there are some problems we need to address, and we can't
blame it on elsewhere. We have to look and see what is going
wrong. I think the questions about Iraq and our Middle East
policy are having a real strong and negative impact.
To that end, I would like to ask you, General Rochelle,
please, if you would comment about what is happening for
retention for West Pointers right now. I know that you have
been struggling with losing some of them. I would like to ask
you why in your opinion they are leaving at this point.
General Rochelle. Happily, Congresswoman. The military
academy graduates have traditionally left at a rate that is a
little bit higher than we would like, given the investment that
we make and the Nation makes in them. We are now seeing,
however, an ever so slightly, and I want to emphasize ever so
slightly, a higher rate of departure in certain classes from
the military academy, primarily the class of 2000, which was
the class that was on active duty, either fully trained as a
young officer, or near fully trained as a young officer, and
then of course deploying from 2001 and beyond.
On balance, however, across all classes and sources of
commission, Officer Candidate School, Army Reserve Officer
Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship and nonscholarship, we are
seeing a sustained 10-year average retention rate among our
officers. Now I come back to the fact that there are blips that
cause me personally and others some concerns, but nothing near
crisis yet.
I will also conclude by saying that we are grateful to the
Congress for the authority to expend the critical skills
retention bonus for young captains for the first time in the
history of our Army. I believe that that is going to be very
critical for us going forward. We are dealing with a generation
of young officers who, as the chairwoman commented in her
remarks, not unlike our young enlisted soldiers, are very
bright, have options, and especially in an economy as we are
experiencing today, notwithstanding challenges in the economy
as well.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. Could you also please tell me
about the stop loss policy in effect? How many soldiers have
been impacted at this point, and when do you expect that to
end?
General Rochelle. We are studying stop loss and would like
to be able to conclude it as quickly as we can. Let me put it
into scope for you. At any point in time if you look across the
total Army, and that is Active, Guard and Reserve, and that is
1.1 million individuals, the total number of individuals stop-
lossed is never more than 10,000. And the average in the last 3
years is 8,000 or below. Today, it is 7,600.
Ms. Shea-Porter. What impact do you think that is having on
morale?
General Rochelle. Well, it is obviously at the individual
level having an impact. We would like once again to, demand
notwithstanding, we would like to eliminate stop losses as
quickly as we possibly can. We are looking at options to do
just that.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. Once again, I would like to
state that we know the stress on these men and women in the
military, and we are very, very grateful for what they do.
Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I apologize,
gentlemen, for my absence. As you know very well, veterans of
many hearings here, we come and go, shuttle in between hearings
and sometimes floor activity, although this morning I don't
think there is any floor activity. But we have had multiple
hearings.
A couple of questions. One, General Coleman, how are
recruiters in Berkeley doing these days?
General Coleman. Thank you for that question, sir. They are
doing well. The morale is extremely high, and out of a bad
situation the Marine Corps has done well. They upheld
themselves to the high standards that you and other Marines
would love to see them uphold themselves to, sir.
Mr. Kline. I knew they were. Thanks, General. I think it is
appalling what has happened from the city council in Berkeley.
But I never doubted for a minute that the Marines would hold up
well.
Dr. Chu, we talked briefly before the hearing about the
yellow ribbon reintegration program. As you know, it has been a
program very near and dear to my heart. We worked on it very
hard. I am very proud of the work that Major General Shellito,
the Adjutant General (TAG) in Minnesota and all the fine folks
out there have done, and frankly, members of the Guard
particularly, but the Reserve component in general in States
across the country. And we put language in the bill, in the
NDAA, which you and I talked about, that puts your office as
the executive agent, as the office in charge.
So a couple of questions I want to get here for the record.
One, there is a letter from Lieutenant General Blum, which was
to you, talking about the implementation of that program, and
in it he estimates the annual cost of the program to be
approximately $73 million, of which $23 million will fund a
national network of transition support workers. I think the
other $50 million, he doesn't specify it in this letter, is
essentially to pay for the drill pay, if you will, of the
members of the National Guard when they are called back for
this training. Does that $73 million sound right to you? Are
you familiar with that?
Dr. Chu. Sir, our preliminary estimates are that it will
cost somewhat more than that. I don't want to commit to a
figure at this juncture. But I do want to emphasize that we are
committed to implementing the statute in the spirit in which it
was passed. I do think we can use, as the statute allows us to,
some of our existing programs, bring them together in a
cohesive way, but also create new structures so we do reach out
to our service personnel, especially our Reserve personnel,
Guard and Reserve, in a better way than we have been able to do
in the past.
So we are on track, in my judgment, to stand up an office
as the act directs, to secure resources, which we will be
taking out of the second half of the global war on terror
funding vehicle. We have discussed that with the Comptroller,
who has given her pledge on that front in order to get this
going in a timely and effective way.
Mr. Kline. Okay. I appreciate that very much. I just think
it is such an important program, and it really needs to work.
While I am not familiar with your plans to combine programs, I
think you had some family services activities and so forth, and
certainly there needs to be some latitude in moving funds. I am
very, very intent that we not water down in any way, and I
don't believe that is the case, but we need to be wary of that,
that as you combine programs, you may inadvertently water down
one or the other. I am particularly concerned about this one
because as we have looked at these men and women in the Reserve
component when they have come back and they haven't had the
facilities, the infrastructure of the Active component, it has
become very clear that we need to make an extraordinary effort
to take care of them.
You and I have differed on whether that should be mandatory
or not. We have now made it statute. I think that is the right
thing to do, and I very much appreciate your willingness to
step up in your role as executive agent, your office, to make
sure this happens, and we will continue to work with you on
that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you. Of course, Dr. Chu, this is a good
example of we all want something in the baseline budget until
it is something we want, and then we are proud that you can do
it out of the supplemental. I think it does make sense because
this is something that is a set program in time. I was going to
ask about that, too, because in your written statement you say
the Department is fully committed to implementing this program
and my understanding was you were looking for funding in the
supplemental.
Gentlemen, I want to come back to this issue about child
care. I think the numbers at the Little Rock Air Force Base,
with the new building that we just opened, they have a capacity
of 335 kids total between their facilities on base. But because
of personnel cuts they can only handle 237 children, which is
just a little bit under 100 kids, although that varies, on the
waiting list. I don't want to just fix the Little Rock Air
Force Base problem. I think it is a systemwide problem. So I
hope you will get back to us in written form. You used the word
impact has been significant, and difficult choices. I would
like to know where specifically child care, gymnasiums, youth
programs, counseling, where is it that you think there has been
negative impact and difficult choices made in the Air Force,
and take it in detail.
General Newton. Let me take that for the record. Again, I
will say though, it is something I have got my focus on because
it is not like you intimated, not just at Little Rock Air Force
Base.
Dr. Snyder. It is not just in the Air Force either.
General Newton. Across the Air Force we have challenges in
how we provide civilian support to our child development
centers, who principally man the CDCs.
Dr. Snyder. I know there are appropriated and
nonappropriated staff slots.
General Newton. I would be delighted to get the details
back to you on that.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 155.]
Dr. Snyder. Dr. Chu, and this may be a question you just
want to say you don't have an opinion, this whole issue of
interagency reform has been increasingly talked about for some
time, I think both in the Department and amongst the think
tankers there has been discussions about it. If we had
everything the way that you, Dr. Chu, thought they ought to be
in terms of adequate staffing for the State Department,
adequate staffing for United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), the kind of redundancy the civilian side
of government needs to be able to have people available to go
overseas, would that have--if that had been all set up like
seven, eight years ago, do you think or have an ability to
render an opinion about whether you think that that would have
cut down on the needs of personnel, military personnel that we
need to have both in Afghanistan and Iraq today?
Dr. Chu. My view is it is less an issue of numbers than an
issue of preparation. We have begun to implement, I am
delighted to say, the President's Executive order direction on
creating a national security professional development program,
in which a key element is addressing just this issue: Are the
staff of the different Cabinet agencies prepared to deal
effectively in what some like to call an integrated
environment, or bring several agencies together, whether that
is here in the United States to deal with a homeland issue, or
overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, whatever.
We had early stages in this. It will involve, I am
delighted to say, deliberate investments in our civilian staff
in the United States Government. That is not something I would
argue we have done to the level we should in the past. So we
are very much heartened by this initiative in terms of the
opportunity it offers.
The change will not occur overnight, I acknowledge. Within
Defense we have taken a first step in this direction by how we
have thought about staffing the African command. We made a
deliberate effort from the beginning to engage the staff of
other Cabinet agencies to reach out to them to offer to pay for
the slots. So this is not an issue of our trying to get a free
ride from somebody else. And this is to be both senior and mid-
grade personnel.
I am pleased to say we already have recruited several
senior executive service level personnel from other Cabinet
agencies to serve as the leadership. In fact, the Deputy
Commander for Political and Military Affairs essentially is an
ambassador from the State Department, career Foreign Service
officer, distinguished lady with a great background on the
continent, and is going to bring extraordinary leadership to
that effort.
Dr. Snyder. Several years ago, when the 39th National Guard
Brigade was activated and served a year in Iraq, when everyone
showed up, reported, about a third of them were not medically
fit. We got them going down to bases and we figure we are
better off not doing that so we have changed those processes
around. As you know, they have been mobilized again and some in
fact are already overseas, the advance folks. But when they
showed up, we had about the same number that were not medically
fit for deployment again. I think a lot of it is dental and
some other issues.
Do you have any thoughts about how we might address those
issues in a prospective manner? Because I think most of us
think these folks are showing up every month or two weeks in
the summer and then somehow their medical needs are not being
dealt with. Do you have any thoughts on this in terms of a DOD
proposal? You have been around a while. Do we need to be
approaching this and looking in some more dramatic way of
addressing these issues?
Dr. Chu. I think on the dental issue, I think some were
less dental than immunizations and other matters of that sort.
But on dental issues specifically, I think there are two
actions we are undertaking. First, short-term, bringing dental
services to the unit. So the other three brigades used dental
vans, mobile vans, in which we at training assemblies brought
the van to the unit, said you got an issue, we will take care
of it. They got their dental readiness way up there in the 90
percent range. Second, we have to advocate more strongly to our
Reserve personnel, and we are doing that within Defense, but we
value your help because you speak to the units in the hometowns
directly. You can be effective in a way we cannot.
We offer to the Reserves a dental insurance program. Our
regret is most people don't sign up for it. I have even had
very senior Reserve officers say yes, I waited until the active
duty call came because then it is all on your tab, not mine. It
is not expensive insurance, a decent policy. I think we need to
get our people to take it and use it.
We are setting the standard by demanding more inspection by
Reserve covered units of where are they in terms of dental
readiness. I hope over time that would solve the problem.
Short-term though, the answer is the mobile vans the other
brigades have used.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Dr. Chu. I think we probably don't
need one final round. If I could take my question, I appreciate
it.
Dr. Chu, you touched briefly in response to a question by
Mr. Wilson on the retirement system, and that we need to look
at that not just for the Guard, to look at any changes, but we
need to look at it holistically. Certainly the National Guard
and Reserve released their report reflecting the fact that we
need to perhaps envision a new system that would reduce
reliance on defined benefits and mandatory service in favor of
early vesting, increased use of thrift savings plans, gate-paid
bonuses to attract personnel to remain on active duty.
Are we at a point when we should be taking a look at
whether we should design this system that would reflect what
they consider in their commission report certainly a 21st
century workforce?
Dr. Chu. I think this is a big issue in front of the
defense establishment. We welcome further dialogue with the
subcommittee, the full committee on this matter. There are
vastly different opinions about whether or not changing it is a
good idea. We have worked for the better part of 50 years with
the current system. It works well from the perspective of many
of my colleagues who have to actually run the personnel
establishments of the individual military services. So I
suspect a first answer from anyone would be ain't broken, don't
fix it.
On the other hand, on the other hand, the report of the
Commission on National Guard and Reserve was actually mentioned
in a report of a panel that Secretary Rumsfeld appointed, which
observed that one of the injustices in our system is only eight
percent of the enlisted force that starts out ever reaches
retirement. So this is not a benefit that most people enjoy.
And shouldn't we think about rebalancing this benefit in a
manner using some of the tools that you described. But that is
a big change to the system, not one I think you should
undertake lightly or quickly. We will develop the second volume
of the mandated Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation to
this subject, not to recommending an answer, but to outline the
issue and how much you think about alternative systems, of the
effect of gate pay in lieu of the annuity now the case as large
and undefeated as it is now.
You have given us authority in the last several years and
we are using that authority to allow military personnel to
deposit in the thrift savings programs. I am delighted that a
high fraction of military families do report they are saving
something out of their paycheck. That is the first step to a
better financial future for them, and we will next month
celebrate--I am sorry, two months from now celebrate the
Military Saves Week, as we have done in the past.
The change to the retirement system is not a small step and
there would have to be an extensive dialogue about the pros and
cons and wisdom of doing so, and careful empirical work on what
the effect would be, will we attain the goals that are set out.
Mrs. Davis. I think we would recognize that is not
something that we can do easily here in a session or certainly
at the end of a session. It would take a broader look. I would
assume then in all the services perhaps there is different
perspective on how we approach this as well. It is an important
conversation.
If I may again, quickly, as you know, and I have raised
this issue before when we talk about recruiting and retention,
is the one of don't ask, don't tell. I think there are roughly,
when this is raised, discharge of about 11,000 qualified
service members under this. When that issue was raised, we
suggest that well, over time it is really not that large a
number. But I think there have been some estimates that we
would have more qualified male applicants, as many as perhaps
41,000, who would seek to enter the Armed Services, and perhaps
even 2,500 more would be retained.
Given the issues around retention and recruitment goals,
would repealing that law make a difference in this area, do you
think, aside from a number of other issues that are addressed?
But in terms of numbers, have you evaluated this?
Dr. Chu. Madam Chairman, as you know, it is a statutory
matter. The Department carries out the statute as Congress has
enacted it. I think most testaments of any change in supply of
personnel are small, quite small in number. I have not heard
the 41,000 figure. Sounds like a cumulative number of some
kind. It is an issue that is socially derisive in our country
at large to speak plainly about it. I do think in the period in
which the military is challenged on many fronts, and we have
heard that discussed this morning, and not clear to me that
this is an additional issue you want to ask the military to
address. But that is ultimately the Congress's call.
Mrs. Davis. I appreciate that. And I know that in
conversations it is raised and I think that we will probably
continue to raise it for some time.
I want to thank you all very much for your testimony today.
I think we have had a good discussion, and we will continue to
look at a number of these issues. What we want of course is to
have you have, to have the services have the ability to
recruit, retain, and to take care of our military and their
families in the best way possible. And we will continue to work
on that.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 26, 2008
=======================================================================
?
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 26, 2008
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.110
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
February 26, 2008
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER
General Newton. We hear from some of our field activities that
financial projections for FY08 and beyond are causing hard choices. To
meet some of our budget constraints, we have taken steps to close or
consolidate some fitness facilities or reduce their hours of operation.
We've reduced services and hours of operation in some dining
facilities, and reduced services, materials and hours in some
libraries. We have taken a deliberate approach to these reductions, to
minimize the impact as much as possible to both home station and
deployed quality of life programs for our Airmen and their families.
The Air Force has made ``Taking Care of Our People'' one of its top
three priorities, with emphasis on ensuring the highest quality of life
standards. In an October 2007 survey, 96 percent of Airmen agreed
quality of life is an important enabler for their success in combat,
and 67 percent believed the Air Force is committed to quality of life.
As such, we know that community support programs that support both
married and single Total Force Airmen will need to become more agile
and capable to keep pace with a smaller Air Force that is transforming.
We will continue to capitalize on the ingenuity of our Airmen and
commanders to find more innovative ways to support our people. [See
page 35.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER
Dr. Chu. The following table depicts the number and percentage of
enlistments with conduct (moral) waivers for Fiscal Years 2006 and
2007: [See table next two pages.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.112
Data through September 30, 2007
1. Number of waivers may exceed ``Accessions with Waivers'' (in
Table 1) due to individuals receiving multiple waivers
2. Comparing waivers across Services may be misleading because
waiver requirements are applied against Service-specific standards,
which vary
3. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, used in Aptitude
Waivers, was renormed in FY2005
4. Marine Corps data for 2006 has changed from previous reports_
data previously included Reserve data
5. Changes in the collection and reporting of Conduct Waiver data
in June 2007 may make comparisons to previous years unreliable
[See page 22.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES
Dr. Chu. The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and the 2nd Battalion,
7th Marines are deploying to Afghanistan to meet U.S. Central Command's
requirement for additional forces. Approximately 3,175 Marines will
make this deployment. The chart below depicts the deployment history of
the Marines that comprise these units:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USMC Personnel Deploying In Support of OEF
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times Deployed
------------------------------------------------ Total
0 1 2 3+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marines 1392 1194 492 97 3175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage 44% 38% 15% 3% 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dwell time, or number of days these Marines have had at home
between deployments, is plotted as a graph on the attached [next] page.
The graph depicts the number of days in dwell versus the number of days
deployed for each Marine, with each blue diamond representing one
Marine. The red line indicates the 1:1 dwell ratio, meaning that for
each day deployed there has been an equal amount of time at home. The
green line represents the Department's goal, which is a 1:2 dwell
ratio, meaning that for each day deployed, twice as many days were
spent at home. The points left of these lines represent those Marines
deploying at less than the 1:1 or 1:2 deployment to dwell ratio. Those
points right of the lines represent those Marines deploying at greater
than the 1:1 or 1:2 deployment to dwell ratio. [See page 30.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4338.113
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
February 26, 2008
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER
Dr. Snyder. Dr. Chu, in your testimony before the subcommittee you
claimed there was evidence suggesting that recruited personnel
receiving moral waivers were marginally higher performers than those
who did not require waivers. Please provide the subcommittee with
whatever evidence you have supporting this assertion.
Dr. Chu. In November 2007, the Army analyzed the behavior of nearly
18,000 soldiers recruited between 2003 and 2006 (6.5% of all non-prior
service accessions), who were granted a conduct waiver, and compared
them to those enlisted without a conduct waiver. The Army found the
following:
Recruits with conduct waivers reenlisted at a
somewhat higher rate than their non-conduct waiver peers
The waived population was promoted to E-5 faster
(four months on average) than the non-waived population in the
one specialty studied (Infantry--11B)
The conduct waiver population had a higher ratio of
valorous awards
The conduct waiver population was higher quality than
the non-conduct waiver population:
87% versus 84% High School Diploma Graduates
69% versus 65% scoring in the upper half of the
Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) I-IIIA
0.8% versus 2.3% scoring in the lowest
acceptable category, AFQT IV (well below the 20 percent
of accessions as stipulated by the Congress)
Additionally, the Department commissioned research in 2004 to
examine the relationship between moral character waivers and
performance (attrition). While individuals who received a moral
character waiver were more likely to be separated within the first 18
months of service than those who did not require a review, we also
consistently found that, across the Services, attrition rates among
individuals who had waivers approved at the highest authority levels
(such as Recruiting Command Headquarters), were not significantly
different than rates for individuals without moral character waivers.
In other words, individuals who were closely scrutinized by senior
officers (this would typically be individuals who needed a waiver for a
prior serious conviction) and were granted a waiver, performed like
those who did not require a review of their records.
Further, in order to compensate for needing a waiver, the Services
often require that those individuals are high school graduates with
above average scores on the AFQT. We know from other research that
individuals with high AFQT scores perform better in training and on the
job than individuals with lower scores.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS
Mrs. Davis. Dr. Chu, member associations of the Military Coalition
and other veteran groups are calling for the housing authorization
standards to be revised so that mid-grade and senior enlisted members
may be paid basic allowance for housing (BAH) at rates that will
support three bedroom single family residences. Have we reached a point
where the Congress should consider changing the housing standards for
mid-grade and senior enlisted service members?
Dr. Chu. The Department of Defense's 10th Quadrennial Review of
Military Compensation (10th QRMC) is assessing the effectiveness of
military pay and benefits in recruiting and retaining a high-quality
force. In 2007, the 10th QRMC revalidated housing standards for all pay
grades, including mid-grade and senior enlisted, and found that the BAH
rates were within 10 percent of predicted housing expenditures for
members with dependents. The 10th QRMC did not recommend any changes to
the housing standards.
Mrs. Davis. The budget request for fiscal year 2009 provides all
military personnel with a 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise. If
the 3.4 percent pay raise is adopted, fiscal year 2009 will be the
first year since fiscal year 1999 that the military pay raise has not
been at least .5 percent above the level of private sector pay raises
as measured by the ECI. Given that the 3.4 percent pay raise being
proposed does not provide a pay raise that is greater than increases in
the private sector for the first time in nine years, is this raise
sufficient to recognize the stress currently being placed on the
military members and their families?
Dr. Chu. The 3.4 percent basic military pay raise, equal to the
increase in the ECI, keeps us competitive with the private sector, and
is part of the Department of Defense's commitment to provide a secure
standard of living for our most important investment--all of those who
serve in uniform. The average military pay increased 32% during
President Bush's Administration,\1\ compared to an average increase of
24% in private sector wages and salaries, as measured by the ECI.
Targeted raises throughout the Administration fully closed the pay gap
as identified by the 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation
(QRMC). The final targeted raise in April 2007 also extended the pay
table to 40 years of service, providing additional reward and incentive
for longer service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Beginning with the 6.9% pay raise on January 1, 2002. This does
not include the 0.4% raise of July 1, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of basic pay raises exceeding the ECI, the Department
prefers the capability to target compensation for members who are at
the greatest risk of leaving service and/or those in critical skill
areas where we have the greatest need to improve retention. We prefer
that any additional money go into the discretionary special and
incentive pays such as Hardship Duty Pay, retention bonuses, or other
allowances that can be specifically target for desired effects.
Mrs. Davis. Fiscal Year 2007 was the third consecutive year that
the active Army had failed to achieve its recruit contract goal. Given
that the active Army Delayed Entry Program (DEP) was at 9 percent at
the beginning of fiscal year 2008, what is being done to improve the
Army's recruit contract performance and make the DEP a useful tool?
General Rochelle. For the past two years, the Army has achieved its
Active Component Recruiting Mission of 80,000 and is on track to
succeed this year despite experiencing Entry Pool Levels of 12.4%,
15.1% and 9.2% respectively for FY 2006, 2007, and 2008. While recruit
contract achievement is important, the bottom-line measure of success
for Army recruiting remains accessions and the Army continues to meet
this mark. Entry pool levels less than 20% increase the risk of mission
accomplishment and the optimal entry pool size is 35% or greater;
however, recruiting success is determined by the number of new Soldiers
serving in unit formations--not the number enrolled in the Future
Soldier Training Program.
The Future Soldier Training Program (FSTP), the Active Component's
DEP, remains a useful tool despite its reduced size in recent years.
The Army is adjusting policies and resources (e.g., increasing the size
of the recruiter force, funding enhanced media outreach at both the
national and local level, increasing funding of enlistment incentive
programs, etc.) to ensure mission success and improve future DEP
numbers. Additionally, the Army began offering the Deferred Ship
Bonus--$1000.00 for each month in the FSTP paid upon completion of
initial entry training--to high school seniors who enlist during the
academic year and ship to training after graduating. The intent of the
incentive program is to increase both the size of the entry pool and
the Tier I (i.e., high school diploma and post secondary degree)
recruit quality mark percentage.
Mrs. Davis. Of the three components of the Army, only the Army
Reserve failed to achieve its end strength objective for fiscal year
2007. The Army Reserve was 10,118 short of its end strength. What is
the Army doing to bring the Army Reserve end strength up to authorized
levels?
General Rochelle. The Army Reserve continually evaluates
initiatives and develops new programs in an effort to meet
congressionally mandated end strength.
In fiscal year 2007, the Army Reserve implemented several
initiatives to help boost its lagging end strength. At the forefront of
the Army Reserve's programs was implementation of a community-based
recruiting initiative called the Army Reserve-Recruiting Assistance
Program (AR-RAP). AR-RAP pays a $2,000 bonus for referring other people
who enlist in the Army Reserve. Fiscal year to date, the Army Reserve
has 49,939 active recruiting assistants who have accessed 1,299 new
Soldiers. Further, fiscal year to date, the Army Reserve retained 738
Soldiers as part of an education stabilization program and 461 captains
with its Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) program. The Army
Reserve also gained 475 Soldiers from the Active Component and
Individual Ready Reserve with an affiliation bonus and/or 24 month
stabilization from deployment.
The Army Reserve shares its recruiting mission among multiple
agencies: Army Reserve Career Division, Human Resources Command and
United States Army Accessions Command. In fiscal year 2008, due to
multi-agency efforts and the previous year's initiatives, the Army
Reserve is realizing recruiting and retention successes. Army Reserve
recruiting is currently at 102.7% of its year to date mission
accomplishment. As of 7 Apr 08, the Army Reserve has seen a net gain of
5,234 Soldiers during the fiscal year. Finally, retention rates for the
Army Reserve are trending ahead of projections.
Mrs. Davis. The budget request for fiscal year 2009 provides all
military personnel with a 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise. If
the 3.4 percent pay raise is adopted, fiscal year 2009 will be the
first year since fiscal year 1999 that the military pay raise has not
been at least .5 percent above the level of private sector pay raises
as measured by the ECI. Given that the 3.4 percent pay raise being
proposed does not provide a pay raise that is greater than increases in
the private sector for the first time in nine years, is this raise
sufficient to recognize the stress currently being placed on the
military members and their families?
General Rochelle. The across-the-board pay raise proposed in the
President's budget is sufficient to meet our overall recruiting and
retention goals. During the 9th Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation in 2004, the Department of Defense set a goal to adjust
military salary to the 70th percentile when compared to similar
civilian careers. We believe this goal has been achieved and now must
be maintained. The 3.4 percent raise will outpace the ECI. There are
other monetary/non-monetary benefits that are used to account for time
in combat and shortage skills. The Army uses specific special and
incentive pays to target those critical skills where we are
experiencing recruiting and retention challenges, rather than raising
the pay of the entire force. This is the most cost-efficient method to
address our critical shortages.
Mrs. Davis. Three active components--Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps--have all experienced some retention challenges within their
enlisted force. The Air Force has struggled with mid-career retention
for years and failed to achieve its mid-career retention objective
during fiscal year 2007. During the first four months of fiscal year
2008, new challenges have appeared in the rates for first term (87%)
and career (89%) reenlistments. Your service has experienced periodic
difficulty meeting enlisted retention objectives that are continuing
during fiscal year 2008. Although they are admittedly not significant,
why does it appear to be so difficult to get these problems under
control? What are your plans and have you increased retention bonuses
to meet these challenges?
General Newton. For background, the Air Force enjoyed extremely
high retention at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Mar 2003) due
to the swell of patriotism, temporary implementation of Stop-Loss, and
a massive influx of reenlistment bonus dollars. Five years later we
find that those individuals have now completed their initial
commitments, are coming off initial selective reenlistment bonus
contracts, are facing increased workload at home station (due to
deployed airmen), have spent multiple tours deployed themselves, and
are facing downsizing. These are but a few of the challenges we face in
the retention business.
That said, the Air Force has met or exceeded its retention goals
for Zones A (17 mo. to 6 years), B (6 to 10 years), and Zone C (10 to
14 years) from FY 2002 through March 2007. From April 2007 to December
2007 the Air Force experienced a slight downward trend in Zones B and C
during which retention fell below both goal and historical average.
This slight decrease in retention is not problematic as the Air Force
will continue to downsize its personnel in FY09. Since December 2007,
retention has stabilized but remains below goal. Note that current
retention rates are holding steady at levels equal to or higher than
pre-GWOT retention rates. To help arrest the downward trend in
retention (as we foresee stabilizing our endstrength in the outyears),
the Air Force has secured a $61.4M plus up in its Selective
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) initial pays budget for FY09. This will first
be applied to our critical warfighting skills to ensure we meet our
GWOT obligations.
Mrs. Davis. Why has the Air Force allowed these retention problems
to reoccur year after year without apparently being able to find a
solution?
General Newton. Actually, retention has not been a longstanding
problem for the Air Force.
The Air Force has met or exceeded its retention goals for Zones A
(17 mo. to 6 years), B (6 to 10 years), and Zone C (10 to 14 years)
from FY 2002 through March 2007. From April 2007 to December 2007 the
Air Force experienced a slight downward trend in Zones B and C during
which retention fell below both goal and historical average. This
slight decrease in retention is not problematic as the Air Force will
continue to downsize its personnel in FY09. Since December 2007,
retention has stabilized but remains below goal. Note that current
retention rates are holding steady at levels equal to or higher than
pre-GWOT retention rates. To help arrest the downward trend in
retention (as we foresee stabilizing our endstrength in the outyears),
the Air Force has secured a $61.4M plus up in its Selective
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) initial pays budget for FY09. This will first
be applied to our critical warfighting skills to ensure we meet our
GWOT obligations.
Mrs. Davis. The budget request for fiscal year 2009 provides all
military personnel with a 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise. If
the 3.4 percent pay raise is adopted, fiscal year 2009 will be the
first year since fiscal year 1999 that the military pay raise has not
been at least .5 percent above the level of private sector pay raises
as measured by the ECI. Given that the 3.4 percent pay raise being
proposed does not provide a pay raise that is greater than increases in
the private sector for the first time in nine years, is this raise
sufficient to recognize the stress currently being placed on the
military members and their families?
General Newton. No, this raise is not sufficient to recognize the
stress currently being placed on the military members and their
families. However, aside from direct compensation to offset stress,
there are indirect means that the Air Force uses to help to relieve
stress. The availability of Child Care Centers, Airmen and Family
Readiness Centers, Morale, Welfare and Recreation activities and other
support systems on base offer some relief to military members who are
balancing the demands of service, family, and home.
Mrs. Davis. Three active components--Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps--have all experienced some retention challenges within their
enlisted force. The Marine Corps, for the first time in recent memory,
showed some weakness in initial term retention during fiscal year 2007
(92%). Although the career number as reported by DOD appears strong at
129 percent, a more detailed examination indicates that second term
reenlistments were also short (85%). Your service had experienced
periodic difficulty meeting enlisted retention objectives that are
continuing during fiscal year 2008. Although they are admittedly not
significant, why does it appear to be so difficult to get these
problems under control? What are your plans and have you increased
retention bonuses to meet these challenges?
General Coleman. The challenge of achieving retention is mainly due
to the rapid growth in end strength and the eligible reenlistment
populations. As Marines' contracts are on average four years, the
current eligible population enlisted four years ago in support of a
175,000 strength Marine Corps. The quick ramp up of end strength
requires a greater number of reenlistments from these low eligible
populations. To achieve these higher reenlistment percentages, the
total retention bonus budget has been increased nearly tenfold since
2005, and the number of occupations eligible in both the first term and
career force has been increased.
Mrs. Davis. Why does the Marine Corps continue to report a combined
total for mid-career and career enlisted retention when an existing
mid-career enlisted retention problem might benefit from more exposure
and closer management attention?
General Coleman. Although the Marine Corps accounts for mid-career
and career reenlistments under a combined total, close attention is
paid to the mid-career. Since 2005, retention bonus plans have placed
increased focus on mid-career retention, and in 2007 internal goals
were established for the mid-career. The rationale behind the combined
total is a result of the founding of the Subsequent Term Alignment Plan
(STAP) in fiscal year 2002. The primary focus at that time was in fact
on mid-career reenlistments due to a decrease in retention around 8
years of service. At that time, more emphasis was put on mid-career
retention bonuses. Over the next few years, STAP increased to provide
additional focus on career force retention around 12 years of service,
although only a few occupations in the career force. In 2007 and 2008,
there was a robust retention bonus plan for both the mid-career and
career forces.
Mrs. Davis. The budget request for fiscal year 2009 provides all
military personnel with a 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise. If
the 3.4 percent pay raise is adopted, fiscal year 2009 will be the
first year since fiscal year 1999 that the military pay raise has not
been at least .5 percent above the level of private sector pay raises
as measured by the ECI. Given that the 3.4 percent pay raise being
proposed does not provide a pay raise that is greater than increases in
the private sector for the first time in nine years, is this raise
sufficient to recognize the stress currently being placed on the
military members and their families?
General Coleman. The ``gap'' compares increases in basic pay to
increases in the Employment Cost Index since 1982. The Congressional
Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department
of Defense all argue that this ``gap'' measure is faulty and, when
measured appropriately, disappears. The Ninth Quadrennial Review of
Military Compensation argued that the appropriate measure of the
adequacy of regular military compensation (RMC) is the 70th percentile.
(When RMC reaches the 70th percentile of private-sector pay, RMC is
higher than the pay of seven in ten private-sector workers and lower
than the pay for three in ten private-sector workers.) Targeted pay
raises from 2001 to 2007 achieved this percentile objective as RMC is
now at or greater than the 70th percentile for all military members. In
addition, basic pay does not include housing or subsistence allowances.
If we incorporate the growth in the Basic Allowance for Housing and
Basic Allowance for Subsistence into the measure (and compare the
increase since 1982 in Basic Pay, Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic
Allowance for Subsistence), we actually find a .5 percent ``surplus''
and hence no gap.
Mrs. Davis. Three active components--Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps--have all experienced some retention challenges within their
enlisted force. The Marine Corps, for the first time in recent memory,
showed some weakness in initial term retention during fiscal year 2007
(92%). Although the career number as reported by DOD appears strong at
129 percent, a more detailed examination indicates that second term
reenlistments were also short (85%). Your service had experienced
periodic difficulty meeting enlisted retention objectives that are
continuing during fiscal year 2008. Although they are admittedly not
significant, why does it appear to be so difficult to get these
problems under control? What are your plans and have you increased
retention bonuses to meet these challenges?
Admiral Harvey. The war on terrorism, Individual Augmentation
assignments and an increased sea/shore ratio do create a challenging
retention environment, which we continue to monitor closely. Our
assessment of Navy's retention posture is that it remains strong and
supports our end strength requirements. The Navy attained 98 percent of
the fiscal year 2007 numeric reenlistment goal for Zone A (0-6 years)
and exceeded both the Zone B (6-10 years) and Zone C (10-14 years)
numeric reenlistment goals. The Navy attained at least 96 percent of
the numeric reenlistment goals in each of the three zones during the
first five months of fiscal year 2008.
Quality of Service for Sailors and their families remains a top
priority as we continue to focus on providing adequate pay, health
care, housing, proper work environments, and career-long training and
education opportunities for our Sailors. The Navy uses specifically
targeted retention bonuses, for example, our Selective Reenlistment
Bonuses and Critical Skills Retention Bonuses, which provide us with
some flexibility in retaining certain critical skills. In addition, we
incentivize Sailors to `Stay Navy' and volunteer for sea duty and other
assignments with Sea Duty Incentive Pay and Assignment Incentive Pay
among other pays and incentives.
Mrs. Davis. Why does the Marine Corps continue to report a combined
total for mid-career and career enlisted retention when an existing
mid-career enlisted retention problem might benefit from more exposure
and closer management attention?
Admiral Harvey. The Navy closely monitors progress toward
established enlisted reenlistment goals in Zone A (0-6 years), Zone B
(6-10 years), and Zone C (10-14 years). Zones B and C allow management
attention for both mid-career and career enlisted Sailors. The Navy
does not set reenlistment goals for Sailors beyond 14 years of service
as their reenlistment rates have been greater than 96 percent during
recent years.
Mrs. Davis. The budget request for fiscal year 2009 provides all
military personnel with a 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise. If
the 3.4 percent pay raise is adopted, fiscal year 2009 will be the
first year since fiscal year 1999 that the military pay raise has not
been at least .5 percent above the level of private sector pay raises
as measured by the ECI. Given that the 3.4 percent pay raise being
proposed does not provide a pay raise that is greater than increases in
the private sector for the first time in nine years, is this raise
sufficient to recognize the stress currently being placed on the
military members and their families?
Admiral Harvey. The 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise
requested in the President's budget ensures basic pay remains
competitive with civilian wage growth. It is equal to the amount
required by law, matches earnings increase in the private sector, as
measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and is sufficient to meet
the overall needs of the Navy.
Since 2001, as a direct result of the sustained efforts of the
Congress and the Department of Defense, average basic pay has increased
32 percent. Through these efforts, in 2007, the Department achieved its
goal of establishing pay equal to, or greater than, the 70th percentile
of private sector pay for those of comparable age, education and
experience. We continue to support pay raises that keep pace with the
private sector. As compensation strategies must be flexible and
adaptable to changing service needs and employment market conditions,
the targeted use of bonuses and special pays remains a complementary,
yet essential, tool in overcoming recruiting and retention challenges
in career fields designated as critical skills.