    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 111-70]

                                    HEARING

                                       ON

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                      AND

                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                    MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

                                       ON

                 BUDGET REQUEST ON MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                  MAY 21, 2009

                      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   ----------
                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    51-108 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2010

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                        MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

                     SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman
    VIC SNYDER, Arkansas                 JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
    MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
    PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania      THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire     JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
    DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
                   Michael Higgins, Professional Staff Member
                     John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
                         Rosellen Kim, Staff Assistant

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                         CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
                                      2009

                                                                       Page

    Hearing:

    Thursday, May 21, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense
      Authorization Act--Budget Request on Military Personnel
      Overview.......................................................     1

    Appendix:

    Thursday, May 21, 2009...........................................    33
                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009
    FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST ON
                          MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW
                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California,
      Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee....................     1
    Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking
      Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee........................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower
      and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps...........     7
    Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III, USN, Chief of Naval Personnel,
      Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Total Force..................     6
    McGinn, Gail H., Acting Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and
      Readiness, Department of Defense...............................     3
    Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff,
      Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force...........     8
    Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1,
      Headquarters, U.S. Army........................................     4

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S...................................   117
        Davis, Hon. Susan A..........................................    37
        Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III.............................   105
        McGinn, Gail H...............................................    39
        Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III.............................   147
        Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D.................................    91
        Wilson, Hon. Joe.............................................    38

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]
    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        Ms. Bordallo.................................................   161
        Dr. Fleming..................................................   161

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Loebsack.................................................   165
    FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST ON
                          MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                               Military Personnel Subcommittee,
                                Washington, DC, Thursday, May 21, 2009.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
    room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis
    (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
        CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

        Mrs. Davis. Good afternoon. The meeting will come to order.
        We are happy to have everybody here. Today, the
    subcommittee will hear testimony on the fiscal year 2010
    national defense budget request for military personnel.
        Each of your written statements makes clear the heartfelt
    commitment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the services
    to protect and enhance the programs that support service
    members and their families. You can be sure that the
    subcommittee shares your view that the men and women who serve
    our Nation in uniform are deserving of the highest praise and
    our best efforts to protect the programs that are the
    foundation for their quality of life.
        I was pleased to observe that Admiral Mullen, the chairman
    of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, feels as strongly as we do that
    personnel programs must be protected. In a speech at The
    Brookings Institution on Monday this week, the admiral
    indicated that tighter budgets will put increasing pressure on
    leaders to reduce programs that sustain people and that those
    leaders, including him, needed to resist the temptation to make
    those cuts.
        The admiral did note that health care and other personnel-
    related costs were growing and that more needed to be done to
    control such costs because the rate of growth associated with
    personnel programs was not sustainable over time.
        We have all felt the budget pressures increasing in recent
    years. For example, the ongoing cuts to recruiting and
    retention are understandable, so long as the military continues
    to attract and retain quality people. However, the cuts must be
    structured so as not to preclude our ability to respond when
    the economy begins to recover.
        Other less prominent indicators of budget pressures are
    more troubling. For example, the Navy's freeze of permanent
    changes of station (PCS) for the remainder of the year is
    causing hardship for many of our families. There are rumors of
    funding cuts to programs such as the Army Knowledge Online that
    is so important to communication within the Army and the
    Virtual Army Experience, that is important to understanding the
    recruiting of a new high-tech generation.
        We now know that the Marine Corps Reserve will, for the
    third consecutive year, not achieve its authorized end-strength
    during fiscal year 2009. And the Air Force, the one service
    most reliant on retention, continues to struggle to achieve
    certain goals.
        Our purpose today is to better understand how those budget
    pressures will be translated to fiscal year 2010 and how those
    pressures will impact end-strength; recruiting and retention;
    force structure; compensation; and service member, retiree, and
    family morale and welfare.
        Once again, thank you all for being here. We look forward
    to your testimony.
        And I want to turn to Mr. Wilson for his opening remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
    Appendix on page 37.]

       STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH
       CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis.
        In many respects, the military personnel systems today
    reflect a degree of success that would have been questionable
    three to five years ago. In large part, that success is due to
    the efforts of the witnesses who will testify today.
        I want to particularly single out Lieutenant General
    Michael D. Rochelle, the Army G-1, and Lieutenant General
    Ronald S. Coleman, the Marine Corps deputy commandant for
    Manpower and Reserve Affairs. This likely will be their last
    appearance before this subcommittee. Each will complete more
    than 30 years of exceptional service before retiring. Both men
    are directly responsible for successfully directing the
    personnel programs of their respective services through an
    extraordinarily difficult period.
        I personally want to thank you for your service to this
    Nation and wish you both well in our future endeavors. And I
    particularly know of your success, having the privilege of
    representing Fort Jackson, representing Parris Island, the
    Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort and Naval Hospital at
    Beaufort. So thank you both for your service.
        With regard to the fiscal year 2010 military personnel
    budget request, I have three areas of concern.
        The first is the $800 million reduction in the services'
    recruiting and retention budgets. While I know that the
    downturn in the economy has made recruiting and retention
    somewhat easier, the experience of this subcommittee is that
    reductions in recruiting and retention funding inevitably prove
    to be too deep. So I am interested in hearing the personal
    assessment of each of the service personnel chiefs as to where
    risk exists in the proposed cuts to recruiting and retention
    resources.
        My second concern focuses on the number of nondeployable
    personnel in the Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve.
    Clearly, the fact that there are at least 27,000 nondeployable
    personnel in the active Army and at least another 21,000
    nondeployables in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve must
    have a range of effects on these components. I would like to
    hear more about those impacts and how the Army believes they
    might be mitigated.
        The third area of concern relates to the recent testimony
    by the service chiefs, particularly those of the Marine Corps
    and Army, that dwell time will not significantly increase in
    the foreseeable future. I would like to understand why, with
    increased end-strength, there will not be a significant change
    in the dwell time for the active and Reserve components.
        Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
    look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
    Appendix on page 38.]
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
        I now want to introduce our first panel.
        Ms. Gail McGinn, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for
    Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
        Thank you very much. Welcome back to the hearing. And I had
    an opportunity to see you this morning, as well, and talking
    about balloting for our military personnel overseas, and I
    appreciate your doing that, as well.
        Lieutenant General Michael D. Rochelle, Deputy Chief of
    Staff, G-1, Headquarters U.S. Army.
        And, General Rochelle, we had an opportunity to meet
    earlier, and I wanted to wish you the very best as you retire
    this summer. This probably is your final appearance before this
    subcommittee, and we wish you well. We thank you so much for
    all of your dedicated service. Thank you very much.
        Vice Admiral Mark Ferguson III, Chief of Naval Personnel,
    Deputy Chief of Naval Operations of Total Force.
        Thank you very much for being here, Admiral.
        Lieutenant General Ronald S. Coleman, Deputy Commandant for
    Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps.
        And, General Coleman, we know that you also will be
    retiring this summer, and this is probably your final
    appearance as well. And, again, I thank you for your dedicated
    service. Thank you very much.
        And Lieutenant General Richard Newton III, of the U.S. Air
    Force, Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel,
    Headquarters, U.S. Air Force.
        Thank you for being here.
        Please, we will start with Ms. McGinn.

    STATEMENT OF GAIL H. MCGINN, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
             PERSONNEL AND READINESS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

        Ms. McGinn. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Davis, Representative Wilson, and distinguished
    members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify before you on the overview of the Department's
    programs, policies, and budget dedicated to taking care of our
    most precious resource, our people.
        As our data shows, we are largely succeeding in attracting
    and retaining the best and brightest young people. The
    Department of Defense has set high standards for the quality
    for the All-Volunteer Force, and the payoff is evident in the
    performance of this force in the field, which has been truly
    remarkable.
        It is vital to our national defense to maintain this highly
    skilled and motivated force. We must continue to ensure that we
    provide the right combination of pay, benefits, and
    compensation. We want to continue to work with you to ensure
    that we make the best use of every dollar authorized.
        We are still sending our service members in harm's way and
    to face serious conflicts abroad. And for those service members
    who have returned from these operations wounded and injured,
    the Department is committed to doing everything we can to make
    sure they receive all the necessary medical care and nonmedical
    assistance to return to full-duty status or successfully
    transition to the next phase of their lives.
        We are grateful to you for your giving us the authority and
    resources to make significant progress in restructuring the
    disability and compensation systems, enhancing case management,
    and hiring additional recovery care coordinators.
        However, we know that the work is not done. And this budget
    is a testament to the fact that the Department will continue to
    devote our energy and resources to our wounded, ill, and
    injured.
        Furthermore, we understand the sacrifices made by not just
    the service members but their families. These brave men and
    women cannot do what they do without the support of their loved
    ones. And to enforce the ongoing support of these family
    members, the Department increased the fiscal year 2010 baseline
    for family assistance by shifting funds from the overseas
    contingency operations budget to the baseline to ensure
    continuity in program delivery. This is a step in the right
    direction.
        I do have a statement I submitted for the record. And I
    would just like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss
    these important issues with you today, and I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McGinn can be found in the
    Appendix on page 39.]
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
        General Rochelle.

    STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. MICHAEL D. ROCHELLE, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
                  STAFF, G-1, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY

        General Rochelle. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson,
    distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        I appear before you on behalf of the 1.1 million men and
    women serving here and abroad, in peace as well as the most
    violent environments. This combat-seasoned force is resilient
    and professional, yet it is strained. More than 1 million of
    this Nation's finest citizens have deployed over the past 7
    years into harm's way. We realize very well that are costs and
    effects associated with this conflict, both visible and
    invisible effects.
        Our current programs to relieve stress on the force are
    vital to maintaining a healthy, balanced, and prepared Army.
    These programs help us defend our Nation against some of the
    most persistent and wide-ranging threats in our Nation's
    history.
        The success of these programs are due in part--in large
    part, I might add--to the support of the Congress and
    specifically this committee. This committee has give us
    numerous programs that we have instituted to keep America's
    Army strong well into seven-plus years of war.
        First and foremost, you have given us the means to recruit
    and retain an agile Army and, I might add, the best trained,
    the best led, and the best equipped Army in the world. As a
    result, for the past two years, we have met or exceeded our
    recruiting and retention goals for the total Army. This is a
    step in the right direction to get our personnel, our people,
    back in balance.
        We continue to transform our force into one Army that
    consistently use the talents of our active, Reserve, and
    National Guard soldiers, as well as our magnificent teammates,
    our civilian workforce. This total force approach is key to
    restoring balance within our ranks and in our homes.
        This Congress has embraced our needs, and we are very, very
    grateful. You have given us the means to improve the quality of
    life for our soldiers and their families. Soldiers are
    remaining in the Army because they see it is a good environment
    in which to serve and raise a family, thus making us the
    employer of choice.
        The Army continues to face challenges which will be
    directly in front of us for the next several years. Armed with
    lessons learned, it is our intent to stay in front of those
    challenges, anticipate them, develop strategies and programs,
    and keep them from becoming problems in the future.
        One of our largest challenges is the eligible population to
    serve in our Armed Forces today. That number continues to drop,
    thus creating what I believe is a national dilemma, a national
    problem. The Army will continue to work hard to attract and
    retain the best, but we need your help in taking on this larger
    issue, this larger problem.
        The challenging environments that our soldiers serve in
    demand that we maintain the standards as set. And we must
    remain ever vigilant that our force is manned with both
    physically and mentally fit and qualified soldiers, as it is
    today.
        I have described the challenging environment to you here
    today. I am confident, however, that with the operational and
    institutional agility America's Army has developed over the
    past eight years, we will meet all the challenges that will
    come our way.
        It is easier to commit to a plan of action when we know
    that the Congress supports us. Your leadership and support have
    been unwavering. I have appreciated the discussions we have had
    over the years concerning the health of this great Army, and I
    look forward to taking your questions today.
        Thank you for your support.
        [The prepared statement of General Rochelle can be found in
    the Appendix on page 91.]
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        Admiral Ferguson.

      STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. MARK E. FERGUSON III, USN, CHIEF OF
     NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, TOTAL FORCE

        Admiral Ferguson. Chairwoman Davis, Representative Wilson,
    and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you to review our budget request
    on behalf of the Navy total force and their families.
        During my previous testimony in March, I discussed end-
    strength and our successes in recruiting and retention. Since
    that time, recruiting and retention have remained strong, and
    we continue to achieve our enlisted and officer goals across
    both the active and Reserve components.
        Our fiscal 2010 active and reserve budget request supports
    our ability to attract, recruit, and retain a highly skilled
    naval force in support of our maritime strategy. I would like
    to briefly highlight the principal themes contained in our
    budget request.
        First, it includes an increase of our authorized end-
    strength to a level of 328,800. It sustains the Reserve force
    at an end-strength of 65,500. This increased end-strength above
    our 2009 level supports the demand for individual augmentees
    for the joint force and demonstrates our commitment to
    sustaining our current deployment dwell times to minimize
    stress on the force.
        Our request sustains the recruiting successes we achieved
    last fiscal year, where we met medical goals for the first time
    in five years, and this year we met nuclear Zone A retention
    goals for the first time in over 30 years.
        While the budget reflects a slight decrease in advertising
    expenditure, it increases the amount for enlistment bonuses and
    sustains our recruiting force in the field at their current
    levels to support our projected accessions.
        The budget request also supports our stabilization strategy
    to balance the force in terms of seniority, experience, and
    skills, while safeguarding the careers of our top performers.
    We have adjusted incentives and bonuses in response to sailor
    behavior, and this request sustains our enlistment bonus
    programs at 2009 levels.
        The budget request also includes increases for selected
    medical recruiting programs. Your support for these programs is
    essential as we continue to target our investment in critical
    skill areas. And, I might add, your support has been critical
    to our successes in the past.
        The budget request also increases funding for family
    support programs and our Navy Safe Harbor, wounded, ill, and
    injured, program. It also supports our efforts to build
    resiliency and foster a culture that encourages sailors to seek
    help in response to stress.
        Finally, our request balances our education and training
    requirements with growth in important mission areas, such as
    cyber warfare, language and culture.
        Last week, I had the opportunity to visit our naval
    personnel overseas in Europe and the Middle East. Your sailors
    today are positive, enthusiastic, and performing
    extraordinarily well in meeting the demands of the joint force
    and of the Nation. I could not be prouder of their efforts that
    they do every day in service to the country.
        And so, on behalf of all the men and women in uniform who
    sacrifice daily and their families, I wish to express my
    sincere appreciation to the committee and the Congress for your
    unwavering support for our Navy.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Ferguson can be found in
    the Appendix on page 105.]
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        General Coleman.

         STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RONALD S. COLEMAN, USMC, DEPUTY
    COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, HEADQUARTERS, U.S.
                              MARINE CORPS

        General Coleman. Chairwoman Davis, Congressman Wilson,
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is my privilege
    to appear before you today to discuss Marine Corps personnel.
        I would like to thank both the Chairwoman Davis and
    Congressman Wilson for their kind words. It is an honor to
    serve this greater Nation of ours.
        I would like to make a few key points.
        First, with regard to our end-strength, the Marine Corps is
    now building on our success in fiscal year 2008 and will reach
    our 2010 goals this fiscal year, two years ahead of schedule.
    We owe this success in large part to our recruiters, who
    continue to meet all accession goals while maintaining the
    highest-quality standards. Thank you for your continued support
    of our enlistment incentives which help make this achievement
    possible.
        Secondly, our active-duty component retention continues to
    be successful. In fiscal year 2008, first-term retention was 36
    percent. We are building on that success in fiscal year 2009,
    having already achieved our fiscal year mission. We thank you
    for your support of our Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program.
    It will remain the foundation of our retention efforts as we
    move from growing our force to shaping it so that we maintain
    vital Marine Corps leadership and critical skills.
        Third, I want to reiterate that a top priority of the
    commandant of the Marine Corps is caring for our wounded
    warriors and for the families of all Marines. Our wounded
    warrior regiment is diligent at work, implementing a new and
    holistic approach to wounded warrior care which makes thriving,
    not just surviving, the expectation of our wounded Marines.
        Likewise, our family readiness programs have undergone a
    host of significant improvements which continue to this day.
    They are made possible in large part by the generous funding
    that you have provided.
        I want to personally thank you, Chairwoman Davis, for your
    recent introduction of a House resolution that recognizes the
    work of our family readiness volunteers. As you mentioned, they
    are a crucial part of the family care and military readiness
    equations.
        In closing, I want to thank you and the other Members of
    Congress for your support and partnership. They have been
    central to the strength that your Marine Corps enjoys today.
    They will continue to be essential as we work to shape the
    Marine Corps of the future so that we always remain the most
    ready when the Nation is least ready.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of General Coleman can be found in
    the Appendix on page 117.]
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        General Newton.

    STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RICHARD Y. NEWTON III, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF
     OF STAFF, MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE

        General Newton. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Wilson,
    and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this
    opportunity to discuss our efforts as they relate to the fiscal
    year 2010 budget to ensure we attract, recruit, develop, and
    retain a high-quality and diverse fighting force.
        Airmen are the focal point for providing the critical
    capabilities that the Air Force contributes for winning today's
    fight. And while the Air Force has innovative technologies and
    equipment, it is the hard work of our dedicated men and women
    in uniform and our civilians who underscore our success.
        Without a doubt, the tremendous talent of our total force
    airmen and civilians is the backbone of our United States Air
    Force, and our budget proposal recognizes this fact. These
    dedicated volunteer servants are our most important asset.
    Without them, our organizations and equipment would not
    function, our operations would grind to a halt.
        Therefore, we must ensure we have the proper end-strength
    to meet current, new, and emerging missions. For fiscal year
    2010, our active-duty end-strength will be 331,700 airmen, with
    69,500 serving in the Air Force Reserve and 106,700 airmen in
    the Air National Guard. This stops previously planned total
    force end-strength reductions. We will also grow our civilian
    population to a little over 179,000, which includes 4,200
    contractor-to-civilian conversions.
        Simultaneously, we will continue to reshape the skill sets
    of our workforce, with particular emphasis on stress career
    fields and mission areas that need our attention, such as
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, aircraft
    maintenance, acquisitions, cyber operations, nuclear
    deterrence, operations, and sustainment. For instance, in
    fiscal year 2010, our manpower investment includes increasing
    our nuclear-related personnel by 2,500 and adding 200
    acquisition professionals.
        The growth in end-strength goes hand in hand with an
    increase in our recruiting efforts, and it goes beyond finding
    the right numbers. We must also ensure that the right quality
    and the right skills are present in our potential candidates.
        And, despite the weak economy, we expect 2010 to be a
    critical retention environment for several reasons: an
    increased need to retain specific skill sets in certain
    specialities; previous end-strength decreases and corresponding
    decreases in accessions; increased operational demands; and new
    and emerging missions.
        Our commitment includes continued support for special pay
    and allowances to address recruiting and retention concerns in
    our health professional skills and our most critical war-
    fighting skills such as pararescue, combat control, tactical
    air control party, and explosive ordnance disposal.
        Finally, we are committed to taking care of our airmen and
    their families, to include our wounded warriors, to whom we
    have a never-ending obligation. Over the past year, we tackled
    important issues for Air Force families, such as expanding
    child care capacity, increasing child care support for Guard
    and Reserve families, improving financial readiness, and
    providing opportunities for children of airmen, whether they
    reside on our military installations or in our civilian
    communities throughout the United States.
        The Air Force is leaning forward to be all in. Your
    continued support of our missions to attract, develop, and
    sustain talented and diverse airmen and their families is
    mission-essential, and it is also most appreciated. Our efforts
    to effectively manage end-strength to recruit and retain,
    train, develop, and care for airmen and their families will
    enable us to fly, fight, and win in air, space and cyberspace.
        Thank you for your unfailing support of the men and women
    and the families of the United States Air Force. And I also
    look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of General Newton can be found in
    the Appendix on page 147.]
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
        Thank you all for your presentations.
        You have all mentioned end-strength, and let's talk about
    that a little bit, because we know that there has been an
    increase in end-strength in excess of the 2009 authorization.
    And what I think we are interested in is your assurances that
    the dollars will be there as we move into 2010, given the fact
    that there is likely to be a bow from those higher end-strength
    numbers.
        What can you tell us about those concerns? And do we have
    that all together?
        I think I would just turn to the serve chiefs initially and
    start with you.
        General Coleman. It is not often they let me go first,
    ma'am, as I am the junior guy, but I will just jump right up.
        Ma'am, I think we are well--we, the Marine Corps--right
    now. We do expect that the funds will go down. We can handle
    that somewhat. It would be a discredit to you if I came in
    right now and said, we have made our retention goal already
    this year. We are two years ahead of schedule on our
    enlistments, but my fear, our biggest fear is that, if funds
    are taken away to allow the critical MOSs to reenlist and to
    bring in those critical Military Occupational Specialties
    (MOSs), then there would be great concern.
        Mrs. Davis. Okay, thank you.
        Admiral Ferguson. From the Navy perspective, there are
    several challenges that we uniquely face and share with some of
    the other services. From a shared perspective, changes in
    entitlements, as the bill goes through the Congress, can affect
    our ability to execute.
        Second, we receive cost increases throughout the execution
    year for housing allowances, subsistence allowances, and so
    those changes in rates greatly affect our ability to execute.
    We feel that the money we put in the budget adequately programs
    and covers the cost of the end-strength that we have.
        In the Navy, a unique case because we received authority
    from the Secretary to over-execute at end-strength this year.
    In the 2010 request, you will see part of our end-strength is
    funded in supplemental, and it covers 4,400 individuals in the
    overseas contingency operations to allow us to provide joint
    enablers to the joint force, where we provide almost 14,000 to
    the force.
        And so, for our funding in 2010, the Overseas Contingency
    Operations (OCO) and supplemental both cover a portion of our
    end-strength.
        General Rochelle. The Army, Madam Chair, is in a fairly
    unique position, not too dissimilar from my brother in the
    Navy, in the sea service here, in that we were funded below the
    547.4, which is the number we have grown to 2 years ahead of
    schedule. As a result, we have a $1.6 billion shortfall in
    2009, which we are hopeful will be covered in full in the OCO
    request.
        And, now, I realize that is here under deliberations by
    this body. But that is key for us if we are, in fact, to be
    fully funded across the fiscal year, fiscal year 2010, entering
    2010 in a balanced way.
        Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh.
        General Newton. Madam Chairwoman, you and the committee
    members are certainly aware that we were on a glide-path down
    to 16,000 active-duty end-strength. We are going to make amends
    to that, and we are going to actually, as I mentioned in my
    opening remarks, will be active-duty end-strength at 331,700,
    and so we have programmed and budgeted for that.
        And so we are absolutely committed to make sure that we
    uphold, both from a funding standpoint but also as we go out to
    recruit and retain, particularly in those critical skill sets,
    that we maintain what we have programmed and budgeted for. We
    feel that we are certainly adequately positioned to do just
    that throughout the program objective memorandum (POM).
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        I know that, Admiral Ferguson, you mentioned the
    supplemental. And so, do any of you--you mentioned that you are
    okay. I think there is a concern that some of that we might
    need to look to an additional supplemental to help those
    numbers be able to support the increased end-strength that you
    have. Is that not a concern for anybody else?
        Admiral Ferguson. From the Navy perspective, in the current
    supplemental for fiscal year 2009, the House Appropriations
    Committee added in their mark of the bill $350 million to
    support the Navy end-strength in this year, and that is under
    consideration in the Senate.
        So, for this fiscal year in execution, that will help us to
    alleviate both the permanent change of station issue you
    addressed in your opening, as well as get us through and cover
    the end-strength.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        You know, I think the big question for all of us is, is
    there anything in this that would suggest that you have to
    reduce some accounts? And are there impacts on the family and
    welfare accounts that might be felt in 2010?
        General Rochelle. I go back to the $1.6 billion Military
    Personnel Army (MPA) shortfall for Army. And, again, the marks,
    as they make it through the House and the Senate, will
    determine the answer to the question you just posed. It is
    pretty significant for us.
        Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh. All right.
        General Coleman. Madam Chairwoman, for 2009, we feel good.
    But when you speak to 2010----
        Mrs. Davis. No, we are talking about 2010.
        General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. We are concerned that a large
    cut in 2010, especially in recruiting and retention and our
    family readiness programs, that would be brutal to us, ma'am.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        My time is up. I will turn to Mr. Wilson, and we will start
    the round of the panel.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Again, thank all of you for your successes.
        And right in line with discussing some budget cuts,
    recognizing that there has been a cut in the recruiting and
    retention of nearly $800 million--and I indicated my concern
    about that in my opening statement--I am interested in hearing
    your assessment, all of you, as to where the risk may exist in
    the proposed cuts in recruiting and retention. And, in your own
    view, does the budget request cut too deeply for 2010?
        General Rochelle. Well, let me start, if you will,
    Representative Wilson.
        First of all, you are familiar with my experience in the
    recruiting world directly. And my concern would be that we
    are--we are funded adequately in 2010. However, however, we
    must be careful that we don't yo-yo across the POM, we don't
    yo-yo the resourcing of the recruiting initiative. Frankly,
    because it is imperative that we have a fairly steady stream
    and predictable stream of resourcing to resource both
    recruiters, advertising, and all of the associated support
    structure that, day to day, helps our recruiters be successful.
        As a matter of fact, hours before I came to the Hill, the
    new commanding general of U.S. Army Recruiting Command paid a
    visit on me, and we had this very discussion. The discussion
    centered on the fact that we are in a very positive place today
    relative to where the Army was in 2005, the year I left
    Recruiting Command, a very different place, largely because of
    the economy. But there are already signs that the economy is
    beginning to make a slight turnaround. And so we must think
    strategically about recruiting in that new environment and not
    be lulled into a false sense of security from where we are
    today.
        Ms. McGinn. I would just say that we are very aware of the
    risks involved when you cut the recruiting account and believe
    that we have taken a prudent risk here with this particular cut
    because of the status of recruiting and retention and the
    overall status of the economy.
        But my colleagues and I watch recruiting data monthly. They
    probably watch it more frequently than I do. So we need to be
    very vigilant in terms of keeping an eye on what is happening
    both in the economy and with the recruiting endeavors so that,
    if there is something to be corrected, we can correct it.
        General Coleman. I would say again, sir, our concern in the
    Marine Corps is more drastic in the reenlistment bonus, the
    retention side of it, than the initial accession of it. So, too
    large a cut would be--because you can't make that up when there
    is critical MOSs and critical Marines to fill those MOSs, and
    when they go out, you can't get a seven-year veteran by someone
    coming in the front door.
        So I think it is imperative that we maintain our selective
    reenlistment bonuses, sir.
        Admiral Ferguson. With respect to Navy, we did take a minor
    reduction in advertising, where we felt that was a prudent risk
    to take in balance, but yet we increased our accession bonus
    program, and we kept the number of recruiters in the field. We
    figured that is the strength of our program, in bringing in new
    sailors.
        General Newton. Sir, may I also add from, perhaps, a
    different approach, the pool of talent and American youth that
    we can go after--I know we have discussed this previously in
    other hearings--is a challenge for all the services and
    particularly for the Air Force.
        As you go about trying to find specific critical skills,
    not only from a recruiting standpoint but a retention
    standpoint as well, because even though we are in a downturn of
    our economy, many of those skills that airmen bring to the
    fight are skills that a lot of employers in the commercial
    sector put an eye on the prize as well.
        So there is no letup, there should not be any letup, and
    the same effort, either in a downturn or an upturn, as General
    Rochelle described, you know, the strategic effort ought to
    still be maintained.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, I appreciate all of you.
        And I want to point out, I appreciate Chairwoman Davis
    visited with me at Fort Jackson, the recruiting and retention
    school, last year. And that was an extremely rewarding
    experience to me, to see the dedicated personnel. But it
    reinforced my concern over budget cuts, in that, General
    Rochelle, you all have helped create an extraordinary
    technological base. It makes you feel really good to know of
    the capabilities that you used to recruit people for the
    opportunity of military service.
        Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Murphy.
        Mr. Murphy. Thanks, Madam Chairwoman.
        And thanks to all the briefers today for your continued
    service to our country.
        And I especially want to highlight General Rochelle and
    General Coleman. Thank you for your great service to our
    country. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. And
    we are very proud, as a Nation and a Congress, for all that you
    have done.
        Part of my questions, frankly, were already addressed by
    the opening statements and also by the questions, so let me ask
    and try and drill down a little bit.
        General Rochelle, you mentioned, as did General Newton just
    a second ago, about the eligible population to join the
    military is declining, and that is a national issue. You all
    have physical fitness standards, and you have a great
    leadership model on how to get your folks in tremendous shape.
        What advice do you give to Congress, what do you think we
    should do? I know this is kind of, probably, out of the box;
    you probably didn't prep for this. But what would you advise
    the Congress of the United States, what should we be doing to
    inspire the American people to follow your lead?
        General Rochelle. I will defer to the junior member of the
    panel.
        General Coleman. Thank you, sir.
        If we could just continue, as a Nation, to emphasize
    physical fitness. It is a lot easier, I think we all would say,
    to stay in shape than it is to get in shape. So I think if we
    can--and I think you probably know this, sir, having served:
    There is a large percentage of the population that is not
    physically fit. And that is deplorable, when you think about
    what it was when we were growing up, when you had to take gym,
    and now you can opt out of gym. And you can't regain those
    muscles in a short period of time.
        So if we could stress, and I don't just mean for a day, but
    if we could stress physical fitness. And I think a healthy body
    leads to a healthy mind. So, as a Congress, as a Nation, if we
    could stress physical fitness, I think we would be on the right
    track, sir.
        General Newton. If I may add, Representative Murphy, it is
    also, to add to what General Coleman said, it is a call to
    service, as well. It is one that--I believe our generation has
    seen a more fit lifestyle, a more fit approach. Certainly, as I
    have gotten into my fifties, it is planning for the future as
    well.
        This is a national challenge we have. One of the largest
    challenges we have with regard to being able to reach into
    America's youth, much less to entice them to come into the
    service, is because of the obesity issue we have among American
    youth.
        And so, that behooves us who are perhaps more senior,
    regardless if you happen to be a Member of Congress or serving
    in the military, you be fit to fight, as we say in the United
    States Air Force. And so we have walk the walk and talk the
    talk and show our commitment in resources and so forth. But I
    believe it is a significant call to service that somehow if we
    can fill that gap.
        General Rochelle. Sir, first of all, I would like to thank
    you for your very gracious comments about General Coleman and
    my service. And I would simply add that, not unlike all of our
    great soldiers and Marines and airmen and sailors who serve, it
    is our families who really deserve the credit.
        To your question, and just to add on to what my wingman
    said here about obesity, the larger issue is high school
    completion and the declining rate of high school completion.
        A couple of data points--and I will try to do this very
    quickly. If you look at high school graduation rates nationally
    and segment those rates by race, ethnicity, levels of poverty,
    and then the general population, you see some pretty alarming
    trends. Only one out of three, anywhere in the Nation,
    regardless of race and regardless of the level of income for
    the family, will graduate--I beg your pardon, I said that
    incorrectly--30 percent will not graduate.
        If you now add the level of income at or below the poverty
    level, that number that will graduate, irrespective of race or
    ethnicity, drops to 50 percent. Add one more layer of
    segmentation, and we are now looking at race, poverty level in
    general, and 70 percent will not graduate on time.
        And I have talked about this a number of different times in
    various committees on the Hill. It really is a national
    tragedy. And for us to think that we can remain strategically
    competitive, not to mention a strong defense, with those types
    of trends is foolhardy.
        Mr. Murphy. I know my time is up, but I thought that
    President Obama's speech at the State of the Union when we
    talked to the American people, looked them in the eye and said,
    ``When you graduate--if you drop out of high school, you are
    not just quitting on yourself, you are quitting on your
    country.'' I thought that was exactly the right tone, and
    putting the burden back on not just the teachers but it starts
    at home, education. And we need that accountability and that
    responsibility.
        And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you very
    much.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        Dr. Snyder.
        Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I wanted to ask--as you may know, another subcommittee here
    is doing a study of professional military education in
    residence, professional military education (PME). In fact,
    General Coleman, I now understand why, when I was at the Marine
    Corps University yesterday, I was the only one eating the
    donuts and the Marine officers were not. It all becomes clear
    to me now.
        But I wanted to ask two questions and have you each
    respond. The first one is with regard to faculty the in-
    residence PME schools, and the second one is with regard to
    students.
        The first one is, how are faculty selected for the in-
    residence PME programs? Both how they are selected, and then
    what does that mean for them down the line? I won't tell you
    which service, but we heard from a couple of people yesterday
    that said they were told by all their friends, don't take the
    position, it was a dead-end for them to be assigned as a
    faculty member at one of the schools.
        And then, second, with regard to the students, how are
    students assigned to these schools? And how are decisions then
    made with regard to what their next assignment--you know, when
    and how is that process, as far as their next assignment after
    the school?
        General Coleman.
        General Coleman. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
        As far as the faculty, the faculty is selected both by the
    head of our MMOA--that is the manpower management officer
    assignment side of it--in conjunction with the president of the
    university. So his or her record jacket is screened, goes to
    the school, and the school has say, the Marine Corps
    University, in, yes, this person should or should not be an
    instructor.
        Dr. Snyder. But what are the criteria by which you make the
    decision to send those to the school to be looked at?
        General Coleman. Sir, probably one of the first things
    would be promotability. I will use myself as an example. When I
    was an instructor at our Amphibious Warfare School, which is a
    company-grade school, 12 members of the faculty, seven us were
    selected to general officer. So, in the Marine Corps, if you go
    to be an instructor at a school, you know that you have been
    selected.
        Now, whether it means that you have all A's or all B's, I
    don't think we do that. We look at the jacket. We look at
    intelligence. We look at personnel appearance. We look at
    physical fitness. We look at the whole-man or whole-woman
    concept. And then the president of the university still has
    some say, maybe not the final say, but he or she does have some
    say in that person coming to the school.
        As far as the students, there is a board that convenes,
    just like a promotion board. And I would say, for some schools,
    like our top-level schools, your chances of making colonel are
    better than they are getting selected to school. So it is a
    hard nut to crack, from where I sit, sir.
        Admiral Ferguson. From the student perspective, when naval
    officers go through--I will speak about the unrestricted line--
    when they go through their screening boards at the O-5 and the
    O-6 level, generally if you are in the upper half of the group
    that screens and you are assigned a code, it makes you eligible
    to go to a senior war college. And then the distribution
    process will allocate those among National Defense University,
    the Naval War College, the various seats that we have to fill.
    So for our unrestricted line, they are screened by a board and
    then assigned a code that generally represents the top half.
        We are driven in those pay grades primarily by command
    opportunities. And so we don't ascend them right away; it is
    adjusted based upon when their command tour is of a fighter
    squadron, let's say, or a submarine or a surface ship.
        With regard to the faculty, the faculty are generally
    senior officers, O-6, at the Naval War College who have had
    prior master's degrees, most have had a prior tour, but they
    are nominated by the Bureau of Personnel to the president of
    the Naval War College for selection.
        General Rochelle. Army's procedures are not terribly
    dissimilar from those of the Marine Corps and the Navy, the sea
    services. However, for our intermediate-level education, I
    believe you know, sir, that that is universally offered to all
    officers at a certain grade level. Whether it is done in
    residence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, which is our flagship
    intermediate-level education institution or whether it is done
    in a distributed fashion at one of several installations across
    the United States, where you can get the same level of training
    and education but it is broken up into segments and some of it
    is done via distance learning, it is universal intermediate-
    level education.
        Your question about faculty--make no mistake about it, the
    Army is challenged right now to ensure that we have the very
    best faculty in place in our institutions of higher learning
    and training. The demand for that very best talent, from
    theater and elsewhere around the globe, is enormous. However,
    having said that, as my fellow witnesses have stated, the
    leaders of each of these institutions has a voice in whether or
    not an officer is acceptable to be on the platform.
        Let me go to the next level, the Army War College. First of
    all, for that level of education and training, the capstone, if
    you will, for most officers, that is a board selection
    process--best qualified. The availability of the officer to
    attend, however, is somewhat impacted by the level of demand on
    the Army today.
        And one final point, if I may return to the intermediate-
    level education, two years ago we launched a pilot program,
    which I coined the phrase, ``leader development assignment
    panel.'' The leader development assignment panel was designed
    to take a look at, are we, in fact, sending our very best and
    our brightest to our intermediate-level education in resident
    training? With a view toward where I think your question is
    heading, are we making the appropriate investments for the
    future, for the next Global War on Terror or downrange?
        And for two years, we have received very, very positive
    feedback from the panel members. And we have indeed adjusted,
    as a result of those pilots--we will do a third one this year--
    whether individuals are sent to fellowships, whether they are
    offered an opportunity for a graduate-level education, or the
    resident intermediate-level education. All of the above are on
    the table.
        General Newton. Sir, just briefly, a similar process in
    terms of selection, both for our faculty and students. Our
    faculty, first we look at their professional credentials as
    well as their academic credentials and, also, their desire to
    serve as instructors, particularly at our Air War College and
    Air Command and Staff College.
        I can also tell you, from a student selection standpoint,
    those for intermediate development education or senior officer
    development education, again, those are board results. We take
    generally our top 15 to top 25 percent.
        The actual selection and where they attend school could be
    at Air Command and Staff College or Army Command and Staff and
    so forth. I actually chair that board every fall and identify
    which students will go to what particular development education
    from that point on.
        But it is, again, one that we put a lot of attention to.
    Because, as we are trying to not only develop certain
    professional qualities, it is also how they go about in their
    strategic thinking. How are they beginning, again, now, to
    become those strategic thinkers and those strategic leaders as
    early on as we possibly can to impact their professional
    development.
        General Coleman. Can I add one more thing, sir?
        Dr. Snyder. Please.
        General Coleman. And I should have started off with this.
    If you are not what we call PME complete, so if you haven't
    attended or haven't completed the schooling for your grade,
    then you do not get promoted.
        Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        Mr. Loebsack.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thanks to all of you for being here.
        And, also, in particular, General Rochelle and General
    Coleman, it is my third year in Congress, and I have gotten to
    know you some. And I am going to miss you, but hopefully I will
    see you in another context in the future.
        Just to follow up on some of the earlier comments that were
    made and questions asked, while Mr. Murphy is out with the
    baseball team preparing for the big game in June, I normally go
    out running. And I go over by the Armory and go out into the
    Robert F. Kennedy Stadium parking lot, along the river there,
    and across over the Anacostia and go into the park on many
    days. And I see a lot of the folks from the services who are
    over there working out, doing their tests, running, that sort
    of thing. And, you know, I wish I could stop and talk to them
    and encourage them to continue to do it and all the rest, but
    of course they are running and I am running and that is not
    possible. But I think that it is just absolutely fantastic. And
    I think if we take a lifelong approach to this, too, I think
    that is really the way to do this.
        Also, on the education front and the high school dropout
    issue, there are at least two of us on this subcommittee who
    are on the Education and Labor Committee. And the dropout
    factory problem is a huge one across the country, high schools
    where there are disproportionate numbers of folks who drop out
    and don't graduate. And we are trying to address that on the
    committee. I actually have legislation, myself, trying to deal
    with that issue, as well. So we are going to continue along
    those lines, and this is where we can cross over, as far as
    committees are concerned, I think.
        But, along those lines, what, if anything, is being done by
    services as far as encouraging--I mean, it is a problem, but
    encouraging folks to stay in school and helping folks to get
    their high school degrees?
        General Coleman. For us, sir, that is a recruiting tool.
    And we look at every Marine as a recruiter. But as our
    recruiters visit schools, I think that is the best way we can
    do it. And I would say that most Marines would never pass up a
    chance to go speak to a school or to children in any part or
    any fashion. But it is one of those things that you have to be
    accessible and they have to allow you in it. But I think that
    is the key.
        Mr. Loebsack. If I might follow up, when the recruiters go
    to the high schools, they also then obviously encourage
    students to stay in school? Is that something they do as well?
        General Coleman. Yes, sir. And that is service- and also
    DOD-directed because of the propensity of a high school
    graduate to do well in the service and stay. So, yes, sir.
        Admiral Ferguson. Some of the other services--the Navy
    Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (NJROTC) program in the
    high schools, we have 75,000 students. Most are diverse and in
    lower-privilege areas. But when they complete to graduation, 65
    percent go on to higher education and 45 percent come into the
    service. That is a real strong program for us, and we have over
    600 units around the country.
        General Rochelle. Sir, I would add one thing that we are
    very proud of. First of all, every soldier encourages young
    people, whether it is in his or her community or on a military
    installation, and the high school resident on that installation
    encourages young people to stay in school. And that is
    especially true of Army recruiters, as well.
        But since we are at such an epidemic state on this--and
    you, obviously, know quite well that it is epidemic--the Army
    has launched an Army Prep School at Fort Jackson, South
    Carolina. And the Army Prep School is our effort, with DOD
    support--I recall having several conversations with Dr. David
    Chu about this, and he was very supportive. But as a result of
    those efforts, in 2009, 1,500, almost 1,600 young persons who
    would not have received a high school diploma did so through
    the Army Prep School.
        Now it is an equivalent today. But, working with the
    Governor of South Carolina, we expect that, before the end of
    fiscal 2009, it will indeed be a certified high school diploma.
    That is a small effort, but it is a start.
        General Newton. Just as a short follow-up, we also see our
    airmen as role models in whatever communities they serve. There
    is a total force aspect of that from those who are serving in
    active duty, but Guard and Reserve as well. I almost see that
    as a responsibility that they have as wearing the uniform.
        I would also add that it is not just the students
    themselves, but to go after the influencers in the communities.
    And that could be found in the school, it could be found in a
    variety of organizations throughout.
        The last point I would raise, in terms of the challenges
    that we have with regard to recruiting, whereby perhaps we
    focused on high school, 11th, 12th grade, perhaps we are now
    being compelled to reach into lower grades, as well, to begin,
    because of the challenges that we have already discussed here.
        Mr. Loebsack. Well, thank you all.
        General Rochelle. Sir, may I please edit my numbers? The
    1,600 are the numbers who were entered into the program. The
    number of graduates is 1,376.
        Mr. Loebsack. Okay, thank you.
        And, Madam Chair, if I could, I would like to submit a
    question for the record, also, on access to family services,
    especially for the Reserve component.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    beginning on page 165.]
        Mrs. Davis. Okay, thank you.
        Ms. Tsongas.
        Ms. Tsongas. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        I would love to hear more at some other time about the prep
    school. It is South Carolina-specific?
        General Rochelle. Yes, ma'am, it is, because of the support
    from the Governor of South Carolina.
        Mr. Wilson. But students from across the country.
        General Rochelle. That is correct. I beg your pardon. I
    didn't understand that was your question. They are from across
    the country.
        Ms. Tsongas. I was going to say, you are doing very well
    here.
        I am going to change the subject a little bit, if I might,
    and I think this will be directed to General Rochelle and
    General Coleman. General Casey mentioned at the Army posture
    hearing last week that we can expect the operational tempo to
    increase through fiscal year 2009 and into 2010. This is
    despite the fact that both the Army and the Marine Corps are
    projected to achieve their programmed end-strength increases by
    the end of this fiscal year.
        How soon can we see a reduction in the operational tempo
    and an increase in dwell time for Army and Marine Corps combat
    and support units?
        General Rochelle. Thank you for your question, ma'am.
    First, let me elaborate on what the Chief said and say it in
    the way that I would articulate it.
        Before we see a net reduction in demand, we are probably
    looking at 12 months to 18 months into the future. And that is
    if everything goes according to plan, with responsible drawdown
    in Iraq and buildup to some acceptable level of forces in
    Afghanistan.
        It is a little bit like, an analogy, if I may, of having an
    aircraft carrier battle group replace an aircraft carrier
    battle group in the middle of the Pacific. For a period of
    time, the Chief of Naval Operations has two equivalents of
    battle groups tied up that he can't do anything with until the
    one being relieved recovers. It is no different for a brigade
    combat team. It is no different for a combat aviation brigade
    replacing another combat aviation brigade.
        If that demand, eventually, at the end of 12 to 18 months,
    does begin to diminish and we see a net reduction--and, by the
    way, history suggests that demand continues to rise. Yesterday,
    in testimony in the other body, I used the analogy, if the past
    is indeed prologue, then we may be headed for trouble.
        But, optimistically. If we see the demand reduced, then we
    will be able to see also an equivalent reduction in the current
    dwell time, which, for the active Army, is one year deployed
    for every 1.3 years at home. That is unsustainable, completely
    unsustainable. For the Army Reserve and Army National Guard,
    the dwell is one year deployed for less than three years at
    home. Even at that rate for an operational reserve, that is way
    too high.
        So the long answer to your question, 12 to 18 months from
    now, if all goes according to plan.
        Ms. Tsongas. And let's assume for a moment that things
    don't go according to plan and, in fact, there is a need for
    overall increases, what kind of planning and thinking is taking
    place to respond to that?
        General Rochelle. We are actively considering--and this is
    a discussion we are having inside the Army at this point and
    will soon have at the Department of Defense level. We are
    actively considering whether or not, in order to mitigate the
    risk that you are articulating, ma'am, if we shouldn't look at
    other means of having a temporary wartime allowance. But that
    is an internal discussion, at this point.
        Ms. Tsongas. General Coleman.
        General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am.
        At this time, with our growth, we have seen improvement in
    our dwell time. Our overall average now, where it was--and,
    unlike the Army, the Marine Corps is seven months out, seven
    months back, and our goal is three to one. We started off at 1-
    to-1.8. We are now at 1-to-2.4, so almost 2.5, a cycle back.
        With the drawdown in Iraq, with the increase to our
    202,000, I would suggest to you that during fiscal year 2010,
    we will conceivably get to where we want to be. But, again, as
    General Rochelle says, that is contingent upon things coming
    down out of Iraq in the way we think and depending on what
    happens in Afghanistan. But we have seen an increase in our
    dwell time.
        Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. I think my time has run out.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Bordallo.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
        And good afternoon to all our witnesses.
        I would like to ask you, General Rochelle or Ms. McGinn, a
    question about the Army National Guard's end-strength. I
    represent Guam, where National Guard and Reserve personnel
    outnumber, per capita, any State in our Nation. And our ranking
    member, Mr. Wilson, will attest to that, because we attended a
    ceremony where these records were revealed.
        The Guard is authorized for an end-strength of 352,600,
    according to your reports here, but is currently at an end-
    strength of over 368,000. Given that the Commission on the
    National Guard and Reserve has indicated that the National
    Guard is a highly cost-effective means of national defense and
    that the National Guard has demonstrated through innovative
    means that it can meet end-strength goals, can you describe the
    benefits of permanently increasing the Army National Guard's
    end-strength to 371,000? And I want to also add to that,
    keeping in mind that they have a domestic role to play.
        Ms. McGinn.
        Ms. McGinn. I think that is a good question. General
    Rochelle may have a better answer, but I think I would need to
    consult with my colleagues back at home to give you that for
    the record so that I can give you a thoughtful response to it.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 161.]
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
        General.
        General Rochelle. It is a very good question.
        First of all, let me say that the Army National Guard--and
    I know it is true for the Air National Guard, as well--is an
    extraordinary force, more so today than ever in the past,
    because it has migrated from the strategic reserve context to a
    much more relevant context, that of an operational reserve. And
    we are asking a great deal of our Army National Guard and Air
    National Guard soldiers, airmen, and leaders.
        However, an operational reserve--first of all, let me say
    that 358,200, which is the current authorization, is
    sufficient, in my estimation, to cover down on both operational
    reserve demands in the Global War on Terror today, as well as
    to address the needs of governors across the United States and
    Guam.
        Whether or not it would be efficacious to grow the Guard
    beyond that should be based upon operational demands, either in
    the state or operational and increased demand that we see for
    forces--Army forces and air forces--in the current environment.
    And I think it would be a prudent move, with that, to look at
    it strictly from the perspective of the demand for those
    forces.
        There remains some reshaping that we may need to look at
    for the Guard in terms of structure, what is in those forces at
    358,200.
        But I would like to conclude by simply echoing, once again,
    Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn, who you may know, a great,
    great leader who will retire on the 1st of June, is both my
    next-door neighbor and dear, dear friend. And he deserves many
    of the same accolades that the chairwoman and others have
    bestowed upon General Coleman and myself.
        Our Guard, the Army National Guard in particular, is
    awesome.
        Ms. Bordallo. If I could just add to that, what are the
    potential benefits of creating a Trainees, Transients, Holdees,
    and Students (TTHS) account for the Guam National Guard?
        General Rochelle. Actually, I would expand my answer to
    your question. Creating a TTHS account for the Army National
    Guard and the Army Reserve would be a very prudent move, very
    prudent.
        Ms. Bordallo. Very good.
        And one other short question, Madam Chair, just a short
    question. I think Ms. McGinn would probably be the best to
    answer this. This is for my own information.
        What are the percentages of members of the military
    personnel--now, this is the active military personnel--who
    continue in the military service, make it a career, as opposed
    to those who leave the military service? Do you have any
    numbers? And that would include all the branches.
        Ms. McGinn. I think it would vary by branch. The Marine
    Corps has had--and General Coleman can speak to this--Marine
    Corps has had higher turnover of first-term Marines than the
    other services. And so I think that we would have to get you
    those numbers by branch.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 161.]
        Ms. Bordallo. I would appreciate that. And I didn't want to
    go into all the branches here, but just overall what the
    retention is.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        I want to turn to a discussion about those service members
    who are unavailable to deploy, we call them nondeployables, but
    who are not able to deploy with their units for whatever
    reason.
        General Chiarelli mentioned recently, the Army Vice Chief
    of Staff, that the number of Army service members who are
    nondeployable has become a burden on the force that threatens
    the Army's ability to fill deploying units to required levels
    and to achieve its objectives to reduce operation tempo and
    increase dwell time between deployments.
        It sounds like that active nondeployable population is
    around 27,000, is that correct, as of April of 2009?
        And I wonder, General Rochelle, if you could comment then.
    Given this current number, was the Army forced to give up the
    brigade combat teams (BCT), going from 48 to 45, as a result of
    that? Is that at play here, that the additional end-strength
    for manning those levels couldn't be achieved at the higher
    level? Where does that come into play? I mean, obviously, the
    shift from 48 to 45 BCTs has an impact, in a number of ways,
    for the ability to carry on the operations.
        General Rochelle. An excellent question, Madam Chair.
        And let me say at the very outset that the shift from 48 to
    45 brigade combat teams, as has been testified in the past by
    both the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the
    Army--and I think the Vice Chief, as well--was intended to give
    us the ability to thicken our forces. In other words, we
    weren't chasing that additional structure inside a 547,400 end-
    strength, which would have stretched us even a little bit more.
    So it was a prudent move, but it remains to be seen over time
    relative to demand.
        To your specific question, 26,936 nondeployables, temporary
    as well as permanent nondeployables, were indeed reported
    through our unit status reporting process in the month of
    April. And I want to emphasize that it is a moving target. A
    soldier who is nondeployable for a temporary reason this week
    may be fully deployable next week, and vice versa. So it moves
    fairly substantially.
        But I will bring it into focus at the brigade combat team
    level. The Army G1 tracks, through rear detachment reporting,
    for our next-to-deploy brigades what the nondeployable rate is
    inside that brigade, frankly because it is a measure of whether
    or not we are going to meet our very, very critical gates in
    terms of operational manning for that deploying unit. And we
    are committed to ensuring that we deploy, as I said in my oral
    statement, the best trained, the best equipped, and the best
    led, and that includes the best manned.
        The last 14 brigade combat teams, as we looked at their
    average nondeployables, averaged 11 percent, which is up, I
    might add, from over a year ago, prior to the surge, where
    nondeployable rates were trending between 8 percent and 10
    percent. As we look at the most recent brigades, five, to
    deploy, of that 11, we saw an uptick to 12 percent.
        Now, that is somewhat alarming for two reasons. I think it
    illustrates the cumulative effect of seven-plus years of war.
    It represents the impacts of too short dwell, 1.3 years at home
    for every one year deployed. And it is cumulative. And we are
    gaining some tremendous insights as a result of that.
        To your question, however, we are able to deploy today the
    best trained, the best manned, the best equipped, and the best
    led soldiers downrange to do the Nation's bidding. Back to the
    question of risk, in terms of the future, my concern would be,
    if we cannot bring that dwell down, then we will begin to see
    other problems in addition to the ability to meet the manning
    levels.
        Mrs. Davis. Yeah.
        Others? General Newton, would you like to comment on that?
        General Newton. Other than the fact that, again, we try to
    focus on our Expeditionary Air Force and our expeditionary
    airmen to make sure that their contribution to the fight, that
    they are ready, they are trained well for whatever the joint
    war-fight may take us.
        Mrs. Davis. Admiral Ferguson.
        Admiral Ferguson. The Navy population of limited duty or
    medically not able to deploy is relatively small, roughly in
    the two percent to four percent range of the enlisted force. So
    it is not a significant problem. And our Safe Harbor Wounded
    Warrior program has about 400 individuals, for example. So, for
    us, it is not as significant an issue.
        Mrs. Davis. General Coleman.
        General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. For us, the nondeployables--
    and we have and I would believe all the services have what we
    call P2T2, and that is the Patients, Prisoners, Trainees,
    Transients. And that is an everyday occurrence, and every day
    that changes.
        But when you take that away and you are talking about
    combat units deploying, the Marine Corps will not deploy a
    unit--infantry battalion is deployed at 100 percent. Now, what
    that means is that a unit deploying has 100 percent but the
    unit back home may not be at 100 percent because we stole from
    Peter to pay Paul.
        Mrs. Davis. And I guess we end up with more individual
    augmentees as a result of that, too, which creates some
    additional problems; is that correct?
        General Coleman. Not in infantry battalions, ma'am. When
    you go to an infantry battalion, you have--for the Marine
    Corps, anyway--we have a six-month buildup. So when you deploy,
    you have been with that unit for 6 months before they deploy.
        Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you.
        General Rochelle. In our case, because we are committed to
    eliminating stop-loss, the challenge that I just articulated
    makes the mountain that we have to climb just a little bit
    higher.
        Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. Actually, the brigade combat teams question,
    the number reduced from 48 to 45, was my interest. So I
    appreciate that that has been discussed.
        And so I would be happy to defer to Dr. Fleming.
        Mrs. Davis. Dr. Fleming, welcome.
        Dr. Fleming. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Well, first of all, let me say that I thank you for being
    here today to testify. And on the issue of personnel, that is,
    in my opinion and I think the committee as a whole, to be the
    most important asset that we have in armed services. So I
    appreciate your focus on that.
        More specifically, Ms. McGinn, in your testimony you
    mention that DOD is looking at altering the meritorious award
    system, medals, based on the new realities of the war on
    terror. Can you elaborate on that some?
        Ms. McGinn. Yes. As a result of action from the Congress,
    we have new medals now for Iraqi Campaign Medal, Afghanistan
    Campaign Medal, Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal, and
    the like. And so what we have been doing is systemically going
    through our records and policies for awards of medals and
    meritorious citations, and we are updating our policies on that
    to reflect the new kinds of decorations that we have for now.
        Dr. Fleming. Thank you.
        Is there any change in the Valor Award criteria?
        Ms. McGinn. That I don't know. I will have to get back to
    you.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 161.]
        Dr. Fleming. Anyone else on the panel have any input?
        General Rochelle. Sir, let me comment on that, if I may. I
    was a member of the panel, a member of the board, if you will,
    working that issue in the Department of Defense. And almost
    unanimously--I believe it was not unanimous--but I want to
    mention something here that I think is very important.
        Each of the service senior enlisted advisors were present
    on this matter of valorous awards. And, to a person, they felt
    that we should not change the valorous award criteria--and I
    concurred with that and supported it--while we are in our
    current conflict.
        Dr. Fleming. Okay.
        I will ask a totally unrelated question. You know, there
    has been this problem or issue with two wars that have gone on
    longer than we would have liked at levels that are more intense
    than we would like.
        I would love to hear from the panel, whoever would like to
    step up on this one, what is the sustainability of that? You
    know, we have a very active Reserve. They are not a reserve
    Reserve in the classic sense any longer. And some people who
    have been in the Reserves have had several deployments, have
    been more active-duty than they have not-active-duty.
        So I would love to hear comments from the panel on this.
        Ms. McGinn. Can I just say that, if you look at the
    retention statistics from the services, where just about every
    retention goal has been met, it tells you that the All-
    Volunteer Force is working.
        The Gates Commission that was the commission that
    recommended the All-Volunteer Force had predicted that, in a
    time of prolonged conflict, it wouldn't stand up. But it is
    doing very, very well, thanks to the work of my colleagues here
    and thanks to your help. Because what is very critical are the
    bonuses and the funding for recruiting and retention that we
    get. And so we are sustaining very well, at this point.
        General Newton. Sir, if I may, just to briefly chime in, it
    is certainly a total force effort, not only from an active-
    duty, Guard and Reserve standpoint, but also the aspect of how
    we, as the United States Air Force, contribute to that joint
    fight.
        I would also mention to you that, for 2009, we have
    dedicated it the ``Year of the Air Force Family.'' And the
    reason I say that is the balance of effort and resources and so
    forth, it is important to us not only on our men and women in
    uniform, regardless of active-duty, Guard and Reserve, but also
    our family members as well, that we emphasize their value,
    their service, and their commitment.
        Dr. Fleming. Anyone else?
        General Rochelle. Sir, for the Army, it is about dwell. It
    is whether or not we will have the ability, as predicted, to
    have a slightly less demand--or a substantially less demand
    that would allow us to get to the optimum levels of time home
    against time deployed for the active component as well as the
    Army Reserve and Army National Guard components.
        And the current level, as I said earlier in my testimony,
    the current levels of dwell are unsustainable.
        Dr. Fleming. Okay.
        Yes, sir?
        Admiral Ferguson. In our survey data of members and their
    families throughout the conflict, what we have seen is that the
    support of the Congress, in terms of compensation, health care
    is extremely important and access to it, the family support
    programs. We have had to expand our own health care programs,
    providers, as well as family support programs. And that has
    been the biggest ability that we have demonstrated, I think, to
    support families and has kept morale high.
        General Coleman. Thank you, sir.
        Sir, I would say that, for the Marine Corps, we are doing
    extremely well. Our reenlistment rates are higher amongst those
    marines that deploy than those that do not deploy. I believe
    our families, thanks to you all, are being taken care of much
    better than ever before. And, as importantly, the American
    people support the military to a higher degree.
        Ms. McGinn. Can I throw one more thing into the mix? One of
    the things that we are doing now, it is really a new
    initiative, is building a civilian expeditionary workforce so
    that our civilian employees can step up to do some of the
    missions that our military personnel have to do right now,
    particularly in the phase-four post-conflict operations,
    stability operations, humanitarian missions. We are asking
    civilians who would be willing to come forward and volunteer to
    be sent on those kinds of assignments to identify themselves.
        And we have a few thousand in the mix, and it is a brand-
    new initiative. So it is very small right now, but hopefully it
    will pay off in the future.
        Dr. Fleming. Madam Chairwoman, if I could just close the
    loop on this very quickly, let me say that an All-Volunteer
    Force is an expensive force, but I think it is a great
    investment. I think it is worth every penny of it.
        My understanding is that the active-duty member today is
    likely to have a family, as opposed to in previous years. And
    it would be my sense that they can perform much longer overseas
    in harder conditions if they know their families are well taken
    care of, which I think is such a high priority today. And so I
    thank you in your efforts in doing this.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        Ms. Tsongas.
        Ms. Tsongas. I hate to pick on you, General Rochelle, but
    since you mentioned stop-loss, I just am curious: Again, do you
    think that you can achieve the timetable that is in place? And
    is it subject, really, to the dynamic of how we are able to
    bring down soldiers in order to respond to the needs in
    Afghanistan?
        General Rochelle. It cannot be done in isolation from the
    challenges of deployers, nondeployers, et cetera. It
    exacerbates the challenge. But we can do it. We can absolutely
    do it. But we will be challenged.
        Ms. Tsongas. So the timetable, you still feel confident,
    or----
        General Rochelle. I do.
        Ms. Tsongas. You do.
        And then the follow-up question is, in terms of the
    sustainability and the issue of dwell time being so key,
    General Chiarelli, I think, recently testified of the enormous
    mental strains that our soldiers are currently experiencing,
    and the need we have for mental health care professionals,
    chaplains and I think he said substance abuse counselors.
        So, as you face many questions, really, around how quickly
    you are going to be able to address the issue of dwell time,
    knowing the great strains that are going to continue to be
    placed on our soldiers, how are you responding to that in terms
    of the need for these professionals?
        General Rochelle. Well, we have actually had much help from
    the Congress and help even from Office of Personnel Management
    (OPM) on addressing health care professionals. The ability to
    do direct hire for civilians, which has helped us a lot in
    isolated areas. The ability, if you will, to bypass some of the
    merit-based hiring practices that are extraordinarily
    cumbersome.
        For the Congress, we have been given the authority to offer
    very attractive bonuses, and for individuals going through the
    Health Professions Scholarship Program, to offer them
    additional incentives as well. So we have received support in
    both.
        Ms. McGinn. Can I jump in on that from a DOD-wide
    perspective?
        We have been aggressively pursuing more mental health
    providers in our health care system. We actually have, since
    2007, I think 1,900 more in our military treatment facilities
    and about 10,000 more in our contracted TRICARE operation.
        We have expanded the number of confidential counseling
    sessions you can have with our Military One Source, which is
    also a call-in support line we have for our families. And we
    have provided for confidential mental health counseling under
    TRICARE.
        Today, I think we rolled out a major mental health campaign
    called Real Warriors, which is a marketing campaign designed to
    do away with the stigma of showing up for help if you have a
    mental health problem and to reinforce the fact that leaders
    should encourage their service member subordinates to seek help
    for that just as they would seek help for anything else.
        So we have been working very closely with the Department of
    Veterans Affairs and established a Center of Excellence on
    Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury. And we have
    been moving very, very aggressively towards solving the mental
    health problem.
        Ms. Tsongas. Would any others like to comment?
        It seems as though we have made great strides. And I know
    that Congress wants to be a partner with you, but that we just
    can't seem to keep up with it, that even General Chiarelli
    said, ``I need more, and I don't know where I am going to get
    them.'' So I think it is an ongoing challenge that we all have
    an obligation to face.
        But thank you.
        Ms. McGinn. It is. It is a national problem, in terms of
    shortage of mental health providers.
        General Rochelle. If I may follow up, ma'am, one of the
    things we are learning is that our basis of authorization for
    mental health providers was designed, if you will, in a Cold
    War environment. And it is inadequate for what we are facing
    and what our soldiers are experiencing today.
        And I would especially mention the fact that, in addition
    to what Ms. McGinn said, I fully agree with, that there is a
    challenge nationally to grow the mental health care providers,
    health care providers in general, that we need. It is
    especially acute in our ability to find individuals capable of
    donning the uniform and providing those services to our
    soldiers in Afghanistan at Sharana and--you name the combat
    outpost.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas.
        And it is really interesting because I think that, almost
    every discussion that we have lately, we turn towards mental
    health issues. I mean, we end up talking about them. We will be
    having a hearing solely on mental health issues, post-traumatic
    stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the
    impacts on family, as well, because we want to highlight those
    issues and we know it is critical.
        I am delighted to hear about the program that is being
    unveiled. And we know that the issue of stigma is an important
    and a critical one.
        I wanted to turn quickly, Ms. McGinn, to an issue that is
    going to hit us in the face here pretty soon. And we are seeing
    the first concurrent receipt legislative proposal offered by
    the Administration. And it is a very welcomed shift, I think we
    all feel that way, in the concurrent receipt landscape, which
    will really set a precedent for future initiatives.
        The President's budget request does provide sufficient
    mandatory offsets to support the legislative proposal, but none
    of those offsets are within the Defense accounts and,
    therefore, not within the management reach of the House
    Committee on Armed Services.
        And I am wondering, Ms. McGinn, what the Department's
    position on the offsets is. And will the Department and the
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assist the committee in
    identifying some offsets that are most likely to be available
    for inclusion with the provisions in the national defense
    authorization bill?
        Ms. McGinn. Well, Madam Chairman, I wasn't part of the
    conversation around the offsets, so I will have to get back to
    you on that so I can get a good answer for you.
        Mrs. Davis. Okay. What it does is limit our ability to act
    in some other areas. And, while we welcome it, we really are
    interested in how you all are going to be handling it, as well.
    So that would be of help to us.
        I know that there are a number of family initiatives that
    you have been speaking about and are considering. I would like
    you to just let us know what initiatives that you are really
    most proud of that will result from a 2010 funding request.
    What are you hoping that is new, provides additional services
    to our families, that we might be able to follow and evaluate
    in the future?
        General Coleman. Ma'am, I would say for us, the money that
    this Congress has allowed us to work with as far as family
    readiness, it has allowed us to hire folks rather than a key
    volunteer or someone working with and for the families on an
    all-volunteer basis. We have been able, thanks to you all, to
    hire folks to do that.
        So I don't know that there is anything more important than
    the funding that Congress has given us to take care of our
    families--nothing more. And as long as we maintain that,
    because a Marine or any service man or woman that deploys and
    knows that his or her family is taken care of is a much better
    service man or woman.
        Admiral Ferguson. I would offer, too, is the important
    support of the Congress on recruiting and retaining medical
    personnel--dental, nurses, Medical Service Corps, mental health
    practitioners. Those bonuses are very important to us, and to
    protect those is important.
        In terms of the programs for the Navy, we have rolled out
    what we call the Operational Stress Control. And we have
    introduced this training to up to 16,000 service members,
    everyone going into theater, coming out, and then also
    expanding it to the whole force. And the budget request
    supports us expanding that, essentially, education awareness of
    service members and how they react to stress and be able to
    remove the stigma of it. I think that is an important program
    that you will see from us in the future.
        Ms. McGinn. I think that a lot of what is in the budget is
    an expansion of the important things that we are already doing;
    child care being principal among them, to try to meet the unmet
    demand for child care.
        There are a couple of things--obviously, there was a litany
    of them in my testimony. The spouse career accounts, where we
    provide funding for spouses to get certifications for careers
    and we can start to build a career base for our spouses. I
    think spouse employment is incredibly important.
        And I also think that the Yellow Ribbon Program, where we
    reach out to the Reserve component upon their deployment and
    their coming home, working with their families and easing the
    stress of the deployments for the Reserves is another very
    important one.
        General Rochelle. I would echo Ms. McGinn's opening
    comment, which is that much of what you see in the fiscal year
    2010 budget is a continuation of the wonderful programs that
    the Congress has authorized us to have and to offer primarily
    to our families. I would echo the words of General Creighton
    Abrams, a former Chief of Staff of the Army, who said that the
    Army isn't about people, it is people. And that is very, very
    true. It is perhaps even more true today than it was then, if
    that is possible.
        I would highlight one particular area that is fully funded
    in the budget that is vital, with those two previous comments
    in mind, and that is, one, the family readiness support
    assistance, which the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of
    Staff of the Army two years ago carved out of existing
    authorizations and existing funds to resource down to the
    brigade and battalion level in order to address what they
    clearly recognized as the fragile fabric of that family
    readiness. And repeated deployments: Once again, dwell being at
    one year for every 1.3 years back at home. And for our Army
    National Guard and Army Reserve, the same.
        General Newton. Madam Chairwoman, as I mentioned earlier,
    2009 is the ``Year of the Air Force Family.'' And as we move
    forward into the fiscal year 2010 through 2015 budget years, we
    are also continuing to make a deep investment in our families.
    There is a balance in terms of our men and women in uniform and
    our civilians, but also our family members as well.
        I believe Dr. Fleming had talked about the operations tempo
    and so forth in a previous discussion. The stress on the
    families is significant, and we are anticipating it to remain
    significant. We have taken great steps, through the support of
    this committee and support of resources, to narrow down our
    open child care spaces from over 6,400 nearly down to zero by
    fiscal year 2011 and so forth, as we continue to make sure
    that, again, we take care of what are mission-critical efforts
    for our Air Force family, as well.
        And I will just close on this point, that we hosted a Year
    of the Family symposium that lasted two days where we looked at
    a number of initiatives that we are going to follow through,
    not necessarily just for fiscal year 2009 but for the out-years
    as well, from family support and Guard and Reserve support,
    school support; the challenges that children have, on average
    moving five, six, seven times.
        I was an Air Force kid; I moved 13 times in 12 years of
    school and so forth. I brought my wife Jodi with me today, and
    I think we are on our 18th or 19th move. But can you imagine
    the impact that has on a lot of our service men and women? That
    will continue to remain.
        Thank you.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
        And thank you, Jodi, for being here. We appreciate it. We
    know that you sacrifice a great deal and are a great support.
    And thank you very much for being here and for being part of
    this.
        Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. Admiral Ferguson, a few minutes ago you
    mentioned Navy JROTC. And I want to give you a first-line
    report.
        Saturday, I went to an awards dinner at Chapin High School,
    Chapin, South Carolina. There were nearly 400 people there. And
    Colonel Buddy Slack, Chief Charlie Cook, the personnel you have
    there, it was just really uplifting to me. My wife and I were
    just so impressed by the young people serving the families. We
    have known so many of the families over the years, and to see
    these young people, what an extraordinary opportunity. And they
    will have a great future.
        Another issue you mentioned was individual augmentees. I
    would like to know what the status in the Navy as to individual
    augmentees and what the Navy is doing for families who have had
    individual augmentee deployments.
        Admiral Ferguson. That is a great question.
        Presently, there are about 11,000 on the ground in Central
    Command Navy personnel. And, on any given day, there may be
    more personnel on the ground than there are at sea in the
    waters off Iraq.
        And so, last October, the Chief of Naval Operations
    designated a four-star, Admiral Greenert down at Fleet Forces
    Command in Norfolk, to be the lead executive agent for
    individual augmentee support and family support.
        We have formed a federated council: the Chief of the Navy
    Reserves; the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Admiral Robinson;
    Admiral Greenert's deputy; myself. And we formed together and
    look at all the ways to support families and do that. And so,
    having a four-star in charge of that, with us as a council to
    help him, has provided that to the families, where we do
    following, we assign mentors for them, we track them and
    provide assistance where we can.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, it is really, again, inspiring to me to
    know the talented people serving in the Navy who have
    volunteered to serve around the world as sand sailors, many of
    them trained at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
        Admiral Ferguson. That is correct.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
        Before we close--and I certainly appreciate everybody
    having been here. I know that members have other committees to
    go to today. But one of the areas that we speak about often are
    the critical-need areas that we have in the services. And I
    wondered if you believe that we should open up some ideas about
    how we might have more commissioned officers who don't
    necessarily always come from the ranks of citizens, that
    perhaps have green cards, have talents, have abilities that we
    might look to for help in the services. We have some
    opportunities with the Reserves and also with the enlisted, but
    not with commissioned officers.
        Any thoughts about that and whether or not that is an area
    that we ought to explore more?
        General Rochelle. I would like very much to offer a
    thought, Madam Chairwoman.
        First of all, a little background to get to your question.
    Several years ago, when I was the Commanding General (CG) of
    Recruiting Command, I was called to the Pentagon and asked if
    we could launch a program to recruit Middle Eastern-born
    individuals, primarily in the Dearborn, Michigan, area, which
    was where it began. That program is called--and it still
    exists--the O-9 Lima Interpreter Program. It broke the mold a
    little bit because these, indeed, are citizens, in many cases,
    but they were unable to pass the standard Armed Services
    Vocational Aptitude Battery.
        A few years later, last year, to be precise, fiscal 2008,
    if my memory serves correctly, we launched the Military
    Accessions Vital to National Interest Program--in fact, it may
    have only been this year, this fiscal year--which was targeted
    toward visa holders. And what we saw is that we were able to
    attract a much better educated individual. Nothing wrong with
    the O-9 Lima interpreters, but we opened up a whole new vista.
    And that program has proved very, very fruitful for the Army. I
    have not tracked so closely the other services' accessions in
    it.
        To your specific question, I believe, because of the
    challenges we face, which we have talked about today, in terms
    of health care professionals, scientists, and individuals with
    very highly specialized skills, that it is time to ask the
    difficult question: Should we, indeed, change Title 10 United
    States Code to allow us to commission individuals in a
    military-accessions and skills-vital-to-national-interest
    style? I believe it is.
        Mrs. Davis. Anybody else want to comment on that?
        Well, it is a discussion, perhaps, that we need to have in
    the future. And I appreciate the fact that sometimes, when one
    is retiring, you can bring up some issues that might have been
    tougher earlier on.
        General Rochelle. No, Ms. McGinn just said my opinion
    hasn't changed.
        Mrs. Davis. It hasn't changed; it has been there. Right.
    Well, I appreciate that.
        And we always really encourage people to stick out on
    issues which may not always be easy but have, certainly, some
    merit as we move forward. Because people are critical, and
    being able to reach out and really engage Americans, people who
    are in our country, productive and contributing, is always an
    important issue for us.
        And so I want to thank you very much again.
        General Coleman and General Rochelle, thank you for your
    dedicated service. We will miss you at these hearings, but we
    wish you well.
        And thank you to all of you being here.
        The committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  May 21, 2009

    =======================================================================

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                  May 21, 2009

    =======================================================================

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                  WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                                  THE HEARING

                                  May 21, 2009

    =======================================================================

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO

        Ms. McGinn. The Department supports the President's Budget.
        The end strengths for the Reserve components are as follows:

    Army National Guard                                              358,200
    Army Reserve                                                     205,000
    Navy Reserve                                                      65,500
    Marine Corps Res.                                                 39,600
    Air Force Reserves                                                69,500
    Air National Guard                                               106,700
    Coast Guard Reserves                                              10,000
                                                          ------------------
    Total                                                            854,500

        [See page 20.]

        Ms. McGinn. The percentages of Service members who enter active
    duty that can be expected to remain until the 20-years-of-service point
    and retirement is as follows:
                    Service                     Officer          EnlistedArmy                                               36%              13%
    Navy                                               35%              13%
    USMC                                               35%               8%
    USAF                                               40%              22%

        The continuation rates are consistent with historical rates and
    what managed attrition and career field manpower pyramids demand of
    retention to maintain a balanced force. Desired retention is a
    component of end strength and grade requirements. Strength is generally
    derived from three components that must be continually balanced--
    recruiting capable people, controlling initial term attrition, and
    retaining the skill and grade mixes required to fill the critical
    military structures. The continuation rates across the Military
    Departments are further complicated by the needs of specific military
    occupational specialties within each of the Services which have varying
    manpower grade structures. [See page 21.]
                                     ______

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. FLEMING
        Ms. McGinn. In answering this question, the Department's assumption
    is that the question refers to the high-level valor awards that are
    common to all Military Departments, which includes: The Medal of Honor,
    Service Crosses (Distinguished Service Cross--Army; Navy Cross--Navy
    and Marine Corps; Air Force Cross--Air Force), and Silver Star.
        There have been no changes to the Department's valor award
    criteria. The Department's policies and procedures for awarding
    valorous decorations and awards are outlined in Department of Defense
    Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, DOD 1348.33-M. The manual
    promulgates, without elaboration, valor award criteria as stipulated by
    statute and Executive Orders. Application and adherence to the criteria
    in recognizing the valorous actions and performances of Service members
    fall primarily under the purview of the Secretaries of the Military
    Departments. The Military Department Secretaries are directed by
    Department of Defense policy to establish procedures in their
    respective Departments to ensure compliance with the policies and
    procedures outlined in the Department's Manual of Military Decorations
    and Awards.
        Additionally, there have been no changes to the valor award
    criteria contained in each respective Military Department's military
    decorations and awards manuals, regulations, or instructions. [See page
    23.]
    ?

    =======================================================================

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                  May 21, 2009

    =======================================================================

                      QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOEBSACK

        Mr. Loebsack. What is each of the Services doing to improve access
    to family support services, including child care, for both the active
    duty and the Reserve Components? What challenges do you face in
    providing family support to the Reserve Components? What plans are in
    place to overcome these challenges? Do you believe that sufficient
    resources are allocated to make families of the Reserve Components
    aware of the services available to them?
        General Rochelle. In 2007, the Army unveiled the Army Family
    Covenant, a commitment to provide Soldiers and their Families a quality
    of life commensurate with their level of service and sacrifice to the
    Nation. In the two years since the Covenant was unveiled, the Army has
    developed aggressive improvement strategies resulting in significant
    improvements in Soldier and Family quality of life, including Family
    programs and services; increased accessibility to health care; improved
    housing; excellence in schools, child, and youth services; and expanded
    education and employment opportunities for Family members.
        Since the Covenant's inception the Army has implemented the Army
    National Guard's Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program to minimize
    stresses of military service, particularly the stress of deployment and
    Family separation. We have added more than 1,000 Family Readiness
    Support Assistant positions to enhance administrative and logistical
    support to Family Readiness Groups. We also established Army OneSource
    to provide Soldiers and their Families access to standardized services,
    programs, and support. We supported 249 Army National Guard Family
    Assistance Centers, which provide Soldiers and Families support
    services, regardless of geographic location, and expanded community-
    based outreach to geographically dispersed children of deployed Active,
    Guard, and Reserve Soldiers through Operation: Military Kids.
        Reaching geographically dispersed Soldiers and Families with
    information and services, especially those in the Reserve Component, is
    one of our greatest challenges. In 2008, the National Guard Bureau
    created the Soldier Family Services and Support Division to provide
    Family program resources, guidance, and training to all states and
    territories. The Reserve Component also communicate consistently with
    State Offices or subordinate commands to improve processes and update
    programs based on changing needs. Through coordination with the Reserve
    Component, we will continue to improve programs and services and ensure
    all Soldiers and Families are aware of the programs and services
    available to them.
        Through the Army Family Covenant, Army leadership has committed to
    enhancing the quality of support to Soldiers and their Families across
    the entire Army and has doubled its investment in base funding from
    fiscal year 2007 to 2010. So, yes, we believe the Army has sufficient
    resources to inform both Active and Reserve Component Families of the
    services available to them.
        Admiral Ferguson. Through a Navy-wide network, which includes Navy
    Installations Command, Fleet and Family Support Centers, Navy Reserve
    Forces Family Support Coordinator, five regional Family Support
    Administrators and their Navy Operational Support Center (NOSC) staffs,
    Navy continues to make significant strides in improving resources and
    support for families of active and reserve Sailors, placing particular
    emphasis on those who do not reside in Fleet Concentration Areas where
    services are more readily available. Initiatives include:

          Reducing waiting time for child care and expanding access
    by adding approximately 7,000 new child care spaces through
    construction of 26 child development centers (including 24/7
    facilities), converting existing pre-school age spaces into infant
    spaces to meet the greatest demand, establishing commercial contracts
    in communities across the United States, and expanding military
    certified home care.

          Reaching remotely located families through information
    technology, providing virtual family discussion groups and workshops,
    publication of a monthly E-newsletter and distribution of Family,
    Sailor and Command Individual Augmentee (IA) Handbooks.

          Developing and delivering an electronic deployment
    toolkit/sea bag to better equip school administrators and staff in
    working with children of deployed Sailors.

          Providing a comprehensive Personal Financial Management
    (PFM) program that emphasizes a proactive, career life-cycle approach
    to family and individual savings and investment, delivered through a
    network of accredited financial counselors and educators at Fleet and
    Family Support Centers and Command Financial Specialists, with
    collaboration from partner organizations.

          Launching a family awareness effort of Operational Stress
    Control (OSC) initiatives incorporated into existing family support
    programs and services that center on promoting psychological health,
    reducing stigma associated with seeking psychological services and
    improving resilience in Sailors and their families.

          Implementing a ``Give Parents a Break'' program and
    embedding Child and Youth Behavior Consultants in our programs to
    provide a resource to observe and train our professionals in
    intervening to assist families facing challenges during deployments.

          Launching a new Navy-wide School Liaison Officer program
    designed to assist families and local school districts with dependent
    education issues arising from frequent moves and deployments.

        Challenges in supporting the Reserve component are centered on our
    ability to reach remotely located families impacted by deployment
    demands, and in restructuring support services to include extended
    family members of single Sailors. While we have made significant
    progress in providing resources and support to geographically dispersed
    families, repeated deployments continue to put strain on the system.
    Work remains to integrate available resources into an
    institutionalized, sustainable delivery system and to provide effective
    outreach to families and service providers informing them about
    resources available to them and how they may access them.
        The President's budget includes the resources necessary to continue
    our efforts to improve support services for active and reserve Sailors
    and their families, including making them more readily accessible.
        General Coleman. Over the past year, the Marine Corps initiated a
    multi-year strategy to transition family support programs to a wartime
    footing, per the Commandant's directive. To measure the effectiveness
    of our services and family support programs, we conducted a series of
    program assessments and received feedback from our Marines, their
    families, and our commanders. In response, we implemented key reforms
    at every level of command and aboard each installation. Central to our
    transformation efforts, we expanded the depth and breadth of our family
    readiness training and support programs and established the Unit,
    Personal and Family Readiness Program to educate our Marines and their
    families and to empower them to achieve and maintain a high state of
    personal readiness and resiliency. We continue to aggressively
    institute new Family Readiness Programs, revitalize services, and
    proactively reach out to our Reservists and their families to ensure
    our programs and services meet the changing needs and expectations of
    our Marines and their families.
        As part of transformation efforts, we are placing full-time Family
    Readiness Officers (FROs) at the battalion/squadron level and above,
    staffed by either civilians or Active Duty Marines, who serve as the
    focal point for our families and support the Commander's family
    readiness mission. Every Marine Corps Reserve unit throughout the
    country has a Family Readiness program that serves as the link between
    the command and family members--providing official communication,
    information, and referrals. As the ``communication hub'', the FRO
    provides families with information on the military lifestyle and
    benefits, provides answers for individual questions and areas of
    concerns, and enhances the sense of community and camaraderie within
    the unit. Outreach is conducted through various forms of communication
    to ensure that every family member is afforded access to the
    information. This includes live sessions conducted on or near the
    Reserve Training Facility, telephonic contact, email, USMC websites,
    links to on-line support services, newsletters, and marketing of
    national military resources to include the Joint Family Services
    Assistance Program (JFSAP).
        Understanding that communication is a key quality of life issue
    important to our Marines and their families, we conducted research and
    analysis to identify the communication needs of Marines and their
    families; the effectiveness of our current communication methods, and
    to develop a formal organizational communication system that would
    facilitate three-way communication: commands to Marines and families;
    Marines and families to commands; and Marines and families to each
    other. As a result, we are implementing a Mass Communication Tool which
    enables simultaneous broadcast of official communication via email,
    text messaging, or phone, and other technology enhancements to expand
    communications between the unit and Marines and their families
    regarding official communication or important unit training events. All
    of these tools are available to the Reserve Component as well as the
    Active Component.
        The Marine Corps' partnership with the Boys and Girls Clubs of
    America (BGCA) and the National Association for Child Care Resources
    and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) continues to provide a great resource
    for our service members and their families in selecting child care,
    before, during, and after a deployment in support of overseas
    contingency operations. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America provide
    outstanding programs for our Reserve Marines' children between the ages
    of six and 18 after school and on the weekends. Under our agreement
    with BGCA, Reserve families can participate in more than 40 programs at
    no cost. With NACCRRA, we help families of our Reservists locate
    affordable child care that is comparable to high-quality, on-base,
    military-operated programs. The NACCRRA provides child care subsidies
    at quality child care providers for our Reservists who are deployed in
    support of overseas contingency operations and for those Active Duty
    Marines who are stationed in regions that are geographically separated
    from military installations. We also partnered with the Early Head
    Start National Resource Center Zero to Three to expand services for
    family members of our Reservists who reside in isolated and
    geographically-separated areas.
        We restructured our Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) and
    established a continuum of care for our Marine families (on active duty
    30 or more days) enrolled in the program. This program, which is fully
    staffed at both the installation and headquarters levels, is helping
    nearly 6500 families gain access to medical, educational, and financial
    services that may be limited or restricted at certain duty stations. A
    Marine Corps-funded Respite Care Program provides up to 40 hours of
    free respite care per month to all enrolled families, and can be used
    in conjunction with the TRICARE Extended Care Health Option (ECHO)
    benefit. We are working with the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and
    TRICARE to resolve health care access and availability issues at
    several bases. In addition, legal counsel is now on staff to advise our
    exceptional family members on state and Federal entitlements and
    processes.
        We fully recognize the strategic role our families have in mission
    readiness, particularly mobilization preparedness. We prepare our
    families for day-to-day military life and the deployment cycle (Pre-
    Deployment, Deployment, Post-Deployment, and Follow-On) by providing
    educational opportunities at unit Family Days, Pre-Deployment Briefs,
    Return and Reunion Briefs, and Post-Deployment Briefs. Educational
    opportunities at these events include access to subject matter experts
    in areas such as Military OneSource, VA, TRICARE, legal, financial
    counseling, Chaplain, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR),
    Combat Operational Stress Control (COSC), and other resources that unit
    Commanding Officers determines would be beneficial to the unique
    circumstances of the Marines and families. This is accomplished through
    unit level Family Readiness programs that are the responsibility of the
    Commanding Officer, managed by the full-time, non-deploying FRO and
    supported by trained volunteers and Force level programs such as
    Lifestyle Insights, Networking, Knowledge, and Skills (L.I.N.K.S.). The
    L.I.N.K.S. program is a training and mentoring program designed by
    Marine spouses to help spouses, children and parents thrive in the
    military lifestyle and adapt to challenges--including those brought
    about by deployments.
        To better prepare our Marines and their families for activation,
    Marine Forces Reserve is fully engaged with OSD to implement the Yellow
    Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP), much of which we have had in place
    for quite some time. We continue to implement an interactive approach
    that provides numerous resources and services throughout the deployment
    cycle. Available resources include, but are not limited to, family-
    related publications, online volunteer training opportunities, and a
    family readiness/mobilization support toll free number. Family
    readiness educational materials have been updated to reflect the
    current deployment environment. Specifically, deployment guide
    templates that are easily adapted to be unit-specific were distributed
    to unit commanders and family readiness personnel, as well as Marine
    Corps families, and are currently available on our Web site. Services
    such as pastoral care, Military OneSource, and various mental health
    services are readily available to our Reserve Marines' families. Also,
    through the DoD contract with the Armed Services YMCA, the families of
    our deployed Reserve Marines are enjoying complimentary fitness
    memberships at participating YMCA's throughout the United States and
    Puerto Rico. Our Active Duty Marines and their families located at
    Independent Duty Stations have the ability to access these services as
    well.
        Managed Health Network (MHN) is an OSD-contracted support resource
    that provides surge augmentation counselors for our base counseling
    centers and primary support at sites around the country to address
    catastrophic requirements. This unique program is designed to bring
    counselors on-site at Reserve Training Centers to support all phases of
    the deployment cycle. Marine Forces Reserve has incorporated this
    resource into post-demobilization drill periods, Family Days, Pre-
    Deployment Briefs, and Return & Reunion Briefs. Follow-up services are
    scheduled after Marines return from combat at various intervals to
    facilitate on-site individual and group counseling. Additionally, we
    are utilizing these counselors to conduct post-demobilization
    telephonic contact with Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Marines in order
    to assess their needs and connect them to services.
        The Peacetime/Wartime Support Team (PWST) and the support structure
    within the Inspector-Instructor staffs at our Reserve sites provides
    families of activated and deployed Marines with assistance in
    developing proactive, prevention-oriented steps such as family care
    plans, powers of attorney, family financial planning, and enrollment in
    the Dependent Eligibility and Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS).
    During their homecoming, our Marines who have deployed consistently
    cite the positive importance of family support programs.
        Geographic dispersion and proximity to active duty installation
    services has been and will continue to be the greatest challenge to
    providing support to Reservists and their families. To overcome these
    challenges and strengthen family support programs, we will continue to
    enhance, market, and sustain outreach capabilities. The current OSD-
    level oversight, sponsorship, and funding of family support programs
    properly corresponds to current requirements. We are particularly
    supportive of Military OneSource, which provides our Reservists and
    their families with an around-the-clock information and referral
    service via toll-free telephone and Internet access on a variety of
    subjects such as parenting, childcare, education, finances, legal
    issues, elder care, health, wellness, deployment, crisis support, and
    relocation.
        General Newton. Guard and Reserve members and their families are
    actively included in programs offered to Active Duty Airmen and their
    families. To meet the challenges of working with geographically-
    dispersed Airmen and their families, we recently conducted a Caring for
    People Forum to identify any gaps in service, in which the Guard and
    Reserve participated. Additionally, we meet with active, Guard and
    Reserve family coordinators to determine areas we can develop and
    enhance partnerships to overcome challenges that exist.
        In a constrained environment, we provide support to meet the
    greatest needs of our Airmen and families. As such, we value our
    national partnerships, state relationships, and interagency
    partnerships with the Department of Defense and our sister services to
    be able to expand our resources. We are further challenged with
    identifying the needs for child care as the Guard and Reserve families
    are geographically dispersed throughout the country in a wide variety
    of settings where local services may not be available.