[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 110-83]
ACTIVE ARMY, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, AND ARMY RESERVE RECRUITING AND
RETENTION PROGRAMS
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
AUGUST 1, 2007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] CONGRESS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-421 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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
Mike Higgins, Professional Staff Member
John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
Joe Hicken, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2007
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, August 1, 2007, Active Army, Army National Guard, and
Army Reserve Recruiting and Retention Programs................. 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, August 1, 2007........................................ 43
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2007
ACTIVE ARMY, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, AND ARMY RESERVE RECRUITING AND
RETENTION PROGRAMS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California,
Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee.................... 1
McHugh, John M., a Representative from New York, Ranking Member,
Military Personnel Subcommittee................................ 2
WITNESSES
Bostick, Maj. Gen. Thomas P., Commander, United States Army
Recruiting Command, U.S. Army.................................. 7
Dominguez, Hon. Michael L., Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness).............................. 3
Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D., Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, U.S.
Army........................................................... 5
Vaughn, Lt. Gen. Clyde A., Director, Army National Guard......... 7
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Bostick, Maj. Gen. Thomas P.................................. 82
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 47
Dominguez, Hon. Michael L.................................... 52
McHugh, Hon. John M.......................................... 48
Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D................................. 65
Vaughn, Lt. Gen. Clyde A..................................... 77
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Charts of the Army National Guard submitted by Lt. Gen. Clyde
A. Vaughn.................................................. 95
Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record:
Mrs. Davis of California..................................... 101
Mr. Kline.................................................... 102
Mr. McHugh................................................... 101
Dr. Snyder................................................... 102
ACTIVE ARMY, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, AND ARMY RESERVE RECRUITING AND
RETENTION PROGRAMS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, August 1, 2007.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan Davis
(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mrs. Davis. Good afternoon, everybody.
Today, the subcommittee turns its attention to the closely
aligned issues of military recruiting and retention. While the
debate on the future of the war in Iraq is capturing much of
the public's attention, those laboring to recruit and retain
the high-quality force that is the bedrock of military
readiness continue to perform their vital mission under great
stress.
The sound job market and the pressures of the war make this
task incredibly difficult and it is incumbent on the Congress
to be watchful and ensure recruiters and their managers have
the necessary funding and tools to be successful.
The one enduring lesson that the subcommittee has learned
is that those funds and tools are ineffective if not delivered
in a consistent and timely manner. Unlike many of the problems
being confronted by the armed forces, the task of attracting
people to the military cannot be achieved with increased
spending at the 11th hour.
Competing in the marketplace for people requires the
consistent and early allocation of resources. It is the
subcommittee's experience that every military recruiting
failure in the last 20 years can be attributed to some degree
to inconsistent and late allocation of funding to meet the
challenge.
This hearing today focuses on the Army because the
subcommittee has observed that all three Army components have
endured setbacks in their recruiting programs in recent months.
It is no secret to anyone that recruiting and retaining a
quality force is extremely difficult in today's environment.
This is particularly true for the Army, given the larger
numbers associated with their mission.
However, a full understanding of the challenge seems to
have not prevented funding from being a factor that has put the
recruiting programs within all three Army components at greater
risk. In an era where we have an urgent need to increase the
strength of the Army and its reserve components, it is critical
that we not make mistakes in funding recruiting programs.
The subcommittee will be interested in hearing the
perspectives of Department of Defense (DOD) and the Army on the
issue of consistent and timely funding and a range of other
important issues, to include recruit quality and recruiter
misconduct as well.
I am delighted to be here today to have this hearing.
I want to turn to my colleague, Mr. McHugh, if you have any
opening remarks?
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 47.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
YORK, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, let me join with you in welcoming our
distinguished panel here today.
As you noted, Madam Chair, this is a very necessary
hearing. I would argue also a very timely hearing. We are
nearing the end of 2007, and certainly I think it will be a
useful update for the subcommittee on the recruiting and
retention challenges still facing us. As you noted, Madam
Chair, the most challenged of all the services in the United
States military is that of the United States Army.
I could add a number of concerns. First, end-strength,
especially whether the active Army is going to be able to meet
not only the fiscal 2007 authorized end-strength level, which
is 512,400, but also that of the target that they have set, the
518,400. That is a step, if you will, to stay on pace for the
increase of the force that has been authorized by 2013,
547,400.
It is a cloudy question right now. As of June, as I
understand it, the Army has a strength of 510,000; that is
2,400 below the authorized end-strength and 8,400 below its
active force growth objective.
The Army Reserve appears to be headed in fiscal year 2007
for another year when its actual end-strength will not even
reach authorized levels. Obviously, without manpower growth,
Army plans to build additional brigade combat teams (BCT) and
support brigades will be jeopardized. Recruiting is always a
challenge. The Army Reserve continues to miss its objectives.
Moreover, I, along with many others, I am sure, were
disturbed to hear retired General Jack Keane testify just last
week before the Full Committee that the Army is not likely to
meet its recruiting mission in fiscal year 2007. If true, any
erosion in the Army's quality standards and congressional
efforts to provide Army-unique recruiting authorities, we need
to know what the Army and DOD are doing to ensure active Army
and Army Reserve recruiting stays on track to attain, not only
accession missions, but also contract goals.
All of the questions that you have identified, Madam
Chair--inappropriate funding strategies, inadequate planning,
and on and on and on--are great, great concerns. We need to
talk about those today to ensure that we, as a Congress, are
doing both our oversight objectives and missions as are
appropriate; but also, of course, to ensure that we are
providing all in the services, but for the purposes of today,
the Army components with the necessary ability to meet the
great challenges that the brave men and women who wear the
uniform of that great service are facing on our behalf.
With that, Madam Chair, I would just ask that the rest of
my written testimony be submitted in its entirety for the
record, and yield back, and look forward to the panelists'
comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McHugh can be found in the
Appendix on page 48.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
I might just mention that we are all a little challenged
today by the schedule and by the votes, so there may in fact be
some procedural votes coming up, or other votes, and we will
try and plow through this as best we can.
I wanted to just welcome our panel again, and introduce
them: The Honorable Michael Dominguez, principal deputy
undersecretary of defense, personnel and readiness; Lieutenant
General Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff, U.S. Army;
Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn, director of the Army National
Guard; and Major General Thomas Bostick, commanding general,
United States Army Recruiting Command in Kentucky.
Thank you all very much for being here.
Secretary Dominguez, we look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PERSONNEL AND READINESS)
Secretary Dominguez. Thank you, Madam Chair and
distinguished members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be
with you today.
Let me begin by acknowledging an historic achievement that
many, including some of our own experts, would have thought
impossible a few years ago. We have taken an all-volunteer
military to war. We have done it in a strong economy with 4.5
percent unemployment. We often have asked that force and their
families to do more on short notice. And through it all, we
have manned this Nation's military with people far above
average relative to their peers.
Support from this subcommittee has been critical to our
success. And the department, and particularly the Army,
delivered this success even as transforms itself in design,
location and mission focus. That context and the continuation
of those challenges ought to serve as a context for this
hearing.
The Army is growing from fewer than 520,000 at the end of
this year to about 547,000 five years from now. Within those
numbers are major organizational shifts brought about by Army's
migration to modular design, more and smarter units, and a
design that allows more flexibility and more even burden-
sharing across the force.
In turn, this requires a slightly higher proportion of
officers, particularly captains and majors. And then naturally,
this plan requires growth in officer accessions and the Army
continued its move in that direction last year with the
addition of 300 more officers annually. Initially, the Officer
Candidate School (OCS) will generate the growth, while the
longer lead-time sources like Reserve Officer Training Corps
(ROTC) ramp-up to higher levels of officer production.
Longer service commitments are being encouraged through a
variety of programs to improve officer retention. More
experienced officers soon will see a bonus program that now is
in its final stages of development. The Army is making all the
right moves to meet its increasing demand for officers.
On the enlisted side, all active component services
achieved their recruiting goals for July. The three reserves--
Army and Navy Reserve and Air Guard--fell somewhat short. We in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) monitor this
progress carefully, and we engage with the military departments
and services when we have cause for concern.
As a result of these engagements, I am confident that our
leaders are taking appropriate actions, and I am optimistic
about ending this year on-target. An on-target finish for all
Army components and for the Air National Guard is achievable,
but it will be challenging.
Over the longer term, meeting recruiting targets will
remain challenging. The propensity to enlist is down. The
willingness of coaches, teachers, counselors, and parents to
commend military service to America's youth is lower than is
good for our Nation and our military. The number of people who
meet our enlistment standards is astonishingly low.
Madam Chair, as we execute our difficult task in the months
ahead, we need your help and the help of the Congress in four
concrete ways.
First, lend your voices to the chorus reminding the
American people that service in our armed forces is a good and
noble path and one that every citizen of our democracy ought to
seriously consider.
Second, ensure that our recruiters have access to America's
youth equal to that afforded to colleges and to other
employers.
Third, support our efforts to develop, test, and deploy
flexible, innovative recruiting and retention programs for this
dynamic and challenging environment.
And fourth, quickly approve the reprogramming request the
Department has submitted so that we can properly fund the
Army's large program.
I will end my opening oral statement, Madam Chair, by once
again reaffirming that our success in recruiting, fielding, and
sustaining a high-quality force through almost six continuous
years of combat is attributable in large part to this committee
and the strong partnership between the Department and this
committee that has endured over many years and over many
Administrations.
Thank you for your partnership and your many contributions
to our all-volunteer force.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Dominguez can be found
in the Appendix on page 52.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Rochelle.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. MICHAEL D. ROCHELLE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF, G-1, U.S. ARMY
General Rochelle. Chairwoman Davis, Representative McHugh,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for offering
me once again the opportunity to appear before you. It truly is
an honor.
I appear before you today on behalf of America's all-
volunteer Army. Today, we have an Army of over one million
strong proudly serving and growing to meet the demands of the
current and future operational environment. With our focus
today on recruiting and retention, I am prepared to discuss two
of the Army's highest priorities with you.
I will highlight where we have achieved successes and will
request your continued support and flexibility to sustain and
in some instances expand incentives and initiatives that will
attract the quality young men and women who will join
tomorrow's Army.
This year marks the fifth consecutive year that the
volunteer Army is at war. Even with our global commitments, we
continue to grow the Army to sustain combat operations and
defend our Nation's vital interests. Since the start of the
global war on terror, we have of necessity grown the all-
volunteer Army by nearly 23,500 soldiers. America's patriotic
men and women are answering the call to duty in an Army that
has served the Nation's interests since before the Meuse-
Argonne.
The reason we are able to grow and sustain our Army during
a time of conflict is because of patriotic young adults who
accurately see the Army as an opportunity to serve the Nation's
vital interests, as well as providing themselves the bridge to
a brighter future. In an ever-competitive market, the Army is
faced with an even greater recruiting challenge than our sister
services or those in the private sector, namely attracting
quality young men and women in a strong economy, while engaged
in persistent conflict.
Today, with unemployment at an all-time low, communicating
the value of America's Army as a place of dependable employment
and noble service is no longer an effective communication.
Additionally, given the dynamic of the private sector
employment options and the likelihood of military deployment,
many parents, teachers and coaches--commonly referred to as
influencers--are discouraging even highly motivated prospects.
Despite the challenges we face and will continue to face in
the future, the Army continues to be successful overall in
growing and maintaining the all-volunteer Army. In 2002, we
began a landmark transformation from a division-centric force
to a brigade-centric, highly mobile force. Along with that
transformation came a need for additional manpower. Consistent
with recent congressional authorizations, the Army will have
grown its end-strength from more than 468,000 at the end of
fiscal year 2002 to 518,000 at the end of fiscal year 2007.
Congress also addressed the need for the added
flexibilities to meet the challenges associated with growing
the all-volunteer force, and this committee was a standout. As
a result, we have boosted our recruitment efforts by
establishing innovative approaches to enlistments nationwide.
Despite a 7 percent drop since 2003 in youth propensity to
serve, currently at an all-time historical low of 16 percent
propensity, the Army has remained ahead of our annual targets
or glide required to meet not only our year-end accession
goals, but multi-year growth targets as well.
As good stewards of our resources, I have directed that in
no case do we trade quality for quantity. At the heart of most
enlistments is a desire to serve our Nation, and we must be
cautious as we develop new incentives not to trade that desire
for monetary, educational, or other incentives. We don't
require that every young soldier become a hero on the
battlefield, but we do ask that every young American be
presented an opportunity to respond to our Nation's call to
duty.
The all-volunteer Army is Army strong precisely because
each American that joins our ranks chooses to do so. Enlistment
is the first act of selflessness that develops young Americans
into the courageous troops we all admire. We are leveraging the
flexibilities you have given us to close fiscal year 2007
successfully. We remain ahead of glide path to achieve our
fiscal year 2007 recruiting mission, and I am reasonably
confident that we can achieve that success in fiscal year 2008.
An innovative program that offers future soldiers our next
generation of incentives and has the capacity to expand our
reach well beyond that of the Army College Fund of nearly 25
years ago is the Army Advantage Fund. The Army Advantage Fund
has the potential to attract the innovative, entrepreneurial,
and values-based youth willing to accept the challenge. We ask
for your continued support to implement this groundbreaking
incentive, as well as establishing the vehicle with which to
employ it.
I will focus my next comments on retention, brief comments.
Clearly, a key indicator of our soldiers' commitment and
high morale is our retention rate. Active Army has achieved all
retention targets for the past nine years. As a result, that
can be directly attributed to the Army's leadership and the
motivation of our soldiers to accept the continued call to
duty.
To man the future force, the Army must increase company-
grade officer retention to keep up with the structure growth
driven by modularity. The Army has successfully grown the
officer corps over the last several years through increased
officer promotion selection rates and earlier pin-on points to
captain and major.
America's Army is strong. We value your continued support
to ensure our Army is fully prepared to meet America's global
commitments. To ensure our values, our values-based Army is
prepared for the future. We need your continued flexibilities
and support, as well as approval of the fiscal year 2008
President's budget request to support maintaining and growing
the Nation's Army.
Additionally, I would urge that every member of the
committee share the message of, first, a call to national
service, and second, the great opportunities available in
America's Army.
In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to once again
appear before this distinguished committee, and I look forward
to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Rochelle can be found in
the Appendix on page 65.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Vaughn.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CLYDE A. VAUGHN, DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD
General Vaughn. Chairwoman Davis, Representative McHugh,
and distinguished committee members, it is an honor to appear
before you as the director of the National Guard. I would ask
that my statement be entered into the record, and I would just
like to make just a quick couple of comments.
We have had a historical year, as I think all of you know.
Over the last 22 months, we have gained nearly 22,000 soldiers.
The chart that you see in back of you portrays where we started
at on the far left, called the bathtub chart. I can assure you
that it is a real pleasure to appear before you today as
compared with eight months ago, and then probably one and a
half years prior to that.
We promised at that time that we would make end-strength,
and we did in March of this year as a result of the great
support of this committee. It is a result of the great
leadership of our adjutant generals (TAG) and our governors.
But most of all, it is the support of each one of these
communities out there that embrace and worship these units from
nearly 3,000 towns and cities around the United States of
America. There is an enormous amount of pride in the Army
National Guard today.
We have challenges, and our challenges exist in the areas
of getting the base and the supplementals right to gear us
through, and I am sure we will be able to discuss that soon.
There were some assumptions made, as I think everyone here is
aware of in here, a couple of years ago that started us down
the wrong track, you know, in the position of our base budget.
We are still recovering from that. We don't want to kill this
momentum, and we want to go right on into 2008 positioned to
grow.
I think one of the great noticeable things, or notable
things about this is we have actually improved our quality in a
significant manner with innovative programs, a lot of support
from over here, and a lot of pride in the force.
So thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Vaughn can be found in
the Appendix on page 77.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Bostick.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. THOMAS P. BOSTICK, COMMANDER, UNITED
STATES ARMY RECRUITING COMMAND, U.S. ARMY
General Bostick. Chairwoman Davis, Representative McHugh,
and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss Army recruiting today.
I also want to thank you for supporting our initiatives to
attract the very best soldiers. Having served in combat with
these wonderful Americans, I am confident that we continue to
maintain a quality Army of dedicated and loyal professionals.
As a result of additional manpower, resources, and
incentives, the Army enlisted 13,000 more soldiers for the
regular Army and the Army Reserve in 2006 than it did in 2005.
It was clear then that we made the right adjustments. However,
adequate resources are not always enough to ensure success. We
must now overcome a more challenging environment, an
environment marked by low unemployment, decreasing influencer
support, and the lowest propensity to serve in two decades.
Nonetheless, nearly 70,000 Americans have joined our Army
this year. They are reenlisting in record numbers. We have the
best-trained, best-led, and the best-equipped Army in the
world. Our soldiers are staying in the Army because they
believe in each other. They believe in their mission and they
appreciate the support of the American people.
In the area of quality, regardless of their educational
credentials or test scores, every applicant we enlist is
qualified to serve. For high school diploma graduates in fiscal
year 2006, the regular Army and Army Reserve achieved 81
percent and 89 percent, respectively, against the goal of 90
percent. We met our goals in all other areas of aptitude.
In the area of waivers, we have a sound process for
reviewing all waivers. In fiscal year 2006, 85 percent--nearly
90,000 of those that we shipped to basic training--entered the
Army without the need for a waiver. Waivers have increased
approximately two percent to three percent overall each year
from 2004 to 2006.
We believe this is partly a result of changes in society,
changes in policy, and our improved processing procedures. In
fiscal year 2007, we expect to achieve 80 percent high school
diploma graduates, 60 percent in Category I to III offers, and
no more than 4 percent Category IV.
We are currently reviewing the impact of less high school
diploma graduates and increased waivers on the effectiveness of
an Army at war. We have taken a number of innovative actions to
accomplish this mission, many with your assistance. We added
incentives and heavily advertised the two-year enlistment. We
established a super-leads program to refine nearly one million
leads to save valuable recruiter time.
We issued an operational mission to the field to inspire
them to achievement in these final three months. We implemented
the recruiter incentive pay to reward our very best recruiters.
We increased the quick-ship bonus to $20,000 for all MOS's--
military occupational specialties--that ship in the remainder
of the year. We requested additional soldiers graduating from
initial training and returning combat veterans to assist in our
recruiting efforts.
We reemphasized the $2,000 referral bonus program, and we
requested the temporary return of up to 1,000 former recruiters
in these final months of this fight that we are engaged in. We
asked the leadership of the Army--general officers, senior
executive service, command sergeant majors--to come out and
help us with recruiting in the field force and they are doing
that. We emphasized ``March to Success,'' an education program
to assist those that are having difficulty passing the armed
services vocational aptitude battery test.
We expanded ARMS, the Assessment of Recruiter Motivation
and Strength, to enlist some of those who are slightly
overweight, but who are confident they can lose that weight in
their first 12 months of service. With your help, we increased
the age limit to 42, allowing those that have always wanted to
serve, the opportunity to serve. We added greater flexibility
with tattoos, which aligns with societal changes that we have
seen. We have implemented a team recruiting concept in one of
our brigades where every soldier does not have to be an expert
in every task.
We can and we will accomplish this mission. It will be
challenging, but it is a challenge not only for the Army, but
for this Nation.
I thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Bostick can be found in
the Appendix on page 82.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
Thank you, all of you, for being here. We certainly thank
you for your service. We recognize the professionalism with
which our recruiters go about their job and the need to really
have the support of our communities. You make that case very
well.
I think what we are here to do today is to really drill
down, as they say, on some of the major challenges that you
face and how we can be as supportive of those and at the same
time really ask you as well to help us understand the
accountability issues behind that so that we can have dollars
available when they are needed and to be sure that the programs
are as creative as necessary for us to complete your job and
your mission.
So I wanted to start quickly looking at some of the Army
recruiting and retention issues that you have talked about. I
think you mentioned briefly looking at the differences that we
have come to rely on, really, on the supplemental
appropriations.
I want to ask, why are we still relying largely on those
supplemental budgets? And if you see a shifting so that we are
able to really reinforce the needs that you have, but do it in
our basic budgets as opposed to the supplemental? Why are we
relying on those today and how do you think we can shift away
from that?
Secretary Dominguez. Madam Chair, if I could take that
question. In preparation for the hearing, I consulted with the
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Comptroller, and
reaffirmed with them the uncertainty about the strength of the
United States Army is behind us now.
So we have very clearly established and great leadership
consensus around the growth path of the United States Army, so
that it has enabled us to, for the fiscal year 2009 budget
submission, we will fund the program for all components in the
base budget. So we are out of the supplemental business for the
recruiting program.
General Rochelle. Madam Chair, if I may simply add, for the
purpose of this hearing, clearly the primary focus is on
recruiting and retention costs within the base budget. I am
pleased to echo Mr. Dominguez's comments with respect to that
level of funding, which in fiscal year 2009 will indeed be
thoroughly and totally in the base.
Mrs. Davis. I think for now, in terms of trying to provide
the bonuses that are needed at the right time, I am wondering
why you have actually--it appears that the Army recruiting
command has waited until July 25th to be more aggressive on
increasing recruiting bonuses. Why is that?
General Rochelle. Well, first of all, ma'am, that is my
responsibility to pull the switches and the levers on the
incentives at the Department of the Army level. Two things: On
the retention side of the equation, we were attempting to make
sure that we added first and foremost to the end-strength of
the Army with our budget, with our offerings for incentives,
retention incentives.
Let me be more clear. A soldier who was scheduled to
separate in fiscal year 2007, whom we then convinced to stay
with us, was in fact additive to the end-strength of the Army
at the end of fiscal year 2007, and obviously additive to the
end-strength in fiscal year 2008.
Our offerings typically span at least two years, so we held
back--I held back--on the fiscal year 2008 retention dollars to
attempt to make it more attractive for more in fiscal year 2007
to join us. That worked. However, we are going to execute our
retention budget in total to the level of funding by the end of
fiscal year 2007.
On the recruiting side, March and April--and General
Bostick may wish to comment a little more on this--March and
April were where we began to see a little bit of softness in
the execution of the plan, accelerating gains to be able to
grow the Army in fiscal year 2007 a little faster.
We then began to put in place, in concert with and from a
total Army perspective, active, Guard and Reserve, the
incentives necessary to take us through. As General Bostick has
mentioned in his opening comments, we will be successful in
fiscal year 2007.
Mrs. Davis. Yes. You have avoided some of those challenges
with having more recruitment bonuses available to you?
General Bostick. Ma'am, we received the bonuses upon our
request. The issue is really one of timing and having the
intelligence ahead of us to know that we have an issue at hand,
and then to execute in a timely fashion in order to put those
bonuses on the street. What had happened to us, as you know,
and it was successful in the mission all the way until May. We
missed it by about 400 that month and then about 1,400 the next
month.
But as soon as we saw in May the challenges that were
there, we looked at how we could expand the market, what other
part of the market out there were we not touching. We looked at
the two-year enlistment. We thought that we could quickly ramp-
up the two-year enlistment if we put the right bonus to that.
So we went back to the Army and asked for a $15,000 quick-
ship bonus, along with a two-year enlistment that came with two
years of college. Normally in a month, we will enlist about 30
or so with the 2-year enlistment, and we did 10 times that in
our first month with this program.
So we feel like we turned it right away and then we looked
at June, and June was a very, very difficult month. It was a
month that we did not expect to see turn the way that it did.
So it reinforced some of the environmental factors that we were
already facing.
So again, we came back to the Army and asked for a $20,000
enlistment bonus, but this time for all soldiers that were
shipped in every military occupational specialty for the rest
of the year.
Mrs. Davis. I think just before we turn to the members, we
are certainly going to want to focus on the erosion of recruit
quality as an issue, but I think it is fair for us to address.
Are there additional dollars that you have foregone that
could have been used for enlistment bonuses that are still
available to you? Have you basically worked through that now?
From that discussion, I think we are just trying to
pinpoint whether there are some additional opportunities out
there that have been missed.
General Rochelle. I don't believe there are opportunities
that we have missed thus far for the remainder of fiscal year
2007. We shifted our focus just a little bit toward ensuring
that we enter fiscal year 2008 at least as strong as we
possibly can, not to say that we have written off 2007.
It is still, as both Mr. Dominguez and myself and General
Bostick have all attested, it is going to be a challenge
nonetheless. We have all the resources necessary to be
successful. It is a reflection of the difficulty and the
propensity, the strength of the economy, and of course low
unemployment.
General Bostick. And if I could also say, on the bonuses,
and I understand the preciseness of your question, and whether
we could have used more bonuses earlier in order to get ahead.
We are balancing two things: one, to bring the Army to the size
that it needs to be; and also to be good stewards of the
taxpayers' dollars.
As we look at those bonuses, we target them to the most
challenging military occupational specialties that we need to
fill. We balance those as long as we are moving along and
accomplishing the mission as we need to be.
I think the next 2 months will be a good test for us
because now, with a fairly large bonus of $20,000, and it is
open to all of those who ship in the last 2 months, that is
available to everyone who joins the Army.
So this will be a good test to answer the question of
whether increased bonuses at a time where the environment is
shaped like it is, will actually attract more young men and
women to serve.
Secretary Dominguez. Madam Chair, if I might, the Army
Guard is facing currently in fiscal year 2007 a resource
shortfall for their program, so the guard does need rapid
action on a reprogramming request to fully finance that.
I think General Vaughn can fill in if he would like.
Mrs. Davis. If for some reason that reprogramming didn't
move forward, what would that mean to your recruiting efforts?
General Vaughn. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for that
question.
We are still sailing along on the back of some flawed
assumptions about what kind of end-strength we were going to
make. We have had to survive in 2006 and 2007 on very small
base budgets, and our supplementals that didn't reach all the
way around it also.
In 2006, we took as much money as we could possibly take
out of statutory programs and cash-flowed what we had to do to
make this real, to make this recruiting drive happen for the
United States of America. The Army supported us and bailed us
out with a reprogramming action, as you well know.
They came over here and got the support and it paid all of
the cash advances that we had moved up to make up for what we
didn't have in the base and supplemental. So in looking at that
situation and the fact that the base came forward again very,
very low, and the supplemental also was very low, it didn't
reach around what our requirements were by a large amount.
And so this year, we wouldn't have continued recruiting
past June had we not had the promise from Army that they would
support an omnibus reprogramming. And so I talked to the
leadership of the Army about it, and the impact is if we don't
have the omnibus reprogramming this time, then we will cut the
Guard Recruiting Assistance program (G-RAP) program completely
out.
We will significantly curtail all of our recruiting and
retention efforts for the remaining portion of the year just to
pay down and be able to recover somewhat, but we will fail to
make statutory payments to our Active Guard and Reserve (AGR)
and technicians. That is how short we were in the base and
supplemental side. We reduced retention and recruiting bonuses
in the Army National Guard.
Mrs. Davis. General, I think the concern--and I certainly
appreciate what that would mean if those reprogramming dollars
don't go through, but I also am hearing you say that you have
been short, we have all been short, in predicting what is
really required. And that concerns me, that we need to make
certain.
Why is that? I mean, is it because we didn't want to put
those needs forward? Were people just off in the predictions?
Why such a shortfall?
General Vaughn. Madam Chairwoman, we have been on the mark
as far as what we needed. We have been on the mark as far as
what we needed. We were told, if you remember, the secretary of
the Army came over here and testified that they would pay for
whatever we could recruit to. It is in testimony.
And so I had no fear, even though we were so short in the
base and supplemental last year, I had no fear that Army was
going to come through with that. Otherwise, it was going to
look like an agenda that someone didn't want us to make end-
strength.
And so, this year as we move forward, once again the great
vice chief, who is a friend of mine, assured me that they would
help us on this.
Now, the problem we have leading into near year, just so
you know, is I have gone to the comptroller because I had the
same concerns, and said, ``Dear comptroller, this doesn't look
quite right, and I am concerned. Are you going to be able to do
this, for instance, in 2008?'' And the answer I got was: You
live on your base and supplemental, as we work to get it into
the base.
And so now, the real problem--and I talked to the secretary
beforehand--and we have to straighten this out because next
year we will quit recruiting about February. Every year it gets
a little closer to us, but we have gone as far as we can under
the conditions that we have been operating.
Secretary Dominguez. Madam Chair, if I might add, looking
backwards over the last several years, there have been pretty
intense discussions within the Department and then between the
Department and the Congress about the end-strength, the
relative strength numbers of the armed forces in general and
the Army in particular.
Those discussions, as well as the uncertainty of the
conflict and how many people we would be needing for that,
contributed a great deal to the decisions about splitting money
between supplementals and the base.
Those are behind us. There is a leadership consensus now on
the strength of the armed forces and all the components. So we
will now be building budgets that fully fund the programs
necessary to achieve those outcomes, beginning with the Fiscal
Year 2009 President's Budget.
Dr. Chu, Secretary Hall, and I are committed to working
with Lieutenant General Blum and Lieutenant General Vaughn here
to sort out fiscal year 2008 and make sure that he is postured
for success. The guard is critical to the success of the Army.
The guard is critical to the governors. We will make it right.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. I guess that is good news, but I have to tell
you it is about one and a half years of interim ``not good
news.''
It also, with all due respect, Mr. Secretary, sounds to me
like the vaunted promise of out-years that we have all heard
about. I go to bed every night praying that the good Lord above
one day before I die he will let me live in an out-year,
because everything is going to be wonderful. I just can't help
but express some wonderment if that is the case.
In the meantime, we have to kind of look at where we are
today and where we are going in 2008. I have to be honest with
you. I have heard to the extent you have addressed the issue,
the responses with respect to this reprogramming, and I don't
for a minute doubt the need to have this done.
I understand the great challenges that General Vaughn and
his leadership finds him under. They have been dealt a pretty
difficult hand, to say the least. It requires money.
But I am at a loss to understood how we can justify,
rectify taking over $800 million out of the personnel accounts
of the United States Army, including I might add $155 million
in recruiting bonuses from the branch of the service and active
component that is not exactly in clover.
Can you help me understand this?
You heard General Rochelle talk about, and we are all aware
of, the new recruiting bonus that is out there--$20,000, I
believe, for a two-year enlistment, and it goes up for longer
enlistments.
I don't know what the overall price tag is on that, but
seeing as how we just, if we do a reprogramming in the way it
is structured, take away $155 million in your recruiting money,
doesn't that cause a crunch?
Secretary Dominguez. I believe, sir, that that is
inaccurate information that was provided.
Mr. McHugh. Then help me get it right.
Secretary Dominguez. What I have been told--because I had
this same reaction, ``How can this be?'' As our staffs work
together to dig down to this, what I have been told--and I hope
General Rochelle can echo that--is that we are reprogramming
from money that we thought would be paying for mobilized
soldiers on active service that we didn't need to mobilize and
bring onto active service.
So that the cash anticipated to pay for those mobilized
soldiers, since they weren't mobilized and we didn't bring them
into active service, is now free and we are actually moving
that over.
Mr. McHugh. That is the entire, I believe the figure is
$845 million?
Secretary Dominguez. That is what----
Mr. McHugh. Can you see why I am confused a little bit
here?
Mr. Secretary.
General.
General Rochelle. Yes, sir.
Mr. McHugh. Okay. General, help me better understand it.
General Rochelle. Yes, sir. The amount that was moved to
help the guard, which doesn't really address the larger issue
that General Vaughn brought up, but the amount that was moved
out of the military personnel accounts of the active
component----
Mr. McHugh. The reprogramming? The entire reprogramming?
General Rochelle. Reprogrammed, yes, sir. It was $155
million, and as Mr. Dominguez correctly states, it was money
that we estimated in the 2007 budget build that we were going
to need for members of the reserves who would be activated, and
they were not in the numbers that we estimated.
Mr. McHugh. Well, my understanding is the entire
reprogramming request for the guard--and maybe I am wrong
here--is about $500 million. Is it not?
General Vaughn. I think that the reprogramming for the
omnibus is about $810 million: $272 million in Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) and $538 million in Personnel and
Administration (P&A).
Mr. McHugh. You are right mathematically. I am sorry. I
thought we were talking about recruiting and retention. But
$500 million of that is for recruiting and retention.
General Vaughn. Sir, there is all but $112 million of that
piece that is payback to our statutory accounts, and that was
because of the recruiting and retention piece that we had to
pay for.
Mr. McHugh. I am not challenging the fact you owe it. I am
questioning the affordability of it from the other
reprogramming here. We are trying to decide where the money is
coming from and I don't know as we have determined that yet.
Yet, General Rochelle, you tell me it is $155 million for
direct payment to there. That leaves about $700 million that
the reprogramming request seeks to move out of active Army
personnel accounts. Yes?
General Rochelle. No, sir. My understanding is only $155
million out of active Army military personnel accounts.
Mr. McHugh. Well, you are wrong. It is $845 million, and I
hate to be the bearer of bad tidings here, but that is the
problem. I don't know, maybe the Administration has given us
bad figures or they are giving you bad figures, but somebody
has bad figures here.
Secretary Dominguez. Sir, why don't we take that for the
record and we will get back to you very quickly with some
clarification.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 101.]
Mr. McHugh. Okay.
General Rochelle. Sir, I misspoke. I misspoke. I was
looking at $155 million which was directed. You are correct on
the $845 million out of military personnel Army accounts.
Mr. McHugh. And $155 million of which are your enlistment
bonuses being shifted over to the guard.
General Rochelle. No, sir. That part is not correct. Sir, I
will clarify.
Mr. McHugh. You better take that for the record. You are
losing $845 million out of personnel accounts.
General Rochelle. That is correct.
Mr. McHugh. Can we agree your retention and recruiting
monies come out of your personnel accounts?
General Rochelle. Oh, yes, sir. Absolutely.
Mr. McHugh. So you are losing $845 million. We can argue or
discuss whether or not it is actually coming out of a
designated account, but you are losing $845 million.
General Rochelle. That is correct.
Mr. McHugh. You just instituted a new $20,000 per two-year
enlistment bonus.
General Rochelle. Correct, sir.
Mr. McHugh. And it goes up in gradations of, I believe,
$5,000 per added tour. What is that going to cost? And where
are you going to get the money? That is what I am trying to
understand.
I am not begrudging the guard the challenge. They have a
big, big problem here. And this gets down--and I understand in
fairness that you all are dealt hands by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and others that tell you, ``Here is
how we are going to do it.''
But this is the forum we have. And, Mr. Secretary, you know
that you have heard this schtick before. I am not going to
apologize for putting you through it, but I will say I am sorry
we have to talk about this again. This is the wrong way to run
an airline--or an Army. I guess that is a better way to put it
here.
I have to tell you, for the record and so that the folks
who in 2009 will actually be making the decisions to keep the
commitment that you, as an honorable person, came here today
and relied upon to give, they better damn well get it right and
get it right that time, because this is an awful, awful way to
proceed.
General Vaughn, if we do this reprogramming in time--and
God love you for having to rely upon the Congress to do
anything on time right now--but if we are able to, I mean you
could have as little as 30 days left to spend that money. Part
of that, as I understand it, you have about a $22 million
advertising budget.
How are you going to spend that kind of money effectively?
This is not your fault. I don't mean to be accusing you. I
don't. But this is what you are looking at--$22 million. I know
a little bit about buying ads and I think every politician
does. You can't possibly spend that money effectively.
General Vaughn. Congressman, thank you.
Those contract vehicles are in place, and $50 million of
that I talked about was for G-RAP. One of my great, big, huge
concerns is on this whole thing is just $112 million of it that
is on the back end for recruiting. The rest of it is payback in
order to pay the salaries of our technicians and AGRs.
Mr. McHugh. I have got you.
General Vaughn. And so dropping those contracts--now, the
tough piece is here comes this thing over to the Hill to be
acted on, and every day is a huge deal, whether it is the 29th,
28th, 27th, there is an enormous difference between the 27th
and the 26th, for instance.
So I understand, but we can execute if we get it early
enough, and I don't mean the pressure early enough to get it 30
days in front of 15 days in front, but somewhere between 15
days prior to the end of the month. Every day is an issue for
us, for only the recruiting piece of it. The other piece is
spent.
Mr. McHugh. In fact, you need the money right now.
General Vaughn. Yes, sir.
Mr. McHugh. Underscoring the fact, no culpability at this
front table. We are underscoring the fact what an awful process
this has been over the past several years where we are
repeatedly going to the supplemental process of funding
something so challenging and critical as recruiting and
retention.
It is just the wrong way to do it. I just think the
Administration has made some bad, bad choices. I will shut up
with that, because our other colleagues have been very, very
patient. But I want to ask one more question.
General Rochelle, you said you were--looking for the word;
I wrote it down--``reasonably confident'' you are going to meet
you recruiting goals.
As you heard in my opening statement, two things: One,
General Keane, retired--someone we all know and deeply admire--
just gave his opinion, and it is a valued opinion, but it is an
opinion, that you weren't going to do that.
As you look at the figures right now, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, you are about 2,400, I guess, below your
authorized and over 8,000 below your target, which is above the
authorized because you are trying to grow to that higher
authorized level.
June is a bad month. June is usually a good month, and I
think that was why General Bostick said we were kind of
surprised by that. I mean, the schools are out and generally
that is where things start to get good again.
How reasonable is your ``reasonably confident'' level? I
know you are a military guy, but this is an incredibly tough
challenge, is it not?
General Rochelle. Sir, the challenge is tough, and I did
not mean in any way to diminish the significance----
Mr. McHugh. And I know that, absolutely. I didn't mean to
pit you against General Keane.
General Rochelle. I have the utmost respect for General
Keane.
Mr. McHugh. I know.
General Rochelle. I can only say I am reasonably confident
that we will make it, sir. I have watched from a very close
proximity Army recruiting for well over six years. I think I
have, in addition to the analytical background to watch exactly
how it is working, but also a respect for the desire that
General Bostick spoke about on the part of those 7,000 or 6000-
some recruiters as well to be able to pull it out.
Mr. McHugh. Well, gentlemen, thank you all.
Let me just say in closing, all of us I know on this panel,
perhaps more than most in this Congress, have such a deep
appreciation of the challenges that this Army, our men and
women in uniform, face across the board and we are in awe of
their achievements.
But for those who don't routinely have firearms shot at
them, you folks are brave as well. You have a heck of a
challenge. I hope nothing that I, or certainly anyone else
would say, would in any way suggest to you that we don't
respect the effort and the honor you bring to the challenge
each and every day. I deeply appreciate it, and we are all
trying to pull in the same direction. We want to work together
to realize a better day.
So thank you for your service and your great work.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
Dr. Snyder, we are going to go on the clock following all
the members' questions. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder. Madam Chair, Mr. Murphy has a conflict with
another hearing and during his time in the Army didn't get much
time to ask probing questions of two- and three-star generals.
So if I might, I yield my time to him and then assume his place
in the queue for questions.
Mrs. Davis. Okay.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you, Dr. Snyder. I appreciate the time.
Gentlemen, thanks for testifying today. We do appreciate
your continued service to our country. I was proud to help
recruit for the Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps when I
was a professor at West Point. I know how critical your mission
is for our country, and thank you.
Historically in our country during times of war, everybody
was asked to sacrifice. And even the private sector helped out
with the war effort. It seems to me that a major part of our
services' recruiting budget must be spent on television and
radio advertisements.
I have had a great deal of difficulty, though, finding the
statistics on how much money the services spend on television
and radio recruiting, but I and every other member on this
panel understand how expensive it is.
My staff and I have been working on a proposal, and I would
like you all to give us your thoughts on it. What would you
think about requiring that during a time of war, television
stations must run armed forces recruitment advertising for
free, or at least only charge our military the lowest unit
charge?
I know that this is an extremely complicated issue, but I
believe that we need full thoughts during this time, and I
think it is something that I am personally very interested in,
but also curious to see how the Department of Defense and our
armed forces would react to such a proposal.
Secretary Dominguez. Sir, if I might take that for a little
bit first.
Thank you for your continued service to the Nation.
I think as a matter of policy and principle, I believe the
Administration would view unfunded mandates of that nature
particularly as it applies to the private sector, would be
maybe not the best public policy.
Now, you know, I haven't had a lot of time to think about
it and work with you, but I would guess that our attitude would
be that there are better ways to do it. That we are confident
there are resources in the country to support the sustainment
of the armed forces.
That part of that is, as you pointed out accurately, is an
advertising program, and that we ought to acknowledge that that
is part of the cost of the national defense and step up to it;
authorize, appropriate, and spend the resources required
without putting that burden as a tax on a small part of our
great Nation and the great private sector who is doing many
things in small ways to help and contribute.
Mr. Murphy. Just so I am clear, then, you would say that in
your opinion you believe the Administration would not welcome
this free advertising on television?
Secretary Dominguez. No, because it is not free to those
businesses who would have to--it is a tax on them. We would
rather that we recognize the cost of owning and operating our
armed forces, including its advertising and we will pay for it.
We will come and ask you for the money. I trust the
Congress to appropriate it, and we will spend it accurately,
and we will get it right in the 2009 budget.
Mr. Murphy. Gentlemen, could I have your thoughts as well?
General Vaughn. Congressman, we have a non-commercial
announcement agreement with the state broadcasting
associations, NCSA. And for every dollar that we spend, we get
$4 back from them. And so the nearly $9 million that we put
into this thing has resulted in close to $40 million worth of
broadcast. And so I think we are kind of close to what you are
getting at already.
Secretary Dominguez. That is a great point from General
Vaughn. It already is part of maintaining their licenses;
television and radio stations across the country have to do
public service announcements, and these do qualify.
Mr. Murphy. I understand that. I also understand those
public service announcements aren't shown on national
television during primetime hours when the population that we
are looking for, the 18- to 28-year-olds are watching
television (TV) and music television (MTV) and other things.
So gentlemen, if I could have your comments, I would
appreciate it as well.
General Bostick. Congressman, I would say there are some
programs out there that we might be able to better leverage.
First let me go back to how I closed my opening remarks.
This is not just a mission from the Army and a challenge for
the Army, but this is a challenge for the Nation. So how the
Nation stands up and supports this country to protect its
freedoms I think is very important.
We do have programs, and I will pick one that we work on
now. It is called the Partnership for Youth Success. It is
program that General Shinseki started when he was our chief of
staff. We have well over 200 companies that are now partners.
And what we do with these partners is that we sign up an
agreement that they will partner with the Army such that when a
soldier enlists in the Army, they have an opportunity for an
interview with that company.
Some of these companies have done advertising and some of
these companies on local levels have done things for our
soldiers, for our future soldiers, for our family members,
whether they are at football games, baseball games, within
their own local media, with the police force, with governments.
I think we have an opportunity to leverage that. And as you
all are out in your communities and speaking with the leaders
there, I think leveraging with systems we have in place already
could actually get to some of what you are talking about, Mr.
Congressman.
General Rochelle. I would like to just add one thing,
Congressman Murphy. That is I think we have, as General Vaughn
has indicated, some very good examples of where major
advertising agencies and major distributors of sorts have taken
it upon themselves to do things in direct support of Army
recruiting and direct support of military service and in direct
support of our Department of Defense in general. What I would
prefer to see is a call for more of that from this body and
from others.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
I am going to turn to Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us today. Thank you
for your service. I want to echo the comments of all my
colleagues, particularly Mr. McHugh, when he said how much we
appreciate the very tough job that you have and how much we
admire the hard work that you are putting in.
I also want to echo his comments when he said it is tough
to have to depend on Congress to get something done in a timely
manner.
I know, General Vaughn, that you are really under the gun,
so to speak. When we visited, you and I and Congressman Walsh
at Oakfield a couple of weeks ago, to start welcoming back the
first contingent of the 2,600--5,000 actually--Red Bulls that
completed their historic 16-month combat tour, a subject of
some discussion then, and before then and after then, is: How
do we reintegrate these fine soldiers back into their civilian
jobs and civilian lives?
We have had a program much discussed up here which has
broad bipartisan support, called the Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program--sort of spiraling off the efforts of
General Shelton in Minnesota and other wonderful TAGs that are
out there. And yet now we are sitting here getting ready to
move forward to appropriate funds starting the first of
October, and it appears there aren't any funds to pay for that.
So we are looking for the opportunity to bring these fine
soldiers back in and help them with potential problems with
post-traumatic stress disorder and perhaps family and job
programs. We apparently are going to be unable to find any
money to do that. We are going to try, and use every sort of
wile that we can to do that, but it doesn't bode well for some
of the $850 million problem that you have facing you.
General Vaughn, I am extremely impressed with this. I know
we all are, and some of us were on this committee when the
Department of the Army said that wasn't going to happen and cut
that money, and you have been trying to catch up ever since
with the money. You have explained that difficulty, how it is
moving you closer and closer, and yet nevertheless we are over
here, and that is a very impressive and good thing.
I guess the question that I want to explore with you is,
nobody thought you could do this. What do you think you can do?
What would be feasible--350,000, 360,000, 370,000? We are
looking to increase the end-strength of the active forces and
we have met unfortunately a great deal of resistance from the
Administration up to now, but now we have it in law and we are
trying to move forward. But it appears to me there may be some
room in the National Guard.
Could you explore that with me a little bit?
General Vaughn. Thank you, Congressman. I think 360,000,
based on what we have done here, is certainly attainable in
fairly short order were we provided the resources to do so. I
would say 370,000, you know, based on this, but I would hate to
bite off more than we can chew all at one time.
Mr. Kline. Please don't.
General Vaughn. And so you know we thought that we would
end up this year at somewhere around 356,000. We had a
substantial amount of help on the three percent in case that
came true. It looks like the estimate is now around 353,000 as
about where we will end up simply because we have had to cut
back on the bonuses.
But if we run this thing wide open just like I talked to
Secretary Dominguez ahead of time, and they pledged that help,
if we run it wide open, 360,000 is certainly achievable in
pretty short order, sir.
Mr. Kline. Is that three percent right? Is that with the
flexibility we need to go over?
General Vaughn. The three percent will get us to about
359,000.
Mr. Kline. About 359,000.
General Vaughn. Yes, sir. That is, of course, without the
appropriations behind that, that is end-strength that doesn't
have any money behind it, sir.
Mr. Kline. I understand that. I hate to jump back into the
discussion that Mr. McHugh was having because there is a lot of
money and there are a lot of dates and it is kind of confusing
to all concerned.
But we have two issues here, and I see the yellow light
just came on, so I will be very brief. We have the issue of
reprogramming that is going to get us to the end of this fiscal
year, and then we have the issue of what is it going to take in
2008.
Do you have both of those numbers?
General Vaughn. Sir, I do. I would like to give them to you
for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 102.]
Mr. Kline. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
General Vaughn. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kline. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. I thought those men were ahead of me.
Mrs. Davis. If you would like.
Mr. Jones, are you next?
Mr. Jones. Yes, ma'am. That is very generous of----
Mrs. Davis. Dr. Snyder is yielding.
Mr. Jones [continuing]. Dr. Snyder. I appreciate it and
would certainly have waited for you.
Generals, I have great respect for everybody. I mean, you
have an impossible job. Thank you for what you are doing.
I want to get back to the issue of recruitment. General
Bostick and also General Rochelle, I read an article--I have
made many mentions of this, it was in the Carolina paper,
``Deployed, Depleted, Desperate.''
Yesterday, in the Oversight Committee chaired by Chairman
Snyder, we had General McCaffrey, General Newbold in here
yesterday. General McCaffrey has written about this. Yesterday,
he was very emphatic when he said that the Army will start to
unravel in April, sometime in the spring of next year.
I know that you had difficulty meeting your goals in May
and June. General Bostick, you talked about now, which we all
know that you raised the age to 42 and people who are close to
42 can join the military and I guess the guard as well, and the
reserves.
According to this article, the demands of the war on our
troops and their aging, worn-out equipment already pushed the
annual costs of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses above $1
billion, recruit advertising to about $120 million annually. I
know you have been talking about numbers with my colleagues
earlier.
I want to go to the point that both generals made--well,
there are three, but the two--General Rochelle and General
Bostick. You made mention that you are not getting much help
from the coaches and the teachers. When did you start seeing
where that was a problem that the coaches and the teachers
across this Nation, in the high schools?
At one time you counted on them--I guess you did, or you
wouldn't have made that statement--you counted on them to
encourage those high school seniors to think about the military
as a possible career or at least for a period of time.
When did you start seeing this becoming a problem?
General Rochelle. Sir, let me first of all comment that I
am aware of some of the comments made by General McCaffrey. I
saw something just today that was attributed to him. I did not
specifically see a reference to April of next year. So I
respectfully cannot comment on that.
To answer your specific question on when I think the Army
began to see that statistically significant numbers, the answer
is in 2005. We began to see it in 2005. It spread from, if you
will, educators to coaches to moms and dads, and then it began
to take an even steeper dive within those same groups up to
today.
I will defer any further comment on that to General
Bostick.
General Bostick. Congressman, I replaced General Rochelle
in recruiting command so I saw the same downward decline of
influencer support while changing command with him and we have
seen that continue to erode. Today, about one-fourth of mothers
and one-third of fathers would support the military.
When I first arrived at recruiting command and would walk
into recruiting stations, a lot of the youngsters were
concerned, as they are today, about the war. The question was
usually, ``What can I do, what assignment can I go into, what
unit, what location can I go to in order to avoid the war?''
Now, many sign up knowing that this is a commitment that
they have voted with their heart and their minds and they are
committed to doing it. We have a number of future soldier
losses every year, of soldiers that have signed up, said this
is what I wanted to do, and then somewhere along the line, they
change their mind. We estimate that that is going to be about
10,000 this year that have signed a contract, and then change
their mind and decided they are not going to come in.
I can't tell you how much of that is caused by influencer
support, but I know we are going after it in every way that we
can. We run an all-American boat with the accessions command,
my next higher headquarters, every year where they highlight
the best high school football players, and we bring in coaches
and teachers and educators.
This is an important area for us to spend time on. The
educators, the influencers, the coaches, and parents must know
the opportunities that we can provide. So explaining what the
Army is all about and the advantages of service is very
important.
Mr. Jones. I wasn't being critical, because you all have
done a tremendous job. I have seen that football game on TV
myself. But definitely the recruiting is tracking the national
debate, and you can do nothing about that.
I want to again, as my time is up, I want to compliment you
on the great job you are doing, and all of our men and women in
uniform, and God bless you all. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, would you like to go? You all were here before
this, so we will let you do that.
Mr. Wilson. I would certainly not mind if doc would like to
proceed? Thank you.
Generals, secretary, thank you so much for being here
today. I am particularly happy to be with you because I have
never been prouder of the military than I am today. I was a
veteran for 31 years: 3 years in the reserves, 28 in the guard.
I have had the opportunity to visit Iraq seven times;
Afghanistan three times. I, six weeks ago, visited with my
former unit, the 218th Brigade, which is currently in
Afghanistan. I have never seen them look so good.
So obviously, recruiting and retention, I truly believe it
is the best ever, and I am very proud of the people serving. I
have heard you all mention that. I love the terminology. It is
a good and noble path, a call to national service. And then you
really identified it, and that is that military service is
opportunity. I know what it meant for me, the opportunities
that I had of training at AG school, JAG school--I see an AG
officer back there with a smile.
The people that I have gotten to meet, and in fact it was
inspiring to me, but all of my sons--four--have joined the
military. I know first-hand the opportunities for them. My
oldest son went to field artillery school. It truly propelled
him, amazingly enough, into law school. It gave him the
confidence and background to do it. I am very proud of the guy,
and he is a veteran of Iraq.
Another son, and I see all these Army people here, I have
to acknowledge one guy. He is off-track. He is a doctor in the
Navy. But again, we are really proud of his opportunities in
military service. A third son was in signal school. He now has
a phenomenal background in communications, which helps him as a
member of the National Guard and his civilian position as a
commercial real estate sales representative. And then our
fourth guy is an engineer. He is ROTC, and just grateful for
the opportunities. He is learning leadership thanks to being in
the military.
Another point, I am so thrilled as I visit with Junior
Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) and ROTC units
throughout the district I represent. Anytime we have a new
school built, the first thing that the community wants is
JROTC. It has a great background.
A final point in regard to this issue is the recruiters
themselves. I have met so many recruiters over my career, but
the recruiting school at Fort Jackson, I want you to know, as I
am flying back and forth from Washington to Columbia, the
recruiters that I meet are first class, people who are truly
concerned and interested in providing opportunities for our
young people.
Now, obviously I am somewhat biased to the National Guard,
so General Vaughn, I want to congratulate you on the increase
in end-strength by 22,000 troops. Could you explain to us how
you think this occurred, and what reasons there have been? What
do you see for the continued success of the Guard?
General Vaughn. Thank you, Congressman. We put some
innovative programs in place, we think. We think the Guard
Recruiters' Assistance Program is probably the best thing that
we have ever done. It changed the face of recruiting. We went
from the bottom of the totem pole among high school graduates
to the very top. We have nearly 93 percent high school
graduates now.
So we put the right things in place. In our advertising, we
were very selective about where we advertised, and a lot of
people think, well, how come you all aren't on the National
Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR)--I wasn't a
NASCAR fan, but there are 70 million people that are. We put
some money into fishing, because there are 50 million fishermen
out there and there are lots of parents trying to make memories
and grandparents trying to make memories for them.
I think the biggest thing--you know, it is like pouring
gasoline on a fire--is there are still a lot of patriots out
there. There are a lot of patriots. And by the way, you know,
the question on schools, I think we were recruiting a couple of
different types of folks. We didn't realize that there was that
kind of market when we started. We had to change to a non-prior
service market. And we have many, many, many soldiers that want
to stay in the communities with a job and serve the Nation, and
go to war or go to school.
And so the patriotism aspect of this just kind of blew
everybody away. It is the support of the communities. It is not
the bigger issue of right or wrong. I mean, what they were
proud of is stepping forward with the people they serve with in
that community, and the whole community--just like in
Minnesota--this thing in Minnesota welcoming the Red Bulls
back. You know, town by town by town by town, they didn't want
a great big ceremony. Every one of them wanted in on this thing
statewide.
And so we put the right programs in place at the right
time, a very innovative approach to it. And rather than the
influencers, we think it is peer recruiting. We think it is,
you know, we would like for you to join our team, and be with
us. And that is what we were able to do, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Again, I have two sons participating in G-RAP, so I know
first-hand what this means. So again, thank you all. Thank you
for the opportunities provided to the young people of the
United States.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. General Rochelle, it sounds like if we just
paid Joe Wilson to have more children, we could solve a lot of
our recruiting issues. [Laughter.]
I want to pick up a little bit on what Colonel Kline was
talking about, and Walter Jones talked on a little bit, too,
which is the comments that General McCaffrey made at our
subcommittee hearing. It is not just him that is making it. It
is this issue that we expect--you know, we have these
recruiting goals that you are targeting, and we have had this
end-strength discussion in Congress, primarily with Secretary
Rumsfeld for six years or so. And now the President and the
Congress are moving ahead.
But there are some voices out there that think that the
Army ought to be dramatically bigger, you know, dramatically
bigger. We are talking about going from 12-month to 15-month
rotations. We are talking about the most powerful Nation in the
world, you know, we are struggling to maintain our Army at
160,000 troops in there for a relatively short period of time,
that the Commander-in-Chief should not be put in this position,
that there should be a dramatic increase in numbers.
So my question, General Rochelle, is what if the Congress
were to come back in September and say, you know what, we have
been listening to some of these folks in and out of uniform,
and we think we need to increase by 50,000 over the next year,
or 30,000, and we are not going to do this glide path over 4 or
5 or 6 years.
Do we have that ability to do that? Is it just a matter of
money and putting more people in recruiting? Or is that just
really a pipedream? Is this a glide path, and we probably have
already chosen that because we really don't have any choice but
to choose this glide path to increased end-strength?
General Rochelle. Sir, if you will permit me just a bit of
a diversion to go back to General Vaughn's comments. I will
answer your question, sir.
There is patriotism out there. There clearly is. Each of
you distinguished members has addressed that in one fashion or
another. In point of fact, we have six or seven young people in
the chamber today that I would ask to stand, members of the
Army ROTC and the United States Military Academy.
Please stand.
They just happen to be here.
[Applause.]
Army ROTC cadets who simply happened to be here to observe
this congressional process and our Constitution being played
out.
So it can be done, but it cannot be done without the
support of the Congress. It cannot be done without a, if you
will, national call to duty, which thus far the Army and DOD
have been beating that particular drum, but it is much larger
than just DOD and the Army.
Dr. Snyder. So who is it?
General Rochelle. I beg your pardon?
Dr. Snyder. Who is it?
General Rochelle. The national call to duty.
Dr. Snyder. Are you implying that there are other people
out there that are not hitting the drum?
General Rochelle. Sir, I am implying that every single
American should be beating the drum. I am indeed implying that
every American should beat the drum. We have members, as I
mentioned before, we have corporations that have signed up to
do their part, and they are beating the drum.
General Bostick. Congressman, if I could make a comment. I
would like to hearken back to earlier comments about the
patriotism of Americans that are out there, and also what
Secretary Dominguez talked about in ensuring access at the
beginning of this. We have to look at 32 million 17- to 24-
year-olds, and we have to peel that back down to about 2.2
million young Americans that are qualified for this service
that we are enlisting soldiers into.
The challenge for our recruiters is often the access, the
ability to tell the Army story to a soldier or an applicant
that we know once they hear that story, they are going to be
willing to serve. There are many, many patriots out there, and
having that access and how do we enable that access is very
important to us. The more that we can help there, the better I
think we can grow.
Absolutely, there are many out there that would love to
serve, and we need to find them and we need to talk to them.
Our recruiters----
Dr. Snyder. I understand all this, and I am agreeing with
all that. I also agree that at times of great foreign policy
debate, we need to have our military at the size we think that
we need it, and then the political debate is over, the
decisions of the Commander-in-Chief. And we don't always agree
with those decisions, but that is how we maintain the national
defense of the country.
My question is, what if the Congress were to decide to say,
you know, I think a lot of us think this number is a pretty
minimal number, this increase over the next several years that
ought to be dramatically higher, and we are not sure that we
could get there even if we made that decision.
I see my time is up, Madam Chairman. I had some
interruptions.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
We do have to say that if there are interruptions, we do
have to ask any of you to leave that are creating this.
I want go to on and talk about recruit quality, because I
know that that is a difficult issue, and yet at the same time I
think that we need to talk about it because it says something
about the leadership that we are going to see in the services
in the next 20 years. And so I wonder if you could address that
for us?
We are well aware that the number of new recruits testing
below average in mental categories has shifted, and nearly 40
percent during fiscal year 2006--the highest level since fiscal
year 1990 in categories 3(b) and 4, which indicates a shift.
Active Army accessions during fiscal year 2007, 78 percent of
them are high school graduates. The goal is closer to 90
percent.
Talk to us a little bit about what you see in those shifts.
And particularly how it applies to the non-commissioned officer
leadership that we will be looking for in the future. How do
these numbers affect that? What do you see?
General Rochelle. Madam Chair, I personally believe that
the spirit of volunteerism today has a certain aspect of
quality unto itself. Not to diminish the 90 percent high school
degree grads, 60 percent 1 to 3(a), but as General Bostick has
said, every young person who raises his or her right hand is
fully qualified to serve and fully qualified for the specialty
into which they volunteer.
In 1981, fully 51 percent--if my memory serves correctly--
of the young men and women entering the Army in 1981, 50
percent were at the category four level. Today, consistently,
that number is at or below four percent. The senior non-
commissioned officers (NCO) who are leading in Iraq today and
around the globe in the global war on terror, by and large,
were those individuals who enlisted--not all of them, of
course--but are representative of many of those individuals who
enlisted in that 1981 timeframe.
So the answer to your question I think is two-fold. One,
how does it bode? I think their performance in the field under-
fire, their performance all around the globe today speaks
volumes for the future, and it is very positive. Second, I
cannot overemphasize enough, in the market that has been
described by every member of this panel, volunteerism today has
a certain aspect of quality unto itself.
General Bostick. Chairwoman, I have served with these
soldiers in combat. At this point in time, I am very confident
of their capabilities. They are great soldiers. The non-
commissioned officers are truly the backbone of this Army and
they are leading this Army very well.
I will say that we ought to take a look at the quality
metrics. When we talk about quality, we are talking about the
high school diploma graduates, their aptitude, and we look at
waivers. Those are three areas that affect us. In terms of high
school diploma graduates, that was set up, as I understand it,
to make sure that we did not attrite to a level that was too
great. We looked at basic training and through Advanced
Individual Training (AIT), and attrition has dropped in the
last 18 months from 18 percent attrition down to 7 percent.
So granted, we have brought in many more General
Equivalency Diplomas (GEDs) and home schoolers, 19 percent last
year and the goal was to hold that around 10 percent. But even
in expanding that to 19 percent, we are seeing that attrition
is okay. So in terms of that metric of attrition, I feel
confident we are meeting the desired end-state.
In terms of aptitude, and this gets to the category fours
and those that are testing a little bit lower on the armed
services vocational aptitude battery (ASVAB) test, I would say
again look at what is happening in the field, and talk to
commanders that are out there. If you are a mechanic and you
have to change an engine in peacetime and you change that
engine once a week, and now you are changing it every day,
multiple times a day in combat operations, the aptitude concern
is no longer an issue.
They are learning at exponential rates in combat
operations. I don't know what the impact of that is on the
aptitude quality component of how we measure our Army, but I do
know we need to go look at it and see if it is having an
impact.
In terms of waivers, the third area, we have grown, as I
said in my opening statement, about two percent to three
percent each year since 2004. There are a number of reasons for
that. I don't know all of them, but I know some of them have to
do with the makeup of our society today.
We have a zero-tolerance policy in most schools and most
states--things that children would get into trouble for when I
was a youngster, and you would be taken to the principal or
your parents would be called--you are often reported and many
times charged. And if you look at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) database, in the last 5 years it has
increased 14 percent for those who are in the age group from 17
to 24 years old. That is a factor. I don't know how big a
factor it is, but it is important.
The other one I would say is that with the Internet and the
connectivity and automation, there are things that we could not
find out about you in the past, that we now know about, and the
states are connected, the FBI database is connected. There are
probably some folks that are in the services today that 15
years ago had they not voluntarily said whether they smoked
marijuana or did something else, we would not be able to track
that. We can track it today.
And finally, we have gone through our own processes and
made sure that through main Six Sigma, that we have a very
efficient process for the recruiters. Before, if they had to
submit someone for a waiver, it would take weeks before they
would get an answer. Now, it is days. So if a person comes in
and he has to make a decision, the recruiter has to make a
decision of whether to take a chance on him--and I mean
``chance'' in terms of time, which is his most valuable
resource--he is going to do it now.
So you are going to see the waiver numbers increase. I
think it will increase another two percent to three percent
again this year. I think for us in the Army we have to look
downstream and see what is the impact of those waivers on the
force.
Mrs. Davis. Yes. I appreciate that. I don't think anybody
questions their bravery, their dedication or their ability to
perform tremendously, as they have. But I think trying to find
some way of really tracking that information so that we can
begin to be perhaps even more creative. Actually, General
Rochelle and I had a discussion about the small percentage of
people who are actually eligible, and we know that health
reasons are an outstanding factor why some people are not able
to come into the service.
We know that our population as a whole is more obese today,
has more problems around nutrition and weight than we have
probably ever had. And it seemed to me that maybe we needed to
be more creative around that, and create some incentives to
bring people in who might even be questionable in that area or
in delayed fashion.
I don't know. I just think that we need to certainly, and I
appreciate the fact that you are saying we have to look at it.
We can't just assume that it is going to all work out okay,
especially when it comes to leadership, which is such a
critical, critical need today.
So I hope we can find a way to do that so a year from now
we can sit here and have perhaps more data which suggests why
what we are doing is working out fine; perhaps we should even
change it and allow more people to come in perhaps on waivers
or we need to cut back, because that is creating a problem.
The issue that Dr. Snyder raises, if we are going to go to
greater end-strength and clearly making the recruiting numbers
becomes a far greater challenge that it even is today. And that
means that we perhaps need to be even more creative and try and
find better ways of trying to do this. The bottom line for us
as we started is having dollars available when you need them to
bring people in.
I want to go to my colleagues, but I also wanted to in a
minute or two just talk about some special needs categories
that need to be addressed for the future.
Mr. McHugh, do you want to ask a few more questions?
Mr. McHugh. Yes. Sort of in the same vein you were in, I
associate myself with what the chair just said. We have
standards for a reason, and by and large they are good and they
are something we should all strive to meet. When you don't meet
them, the problem is that it brings into question the entire
force, and that concerns me.
We had a witness before the full committee very recently--
the name is irrelevant--that talked about the military in
general, in this case the Army's inability to meet many of the
pre-established standards--the 90 percent standard, for
example, and others. And then said very flatly that recruit
quality was diminishing dramatically, where we were even
bringing in felons.
That was his word, ``felons.'' He is certainly entitled to
his opinion. His overall view was, I believe, that the military
of today is stressed--certainly no argument there--stressed
beyond its capabilities. And the quality of the men and women
in uniform today was suspect. That part concerns me. I am not
sure that was his intent, but certainly the words he said
brought into question that.
Just to kind of state it in a different way and put it on
the record again, I would like to ask you gentlemen to state
how you feel about the quality of the men and women overall
that you are recruiting into the military today, and make a
comment, if you will, about felons in terms of waivers if you
have such a thing.
I mean, generally when we talked about waivers, there is
the medical waiver, there is the moral waiver, which by and
large has to do with minor crimes, generally as a youth,
whether it is an alcohol situation or some kind of truancy,
vandalism, something like that.
But are we admitting hardcore felons into the United States
Army today? Did I miss something?
Secretary Dominguez. Sir, I will start and then I think
General Rochelle should pile on.
But no, we exclude members of hate groups and gangs and
those kinds of things. We have very well established procedures
to exclude those. We don't recruit murderers and rapists and
that kind of violent criminal.
What amounts to a felony in the United States of America
varies from state to state. So you can be arrested for what
constitutes a felony for what many of us, in particular many
years ago, would have thought would not amount to an act that
would associate yourself with that word. But the drug business,
in particular, has that, so the use of marijuana----
Mr. McHugh. Mr. Secretary, forgive me for interrupting.
When you say ``drug business,'' you meant--for example, the
state of New York, we have something called the Rockefeller
drug laws, where, at their extreme, small amounts for personal
use, you are a felon and you go away for certain drugs for a
long time.
Secretary Dominguez. Right, right.
Mr. McHugh. That is what you are talking--you are not
talking about street sellers.
Secretary Dominguez. No, I am not talking about guys who
are in that business. I am talking about people who have been
arrested or apprehended with narcotics or illegal substances.
In some states, sir, that would classify as a felony.
Now, the waiver process, and we need to understand this, is
that it is a process that triggers in every case, in every
service, a general officer to intervene and look at the whole
person here, to consider input from coaches, pastors, parents,
neighbors about the character of the individual, and to make an
assessment about whether there is a potential. Kids at 17 make
mistakes.
They may make mistakes at 16. Today, some of those things,
some of those mistakes in growing up--burglaries, right? You
know, these are serious mistakes, but is it a mistake that
ought to keep a kid away from a growth opportunity and
professional development opportunity forever?
What we would do, what our process does is trigger a
general officer to get involved and make an informed judgment
after considering all those people around him and say, you
know, was that a mistake in a kid who other has potential to
serve? Is there enough here that we want to make a bet on him
and give him this person an opportunity to demonstrate their
potential? That is what our waiver process does.
In some cases, yes, kids have been picked up for burglary,
kids who have been picked up for possession or use of
controlled substances--yes, those people are brought in that
net, but they are looked at and an individual judgment made by
a general officer in every case.
Mr. McHugh. But by and large, you are not admitting violent
felons?
Secretary Dominguez. Right. To my knowledge----
Mr. McHugh. Physically violent felons.
Secretary Dominguez. Right.
General Rochelle, you are the expert here.
General Rochelle. General Bostick is really the expert.
General Bostick. Let me take that one.
First, to answer your question directly, Congressman, on
whether I am concerned about the quality. I am not. I think we
have a high quality Army. I came into an Army almost 30 years
ago where we had an issue with quality. But I am very
comfortable with where we are at. I have served with many of
these soldiers that General Rochelle brought in and that I am
bringing in now. They are serving admirably.
We did a study back in 2003, and I think we have to go back
and take a look at something similar. To answer the question
directly, we looked at the serious criminal misconduct. The
vast majority of those that we bring in with waivers are
misdemeanors. Last year, 86 percent were misdemeanors. The rest
were in the area we call serious criminal misconduct.
We did a study in 2003 to see if their behavior, their
discipline problems, were any different from those that had not
received a waiver, and they were essentially the same, really
no different between the two of those. I would offer that we do
that again. But when you look at the serious criminal
misconduct, there are no hardened criminals here. There are no
drug dealers, no sex offenders, none of those kinds of
offenders are coming into our Army.
I received an e-mail yesterday from an individual that we
have to waiver. He started it off by saying, ``General Bostick,
when I was eight years old I was in a barn with my friend who
is 13, and he sprayed the WD-40 can and lit a match, and caused
a fire.'' Many years later--now he is about 18 or 19--he
thought this thing was completely done, that nothing happened.
He was told by the judge that you will bake a cake with your
mother, and that is your community service. Well, we have to do
a waiver on him. That is arson, and we do a waiver on him.
We had a sister and another sister, and one of them we had
already signed up, and got into a fight. The parents called the
police to stop the fight because one of the sisters had hit the
other with a bat--aggravated assault. We had to do a waiver on
her.
We have had sexual misconduct. It sounds very serious, and
he was charged--a 17-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-
year-old--not something we want to have happen, but now that he
is many years removed from that incident, has he educated
himself, has he worked in society, has he demonstrated that he
deserves another chance?
Those are the kind of serious criminal misconduct waivers
that get raised to a general officer, either myself or my
deputy, and we approve those. So I am very confident we have a
solid process, but I would open it up, and have anyone come out
and look at those that have had waivers, and see how they are
doing.
Corporal Vaccaro, killed in Iraq, in Afghanistan, 10th
Mountain Division--he smoked marijuana for 20 to 30 times; he
saved many, many soldiers and earned a Silver Star. Those are
examples of the kind of soldiers that have been given a second
chance, have demonstrated before that second chance opportunity
that they had overcome any misgivings they had earlier in their
life. So I feel very, very confident of it. But I do think we
ought to look at it.
Mr. McHugh. Well, I appreciate that.
[Audience interruption.]
Mrs. Davis. I am sorry. You will have to leave please.
Please leave so we don't have to have somebody come in and take
you out.
Ms. Boyda. Ms. Boyda, go ahead.
Mrs. Boyda. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. McHugh. May I just make my closing comment? So I
approve--and it will be right to you, Ms. Boyda. I apologize. I
was interrupted by the lady.
This is an important issue, and I think the idea of perhaps
doing another study off your baseline as to what happens to
these people on discipline versus non-waivered would be a good
way to hopefully resolve many of these questions.
And so, I don't believe either in the House or the Senate
we have that in our base bill, and you probably are rather busy
right now, but that kind of study I think would be a good idea.
I will resist the temptation to ask how that fellow with the
WD-40 lit the oven when he baked the cake, but thank you again
for your service.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
I would like us to, if you already don't have something in
place, to begin to track some of that information anew with the
greater number of waivers that we have in. It seems as if that
would be something that would be desirable to do, and if you
need us to help you out with that, please let us know.
General Rochelle. If I may, Madam Chair, in our discussions
of yesterday, this subject came up. As soon as I got back to
the Pentagon, I had the individuals who are responsible to
doing those types of studies in my office and we are going to
undertake that longitudinally.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Boyda.
Mrs. Boyda. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I just had a few questions. They are a little bit just out
of curiosity trying to learn some things here. The first one is
about contractors. Do you feel like you are competing with
contractors? Or does that ever play into the decision? That is
my question. Do you feel like you are competing with
contractors?
Whoever would like this.
Secretary Dominguez. Yes, ma'am. Let me start.
Yes, largely in the retention area, and not just
contractors for the armed forces, but lots and lots of people
in American business are eager to get the talent that we
produce because they have been brought in. They have
demonstrated the ability to achieve against great odds and
under great pressure. They have integrity. They show up for
work on time. They are clean. They understand what the work
ethic is all about. These are valuable employees anywhere, and
that is the retention problem for us.
In some cases and in some skills, you have contractors and
we are creating our own competitors. We are looking at that and
I wish it weren't so, but for the most part, we are holding up
well. Attrition is not significantly greater. I just looked at
this in the special operations business to see if we are
hemorrhaging soft talent into the backwaters at all. And no,
the attrition is really at the same levels it has been over
several years.
Mrs. Boyda. But you said that that would hold true for your
captains and majors as well?
Secretary Dominguez. In the mid-grades, as we talked about,
in the Army in particular, because of the way they are growing
and size that they are growing, we need to push retention
levels for captains and majors beyond historical experience.
Mrs. Boyda. Would anyone else care to comment on this?
General Rochelle. I would, ma'am. Thank you for the
opportunity.
Mrs. Boyda. Really, this is something I hear about. It is
just grumbles and these guys--and they are mainly guys--and
women, but they are proud to serve in the military, and
understand the difference between what they are doing and
contracting. This is a commitment. They are proud to wear the
uniform.
General Rochelle. I would like to make three points, ma'am,
in response to your question. The first is that going back to
my earlier comments about the 50 percent category, 51 percent
category in 1980. If you were to reexamine those same
individuals one year later, they would not resemble the
individual who was tested prior to having come into the Army.
That is a testament to what the Army does for every single
person who joins our force. So in response once again to Madam
Chair's question about am I concerned about the four percent?
Absolutely not. I think I would echo General Vaughn's comments
as well.
The second point is that, yes, indeed some of our high
skills are particularly susceptible to contractors recruiting
them right out of our ranks, because they can simply pay an
awful lot more. As a result of that, some of our bonuses for
special operators, since Mr. Dominguez raised that, are in the
$150,000 retention range to officers.
Mrs. Boyda. What level officers?
General Rochelle. I beg your pardon?
Mrs. Boyda. What level officers?
General Rochelle. I am changing to officers. I wasn't
referring to officers and that led--there was a transition.
Forgive me.
Mrs. Boyda. Okay. But you said $150,000 bonus to----
General Rochelle. Special Forces sergeants, senior non-
commissioned officers.
Now to the subject of officers, which was your other
question. Most definitely our young officers who are supremely
talented are able to operate without lots of direct supervision
and are doing things today that far more senior officers would
have done in years past. They are particularly attractive to
contractors. They are aggressively, aggressively recruiting
those young officers.
We are responding--back again to Madam Chair's comments
about innovation--we are responding innovatively, as you heard
in Mr. Dominguez's opening comments, with the first-time ever a
critical skills retention bonus for young captains, who will
help us close the gap between the requirements of a modular
Army and the year 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 by retaining them
and offering them options, a menu of options, which would
include branch of choice for newly commissioned officers;
station of choice; and monetary incentive--graduate school
being the fourth of the menu.
It is largely in response to your question. Yes, they are a
very attractive commodity; and two, we are trying to retain
officers.
Mrs. Boyda. Could I just ask, Madam Chairwoman, have we
tipped a balance in contracting--the decision to contract--to
where we have pushed that balance to where now it is a good
option? Or is there something that we should start to push that
balance? I understand it is very difficult when you are trying
to recruit and now you have gotten yourself kind of in a
corner, but do you feel like we have pushed that?
We have defense contractors--God bless them--that I can't
imagine anybody doing. You know, we contract out weapons
systems. The Army doesn't do that themselves. We contract out
all kinds of things. But I am talking about boots on the ground
and our contractors that we are seeing.
May I ask if you think that has that tipped to a point
where it is becoming more and more problematic, and now we are
going to have to keep, you know, upping the ante on both sides
to keep up with that?
General Rochelle. It is clear we must compete. We must be
able to compete with the attractiveness of salaries and
benefits that are offered outside. I believe the temptation and
the pressures have always been there. I also believe that they
are slightly greater today, not only as a consequence of
broader contracting, but quite frankly the environment in which
we find ourselves.
Mrs. Boyda. All right. Any, you know, with this committee,
any--again any suggestions that you have on what we can do to
help you find that balance, or to do anything in that regard?
It is certainly why we are here, and we have made some attempts
at that in our Defense Authorization Bill. So whether in this
committee or some way to help us do that. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, did you have a comment?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to tell you another perspective that I have. I
represent the initial recruit training facilities of Fort
Jackson for the Army, Parris Island for the Marines. I want you
to know that on my visits there, I have seen again the fruits
of what you have done and how much it means for these young
people with opportunity. Madam Chairman, I would like to invite
any of our members, if you have the opportunity to visit the
great state of South Carolina, you would truly be inspired.
I was recently at Fort Jackson with General Steve
Siegfried, who gave a welcoming induction to new recruits. He
himself is a role model extraordinaire. He was a private. He
rose all the way to be general, to be commanding officer of
Fort Jackson. He is just a wonderful person and so dedicated.
And then three weeks ago, I had the privilege of
attending--and it was a multiple visit for me because every
time I go, it is an inspiration--but at Parris Island, I was
there for the graduation. And all of the male recruits east of
the Mississippi, all of the female recruits in the United
States, attend and participate in training at Parris Island.
And you are there with the families, and they just could burst
with pride. You are there with moms, dads, siblings,
grandparents, aunts, uncles. I knew some from my community and
it was an extraordinary cross section of America.
So I want to thank you for what you do, because I see it as
I visit throughout the district. Thank you and God bless you
for your service.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I have several questions I will direct to each of you
individually. General Bostick, I will ask this to you. I think
it is in Secretary Dominguez's written statement. He talks
about the number that are not even available for recruiting
because of problems. Specifically, he says about 39 percent are
medically disqualified, with obesity representing the largest
contributing factor.
So when the folks that come into your command then, there
just aren't that many people that are overweight? Is that what
happens? If a person is obese, we just don't recruit them?
General Bostick. No, actually, Congressman, we have several
innovative programs. One is called the ARMS Program, the
Assessment of Recruiter Motivation and Strength. What this
program does is, working with the psychiatrist, the doctors,
our recruiters developed a way to test the motivation of an
individual to determine if he is overweight, does he have the
motivation to get through basic training.
Dr. Snyder. Okay.
General Bostick. So you can come in overweight and you can
still pass the----
Dr. Snyder. And of this number--this 39 percent that are
disqualified with obesity representing the largest contributing
factor, what percentage of obese men and women that want to get
in are we letting in?
General Bostick. I would have to get that number for the
record for you. It is a small number that are involved in the
ARMS program.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 102.]
Dr. Snyder. A small number.
General Bostick. That we are bringing in, and the last time
I looked at this, I will tell you that the one thing we did
track very closely was to see how they attrited through basic
training. Even though they came in about two percentage or
three percentage points above body fat, they attrited at the
same rate as those that had no waiver. But I can get the
precise numbers on the ARMS program.
Dr. Snyder. In the olden days in the Marine Corps, they
would just let them in and them keep them in basic training
until they actually got down to the weight of the rest of us,
which I thought they were the bravest men I had ever seen that
went through Marine Corps boot camp for six weeks trying to get
down the weight.
General Vaughn, I wanted to ask you, we have had
discussions before, but you know there is a great interest in
the Congress on dealing with this issue of GI bill for reserve
component members who come back. My own view is that--and
Secretary Dominguez and I have had this discussion before,
too--but my view is that it would help overall recruiting if
there was a clear message out there that if somebody came into
the Guard or Reserve for a period of time and served overseas,
came back and got out, that they would still be entitled to
full GI bill benefits.
Is that your feeling also?
General Vaughn. Congressman, I couldn't agree more, and all
the TAGs do also. You know, we don't see it as an incentive. We
see it as a benefit and it ought to flow with them all the way
through. I say we don't see it as incentive. Do you know what I
am getting after?
Dr. Snyder. I think what you are getting after is that I
think it is the view of the Pentagon that if members can get
out and still get out of the reserve component and still keep
their educational benefit, that they might not have the
incentive to stay in.
My own view is that that is more than made up for this
general sense that we treating people fairly and equitably and
that the military is a place to go, the reserve component is a
place to go for educational benefits whether you stay in or
out; that it overall would help you to have a robust
educational benefit.
I know that with Senator Lincoln on this on the Senate side
is interested in working on this. We already have the first
step of dealing with that issue in our bill this year, although
we still have to work out this issue of----
General Vaughn. If I could for a second, because we really
agree with that. There is a recruiting program that Mike and
Tom and I are trying to work called Active First, where we
would recruit active soldiers into the guard first, and then go
on active duty for a small period of time. The big deal about
that is you get the bonus up front, but you get the full
Montgomery GI bill.
And you know what? I mean, the TAGs are just overjoyed with
this thing because now they come back, and as you well know, it
is transferable to the spouses potentially a little further
down. If you put that with the state pieces of this, this
amounts to something for the entire family.
Dr. Snyder. And it amounts to something for the entire
country, because whether they are in or out of the service, it
can have dramatic effects.
My third question is, and I have asked before about this
issue, about a glide path for the increased active duty number.
I think Secretary Gates at one point in a moment of candor, as
he is prone to do, and much appreciated, he said, ``I think we
chose that number because I was told that is what we felt we
could recruit.'' Which is probably not the best way to do
foreign policy, and if we think we need to go to 20,000 or
30,000 a year, then that is probably what we need to do.
General Rochelle, have you gotten any downstream comments
as this number is going up where--are you getting feedback
that, wait a minute, that is a maximum number that we can have
because we don't have barracks set up at our recruit depots; we
don't have the ability to train these young men and women and
they are coming in as this number goes up; or do you think that
the system can handle substantially more numbers of new
recruits if there was a fairly dramatic increase?
General Rochelle. Sir, there would clearly be a need to
look at the total infrastructure costs.
Dr. Snyder. Does anybody look at that on an ongoing basis?
I would assume you would have to be looking at that. I mean, we
could wake up tomorrow morning--God forbid--and have a major
foreign policy crisis in which everyone would look around and
say, yes, we need 100,000 troops by next Tuesday.
I assume that you all have studies that would deal with
that. Is that an ongoing look?
General Rochelle. We have begun to take a look at that
requirement should it occur. However, my comment was that we
are looking at the infrastructure requirements for the current
rate of growth.
Dr. Snyder. For the current rate.
General Rochelle. Yes, sir, absolutely, most definitely.
Dr. Snyder. Is that a report that will be coming to
Congress? Is that an in-house thing? Or is there going to be
some kind of formal document that you can share with us when it
comes out?
General Rochelle. Sir, I am not aware of a report headed
this way to Congress, but I will take that for the record and
we will respond back.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 102.]
Dr. Snyder. Because I would assume that if it says we need
more barracks, you would want us to know about it.
General Rochelle. Yes, sir.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Thank you all for the work you do.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Dr. Snyder.
I wanted to turn to the issue of recruiting at schools,
because I think when you go into communities, this is one of
the issues that is raised. I am wondering if there is a hotline
or a complaint line or some way in which if parents are
concerned, students are concerned, that they can call and say,
you know, I am being harassed or I am uncomfortable with what
is happening.
Does that exist in some communities? Or where are we even
in thinking about that kind of opportunity for people to try
and express themselves in that way?
General Rochelle. Let me respond to that if I may, Madam
Chair. Since the high school ASVAB testing program is a
Department of Defense-wide program used by all service
recruiters, including the Coast Guard, I might add, I can only
answer for the Army. I can tell you that I have no capability
for a hotline. We have no hotline established for parents who
may be feeling a little bit harassed by recruiters.
Mrs. Davis. Any thoughts about whether that is something
that would be helpful?
General Rochelle. I will be happy to take a look at that.
Secretary Dominguez. If I might----
Mrs. Davis. I guess we serve as his hotline. I think the
congressional offices in some ways serve as a hotline. Someone
should serve as a hotline.
Secretary Dominguez. Well, that is where I was going. I
think the hotline, there are 435 of them.
Mrs. Davis. Right.
Secretary Dominguez. But I think I would like General
Bostick to really talk some about that interface with the
community, if you could, and how you manage that to ensure that
our recruiters stay on the right side of the line and make sure
that parents are apprised of their rights to say, ``No, I don't
want this information presented to my children.''
Mrs. Davis. I ask this partly because, as you know, there
is concern in some communities to have a kind of opt-in, as
opposed to an opt-out provision so that families who don't want
to be contacted and know that up front can state that clearly
at the beginning of the school years.
In many schools, most schools I think, there is that
opportunity, but there is a concern that in fact that either
people don't get the word, they don't understand it, there are
lot of other things going on at the beginning of the year, and
so they don't actually activate that provision.
So there is a push in some communities to do just the
opposite, which I know would be very problematic. I am not
suggesting that that is the right course to take, but I am
concerned that we hear repeated, and we do because we are
actually the hotline of how we can deal with that.
So in that spirit, I am just trying----
General Bostick. While we may not have a hotline, my
judgment is that the parents know how to reach us. They reach
us through the chain of command. Generally, there is a
recruiter that is making contact at the home or at the school.
If they have concerns, they know how to call us either through
their child, or if they go to a website.
They use the web very frequently and they are able to get
my e-mail and a number of these will come directly to me. But
generally, they engage with the chain of command. I don't know
if that works for all parents out there, but it works for many
because I can tell you I have received those first-hand.
In terms of the way ahead, as I look at the No Child Left
Behind Act and what it does for us or does not, one of the
challenges that we have is this friction between the recruiters
and the school, in some cases not in all, certainly. But the
friction is caused by a lack of any structure in terms of when
the high school lists are provided, what the timeline is for
that, what the format is, whether it ought to be automated or a
stack of papers.
I think clarity in how that is done at the local level is
what we work on. We do that through the superintendents,
through the principals, and through our recruiters. The last
thing we want is an adversarial relationship. We just want to
have the opportunity to have access and to talk to the
individual and give them the opportunity. This is a volunteer
Army and we would like to keep it that way. We are not going to
force anyone to come into the military.
General Rochelle. May I comment on the opt-in versus opt-
out? As we have already established, access is the primary
challenge that we have today. It would be, in my opinion--and I
think you have alluded to this in your comment--it would be
absolutely devastating for an opt-in versus an opt-out.
Already, as General Bostick has stated, and I know that any
leader at this table can attest to this, already we are
challenged with a lack of consistency in terms of receiving
access to high school lists, ASVAB lists, et cetera, the way in
which they are received, et cetera.
In order to move now from an opt-out procedure, which is
the current one--and I know there are some circles where people
believe that we should move to an opt-in, that means it is
withheld unless you by commission opt in, would not be good.
That would further restrict access.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Could you please just share with us what are some of the
special needs categories that you have? And are bonuses working
in that regard to help to supplement, certainly, the needs that
are out there? Where are they? And what is being done to
recruit those individuals?
General Rochelle. If I may, I would like to provide for the
record a more thorough answer to your question, but I can give
you some tidbits if you will to address your interest.
We apply bonuses for several reasons, not just to address
specific needs, but the way in which we apply bonuses to
special skills also helps us shape the future force.
For example, if we have too many soldiers--and Congressman
Wilson addressed the adjutant general corps as an example, and
I wouldn't address judge advocate general necessarily--but if
we had more individuals in those skills and those are easily
acquired skills, then we would shift our bonus weight--meaning
amount--to other areas where we are having to grow capacity in
the future Army in the next two, three, four, five or even ten
years, if we can see that far.
We are doing that. We are using our bonuses not only to
help entice individuals who might otherwise be teetering on the
question of service, but also to shape the force. We are
growing requirements in the logistics field, and our bonuses
reflect that, the bonus amounts and the terms of service
associated therewith.
We are also growing in the military intelligence field, and
our bonuses reflect that. Those are hard to acquire skills.
They require the capability to pass massive security screens
for security clearances and the like.
Those are some examples. I would like to submit a more
thorough response in writing for the record, if I may.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 101.]
General Bostick. If I could follow up, one of the areas
that I work very closely with our team is the medical
recruiting. We have been challenged here with our doctors and
our nurses and our dentists, on both the active and the reserve
side. You all have helped with some of that.
Next year in the bill I understand there is a two-year
mandatory service obligation for some of these critical skills,
so that the doctors and dentists can come in, do their service,
and then move on with their careers wherever they are in the
country. Also within that bill are some significant bonuses for
doctors, dentists and others.
We have made some headway. We work very closely with
General Pollock on the nurses. We have made some headway there,
but in this area as well, we have to reach out. Access is
important to the medical community, the universities and the
leaders out there, for them to understand the challenges that
we face and the need for them to step forward as well.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
I understand that, as you mentioned nurses, that there was
a recent bonus that was approved for nurses. Is that being
utilized?
General Bostick. The nurse program actually is moving
upward. We came in the year last year about 78 percent of the
mission accomplishment. We think we are going to finish at
about 96 percent. So the focus by Major General Pollock and her
team in assisting us out in the field, and my recruiters on the
medical side has helped to move that in the right direction.
Mr. James just had a summit in Washington State where he
brought in a lot of educators just to focus on nurses and what
can we do to help move forward in nurses, because America is
having a challenge in nurses as well.
Mrs. Davis. Let me just understand. There is an incentive
pay--has that been funded yet?
General Rochelle. Nurses are included in the critical
skills, the Office of Critical Skills retention bonus that I
alluded to earlier. We are hopeful that we will have that
program activated and out there before the end of this month,
August.
Mrs. Davis. Okay, so we can assure folks in that area that
that should be out there. When you say ``out there,'' that
means that it would be advertised?
General Rochelle. Actually, it was advertised, and because
of some reviews that we had to conduct subsequent to it, and
some modifications that we are making to it, frankly to make it
even more attractive, we had to hold it back just a little bit.
We are beyond that now and we expect that before the end of
this month it will be advertised and fully available.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you. We will look for that on the
first of the month.
General Rochelle. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. You are talking about September first. Is that
right?
General Rochelle. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Great. Thank you.
The other issue that I think is difficult to think about
and talk about when we talk about recruiting is ``don't ask,
don't tell.'' The number 41,000 has been the number that is out
there in the public of the number of male recruits, male
applicants who would be available to enter the armed services
if that were to be repealed. I know you are going to tell me
that ``that is the law, ma'am,'' and I appreciate that. That is
the law today.
But do you think that the Congress ought to be taking a
look at this so that we can understand if there is a skill we
need or just general need to include all those who wish to
serve in the services, and if there is a way that we might take
another look at that issue. It has been a great number of years
since that law was passed.
Secretary Dominguez. Ma'am, if I might start. The first,
is, people who believe themselves to be homosexuals can serve
in the armed forces of the United States. The law is about
conduct. So anyone who wants to serve who meets these criteria,
may serve in the United States. The issue is around conduct.
In terms of numbers of discharges by virtue of violations
of the law around conduct, in the last 5 years that has
amounted to about 700 people a year, which compared to about
30,000 to 40,000 people who leave the armed forces of the
United States under involuntary separations for a whole range
of other reasons.
So we bring in a bunch of people and we have to discharge
ahead of schedule in the neighborhood of 30,000 to 40,000 a
year, about 700 a year on average for the last 5 years is
because of violations of the law around homosexual conduct.
That is not a big number. It is not a high-leverage place in
terms of generating populations to serve in the armed forces.
Mrs. Davis. If those were in high-skill areas, is that an
issue? I understand what you are saying about conduct. I think
there is probably some question about how that is interpreted.
I think the concern here is whether or not there are people who
may not even think about serving, who would like to serve
because they somehow don't feel welcome in the services.
I think that is an issue that in a time that we need to be
as open as possible and look to other services, other countries
that we work with on an ongoing basis, whether or not we have
reached a point where we should take a look at that, where
Congress ought to be asking some of those questions.
Operationally, I am just asking you whether you think this is
something that we ought to be asking, we ought to be taking
another look at.
Secretary Dominguez. Ma'am, it is our responsibility and
leaders everywhere in the chain of command to ensure that any
citizen of the United States who qualifies for entry into the
armed forces is welcomed there and feels welcomed there. We
have invested a lot of time doing that.
In this particular case, stemming from some real tragedies
in the 1990's, we have invested a lot of time to make sure the
climate is right and that people can serve, serve honorably,
and feel welcomed and appreciated for their service so long as
they comply with the law around the conduct in this case.
Mrs. Davis. I appreciate your comments. Like everything, we
want to look to data on that. I think it is important to try
and be as informed as possible. So I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Snyder, did you have any other questions?
I am sorry. Mr. McHugh, are you done? Okay.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. I am done now. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Great.
I want to thank you all for being here. I think that our
concern is having a number of tools in the toolbox to work with
the issue of recruiting and to have plans in place if in fact,
as Dr. Snyder I think raised the question, that if in fact end-
strength was even increased beyond our plus-ups that we are
looking at now, and if we have the ability to do that, and to
be able to create an environment where many of the challenges
that we see today perhaps we can deal with constructively.
We would be interested in working with you on that, being
certain that the bonuses that are available are utilized, and
certainly in a timely fashion, and of course we go back to the
idea of getting all of our recruiting and retention issues
within base pay, within the basic budget so that we do not have
to rely on supplements in the future, as we have.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here.
[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
August 1, 2007
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
August 1, 2007
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.045
?
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
August 1, 2007
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38421.048
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
August 1, 2007
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Davis. Could you please just share with us what are some of
the special needs categories that you have? And are bonuses working in
that regard to help to supplement, certainly, the needs that are out
there? Where are they? And what is being done to recruit those
individuals?
General Rochelle. The following specialties are considered critical
needs: Special Forces, Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery,
Aviation, Communications and Information Systems Operations, Medical,
Transportation, and Supply and Services. These Military Occupational
Specialties are targeted to fill critical skills, which results in
increased unit readiness and capability to meet operational and
mobilization requirements.
Targeted bonuses have been an effective management tool in
attracting quality recruits into these skills and permitting the Army
to shape the force to meet our mission requirements. It is essential
that the Army remains competitive with the other services and with
other civilian alternatives. A strong incentives package supports the
Army's ability to attract the best talent available. Therefore, it is
imperative to review the maximum bonus amounts annually to ensure the
incentives keep pace with inflation.
The Regular Army implemented the $40K enlistment bonus program. The
previous enlistment bonus ceiling for the Regular Army was $20K. The
Army Reserve and Army National Guard implemented the $20K non-prior
service (NPS) enlistment bonus. The previous non-prior service (NPS)
maximum for the Reserve Components (RC) was $10K. Statutory authority
was also approved for an inter-service transfer bonus of $2.5K. The
Army used the existing bonus authorities in the latter part of FY07 by
increasing quick ship bonuses in critical skills.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCHUGH
Mr. McHugh. General Rochelle, you tell me it is $155 million for
direct payment to there. That leaves about $700 million that the
reprogramming request seeks to move out of active Army personnel
accounts. Yes?
Well, you are wrong. It is $845 million, and I hate to be the
bearer of bad tidings here, but that is the problem. I don't know,
maybe the Administration has given us bad figures or they are giving
you bad figures, but somebody has bad figures here.
Secretary Dominguez. The Army reprogrammed $845M in FY07 from MPA
($790.9M from BA2, Enlisted Pay and Allowances and $54.1M from BA4,
Subsistence in Kind). From the $845M, $690M went to the National Guard
and $155M went to the Air Force to return a FY05 transfer. The reason
for the excess in MPA was due to overestimating the RC mobilization for
FY07. The Army's supplemental budget request assumed that an average of
86,700 Reserve Component soldiers would be mobilized over the course of
the fiscal year, including additional RC mobilization pay for forces
extended or deployed in support of the theater plus-up/surge. The
latest estimate is that an average of 71,900 RC soldiers will be
mobilized. This under execution is due primarily to fewer RC personnel
mobilized in support of the surge than projected, mobilization of other
Service personnel in lieu of Army, and delayed mobilizations due to the
Secretary of Defense policy on Utilization of the Total Force.
The funding for recruiting and retention for FY07 was sufficient.
In FY07, the Army has exceeded the year to date (YTD) mission at all
times, and made the monthly recruiting goal in all months except May
and June. The shortfall in May and June was unexpected, and the Army
began to increase recruiting incentives in anticipation of a continued
shortfall in the remaining 4th Quarter FY07. The new incentives have
been a success, as the shortfall expected for July through August never
materialized. However, since all enlisted bonuses are paid to recruits
when they arrive at their first active duty unit, all recruits who
enlisted in the 4th Quarter will not receive their bonuses until FY08.
Therefore the excess money in FY07 MPA (from the overestimate of
the RC mobilization) could not have been used for new recruiting
incentives, such as the Quick Ship Bonus, which was not offered until
the 4th Quarter in FY07.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KLINE
Mr. Kline. I hate to jump back into the discussion that Mr. McHugh
was having because there is a lot of money and there are a lot of dates
and it is kind of confusing to all concerned.
We have the issue of reprogramming that is going to get us to the
end of this fiscal year, and then we have the issue of what is it going
to take in 2008.
Do you have both of those numbers?
General Vaughn. The Omnibus reprogramming action required for the
ARNG for FY07 in recruiting and retention and bonuses is $233 million
in National Guard Pay and Allowance and $227M in Operations accounts.
In FY08 to reach the OSD funded end strength level of 351.3K it will
require a total of $1.8B. This breaks out to a base budget of $651M and
$1.2B in Supplemental dollars.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER
Dr. Snyder. What percentage of obese men and women that want to get
in are we letting in?
General Bostick. For the year 2006, 968 Soldiers came in the Army
with an ARMS waiver. From January through April 2007, the most current
data we have, 705 men and women have come in with the ARMS waiver. For
the Army Reserves the figures are 148 for 2006 and 114 for 2007
(January through April); and for the National Guard 280 for 2006 and 15
for 2007 (January through April).
Dr. Snyder. Do you think that the system can handle substantially
more numbers of new recruits if there was a fairly dramatic increase?
General Rochelle. The Army conducts an in-depth analysis annually
of the equipment, manpower, infrastructure and training support systems
required to train the recruiting mission during the Structure Manning
Decision Review. The analysis addresses the volume and flow of Army
Trainees and the infrastructure requirements needed to train them at
each installation.
The Army uses the Training Resource Arbitration Panel to analyze of
the impacts to equipment, manpower, infrastructure and training support
systems based on changes to the Army's Accession Plan in the execution
year.
The Army is currently conducting the (TATC) study to identify the
operations and infrastructure requirements for the Army's individual
training. The Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is
responsible for analyzing the Initial Military Training (IMT) for
officer and enlisted Soldiers at 33 military schools and five training
centers and is using the FY 2009 Army Program for Individual Training
as the basis for analysis.