[Senate Hearing 107-696]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-696, Pt. 6
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2225
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
PART 6
PERSONNEL
----------
FEBRUARY 13, MARCH 13, 20, APRIL 11, 2002
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
S. Hrg. 107-696, Pt. 6
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2225
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 6
PERSONNEL
__________
FEBRUARY 13, MARCH 13, 20, APRIL 11, 2002
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-927 PDF WASHINGTON : 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JOHN WARNER, Virginia,
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MAX CLELAND, Georgia BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BILL NELSON, Florida WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
David S. Lyles, Staff Director
Judith A. Ansley, Republican Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Personnel
MAX CLELAND, Georgia, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JACK REED, Rhode Island STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BILL NELSON, Florida WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Active and Reserve Military and Civilian Personnel Programs
february 13, 2002
Page
Chu, Dr. David S.C., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness...................................................... 6
Brown, Hon. Reginald J., Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs................................... 23
Navas, Hon. William A., Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs................................... 32
Dominguez, Hon. Michael L., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs............................... 40
Tilley, Sgt. Maj. Jack L., USA................................... 50
McMichael, Sgt. Maj. Alford L., USMC............................. 56
Herdt, Master Chief Petty Officer James L., USN.................. 60
Finch, Chief Master Sergeant Frederick J., USAF.................. 64
Duehring, Craig W., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Reserve Affairs.................................... 83
Davis, Lt. Gen. Russell C., ANG, Chief, National Guard Bureau.... 93
Bambrough, Maj. Gen. Craig, USAR, Deputy Commanding General, U.S.
Army Reserve Command........................................... 100
Totushek, Vice Adm. John B., USNR, Commander, Naval Reserve Force 111
Sherrard, Lt. Gen. James E., III, USAF, Chief, Air Force Reserve. 117
McCarthy, Lt. Gen. Dennis M., USMCR, Commander, Marine Forces
Reserve........................................................ 124
Defense Health Program
march 13, 2002
Winkenwerder, Hon. William, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health Affairs; Accompanied by Thomas F. Carrato, Executive
Director, Tricare Management Activity.......................... 154
Mayo, Rear Adm. Richard A., USN, Command Surgeon for United
States Pacific Command......................................... 171
Green, Brig. Gen. Charles B., USAF, Command Surgeon for United
States Transportation Command.................................. 175
Maul, Col. Ronald A., USA, Command Surgeon for United States
Central Command................................................ 177
Hall, Capt. Richard B., II, USN, Command Surgeon for United
States European Command........................................ 181
Jones, Col. Stephen L., USA, Command Surgeon for United States
Southern Command............................................... 185
Recruiting and Retention in the Military Services
march 20, 2002
Gwyn, Sgt. Lindsey E., USA, United States Army Recruiter......... 215
Piatek, Electrician's Mate First Class Petty Officer Bruce, USN,
United States Navy Enlisted Recruiter.......................... 215
(iii)
Parker, Gunnery Sergeant Ryan L., USMC, Noncommissioned Officer
in Charge, RSS Marietta, Georgia............................... 216
Quintana, Technical Sergeant Gabriel, USAF, United States Air
Force Enlisted Recruiter....................................... 216
Le Moyne, Lt. Gen. John M., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel/G1, United States Army; Accompanied by Maj. Gen.
Michael D. Rochelle, USA, Commanding General, United States
Army Recruiting Command........................................ 225
Ryan, Vice Adm. Norbert R., Jr., USN, Chief of Naval Personnel
and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower and Personnel);
Accompanied by Rear Adm. George E. Voelker, USN, Commander,
United States Navy Recruiting Command.......................... 231
Parks, Lt. Gen. Garry L., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs, United States Marine Corps; Accompanied by
Maj. Gen. Jerry D. Humble, USMC, Commanding General, United
States Marine Corps Recruiting Command......................... 240
Brown, Lt. Gen. Richard E., III, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel, United States Air Force; Accompanied by Brig. Gen.
Duane W. Deal, USAF, Commander, United States Air Force
Recruiting Service............................................. 247
Military Personnel Benefits
april 11, 2002
Stewart, Derek B., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management,
U.S. General Accounting Office................................. 281
Abell, Hon. Charles S., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force
Management Policy.............................................. 304
Barnes, Master Chief Petty Officer Joseph L., USN (Retired),
Director of Legislative Programs, Fleet Reserve Association.... 324
Raezer, Joyce W., Associate Director of Government Relations,
National Military Family Association, Inc...................... 332
Lokovic, Chief Master Sergeant James E., USAF (Retired), Deputy
Executive Director and Director, Military and Government
Relations, Air Force Sergeants Association..................... 334
Cline, Master Sergeant Michael P., USA (Retired), Executive
Director, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
United States.................................................. 341
Schwartz, Susan, D.B.A., Deputy Director of Government Relations/
Health Affairs, the Retired Officers Association............... 348
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Personnel,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
ACTIVE AND RESERVE MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL PROGRAMS
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m. in
room SR-232-A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Max
Cleland (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Cleland, Akaka, E.
Benjamin Nelson, and Hutchinson.
Committee staff member present: Cindy Pearson, assistant
chief clerk and security manager.
Majority staff members present: Maren Leed, professional
staff member, and Gerald J. Leeling, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Ambrose R. Hock,
professional staff member; Patricia L. Lewis, professional
staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Dara R. Alpert and Nicholas W.
West.
Committee members' assistants present: Andrew
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Davelyn Noelani
Kalipi, assistant to Senator Akaka; Eric Pierce, assistant to
Senator Ben Nelson; John Gastright, assistant to Senator
Thurmond; Christopher J. Paul and Dan Twining, assistants to
Senator McCain; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator
Roberts; and James P. Dohoney, Jr. and Michele A. Traficante,
assistants to Senator Hutchinson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND, CHAIRMAN
Senator Cleland. Good morning, everyone. We are delighted
to have you here. Senator Hutchinson and I would like to say
that at 9:50 there will be five stacked votes. We will continue
the hearing, and anyone who is here may act as chairman, just
so long as they do not declare war on Iraq until I get back.
[Laughter.]
Thank you all for coming. We hope that this hearing will
give you the opportunity to tell us your current personnel
status, your suggestions, and the challenges you face this
year. This is your chance to tell us what we can do to give you
the authority and resources you need. This is my sixth year on
this subcommittee. As I look back over the past 5 years, the
subcommittee has, I think, done a lot for our servicemen and
women, and it has been done in a bipartisan way. Everybody has
chipped in. Senator Hutchinson and others have been very
attentive to their duties.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to those who have
served as Personnel Subcommittee chairs since I have been in
the Senate--Senator Kempthorne, Senator Allard, and Senator
Hutchinson. Every year, we have attempted to respond to the
concerns of our servicemen and women. We heard service members
say that their pay was inadequate and not competitive with the
civilian market. We responded by approving pay raises that
total some 20 percent over the last 5 years, and put into law a
provision that requires pay raises at least 1/2 percent above
inflation through fiscal year 2006.
We heard the pleas of our service members that they were
not fully reimbursed for off-post housing expenses. We
responded by removing the requirement that members pay 15
percent of the housing cost out-of-pocket, and authorized an
increase in the basic housing allowance in order to reduce out-
of-pocket housing expenses to zero by fiscal year 2005.
We also directed the Secretary of Defense to implement a
program to assist members who qualify for food stamps with
special pay of up to $500 a month.
We heard the concerns about the Redux retirement system. We
responded by authorizing service members to choose between the
traditional high three retirement system or to remain under
Redux with a $30,000 bonus. We also authorized our military
personnel to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan along with
other Federal employees.
We heard concerns about health care for our active duty
members. We responded. We enacted provisions that improve the
quality of health care and access to health care providers. We
authorized TRICARE Prime Remote for families of active duty
personnel assigned where military medical facilities were not
available. We eliminated copayments for active duty personnel
and their families when they received care under the TRICARE
Prime option.
We heard the military retirees when they called our
attention to the broken promise of health care for life. We
started with a series of pilot programs which included access
to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, a TRICARE
Senior Supplement, and Medicare's Subvention. Ultimately we
found an even better answer, TRICARE for Life. Under this
program, TRICARE pays virtually everything that Medicare does
not pay. This is the best health care program for Medicare-
eligibles in the United States. We are really proud of this
program.
Recruiting and retention ebbed and flowed during this 5-
year period. We responded by authorizing special pays and
bonuses as well as innovative recruiting initiatives. We also
passed laws that will require high schools to give our military
recruiters access to student directory information and the same
access to students as the schools give to colleges and
potential employers.
We responded to concerns about our absentee military voters
by passing laws making it easier for military personnel and
their families to vote in Federal, State, and local elections,
especially for us.
Last year, after several years of intensive effort, we were
able to pass an initiative that authorizes the service
secretaries to permit service members with critical skills to
transfer part of their GI Bill benefit to their family members
in return for a service commitment. A companion provision
authorizes the services to award education savings bonds in
return for a service commitment. Used creatively, these
provisions will give the services a very significant new arrow
in their retention quivers.
As you can see, we listen to your concerns. In your
testimony today, please help us to identify issues you would
like for us to address in a new way this year.
Senator Hutchinson, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM HUTCHINSON
Senator Hutchinson. I do, Mr. Chairman. You just delivered
it. [Laughter.]
I was going to recount a lot of the accomplishments that we
have had over the last few years, and they are numerous. You
have done an excellent job, and I want to applaud you. You
mentioned the bipartisan spirit in which this subcommittee has
worked historically, and as you went through the list of
chairmen over the last few years I think that bipartisanship
was reflected in how we have gone back and forth in the party
leadership. We certainly share a bipartisan frustration with
the way these votes are scheduled and the interruptions we are
going to have today.
I will not recount our accomplishments, as you did a very
good job in talking about what we have done on transferability,
what we have done on TRICARE for Life, how we have tried to
address the pay raises, the 20-percent increase. We know there
is still more to be done in closing that gap between our
military pay and civilian pay, but we have taken some great
strides.
We have a lot to build on and a lot to be proud of in
recent years, and what I am anxious to hear today is where we
go from here and what should be our priorities.
I also want to say, Mr. Chairman, how proud we are of the
team that has led us in this war on terrorism. It has brought a
lot of new attention to some of our personnel challenges. From
top to bottom I think we are all proud of our Commander in
Chief, of our Secretary of Defense, all of our Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and our men and women in uniform across this globe. They
have made us proud, and they have made the American people
proud. They are doing a marvelous job, and I want to thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we have a lengthy list of witnesses today,
but I think they are going to provide us some valuable
information as we look forward to a good end of this year. I
look forward to working with you, as we have in the past, to
move that agenda forward, to improve the quality of life for
those who are willing to serve our country and the cause of
freedom.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchinson,
and I applaud as well the service members who are doing an
outstanding job in the war on terrorism, particularly in
Afghanistan.
We would like to hear now from Senator Akaka, if you have
an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to say good morning and welcome to our witnesses who join
us to review the active and Reserve military and civilian
personnel programs in light of the fiscal year 2003 budget
request. I have long supported, Mr. Chairman, initiatives to
improve recruiting and retention and quality of life for our
service members. These have a significant impact on the
readiness of our Armed Services.
I was pleased to see the emphasis in the budget request on
people and quality of life. I remain concerned, however, about
the lack of parity between the pay of DOD civilian workers and
military service members. In my capacity as chairman of the
Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International
Security Proliferation and Federal Services, I have closely
examined issues involving Federal employees. The civilian
workforce plays a significant role in the support of our
service members on active duty and the Reserves, and with the
National Guard.
If we are to continue making the significant gains in
science and technology that have proven critical to our
successful efforts in Operation Enduring Freedom, we must
ensure that the Department has the depth of expertise necessary
to maintain these programs. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I look
forward to working with the Department of Defense, the
services, the military organizations, and my colleagues to
address these issues, and I look forward to the testimony of
our witnesses.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Thank you very
much for your contribution to this subcommittee.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR E. BENJAMIN NELSON
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to
thank our distinguished panel for being here today and for the
opportunity to talk about personnel issues. In increasing the
pay of our military personnel 20 percent over the last few
years, we have made some strides in improving military pay and
addressing the disparity that has existed between civilian and
military pay in our Armed Services.
I am interested in whether you think, with the current
budget, we have done enough, and if we have not, how much more
we need to do. I am convinced that we perhaps have not done
enough. Part of my concern comes from the fact that the current
budget cuts some areas of military assets that I think are
extremely important, such as training funds, for example, in
the State of Nebraska. As the former head of the Guard in
Nebraska, I am concerned when I find that the annual training
funds for Nebraska are more than $2 million less for fiscal
year 2002 than fiscal year 2001. Funding for technical schools
is down more than 23 percent from 2 years ago. Training days
funding has been reduced by 37 percent.
I am sure there are explanations, and we will get to those
with the panels that are here, but I am of the opinion that our
assets are more than munitions and armaments and hard assets.
They are, in fact, the personnel, and I am very concerned that
while we have made progress, that we are not where we need to
be. With this military budget that is being presented to us, we
have an opportunity to do that, whether it is transformation or
increasing funding for personnel. I think, in fact, we must
invest our resources in our number 1 asset in the military, and
that is the men and women who comprise our military.
Thank you.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Senator Nelson. Thank you for
your contribution to this subcommittee. Before I introduce the
first panel, I ask that Senator Thurmond's statement be
inserted for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming back each of our witnesses. I
especially look forward to the testimony of the Senior Non-Commissioned
Officers representing each of our military services. Not only do they
have the benefit of a long and distinguished career, but also they
interface daily with the heart and soul of our military, the soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines.
As we begin deliberations on the President's fiscal year 2003
budget request, I believe it is appropriate that we hear from those who
have the most intimate knowledge on the issues facing our dedicated and
professional military and civilian personnel. I believe President
Bush's budget recognizes the importance of providing adequate
compensation and benefits. What is more important, the budget provides
significant focus on improving the quality of life for our personnel. I
am especially interested in hearing from our Senior Non-Commissioned
Officers about the adequacy of military housing and the work
environment. Congress, in particular the Armed Services Committee, has
in the past years made these areas a particular point of focus and I am
interested if we are getting the desired results.
Mr. Chairman, as we have heard in past hearings with the Secretary
of Defense and the Service Secretaries, that we have mobilized more
than 60,000 Reserve and National Guard personnel for Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle. We have heard that the success of
these operations hinges on the skills and dedication of these citizen
soldiers. However, there is a price to pay for that success and it is
on the shoulders of the men and women who have forsaken their civilian
jobs to serve the Nation. I hope the leaders of our Reserve components
will not only discuss the impact the mobilization has on the individual
service member, but also on what we can do to mitigate the impact.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to congratulate you for the manner
in which you have asserted your leadership of this subcommittee. I look
forward to working with you toward our common goal of providing for the
welfare of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and their
families.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. I would like to welcome our first panel.
Good morning, Dr. Chu, Mr. Brown, Mr. Navas, and Mr. Dominguez.
We are delighted you could be here this morning to discuss the
needs of your services. I understand today is Mr. Brown's
birthday. We will spare you the song. [Laughter.]
I would like to take the opportunity to wish you a happy
birthday, and we will be easy on you. I know each of you has
prepared an extensive opening statement. Without objection,
your prepared statements will be included in the record.
Because of the large number of witnesses we want to hear from
today, I would like to ask you to limit your opening remarks. I
assure you that they will be read, and I would prefer you each
just take a couple minutes to tell what you each consider to be
the most important matter you want to bring to our attention.
Dr. Chu, we will start with you, then Mr. Brown, followed
by Mr. Navas, then Mr. Dominguez.
Dr. Chu.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID S.C. CHU, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
PERSONNEL AND READINESS
Dr. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of this
distinguished subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be
here today. We thank you for your continuing support of the men
and women who serve in our Armed Forces.
When the President of the United States at the turn of the
century transmitted his budget request to Congress, he wrote,
``Good ships and good guns are simply good weapons, and the
best weapons are useless save in the hands of men who know how
to fight with them.'' Of course, that President was Theodore
Roosevelt, and that was the turn of the 19th to the 20th
century, but I think those words, as Senator Nelson suggests,
are equally applicable today.
Thanks to Congress and the steps you have cited, Mr.
Chairman, in your opening remarks, the Department had a good
set of results in both recruiting and retention in the last
fiscal year just ended, fiscal year 2001.
We did have some areas of weakness. The Air National Guard
fell short of its recruiting goal; both the Army National Guard
and the Naval Reserve were a little short in terms of their
high school diploma graduate content; the Navy did not quite
commission as many officers as it had hoped to; Air Force
retention at the more experienced levels was not quite where we
would like it to be; and in all services, both Active and
Reserve components, we have issues of skill and specialty
shortages, all very consistent, I think, with the concerns
Senator Nelson expressed.
In short, we did well overall, but there is not a large
margin here relative to the Nation's needs, hence the request
in the President's budget for a 4.1 percent basic pay raise for
all in uniform, and an additional amount, much like the
increase you approved last year, targeted at the mid-career
folks, both enlisted and officer ranks.
At the same time, we are making a vigorous effort to carry
out the provisions you passed regarding access to high schools.
That survey is ongoing. We would ask some relief from Congress
in terms of the grade of the officer that conducts the visit,
quite frankly, because there are so many visits to conduct, I
regret to say, and we would like to be able to use any field
grade officer in that role.
We recognize that it is not just the military member that
we must recruit and retain, that the partnership of the country
with its warfighters is built on the fact that the family as
well as the member makes the decision to join and stay in the
military. The Department has undertaken a comprehensive review
of its quality-of-life programs with an eye to strengthening
the social compact between ourselves and those in uniform.
Perhaps the most important single element of that compact
is, as the opening remarks suggested, the military health
system and the health program you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. We
believe we budgeted realistically for the health system for
fiscal year 2003 in the budget request in front of you. We are
pleased with the initial results and the implementation of
TRICARE for Life, but we recognize the challenge in front of
us. Maintaining that success, I think, will hinge on the
quality of the next generation of TRICARE contracts that we
will be letting for bid very soon.
We appreciate the flexibility you gave us in last year's
authorization act. In that regard, we would ask that you make
that flexibility permanent and that you assist us in removing
the reprogramming limits that were imposed in terms of moving
money among health accounts now and in the future. At the same
time, very consistent with Senator Akaka's remarks, we
recognize the work of defense civilians has never been more
crucial than now in our war on terrorism. Our civilians manage
finances and provide intelligence and assure that we have the
best technology to perform our tasks, supporting the national
defense strategy.
We recognize that the last 12 years of downsizing and
change in the Department's mission have resulted in skill and
age imbalances in the civilian workforce. Over the past several
years, the average age of the civilian workforce has increased.
The percentage of employees in the age group 51 to 60 has risen
by nearly one-third, with the result, not surprisingly, that
slightly over half the workforce will be eligible to retire in
the next 5 years.
We in the Department are trying to take a strategic
approach to how we manage both the military and civilian
workforce, and some of our proposals in that regard will be
reflected in the legislative package that we will shortly be
sending to Congress.
That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chu follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. David S.C. Chu
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to be here today and thank you for your
continuing support of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces.
As Secretary Rumsfeld recently testified, ``if we are to win the
war on terror, and prepare for the wars of tomorrow, we must take care
of the Department's greatest asset: our men and women in uniform.
`Smart weapons' are worthless to us unless they are in the hands of
smart soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.'' The Department of
Defense is competing with the private sector for the best young people
our Nation has to offer.
The Defense family has changed over the last decade. U.S. military
and civilian personnel are more senior, educated, and diverse. More
military spouses work, and they are better educated than they were 10
years ago. DOD's transformation of personnel policies and programs must
address these changing demographics and the expectations of a 21st
century military force. The Department must keep its ``side of the
bargain'' by providing relevant programs and policies for the families
who support members of the Armed Forces.
DOD has embarked on a strategic approach to managing its military
(Active and Reserve) and cvilian force. Today, I would like to outline
these initiatives, as well as discuss the challenges we face.
military personnel
America's military today is recognized as the most capable ever
fielded. As has been proven so vividly in recent months, our successes
and sacrifices are key to providing a global environment in which the
ideals of democracy and the global economy can flourish.
Recruiting and retention are cornerstones of military force
capability and continue to be challenges for the department. We have
fielded more recruiters than ever before, and added funds for
recruiting and retention efforts than we ever have to keep us on track
toward achieving our recruiting and retention goals. While we have had
good results in recent years, and in fiscal year 2001 specifically,
many challenges still lie ahead.
End Strength
At the end of fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense as a
whole exceeded its end strength target for the active force by almost
3,000 service members. All individual service components met or
exceeded their goals, except the Air Force, which fell short by about
3,500 personnel.
The requested active duty military end strength for fiscal year
2003, as reported in the service budget submissions, show a net
increase of 2,300 from the fiscal year 2002 authorization. The Army
continues at an end strength of 480,000; the Navy projects a slight
decrease from 376,000 to 375,160; the Marine Corps increases from
172,600 to 175,000; and Air Force remains steady at 358,800. The Marine
Corps' fiscal year 2003 budget request included 2,400 spaces above the
fiscal year 2002 President's budget. These forces are needed to stand
up an Antiterrorism Marine Expeditionary Brigade--an Active Force
responsibility.
In the aggregate, the Reserve components experienced much success
in achieving end strength in 2001. This success was due to excellent
recruiting during a very challenging period and excellent retention in
all components. The individual components all finished the year within
1 percent of authorized levels. Increases in the recruiter force,
expanded bonus programs, enhanced advertising campaigns, increased
focus on retention resources, and increased use of the MGIB-SR kicker
education benefit all contributed to this success.
On Reducing/Eliminating Low Density/High Demand Units
As a result of our recent combat experiences in Afghanistan, I
believe it is time we increase our support to Low Density/High Demand
units so they may meet the demands placed upon them. For years, the
Department has been accepting risk in these weapon systems and it is
time we resolved this issue. It is imperative that we commit the
necessary resources to address these critical shortfalls as soon as
possible.
Stop Loss
Stop loss, which refers to the involuntary extension on active duty
of service members in times of war or national emergency when the need
arises to maintain the trained manpower resident in the military
departments, has been implemented somewhat differently by each service,
based on specific requirements.
For officers, the Army instituted a limited program impacting only
pilots and special operations officers. Affected Navy officers include
the special operations community, limited duty security officers,
physicians in certain specialties and the nurse corps. The Marine
Corps' implementation applies to C-130 aviators and infantry officers.
The Air Force's initial program applied stop loss restrictions to all
officer skills; it is now releasing many career fields and tailoring
the list of affected specialties.
For the enlisted forces, the Army implemented its program in
increments. The initial increment included soldiers primarily assigned
in Special Forces specialties; the second increment expanded the
program to include Army Guard and Army Reserve personnel in the same
specialties already stopped in the Active Force and added three
additional specialties (enlisted and officer psychological operations,
and enlisted supply and services) to the program. The Army is currently
working on the details of a third increment for immediate
implementation.
The Navy enlisted program affected sailors in 10 different
specialties deemed critical to current operations, including SEALs,
special warfare combatant craft crewman, explosive ordnance disposal
specialists, and linguists who speak Hebrew, Russian, Serbian,
Albanian, Arabic, and other Arabic dialects.
The Marine Corps implemented an incremental program that coincided
with current operations that the Marine Corps was tasked to support.
The first increment addressed marines assigned to Marine Forces
Atlantic, as they were needed to staff the newly formed anti-terrorism
brigade. The second increment included marines assigned to C-130
aircrew positions across the Corps. The initial Air Force program
applied to all enlisted skills. As with its officer program, the Air
Force is currently releasing many enlisted specialties from the
program.
Recruiting
Our success in maintaining a military second to none depends on
attracting and retaining people with the necessary talent, character,
and commitment to become leaders and warriors in the Nation's Armed
Forces. An asset is that the military ranks first as the most respected
American institution. However, while the quality, dedication, and
professionalism of the men and women in uniform command such respect
from all Americans, this respect currently does not translate to an
increased willingness to enlist or to encourage others to serve.
It is essential that public and private sector leaders at every
level step up to the challenge of generating awareness of telling our
young people the important role they can play by serving in the
military.
Fiscal Year 2001 Enlisted Recruiting Results
During fiscal year 2001, the military services recruited 257,882
first-term enlistees and an additional 79,496 individuals with previous
military service for a total of 337,378 recruits, attaining 101 percent
of the DOD goal of 334,540 accessions. All Active and Reserve
components, except the Air National Guard, achieved their numeric
goals.
The fiscal year 2001 recruiting success did not come easily;
rather, it can be attributed to an extraordinary investment of time,
talent, and money. In fiscal year 2001, the cost-per-recruit increased
again--reaching an all time high of $11,652. The number of field
recruiters remained at its highest point in the last decade with just
over 15,000 production recruiters. The services continue to offer
bonuses in more skills and have implemented several test programs in an
effort to expand the recruiting market.
In addition to monitoring our overall numerical goals, we continue
to keep a close watch on the quality of new service members. Years of
research and experience tell us that recruits with a high school
diploma are more likely to complete their initial term of service.
Additionally, research shows a strong correlation between above average
scores on the enlistment test and on-the-job performance.
The quality of new recruits remained high in fiscal year 2001,
although the Army National Guard and Naval Reserve fell short of the
desired high school diploma graduate (HSDG) rate. DOD-wide, 91 percent
of new recruits were high school diploma graduates (against a goal of
90 percent) and 66 percent scored above average on the Armed Forces
Qualification Test (versus a desired minimum of 60 percent). The
following table provides details.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 NUMERIC RESULTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Goal Achieve Percent -------------------------
HSDG Cat I-IIIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................................. 75,800 75,855 100 90 63
Navy............................................. 53,520 53,690 100 90 63
Marine Corps..................................... 31,404 31,429 100 96 64
Air Force........................................ 34,600 35,381 102 99 75
--------------------------------------------------------------
Active Total................................... 195,324 196,355 101 93 66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.............................. 60,252 61,956 101 86 60
Army Reserve..................................... 34,910 35,522 102 90 66
Naval Reserve.................................... 15,250 15,344 101 89 73
Marine Corps Reserve............................. 8,945 9,117 102 96 76
Air National Guard............................... 11,808 10,258 87 96 79
Air Force Reserve................................ 8,051 8,826 110 93 73
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Total.................................. 139,216 141,023 101 89 66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 334,540 337,378 101 91 66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Component Recruiting
For 2002, all Reserve components are focusing continued efforts on
managing departures in addition to maintaining aggressive enlistment
programs by targeting both enlistment and re-enlistment incentives on
critical skill areas. Each of the components has implemented several
recruiting incentives and developed initiatives to make National Guard
and Reserve service attractive. This is critical to retaining trained,
experienced personnel which is increasingly important in this difficult
recruiting environment. Although limited stop loss will assist in
managing departures, the Reserve components will continue to optimize
use of retention incentives while expanding their recruiting efforts,
particularly in the prior service market.
As one example of Reserve component recruiting initiatives, we are
seeking an increase in the time we can retain an individual in the
Reserve delayed training program. Increasing the delayed training
program from 270 days to 365 days will enable Reserve recruiters to
begin working the high school and college markets earlier.
Fiscal Year 2002 Year-to-Date Results
Through the first quarter of this fiscal year (October to December
2001), the services achieved 105 percent of their shipping mission,
enlisting 74,965 young men and women. All Active and Reserve
components, except the Naval Reserve, met or exceeded their first
quarter goals. The Naval Reserve has achieved 93 percent of its goal-
to-date. All service components expect to achieve their recruiting
goals this fiscal year, with the possible exception of the Air National
Guard. Overall, recruit quality in both the Active and Reserve
components remains high.
Many people have asked if the terrorist attacks of September 11
resulted in an easier recruiting environment. To date, we have not seen
a change in enlistment contracts signed.
Initial survey results, including our most recent youth poll
administered in October 2001, did indicate that more young people
considered joining the military after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. The results also show an increase in propensity
levels (the percent of young people who report they ``definitely'' or
``probably'' will serve in the military). In addition, services
reported an increase in the volume of enlistment leads generated.
However, many of the people who expressed an interest in the military
were not qualified for service. Despite the high levels of patriotism,
there is no data to indicate that these perceptions have translated
into an easier recruiting environment.
Officer Programs
Active duty officers come from service academies, Reserve Officer
Training Corps (ROTC) programs at colleges and universities, Officer
Candidate School/Officer Training School (OCS/OTS) as run by each
service, and via direct appointment for physicians and other medical
specialists, attorneys, and chaplains. The Army and Air Force met their
numerical commissioning requirements in fiscal year 2001, while the
Navy was at 96 percent of goal and the Marine Corps was short 20
officers (99 percent of goal). However, both the Navy and Air Force
continued to experience shortfalls in certain specialties, usually
those that require a specific educational background. The Navy missed
its goals in pilots, naval flight officers, civil engineers, chaplains,
and most medical and medical support specialties. The Air Force was
short navigators, intelligence officers, weather officers, physicists,
and engineers. Both services have faced this problem for the past
several years and the Department is appreciative to the committee for
the recently authorized officer critical skills accession bonus. All
services currently are determining the most effective way to use this
bonus.
During fiscal year 2001, the Reserve components essentially
achieved their officer accession goals despite the challenging
recruiting climate. The Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the
Marine Corps Reserve made their stated goals within a few officers, and
the Naval Reserve over-produced by 154 officers. The Air Force Reserve
missed its stated officer gains goal by 196 officers. (The Air National
Guard has had data processing problems since June 2001; therefore, its
officer gains data are not complete at this time.)
Active duty officer accessions are on track in all services for
numerical success this year, but the Navy and Air Force continue to be
concerned about the specialty mix even as they implement the accession
bonus to address the problem in the long term.
The struggle for sufficient Reserve officer opportunities will
continue. Several challenging factors include Active component use of
stop loss during the first part of the fiscal year, limited opportunity
for further short-term expansion of internal OCS programs, and
increased officer commissioning goals. When Active component goals
increase, there frequently is a corresponding decrease in the number of
gains to the Reserves. It will take a coordinated effort by both Active
and Reserve components to achieve future Reserve officer appointment
goals.
Expanding the Target Market
The Department is continuing to work to identify ways to expand our
target market. Today, nearly two-thirds of high school seniors enroll
in college immediately after graduation. Enlistment often is viewed as
an impediment to further education. High-quality youth (high school
graduates with above average aptitude) are increasingly interested in
attending college.
In February 2000, the Army launched its ``College First'' pilot
test which is designed to identify better ways to penetrate the
college-oriented market. At the end of fiscal year 2001, the Army had
almost 700 program participants. We appreciate congressional support of
``College First'' as recent increases in the stipend should make this
program more viable, and we hope that Congress will remain open to
further changes that will enhance the program's chance of success.
Other current policies are designed to attract high school
graduates using post-service college incentives (e.g., Montgomery GI
Bill, college fund ``kickers'') as well as enlistment bonuses and loan
repayment programs. In addition, services enlist those with college
experience at higher grades than high school seniors. Our future
strategies must communicate that the military facilitates future
education by providing discipline, drive, and financial means as well
as exploit opportunities to pursue college-level course work.
In addition to targeting the college market, we have several on-
going pilot programs designed to tap the high aptitude, non-high school
diploma graduate market. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 directed a 5-year project to attract more home
schooled graduates and ChalleNGe-GED holders to the military by
treating them as high school diploma graduates for enlistment purposes.
Early analysis indicates that results in those experiments are
mixed. Twelve month attrition rates for ChalleNGe-GED holders appear to
be similar to those of high school diploma graduates for Army and
Marine Corps enlistees, but considerably higher for Navy and Air Force
enlistees. The 12-month attrition rates of home schooled youth are
similar to those of high school diploma graduates in all services,
except for Navy and Marine Corps home schooled enlistees with below
average aptitude scores; their attrition rates are quite high (20-26
percent). As the sample size continues to increase throughout the pilot
test, we will assess the military performance and attrition behavior of
the home schooled and ChalleNGe recruits to determine their appropriate
enlistment priority.
We have also examined the enlistment propensity of home schooled
youth and ChalleNGe participants. We find that home schooled youth have
lower enlistment propensity (for any service) and are less likely to
have parents who support military enlistment for their child. We have
provided the services with suggestions for ways to contact home
schooled youth. On the other hand, youth in the ChalleNGe program have
high enlistment propensity. We continue to monitor these programs.
In addition to these pilot programs, the Army also launched a 4-
year pilot test called GED Plus in February 2000. This program provides
individuals who left high school before obtaining their diploma with an
opportunity to earn a GED and enlist in the military. Since GED Plus
graduates are required to have above average enlistment test scores,
job performance should not be adversely affected. The Army currently is
evaluating interim results of this program. An important component of
recruiting centers on early and accurate identification of individuals
with criminal arrest histories. We are exploring ways to improve access
to offense records, including juvenile offense records, at the least
cost.
The events of September 11, 2001, have shown that there is enormous
interest by Americans wanting to serve the country in some capacity.
Many proposals on various ways for people to serve through national or
community service are now surfacing, including proposals for men and
women to join the military for short-term periods. In particular, a
bill entitled the ``Call to Service Act of 2001'' focuses on a myriad
of programs designed to promote and expand service to country. One
section of the bill would offer an $18,000 bonus to young people who
serve 18 months on active duty followed by 18 months in the Selected
Reserve.
While we applaud the idea of giving more Americans the opportunity
for military service, we must balance the effect of this kind of
program with other enlistment incentives and the needs of the services.
For example, some new recruits receive enlistment bonuses because they
possess critical skills needed in the military. Typically, these
bonuses average about $6,000. A few enlistees will receive bonuses
approaching $18,000, but only if they enlist in critical skills for at
least 4, but normally 6 years. I hope the committee will carefully
consider any short-term enlistment proposals in the context of overall
manning policy, lest they undercut the continuing success of the
volunteer force.
Recruiter Access to High Schools
As the services reduced their size by one-third over the past
decade, fewer citizens were exposed to the military; therefore, many of
those best able to advise youth about post-high school options--
teachers, counselors, coaches, parents--have little first-hand
experience with today's military. Those adult influencers may
underestimate the military's value as a powerful foundation for success
in any endeavor. This reinforces the need for access to high school
campuses and student directory information by professional military
recruiters. This committee has recently urged greater cooperation
between those high schools and military recruiters, for which we are
grateful.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
requires that high schools allow military recruiters the same degree of
access to students that is provided to universities generally, or to
other employers. Failing such cooperation, the law asks that a senior
officer (e.g., colonel or Navy captain) visit the school. If the
problem is not resolved within 2 months, the Department notifies the
State Governor, and for problems unresolved within 1 year, the
Department notifies Congress of any schools which continue to deny
campus access or directory information to at least two services. The
expectation is that each public official learning of a problem would
work with the offending school to resolve it.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002,
Congress further strengthened the language requiring schools to provide
access to students equal to that afforded other potential employers,
and mandated that schools provide student directory information to
military recruiters unless the parent or student has denied such
release in writing. We appreciate this clarifying language, and believe
it will significantly improve our ability to work with many of the
schools which currently deny access.
Shortly following enactment of the October 2000 statute, the
Department began development of a national database that allows
military recruiters to document the recruiter access policies of local
high schools. Preliminary data suggest that between 2,000 and 3,000
secondary schools nationwide (about 10 to 15 percent of all high
schools) ultimately will be identified as ``problem'' schools under the
definitions set forth in current law.
The services now are preparing to undertake visits by the colonels
and captains and look forward to productive discussions with local
educators to identify ways to meet the expectations set forth by
Congress. However, given the large number of schools which we expect
may continue to deny appropriate access, the services are concerned
about their ability to make a sufficient number of such senior officers
available within the specified time frame. We are considering a request
for the fiscal year 2004 legislative cycle which would reduce the rank
of the visiting officer to a field grade (i.e. major, lieutenant
commander or above) so that the services could carry out the spirit of
this legislation in a more timely manner, with less burden on their
limited recruiting resources.
Recruiting Outlook
We do not expect the competitive recruiting market to ease. We must
equip recruiters to succeed in the challenging and changing market
which includes fewer influencers familiar with the military, and more
college-oriented students.
Retention
While bringing quality people into the force is the essential first
step, equally important in maintaining a healthy military is retaining
the appropriate numbers of people in the right skill areas. As with the
recruiting environment, retention in recent years has been extremely
challenging. However, Congress' and the Department's investment in
retaining quality people yielded promising results in fiscal year 2001.
For the enlisted force, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps all
achieved desired levels of aggregate retention. The Air Force missed
its aggregate retention goal by approximately 1,700 airmen; however, it
did meet first term retention goals for the first time in 3 years and
held steady on second term retention. The improved results for all
services are due in large part to strong service retention programs,
including monetary and non-monetary incentives to encourage enlisted
members to stay in the force.
The enlisted retention outlook for fiscal year 2002 is promising.
The Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps exceed or are close to their
specific retention goals and will likely achieve aggregate annual
retention goals. Air Force retention data are not available at this
time, but the Air Force has robust monetary and non-monetary retention
programs in place and expects to see improved retention this fiscal
year.
Overall enlisted retention trends are promising, but despite
success in meeting the numeric goals, shortages in a number of
technical enlisted specialties persist in all services. Shortage skills
include communications/computer specialists, aviation maintainers,
information technology specialists, electronics technicians,
intelligence linguists, and air traffic controllers.
Retention challenges exist within the officer ranks as well.
Officer retention challenges from fiscal year 2001 that are expected to
continue into fiscal year 2002 include primarily those career fields
whose technical and scientific skills are easily transferable to the
private sector. We are hopeful that the Critical Skills Retention Bonus
(CSRB) Program, enacted by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense
Authorization Act, will improve retention in targeted critical skills.
The first service to submit a proposed CSRB program for approval is the
Air Force. It has identified officers holding skills as Developmental
Engineers, Scientific/Research Specialists, Acquisition Program
Managers, Communication-Information Systems Officers, and Civil
Engineers as those who would be eligible for retention bonuses upon
completion of their initial active duty service obligations.
Education Benefits
In the Fiscal Year 2002 NDAA, Congress authorized two new programs
designed to promote reenlistments and extensions in critical
specialties--Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Transferability and an education
savings bond plan. Neither of these programs came with additional
appropriations nor are funds included in current service budgets or
programs. Nonetheless, we welcome the opportunity to explore the
viability and usefulness of the programs and are currently discussing
how best to implement them.
Compensation
While bonuses and benefits are necessary tools, competitive pay for
all personnel continues to be among the key components in our efforts
to attract and retain top quality, highly skilled men and women. In
addition to basic pay, compensation includes all pays and allowances,
such as housing and subsistence allowances, and special and incentive
pays. We are grateful to Congress for its work in improving each of
these areas, especially during the last fiscal year. The largest
military pay raise in 20 years and significant progress in reducing
out-of-pocket housing costs for service members and their families send
a clear signal that our Nation values the courage and sacrifice
required of military service.
Over half of today's service members in grades E-5 and above have
at least some college, while over 20 percent of personnel in grades E-8
and above have college degrees, based on a DOD survey. Private sector
pay for individuals with some college falls above military pay scales
at many points. We therefore applaud Congress' direction on the fiscal
year 2002 pay raise to target additional raises for NCOs, as well as
mid-level officers, greater than required by law.
In addition to maintaining efforts to achieve competitive pay
tables, the Department recommends continuing to increase military
housing allowances significantly, with the goal of eliminating average
out-of-pocket costs by 2005. Building on the current year's increases,
the fiscal year 2003 budget requests further improvements in the
allowance, reducing the average out-of-pocket costs from 11.3 percent
to 7.5 percent. Understandably, service members view the housing
allowance as one of the key elements of their total compensation
package. Therefore, the Department has worked tirelessly to improve its
data collection to ensure the allowance accurately reflects the housing
markets where service members and their families reside.
In concert with Congress' effort to address the issue of service
members on food stamps, the Department is continuing to monitor
aggressively the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA)
program, which was implemented in May 2001. The number of military
personnel on food stamps has steadily decreased from 19,400 (9 tenths
of 1 percent of the force) in 1991 to an estimated 4,200 (3 tenths of 1
percent of the force) in 2001. In 2002, with FSSA in place, we
anticipate the number of members on food stamps will be reduced to
2,100 (1.5 tenths of 1 percent of the force). We expect this reduction
to occur both because of the large fiscal year 2002 pay raise, and also
because most FSSA-eligible members will choose to take the allowance.
Currently, approximately 2,500 service members are FSSA eligible.
Although it would be ideal if no service member had to rely on the
use of food stamps, 100 percent participation by those individuals in
FSSA may not be achievable. FSSA participation has a detrimental effect
on eligibility for other income-based social aid programs. For example,
when a member starts receiving FSSA, the additional monthly income may
render the family's children ineligible for the Free and Reduced School
Lunch Program. Additionally, for some, there remains a stigma attached
to admitting to the chain of command the need for more money. A FSSA
website has been established to educate personnel and address their
concerns, and each service has trained personnel available to offer
personal assistance.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom resulted in service members moving
into new operational areas and settings, the Department has been
aggressively addressing their compensation needs. Military personnel in
Afghanistan, Kyrgykzstan, Jordan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and
those serving at Incirlik AB, Turkey in direct support of operations in
Afghanistan receive Combat Zone Tax Benefits. Members in these
countries also receive $150 per month in Imminent Danger Pay.
Additionally, these individuals qualify for Hardship Duty Pay-Location
at the rate of $50 or $100 per month, depending on conditions in their
particular location. Deployed members are housed in Government-provided
quarters and generally continue to receive the housing allowance
applicable to their home station. Their food is paid for out of the
subsistence portion of their per diem allowance, so they retain their
full Basic Allowance for Subsistence. As an example, a typical E-6,
married with two children, serving in Afghanistan will see a positive
difference of nearly $600 per month compared with a continental United
States (CONUS) station. The Department is committed to ensuring service
members and their families are cared for through appropriate
compensation while the members are deployed serving their country in
dangerous locations.
Like Congress, the Department is concerned with the cost
effectiveness of multiple entitlement systems to compensate former
members who incur disabilities while serving in the Armed Forces. At a
minimum, there are some issues of consistency among selected
individuals in different circumstances relative to their post-military
employment. Therefore, the Department intends to review the issues and
report to Congress as to whether changes are appropriate.
In fiscal year 2002, in addition to the pay and allowance
increases, the Department implemented a new authority provided by
Congress to allow the uniformed forces to participate in the Thrift
Savings Plan (TSP). This opportunity represents a major initiative to
improve the quality of life for our service members and their families,
as well as becoming an important tool in our retention efforts. In its
first 3 months of operation, TSP attracted nearly 133,000 enrollees.
The Department estimated that 10 percent of service members would
enroll in the first year. Given the initial success, we now expect to
exceed those figures.
Overall, military compensation has made great strides in the last
year, with several continued improvements on the way. We appreciate
these significant actions by Congress, acknowledging the sacrifices and
dedication of our uniformed personnel.
Human Resource Strategy
The continuing challenges in recruiting and retention underscore
the need to reexamine virtually every aspect of personnel management
policies. In its transformation, the Department is developing a
comprehensive mix of policies, programs, and legislation to ensure that
the right number of personnel have the requisite skills and abilities
to execute assigned missions effectively.
The theme evident in my comments here today is the tremendous and
continuing challenge the Department of Defense faces in maintaining the
military force necessary to meet the demands of our Nation's defense.
The Department of Defense must recruit, train, and retain people with
the broad skills and good judgment needed to address the dynamic
challenges of the 21st century, and we must do this in a competitive
human capital environment. Last year, the Secretary of Defense called
for a comprehensive human resources strategic plan that will recommend
the best mix of policies, programs, and legislation to ensure that the
right number of military personnel have the requisite skills and
abilities to execute assigned missions effectively and efficiently.
The need for a military human resource strategy has never been
stronger. Our military personnel human resource strategic plan sets the
military personnel legislative and policy priorities for the Department
of Defense for the next several years. The plan details objectives,
supporting actions, and measures of effectiveness within defined lines
of operation. It assigns tasks, establishes milestones, identifies
resource requirements and facilitates synergy of a wide range of
military personnel issues. This plan is a living document intended to
serve as a planning reference and management tool for Department of
Defense military human resource managers. Under continuous assessment
and refinement, this plan will serve as the focal point for all ongoing
and future military personnel legislative and policy efforts.
Our military human resource strategic plan has five focus areas:
(1) increasing America's understanding of the mission of today's
military and its importance to the Nation; (2) recruiting the right
number and quality of people; (3) developing, sustaining and retaining
the force; (4) transitioning members from active service; and (5)
sustaining the strategic development process to keep the plan current
and viable.
The plan will examine some challenging matters, including
possibilities such as removing the cap on career length, expanding
entry programs, and enabling a seamless flow from Reserve components to
active duty and return. These initiatives and others like them will
provide the Department of Defense the flexibility to more efficiently
manage our personnel assets.
While our Armed Forces have long protected our country's interests
abroad from installations around the globe, we now face an increased
requirement to support the national defense from within our own
borders. As we adapt our operations to this changing environment, so
must we prepare our people to adapt for new missions. Toward that end,
our human resource strategic plan will prove to be our guide.
Training Transformation
Our military services have long been recognized as world-class
trainers--arguably one of the United States' greatest advantages over
potential adversaries. It is our goal to maintain that advantage in the
future. Present training methods and capabilities, however, are built
around Cold War strategies.
The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review recognized that training
transformation would be the key enabler to achieving the operational
goals of the overarching transformation of the Department of Defense.
Among the principal determinants of that transformation are a new and
continuously changing threat environment, the need for improved and
expanded ``jointness,'' and the opportunities offered by advanced
technologies. As Secretary Rumsfeld has noted, ``achieving jointness in
wartime requires building that jointness in peacetime. We need to train
like we fight and fight like we train and, too often, we don't.''
Managing Time Away From Home (Personnel TEMPO)
Deployments are part of military life and could well increase as
the war on terrorism unfolds. We are fully aware, however, of the
effects of excessive time away from home on the morale, quality of life
and ultimately, the readiness of service members. Consequently, we have
implemented revised personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) guidance and we are
working to control explicitly the amount of time DOD personnel are
deployed away from home station or stationed outside the U.S. The
services began collecting data under the revised PERSTEMPO system in
fiscal year 2001. This new system, and the data collected, is
undergoing a validation and verification process by the services, and
it is anticipated that the new system will be fully implemented by the
end of fiscal year 2002. The new system will standardize definitions
requiring that PERSTEMPO be measured at the individual level and that a
``deployed day'' be a day when, in the performance of official duties
(training, operations, or Temporary Additional Duty) an individual does
not return to his or her regular billeting area at his or her permanent
duty station. This new system will contribute significantly to the
Department's efforts to assess and mitigate force management risk.
quality of life
President Bush, in one of his first actions last year, issued a
National Security Presidential Directive to improve military quality of
life. Secretary Rumsfeld reiterated the President's commitment, stating
that the Department must forge a new social compact with its
warfighters and those who support them--one that honors their service,
understands their needs, and encourages them to make national defense a
lifelong career. The demographic changes in today's military--60
percent of troops have family responsibilities--foster the need for
such a new social contract that promotes a strong military community
and culture. The Department has undertaken a comprehensive and
systematic review of quality of life programs, and charted a course for
the future.
The partnership between the American people and our warfighters is
built on the tacit agreement that families, as well as the member,
contribute to the readiness and strength of the American military.
Military members and their families make sacrifices in the service of
our country and face special challenges. A new social compact must
recognize the reciprocal ties that bind service members, the military
mission and families, and responds to their quality of life needs as
individuals and as members of a larger community. The Department has
made a renewed commitment to underwrite family support programs and to
provide quality education and life-long learning opportunities.
Affordable, available child care and youth activities, connections with
family and friends, and spouse employment within the mobile military
lifestyle must also be part of the equation.
Family Support and Spouse Employment
There is an integral link between military family readiness and
total force readiness. We are re-focusing family support programs to
address the two-thirds of active duty families who live off-base, and
our Reserve families. We envision an outreach strategy that will
explicitly articulate to service members and their families just how
important they are. To better underwrite our support to families, the
President's budget request increases funding for family centers by 8.5
percent or $17 million.
The DOD successfully demonstrated this strategy in the aftermath of
the September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon. The entire
Department joined efforts to establish a Pentagon Family Assistance
Center (PFAC). We provided unprecedented outreach support to the
families of the victims who were killed or injured in the attack.
Personnel from DOD, joint military service staffs, and Government and
non-Government agencies worked in concert to provide the necessary
support services, information, and care to meet the immediate and long-
term needs of the families. Over 2,400 staff and volunteers donated
their time and services to the mission.
To support the families of military personnel involved in Operation
Enduring Freedom, the military departments activated long-standing
deployment support programs including information and referral, crisis
intervention, and return and reunion programs. We paid particular
attention to communications programs such as Air Force Crossroads, Navy
LifeLines, Virtual Army Community Service, Hearts Apart, morale calls,
e-mail, and Web-based streaming video. The Reserve components
established toll-free numbers for family members of National Guard and
Reserve units. In addition, the Air Force Reserve made child care
available to reservists and their families.
An essential element of the quality of life framework is improving
the financial stability of our military families. For this reason, we
are embarking on a financial literacy campaign that includes improving
personal and family financial training. As with most of America's young
adults, those entering the military have little understanding of the
basic tenets of personal financial management and little to no
practical experience managing their own money. As a consequence, they
often develop poor financial management habits and many become burdened
with credit card debt. The military services recognize the need to
increase the amount of training and assistance provided to service
members and their families to ensure they can sustain a financially
secure quality of life.
At the same time, DOD underscored its commitment to the financial
well-being of military families through increased emphasis on spouse
employment. The 2002 NDAA directed DOD to examine its spouse employment
programs in the context of Federal, State, and private sector programs.
We welcome this instruction from Congress and the opportunity to create
new benchmarks for our programs, while continuing to enhance the career
options of military spouses through inter-department and private sector
partnerships.
Child Care and Youth
Providing quality, affordable child care to the Total Force remains
a high priority throughout the Department of Defense. The President's
fiscal year 2003 budget request increases the child care funding by $27
million, or 7 percent. Although we have child development programs at
over 300 locations with 800 child development centers and over 9,000
family child care homes, we still project a need for an additional
45,000 spaces. We continue to pursue an aggressive expansion program
through a balanced delivery system that combines center construction,
an increased number of family child care homes, and partnerships with
local communities. We are providing family child care both on and off
the installation, encouraged by subsidies. Since 99.7 percent of DOD
centers have been accredited, compared with less than 10 percent in the
civilian sector, the military child development remains a model for the
Nation.
In support of the war effort, we expanded operating hours and
developed innovative co-use practices among child development programs.
Locations offered around-the-clock care, as necessary. Many reacted to
the needs of geographically single parents by offering special
operating hours and instituting projects for children to communicate
with the absent parent.
Teens also feel the impact of the pressures of the war. In the
youth centers, we have added staff with special counseling skills to
work with young people whose parent might be deployed for the first
time. Teens received mentoring when parents worked extremely long duty
days.
The military community has made a strong commitment to provide
positive activities and environments for youth. The computer centers,
available in all youth programs, offer a means for young teens to
communicate electronically with an absent parent. Tutors are available
at the centers to help students complete school homework assignments in
a supervised setting. This decreases the amount of unsupervised time,
and increases the opportunities for relationships with caring adults.
Educational Opportunities
With the support of Congress, last year DOD provided $35 million to
heavily impacted school districts serving military dependent students
and an additional $10.5 million in grants to be used for repair and
renovation of school buildings.
The Department is actively working with public school districts and
state education authorities to lessen the displacement and trauma
experienced by children of military personnel who are forced to change
schools frequently due to the reassignment of military members. Within
the last 2 years we have brought together over 300 students, parents,
military leaders, school personnel, and state policy makers to help
address and give visibility to these issues which affect about 600,000
children of active duty military personnel.
In the area of educational opportunities for our service members,
participation in the off-duty education program remains strong with
enrollment in over 600,000 courses last year. Members were also awarded
30,000 higher education degrees by hundreds of colleges and
universities. This is an important benefit that service members say is
part of their reason for joining. Tuition assistance policies are in
place to increase support for off-duty education. Effective October 1,
2002, tuition assistance for service members will increase to the point
where virtually all of the cost of taking college courses will be borne
by the Department. The services have increased funding by $69 million
to implement the new authority.
Troops to Teachers
The Troops-to-Teachers Program has successfully injected the
talents, skills, and experiences of military service members into
public education. The program was recently expanded to include Selected
Reserve members with 10 or more years of service as well as Reserve
retirees with 20 or more years of service. Both the President and the
First Lady have expressed support for Troops-to-Teachers and talked
about the critical need for highly competent individuals to counter
America's critical shortage of teachers. More than 4,000 participants
have been hired to teach throughout all 50 States, and 70 percent of
teachers hired through the program are still in public education after
5 years. The Department has helped establish and financially support
placement assistance offices in 25 States. The recent congressional
appropriation of $18 million for this program will enable the
Department to again award stipends to help former service members
offset the cost of becoming certified and employed as elementary and
secondary school teachers. This injects the best military leadership
qualities into the American school systems.
Department of Defense Education Activity
The Department has a school system to be proud of, and we continue
to address quality issues in the areas of curriculum, staffing,
facilites, safety, security, and technology. Our dependent schools
comprise two educational systems providing quality pre-kindergarten
through 12th grade programs: the DOD Domestic Dependent Elementary and
Secondary Schools (DDESS) for dependents in locations within the United
States and its territories, possessions, and commonwealths, and the DOD
Dependents Schools (DODDS) for dependents residing overseas. Today
approximately 8,800 teachers and other instructional personnel serve
more than 111,000 students in 224 schools. They are located in 14
foreign countries, 7 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Students include
both military and civilian Federal employee dependents.
The quality of DOD schools is measured in many ways, but most
importantly, as in other school systems, by student performance. DOD
students regularly score significantly above the national average in
every subject area at every grade level on nationally standardized
tests.
In addition, students participate in the National Assessment of
Educational Process (NAEP) tests. NAEP is known as ``the Nation's
Report Card'' because it is the only instrument that permits a direct
comparison of student performance between student groups across the
country. DODEA students, and in particular its African-American and
Hispanic students, score exceptionally well on this test, often
achieving a first or second place national rank. This outstanding
performance led the National Education Goals Panel to commission
Vanderbilt University to study the instructional program, teaching, and
other aspects of DODEA schooling to identify the variables that
contribute to the students' success. The findings, which were published
in October 2001, received extensive national coverage.
DODEA's 2001 graduates were awarded nearly $28 million in
scholarship and grant monies; 29 percent was for attendance at military
academies and 31 percent for ROTC scholarships. Graduates in 2001
reported plans to attend 762 different colleges and universities
worldwide.
To meet the challenge of the increasing competition for teachers,
DOD has an aggressive U.S. recruitment program. The program emphasizes
diversity and quality, and focuses on placing eligible military family
members as teachers in its schools.
Domestic Violence
I am pleased to report that the Department continues to make
significant progress in dealing with the issue of domestic violence in
our military communities. The Department reviewed the first report and
strategic plan of the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence and
anticipates receipt of the task force's second report. The Department
fully supports the majority of the task force's recommendations. We are
revising DOD policy to incorporate these recommendations.
The task force's primary recommendation was that the Department
issue a memorandum challenging DOD senior leadership to ensure that DOD
does not tolerate domestic violence and to address this national social
problem more aggressively. We have issued such a memorandum. We have
also established the basis for a central data base that tracks
incidents of domestic violence in the military community and
commanders' actions when the offender is a service member. We continue
to refine the database.
We are confident that, working together with the task force, we
will continue to make significant progress in our prevention of and
response to domestic violence in the military.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs are proven to be important
to military communities, providing fitness and recreational
opportunities for service members and their families. The 469 fitness
centers in DOD have the highest use rate of any MWR program, with 80
percent of active duty military using them at least once monthly, and
52 percent using them 6 times or more per month. The Department views
improving fitness programs as a high priority, not only due to their
popularity, but also because of their importance to the maintenance of
a service member's physical readiness. Physical fitness is critical to
providing forces that are more resistant to illness, less prone to
injury and the influence of stress, and better able to recover quickly
should illness or injury occur. Our fitness specialists are working
with health promotion and physical training specialists to make this
vision a reality. To accomplish this, the fitness center infrastructure
will require upgrade to bring them to acceptable standards.
Commissaries and Military Exchanges
Military members and their families consider their commissary
privilege to be one of their top two non-cash benefits, second only to
health care. The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) operates the
worldwide system of 281 commissaries. DeCA provides a 30 percent
savings on comparable market baskets in the private sector. Beginning
in fiscal year 2002, legislative authority permits funding of most DeCA
operations from appropriations, thereby leaving the Surcharge Trust
Fund available for capital investment. As a result of this change, the
fiscal year 2002 major construction program contains 10 commissary
projects at a total surcharge cost of $98 million--a significant
increase from prior years.
We are looking at various ways to reduce the appropriated fund
subsidy to commissaries. We want to improve how the benefit is
delivered, with the objective being to obtain the same benefit at
reduced cost to the taxpayer. We will work closely with the
congressional oversight committees as we explore this issue.
Military exchanges also form a significant portion of the community
support program. They are the ``home town store'' for our service
members and families assigned stateside, overseas, in remote locations
and to deployment sites around the world--including 16 tactical field
exchanges supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. It is important to
troops and families stationed around the globe to have American goods
and services. Being a long way from home should not mean giving up what
is familiar and what adds comfort to often difficult lifestyles.
Today's exchanges operate at 694 locations worldwide, with annual sales
of $10 billion.
Exchanges offer quality goods at significant savings, and then pass
the majority of their profits back to the MWR program to support
essential, morale-building programs and to make capital improvements.
Our practice of using exchange earnings to support MWR programs is well
established; the exchanges provide over $330 million annually.
The Department is taking a very close look at the exchange business
practices and organizations to maximize efficiencies and improve
customer service and savings. We are looking closely at the services'
plans to ensure that the alternatives pursued reduce costs while
improving customer service, ensuring competitive pricing and continued
support for MWR.
Finally, as part of the new social compact with service members, we
will better define, measure, and communicate the savings and services
provided to DOD personnel by the commissaries and exchanges.
Military Funeral Honors
Since the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000, the Department has worked tirelessly to ensure that
our Nation's veterans receive military funeral honors. It is our
national obligation to demonstrate the Nation's gratitude to those who,
in times of war and peace, have faithfully defended our country. The
rendering of a final tribute and recognition to our Nation's veterans
is an important tradition in the Department of Defense. Faced with one
of the largest active and Reserve military drawdowns in history, and
the increasing numbers of World War II-era veterans' deaths, this has
been a challenging mission, but one to which we remain committed.
Our recent policy directive clearly delineates the military
services' responsibility to provide military funeral honors upon
request. Additionally, we distributed a military funeral honors kit to
every funeral director in the country and activated a military funeral
honors web site. Each has significantly enhanced the ability of the
military services to respond to requests.
Recently, we initiated another program called the Authorized
Provider Partnership Program. This program allows us to partner with
members of veterans service and other appropriate organizations to
augment the funeral honor detail. The program will enhance our ability
to provide additional elements to the funeral ceremony. The Authorized
Provider Partnership Program symbolizes the continuity of respect for
deceased veterans for those who are serving and those who have served
in the Armed Forces. Our overall and sustained goal remains the same:
to render appropriate tribute to our Nation's veterans and honor those
who serve.
total force integration
On September 11, the response of our National Guard and Reserve men
and women was both quick and complete. They volunteered and responded
to the Nation's needs without hesitation. Many reported to their
armories and Reserve Centers without being asked. Before the fireball
disappeared from above the Pentagon, Air National Guardsmen and Air
Force, Navy, and Marine reservists were patrolling the skies over
Washington DC, New York, and several other American cities. At the same
time New York guardsmen were on the streets of lower Manhattan
assisting New York emergency service workers. Maryland, Virginia, and
District of Columbia guardsmen were patrolling the hallways and
exterior of the still burning Pentagon on September 11. By the next
morning over 6,000 guardsmen and reservist were on duty--all
volunteers.
Today, we have over 85,000 National Guard and Reserve men and women
supporting Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. They are
performing force protection and security duties here in the United
States, flying refueling missions over central Asia, and are on the
ground in Afghanistan. At the President's request, about 7,000 Army and
Air National Guardsmen are protecting our airports.
The Total Force policy and our integration efforts of the past
decade are paying great rewards today. On no notice, America's National
Guard and Reserve were ``ready to roll.'' Their enthusiasm for the
mission remains high. They are in it for the long haul. We are
judiciously managing the force to ensure fair and equitable treatment
of our Reserve component members, but the bottom line is they are
committed and capable warriors in the war on terrorism.
When we call upon the Guard and Reserve, we need to make sure their
service is productive and meaningful, and that we make every effort to
take care of them and their families. With the help of Congress, there
have been many improvements in protections and benefits for mobilized
reservists and their families since the Persian Gulf War.
Yet there is more we can and need to do. The transition to a
different healthcare system is sometimes not as smooth as we would
like. To help ease that transition, the Department has undertaken a
demonstration project that: (1) waives the TRICARE deductible fees, (2)
removes the requirement to obtain a non-availability statement before
being treated outside military medical treatment facilities, and (3)
authorizes healthcare payments up to 15 percent above the allowable
charges for care provided for non-participating TRICARE providers.
We have also encouraged the secretaries of the military departments
to exempt the service performed by those who volunteer for duty in
support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle from counting
toward the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 5-
year limit.
We also recognize that the process for employing Reserve component
members, given the wide array of different duty categories and statuses
in which they can serve, is unnecessarily complex and confusing. We
have undertaken a comprehensive review to determine if greater
efficiencies and increased flexibilities are possible in the process of
employing National Guard and Reserve units and individuals. Associated
compensation and benefits are also being addressed to identify and
eliminate disparities between the Active and Reserve components.
The increased reliance on the Reserve components to support
national security directly affects the civilian employers of Guard and
Reserve members. The Reserve commitment is no longer one weekend a
month and 2 weeks during the summer--which was the traditional training
regimen for the Reserve components. We have now established a new
paradigm in which we call upon reservists to leave their civilian jobs
more frequently to perform military duty. This comes at a time when
businesses are streamlining their workforce and are relying on their
reservist-employees to be in the civilian workplace. This places a
burden on civilian employers who must sustain their business operations
with few employees, while their reservist-employees are fulfilling
their military obligation and performing their military duties. From an
employer perspective, this affects their bottom line. Whether a for-
profit company or not-for-profit organization, the affect of drawing on
their employees to serve in uniform is essentially the same for all
employers. The employer must make difficult decisions such as
redistributing the workload among other employees (overtime), hiring
temporary replacements (additional payroll expense), or reducing
production or services (reduced profit or decreased services provided).
If the Department is to continue to call upon these shared human
resources, we must determine what actions the Department can take to
identify employers of Reserve component members. We must increase our
focus on employer support efforts, improve communications between the
Department and employers, identify future actions that will provide
some relief for employers when we call upon their reservist-employees,
and strengthen the relationship between the Department and employers
that will enable us to continue to use our shared employees.
Finally, the Secretary's call for transformation of the Department
has offered new opportunities to look for innovative uses for the
Reserve components. One area we are exploring is the growing shortage
of cutting edge professionals in key areas such as biometrics and
information technology that exists worldwide. One possibility might be
to attract and retain individuals with cutting edge civilian skills in
the Reserve components. Civilian industry would keep their skill sharp,
yet they would be available when we needed them--putting the right
person with the right skill in the right place at the right time. This
may require building on or expanding some existing programs to better
capitalize on civilian acquired skills; encouraging innovative forms of
Reserve component participation such as virtual duty or remote duty;
creating new ``critical specialty'' categories of Reserves that are
incubators for new and emerging talent pools rather than way stations
where reservists are managed; and identifying innovative ways to foster
partnerships with leading edge firms in which we could share
individuals with cutting-edge technology skills.
There is an increased awareness of Reserve component equipment
issues. The fiscal year 2003 budget request includes $2.34 billion in
equipment procurement funding for the Reserve components, representing
an increase of $680 million above the fiscal year 2002 President's
budget. The fiscal year 2003 budget demonstrates a concerted effort by
the Department to apply more resources for the Reserve components'
equipping needs and to buy down the increased repair costs caused by
aging equipment currently in the inventory.
The fiscal year 2003 military construction investment for all
Reserve components is $297 million. The President's budget request
would provide new Armed Forces Reserve Centers, vehicle maintenance
facilities, organizational maintenance shops, training and
administrative facilities for the Reserve components. These new
facilities begin to address the needed replacement of the Reserve
components' infrastructure. The fiscal year 2003 budget provides a good
start toward improving the quality of life for the Guard and Reserve by
improving where they work and train.
civilian workforce
The work of defense civilians has never been more crucial than now
in our war on terrorism. Civilians develop policy, provide
intelligence, buy and maintain weapons, manage finances, and assure
that we have the best people and technology to perform those tasks in
support of our national defense strategy. This frees service members to
focus on warfighting duties and homeland defense and assures them of
close and complete support. A strategic and modernized approach to the
management of civilians is the cornerstone of these efforts.
However, 12 years of downsizing and changes in the Department's
mission have resulted in skill and age imbalances in the civilian
workforce. Skills that were appropriate to yesterday's mission do not
always support the demands of today. The average age of the civilian
workforce has increased since 1998 from 41 years of age to 46. In that
time, the percentage of employees in the 51-60 age group has increased
by 31 percent. It's not surprising that 54 percent of the workforce
will be eligible to retire in 5 years.
Some have expressed concern that the combination of the pending
retirements and the need for ever more sophisticated skills will result
in a shortfall in critical personnel, particularly scientists,
engineers, health care professionals, and acquisition employees. We
view this not as a crisis but as an opportunity to restructure the
workforce to support the Secretary's transformation of the Department.
The challenge is to manage the transition of civilians out of the
workforce, to recruit the needed talent, and to develop, nurture, and
sustain the remaining workforce in a way that supports the
transformational requirements of our defense strategy.
Despite the large number of employees eligible to retire soon, many
are eligible only for early retirements that require management action.
Of the remaining employees who will be eligible for optional
retirement, recent trends indicate that many will not retire in the
first few years of their eligibility. Therefore, we will continue to
need flexibility to release some employees with skills we no longer
need before they might otherwise choose to leave.
Recruiting employees with scarce technical skills puts us in direct
competition with the private sector despite a softened economy. We
acknowledge that in the recent past public service has not been
attractive to the population we seek although we believe that there has
been some change in that attitude since September 11. We also recognize
that the perception of Government as a stable employer is not what it
was before downsizing, and that the potential for future base closures
affects the attitudes of applicants as well as current employees.
Sometimes the talent we need already exists in our workforce and we
need to be willing to invest in the development, training, and even re-
training, of our employees, while also providing them with a high
quality of life that will encourage them to remain with us.
We have been aware for some time that the existing rules for
managing the civilian workforce are not sufficient to meet the new
challenges. The old rules were designed to provide necessary
standardization and equity. Now we need to balance those with
flexibility. During the difficult days following the terrorist attacks
we were increasingly aware of the gap between the authorities we had
and our need to respond quickly and decisively.
There have been successes in working within the current system.
Demonstration projects have shown positive results from experiments
outside the old rules. However, simply increasing the number of
demonstration projects rather than addressing the rules themselves is
not the answer.
Individual pieces of legislation enacted last year gave us some
flexibility within the current system and legislation under
consideration for next year could give us more. We intend to make good
use of authority to expedite hiring, modernize compensation, pay for
degrees, repay student loans, interact with industry, and provide
scholarships for information technology. We will also continue our
executive development through a restructured Defense Leadership and
Management Program.
To respond in a more comprehensive way, we have developed a
strategic human resources plan that we believe will meet the challenges
we face and will provide a unified framework for our efforts. This
plan: promotes focused, well-funded recruiting to hire the best talent
available; describes a human resources system that ensures the
readiness of the integrated force structure; commits to promoting and
sustaining an effective workforce that reflects the diversity of the
American population; recommends investment in human capital; provides
management systems and tools that support planning and informed
decision-making; focuses the human resources community on the needs of
its customers; and promotes work-life balance as an integral part of
daily operations.
Additionally, DOD is continuing efforts to improve the academic
quality and cost-effectiveness of the education and professional
development provided to its civilian workforce. We are working towards
obtaining accreditation for all DOD institutions teaching civilians.
DOD anticipates that eight additional institutions will have gained
initial accreditation by the end of next year. We are also working
towards implementing academic quality standards and metrics developed
last year, as well as a data collection system. These will provide our
institutions a mechanism for performance benchmarking and will give
decision-makers accurate and timely information on the quality and
cost-effectiveness of DOD institutions teaching civilians.
health care
An essential element of the new social compact is a high-quality,
affordable, convenient Military Health System (MHS). The 8.3 million
military beneficiaries supported by the MHS want high quality,
affordable and convenient healthcare. With the numerous authorizations
you provided in the National Defense Authorization Act for last year,
these beneficiaries have begun to receive that kind of healthcare.
Today, military beneficiaries have a comprehensive and generous
benefit, a benefit that comprises one more element of the social
compact we have with our military community.
The MHS is far more than a benefit, however. This acknowledgement
crystallized for all of us in the aftermath of the September 11
terrorist attacks and of the bioterrorist actions involving anthrax.
The capabilities of this system and its personnel contributed
indispensably to the care and treatment of survivors and families and
in assisting other Federal agencies in their responsibilities to
identify remains as well as to identify and track anthrax samples. Some
of these efforts continue even now.
Military Health System Funding
As we experience a new sense of urgency within the MHS to ensure
the ability to operate in a contaminated environment, to be alert to
potential exposures, and to treat casualties, we have budgeted
realistically for the Defense Health Program (DHP) for fiscal year
2003. These funds will support key initiatives to enhance chemical and
biological preparedness and deployment health support systems.
In the President's budget request for fiscal year 2003, the DHP
submission is based on realistic estimates of delivering healthcare. It
includes assumptions for growth rates in both pharmacy (15 percent) and
private sector health costs (12 percent). Still, we need flexibility to
manage our resources. We need the ability to make wise decisions that
result in effective performance. We seek your assistance in making
permanent the contract management flexibility you provided in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and in
alleviating the restrictions on moving resources across budget activity
groups.
This budget request reflects implementation of accrual financing
for the healthcare costs of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, including
their new TRICARE for Life benefits. This will entail both payments
into the fund to cover the Government's liability for future healthcare
costs of current military personnel and receipts from the fund to pay
for care provided to eligible beneficiaries. Our budget reflects an
increase to the military services' Military Personnel accounts to cover
the Department's annual contribution. This alignment ensures
consistency with the accrual funding for the military retirement
pension costs under Title 10, chapter 74. We ask your help in modifying
the language of NDAA 2001 and 2002, which currently direct that the
Defense Health Program make the annual contribution to the accrual
fund. It is the Military Personnel accounts that should make these
payments, and have received increases for this purpose in the fiscal
year 2003 budget request.
Priorities for the Military Health System
Force Health Protection and Medical Readiness
Even before the events of September 11, the Quadrennial Defense
Review had concluded that both terrorism and chemical and biological
weapons would transform the strategic landscape for the Department. The
terrorist acts of last fall placed us on a war footing and escalated
the urgency of our need for preparedness. The MHS has underway numerous
activities to ensure that preparedness, including formation of a high-
level working group with Department of Health and Human Services
representatives to improve collaboration on defense against biological
and chemical terrorism. Deliberations continue on the future of the
anthrax vaccine immunization program now that we have confidence in an
assured supply of FDA-approved vaccine. The MHS has also placed renewed
emphasis on training military healthcare personnel in recognizing
symptoms of and refreshing treatment plans for exposure to chemical and
biological agents.
TRICARE
This military health program benefit provides an essential and
interdependent link between medical readiness and everyday healthcare
delivery. Meeting the force health protection responsibilities of the
MHS depends upon the success of TRICARE in providing both quality
healthcare and challenging clinical experiences for military healthcare
providers. Very important to this success is a stable financial
environment. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget request for the
DHP provides that stability.
TRICARE's success also relies on incorporating best business
practices into our administration of the program, specifically in
regard to how our managed care contracts operate. Our new generation of
contracts will encourage best business practices by the contractors
without over direction by us. We have listened to the advice on how to
structure these contracts and we are confident that the design will
help us to continue providing high quality care. We enter this new
generation of contracts with a commitment to our beneficiaries to earn
their satisfaction and to have the minimum disruption possible.
Implementation of TRICARE for Life has proceeded exceptionally
well. As in all new program startups, we have experienced problems and
setbacks. Nevertheless, we aggressively handle each one until we reach
a satisfactory resolution. Since the October 1, 2001, start date, we
have processed over four million claims and the overwhelming majority
of anecdotal information we receive is that our beneficiaries are
extremely satisfied with TRICARE for Life. They speak very highly of
the senior pharmacy program as well. This program began April 1, 2001,
and in these first 9 months of operation, 7.6 million prescriptions
have been processed, accounting for over $382 million in drug costs.
Coordination, Communication, and Collaboration
The MHS has built many strong relationships among other Federal
agencies--including Congress--professional organizations, contractors,
and beneficiary and military service associations. These relationships
facilitated the MHS's ability to respond in the aftermath of the
terrorist actions of last fall. The MHS role in the new homeland
security responsibilities will span an array of Federal, State, and
local agencies and will demand effective cooperation among all
involved. Our close working relationship with beneficiary associations
and our contractors can be credited for the smooth implementation of
TRICARE for Life.
The MHS collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs dates
back many years and much has been accomplished. Now it is time to
refresh these collaborative efforts to maximize sharing of health
resources, to increase efficiency, and to improve access for the
beneficiaries of both departments. We will accomplish this through the
VA-DOD Executive Council, where senior healthcare leaders proactively
address potential areas for further collaboration and resolve obstacles
to sharing. Healthcare sharing between these two departments became the
subject of presidential interest when he established a Task Force to
improve care for the Nation's veterans. Several subject matter experts
from the MHS work with the Task Force and the Department to provide
administrative support as well.
Military Medical Personnel
The Quadrennial Defense Review directs development of a strategic
human resource plan to identify the tools necessary to size and shape
the military force with adequate numbers of high-quality, skilled
professionals. The MHS depends on clinically competent, highly
qualified, professionally satisfied military medical personnel. In
developing the MHS human resource plan, we have begun several
initiatives to determine retention rates, reasons for staying or
leaving the service, and what factors would convince one to remain in
the military. The challenges of military service can be unique and
tremendously rewarding personally and professionally.
As the MHS engages in the many initiatives outlined above, it will
become a stronger, more clearly focused enterprise centered on its
primary mission responsibilities and have world-renowned stature within
its reach.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I thank you and the
members of this subcommittee for your outstanding and continuing
support for the men and women of the Department of Defense. I look
forward to working with you closely during the coming year.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Dr. Chu.
Mr. Brown.
STATEMENT OF HON. REGINALD J. BROWN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am very pleased to be here today and to render
testimony. Before doing so, I would like to thank you and your
subcommittee for the help that you have provided us in enabling
us to achieve the tremendous personnel successes last year.
Because of your concern and that of your staff, you
provided our men and women in uniform and our civilian
workforce many useful tools. We appreciate the significant pay
raise, the Thrift Savings Plan, the Montgomery GI Bill
transferability, and the buy-down of the basic allowance for
housing for our soldiers and their families, and we also
appreciate TRICARE for Life and the National Mail Order
pharmacy for our retirees. You can be assured that all of these
programs will continue to help increase the overall well-being
of our force.
In the aftermath of September 11, the greatly increased
security requirements here in our homeland and the challenges
of fighting terrorism have served to emphasize the critical
importance of Army recruiting. The Army continues to recruit in
a highly competitive environment. The private and public
sectors, to include post secondary educational institutions,
are all vying for high quality men and women. Maintaining
adequate resourcing for recruiting is essential so that we
sustain our improvement over the past 2 years. In order that we
can do so, recruiting will continue to be my first priority.
The Army's recruiting requirements are developed from
projected needs based upon the steady state of 480,000
soldiers. The Army must recruit far more than any other
service. To make this possible, the Army must continue to be
equipped and resourced to succeed in this task. Properly
resourced, we are confident that we can meet our recruiting
goals.
Senator Cleland. Mr. Brown, can you suspend? The
subcommittee will stand in recess until Senator Hutchinson gets
back from the vote. Because of the length of time it takes me
to vote, I have about 5 minutes left, so the subcommittee will
stand in recess until Senator Hutchinson returns. [Recess.]
Senator Hutchinson. Mr. Brown, thank you and the entire
panel for being patient with the interruptions. You may
continue your statement.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, sir.
I would like to make a special mention in passing of the
tremendous contribution that the Guard and Reserve have made to
the Army's ability to accomplish its mission. Nearly 40,000
Army Guard and Reserve soldiers are answering the call to duty
today, supporting Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring
Freedom, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Sinai, not to mention
airports, border patrol, and other duties here in the homeland
under State authorities. This involvement of the Guard and
Reserve in our total force is testimony to our motto, ``An Army
of One,'' and should be noted.
I would also like to mention the tremendous importance of
the 223,000 Army civilians who support military functions
throughout the Army. They are an important part of our Army
today. Our concerns for the remainder of fiscal year 2002 and
beyond center around the momentum that was initiated by the
administration and Congress last year to continue to improve
the well-being of our soldiers through improved programs and
initiatives. I am hopeful that your support and assistance will
be with us as we demonstrate our collective commitment to
fulfilling the manpower and welfare needs of the Army, Active,
Reserve, civilian, and retired.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to taking your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Reginald J. Brown
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the men
and women of the United States Army, we would like to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before your subcommittee today to discuss the
Active and Reserve military and civilian personnel programs of
America's Army. As we move into the 21st century, the evolution of the
all-volunteer Army continues, marked by dramatic changes and proud
accomplishments. The Army of today is facing serious challenges in the
proper manning and readiness of the force, but we feel we are taking
the necessary steps, with your help, to ensure that it remains the best
Army in the world. We would like to discuss several key issues.
recruiting
In the aftermath of September 11, the greatly increased security
requirements here in the U.S. and the challenges of fighting terrorism
serve to emphasize the critical importance of Army recruiting. The Army
continues to recruit in a highly competitive environment. The private
and public sectors, to include post-secondary educational institutions,
are all vying for high quality men and women. Maintaining adequate
resourcing for recruiting is essential to ensure that we sustain our
improvement over the past 2 years. Recruiting will continue to be my
first priority.
The Army's recruiting requirements are developed from projected
needs based on a steady state of 480,000 soldiers. The recruiting
environment remains the toughest in the history of the all-volunteer
force, with youth unemployment holding at record lows. Even with the
slowing economy, youth unemployment has remained relatively steady.
This makes for a very tight labor market. The Army must recruit far
more than any other service. The Army must recruit quality applicants
from the non-propensed market and the positively propensed market in
order to meet its goals. To make this possible, the Army must continue
to be equipped and resourced to succeed in this task. Properly
resourced, the Army can meet its recruiting goals.
For the second year in a row, the Army made mission and met or
exceeded all three DOD quality goals in fiscal year 2001 with 90.2
percent having a high school diploma, 63.2 percent scoring in the top
50th percentile on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (categories I-
IIIA) and only 1.9 percent scoring in category IV (26th to 30th
percentile).
To fulfill the fiscal year 2002 enlisted accession mission, the
Active component must write 87,300 new contracts to cover the 79,000-
accession requirements and build an adequate Delayed Entry Program
(DEP) of 35 percent to start fiscal year 2003. The Army Reserve must
access 41,757 and the Army National Guard, 60,504. These workloads
combine to require productivity not seen since 1990, under more
difficult market conditions.
Through January 2002, we have exceeded our Active component
accession requirements by 467. The Army National Guard and the U.S.
Army Reserve are also exceeding their missions. We are fully engaged to
meet this year's accession missions and believe we can accomplish all
three components' missions. We are implementing initiatives to expand
the recruiting market in cost effective ways, without degrading the
quality of the force.
We know that Hispanics are underrepresented in the Army relative to
their share of the U.S. population. However, enlisted Hispanic
population increased from 8.3 percent of the Army as of September 1999
to 9.1 percent as of September 2000 and 9.7 percent as of September
2001. The Commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command has developed a
goal of 12 percent Hispanic contracts in fiscal year 2002. One program
that the Recruiting Command has implemented to help accomplish this
goal is the Foreign Language Recruiting Initiative (FLRI). The FLRI is
a 2-year pilot program designed to increase the number of Hispanics in
the Army. The Army will access 200 recruits per year during the 2-year
pilot program. The program began January 2, 2002, and will provide
quality individuals who speak Spanish with an opportunity to improve
their ASVAB score and use of the English language. As of January 31,
2002, Hispanics account for 12.1 percent of all fiscal year 2002
contracts.
To date we have implemented the ``College First'' test program and
the ``GED Plus--the Army's High School Completion Program.'' There were
673 enlistments in College First through fiscal year 2001 and 109 in
fiscal year 2002 as of January 6, 2002. You granted us changes to the
College First program for fiscal year 2002 that will improve the test
and the ability to determine expansion to the bound-for college market.
The GED Plus program achieved 3,449 accessions in fiscal year 2000, and
exceeded the 4,000 (5,947 Total Regular Army) program limit in fiscal
year 2001. As of January 6, 2002, there have been 2,838 accessions
through this program.
In fiscal year 2002 you gave us the opportunity to conduct an 18-
month enlistment option pilot test designed to increase the
participation of prior-service soldiers in the Selective Reserve and
assistance in building the Individual Ready Reserve.
Additionally, you directed us to conduct a test of contract
recruiters replacing active duty recruiters in 10 recruiting companies.
The Army is implementing this initiative. The plan is to bring on the
10 company contractors throughout fiscal year 2002 and run the full
test from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2007. We have awarded
this pilot program to two independent contractors each receiving
contracts to perform the full complement of recruiting services,
including prospecting, selling, and pre-qualifying prospective
applicants for the Regular Army and Army Reserve, and ensuring that
contracted applicants ship to their initial entry training starting
this spring in selected locations across the country.
Today's young men and women have more employment and educational
opportunities than ever before. Competition for these young people has
never been more intense. The enlistment incentives we offer appeal to
the dominant buying motive of young people and they allow us to sell
the skills most critical to our needs at the time we need them most.
The flexibility and improvements you provided to our incentives in the
past have helped us turn the corner regarding recruiting. The initial
four $20,000 Enlistment Bonus specialties have seen dramatic increases
in volume and quality fill. The combination of all incentives will help
fill critical specialties as the Army continues its personnel
transformation. The combined Montgomery GI Bill and Army College Fund,
along with the Army's partnership with education, remain excellent
programs for Army recruiting and an investment in America's future.
While the actions we have taken will help alleviate some of the
recruiting difficulties, we also know more work has to be done to meet
future missions. We must continue to improve the recruiting efforts
from developing a stable, robust resourcing plan to improving our core
business practices. We must capitalize on the dramatic improvements in
technology from the Internet to telecommunications and software. We
must improve our marketing and advertising by adopting the industry's
best business practices and seeking the most efficient use of our
advertising dollars.
Business practices, incentives, and advertising are a part of
recruiting, but our most valuable resource is our recruiters. Day in
and day out, they are in the small towns and big cities of America and
overseas, reaching out to young men and women, telling them the Army
story. We have always selected our best soldiers to be recruiters and
will continue to do so. These soldiers have a demanding mission in
making their individual goals. We owe it to these recruiters and their
families to provide them the resources, training, and quality of life
that will enable them to succeed.
The Army appreciates Congress's continued support for its
recruiting programs and for improving the well-being of our recruiting
force. We are grateful for recent congressional initiatives to increase
military pay and benefits and improve the overall well-being. We
believe these increases will not only improve quality of life and
retention, but will greatly enhance our recruiting effort, making us
more competitive with private sector employers.
enlisted retention
The Army's Retention Program continues to succeed in a demanding
environment. Our program is focused on sustaining a trained and ready
force and operates around five basic tenets:
Reenlist highly qualified soldiers who meet the Army's
readiness needs.
Enlist or transfer qualified transitioning soldiers
into a Reserve component unit based on the soldier's
qualification and unit vacancy requirements within geographic
constraints.
Achieve and maintain Army force alignment by
reenlisting qualified soldiers in critical skills.
Maintain maximum command involvement at every echelon
of command.
Ensure that a viable and dynamic retention program
continues is critical to the sustainment function of the Army's
personnel life-cycle.
Our retention efforts demand careful management to ensure that the
right skills and grades are retained at sufficient levels that keep the
Army ready to fulfill its worldwide commitments. Our Selective
Retention Budget continues to provide this leverage, which ensures a
robust and healthy retention program.
Over the past several years, retention has played an even greater
role in sustaining the necessary manning levels to support our force
requirements. Retention has been a key personnel enabler, considering
the difficult recruiting environment that has existed over that period.
This past year was an excellent example of the delicate balance between
our recruiting and retention efforts. Through a concerted effort by the
Department of the Army, field commanders and career counselors; the
Army not only made it's fiscal year 2001 mission, but finished the year
by retaining 982 soldiers above that adjusted mission for a
reenlistment percentage of 101.5 percent.
This year we have a retention mission of 56,000. Although that
mission is below the 64,982 soldiers who reenlisted last year, the
decreasing separating soldier population will make that mission just as
difficult. Last year the retention accomplishments equated to 67
percent of all separating soldiers, which was a historic high for the
Army. The mission this year requires us to equal that feat and retain
once again 67 percent of all separating soldiers.
The ultimate success of our retention program is dependent on many
factors, both internal and external to the Army. External factors that
are beyond our ability to influence include: the economy, the overall
job market, and the world situation. While we are enthusiastic about a
healthy economy and high employability of our soldiers in the job
market, we are also aware that these factors play heavily on the minds
of soldiers when it comes time to make reenlistment decisions. Our
force today is more family oriented. Today the Army is 55 percent
married. Army spouses, who are equally affected by these external
factors as the service member, often have great influence over
reenlistment decisions. The internal factors that we can influence
include: benefit packages, promotions, the number of deployments,
adequate housing, responsive and accessible health care, attractive
incentive packages, and reenlistment bonuses. Not all soldiers react
the same to these factors. These factors challenge our commanders and
their retention non-commissioned officers (NCOs) to provide incentives
to qualified soldiers that encourage them to remain as part of our
Army.
Our incentive programs provide both monetary and non-monetary
inducements to qualified soldiers looking to reenlist. These programs
include:
The Selective Reenlistment Bonus, or SRB, offers money
to eligible soldiers, primarily in the grades of Specialist and
Sergeant, to reenlist in skills that are critically short or
that require exceptional management.
The Targeted Selective Reenlistment Bonus program, or
TSRB, is a sub-program of the SRB that focuses on 11
installations within the continental United States and Korea
where pockets of shortages existed in certain military
occupational specialties (MOS). The TSRB pays a reenlisting
soldier a higher amount of money to stay on station at a
location in the program or to accept an option to move.
Both of these programs, which are paid from the same budget, play
key roles in force alignment efforts to overcome or prevent present
shortfalls of mid-grade NCOs that would have a negative impact on the
operational readiness of our force. We use the SRB program to increase
reenlistments in critical specialties such as Infantry, Armor, Special
Forces, Intelligence, Communications, Maintenance, and Foreign
Languages. The fiscal year 2001 SRB budget, as a result of the
congressional markup, was increased by $44 million to $106.3 million.
Non-monetary reenlistment incentives also play an important role in
attracting and retaining the right soldiers. We continue to offer
assignment options such as current station stabilization, overseas
tours, and CONUS station of choice. Training and retraining options are
also offered to qualified soldiers as an incentive to reenlist. By
careful management of both the monetary and non-monetary incentive
programs, we have achieved a cost-effective program that has proven
itself in sustaining the Army's career force.
The Army executes its retention mission through a network of highly
dedicated and experienced professional NCOs (career counselors) who
serve at the Brigade, Division, Corps and MACOM level. They are
supported by unit-level personnel who provide retention support to
their units as an additional duty. These soldiers and civilian
personnel are directly responsible for making the Army's retention
program successful.
The Army's retention program today is healthy. Into the 2nd quarter
of fiscal year 2002, as of January 31, 2002, we have reenlisted 109
percent of our year-to-date mission and are on track to make the
56,800-reenlistment mission that is required to sustain our 480,000
soldier Army. Our Reserve component transition efforts during last year
were also successful. We transferred 12,099 Active component soldiers
into Reserve component (RC) units against a mission of 10,500 for a
115.2 percent success rate. For fiscal year 2002 year-to-date, we have
transferred 2,925 soldiers into RC units against a mission of 2,441 for
a rate of 120 percent. The Army is expected to exceed its annual RC
mission again this year.
Despite these successes there are a growing number of concerns
surrounding the direction and future success of the Army Retention
Program. With the eligible separating population of soldiers decreasing
during the next 3 years, the actual retention rate will have to be
sustained at about 67 percent, which is 7 percent above what the Army
has previously accomplished prior to fiscal year 1999. Additionally,
MOS support skills, which include required language proficiency, signal
communications, information technology, and maintenance, present a
significant challenge caused by those external factors mentioned
earlier (e.g., the economy, the job market, and increased PERSTEMPO).
Even in the current economy, civilian employers are actively recruiting
service members with these particular support skills. They are offering
bonuses and benefit packages that we simply cannot expect to match
under current bonus allocation rules and constrained budgets. Although
retention in the aggregate is healthy, we continue to be concerned with
retaining the right numbers of soldiers who possess these specialized
skills.
To achieve our retention mission, we concentrate our efforts
primarily on first-term and mid-career soldiers. It is within these two
mission categories that the foundation for the career force is built.
However, retention decisions are significantly different between these
two groups. First-term soldiers cite educational opportunities and
availability of civilian employment as reasons for remaining in the
Army or separating. Mid-career soldiers are affected more by health
care, housing, compensation, and availability of commissary, exchange,
and other post facilities. Consequently, a higher percentage of mid-
career soldiers are married, although the number of married first-term
soldiers continues to increase. We continue to monitor both groups
closely for any change in reenlistment behavior. They are the key to
continuing a successful retention program. First-term retention rates
continue at historic levels, as they exceeded 52 percent during fiscal
year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and fiscal year 2001. Mid-career rates
continue to be above the pre-drawdown levels, at approximately 74
percent. We consider these rates to be the minimum levels necessary to
sustain the force. Non-retirement-eligible soldiers continue to remain
in the Army at a 98 percent rate. However, retirement-eligible soldiers
who are still retention-eligible are leaving the service at higher than
expected rates. The Army is keeping the right number of soldiers in the
force necessary to maintain our readiness. This is due in large part to
the help from Congress, existing incentive programs, and the continued
involvement by Army leaders at all levels.
officer retention
It is anticipated that we will finish fiscal year 2002 at slightly
below our Officer Budgeted End Strength of 77,800. We continue to
monitor officer retention rates, particularly that of captains. Post-
drawdown (1996-1999) captain loss rates remain slightly higher than
pre-drawdown (1987-1988) loss rates (.9 percent difference); manning
levels are constrained by deliberately under-accessed cohorts during
the drawdown years. However, the impact of the captain shortage has
been historically offset by a lieutenant overage, in aggregate number.
The Army steadily increased basic branch accessions beginning in fiscal
year 2000 with 4,000, capping at 4,500 in fiscal year 2002 and beyond,
to build a sustainable inventory to support captain requirements.
Administration and congressional support on pay table reform serve
to redress the pay issue. We continue to promote captains above the
DOPMA goal of 90 percent and are currently promoting all fully
qualified lieutenants to captain at the minimum time authorized by
DOPMA (42 months).
Army initiatives to improve retention among its Warrant Officer
AH64 (Apache) pilot population have stabilized attrition trends; a
reduction from 12.9 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 8.6 percent in
fiscal year 2001. Since fiscal year 1999 we have offered Aviation
Continuation Pay to 665 eligible officers, of which 565 accepted (88
percent take rate). Additionally, we have recalled 209 pilots since
1997, and have 21 Apache pilots serving on active duty in selective
continuation status.
reserve components
The exemplary performance of our Army in these past months is
testimony that we are indeed one Army . . . an Army whose components
are practically indistinguishable from one another. I know our Nation
is very proud of the performance of our Guard and Reserve Forces. I,
who have seen them perform first-hand in contingency operations
overseas and at home, at the Pentagon, am exceptionally proud of our
forces.
Let me tell you why I am so proud. Our citizen soldiers went into
action immediately and decisively in the aftermath of September 11. In
addition to the many individual heroes at the Pentagon and in New York
City, many other great men and women came forward without hesitation.
They were well trained and prepared to do their duty, a duty no one in
the civilized world could have imagined.
Whether as volunteers in the first few days after the attacks or
whether called up under the partial mobilization, the soldiers of the
Army Reserve and Army National Guard have come forward to serve proudly
and honorably--just as our citizen-soldiers have always answered the
Nation's call.
I cannot go on without giving praise to those employers of our
magnificent soldiers who believe and support the role our Reserve
components provide in meeting our national security obligations.
Likewise, we must recognize the family members who, through their
unwavering support, allow our service members to serve with peace of
mind.
We have a highly motivated, professional Guard and Reserve Force
performing real world missions alongside an equally motivated and
professional Active Force. As of mid-January, we had over 4,000 Army
Guard and Reserve soldiers engaged in the Balkan and Sinai operations.
Our Guard and Reserve are respectively providing about 8,000 and
6,200 soldiers in support of Operation Noble Eagle and nearly 4,700 and
6,400 respectively for Enduring Freedom. Additionally, we have nearly
11,000 Guard troops not in a Title 10 status but either a Title 32 or
State Active Duty status supporting Operation Noble Eagle. That amounts
to over 40,000 Army Guard and Reserve troops supporting Operations
Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom.
I want to express appreciation for your support in this past
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The increase in full-time
support authorizations, funding for military technicians and Active
Guard and Reserve soldiers, and the increase in AGR controlled grades
were especially critical.
perstempo
An increase in operational commitments and a reduced force
structure have combined to increase the turbulence and uncertainty felt
by the soldiers who serve our Nation. The increase in time spent away
from home for our soldiers is directly related to the increase in unit
and individual deployments and joint training exercises.
The Army actively manages the effects of PERSTEMPO through force
management options as well as through working with OSD to manage force
requirements in response to contingency operations. Some initiatives to
reduce PERSTEMPO include rotating units, selective use of Reserve
component forces, global sourcing, use of contract civilians where
possible, and a post-deployment stabilization policy.
The Fiscal Year 2000/Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense
Authorization Acts (NDAA) required the services to pay a high-
deployment per diem allowance to service members for each day in which
members are deployed in excess of 400 days in the preceding 730 days.
The services have established a system to track and record the number
of days a member of the Armed Forces is deployed.
Section 991(d) of Title 10, U.S.C., authorizes the suspension of
certain PERSTEMPO management constraints if required by national
security interests. In the wake of the tragic events of September 11
and Executive Order 13223, the services suspended the accrual of days
for PERSTEMPO per diem; however, the services continue to track and
report PERSTEMPO deployments for management purposes. The PERSTEMPO
data collected by the Army since October 1, 2000 provides a glimpse of
the level and diversity of deployment activity, but more data over a
longer period of time is needed to assess the impact of PERSTEMPO on
Army readiness and retention. The Army will continue to manage
deployments with an emphasis on maintaining readiness, unit integrity,
and cohesion while meeting operational requirements.
civilian personnel
A critical component of our Army is our civilian workforce.
Civilians have been, and will continue to be, a major contributor to
military readiness. They provide continuity, expertise, and significant
support to today's Army. They perform mission critical work in areas
such as depot maintenance, supply, acquisition, transportation,
training, deployment, medical care, research and development,
engineering, and facilities operations, to name just a few.
As of December 31, 2001, there were over 223,000 Army civilians who
support military functions and are funded through congressional
appropriations. This number includes foreign nationals. There were just
over 24,000 civilians serving the Army in reimbursable civil works
functions and nearly 29,000 serving in positions covered by non-
appropriated funding.
Today, nearly 41,000 civilians serve in locations outside the
continental United States. In addition to supporting soldiers and their
families at overseas posts around the world, Army civilians provide
direct support to operations such as Haiti, and the Balkans. During the
12-year period ending September 2001, the Army reduced its civilian
strength from 434,000 to just over 222,000, or more than 45 percent. We
achieved the civilian drawdown through reduced civilian hiring,
unreplaced employee losses, and mandatory placements to minimize the
adverse impact of reductions on our civilian employees.
Because of our drawdown posture over the several years, the number
of civilians who are eligible to retire has grown significantly. In
2003, 30 percent of our current professional workforce will be eligible
to retire. Using our workforce analysis and forecasting tools, we
predict a steady increase in civilian retirements between 2003 and 2008
as our ``baby boomers'' become retirement eligible.
Recently, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reported that
the number of retirements from the Federal workforce in 2001 was not
keeping pace with projections. During 2001, the Army's experience was
not typical of the experience reported by OPM. We projected that about
3.2 percent of our workforce would retire in 2001; 3.1 percent actually
retired. In addition, retirement trends in the Army reflect that
civilians are spending less time in retirement eligibility status. In
the mid-1980s, the average time employees remained ``retirement
eligible'' was just over 8 years. Today, they're in this status about 6
years, on average.
The drawdown has also led to skill imbalances. The lack of
replacements for losses over the last decade has disrupted the pipeline
of civilian employees who are adequately prepared to assume leadership
roles as most experienced employees retire. The ability to fill entry,
mid, and senior-level civilian positions quickly is essential to Army's
workforce planning efforts. We also must have the means to manage our
leaders strategically--what we are calling our Strategic Army
Workforce. The Army is moving toward central management of a cadre of
supervisors and managers to ensure that our key workforce will be
quickly accessible, trained, and ready to meet our transformation
goals.
To achieve Army transformation goals, we need to replace our
civilian workforce at a pace that matches their departure rates. In
addition, our future workforce must be multi-skilled and capable of
adapting quickly to meet our transformation goals. As the Army becomes
more strategically responsive, our laws to hire and compensate our
civilians must also change.
We must have flexibility to develop and implement accession
programs that meet the current critical need for the swift hiring of
highly qualified candidates. We ask this committee to support necessary
changes to simplify or eliminate outmoded civil service rules and
produce a modern, streamlined personnel system, one that is responsive
to our needs. We need the capability to hire at least 3,100 civilians
expeditiously into critical hard-to-fill positions, be able to pay for
performance using a flexible pay-banding system, and to provide funds
to advance the development of bold and innovative civilian leaders. Our
civilians are the best. We must have the support to replenish the best
and compete in tomorrow's labor market.
army review boards agency (arba)
The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) continues to make progress
toward providing all of our applicants fair and timely consideration of
their cases, as well as a clear explanation of our decisions.
The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) processed
over 12,000 cases in fiscal year 2001 and has made significant progress
in improving service to soldiers and veterans. A case backlog of nearly
5,000 a year ago has been reduced to a sustaining caseload of less than
3,200. Average case-processing time has been reduced from 22 months in
1998 to less than 6 months today. Ninety-eight percent of the cases
submitted to the Board for review during fiscal year 2001 were
completed within 10 months or less, exceeding a congressional mandate
to complete 50 percent of boarded cases within 10 months and all cases
within 18 months. This accomplishment meets fiscal year 2010
congressional requirements today.
The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) eliminated the 1996 backlog
of over 5,000 cases. Today, when an application arrives with its
records, we can review and decide an application within a week. Average
processing time is less than 90 days. We continue traveling around the
country to provide applicants desiring personal appearances, but who
cannot travel to Washington, an opportunity to present their case.
Our success has not been without cost. We spent over $3 million on
information technology, including a web page to accelerate and simplify
the application process. To ensure fair and timely consideration of
cases, we shielded the boards from personnel cuts, as directed, through
fiscal year 2001.
In sum, what we have achieved is testimony to what leadership,
management, and accountability, coupled with people, money, and time,
can accomplish. We appreciate your continued support, and we will
continue to improve our service to our soldiers, past and present.
well-being
A significant part of Army transformation is Army well-being. Army
well-being is the driving force for a successful transformation because
it directly impacts the human dimension of the force. Army well-being
is the personal--physical, material, mental, and spiritual--state of
soldiers, retirees, veterans, Army civilians, and their families that
contribute to their preparedness to perform and support the Army's
mission. Army well-being encompasses and expands upon quality of life
successes by providing a standardized, integrated holistic approach to
programs at the soldier, community/installation and senior-leadership
level. Well-being provides a clear linkage between quality of life and
Army institutional outcomes such as performance, readiness, retention,
and recruiting--outcomes that are strategically critical to sustaining
a healthy Army into the future.
The motivating force of Army well-being is ensuring we consistently
and adequately provide for the people of the Army while improving
readiness. Helping individuals connect to the Army, feel part of the
team and derive a sense of belonging is inextricably linked to
readiness. Well-being pursues an adequate standard of living for
soldiers and Army civilians and their families. Well-being connects
soldiers, civilians, retirees, veterans, and families to the Army by
fostering an intense pride and sense of belonging. Well-being
encourages members to grow by providing meaningful and supportive
personal enrichment programs.
Well-being seeks to enhance morale, recruiting, and retention by
incorporating all well-being related programs such as command programs,
pay and compensation, health care, housing and workplace environment,
education, family programs, and recreational services into an
integrated approach that succinctly communicates to soldiers,
civilians, retirees, family members, veterans and leaders the various
programs and resources provided by the military. It gives members of
the Army a holistic view that the Army is pursuing fair, balanced, and
equitable compensation benefits; consistently providing safe,
affordable, excellent housing; ensuring quality health care; enhancing
community programs; and expanding on educational and retirement
benefits by developing universal standards and metrics to evaluate and
deliver these programs.
Well-being will continue to be linked to the capabilities,
readiness, and preparedness of the Army as we transform to the
Objective Force. Well-being means predictability in the lives of
soldiers and their families, access to excellent schools and medical
facilities, educational opportunities, housing, and recreation. Well-
being means soldiers and civilians will not be put in the position of
choosing between the profession they love and the families they
cherish.
military compensation and benefits
The purpose of the military compensation system is to attract,
retain, and motivate people. In order to man the Army with quality
volunteers, we must compete directly with the private sector, and in
today's environment, compensation is a key to competitiveness. An
effective military compensation system must be flexible and competitive
in order to attract young men and women to military service and to
retain them throughout a demanding career. This year's budget contains
a 4.1 percent pay raise, which is 0.5 percent above the Employment Cost
Index. Providing pay raises at 0.5 percent above the Employment Cost
Index this year and through fiscal year 2006 will greatly enhance the
well-being of our soldiers and improve the competitiveness of the
military compensation package.
We appreciate your commitment in this regard.
We strongly support the plan to eliminate out-of-pocket housing
costs by the year 2005. This initiative will improve the well-being of
our soldiers and their families, and contribute to a ready force by
enhancing morale and retention. The fiscal year 2003 President's budget
continues this initiative, which will reduce out-of-pocket costs from
11.3 percent today to 7.5 percent in 2003--putting us on track to
eliminate the out-of-pocket housing cost for the men and women in
uniform by 2005. We will continue to endorse fair and equitable
compensation and benefits for our soldiers and their families and thank
you for continued support for the men and women of the Army.
military retirees
Army retirees have served our Nation honorably and selflessly,
affording American citizens a way of life that is unknown in many other
countries. This Nation is eternally indebted to these gallant men and
women. Even though they have taken off the uniform, many continue to
serve in various ways in their civilian and military communities. For
many, ``U.S. Army Retired--Still Serving'' is not a slogan; it's a way
of life.
We greatly appreciate your commitment to provide our military
retirees with health care that addressed one of their major concerns--
access. The TRICARE for Life medical coverage provides military
retirees with the most comprehensive medical coverage and access that
includes a robust pharmacy benefit with very little out of pocket cost.
This benefit enhancement maintains the promise, demonstrates our
Nation's thanks for their service, and improves our ability to recruit
and retain professional soldiers.
Prior to this change, retirees and family members perceive the
limited access to health care as a breach of contract--one that reduced
their standard of living. The generous modifications by Congress with
TRICARE for Life, robust pharmacy benefits, and elimination of co-
payments for active duty military members and their families were
pieces of legislation that addressed these retiree concerns. We thank
you for such robust support and ask for continued sufficient funding to
provide the health care promise to retirees.
closing
We know the Army offers tremendous opportunities to America's
youth. Our soldiers return to America's communities better educated,
more mature and with the skills and resources to prepare them for a
productive and prosperous life. They make valuable contributions to
their communities.
Our recruiting mission continues to be a challenge. The success of
our retention program continues to rest on the shoulders of unit
commanders, leaders and our retention professionals throughout the
Army. Our concerns for the remainder of fiscal year 2002 and beyond
center around the momentum that was initiated by the administration and
Congress last year to improve the lives of our soldiers through
improved pay initiatives.
I am hopeful that your support and assistance will continue as we
demonstrate our collective commitment to fulfilling the manpower and
welfare needs of the Army, Active, Reserve, civilian, and retired.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Navas.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. NAVAS, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Navas. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I
thank you for this opportunity again to be able to come before
you and thank you for the support you have given historically
throughout the years and, in particular, in the last couple of
years to the people in the Navy and Marine Corps to maintain
the trends and to sustain those trends that we have attained.
The Navy Department and the Navy leadership are committed
to people. Secretary England has been known to say that you
could build a carrier with $7 billion and have it in the dock,
but until you put quality people on it the value to the Nation
is minimal. So we are committed to quality people, quality of
life, and quality of service.
Again, our successes have been driven in part by the
support you have given us, and our priorities for this budget
in fiscal year 2003 remain. You will see that our budget
continues on that glide path towards recruiting, retention, and
quality of life. A big portion of our concerns this year is in
the support of the mobilized Reserves. They have answered the
call again as they have over the years, in the aftermath of
September 11, and today we have Naval reservists and Marine
Corps reservists serving all over the globe.
There remain a couple of issues we have to address,
although we have made great progress. These issues are in part
the issue of health care for reservists. A lot of progress has
been made in that, but there still remain some pockets of
issues that we must address.
The other issue is of a lesser degree, but not less
important for those involved--the issue of income difference.
Some of our reservists, when they are called to serve their
country, have financial losses because of their service to the
Nation. Philosophically that is something we need to address,
and we should be looking at those issues.
I want to thank you again and keep my remarks brief. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Navas follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. William A. Navas, Jr.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a
pleasure to appear before you today to testify on behalf of the
outstanding men and women of our Navy and Marine Corps--Active duty,
Reserve, and civilian--who truly embody the ``One Team, One Fight''
concept in this challenging new time. At the outset, let me thank the
members of this committee and the entire Congress for the outstanding
support you have shown for our Nation's military. Building on prior
successes, you have continued your strong commitment to our people,
quality of service, and readiness. That commitment is deeply
appreciated and is having a positive impact; however, we must remain
dedicated to our ``Quality of Service'' concept by continuing to build
on our investment in our sailors and marines. This is all the more
critical during this time when we ask so much of our personnel in the
defense of our Nation and as we sustain the global war on terrorism.
continuing our investment in our sailors and marines
The demands of today's security environment, both at home and
abroad, mean that the Department of the Navy requires the best trained,
equipped, and prepared Navy and Marine Corps personnel.
The fiscal year 2003 budget will allow us the opportunity to build
on successes of last year, which included meeting annual end strength
and recruiting requirements. For our Marine Corps, fiscal year 2001
marked the sixth straight year of mission achievement and our Navy has
met with recruiting success for 3 consecutive years. Coupled with
improved retention in both services, this has enabled us to strengthen
the manpower posture of each service allowing for improved battle group
manning.
We have also worked to demonstrate our resolve and commitment to
improve the quality of service for our personnel by creating an
environment conducive to professional growth, advanced training, and
upward mobility, in addition to better pay, health care, and housing.
In order to sustain this momentum, the budget submitted for fiscal year
2003 reinforces our commitment to people, their quality of service, and
overall Navy and Marine Corps personnel readiness. Our budget reflects
an expression we often use--``Mission First, People Always.'' Included
is a $4.1 billion increase in the department's military personnel
accounts. This includes needed funding for pay increases, Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH), Career Sea Pay, additional end strength
funding for the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (4th MEB), and health
care initiatives, all of which places us on a solid path toward
transformation.
pay and compensation
The Department of the Navy has made tremendous strides in the last
year to improve the compensation and benefits systems. I would
especially like to thank you for your commitment to the well being of
our sailors, marines, and their families by supporting them with the
recent pay raise and for your continued support of innovative,
flexible, and cost effective compensation programs.
basic allowance for housing (bah)
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) out-of-pocket expense for
calendar year 2002 was at 11.3 percent, down from 15.0 percent in the
previous year. The fiscal year 2003 budget will further reduce housing
(BAH) out-of-pocket expenses to approximately 7.5 percent and bring us
closer to the goal of zero percent on average out-of-pocket by calendar
year 2005. Our end state is for sailors and marines to receive military
compensation which is competitive with the private sector, provide
equitable treatment to all sailors and marines and afford flexibility
in shaping and addressing service-specific manpower management
challenges.
special and incentive pays
Special pays, in conjunction with concerned leadership, are key
elements in retaining sailors and marines with critical skills and
experience. Our special and incentive pays remain an essential part of
our overall compensation package. While remaining keenly aware of both
the unique manpower requirements and cultural ethos differences between
the Navy and the Marine Corps, we walk a fine line in developing and
implementing special and incentive pays which meet the needs of each
service but maintain equity between the two. I believe we have found
great success in accomplishing this feat.
Career incentive pays for both Surface Warfare Officers and Special
Warfare Officers as well as major enhancements to Aviation Continuation
Pay have had an overall positive effect on these critical warfighting
communities, as have the enhancement of the Enlistment Bonus (EB) and
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) programs for the enlisted force. We
thank you for your past support, and seek your continued assistance as
we explore further improvements which will enhance Service Secretary
flexibility in adjusting and targeting cost-effective special and
incentive pays to react quickly to the ever-changing recruiting and
retention picture.
recruiting
The Department of the Navy is committed to recruiting the Nation's
finest young people to serve in the Navy and Marine Corps. Although the
events of September 11 did increase expressions of patriotism among
Americans and early indicators showed increased interest levels, there
is no evidence that recruiting is easier or that enlistments have
increased as a result of the terrorist attacks. Despite competition and
other challenges of the marketplace, both the Navy and Marine Corps
achieved their recruiting requirements in fiscal year 2001. While the
Marine Corps is poised to continue their 6-year streak, the Navy is not
yet postured for long-term success.
Of concern is the growing number of high school graduates, our
traditional target market, proceeding directly to college. This makes
finding operators and technicians for technologically advanced systems
challenging. The Navy's objective is to improve recruit quality by
targeting certain skills and increasing the number of recruits with
college credits, while increasing high school graduates from 90 to 92
percent of accessions.
retention/attrition
Retaining the best and the brightest sailors and marines, enlisted
and officer, continues to be a high priority within the Department of
the Navy. To that end we must offer a quality of life and service that
is directly tied to combat readiness. Creating an environment conducive
to professional growth and supporting an attractive quality of service,
adequate pay, health care and housing will all aid in our retention
efforts. In addition to the fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 pay
raises, increased allowance for housing and special pays like the
Selected Reenlistment Bonuses (SRB) and targeted officer continuation
incentives will all positively impact career decisions by our sailors
and marines.
managing time away from home (personnel tempo)
Navy and Marine Corps personnel have been fully and productively
involved in Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle, demonstrating
the highest levels of professionalism while protecting America and the
world from the terrorist threat. The services have worked hard to
balance increased operational requirements while maintaining a
sustainable personnel tempo. Despite their best efforts, some units
have had to deploy longer or earlier than planned. We greatly value the
operational flexibility and reduced administrative burden obtained by
using Personnel Tempo suspension authority that was provided by
Congress in Personnel Tempo legislation.
In addition, by significantly increasing Career Sea Pay and
extending it to more paygrades, the Department has tried to compensate
those service members who fill the most arduous duty assignments at
sea. No matter when the war on terrorism ends, a career in either the
Navy or Marine Corps will still require at least several long
deployments. We are committed, over the long term, to reach the right
balance between burdensome deployments, compensation, and quality of
life.
As required by Personnel Tempo legislation, the services are
preparing a report that will be presented to Congress in March 2002.
The report will continue the beneficial dialog that exists between the
services and with Congress on this important topic.
stop loss
Both the Navy and Marine Corps have implemented stop loss plans to
hold on active duty those individuals with critical or unique skills in
support of current operational requirements (e.g. special warfare,
infantry, linguists, medical, chemical/biological experts). Stop loss
policies are under continual review. Any changes in stop loss measures
will be based on emerging requirements driven by the evolving global
war on terrorism.
manpower for anti-terrorism/force protection
The terrorist actions of September 11 have thrust new requirements
on the Armed Forces in general, and the Navy and Marine Corps in
particular. While Anti-terrorism and Force Protection (AT/FP)
requirements were being addressed within the prior budget submissions,
the Navy has identified additional requirements in this area in order
to adequately pursue the ongoing war on terrorism and to safeguard the
public, our sailors and marines, and associated assets. The fiscal year
2003 budget includes funds for the recently re-activated Marine Corps'
4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) as an Anti-Terrorism unit. 4th
MEB (AT) provides a dedicated, sustainable, rapidly deployable
capability to detect, deter, defend, and conduct initial incident
response against acts of terrorism.
health care
Force Health Protection in support of our warfighters remains our
medical department's primary mission. This mission is furthered through
Readiness, Optimization and Integration. There is an absolute
expectation that our sailors and marines, around the world and in
whatever circumstances we place them, will have quality care by
dedicated military medical professionals. That expectation includes the
assurance that they will deploy healthy and with the most advanced
medical science available to ensure their protection. Their confidence
in this standard, and their confidence in the care of their families
through TRICARE, whether the member is home or away, is a key enabler
for the Navy. Navy Medicine is linked to the transformation that will
keep the Navy agile, versatile and responsive in the 21st century. This
will occur through recapitalization of the legacy medical force,
leveraging current day technology to build the interim medical force,
and pursuit of advances in medical research, science and technology to
develop the medical force of the future. We are also coordinating with
our sister services, the Veteran's Administration, Federal agencies,
and civilian healthcare provides through TRICARE contracts, to combine
our efforts into a force multiplier that yields increased efficiencies.
During these uncertain times, full integration is important to ensure
optimal healthcare delivery to all of our beneficiaries.
reserve affairs
On September 11, 2001, our Navy and Marine Corps Reserves showed up
at Reserve centers and military installations all around the country.
They were not even called. But they knew something had to be done and
that they would be called upon to do it. The defense of our Nation has
historically been based on the concept of the civilian who prepares for
active service during peacetime and becomes the ``citizen-soldier'' in
times of national emergencies. This is the militia tradition of our
great country and today's reservists are the modern day minutemen,
tracing their lineage back to these citizen soldiers, the militia with
their muskets in Lexington and Concord. On September 11th, the
tradition continued, only now with reservists wielding F/A-18 Hornet
strike fighters instead of muskets.
The mobilization alone does not reflect the whole story of success
in the past year. The Reserve components are an integral part of day-
to-day operations. There are approximately 75,000 Navy Selected
reservists and 40,000 Marine Selected reservists. In addition, another
140,000 Navy and Marine Corps personnel are members of the Individual
Ready Reserve and subject to involuntary recall in support of the
current national emergency. Long before the events of 9/11, our
reservists were, and continue to be, on difficult assignments in some
of the most hazardous areas of the world. In response to three
concurrent presidential reserve call-ups and to other crisis response
operations, they were in flash-point regions such as the Balkans and
the Arabian Gulf. They have provided essential port security
capabilities in the Middle East to US Central Command since the attack
on the U.S.S. Cole and participated extensively in counter drug
operations. From real world contingencies to exercises to routine
operations, Navy and Marine Corps reservists provided more than 2.5
million man-days in support of the active force in 2001.
mobilization
Reserve component members were both victims and heroes in the
attacks at the Pentagon and World Trade Center, and within minutes of
the attacks, reservists responded to the call to duty. There were
chaplains on duty in Washington administering to the needs of Pentagon
personnel and their families and there were reservists manning the Navy
Command Center. Naval Reserve F/A-18s were flying combat air patrol
missions in Texas. A Reserve helicopter squadron training in northern
Virginia provided Medevac support at the Pentagon. Reservists also
provided Naval Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers to New York and
Washington, DC. Marine Corps reservists from the New York area
volunteered to help with the immediate response and aftermath cleanup.
Marines were also mobilized to augment staffing levels in most Marine
Corps commands, Joint and Department of Defense staffs and to augment
individual bases and stations for force protection.
In response to operational requirements, mobilization of Navy and
Marine Corps reservists for the war on terrorism is ongoing, with
approximately 12,500 Naval and Marine reservists activated in support
of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom, providing critical
force protection, intelligence support, and staff augmentation.
Most of our recalled Naval reservists have specific skills as
individuals, primarily in law enforcement and security. Because of the
requirement for large numbers of auxiliary security force personnel,
many personnel were trained enroute to their duty station. Other skills
in the mobilization include medical, supply, intelligence, construction
and logistics. Most of the Navy units recalled were Mobile Inshore
Undersea Warfare units, Inshore Boat units, Harbor Defense units,
Construction Augment, Personnel Mobilization Teams, and Naval Criminal
Investigative Service units.
The majority of activated marines are providing planning, force
protection, intelligence, civil affairs, communications support, and
backfill. The Marine Corps also mobilized a company to relieve the
Fleet Anti-terrorist Security Team at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This freed
up that highly skilled unit to be used in other areas for force
protection. Two battalions have been mobilized to provide force
protection and backfill units now assigned to the Marine Anti-terrorism
brigade, and Reserve aviator units are augmenting the active force.
Both the Navy and Marine Corps expect to involuntarily extend some
reservists with high demand skills beyond 365 days. The requirement to
extend individual reservists beyond 365 days will be based on
operational requirements, which continue to evolve. Our intent is to
minimize the impact on individuals beyond an initial 365-day
commitment. Most Reserve personnel currently filling requirements for
Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom will be demobilized at the
end of 1 year, and active duty personnel or other reservists will fill
those requirements that remain valid.
This mobilization has required a great deal of flexibility and
responsiveness from individual reservists, gaining commands, and
headquarters elements. To minimize personal hardships, the Secretary of
the Navy directed that, consistent with operational requirements, all
Selected reservists will be provided a minimum of 72 hours notification
prior to required reporting. Non-drilling reservists are given a
minimum of 14 days notice. Additionally, at various levels of the chain
of command, authority is granted to delay individual reporting dates to
allow reasonable time for the reservist to meet his or her obligations
or to determine if an exemption from mobilization is warranted. Each of
the services has carefully adjudicated delays and exemptions requests,
taking into account the needs of the military, the needs of the
individual reservist and the needs of the employer.
The mobilization has not been flawless. Once activated, some Navy
and Marine Corps reservists have experienced problems with pay and
billeting, although nearly all obstacles have been overcome. Some of
the problems were the result of different active and Reserve pay and
personnel systems. The Defense Integrated Military Human Resources
System (DIMHRS) that is currently being developed will incorporate both
active duty and Reserve personnel into one system and simplify the
management of mobilization data, but we need to review the overall
compensation and benefits package provided for involuntarily activated
reservists.
reserve compensation and benefit concerns
Mobilization can be financially devastating for Reserve families
when active duty pay is substantially less than civilian pay. This was
a very real problem during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm,
prompting an `income protection' initiative by DOD during the 1990s.
The concept and requirements were valid, but implementation was a
failure and the program was terminated. The current mobilization again
highlights the issue as one of significant importance. Both officers
and enlisted, and in particular, self-employed personnel, can suffer a
substantial decrease in income that result in family and financial
hardships upon mobilization. This remains a problem that must be
addressed.
Continuity of health care for families of reservists is another
significant concern. Reservists on active duty are eligible for the
same healthcare and dental benefits as other active duty service
members. For service members activated for 30 days or more, their
family members are also eligible for TRICARE. The recently introduced
TRICARE Reserve Family Demonstration Project provides special
protections to Reserve component families in order to preserve
continuity of care with their existing healthcare providers. This
demonstration waives deductibles (to avoid Reserve component families
paying both private health insurance and TRICARE deductibles);
authorizes TRICARE to pay up to 15 percent above the TRICARE allowable
rates for care provided by non-participating providers; and waives the
requirement for families to use nearby military treatment facilities
for inpatient care.
Still, health care issues are perhaps the number one obstacle to
seamless integration of Reserve personnel into the active force. As
medical costs rise, health insurance and health care benefits take on
greater importance. We are greatly pleased that Congress authorized
Federal employing agencies to pay both employee and government
contributions to the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (for up to
18 months for Federal employees who are members of a Reserve component
called to active duty for more than 30 days in support of a contingency
operation). Given the frequency and length of recent deployments of
Reserve personnel, this in-again, out-again health care coverage may
result in lost or reduced health benefits at a time when most families
can least afford it. This is a readiness, recruiting, and retention
issue.
reserve recruiting and retention
The effective integration of Reserve and Active components is
indispensable as demands on military forces increase while active force
size has stabilized. The authorities provided by a supportive Congress,
coupled with the manning strategies the Department has executed, have
provided America with a very effective force that serves as a source of
pride and confidence. Our recruiting and retention programs are the
cornerstones of that capability.
Paradoxically, as a result of success enjoyed by the active force
in its efforts to improve retention, the recruiting mission for the
Naval Reserve becomes even more challenging. Despite that, the Naval
Reserve came within two percent of its authorized end strength and made
recruiting goals in fiscal year 2001. Additional enlisted and officer
Reserve recruiters in fiscal year 2002 will help to ensure future
recruiting goals will also be met. A restricted line special designator
has been developed for Naval Reserve recruiting officers allowing for a
more professional, better managed community.
The Naval Reserve is working closely with fleet manpower personnel
to better shape the Reserve Force to meet fleet requirements. Force
shaping tools include the use of bonuses, targeted recruiting and
retention efforts, availability of additional ``A'' school seats, and
programs to transition sailors from overmanned to undermanned ratings.
Reservists are being matched to specific job requirements, and this
allows the Navy to determine, at any given time, specific skill
requirements and where Reserve personnel are most needed.
In addition to working with the active force to determine
requirements, over the last 2 years the Naval Reserve Recruiting
Command (NRRC) has been working more closely with the fleet and active
Navy Recruiting Command (NRC) to fill those requirements. All sailors
leaving active duty are contacted prior to separation, a NRRC liaison
officer has been detailed to NRC, and the NRRC Call Center has been co-
located with NRC. Further, in fiscal year 2001 the majority of Navy
Achievement Medals presented to individuals for successful referrals to
the Naval Reserve were presented to Regular Navy recruiters.
Recruiting results indicate that increased expressions of interest
by young people following the attack upon our homeland did not
translate to hikes in enlistment contracts. The major change Naval
Reserve recruiting has experienced since September 11, 2001 is the
decrease in Navy Veteran (NAVET) accessions. Historically, about 80
percent of SELRES accessions have been Navy veterans. However, the pool
of eligible Navy veterans is shrinking due to the desire of many
sailors to remain on active duty serving their country. In fiscal year
2002, NAVET accessions are running around 55 percent and the NRRC fell
7 percent below its enlisted accession goal in the first quarter.
(Naval Reserve recruiting is currently well ahead on officer
recruiting.) In order to offset this decline, the Reserve Force
increased recruiting reservations to include greater numbers of non-
prior service (NPS) accessions. Naval Reserve recruiting also received
authorization to recruit in the 21 to 25 year old age group, which
should help both NAVET and NPS recruiting efforts. The Marine Corps
Reserve has traditionally relied on non-prior service recruits and
continues to achieve recruiting goals.
The Reserve Forces have adequate funding in place to retain officer
and enlisted personnel with critical skills, and the reduction of
attrition rates has received significant command attention. However,
attrition rates in fiscal year 2002 are in line with last year's
percentages and it is too early to know what impact the ongoing
mobilization will have on Reserve attrition. The long-term impact will
be tied first to the job satisfaction experienced by mobilized
reservists. The second critical factor will be the impact of
demobilization and assimilation back into local communities. Those
members who experience difficulty in family or personal life, civilian
careers, or personal finances may be expected to have a decreased
interest in continued Reserve participation. If the Reserve Forces are
to assume a new role of regular periods of involuntary active duty, new
policies, additional schools and training pipelines, and new
legislation concerning sustainment of the force will be required.
ensuring equal opportunity in the military
We have succeeded in recruiting our sailors and marines from every
part of society so that they truly represent the people they serve.
Through careful training and development, we have bonded these diverse
Americans into the world's pre-eminent naval force. There is no place
in the Department of the Navy for discrimination that denies us access
to capable and talented individuals from any background, or that
impairs the bonds of trust and respect so necessary for cohesion and
victory.
Looking to the future, we are keenly aware that military leaders
cannot be hired from outside but must be cultivated from within each
service. Our priority is to retain and develop the best talent
available and so ensure that our future leadership reflects the quality
and diversity of the people we serve.
quality of life programs
Out of necessity, given the nature of the military profession, we
ask our people to sacrifice a great deal. In the aftermath of the
events of September 11, sailors, marines, and their families are facing
new, unprecedented challenges and are being asked to sacrifice more
than ever before. However, we cannot expect this sacrifice to continue
unbounded. There must be a corresponding recognition by military and
civilian leaders that we need to do what is necessary to ease the
burdens of the individual and collective sacrifices that our sailors,
marines, and their families make for the good of our Nation. As a
result, it is more important than ever that we provide adequate,
reasonable and consistent quality of life programs and services for our
people. This support is critical to military readiness and stands as a
mute testament of our commitment to the well-being of service members
and their families.
The Department of the Navy's Child Development, Fleet and Family
Support, Voluntary Education, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation, retail
exchange programs and our other wide-ranging Quality of Life programs
continue to provide a broad combination of support services for our
service members and their families.
morale, welfare, and recreation (mwr)
The focus of the Department of Navy's Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation program continues to be in providing high-quality,
consistent services and activities throughout the Department of the
Navy. The cornerstone of our MWR programs is physical readiness, with a
goal to provide ``total fitness'' to all service members, whether
stationed ashore or afloat. Sailors and marines greatly depend on our
fitness centers ashore and fitness equipment onboard ships to maintain
their readiness for combat. Each MWR activity is now responsible for
having professional fitness staff, equipment, and activities to support
the Navy and Marine Corps' goal of developing a fitness-based lifestyle
that includes a well-rounded fitness program. We also encourage family
members of our military personnel to take advantage of these programs
ashore. In support of this emphasis on physical readiness, the
Department's fiscal year 2003 budget provides $67 million for physical
readiness programs across fiscal year 2003 and the Future Years Defense
Plan to augment current staffing levels, replace cardiovascular and
strength training equipment, and implement an aggressive training and
certification program for fitness and sports staff members.
During the last 5 months, our MWR programs have also focused on
supporting service members and their families during Operation Enduring
Freedom. Among the initiatives undertaken have been the following:
To give personnel assigned to remote and isolated
sites a welcomed leisure outlet, Navy MWR developed a self-
contained ``Theater in a Box,'' which provides 288 videotapes
along with a videotape player, projector, screen, sound system
and all connectors needed to set up an indoor or outdoor
theater. Three of these packages were shipped to the Naval
Support Unit in Bahrain prior to the year-end holidays.
As part of a ``Let Freedom Ring'' sponsorship
agreement with AT&T, every shipboard sailor and marine on
December 23 and 24 had the opportunity to place a 15-minute
long distance call to family and loved ones for only 15 cents.
Country music superstar Garth Brooks performed aboard
the U.S.S. Enterprise on Thanksgiving Eve for service members
and their families in Norfolk, Virginia. The concert, aired
live on network television, was held in honor of military
families as part of the annual Military Family Week
celebration.
Deployed sailors and marines have also taken full advantage of MWR
services and activities designed specifically for them as part of our
Single Sailor and Single Marine programs. Single Sailor Centers provide
recreational opportunities and places to relax for young sailors and
marines who live onboard ships or in bachelor quarters. These centers
feature large-screen televisions for viewing sports and movies, video
games, computers with free Internet and e-mail access for keeping in
close touch with family members and loved ones, billiards, and much
more. The Single Sailor/Marine programs support the retention effort of
an important segment of our military members--our first-term sailors
and marines.
civilians in the department of the navy
The Department of the Navy employs about 182,000 civilian workers
in a wide variety of professional, administrative, technical, clerical,
and blue-collar occupations. In addition, we employ nearly 3,500
foreign national employees at our bases overseas. These hard working
and dedicated civilian employees can be found in every major command,
working alongside our sailors and marines, performing the vital work of
the Department. The civilian workforce forms an integral part of our
Total Force team. It is a diverse workforce, which in large measure
reflects the diversity of our Nation.
The civilian workforce of the Department of the Navy is 45 percent
smaller today than it was in 1989, which marked the beginning of a
decade of steady downsizing. This reduction of more than 149,000
employees was accomplished in an extraordinarily smooth manner.
Department of the Navy commanders and civilian leaders made maximum use
of authorities for separation incentives and early retirement. Whenever
possible, civilian employees were retrained to prepare for
transitioning to other work, and existing DOD and Government-wide
placement authorities were utilized to effectively assist employees in
finding continuing work. When our employees reached a decision to
retire or to leave by other means, we provided every available resource
in helping them through the transition.
Now the Department of the Navy faces an employment challenge shared
across the Federal Government: shaping the workforce to ensure that we
have the right people, with the right skills, in the right jobs to help
us meet the challenges of the future. We have adjusted our focus to
concentrate on targeting recruitment and hiring versus downsizing, and
workforce shaping versus workforce reductions. A Recruiters' Consortium
was established, bringing together experienced recruiters from our
commands to share best practices and seek innovative ways to attract
highly qualified individuals to the Department of the Navy. In keeping
with our goal to improve the diversity of the workforce, special
efforts are being made to attract candidates from populations currently
under-represented in our workforce, with particular emphasis on
Hispanics and the disabled.
Throughout the downsizing and concurrent budget reductions, we have
continuously sought ways to improve the management and operations of
the civilian personnel and equal employment opportunity functions in
the Department of the Navy, with a strong emphasis on performance and
results. Today and in the future, our civilian workforce remains
focused on its role as a crucial part of the total force supporting the
military mission of the Department of the Navy.
conclusion
On behalf of our sailors and marines, civilians, retirees, and
their families, I want to thank you again for your outstanding support.
The initiatives and programs approved in last year's National Defense
Authorization Act have been a significant investment in our sailors and
marines and toward ensuring the Quality of Service these dedicated men
and women deserve. I am confident that, with your continued support of
our efforts to maintain the course of improvement, our Fleet and Marine
Forces will be the versatile force required to combat the threats and
capitalize on the opportunities of the 21st century.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Navas.
Mr. Dominguez.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Dominguez. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
members of the subcommittee. Thanks for the opportunity to
testify today, and I also want to thank you and the members of
this subcommittee for your long continuing support for the men
and women of the Armed Forces, Active, Guard, and civilian.
I want to make three key points in my opening comments.
First is that the men and women of the United States Air Force
performed magnificently and continue to do so today in
responding to the challenges in the war against terrorism.
Within moments of the attacks of September 11, the Air Force
had moved its forces to high states of readiness and alert.
Citizen airmen from the Guard and Reserves poured in as
volunteers to pick up the load of that increased mission
requirement, and over the intervening months we have mobilized
many more of those citizen airmen. We have imposed stop loss
across the entire force, and the airmen out there continue to
respond without complaint. Every day, they show us the meaning
of selfless service, and it is an inspiring thing to be a
witness to, and to me drives home the rightness of the total
force concept.
The second point I want to make is that while our
technology frequently grabs the headlines, it is the quality of
the men and women who guarantee success, the men and women
behind that technology, and the quality of the people in the
Air Force today is a direct result of the constant, continuous
nurturing over many years that the members of this subcommittee
and the full Senate Armed Services Committee have given to the
people issues in the Air Force.
So you deserve much of the credit for the quality of this
achievement and the people in the Air Force, and I am eager to
work with you to extend that success into the future to
continue to make the Air Force an attractive option for the
best and brightest young people in America, and to retain the
people who have joined our team, and that is going to be our
biggest challenge as we move into the future, because the war
has increased the stress on the force.
The tempo of operations (OPTEMPO) is higher, and the high
demand, low density skills are particularly stressed in Air
Force, and so retention, already difficult, will become a
bigger challenge for us, and we have to succeed, because
retaining those highly educated technically skilled
operationally proficient combat-tested airmen is the key to Air
Force readiness today and transformation tomorrow.
The final point that I would like to make is again also
sharing with my colleagues recognition of the important
contribution that civilian airmen make to the output of the
total force. We know that the viability of that workforce, our
civilian workforce, is threatened, and we have to respond. If
we do not, there will be an effect on the combat capabilities
of the Air Force, and for that reason I commend that particular
issue to this committee's attention, and we will be soliciting
your support as we work with the other committees in Congress
that have more direct jurisdiction over Civil Service matters.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dominguez follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Michael L. Dominguez
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. This is a great opportunity to meet with
you, to thank you for your continuing interest and support of the men
and women who serve our country so well.
In a recent speech at the National Defense University in
Washington, DC, Secretary Rumsfeld eloquently made the case that our
national security strategy, the wars that we fight, the way that we
fight wars, and the weapons that we use have changed forever, and we
must transform to a new approach of deterrence and defense. He
specifically stated that as we allocate defense dollars and prepare for
nearer-term threats, we must not cheat the future--or the people who
risk their lives to secure it for us. We embrace his vision, not only
because it is his vision for the Department, but also because he is
right. People are the key ingredient to readiness and to successful
transformation. We must invest in human capital as ardently as we do
weapon systems and we must have the freedom to manage that investment.
The men and women of the Air Force, active duty, Guard and Reserve, and
civilian employees, are dedicated and patriotic individuals who have
responded with fervor and talent to the attacks of September 11. We
must respond with equal determination to ensure that they are the best-
trained and equipped force possible. We must also ensure that our
personnel and force management policies are continually transforming to
meet the ever-changing challenges of the 21st century. This was brought
home to us painfully on September 11 and the weeks to follow as the
President declared the war on terrorism.
Where We Are
Stop Loss
The war on terrorism affects an already stressed force. Because of
the increased operational requirements stemming from war on terrorism,
the AF implemented stop loss in September. Stop loss has been a
coordinated Total Force effort, encompassing the Air Reserve Component
(ARC) as well as the active force. We also put in place a process to
waive the stop loss order for those individuals with truly extenuating
circumstances. As the war on terrorism evolved, we worked hard to
define our current and future total mission requirements. In January,
we were able to begin releasing airmen from individual career fields--
specific Air Force Specialty Classifications (AFSCs). The initial
release from stop loss covered 24 officer AFSCs and 40 enlisted AFSCs,
which comprise 14 percent of the officer and 24 percent of enlisted
members of the Total Force. People released from stop loss will be
allowed to begin separating as of March 1, 2002. However, the Air Force
won't force anyone out the door with only 30-days notice. Even people
released from stop loss that must separate due to high year of tenure
or mandatory retirement dates will be allowed to take up to 5 months to
transition. We continue to review wartime requirements, and will
announce further stop loss adjustments at the end of March. I would
like to point out that the dedication and professionalism with which
the men and women of the Total Force have handled the additional
frustration associated with stop loss has been absolutely incredible,
and is totally in keeping with our Air Force history of proud service
to the Nation.
Mobilization
Our Total Force approach to stop loss is just an extension of the
way we view ourselves as a single service. Well before September 11,
the Air Force was truly a Total Force, succeeding through major
contributions from active duty, civilians, Air National Guard (ANG),
Air Force Reserve (AFR), and support contractors. This Total Force
philosophy is paying huge dividends during the national emergency as
each component performs its role superbly. To date, we mobilized just
over 26,000 ANG and AFR assets, with an additional 9,000 ANG/AFR
volunteers serving daily. Let me tell you how proud I am of our
guardsmen and reservists who have volunteered to serve our Nation. We
have had tremendous contributions from Air Reserve Component (ARC)
members that guard the Nation's skies here at home, pursue terrorists
abroad, and provide support to deployed forces. As we continue to
support the Expeditionary Air Force (EAF) construct with our Total
Force policy, the mobilization of the ARC will remain a critical part
of our capabilities, and the ARC will continue to stress volunteerism
in meeting current Air Force requirements.
Total Force End-strength
Implementation of the EAF structure throughout the Air Force has
enabled us to better measure and assess Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO)-
related manpower requirements over time. In the pre-September 11
environment, we identified a historical, enduring demand for 2+ AEFs
with acute impact on manpower requirements supporting High Demand/Low
Density (HD/LD) assets. The events of September 11 exacerbated both our
overall and HD/LD OPTEMPO, resulting in a higher steady state manpower
requirement. New homeland security requirements have resulted in an
ongoing reassessment of Air Force total manpower requirements. Our
initial projections show increased demands in stressed specialties in
warfighting skills such as security forces, intelligence, and
communications, which will have to be offset by reductions in other
less stressed skill areas.
While we have been able to meet our end strength requirements
short-term through the partial mobilization of the Reserve components
and stop-loss actions, these tools may affect Total Force retention
down the road. We must plan to exit from stop loss, while also allowing
our dedicated Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel to
return to their normal, citizen-airman roles in the future. In
achieving that end, Secretary Rumsfeld has challenged us to pursue more
innovative solutions to offset the need for end strength growth. We see
this as one more dimension of our transformation effort, and are
investigating a variety of options for shifting resources from ``tail''
to ``tooth''. We are also looking at cross-leveling within our force to
lessen impact on stressed AFSCs. These ``fixes'' will take time to
develop and implement, however, while the stress on our force is very
much here and now.
The Way Ahead
Retention
Recruiting and retention are often mentioned in the same breath,
but retention is more than just half the equation for achieving end
strength. Experience is key to Air Force readiness. The retention
challenge is a composite problem affected by every other decision made
in the AF from operational concepts to award policies. We have found
that we recruit individuals into the Air Force, but the decision to
either stay or separate is ultimately made around the family dinner
table. Air Force members that stay with us do so because of their pride
in serving our Nation, and due to the bonds they develop with the
greater Air Force family. Our ability to maintain an Air Force culture
that offers challenge and growth opportunities for our members,
adequate pay and benefits, and a quality of life acceptable for their
families dictates our ultimate retention rates. We set high retention
goals for ourselves because of the substantial cost of recruiting and
training replacements when people choose to leave. Aided by the badly
needed pay and compensation gains Congress worked hard to bring about,
we have exceeded one of three reenlistment goals for the first time in
3 years--first term enlistment. However, we still fell short of our
second- and third-term retention goals. Increases in Initial Enlistment
Bonuses, Selective Reenlistment Bonuses (SRBs), and the expansion of
the SRB program into new skill areas contributed to this improvement.
With approximately 80 percent of our enlisted force eligible to make a
reenlistment decision in the next 5 years, and recent decreases in
officer retention in some of our most critical career fields such as
scientists, engineers, and acquisition managers, retention will
continue to be one of the Air Force's greatest challenge.
Recruiting
Our renewed emphasis on recruiting is paying dividends, as we are
exceptionally well postured to exceed our current recruiting goals. We
now have 1,634 enlisted recruiters on the job and we are well on the
way to meeting our goal of 1,650. We have enhanced enlistment bonuses
and reemphasized the recruitment of candidates that have some prior
service experience. We started offering contracts to freshman ROTC
cadets rather than waiting until their sophomore year, added a 1-year
commissioning program to attract both undergraduate and graduate
students, and increased the maximum age for entry into senior ROTC.
Supported by an increased advertising budget that grew from $16 million
in fiscal year 1998 to $90 million in fiscal year 2002, we have already
accessed 107 percent of our fiscal year 2002 year-to-date goal without
lowering quality standards. However, it would be a critical mistake to
become complacent. The recruiting challenges that lay ahead are even
greater than those we have overcome if we are going to achieve the
force structure we will need for the future. We need to recruit the
right mix of skills in the right numbers. In the enlisted force we fell
short in the general skills area that includes one of our most stressed
skills--Security Forces. We also failed to meet our goals in recruiting
scientists and engineers, who are vital to our transformation efforts.
An increase in the numbers of Air Force people devoted to meeting
mission requirements in homeland security, anti-terrorism, and force
protection, combined with the increased demand for transitional skills
in areas such as science and engineering, intelligence, and
communications, will demand creative new approaches to recruiting.
Investment in Human Capital
Human capital provides the foundation for achievement of every one
of our goals, from meeting the challenge of the war against terrorism,
to transforming the Air Force to meet future, unimagined threats. To
that end, Secretary Roche has initiated a comprehensive overhaul of how
we think about developing aerospace leaders, and our programs for
educating and training that workforce. One component of this focus on
human capital is providing world class educational experiences tied to
the unique demands of the military services. To that end, Secretary
Roche and Navy Secretary England have begun a cooperative effort
between the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and the Naval Post
Graduate Schools (NPGS) to strengthen each institution as an
independent Center of Excellence. The individual programs will
compliment each other, and together they will offer all services top-
tier educational opportunities. Ultimately, our ability to transform
will rest on the investment we make in intellectual capital today.
Compensation
As we transform we need to attract and retain the highest caliber,
high-quality, high-tech talent. With an all-volunteer force,
compensation programs must keep pace with the private sector or our
transformation plans will not be achieved. The President's budget
includes an additional pay raise for our military members. These raises
will assist with retention, and make service in the Armed Forces more
competitive with the private sector. Congress has long recognized the
cost effectiveness of offering financial incentives in areas of
critical military skills. A robust and targeted bonus program is still
our most effective long-term retention tool to manage the force. We
must extend authorities for accession and retention bonuses for both
the active duty and the Reserves. For the foreseeable future, we will
need help in areas such as Aviation Career Pay, Selective Reenlistment
Bonuses, Critical Skills Retention Bonuses, and Nurse and Dental
Bonuses. New legislative authorities for Critical Skills Retention
Bonuses (CSRB) and Officer Accessions Bonuses (OAB) are valuable tools
in recruiting and retaining the high quality people we need. Recent
cuts in CSRB will have a direct and lasting negative effect on those
very skill sets we have identified as critical to our success. Funding
of CSRB, as well as enlistment/reenlistment, aviation, and medical
bonuses is a vital component in our effort to build an experienced
force.
Force Shaping
We can no longer rely on inflexible personnel and management
systems to produce the workforce needed to do the job in the 21st
century. We must transform, utilize modern business techniques and
explore creative means to access, develop, and retain a multi-talented
and skilled workforce. That is particularly critical in the civilian
component of the force. Traditionally, the Air Force civilian workforce
has provided continuity and comprises a significant percentage of
personnel in the scientist, engineer, contracting, financial
management, logistics, and maintenance career fields. In the
Expeditionary Air Force, the role of continuity extends to providing
the ``reachback'' expertise necessary to support deployed troops, where
previously that support was provided through forward-deployed bases.
Civilians are an integral part of the complex system that keeps the
fighters, bombers, tankers and rockets flying. They also play a
critical role in the DOD's homeland security mission. The roles Air
Force civilian employees play in accomplishing the Air Force mission
are, in and of themselves, compelling reasons to invest in the Air
Force's civilian workforce. However, there are other major issues that
make investment in the civilian workforce critical.
A decade of downsizing has produced a civilian workforce that needs
new blood and new skills. Since 1989, the Air Force eliminated 100,000
civilian positions. Hiring has been seriously constrained as we
attempted to minimize the downsizing's effect on existing employees.
Consequently, there has been limited opportunity to refresh the force
with new hires. Professional occupations have been the hardest hit. In
1989, a quarter of all professional employees were within the first 10
years of service; now less than 10 percent are. As a result, by 2005,
based on the current assigned force, over 42 percent of the Air Force
civilian population will be eligible for either early or optional
retirement. Historical trends indicate that approximately one third of
white-collar employees will retire the year they become eligible,
approximately half retire within 2 years of eligibility and by the
fifth year that number reaches 80 percent. For blue-collar employees,
the numbers are even higher. We must have workforce-shaping
flexibilities to ensure we have a sustainable force that can meet
tomorrow's readiness challenge. There are three distinct civilian
force-shaping initiatives that we believe to be crucial and that are
consistent with the President's Management Agenda.
First, we need to institute pay broad banding to simplify position
classification and reward top performers. We need the authority to
develop and implement a DOD broad banded classification and pay system.
It would streamline the personnel management process, provide
flexibility, be responsive to ever changing requirements, encourage
empowerment, and enhance productivity.
Second, we support the administration's initiative for expedited
hiring that provides for category ranking of applicants but we also
need the ability to do on-the-spot hiring for critical skills or where
there is a demonstrated shortage of candidates. We need the increased
recruitment flexibility to allow positions to be announced in a limited
geographic area. Expedited hiring practices can increase efficiency
without undermining merit principles or veterans' preference.
Third, we need the ability to shape our workforce to support our
transformation efforts as the Air Force evolves and adapts to the
changing security environment of this 21st century. Early retirement
and separation incentives will allow us to create vacancies, which can
be used to renew the force now, and arrest the aging of our workforce.
An aging workforce costs more than it would if normal accessions had
occurred. Separation authority would be used judiciously to ensure
institutional knowledge is not lost in the process.
Air Force leaders also need the flexibility to encourage critical
skill civilian employees to relocate to meet Air Force mission
requirements. Currently, we may pay for a last move home for SES
members when they relocate in the interest of the government. We need
the same flexibility, at the discretion of the Service Secretary for
certain other employees when asked to move within a few years of
retirement.
Likewise, we need flexible authorities to respond to forecasted and
unforeseen changes in military requirements. Previous military force-
shaping programs and transition benefits expired on 31 December 2001.
These included an early retirement authority, VSI/SSB programs, TIG/CST
retirement waivers, SERBs, and special retirement and pay authorities
for the Reserve--relaxation of certain ``active'' and ``consecutive''
service timelines in the retirement eligibility/pay equation.
Transition benefits that expired (applicable to involuntary separations
only) included 2 years of continued commissary/exchange privileges,
extended use of military housing up to 180 days, delay of travel/
transportation/storage benefits up to 1 year, extension of expiration
on Reserve MGIB benefits, educational leave for post-military
community/public service, continued enrollment of family members up to
1 year in DOD schools and preference when applying to the Guard or
Reserve. While other initiatives such as cross-leveling will be
utilized to shape our force assets to requirements, they are not the
single answer to successful force management. Hence, as with our
civilian force, we must have the flexibility to discriminately
incentivize separations and retirements to support current requirements
and future planning. The availability of these authorities is critical
to maintaining a stabilized military end strength and skill mix, and is
consistent with our transformational strategy for personnel and force
management policies.
Sustaining Quality of Life
Every dollar that we invest in quality of life (QOL) affects the
readiness of the United States Air Force. We have identified a few key
quality of life readiness drivers affecting both the member and his or
her family. High OPTEMPO, excessive work hours, and extensive, extended
deployments, all mean less time with family. The resulting stress and
strain will have a direct impact on readiness. Therefore, our highest
QOL priority is ensuring we have the manpower needed to perform our
mission. Through our AEF construct, we can provide a properly sized
force a high degree of stability and predictability in deployment and
home station scheduling. In the past workplace environments have
suffered because total Air Force requirements simply exceeded available
resources. Fortunately, with the support of the President, Congress,
and the American people, the Air Force budget is now large enough to
begin reversing that trend. Congress has increased pay, selected
bonuses, and benefits for our service members and we support your
continuing efforts to minimize out-of-pocket expenses and to ensure
fair and competitive pay and benefits.
Programs and services that support and enhance a sense of community
are critical, especially in times of deployment and war. In particular,
quality health care and safe and affordable housing are key to
providing military members and their families a strong sense of
security. On-base MWR and family programs are part of the vital non-pay
benefit system as are the commissary and exchanges. Programs like child
development, youth programs, fitness centers, libraries, skills
development, and family support centers contribute to the economic
viability, morale, and readiness of our total force.
Our young enlisted members are finding it increasingly difficult to
make ends meet. With the vast array of credit available to our members
it is especially important for them to understand the consequences of
assuming debt that can lead to long-term financial hardship. A study by
the RAND Corporation indicates that 27 percent of junior enlisted
members have problems paying their bills compared to 19 percent of
comparable civilians. We conducted an internal survey of E-3 through E-
5s and found that 24 percent had no savings and 29 percent had less
than $1,000 in savings. We are helping our junior members before they
fall into the spiral of long-term debt, which in many cases leads to
disciplinary action or separation from the service. We are implementing
preventative measures to assist our members and their families with
Personal Financial Management Programs. We've added 2 to 4 hours of
financial training in our basic and technical training curriculum along
with 4 to 6 additional hours of training at the member's first duty
station. We are exploring additional training opportunities at our
professional Military Education Academies along with developing a Web-
based training program in our world class Internet site, the Air Force
``Crossroads.'' As you continue to support closing the pay gap for our
military members, we want to do all we can to support financial
literacy so our members can make smart, informed financial decisions.
summary
Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Roche share a very clear vision
for the future of the Air Force. That transformational strategy invests
in human capital as ardently as it does weapon systems, and
aggressively employs sound business principles and modern management
techniques to empower the workforce, speeding the agility of our
response to emerging threats, and shifting resources from bureaucracies
to the battlefield. Our Total Force is meeting the challenges of the
new war on terrorism head-on. They endure a high OPTEMPO, stop loss,
and mobilization without complaint to ensure we achieve our Nation's
goals. As leaders, we must use these and the other tools at our
disposal judiciously to sustain the force that so selflessly serves our
Nation's interests today. With the added mission requirements of a war
against terrorism, we have stressed particular career fields and will
need to increase the numbers of people in those fields. The recruiting
and retention of the high-tech work force necessary to achieve the
Secretary's transformation goals demands pay and compensation
competitive with the similarly educated work force in the private
sector. The time to invest in that precious commodity--human capital--
is today. A much greater emphasis on advanced academic degrees from
world-class institutions in mission-related fields is fundamental to
our success, as are key retention tools like the MGIB and the Student
Loan Deferment Program that allow us to recruit from the population of
candidates that have college experience. There is no more critical need
for us than the need for flexible management tools to shape our
workforce--both military and civilian. Authorities like broad pay
banding, streamlined hiring, and voluntary separation incentives will
allow us to mold today's workforce into a workforce with the skills for
tomorrow. The way we fight our Nation's wars has changed forever. I
look forward to working with each of you as we transform the Air Force
into an organization perfectly suited for our new challenge.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you very much.
Dr. Chu, I am sorry I was not here to hear your testimony,
but we thank the whole panel. We have five successive votes,
and so we are hoping that by voting alternately, that we will
be able to keep the hearing moving along. Thank you again for
your patience.
Dr. Chu, let me bring up a subject that I always bring up,
and that is the vaccine program for the military. This is
something we have talked about, and I know that you have been
very dedicated to this. It is my understanding that Bioport has
now received approval from the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) that they are back in production on the anthrax vaccine,
and that is good news. I am very pleased about that.
But I am not pleased that we ever got into the situation
where we were wholly dependent on one commercial company for
the production of the vaccine. The experience was not good and
should never be repeated. The military has very specific
vaccine needs that the commercial sector has been either
unwilling or unable to meet. I am talking about the so-called
orphan vaccines that commercial firms do not produce but are
critical in order to protect our troops.
At a hearing last week, I asked General Myers about the
need for the Department of Defense to have some kind of organic
vaccine production capability, so I raised that issue with the
Secretary as well. General Myers agreed that this kind of
facility was a valid requirement, I believe were the words.
Secretary Rumsfeld indicated that a decision on whether to go
forward with the Government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO)
facility was not yet made but was forthcoming.
I want to get your thoughts on that, maybe an update on how
the Bioport production is going, where the vaccination program
on anthrax, where that stands as far as our troops, and a
status on the whole GOCO proposal.
Dr. Chu. Thank you, sir. Your concern for this, of course,
is quite prescient in character and, as you know better than I,
has taken on even greater importance since September 11.
We have, as a result of that widened interest, formed a
partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), because as you appreciate, this is really now a national
problem, not just a military problem. Secretary Rumsfeld
indicated it will be in that context that Defense makes
decisions about specific alternatives in terms of how we best
meet national and military needs, not only for anthrax but for
a whole variety of problems, as you so well appreciate.
On anthrax specifically, with the licensure of Bioport, the
vaccine produced in the course of that licensure process over
the last couple of years becomes available to us, about 500,000
doses.
My understanding from my colleagues in acquisition, who
monitor the actual facility and its business operations on a
close basis, is that they seem pleased with what is occurring.
Going forward, we would obviously come to a review of our
anthrax inoculation program. That is ongoing. The decisions
about exactly how we are going to proceed have not yet been
made, but I expect them fairly shortly. Until licensure was
completed we had a limited stock of vaccine that we could use
as a licensed product. We had limited inoculation of anthrax to
the highest risk category, those being special forces and
people actually handling anthrax material, etcetera.
Senator Hutchinson. At what point will the DOD actually
acquire the 500,000 doses?
Dr. Chu. They are available to us now, sir.
Senator Hutchinson. Have we ramped up the actual
inoculation program?
Dr. Chu. We are in the midst of deciding how we are going
to do that. That decision is not yet made. What I should
emphasize is, even with Bioport at its current production
capacity for the next 2 or 3 years, it really is not viable to
return to the older policy of inoculating everybody, Active and
Reserve, regardless of the level of risk that they face. It is
just a matter of putting the volume of vaccine you have against
the number of inoculations you have to give.
It is intricately entwined with the decision on the results
that we hope to have in the next 18 months to 2 years, as to
whether a shorter course of inoculations and a different
inoculation site would be a preferred route to go. Those tests
are being run for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the
Department of Health and Human Services.
Senator Hutchinson. Is that the same generation of vaccine?
Dr. Chu. That is the same vaccine, but there are really two
issues. One is, as I understand it, the microbiology experts
believe that a shorter number of vaccinations, three
specifically, would give you protection, versus the six that
are required now, as the drug is presently licensed. The CDC is
conducting a series of tests to determine if that is, indeed,
the case.
Second, it is believed that if the drug were given in a
different way, that is to say, intramuscular instead of
subcutaneous, that you would have fewer swelling reactions,
which is the normal reaction to this inoculation.
Senator Hutchinson. In regards to the impending decision--
and I realize that is not your decision to make--but to my
knowledge there have been at least two DOD reports recommending
a GOCO. I know that the Surgeon General of the United States
has weighed in in favor of believing that such a GOCO is in the
national interest, so I am a little perplexed as to why it has
taken so long to reach a decision point on that question. Do
you have a personal opinion? Have you reached your own personal
conclusion as to the wisdom of a GOCO to meet these vaccine
production needs?
Dr. Chu. I think, sir, that is going to be an issue of
empirics, of the facts of the case, of weighing that option
against the other options available to the United States in
this regard.
I should also emphasize that, given the breadth of
challenge we face, this is not just anthrax. It is a whole
variety of possibilities here, ranging from one arena where HHS
has already contracted with private sector producers, that is
smallpox. Also, as you point out, there are the orphan vaccines
that are not of significant commercial interest. It may in the
end be a mix of ingredients that is the best choice for the
United States, but we have reached no conclusion. I certainly
have reached no conclusion on what the right answer is, and as
you emphasize, sir, ultimately my end of the process is what we
need, and not so much how we produce it. That is the
acquisition community's call.
Senator Hutchinson. You are intimately familiar with the
entire issue, and you know the pros and cons and the various
factors involved. The needs that our uniformed men and women
will have as we continue this war on terrorism. Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction in chemical and biological weapons,
and that was listed by our Commander in Chief as part of the
axis of evil.
Given what you know, what would be your recommendation to
those who are going to be making that imminent decision?
Dr. Chu. I think what I would recommend in that process is
that we will need a vigorous national effort to produce
adequate amounts of vaccines against these possibilities, both
now and in the future. I think the key ingredient of whatever
solution we arrive at in terms of the instrumentality employed
is to link up with the best scientific minds in the United
States to keep those vaccines at the cutting edge of what our
science knows how to do.
Senator Hutchinson. So you are not going to tell me, are
you? I do not need to go any further on that, do I? [Laughter.]
Let me switch subjects to an easier issue. I would like an
update and a status report on the issue of high school access
to military recruiters. Congress has enacted legislation hoping
to improve that situation on our military recruiters having
full access to high school students across this country--and it
is my understanding that between 2,000 and 3,000 schools have
been identified by the Department as problem schools that are
likely to deny access to military recruiters--with the
implementation date, I think, of July of this year. Can you
give me a report on how that is faring, what has been done as
far as informing schools of their responsibilities under the
law?
Dr. Chu. First of all, I should emphasize, sir, that we are
very grateful for the legislation that you helped Congress
enact. It has called attention to this problem in what I think
is a very constructive way. In fact, one of the interesting
things we are discovering is local communities, including local
media, are calling us for the names of high schools that are
not open to recruiting. In their own leadership role in their
communities, they are starting to raise questions about why
this is so, and why particularly since September 11 there is
not a more cooperative approach here.
As you note, sir, we have identified over 2,000 schools
that we think are not open to us under the provisions that the
law identifies. We are beginning to organize those visits.
One small, technical change that we would appreciate in the
underlying legislation is the right to send a field grade
officer as opposed to an O-6 or higher. I do think, and I have
been in discussion with our team about this, in some cases we
may actually send flag officers, but given the volume of visits
I regret to say we are going to need to make, it would be
helpful if we could use field grade officers for that purpose.
We appreciate your support of that small change. We are going
to act very vigorously in the spirit of the law.
Also, it calls attention to the need to think hard about
the recruiters in the United States, to make sure we are making
a vigorous effort in all areas of the States, even areas that
historically have not done well by us.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Dr. Chu.
I am going to need to go vote. We will have a brief recess
until Senator Cleland returns. [Recess.]
Senator Cleland. The subcommittee will come to order. Thank
you all for understanding here we have to do our day job. Thank
you.
Dr. Chu, I am a very strong advocate of the Montgomery GI
Bill, and have worked for the last several years to authorize
service members in certain circumstances to transfer their
earned but unused GI benefits to family members as a retention
tool. In response to concerns raised by the Department, I
actually modified my original proposal that would have
authorized all service members to transfer all unused benefits
to family members.
Last year, we succeeded in enacting a provision that
authorized service secretaries to permit service members with
critical skills to transfer up to half of their benefit to
family members in return for a service commitment. This
proposal gives the Department and the services significant
flexibility in how it is implemented. What can you tell us
about the Department's plans to implement the authorization for
transferring GI bill benefits to family members?
Dr. Chu. The Department appreciates the flexibility you
have created, sir. The services have been reviewing how best to
proceed both with this option and the savings bond option.
Their intent, as I understand it, and I really would defer to
my colleagues here about the specifics, would be to proceed in
the near term by focusing quite specifically on individual
skill areas of great interest and great need. But let me defer
to my colleagues in each of the military departments on the
specifics.
Mr. Navas. Yes, sir. The Navy is planning to start a 2-year
program by targeting certain high risk areas or skills where we
are having some of our retention challenges, and we will try to
do that following the law as enacted, of those high risk, for
basically those who have served for 6 years and reenlist for 4
more, and we would be coming out with our plan to do that in
the near future. It is being worked.
Senator Cleland. We would appreciate it if you would share
that plan with the committee.
Mr. Navas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. We are looking at instituting a pilot program.
One area to pay attention to is the funding for it, which we
see as a potential problem. The program could cost us a lot of
money. We have not yet identified funding.
Senator Cleland. If you would share those plans with the
committee, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Brown. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to
share my colleagues' gratitude to the committee and to you and
to Senator Hutchinson for the arrows in the quiver. More tools,
more flexibility are great assets for us, because in the Air
Force we are a retention-based force, and the more tools I have
to be able to map and match the individual needs of service
members, the better off we are, and so I really appreciate
these assets. We, like the others, are in the early stages now
trying to figure out how best to apply it, and we will be very
happy, when we get that, to share it with you, sir.
Senator Cleland. Thank you for being willing to share with
us your plans.
Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Hutchinson. The only follow-up, Dr. Chu and Mr.
Dominguez, you alluded to the parallel measures of the
Montgomery GI Bill transferability along with the savings bond.
Is there any different answer on implementation of the savings
bond authorization, the flexibility given, or are you in the
planning stages?
Dr. Chu. It is all in the planning stages, sir. As Mr.
Dominguez mentioned, these are two somewhat different but
parallel opportunities for the Department. We are looking hard
at how best to utilize them. We have not reached any
conclusions yet.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much for understanding the
back-and-forth here on the five recorded votes. Normally we
have 15 minutes between the votes. It is down to 10 minutes,
and we have been running back and forth. Thank you very much,
and the first panel is adjourned.
I will call the second panel of senior enlisted members. I
apologize for not giving the staff time to catch up. We will
press on here. I would like to extend a hearty welcome to our
panelists, consisting of the senior enlisted members of the
services. This is the first time since I have been on this
subcommittee that we have had you here to testify. I know that
more than anyone else you are out there talking to our young
soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines about their concerns.
No one has an ear closer to the troops than you do, and so we
are very anxious to hear from you.
Again, I know that each of you has a prepared statement.
Without objection, those statements will be included in the
record. I assure you, your statements will be fully considered.
Please take a few minutes to talk to us about the matters that
are of greatest concern to our troops.
Sergeant Major Tilley, we will start with you, and then
Sergeant Major McMichael, Master Chief Herdt, and Chief Master
Sergeant Finch. Thank you.
Sergeant Major Tilley.
STATEMENT OF SGT. MAJ. JACK L. TILLEY, USA
Sergeant Tilley. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished subcommittee members. I would like to begin by
telling you what an honor and a privilege it is for me to be
here today to represent the families and the soldiers of the
United States Army. I would like to introduce Sergeant Major
Lackey, from the senior noncommissioned officers from the
United States Army Reserve and Command Sergeant Major Leonard,
who is the senior noncommissioned officer here representing the
National Guard. I point them out to you because we work as a
very close team of the United States Army Guard, Reserve and
Active duty.
Senator Cleland. Thank you for that recognition. We thank
you for your service.
Sergeant Tilley. When I first appeared on Capitol Hill a
year ago, I told your colleagues that our Nation had the best
Army in the world. That opinion has been validated since the
tragic events of September 11. I hope all Americans are proud
of their military and the performance thus far on the war on
terrorism. It goes without saying that today the Army is now
stretched really as thin as it has ever been.
My written statement contains in-depth numbers, but right
now, America's Army has about 124,000 soldiers permanently
based overseas. Beyond that, due to training and real-world
missions, there are about another 55,000 soldiers that are
currently away from their homes in duty stations today.
A year ago, we averaged about 27,000 soldiers away from
their homes on any given day. This fiscal year, the number is
about 42,000 soldiers. When considering the current Army
operational tempo, an easy number to overlook involves force
protection. That is, how many soldiers are needed daily to
secure installations that are not available for training on
normal days. An example of that, in January our Forces Command
was using about 4,000 soldiers a day to secure about 11 major
stateside posts. That number will fluctuate based upon the
threat. It could go up as high as 11,000 a day within that
command.
In giving you a snapshot of the Army's personnel picture, I
would be remiss if I did not simply thank you on behalf of all
the soldiers and their families for all the good things that
are going around the Army right today. A year ago, my
colleagues and I laid out before your House colleagues a number
of concerns in a number of areas. Today, those areas are good.
This year, they raised the largest pay raise we received in the
Army in the last 20 years. It sent a strong signal to the
force. I wish you could be with me when I go out and talk to
soldiers and their families and hear their gratitude about the
pay raise. It is right on target. We still have a long way to
go, but I think we are getting it about right, and I hope we
continue to focus on pay for the Army.
Today, at bases across the Army, there is street after
street of housing and barracks renovation and construction. The
word is getting out that this is Army-wide. Soldiers and
families sense that commitment. Our residential community
initiative (RCI) is already having an impact on the program. I
wish you could go out with me to Forts Carson, Lewis, Meade,
and Hood. There are 5,000 sets of quarters at Fort Hood. I went
out to Fort Carson, and the last set of quarters that I lived
in as a sergeant major was 950 square feet. Today, with RCI,
they are between 1,400 and 1,500 square feet, and so again,
that sends a clear signal to our families.
About half of our families live off-post, and they are
getting positive feedback by the increases in BAH, and
hopefully we can close that gap by 2005.
If there is a concern with the housing and facilities
arena, it would be in the infrastructure. This year, our
sustainment, restoration, and modernization needs were funded
at about 94 percent. Deterioration is still a problem. We have
an $8 billion backlog. It makes no sense to renovate and build
facilities and then let them deteriorate due to lack of
funding.
When you talk about TRICARE and medical care, it is vitally
important to families, and it is mostly a good-news story.
Noting the satisfaction, there is a lot of satisfaction across
the Army, better quality and reduction of out-of-pocket
expenses, but improvements are really attributed to money. This
year we had an increase, I believe it was $3.2 billion, in our
medical care, but again it is a good-news story for families.
A year ago, before September 11, I testified the Army could
not get the job done without the Guard and Reserve. They
deserve our thanks, as do their families, and certainly their
employers. Their support has certainly been outstanding. I
would ask for your help if we ask to adjust entitlements and
benefits given to our Reserve and component troops.
Another group I must mention in the Nation is our veterans
and retirees. They have sacrificed so much for America, and I
would ask you, and I do, to thank them every chance you get and
consider issues and requests before such a committee as
yourself.
Again, thank you and your colleagues. It is not yet perfect
in all areas. We still have a long way to go, but you can
visually see the improvements as you travel around the Army. We
are making our recruiting and retention goals, and I would
simply ask to keep up the momentum. You are making a difference
in the morale of welfare and readiness of our soldiers.
The Army focus on war is at hand, and we are ready to do
any mission given us. I am proud of our country, and I am
certainly proud of our Army. We know who we are fighting
against, and we know who we are fighting for. I thank you, and
I really look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Sergeant Major Tilley follows:]
Prepared Statement by Sgt. Maj. Jack L. Tilley, USA
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished subcommittee members.
It is an honor for me to appear before you on behalf of the magnificent
men and women who wear the uniform of America's Army. This is my first
opportunity to address the Senate since being sworn in as the 12th
Sergeant Major of the Army 21 months ago. When I took the position, my
boss--Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki--gave me a fairly
simple set of marching orders. In short, he instructed me to get out
among our soldiers and their families, to understand their needs and
issues and to act as their biggest advocate and supporter as I
represent them to him, the Secretary of the Army, and other senior
leaders throughout our Government.
Since then, I have logged hundreds of thousands of miles of travel,
visited and addressed tens of thousands of soldiers and families on
repeated trips around the United States and to more than a dozen
foreign countries.
I am proud of our Army, and on previous occasions testifying to
your House colleagues I assured them that America quite simply has the
world's best Army. That pride and my opinion have both been validated
time and again in the hours and days following the tragic events of
September 11.
We are at war, and I'm sure you would agree that thus far, in what
will doubtless be a very long struggle, the performance of our
soldiers--as well as our sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast
Guardsmen--has been outstanding.
I'd like to point out that not one service member had to deploy nor
did bombs need to begin falling in Afghanistan for me to be justified
in the pride I feel for our Armed Forces. I was in Washington on 9/11
and was quick in arriving on-scene after the plane hit the Pentagon.
Rather than go into detail now about what I saw that day, let me
share how I expressed it during an October ceremony held to decorate
and honor some of the heroes who emerged that day at the Pentagon: ``I
saw Americans coming to the aid of their fallen comrades with little
regard for their own safety. If I were to ask each of you about your
contributions, I'm sure you'd tell me that they were no big deal--but I
would tell you that they were a big deal. Not only did you serve your
comrades well that day, you provided all of us with examples of honor
and courage that will inspire us in the coming years and in the battles
that await us in our war on terrorism. The things you showed us that
day are what is good and right about our country, our Army, and the
things we all stand for.''
What I saw that morning made me proud--a pride I know all of you
share. Later, as I traveled across the Army answering soldiers'
questions about September 11, and trying to provide some context and
perspective for the way ahead, I found myself talking often about what
I saw that day.
I believe the soldiers I've spoken with have taken heart from what
I have been able to share with them. Just as the heroic actions of
countless fire fighters, policemen, and other first responders inspired
a Nation, our men and women in uniform have been encouraged by the
reactions that day of their fellow soldiers. Even though they worked at
the Pentagon and weren't armed at the time, they proved worthy of the
legacy of quiet, calm, and steady courage passed down to them by
generations of their predecessors.
As a result of September 11 and its aftermath, our Army is today
stretched as thin now as it has ever been. I'd like to point out that I
used pretty much those same words a year ago in testimony before the
House to describe the Army's operational tempo. It was certainly true
at the time, but I can assure you today's numbers dwarf those of just
11 months ago.
In January, our Army has about 124,000 soldiers permanently
stationed abroad in Germany, Korea, Japan, Italy, and other overseas
locations where we have traditionally kept soldiers. This number has
stayed consistent over the past couple of years, and I would also like
to point out that this number includes more than 8,800 Army reservists.
A year ago, the Army had slightly more than 30,000 soldiers
deployed away from their homes and families on major exercises and
operations around the globe. Today, that number is nearly 50,000
soldiers in some 55 locations, and it includes more than 11,000
National Guardsmen and another 8,520 Army reservists.
Aside from places such as the Balkans, the Sinai, Kuwait, the
Philippines and a number of other countries in Southwest and Central
Asia, the Army in recent days has had soldiers operating in Turkey,
Tunisia, East Timor, Cambodia, Vietnam, El Salvador, and Columbia.
Closer to home, the Army--to date--has more than 12,000 Army
reservists and National Guardsmen mobilized in support of the homeland
security mission. Nearly half of them are securing key infrastructure
facilities around the country, and more than 2,000 others have been
tasked to help with the force protection mission at our bases in
Europe.
I need to point out that all of these deployment and forward basing
numbers do not reflect the number of active duty soldiers in every
corner of the Army who are unavailable for their normal duties because
they are helping with force protection on their installations. Although
the numbers fluctuate constantly based on threat assessments and other
factors, I would--to give you a feel for the size of this task--tell
you that in January, our Forces Command was using 4,000 soldiers daily
to secure its 11 major stateside installations.
That number, I would add, doesn't include the military and Defense
Protective Service who are in charge of the job. If increased measures
were called for due to future threats or incidents, that number would
grow to more than 11,000. The impact of numbers like that on the Army's
readiness and training is obvious to everyone in this room.
As I thought about the main points I wanted to make today, the top
item on my list was simply to thank you--on behalf our soldiers and
their families--for the positive strides in improving their quality of
life in the past 12 months.
This list is long.
A year ago, my colleagues and I each brought before a House
committee lists of remarkably similar issues that we had compiled based
on our own observations and the feedback we receive while traveling
extensively among our troops. They were concerned about how much they
were paid, where they live and work, the kind of medical care they and
their families receive, and what they can look forward to in retirement
as they decide whether to spend 20-plus years in the military.
I can tell you it is apparent that our Nation's leaders have been
listening and that they have responded to a level we had hardly allowed
ourselves to imagine.
Right now--today--in units, formations, barracks, and households
across the military, I assure you that soldiers and their families need
look no further than in their wallets and out of their windows to see
that life is getting better.
They received an unprecedented pay raise last month, and the amount
of construction and renovation that is visible in practically every
corner of the Army sends a tremendous signal to them.
I wish you and other lawmakers could have stood with me among our
soldiers in recent months and heard the responses I received as I put
to them this very simple question--``did you hear about your pay
raise?'' I trust you'll believe me when I say it brings the house down.
Often I say that our soldiers and families know what's real and what's
Memorex, and I assure you this pay raise sends a very real message
about how much their Nation needs and appreciates them.
Another decidedly good news story concerns our housing. There is
consensus within the Army that DOD's approach to fixing our housing by
raising Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) payments, building new
housing, and renovating existing housing is working.
A year ago, I painted a rather bleak picture of seeing street after
street of run-down family housing units at practically every
installation I'd visited. Far too many of those houses are still
there--I see them and so do soldiers and their families, many of whom
live in them. But--as I noted earlier--we are also seeing vast amounts
of new construction and renovation at the bulk of these installations.
Knowing that new houses are being built on another street or
another post doesn't--directly--do much for the morale of families
living in cramped, decades-old quarters. But, they do see the amount of
construction and renovation going on around them, and they do realize
there is light at the end of the tunnel. They do read and hear about
the amount and quality of housing going up at other posts. They also
see first-hand the results of fixing and maintaining existing housing
and other facilities.
As I've noted, the amount of new, Army-funded construction both in
the States and overseas has done much for morale, but at several posts,
a lot of the work being done in family housing areas is thanks to the
Residential Communities Initiative (RCI).
To update you, Forts Carson, Hood, Lewis, and Meade have seen or
will soon see their family housing operations turned over to private
contractors, and a number of other installations will be well into that
process by the end of this year. We envision the process gathering
steam, and by 2007, nearly 69,000 homes will be managed by the private
sector on 27 different installations. That would be about 80 percent of
the Army family housing in the continental United States.
For those of you who haven't had the opportunity, I'd ask you to
visit a post like Fort Carson before you render judgment on the RCI
program. I've been there, I've looked at houses--both new ones and
older units being managed by the private sector--and I have talked to
soldiers and families living in the quarters. I came away a believer.
The new houses are easily the best, largest and most thoughtfully
designed I've seen in my more than 30 years of service. I would--as a
sergeant major--be happy to live in any of them.
I was also pleased with what I saw in the post's older quarters.
While it's true that there is only so much that can be done with older
houses, Fort Carson's project has spruced up existing units and
dramatically increased the homes' appeal to newly arrived families.
Just as importantly, RCI is having an equally big impact on the
repair and upkeep of existing homes.
A major complaint heard in recent years dealt with the age of our
facilities and the time needed for post engineers to make routine
repairs. At the privatized Fort Carson project, the number of
maintenance workers has increased from 17 to nearly 40, and they were
averaging a 30-minute turnaround time on emergency work orders. That
might not seem like much to a great many people, but to frustrated
families accustomed to waiting days for repairs, it borders on the
miraculous.
Another much-appreciated initiative has been the goal of
eliminating by 2005 any out-of-pocket expenses for soldiers and
families receiving BAH to live off-post. Currently, a little less than
half of our married soldiers live on the civilian economy, along with a
number of bachelor NCOs and officers. Today, slightly more than one in
every $10 they spend on off-post housing comes from their own pockets.
All of these things--new construction, better maintenance of
existing facilities, the RCI and BAH increases--will hopefully combine
to get the Army's family housing situation to where we think it needs
to be. For the work that all of you did in making that happen, I thank
you. As I stated earlier, it is being noticed, and I believe it is
making a difference in quality of life, morale, and retention.
The news is mostly good for our single soldiers and the barracks
they live in. Everywhere I've gone in the past year, the amount of
barracks construction and renovation I've seen has rivaled that in the
family housing areas.
I have visited hundreds of soldiers both in the United States and
overseas who couldn't say enough good things about their quarters. But,
as is often the case with family housing and other facilities, it's
either feast or famine--you either live in buildings 30 or more years
old and poorly maintained, or you're among the fortunate who have moved
into new or newly renovated buildings. As it was with families and
their housing, our soldiers see and hear of barracks construction and
renovation and believe their leaders understand the problem and are
working to correct it.
I would tell you that our goal of having all of our soldiers in
larger rooms with semi-private bathrooms, new furniture, adequate
parking, and recreational amenities is our top construction priority.
Our goal is to make it happen virtually everywhere in the Army by 2009.
With the passage of the fiscal year 2003 budget, about 77 percent of
the money we need to reach that goal will be in place.
However, one specific area of concern would be our barracks in
Korea. While there has been notable progress in all theaters, I still
feel it will be too many years before soldiers in too many parts of
Korea see the kind of housing improvements that are becoming common
elsewhere. The differences I see there between today and when I served
there as a first sergeant 14 years ago are remarkable, but the area
still needs your attention to help ensure soldiers enjoy a reasonable
quality of life while there.
Many areas of Korea are isolated, and we ask a lot of our soldiers
assigned there. I assure you that funding for quality housing, dining
facilities, gyms, and things like Internet cafes and Internet access
can go a long way toward maintaining morale.
I also need to again ask Congress for continued help in funding for
our sustainment, restoration, and modernization efforts--an area that
has been historically underfunded and results in a lot of the
deterioration I've been talking about. This year, for instance, the
Army was funded at 94 percent of its requirement. During the last
fiscal year, it was estimated our restoration and modernization backlog
was nearly $18 billion. While some of our motor pools and work areas
are first rate, too many older facilities are decaying and badly in
need of repair and renovation.
The buildings, motor pools, and recreation facilities where
soldiers work, train, eat, and relax are nearly as important as the
rooms and housing units they live in. As is the case with pay, housing
and infrastructure impact our soldiers' morale and re-enlistment
decisions in a great many ways.
Medical care is another area that is often a top concern for
soldiers and families. For the most part the health care system has
significantly improved. As I travel, I am happy to share that I am
hearing fewer and fewer complaints about medical care in general and
TRICARE in particular.
When I passed this along to our medical command, I learned that
much of the credit for the improvements belongs in these corridors for
recent funding increases. The money has allowed more services to be
provided and reduced some out-of-pocket expenses once associated with
TRICARE.
Before closing, I'd like to spend a moment on the importance of the
Reserve component to our Army and to our Nation. When I became Sergeant
Major of the Army in the summer of 2000, I began telling pretty much
every group I addressed that--quite simply--we could not get the job
done without the Guard and Reserve. As I recall, those are pretty much
the words I used a year ago during my opening remarks to your House
colleagues.
I thought we were stretched thin prior to September 11, and I
assure you that is doubly true today. We are fortunate--as our Nation
has always been--to be able to go to the bench and call on trained,
motivated and ready Reserve component formations to help carry the
load.
Not since Operation Desert Storm has our Nation asked so much of
its citizen-soldiers. Given the open-ended nature of the war on
terrorism--it is not unreasonable to believe this conflict's use of
Guard and Reserve Forces could, in the end, prove to be larger than it
was during the Gulf War.
What I would ask of you and your colleagues is the same thing I'm
asking of leaders throughout the Army, which is simply to carry back to
your States, districts, and communities a message of thanks and support
for our Nation's reservists and guardsmen.
Sometimes, their hardship is overlooked as many endure significant
reductions in pay and benefits to serve their Nation, and many leave
behind friends and families who are unaccustomed to lengthy
separations.
Besides praising their contributions and thanking their families, I
would tell you that their employers also deserve your heartfelt
gratitude. Doing without a valued employee is never easy, but I am
often touched by stories of employers who not only allow employees to
serve as guardsmen and reservists, but who unhesitatingly support them
when they are activated.
I was told recently of one Georgia reservist who was on the verge
of getting an important promotion when he was called. Not only did his
employer go ahead and promote him, but they continued to pay him--at
the higher rate--even after he moved out to serve his country. I can't
tell you what a strong signal that sends to soldiers, families, and
communities about the importance of our Nation's Reserve Component and
its soldiers.
We are learning new things everyday, and I would ask for your help
if we come to you in the coming months asking for adjustments in the
benefits and entitlements extended to activated guardsmen and
reservists. As you look at these requests, I'd ask you to consider
these Americans' dedication and sacrifice and help us take care of both
them and their families.
I would also ask of each of you to not lose sight of another group
of Americans I feel we can never hope to repay--our veterans and
retirees. We have a great Army today in no small part because of the
foundation these men and women laid down for us. Please carefully
consider the issues and requests they bring to you as you remember the
sacrifice, risk and hardship they've endured for our country.
In closing, I would thank you again for everything you have done in
the past year to make our great Army even better. Our soldiers and
their families have noticed improvements in their pay and quality of
life, and we continue to do remarkably well at recruiting and retaining
the kind of quality soldiers we need, in no small part because of the
efforts of you and your colleagues. We have the support of leaders like
you, and soldiers know it.
I am proud of what our country stands for, I am proud of its Army
and--as always--I am proud and honored to stand before you today on
behalf of our great soldiers.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Sergeant Major, and
our best to the troops. We appreciate all that they do and all
that you do for them.
Sergeant Major McMichael.
STATEMENT OF SGT. MAJ. ALFORD L. McMICHAEL, USMC
Sergeant McMichael. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and to the
distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to be
with you this morning, and to have the opportunity to speak to
the issues of the personnel status of our marines and our
Marine families.
I will say that on behalf of the family of marines, we
would like to thank you for what you are doing and what you
have done for us, so that we can continue to be a premier
expeditionary total force in readiness. We do that with today's
Marine Corps, that has 172,600 marines in our Active Forces.
107,000 of them are in our Operational Command. But what is
even more significant, we have 37,000 marines that are forward-
deployed, forward-based, forward-stationed, or forward-training
around the world.
I am also interested in how we continue to take care of our
161,900 family members and the 68,800 spouses and, more
importantly, the 92,800 children that we are responsible for as
a family of marines. We do that, and get those numbers, with
the great help of the family of marines that walk the streets
of America every day known as recruiters. They have been
successful in recruiting for 6\1/2\ years, consecutively
recruiting 41,000 into our Marine Corps, and not only are they
recruiting that 41,000, Mr. Chairman, they are bringing in both
quality and quantity, and we are very proud of that. But
equally proud of the recruiting side, we are very proud of our
retention and how we are going about it. The help of the
members of this subcommittee has allowed us to retain marines
even in the high tech areas of jobs that they do in the Marine
Corps, and that has been through the effort of having bonuses
and compensation that will help us retain quality marines in
this area.
Along with the retention and the recruiting, I am also very
thrilled about our 2002 Quality of Life survey. Although it is
the third survey we have conducted in nearly 10 years, what
makes this one more significant to me is that we are asking the
right questions about the right things so we can provide the
right answers and the right support for our family of marines.
But more importantly, we are not only surveying those that are
in uniform, but the spouses that are living with our servicemen
and women every day.
When we look at what we do for quality of life, we base it
on our five pillars, which are important to me, because it goes
with pay, compensation, housing, health care infrastructure,
which are really the work areas and the spaces and the
facilities that our marines go to work in every day, but more
importantly for me, the education piece.
I would like to say on behalf of the family of marines, the
Active, the Reserve, the retirees, as well as our family
members, and the civilians that work alongside of us and serve
our great Nation, sir, I look forward to answering any
questions this panel may have when it is time.
[The prepared statement of Sergeant Major McMichael
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Sgt. Maj. Alford L. McMichael, USMC
Chairman Cleland, Senator Hutchinson, and distinguished members of
the Senate Armed Services Committee: I am Sergeant Major Alford L.
McMichael, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. Thank you for allowing
me to appear before you today and comment on the personnel status of
your Marine Corps.
On behalf of all marines and their families, I want to thank the
committee for its continued support. Your efforts to increase the
warfighting capabilities and crisis response of our Nation's Armed
Forces and improvement to the quality of life of our men and women in
uniform have been central to the strength of your Marine Corps and are
deeply appreciated.
I want to share a few thoughts with you about where, with your
support, the Marine Corps is headed.
For the United States to provide its citizens with security and
prosperity at home it must foster and bolster stability overseas. The
Navy-Marine Corps team's sea-based power projection capabilities
provide the means for America to cultivate its overseas relationships
and are a cornerstone of our military's contribution to prolonged
security. With this capability, the Marine Corps provides America with
the capacity to forward deploy, and if required, project decisive and
sustained, combined-arms combat power from the sea.
The Navy-Marine Corps team's sea-based capabilities have been
validated over the past several months. In Afghanistan, the sea-based
Navy and Marine Corps team has provided the preponderance of air
sorties and the initial deployment of major ground force presence,
reaching over 700 miles inland from international waters. Important
contributions were made through marine integration with Special
Operations Forces, Army ground forces, and Air Force assets from
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capabilities to long
range strike and close air support capabilities. The Marine Corps has
demonstrated that America's medium weight, expeditionary force is not
only responsive and flexible, but a full partner in Joint and Coalition
operations.
Inasmuch as the war against terrorism has demonstrated the current
capabilities of the Navy-Marine Corps team, transformation promises
even greater possibilities for the Marine Corps. Drawing on our legacy
of transformation, the Marine Corps is moving forward with innovation
and experimentation. Our focus is on the creation of new capabilities,
which provide leap-ahead operational advantages in future conflicts
through the development of new operational concepts, the introduction
of advanced technology, and the realignment of organizational
structure.
Marine Corps Personnel
CMC's highest priority has always been his marines, their families
and our civilian workforce. People and leadership are the real
foundations of the Marine Corps' capabilities.
The Marine Corps has the youngest mean age of all the services; two
of three marines are under the age of 25. Approximately 16 percent of
marines, 28,000, are teenagers. The Marine Corps is the only service
with more active duty personnel than family members. Only 43.4 percent
of marines--approximately 40 percent of enlisted and 70 percent of
officers--are married, the lowest of the armed services. The average
age of a married enlisted marine is 28.7 and 40 percent of marine
spouses are under the age of 25, once more the youngest in the armed
services. Almost 46 percent of Marine Corps children are under 5 years
of age; only 20 percent are over 13 years of age.
It is important to note that the Marine Corps operates as a Total
Force, including elements of both active and Reserve components. We
continue to strengthen the exceptional bonds within our Total Force by
further integrating the Marine Corps Reserve into ongoing operations
and training. Detachments of both Marine Expeditionary Force
Augmentation Command Elements, two infantry battalions, two heavy
helicopter squadrons, two aerial refueler transport detachments, as
well as other units have been mobilized. With Reserve personnel
reporting daily on active duty orders, by the end of February we are
projecting the number of marine reservists activated in support of the
global war on terror at nearly 5,000. Our Marine Reserves have
contributed unprecedented support and inclusion into our daily
operations and exercise schedules, continuing to set the standard for
interoperability within the Department of Defense. Individuals and
Units have responded quickly when called to duty, providing seamless
support from operational tempo relief at Guantanamo Bay to augmentation
at Camp Pendleton and Lejeune.
As I speak to you today, there are 172,600 marines authorized for
active duty. Of that total, over 107,000 are in the operating forces
and over 37,000 are forward deployed, forward based, forward stationed,
or deployed for training around the world. These marines have
approximately 161,900 dependents--68,800 spouses, 92,800 children, and
300 other family members.
The youth of our Corps and our unique force structure requires us
to annually recruit 41,000 men and women into our enlisted ranks. To
fill this tremendous demand, our recruiters have met our accession
goals in both quantity and quality for over 6\1/2\ years of dedicated
effort. Our training establishment is similarly charged with the
enormous task of training the many skills we need to accomplish our
missions. Recruiting and training remain among our highest priorities;
we must continue to provide the necessary resources to attract
America's finest youth into our Corps and to train them with the most
cutting age technologies available.
Retention is as important as recruiting. The Marine Corps continues
to excel in retaining our best and brightest. Since 1998, we have
experienced a 23 percent decline in Non-Expiration of Active Service
(NEAS) attrition. In fiscal year 2001, this means that 981 less marines
attrited for NEAS reasons than in fiscal year 2000. This equates to
more than a battalion of marines that we no longer need to train and
recruit in fiscal year 2002. In the area of career retention, we
continue to be challenged to retain certain high tech MOSs (Military
Occupational Specialties) and MOSs that are in high demand in the
civilian sector. For the past 6 years, we have been successful in
meeting the goals contained in our First Term Alignment Plan (FTAP). In
fiscal year 2002, we have initiated the Subsequent Term Alignment Plan
(STAP) designed to further refine career retention process. The STAP
will take 40 percent of our Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB)
allocation and target the short and critical MOSs between 6 and 14
years of service. The SRB program has been an additional, powerful tool
to meet our retention goals and needs to continue to receive your full
support. SRB and the targeted pay raise initiative found in last year's
budget will go a long way in meeting our retention goals and helping to
take care of our marines and their families. Finally, we have created
an Enlisted Retention Task Force under the Deputy Commandant for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs. This task force has been chartered to
establish a process to systematically reinforce and synchronize actions
among key organizations in the retention of enlisted marines.
Taking care of marines and families is instinctive to our Marine
Corps way of life. We have established five major quality of life (QOL)
priorities that are vital to the sustainment of our single marines and
marine families including pay and compensation, health care, bachelor
and family housing, infrastructure/workplace environment, and community
services.
Pay must be competitive with the private sector and offer the
flexibility for shaping and addressing manpower management challenges.
Special pay and concerned leadership are key elements in retaining
marines with critical skills. Coupled with the current BAH buy down
strategy this will eliminate the extra out-of-pocket expenses that our
service members now experience.
The availability of quality, accessible health care is a key QOL
issue for marines and their families, and is therefore critical to
recruitment and retention. The Marine Corps is committed to support
initiatives that improve military health care so marines can be
confident that their families will receive prompt, hassle-free care,
whether for routine or emergency services. The goal is for the
administration of health care to be transparent to the patient, and not
a source of stress or hardship.
Providing adequate bachelor and family housing has a significant
impact on the QOL of our marines, as does the quality of the workspace.
Safe, comfortable, well-maintained housing and working conditions
provides an atmosphere that helps us to recruit, develop, and retain
the quality marines that we need to lead the future Marine Corps. When
our marines are performing their mission essential tasks in World War
II vintage buildings with faulty wiring--the mission suffers, as does
overall QOL.
Bases and stations are the platforms where the Marine Corps
develops, trains, and maintains the force needed to win the Nation's
battles. Bases and stations also support the QOL of marines and
families through the delivery of essential community services that are
like those provided in hometowns throughout the Nation. To retain the
best marines, the Marine Corps must provide them a quality environment
in which to work and live. The Marine Corps is committed to a long-
range infrastructure management plan that assures quality base and
station infrastructure for the future.
Inasmuch as Congress has provided considerable support to our
marines and their families, the Marine Corps is also striving to
enhance their QOL. We have established the Marine Corps Community
Services aboard our installations to better provide for both our marine
families as well as our single marines, who constitute nearly 60
percent of our total active force. The Single Marine Program (SMP)
provides needed recreational and stress outlets that are both wholesome
and support development of social skills. Many of our base SMPs are
involved in community support efforts through Habitat for Humanity,
Special Olympics, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, food banks, and other
volunteer organizations that teach the rewards that come from service
to others. This is a concrete way that the program works to return
quality citizens to our Nation. Just as important, the SMP stresses the
responsibility of young single marines to identify solutions to their
QOL issues and resolve them through working with the chain of command.
Military life can be demanding, difficult, and hard on families.
Our Marine Corps Family Building Team (MCFTB) programs help equip our
families with the knowledge and skills to meet the challenges of the
military lifestyle. MCFTB offers a wide variety of programs including
introductory training for new spouses, a communication network managed
by key volunteers that allows commanders to keep families informed
during deployments and day-to-day operations, and development
opportunities for our volunteers.
Finally, the Marine Corps is sponsoring a comprehensive assessment
of Marine Corps QOL in 2002. The assessment will document how marines
and family members feel about their lives as a whole, as well as their
subjective evaluation of specific aspects of their lives. From the
information they provide through completion of a survey, conclusions
may be drawn about some of the situational characteristics that enhance
life quality and facilitate well being in a military environment. The
survey was previously administered in 1993 and 1998. With the third
administration planned for early 2002, we will also be able to
determine how marines' perceptions of and satisfaction with QOL have
changed over the last 10 years, particularly in light of increased DOD
and USMC QOL funding. In the 2002 QOL assessment, spouses of active
duty marines will be surveyed for the first time. The intent of this
initiative is to establish a baseline measure of family member QOL and
to compare relevant findings to those of active duty marines.
We are also striving to invest in our marines by improving how we
train and educate them. We believe in the adage, ``you fight the way
you train.'' All training conducted within the Marine Corps is part of
a training and education continuum that begins the first day of recruit
training and continues until the marine's last day in the Corps.
Recruit training infuses our marines with the core values of honor,
courage, and commitment, as well as the skills to make them Basic
Marines. The ``Crucible'' is the defining exercise when our recruits
earn the title of ``marine.'' All marines attend the School of Infantry
where we imbue them with the ethos of, ``Every marine is a rifleman.''
MOS schooling rounds out this initial training phase.
As marines progress in rank, leadership development becomes more
prevalent in the education process. In 1999, the Marine Corps
University completed a thorough evaluation of enlisted professional
military education (PME). They developed a cradle to grave,
interconnected, building block approach to enlisted PME concentrating
on the areas of warfighting and leadership. This program has been
integrated between our Distance Education Program (DEP) and our
resident courses.
To provide a further incentive to pursue PME, the Marine Corps has
launched a pilot program with the Lifelong Learning Center at MCB
Quantico that encourages all marines who attend the Staff Academies, or
complete a DEP, to obtain an Associate degree from a civilian college
or university. The Service Member's Opportunity Colleges (SOC) is a
consortium of more than 1,400 colleges and universities who have agreed
to accept college credit based on a marine's military experience.
The Commandant has recently directed the establishment of a Marine
Corps Martial Arts Program. The program is designed to improve the
warfighting capabilities of individual marines and units, enhance
marines' self-confidence and esprit de corps, and further instill the
warrior ethos. This training will continue throughout the career of the
marine. What is unique is that the marine must display an equal mastery
of the mental and character disciplines at each level to advance.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee
for its continued strong support of your marines and improving their
quality of life has provided and will continue to provide dividends in
the areas of readiness and retention. There is no question that our
active duty, Reserve and civilian marines remain our most precious
warfighting effort. Your Marine Corps is ready, and it's an exciting
time to be a marine!
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Sergeant Major. I
noticed you had all those numbers off the top of your head, so
I now see why you are a Sergeant Major in the Marine Corps.
Master Chief Herdt, thank you very much for coming. We
appreciate your service to our country.
STATEMENT OF MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JAMES L. HERDT, USN
Chief Herdt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is a
high honor to appear here to represent nearly 1/2 million
sailors and their families. It is really the first opportunity
we have had, as you mentioned, to do this in the 4 years I have
been in this job, and I hope as a result of our testimony
today, that it will be an annual event. It really is a high
honor to do this.
In the interest of brevity, sir, I would like to make just
two points in my opening remarks. The first is how appreciative
the entire Navy and I are with regard to what this committee
and the entire Congress have accomplished over the last 4
years.
You have done more to improve the lot of sailors in the
last 4 years of my career than in my estimation the entire 31
years prior to that of my career. It has resulted in
unprecedented reenlistment rates in our first term, probably
the best, certainly the best in my career, maybe the best ever
in the United States Navy, and it makes a big difference. It
demonstrates the country's commitment to the extraordinary work
and the sacrifice of these sailors and their families who
defend the Constitution and the ideals of our great country.
Just a very short laundry list. I was looking at this this
morning prior to coming over here: large and targeted pay
raises that were mentioned by Sergeant Major Tilley;
restoration of the retirement benefit with an option for the
first time ever; supporting our move to zero out-of-pocket
basic allowance for housing; Thrift Savings Plan to allow
people to invest in their future, and perhaps more importantly,
as a teaching tool and learning tool for our most junior
personnel as they go through their career; expanded career sea
pay options; family insurance options that we never had before;
improvements to education benefits that I know that you have
been involved with, sir, personally; and TRICARE for Life.
The second point that I want to make is that there remain a
few areas that we need a little more help in. Although there
has been considerable work done in these areas, it is my
estimation that we could use just a little more help. The Navy
has about 35,000 sailors we would like to move off their ships
in their home port. Sailors are proud of the way they live and
work at sea, but when we come back into home port we would like
to be able to move sailors out of those very austere living
conditions into more habitable conditions that they deserve
ashore.
The second point that we need a little help in, and this is
one you and I have talked about before, and your work in this
area is so appreciated, is the transferability of Montgomery GI
Bill benefits. I am a little concerned, as it is currently
structured, that we may set up a class system within our ranks
of those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that are able
to educate their family members and their children and others
that will not. I would just ask that consideration be given to
perhaps moving that benefit out as a benefit for the career
force that will have the draw to pull people out there, versus
up-front, and I think it may be more affordable to us and
result in better retention.
The third area we could use a little help in is, although
there has been great work done in restoring or opening the
eligibility for the Post-Vietnam era service members that had
an account with the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational
Assistance Program (VEAP) to roll over into the Montgomery GI
Bill, we have 40,000 sailors who came into our Navy in the VEAP
era that have no education benefits. If we could just get the
rest of them it would be greatly appreciated.
Again, as I mentioned, it is a high honor to appear before
you, and I look forward to the opportunity to answer the
questions that you might have for me, sir.
[The prepared statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Herdt
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Master Chief Petty Officer James L. Herdt, USN
caring for sailors' needs with personnel priorities--doing what's right
to help sailors serve americans
Chairman Cleland and distinguished members of this subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the
outstanding enlisted men and women of the United States Navy and their
families. I would like to express our appreciation for the steadfast
support of this subcommittee and for the vast array of vital programs
you have authorized, which improve our lives and the lives of our
families. As I complete this my fourth and final year as Master Chief
Petty Officer of the Navy, I sincerely hope that, in the years ahead,
the Senior Enlisted Advisors of the uniformed services will continue to
be afforded this invaluable opportunity to offer their views before
this subcommittee.
Our dedicated sailors are continually deployed around the globe in
Navy's advanced ships, submarines, aircraft squadrons, and ground units
every day, in peacetime and in war. During my tenure, I have traveled
extensively throughout the world talking with them and their families,
and visiting the places in which they work and live. It has become
increasingly evident that, thanks to the staunch support of the
administration and Congress, and especially through the efforts of the
Personnel Subcommittees, our military has evolved into a better place
for our enlisted personnel to serve. Your persistent focus on quality
of life enhancements, from significant increases in across the board
and targeted pay raises, selective reenlistment bonuses and career sea
pay; to reduction in out-of-pocket housing expenses, Montgomery GI Bill
improvements, establishment of TRICARE for Life, authorizing Thrift
Savings Plan participation and expanding retirement plan options, has
greatly contributed to our quality of service and has dramatically
improved Navy's personnel readiness, through improved recruiting and
retention and reduced attrition.
Sailors are exceptionally pleased with last year's targeted pay
increases, representing the largest across-the-board pay raise in
nearly 20 years, and recent steps to reform the pay tables are
beginning to influence sailors' decisions to stay for a career. The
Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act provision
permitting us to increase by one-half percent the number of E-8s
serving on active duty, while seemingly insignificant, greatly enhances
our ability to establish the more senior, experienced, and technically
proficient force needed for today's high-tech platforms, while also
continuing to increase enlisted advancement opportunities. As the Navy
continues to evolve, it is a virtual certainty that the ongoing
transformation will increase the requirement for experienced and
technical sailors. Our efforts to increase the experience level of the
force and improve advancement, which directly enhances retention, would
be facilitated by easing or removing the current percentage limits on
E-8 and E-9 personnel.
In the past 3 years, our Navy is well into turning the corner in
our efforts to acquire and retain quality people. We met overall
recruiting goals in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 and this year we
are well ahead of last year's record setting pace. The most recent
reenlistment data indicates that we are reenlisting 63 percent of
eligible sailors who reach the end of their first enlistment, 75
percent of sailors with 6-10 years of service, and 85 percent of
sailors with 10-14 years of service. Additionally, our annual attrition
rate for first-term sailors has fallen from over 14 percent in 1998, to
10 percent today resulting in thousands of young men and women
remaining in the Navy who would have been otherwise lost from our
ranks. These successes have all contributed to recent battle groups
deploying better manned than ever before. While these are indeed
welcome developments, we must continue to sustain this momentum.
We have made great strides toward improving our Navy's quality of
work and quality of life, which together comprise ``quality of
service.'' We've come a long way, but there is always room for
improvement. For example, we need to continue working towards our goal
of providing every sailor with adequate housing and allowing all
sailors the opportunity to reside ashore when in homeport. We are
continuing to review our Individual Personnel Tempo requirements with
an eye toward identifying the best means of adequately compensating
sailors for the demands placed upon them and their families by the
tempo of operations, while considering the unique nature of the Navy as
a deploying force.
Navy has mobilized nearly 10,000 reservists, primarily on an
individual basis, rather than by unit, as was the case during the Iraqi
War. We are continuing to evaluate future requirements to determine the
right Active/Reserve mix to meet anti-terrorism/force protection
manpower requirements in the new security environment. Today, our Navy
consists of 381,099 active duty personnel and 166,411 ready reservists.
Five Carrier Battle Groups and Amphibious Readiness Groups deployed
(some early) in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in the highest
states of personnel readiness. They operated at wartime tempo--24 hours
a day, 7 days a week--without requiring additional personnel. It is no
source of contention for sailors to deploy from their loved ones for 6
months at a time. Deployments are what we do, but we should never
underestimate or take for granted the incredible sacrifices that a 6-
month deployment imposes on our sailors and their families. While
deployed, sailors consistently live in cramped and often undesirable
conditions. We certainly owe them our commitment to provide the best
living conditions possible when their ships are in port. It is
reasonable for them to expect this, and they deserve it.
Housing Issues
Adequate housing continues to be a top priority throughout the
fleet, and sailors tell us that housing is one of their most important
quality of life concerns. The quality of our lives and the standard of
living that sailors are able to enjoy are two very key determinants of
whether our sailors make the Navy a career or leave for employment that
will deliver a better standard of living for them and their families.
The authorization to fully fund our Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
is a major step in the right direction and we have started making
significant progress in this area. The result of fully funded BAH
enhances our long-term ability to provide quality housing for all
service members. While we are making important strides in this area, we
must sustain our three-pronged approach to improve housing for sailors
and their families: continued funding increases for BAH to zero out-of-
pocket expenses (OOP); continued traditional military construction
housing projects; and continued support of public private venture
(PPV).
This year service members' OOP expenses are 11 percent of national
median housing cost by pay grade and dependency status, an improvement
compared to last year's 15 percent. We need the continued commitment to
drive the funding of BAH to 100 percent for sailors, as authorized by
the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act. The Department of Defense
is working to buy down the remaining OOP expenses by 2005. Even with
the lower percentage of OOP expenses this year, families living in high
cost areas may not feel the full benefit. For example, last year's
housing costs in Fallon, Nevada, increased an average of 36 percent.
Sailors don't ask for excessive amounts . . . they just ask for enough
money to have an average household in their community comparable to
their peers.
Military housing is the second piece of our approach to housing the
fleet. This includes traditional barracks and family housing, as well
as Public Private Venture (PPV) projects. Traditional and PPV barracks
projects are particularly important to the Navy as we move closer to
providing all sailors the choice to live ashore when their ships are in
port. I cannot emphasize enough how important the authorization for E-4
and below to live ashore is to junior sailors. Single shipboard sailors
in pay grades E-4 and below routinely live in the most minimal
accommodations even when not deployed. While close-quarters living
conditions at sea are a necessity for now, we're working to improve the
QOL in port. We currently estimate that we will need approximately
25,000 additional bed spaces to move sailors ashore in homeports in the
contiguous United States. We have noticed an early increase in
retention rates in the areas where we have ongoing projects of moving
junior single sailors into barracks while in homeport.
There is still a strong need for continued support for Government-
owned and leased military family housing. The BAH is based on median
housing costs and does not provide sufficient compensation for every
Navy family to obtain housing in the private sector. Owned and leased
family housing is needed to provide suitable and affordable housing for
many Navy families. To support this goal, we have and will continue to
invest in family housing construction projects. The fiscal year 2002
budget invests over $204 million to replace, construct, or improve over
3,500 Navy homes, the majority of which are for junior enlisted
families. We are on track to eliminate approximately 28,000 inadequate
homes that were on our roles at the beginning of last fiscal year. Navy
intends to eliminate all inadequate homes by fiscal year 2007,
consistent with DOD budget priorities. Military family housing is, and
will continue to be essential for acceptable quality of life for
sailors.
Our Public Private Venture (PPV) program for Military Family
Housing projects continues to develop and create more opportunities for
military families to reside in quality, affordable housing. We continue
to increase the number of homes we can construct for the same money
using leverage savings of PPV. Continuing to pursue these PPV projects,
where advantageous, is essential to keeping up with the growing need
for family housing. Today, an overwhelming majority of our career
enlisted sailors (approximately 80 percent of E-5 to E-9) are married.
The fact that most Navy activities are located in typically high-cost
areas adds an even greater dimension to our need.
Educational Benefits
Today's sailors are immersed in a culture of learning and they are
grateful for their educational benefits, especially the recently
increased Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) stipend. I fully support continued
efforts to ensure that the MGIB remains an effective tool for
attracting young men and women to enter the military services and, more
importantly, that it adequately recognizes them for their selfless
commitment to service to our Nation and helps them transition when they
eventually leave our ranks and bring their wealth of experience,
training, education, and professionalism back into the civilian
workforce.
Individual Personnel Tempo (PERSTEMPO)
Sailors appreciate the intent of PERSTEMPO legislation with regards
to reducing/eliminating excessive individual personnel tempo. However,
we have noted some unintended consequences that occur due to the nature
of naval service. For the past 20 years, the Navy has been committed to
managing deployment tempo at the unit level. After 16 months of
tracking and reporting deployments on an individual basis, we are
gaining insight how the frequency or duration of deployments adversely
affects certain specialties or communities. I fully support the intent
of Congress with respect to managing PERSTEMPO to avoid undue burden on
our sailors and their families caused by high individual personnel
tempo. We are committed to identifying the best means for balancing
PERSTEMPO with mission requirements, while adequately compensating
sailors and their families for the arduous nature of the duties that
service in the Navy imposes upon them and the sacrifices they must make
as a result.
Conclusion
The events of the past several years, which saw the bombing of
American embassies abroad, the attack on the American warship, U.S.S.
Cole, and the attacks upon the World Trade Center buildings and the
Pentagon have united us in our resolve to preserve, protect, and defend
the greatest democracy on the face of the Earth. Every day our
shipmates are deployed around the world to safeguard our freedom and
our way of life and they go in harm's way without giving it a moment's
thought. During fleet visits, I am inspired by the honor, courage, and
commitment of our sailors. We owe it to these guardians of democracy
and world peace, to sustain our efforts to improve the quality of
service. For it is their service and their sacrifice, and that of their
comrades in arms in the other armed services, which make all else
possible in our great country. They deserve the continued unwavering
support from the Nation they serve. It is my honor to represent them
here today.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our sailors standing the
watch around the globe, I thank the subcommittee for its strong and
unflagging support. Your efforts are making a difference and we are
eternally grateful.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
Chief, I understand you will be retiring in April.
Chief Herdt. Yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. We appreciate your years of service. How
many years do you have in the Navy?
Chief Herdt. It will be 35, sir.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. My father is 87. He
served at Pearl Harbor in the Navy after the attack, and after
September 11 he is ready to go again, so if you have one more
slot there----[Laughter.]
Chief Master Sergeant Finch, thank you for your service.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT FREDERICK J. FINCH, USAF
Chief Finch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the subcommittee. It is an honor to be with you today to
discuss issues affecting our Air Force professionals and their
families. Many of our airmen are presently deployed to remote
locations around the globe defending America's interests.
I visited members of our total force team, the active duty,
the Guard, and the Reserve, and I am here to report that they
continue to work very hard in service to America. Therefore, I
believe they deserve a standard of living at least equal to the
Americans they support and defend, and thank you for the
numerous initiatives you have taken on to help us get there.
Thanks to you and others, we made great strides toward
improving quality of life for our people, and they continue.
The strength of America's Air Force will depend on our ability
to recruit and, more importantly, to retain high quality
people. While I have submitted a written statement for the
record, I would like to take just a couple of moments to
highlight three topics most often raised to me as I visit
airmen around the world.
They are: a mismatch between the task we ask our people to
accomplish and the people and resources we give them to meet
those tasks; compensation, especially for midlevel and senior
noncommissioned officers; and educational benefits for those
excluded from the Montgomery GI Bill.
Necessary manpower is a quality of life factor that we have
focused on lately. The demands to support both ongoing
continued overseas and our homeland defense caused us to take a
hard look at our force structure. With the improved recruiting
and our work on retention we are still short of manpower. The
bottom line is, we continue to stress our force by asking them
to accomplish things and not giving them all the things
necessary to do that.
Through your efforts and improvements outlined in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, our
airmen received the largest pay raise in two decades, and
Sergeant Major Tilley mentioned it would be nice if you would
go around to see those people. They are very appreciative. This
has been really a shot in the arm. Targeted additional dollars
for the midlevel and senior NCOs is also a welcome change.
While I am pleased to make some headway in the retention, there
are still areas where we struggle to avoid the risk of a pay
table inversion or a situation where the more junior members
received actually greater compensation than those who supervise
them. That can happen in some cases with the issue of bonuses.
Although current operations make educational pursuits
difficult, one of our quality of life priorities is enhancing
educational benefits, and I am encouraged by the numerous
initiatives included last year. I would be remiss if I did not
mention the benefit concern to many people, and like the Navy
we have 49,000 force people without access to the MGIB. This
year's authority to transfer benefits to family members is
really seen as a positive move by the force, but for those
without any benefits, they see that as a driver of a wedge, a
little bit greater wedge between our members of haves and have-
nots on our team.
The Air Force leadership strongly believes quality of life
is directly related to recruiting and retention. We ask a lot
of the members of our Armed Forces. We ask them to serve long
hours in places that are often unsafe and far from home. We ask
them to commit their soul and to risk their very lives in the
service of their country, and I have to say the support from
this committee and Members of Congress have been outstanding in
the past few years. Thank you very much.
We truly appreciate your continued help as we strive to
improve the quality of life for our airmen, and on behalf of
them and the men and women who serve in America's Armed Forces,
thank you for your leadership and for allowing us the
opportunity to discuss these concerns in an open forum.
I look forward to your questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of Chief Master Sergeant Finch
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Chief Master Sergeant Frederick J. Finch, USAF
introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members. It is an honor
to be here today to discuss issues affecting the well-being of Air
Force members and their families.
This has been a year of tragedies and triumphs. The attacks on
September 11 had a dramatic impact on the lives of all Americans--
especially those in uniform. Today, members of our Armed Services are
deployed to distant lands fighting the war on terrorism. Additionally,
those left at home have seen a significant increase in their pace of
operations due to both heightened security requirements at military
installations and additional tasks in support of the homeland security
mission.
These current operations have highlighted the ability of our Armed
Forces to work together to accomplish the mission. While the accuracy
of the weapons systems might get media attention, it is the combined
efforts of the people involved that have made these operations a
success. Therefore, I am proud to represent a portion of that group--
the more than 400,000 enlisted members of the United States Air Force
on active duty, in the Air Force Reserve and in the Air National Guard.
I have been the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force for almost 3
years. I've traveled around the world visiting bases and speaking with
people about various issues important to them. Regardless of the
mission or location I've encountered, troop morale has been very
positive. People are working hard and are extremely proud of their
contributions to the mission at hand. Also, they truly appreciate the
visible signs of patriotism and support from Americans back home.
Our people don't ask for much. They want the appropriate tools and
enough trained people to effectively get the job done. They want some
peace of mind to know their families are being taken care of. They want
their concerns heard by those who are in a position to take action--not
just talk about it.
retention
The continued strength of America's Air Force will depend on our
ability to recruit and retain high quality people.
The Air Force is a retention-based force. With such a highly
technological mission, it costs less for us to retain our people than
to recruit and retrain new individuals. Our annual retention goals
identify the percentage of individuals we'd like to retain in the
various year groups to effectively accomplish the mission. Currently,
our first term retention rates have stabilized, but we continue to fall
short on our second term and career airmen retention goals. These
people represent our experience base--the skilled technicians,
trainers, and deployers who are vital to meeting mission requirements.
It is essential that we continue to improve the standard of living
for our airmen and their families if we want to continue to make
advances on the retention front. Within the next 5 years, approximately
234,000 active duty airmen--84 percent of the enlisted force--will make
a re-enlistment decision. The potential exists that many of these
people will migrate to the civilian sector for a more stable work and
family environment.
A valuable tool in helping stabilize our retention numbers,
especially, in critical skills is the selective re-enlistment bonus
program. We increased the number of specialties eligible for an SRB to
161--which accounts for approximately 82 percent of the enlisted
skills. The SRB cost has also increased from $74 million in fiscal year
1999 to $258 million for fiscal year 2002.
recruiting
This was an outstanding year for Air Force recruiting and first
quarter figures for fiscal year 2002 paint an optimistic picture for
the near future. The Air Force finished fiscal year 2001 having
recruited 35,381 people--102 percent of our 34,600 goal. We finished
the first quarter of fiscal year 2002 at 107 percent--having recruited
8,076 against a goal of 7,578.
To reach these positive numbers, we funded over $71 million in
fiscal year 2001 for national TV advertising, increased the number of
recruiter authorizations in the field from 1,209 in fiscal year 2000 to
1,650 in fiscal year 2001, and provided an enlistment bonus to 85
skills.
While our recruiters continue to face a challenging market, we have
not lowered our standards to meet our goals. Approximately 99 percent
of our recruits have high school diplomas, and 75 percent scored in the
top half of test scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test.
quality of life
The welfare of our people is critical to overall readiness and is
vital in our efforts for recruiting and retention. Air Force members
and their families continue to work hard and dedicate themselves in
service to America. Therefore, we believe those serving on active duty,
in the Air National Guard, or in the Air Force Reserve Command deserve
a standard of living at least equal to the Americans they support and
defend.
Thus the Air Force continues to pursue improvements in all of our
core quality of life priorities: necessary manpower; improved workplace
environments; fair and competitive compensation and benefits; balanced
tempo; quality healthcare; safe, affordable housing; enriched community
and family programs; and enhanced educational opportunities.
Necessary manpower is a quality of life factor that we added to our
list in recent years. The demands to support both current contingencies
and homeland defense have required us to take a hard look at our force
structure. Even with improved recruiting and retention we are still
short of our actual requirement as outlined by the mission demands. The
bottom line is that we don't have the people or the resources to
perform all the missions our Nation asks of us.
The Air Force is committed to ensuring our people are appropriately
compensated for their efforts in securing our Nation. It is encouraging
to see the level of support from Members of Congress through the pay
and benefit initiatives included in the 2002 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) have made a tangible impact.
Through your efforts and support, our airmen received the largest
pay-raise in two decades. Targeting of additional dollars toward all
mid-level and senior noncommissioned officers has also been a welcome
change.
While I'm pleased we have made some headway in retention, we must
continue to focus on areas where we struggle, and avoid a ``pay table
inversion''--a situation where junior members receive greater
compensation than those who supervise them.
The continued measures outlined in the Basic Allowance for Housing
(BAH) program have reduced out-of-pocket costs for maintaining an off-
base residence to approximately 11 percent based on national median
housing costs. While this is a vast improvement from the 15 to 19
percent our members paid just a couple of years ago, we must continue
to make incremental increases in BAH funding until we eliminate out-of-
pocket housing expenses.
Another area of extreme importance regarding pay and benefits are
commissaries and exchanges. They provide vital non-pay compensation
benefits upon which active duty, retirees, and Reserve component
personnel depend. Our commissaries and exchanges provide: value,
service, and support; significant savings on high quality goods and
services; and a sense of community for airmen and their families
wherever they serve.
A retention initiative authorized in the fiscal year 2001 NDAA is
the Uniformed Services Thrift Savings Plan. This long-term, savings
plan to supplement retirement is a way to help our service members
prepare for the future. Our first open season began in October 2001,
and we currently have about 10 percent of active duty Air Force members
enrolled in the program. However as we continue to educate our people
on the value of this program, I believe the number of enrollees will
increase.
Make no mistake, the Air Force is committed to ensuring our members
and families have a high-quality working and living environment.
The Air Force Family Housing Master Plan guides our efforts to
ensure we provide quality on-base living facilities, and we are on
track to meet the AF goal to revitalize inadequate units by 2010.
The Air Force Dormitory Master Plan outlines how we will meet the
Air Force goal of providing single airmen (E-1 to E-4) a private room
on-base and replace our worst dorms by 2009. With current levels of
funding, we are on target to meet this goal.
The quality of the facilities supporting our members and families
in temporary duty and permanent change of station status are also in
need of improvement. Not only will better quarters improve our members
and their families quality of life, but also provides significant
savings in travel costs, out of pocket expenses, and ensures force
protection. Our new visiting quarters, or ``VQ'', standard will provide
a ``one size fits all'' room for all grades of transient personnel,
while our temporary lodging facilities have significantly increased the
living space for our families.
The importance of fitness is directly tied to readiness, and we
must provide our people with functional facilities. The Fitness Center
Master Plan prioritizes the requirement for replacing or modernizing
Air Force fitness centers. The Air Force committed $183 million in
fiscal year 2000-2005 quality of life funding and has steadily
increased annual MILCON funding, including $55 million this year.
However, we still need $382 million to complete the plan.
conclusion
The Air Force leadership strongly believes that quality of life
directly impacts recruiting and retention. I thank this committee for
its support in our efforts to provide a quality standard of living for
our people.
Before I conclude, I'd like to share a personal observation. During
my tenure as the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, I've entered
into countless conversations with airmen assigned around the world.
From these conversations I have concluded that many in the field simply
don't distinguish well between the various leaders or groups within our
Federal Government. To them, Members of Congress, senior military
leaders and civilians within the DOD hierarchy are viewed as one and
the same. Therefore, it is imperative we work together to collectively
ensure that serving in America's military is a rewarding experience.
We ask a lot from the members of our Armed Services. We ask them to
serve long hours in places that are often unsafe and far from home. We
ask them to commit their heart and soul to their service and country,
and some pay the ultimate sacrifice. I am happy to say the support from
this committee and Members of Congress has been outstanding this past
year. We truly appreciate your continued help as we strive to improve
the quality of life for our airmen.
On behalf of the men and women who serve in America's Air Force,
thank you for your leadership and for allowing us the opportunity to
discuss issues and concerns in this open forum.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
Sergeant Finch, thank you for your service to our country
and all you do for the Air Force. Let me just ask a little bit
about some of the points you have raised. One of the reasons
that I was concerned about the GI bill transferability
provisions as it passed was that it did not apply to everyone
in the same way. We give reenlistment bonuses, we give bonuses
for skill levels, and I have come across this where the 15-year
sergeant in the Air Force at Aviano wonders why the young 3- to
4-year veteran in the Air Force, the young tiger sonar
technician or computer whiz, just received a re-up bonus and he
did not.
I am concerned about the perceived inequities growing in
the military. We did our best, though, to try to get this
concept of transferability installed, and this was the price we
had to pay. I wonder if each of you would share with me and
with the subcommittee what you feel the impact can be, will be,
or has been on the opportunity to transfer GI bill benefits to
the spouse and to the kids.
Why don't we start with you, Sergeant Major Tilley.
Sergeant Tilley. I am glad you started with me. First of
all, I have heard about or talked to soldiers about our GI bill
for the last 20 to 25 years, and a question that has always
come up is, why can't we transfer that to our family? There are
a lot of soldiers that stay in the Army for a long time, and
they never use their GI bill, unfortunately, and so I just say
from the Army's perspective I think it is a great initiative. I
think it is the right thing to do, and I think in fact there
are a lot of people that think that if you do that you will
slow down your retention within the military. I think the other
way. I think it will help you with retention within the
service, so I think it is a wonderful idea.
Senator Cleland. I am really glad to hear you say that
because 3 years ago, when, as a result of the Principi
Commission that looked at the benefit structure in DOD and VA
and tried to make sense of it, there was a recommendation of
that independent commission that was put together by Congress
to report back to Congress as to how it could improve the
benefit structure of, in effect, active duty veterans and
military retirees. One of the things that stood out to me was
the concept of transferability, which as former head of the
Veterans Administration I had never thought about. Then I
thought about the evolution of the force since I was in the
military.
When I was in the military during the Vietnam War, which
was the third war in which we had the draft, in effect you had
draft in and then transfer out, or discharge out. You had a
disposable force, mostly male, mostly single. With the advent
of the all-volunteer force, it has evolved into a force that we
want to retain, since we invest so much time and energy and
training in that force. It is also a married force, which
drives so much of the retention decision.
I was in Osaka, Japan about 2 years ago, and a Navy Admiral
pointed out to me that the decision to stay in the Navy is made
around the dinner table, and that said it all.
I was down at Fort Gordon, and they said, you recruit a
soldier, you retain a family. We now look at retaining a high
tech force--and that is the way we go to war now, in case
anybody has not read the papers lately, precision weapons, high
tech people, and that saves lives. It is obvious to me that in
order to retain that force, you have to look at the family
questions, not just the service member question, and therefore
the question of transferability of an asset like the GI bill
came into play.
Sergeant Tilley, regarding your point--about 3 years ago,
when we put forward the idea, I heard subtle feedback, gossip,
and rumors from the Pentagon that they thought if we provided
this benefit then it would somehow slow down recruitment. It
seemed to me the other way around, that if you take care of
people in the military, especially the families, those family
members are going to want to be part of the military in some
way.
They are going to look at that more favorably, and then
those that know that family are going to say, well, boy, the
Army, the Marine Corps, the Navy, the Air Force is a good deal,
I want to sign up. It seems to me the better we take care of
our people, the more others will want to be part of the force,
so I was interested in that.
Sergeant Tilley. You took the words right out of my mouth.
I did not reenlist in the Army for money. I never thought about
it as a young solder. I reenlisted because I liked that my
chain of command was taking care of me, and I could see where I
was going down the road, but it was never about money, and it
really wasn't about benefits. But then as you get older,
younger solders today are asking about their benefits as soon
as they come into the Army. They want to know what kind of
college degree can I get, or what can I get out of the service.
I need to tell you one story, and I will be quick. I go
around and I see soldiers in the Army with master's degrees and
doctor's degrees and all sorts of stuff. In fact, I talked to a
female the other day, 35 years old, down at Goodfellow Air
Force Base that was going through fire training, and I said,
hey, look, I just have to ask you, why are you here, why did
you come in the Army? She said, I came in the Army because I
just was recently divorced, my mother is taking care of my
kids, and they are a little bit older, but I want to make a
life for myself. I want to do something different with my life,
so I came in the Army because it has a lot of benefits for me.
I could see my future, and it is going to help me. Those are
things that people are looking for when they come in the
service.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
Sergeant Major McMichael.
Sergeant McMichael. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
say thank you for actually getting this going and rolling,
because it is a good thing for us, the men and women in
uniform, to be able to have it transferable, but I am concerned
that as we do it we do a pilot and do it right, so that we will
not have to come back 5 years later and have to recreate.
I am concerned that we focus so much on skills and start
paying for skills and forget that all men and women who put on
the uniform are providing a service, that we are paying them
first, or trying to take care of them for their service as much
as we are, or even more so, than we are for their skills. As I
look at the great men and women that serve our United States
Marine Corps family, they all have great skills, and I would
hate to put any more value on one than on the other.
But at the same time, as I said in my opening statement,
education is very important to me personally, and I champion it
every day. I do not want anyone to serve in uniform, and
especially the Marine Corps, if they come in with a GED and do
not have the opportunity to get a Ph.D. If they cannot get
there because we do not have a system to allow it, then I am
not sure that we are fully supporting the men and women that
serve our corps.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
putting it that way. One of the reasons I walked down the road
here on transferability, and began to be convinced in my own
mind that this was a road that we ought to all walk down, was
that about 2 years ago I read a story of a young marine
sergeant quoted in the New York Times in which he was asked
about the value of the pay raise. He said, I am glad I got the
pay raise, and then he quickly said, it will help me pay for an
education for my 12-year-old daughter. In other words, he
immediately shifted to what was driving him at this point,
which was a 12-year-old daughter. It was the family requirement
and particularly education of a family member, and that that
was the value of the pay raise to him.
Obviously, if you are young and single, you know the pay
raise means other things, but he quickly shifted to what was
the priority for him at that point. With a military, the
majority of which is married, it does seem to me that as you
gain rank and stay in the military a while, that your
priorities do shift from just being a young tiger out there in
the first 3 or 4 years, to the 6-year, 8-year mark, 10-year
mark, you begin to think differently. Your pressures are
different, and it seems to me that the transferability helps
with one of those pressures on the servicemen and women.
Master Chief.
Chief Herdt. Yes, sir. Thank you for this opportunity. As
you said, the Admiral said that that decision to stay in the
Navy is made round the dinner table at night. The follow-on
piece that he did not relate to you is, and 51 percent of the
vote is at home. [Laughter.]
That is the way it works. I am so pleased to have the
opportunity to talk to this issue, that you are asking for our
opinion on it, because it is repeatedly the question I get when
I conduct all-hands calls throughout the fleet. I would be in
the Northern Arabian Sea talking to sailors on ships. The
opportunity, or the ability to educate one's children is
perhaps the single biggest concern in the 36,000 strong Chief
Petty Officers' mess in the United States Navy. Every one of us
wants the opportunity to provide a quality education. If we can
send our kids to the local junior college, then that is fine,
if that is what we want to do, but for those that want to do
better, we should have that opportunity.
I am concerned that perhaps there are real social
implications when we start deciding who is going to be able to
educate their children. Dealing with the bonuses and the haves
and have-nots in the bonuses, that is a little bit different,
but this is a real social right in our country when we start
talking about our ability to educate. I am not sure it is going
to play very well in a team environment when we say, you get to
educate your children and oh, by the way, you don't, and I am
locked into this.
I am also concerned that we started a little bit early. The
6-to-10-year point, I understand the reasoning that got us
there, but I think if we move that out a little bit further,
right now the folks at 15 years and beyond, as you mentioned,
are sort of looking back at those junior folks and saying, what
am I, chopped liver? If we structure this right, we could make
this benefit as powerful a retention tool as the retirement
system is. I guess if I were doing it, I would move it out,
maybe another 4 to 5 years, out to about the 14, 15-year point.
First of all you would obligate for 20, but for every year that
you stayed in past that initial point, I think, I would up the
percentage.
I might start at a lower percentage, and the longer you
stay in, the more I would give you, and I think we can
structure this to be an incredibly powerful retention tool.
Right now, it is structured towards critical skills. We have
bonuses to take care of those critical skills. This needs to be
something that is across an entire segment, and affordable. I
think the further we move it out, the more draw it has when
young sailors look out and say, look how they are taking care
of the people who really commit to this institution, and it
also becomes more affordable for us, sir.
Senator Cleland. Those are powerfully relevant questions,
and thank you for really looking down the road and seeing the
pitfalls here as well as the pluses. We wrote the bill so that
the Service Secretaries could have the option of applying this
any way they wanted, and so in effect the Navy has an option to
do exactly what you suggest. Again, I was aware that you create
some inequity here, but I had to get the camel's nose in the
tent first.
Chief Herdt. We are appreciative of that.
Senator Cleland. Later, we can work on the whole camel, but
thank you for helping us understand, and the Navy and the
services understand how this might be tweaked so that it can
have all the power of retention that we wanted it to have, and
yet minimize the sense of inequity that it does have as well.
Thank you very much. Great suggestions.
Sergeant Finch.
Chief Finch. I echo many of the comments the Master Chief
has made in terms of taking care of our people who have
committed to the service for a significant length of time. I,
too, travel around, and do airmen calls hour to hour on bases
that I visit, and there are a number of issues that come up,
and educational issues are always something that are raised. If
you get a large enough group out there they will come up with
that, and we tried to put those into some category to say, gee,
what educational issues are really out there, and which are the
most important, and so there were numerous ones.
There were the folks that did not have access to
educational benefits. There was the transferability issue.
There was the issue of using the GI bill in conjunction with
tuition assistance, or going to 100 percent, and then there
were numerous ones that get capsulized. So I went back to the
senior enlisted leadership and asked, if you could do all of
those, which would you do, and which would you do first, so I
could sort out what they thought were the higher priorities.
The transferability issue was, quite frankly, pretty high. I
think the folks really appreciate that. Higher yet, though, was
the ability to get everybody in that window before we started
to go down that road, and it is a timing issue.
We certainly appreciate getting the camel's nose inside the
tent to do that, but it is something we have to go back now and
make sure that we have opened this up so that we are educating
the kids in the future.
Senator Cleland. We have a feedback loop in the bill, too,
that you come back to us and tell us how you are doing, and
that we analyze this as we go along and learn from it.
Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we thank
you for your commitment to the whole issue of transferability
in education for the families of our servicemen. You have been
like a bulldog, a great leader, and a great champion on this,
and tireless in it, and I have been honored to work with you
and support you in that effort.
I think, as has been pointed out by our panel, that while
self-interest, self-education, and self-improvement are very
valid, and there is nothing wrong with that kind of incentive
and those kinds of concerns, it reaches a point where your
greater concern is your children and your family and their
future. Where you may be willing to make self-sacrifices, you
are not willing to sacrifice your children. In making those
determinations to stay in or get out, that becomes fundamental,
so thank you for what you have done on that issue and your
continued commitment on it. I look forward to working with you.
Master Chief Herdt, I want to join the chairman in
congratulating you and thanking you for your career, for your
service to our country. You have done an outstanding job and
exemplary service, and we wish you the best in the future.
Chief Herdt. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Hutchinson. I think we have a vote on final passage
coming up here very shortly, but I would like to ask the panel
an issue I asked the previous panel about the vaccine
production acquisition strategy in the military. You are with
those who are out fighting the wars. We know in Afghanistan
that there was evidence of, if not actual biological weapons,
although I think some of that was found as well, there were
certainly plans for the use of biological weapons.
In the future, I believe that we will ultimately have to
deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We know there are weapons of
mass destruction there, and we have not had inspectors in in
years. When we send our young people into these situations, how
comfortable are you about the kind of protection we are
providing them in the area of biological weapons? Do you have
any thoughts or recommendations on what we need to do to
adequately protect them not only against anthrax or smallpox,
but other weapons that may be either on the drawing boards or
being developed by terrorists around the world?
Let me start on our left and go across the panel.
Sergeant Tilley. Sir, that is a big question. I have had
all my six shots. I used to be the U.S. Central Command
Sergeant Major for about 2\1/2\ years, so I have worked in
Saudi and Kuwait for about 2\1/2\ years in that area. I got my
shots a long time ago. The reason I say it is a big question,
you do not know what you do not know when you talk about
weapons of mass destruction, anthrax, and things like that.
I think the one thing about anthrax is, it is there. We do
not know where it is. We need to make sure that the soldiers
that are on the ground have the correct protection, that is the
main thing. We need to make sure that they have it well before
they go.
I really support the fact that the Army or all of DOD was
given those shots before you started giving everybody shots.
The reason I say that is, if we are alerted to go fight a war,
and we just do not know what is going to happen, you could be
gone in 48 hours, or 24 hours, or 72 hours, so I think
preparation is the most important thing.
The other thing we need to discuss about weapons of mass
destruction, I guess if I would think of anything that scares
me right now, it is just strictly terrorism, because you just
do not know what is there. You try to do all the things you can
to protect yourself against force protection, but the one thing
that I think about is that it is hard to stop one person. It is
hard to stop one person who is convinced to kill themselves or
kill us because we are Americans, and as this goes on, because
it will go on. If it goes on for 6, 10 years, I really worry
about people getting complacent about thinking it just cannot
happen. The answer is, they will wait a long time to make sure
that it does happen.
I do not know if that answers all your questions. I think
with what we have right now on the ground, we are doing the
right kind of things. After being in the Army 33 years, not as
long as the Master Chief with 35, but I am going to catch up, I
am pretty pleased about what we are doing for the Army. We are
transforming the Army. We are changing things. I was also in
Vietnam in 1967, fighting in the streets of Saigon, so I
understand the importance of change.
I guess I would just say that we need to allow our services
to change, to make sure they change with better equipment,
better technology, to allow soldiers to survive the next war.
We just do not know where it is going to be.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you. This is not really a right
or wrong answer. I am just interested in your thoughts. You
gave me your thoughts, and I appreciate that, Sergeant Major,
on what you think about what we may face in those battles in
the future. We certainly had an inadequate approach thus far.
The goal was to inoculate everyone, to immunize all of
those who were at least going to be in the rotation. That meant
a lot to those who were going to be in harm's way and perhaps
face those kinds of weapons. Because our acquisition strategy
has failed, we have not been in a position to do that.
I think one thing the Surgeon General of our country
emphasized, this is not just the DOD issue any more, this is a
civilian issue also and a homeland issue, and this is an area
that we should approach jointly. I am pleased to see we are
moving in that direction.
Did you want to add something else?
Sergeant Tilley. A last comment I would like to make, I
probably did not say it enough, the importance of changing the
Army is allowing the Army to transform. When I talked about
Vietnam, I was on 48s in Vietnam, on a tank, and I took a hit
with an RPG. I understand the importance of change, and now we
have had about seven different iterations of tanks in the
field, and so to me that is change.
I understand the importance of allowing your Army to change
and have better equipment, better technology in the future,
because the worst thing about it, when you go to some of these
other countries, they are training. They have some of those
things that we have right now, so we need to continue to grow.
Senator Hutchinson. The technology, a chance to stay there.
Sergeant Major.
Sergeant McMichael. Sir, on the anthrax, it is my opinion
that we are doing a great service to our men and women by
making sure the leadership gets all it can to get all of our
servicemen and women taken care of before they go into harm's
way. I think we have to put an ESP title on it and be able to
look at that with what we have to eliminate to make sure that
we get the vaccine in a timely manner. We then have to
streamline it so that we can look at the process of getting the
vaccine to the people that need it, and then prioritize it in a
fair way, that whoever needs it first, and whoever is going in
harm's way, or closer to the threat, it can at least be
available to them.
When we look at the weapons for the attack, or being able
to stay safe, we have to be open-minded and willing to step
outside of the circle, so to speak, and continue to engage in
experimental methods to stay ready to fight tomorrow's battle
and not focus on yesterday's conflict. The only way we can do
that is to continue to be innovative and to use our technology
to go forward and to continue to educate. None of this will
make any sense to anyone and will never be embraced by anyone,
if we do not know how to market it in a positive way and in a
productive way, with a partnership between the men and women
that serve in uniform, as well as the great Americans that
support us in industry and in our technology field.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you. Good answer. Master Chief.
Chief Herdt. Yes, sir. You asked, are we satisfied with our
preparations. I guess I would answer that by saying, if you are
aboard a ship at sea, I am relatively satisfied with our
ability to button up. We have countermeasure watch-down
systems. We have systems out there that we can pretty much lock
those kinds of agents out, assuming that we know that they are
there.
I am a lot less comfortable, probably, with the homeland
security defense, plus we have a lot of sailors on the ground
around the world, because as the Sergeant Major said, you do
not know what you do not know. You do not know when it is going
to come. It is going to be there, and just as we found out with
the attacks here, you do not know it until someone starts
showing the effects. I agree with both my counterparts here
with regard to, there is no ``let's get ready for it'' once it
happens. This is something you clearly have to be prepared for.
There is not time to begin inoculating people after the attack.
So we have to have, I would agree: 1) a safe vaccine, and
2) an abundance so that we inoculate and prepare people as we
come into service, so that as a group, if our country is
attacked in this manner, we at least have a cohesive group that
is able to bring some sense of stability to wherever they might
be.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you. That is very well said. A
dozen letters or so with a very sophisticated, apparently very
refined anthrax had a significant impact on our mail system,
upon our Government, and upon our society, by creating a fear
element. As my friend Pat Roberts would say, I lay awake at
night worrying about a ground war, troops in Iraq, and it may
come to that at some point, and what a widespread dissemination
of anthrax spores would mean. You are exactly right, this is
not something you react to.
We have the Cipro, and we can be ready with antibiotics,
but that is not really the way we need to send them in. I
believe we need to send them in protected and prepared to the
best extent we can.
Thank you.
Chief Finch. Sir, I think my colleagues have covered most
of the key points of this. I would just add that it is
leadership's responsibility to be sure the men and women who
are put in harm's way have the ability to come back home, and
we are doing the best we can to make sure that happens.
As far as the vaccine, I agree with the Master Chief here,
we are an expeditionary Air Force. We send people into harm's
way in a short amount of time, and we have to prepare them,
whether it is for the risk of anthrax or for the risk of some
other biological agent or anything that happens to be out
there. It is our responsibility to try and prepare for those
things as best we can and provide safe vaccines, to allow our
folks to go over there and perform their duties.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you. I have been called to the
floor, and I do not know how close we are to the vote, but I
wanted to ask--Sergeant Major, my understanding is, at least,
that there is a survey that is being prepared. Are you involved
in the design of that survey regarding personnel and spouses,
about the quality of life? Are you familiar with what I am
talking about?
Sergeant McMichael. Yes, sir, I am very familiar with the
2002 quality of life survey that will kick off this month in
the Marine Corps. As I said in the opening statement, that
survey is probably designed better than the previous two we
have had that went out within the last, almost 10 years,
because for one we will talk to and survey the spouses as well
as the men and women in uniform. It is structured to get to the
real questions that will allow us to focus on the things we
need to work on, or the things that we should provide that has
not been provided in the past.
Senator Hutchinson. When do you expect the results of the
survey?
Sergeant McMichael. I am not sure of the exact time that it
will finish being administered, but hopefully in a year. We
will take it throughout a year's time.
Senator Hutchinson. Will the results of that be made
available to the subcommittee?
Sergeant McMichael. I am quite sure it will, sir.
Senator Hutchinson. That will be helpful to us. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Senator Hutchinson. I thank the
panelists for your insightful comments today. As we call the
third panel, we will take a 5-minute break. [Recess.]
The subcommittee will come to order. Thank you very much
for your understanding of the Senate version of a 5-minute
break. Let me just say that all of you have prepared
statements, and if there are no objections we will enter those
in the record.
We have received prepared statements from Brig. Gen. David
A. Brubaker, Deputy Director, Air National Guard; Lt. Gen.
Roger C. Schultz, Director, Army National Guard; and Rear Adm.
R. Dennis Sirois, Director of Reserve and Training, Coast
Guard. If there are no objections, these statements will be
included in the record.
[The prepared statements of Brigadier General Brubaker,
Lieutenant General Schultz, and Rear Admiral Sirois follow:]
Prepared Statement by Brig. Gen. David A. Brubaker, ANG
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to present information to this committee--on behalf of the
108,000 proud men and women of the Air National Guard--and to share
with you the successes and challenges facing us over the next year and
beyond.
It was September 11 that marked time for these and all subsequent
generations of Americans. The world stood still--but not the Air
National Guard--nor our brothers and sisters in the Army National Guard
and the countless thousands of other citizens who immediately responded
to deter an unseen enemy from further assaults and destruction. With
years of preparation, training and commitment--all sustained by this
committee's support--your Air National Guard personnel launched in
response to our Nation's emergency call for help. These Air Guard men
and women brought with them the character and core values of
generations of citizen soldiers and airmen. The volunteer spirit that
answered the emergency bell to fire the first ``shots heard around the
world'' on Lexington Commons in April 1775--rapidly responded to the
``shock heard round the world'' on September 11 during the brutal
attacks in New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania. While life
changed forever on that tragic day, our Air National Guard volunteerism
remains steadfast and reliable--even after nearly 6 months in 24/7
operations. Today, your Air National Guard remains vigilant in the
skies above this very room and these important proceedings--ensuring
the ability of our Nation to continue its critical operations.
That same undaunting spirit is flying and fighting in distant
lands; operating in dangerous, deplorable conditions; following the
enemy deep into their own territory to stop terrorism at its very
core--guarding America from abroad in Operation Enduring Freedom.
With growing mobilization authority, the Air National Guard
currently provides more than 25,000 men and women to Operation Noble
Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Aerospace Expeditionary Force
(AEF). Today those numbers include nearly 6,000 volunteers, 14,000
mobilized men and women, a sustained 1,300 AEF participants--many under
partial mobilization and volunteerism--all supported extensively by
over 21,000 full-time technicians and 11,000 Active Guard Reserve
(AGRs)--with virtually the same end strength we had in 1984, nearly 20
years ago. We will continue these contributions for the unforeseen
future--``Always ready--Always there.''
At the end of January, our end strength approached nearly 110,500,
almost 2,500 above our current allocation--a sign of the patriotism and
dedication of your men and women in today's Air National Guard, as well
as an indicator of the important role your strong support has given us
for critical retention programs like control grade relief, Aviation
Continuation Pay, bonus programs, pay increases, family readiness and
employer support. We have depended heavily on every one of these
dedicated citizen warriors--their families and employers.
To put the Air National Guard's current participation in
perspective, during Operation Desert Storm we activated nearly 16,000
proud Air Guard men and women. In Bosnia, our contribution was close to
8,000 and Kosovo--4,000. We have--in 5 short months--already doubled
our Operation Desert Storm peak and tripled or better the other
remaining major conflicts or wars of the last decade alone. The nature
and timing of this war puts the Air National Guard in a very unique and
positive leadership position demonstrating to the world the value of
the citizen airmen in a nation's ability to prosecute a war far from
its shores while protecting our country at home--but we need your help
in critical areas to sustain this level of involvement over the long
haul.
Today, our Nation contemplates fundamental changes or shifts in the
way we continue to ``ensure domestic tranquility'' and ``provide for
the common defense.'' The hand we've been dealt for our future security
environment cries out for greater involvement of our Air National Guard
units in war, contingencies, transnational threats, terrorism, and
humanitarian operations. We know we have the resident skills, maturity,
and experience to make the difference in this new world. With your
help, we've insured a relevant and accessible Air National Guard over
the last decade. Since 1990, the Air National Guard contributions to
sustained Total Force operations have increased 1,000 percent. We are
no longer a ``force in Reserve,'' but are around the world partnering
with our Active and Reserve components as the finest example of Total
Force integration. Air National Guard support to all U.S. Air Force
operations over the last decade has increased from 24 to 34 percent of
the Total Force aircraft employed. Contingency support has dramatically
increased from 8 percent in 1993 to nearly 22 percent--all prior to
September 11. In February 2002, the Air National Guard supported nearly
75 percent of all Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) combat air patrols,
including 24 percent of AEF fighters and a classified level of
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) fighters. Air National Guard tankers
contributed 60 percent of ONE refueling taskings; 47 percent of OEF Air
Force requirements; while still sustaining over 37 percent of all AEF
refueling. Our C-130 fleet conducts 55 percent of ONE tactical lift
requirements, while contributing 42 percent to OEF taskings, as well 78
percent of all Air Force AEF taskings. Prior to September 11, the
average number of active duty days per ANG member (above the 39-day
obligation) had already increased by 12 days--a full third more--all
based on the volunteerism of our dedicated citizen airmen. Today, that
number grows steadily as our men and women clamor to respond to our
Nation's call to the war on terrorism.
In Cycle One and Two of the AEF, the Air National Guard deployed
25,000 of its people--nearly 24 percent--almost 2,500 per AEF. We
contributed over 20 percent of the Total Force aviation package and
nearly 10 percent of the Expeditionary Combat Support or ECS
requirements. Air National Guard contributions to the Total Force have
been even more robust in AEF Cycle 2--especially with the advent of the
war on terrorism. The events of September 11 have, for the short term,
adjusted the AEF rotations and the ANG contributions in both numbers
and duration. We expect to return to the AEF construct during AEF
rotations 3 or 4 this year.
The Air National Guard is busy. Our people are volunteering above
Operation Desert Storm peak levels with nearly 85 percent of our total
workdays supporting CINC and service requirements around the world. Our
men and women are proud of their contributions.
By the second week of February 2002, Air National Guard fighters on
all three fronts logged nearly 28,300 flying hours in almost 7,800
sorties, with a daily average of 90 hours a day. Our tankers flew over
10,800 hours in almost 2,200 sorties, for an average of 75 hours a day.
Over 4,200 of our 5,300 Security Forces were mobilized with an
additional 800 on MPA days. All four Air National Guard intelligence
squadrons were mobilized early along with ground tactical air control
systems and air operations groups.
In practical terms, this has proven that the Air National Guard is
an essential element of the Total Force charged with protecting and
defending America at home, in addition to their primary role in forward
deployed combat and combat support operations. We must take proactive
steps to insure we remain viable by taking care of our people, their
families and employers. We must insure a continued and steady
recruiting capability to meet these sustained requirements.
During fiscal year 2001, the Air National Guard was faced with many
of the same recruiting challenges that have confronted all the other
service components over the last few years--a robust economy and a low
unemployment rate. Through highly effective recruiting and retention
programs, the Air National Guard exceeded its programmed fiscal year
2001 end strength by 400 members. As of 22 January 2002, the Air
National Guard has attained 110,451 assigned members, far exceeding
fiscal year 2002 programmed strength at this point.
We've been successful because you have given us the necessary
resources to place recruiting and retention emphasis on Air Force
Specialties where shortages exist, such as aircraft maintenance career
fields, by offering enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, Student Loan
Repayment Program, and the Montgomery GI Bill Kicker Program. As a
result, in many of our critical maintenance positions, we have seen
real growth from 2-6 percent over the last 2 fiscal years. These
incentives have contributed greatly toward enticing and retaining the
right talent for the right job. We thank you for this help.
During the past year the Air National Guard continued to see an
increase in Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) take rates. Currently 450
out of 483 eligible Active Guard Reserve pilots have signed up for the
bonus. That equates to a 93 percent take rate. ACP has accomplished its
goal by retaining qualified instructor pilots to train and sustain our
combat force--a critical force enabler in today's crisis environment.
Our greatest challenge will be pursuing legislation to eliminate the 1/
30th rule as it applies to Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) and
Career Enlisted Flight Incentive Pay (CEFIP). This initiative, which
affects over 13,343 officers and enlisted crew members in the Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve, is aimed at providing an
incentive to our traditional aviators who do not qualify for the ACP
for Active Guard Reserves and the special salary rate for Technicians.
They have participated at historically high levels even before, but
especially since, September 11. Additionally a priority for the Air
National Guard is to increase our traditional pilot force, which has
maintained a steady state of 90 percent. We are also implementing
recruiting procedures to expediently identify eligible prior-service
military pilots that may be interested in a career with the Air
National Guard.
The Air National Guard has placed priority on several quality of
life imperatives. Each of these initiatives represents a significant
accomplishment in making Air National Guard membership more attractive,
one of our biggest priorities. We thank you for the support for another
priority--the recent increase in the maximum coverage under the
Servicemen's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program to $250,000. On the
heels of that improvement, SGLI was expanded to include families. The
SGLI and Family SGLI programs provide our members a single
comprehensive source of affordable life insurance.
The recent creation of the Uniformed Services Thrift Savings Plan
(UNISERV TSP) is another equally impressive example of far reaching
quality of life initiatives. Under this program, all members of the
Uniformed Services, to include Air National Guard members, are now
eligible to supplement their retirement by participating in this
program using pre-tax dollars, providing yet another incentive to
continue to serve.
We care about TRICARE and the TRICARE For Life legislation is an
important enhancement that encourages our members to serve to
retirement. By doing so, retired members who become eligible for
Medicare at 65 are also eligible to have TRICARE as a supplement to
Medicare, saving them significant amounts of money in their retired
years. Recent improvements for TRICARE of mobilized Guard members will
reduce the burdens on their families.
Our human resources enhancement programs, in particular our
diversity effort, has increased mission readiness in the Air National
Guard by focusing on workforce diversity and assuring fair and
equitable participation for all. In view of demographic changes in our
heterogeneous society, we have embraced diversity as a mission
readiness, bottom-line business issue. Since our traditional sources
for recruitment will not satisfy our needs for ensuring the diversity
of thought, numbers of recruits, and a balanced workforce, we are
recruiting, retaining and promoting men and women from every heritage,
racial, and ethnic group.
Leadership's continuous emphasis on diversity issues is necessary
to maintain momentum and ensure training and program implementation. In
addition, declines in prior-service accessions require increased
emphasis on training and mentoring programs for non-prior service
recruits. The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services
(DACOWITS) recommended the Air National Guard Diversity Initiative as
the ``benchmark for all the services and Reserve components.''
Our future diversity initiatives will focus on areas of career
development including the implementation of an Air National Guard
formal mentoring process and the development of automated tools to
track progress towards increasing opportunities for women and
minorities. In the area of education and training we plan to develop
and execute an innovative prejudice paradigm and gender relations
training modules. Also, as part of our minority recruiting and
retention efforts, we will sponsor an initiative to evaluate the
retention rates of women in the Air National Guard to determine factors
contributing to the attrition rate. The National Guard declared 2002--
``The National Guard Year of Diversity.'' We will insure during this
year we put emphasis on this critical recruiting, retention and career
progression effort.
The predictability and stability of AEF rotations has made it
easier for employers to support Guard and Reserve members' deployments.
We've ensured dedicated transportation to get our men and women to and
from an AEF location. We've identified employer support in our
Strategic Plan. We've taken the lead to establish a Reserve component
airline symposium where we meet with the Nation's airline industry's
chief pilots to work high level issues critical to our shared national
assets, our pilots. We accomplished several goals in our ``Year of the
Employer 2001'' efforts, including the introduction of phase one of an
employer database that not only captures vital information on our
traditional National Guard employers to improve communication, but also
the added advantage of capturing critical ``civilian'' skills that can
be leveraged for military experience. These are but a few of the
initiatives taking hold as we focus on the `silent partner' behind all
of our men and women.
Since 1997, the Air National Guard has repeatedly identified the
importance of family readiness. Since September 11, the Air Guard has
asked its families to make great sacrifices to sustain contributions in
support of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom--concurrently
with sustained overseas deployments of much longer durations. Today,
this means nearly 50,000 Air National Guard member families are in
immediate need of dedicated full-time family readiness and support
services--specifically information referral support and improved
communications and education capabilities. Until this year, Air
National Guard base family readiness and support was run entirely by
volunteers on an average annual budget of only $3,000--$4,000. Through
this committee's great support in the supplemental last year, we
received $8 million to bring full-time, dedicated contract capability
to the Air National Guard for the first time ever.
The Air National Guard has developed and implemented the program
solution in fiscal year 2001 to fund a full-time contracted family
readiness program at each of its major installations. While funding for
fiscal year 2002 has been added in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental
appropriations, there is still no sustained program funding in the
Future Years Defense Program. The Air National Guard family readiness
program significantly enhances mission capabilities by reducing
pressures on Air National Guard personnel and their families, as well
as improves their quality of life. Our families deserve no less.
The Air National Guard has also identified a need for childcare
alternatives. With increasing demands from Air National Guard
Commanders and family members, the Air National Guard researched
innovative childcare options for the National Guard to include drill-
weekend childcare access. Quality, affordable, and accessible childcare
for Guard and Reserve members is an important quality of life issue,
especially for single and dual-working spouses, just as it is for our
active-duty counterparts. The Air National Guard has proposed a pilot
program in 14 locations nationwide to provide a low-cost, simple
approach to providing quality, childcare access to National Guard and
Reserve members. At completion, an assessment of the pilot program will
be reviewed and any necessary guidance with projected costs will be
validated. Our Active-Duty Child Development Centers (CDC) have
recently opened their doors for National Guard and Reserve childcare
use on a space available basis at each of their sites. However, with
only 14 of 88 Air National Guard Wings on an active-duty base where
many of the daycares are already operating at capacity, this will have
limited opportunity for many. With increasing demands on Air National
Guard families and their children, cost-effective and supportive
solutions must be found.
The ANG maximizes training capabilities by employing data uplinks
from our three studios in Knoxville, Tennessee; Panama City, Florida;
and Andrews AFB, Maryland. As a forerunner in this dynamic medium, the
satellite-based Air National Guard Warrior Network has (since 1995)
transported training and information to our members at 203 downlink
sites at our bases throughout the Nation. In addition to training
delivery and production, these studios also serve as full communicative
links to the states and territories in times of national and local
contingencies. From the Andrews studio, we provided timely updates to
the field in support of Operation Noble Eagle. From the Training and
Education Center in Knoxville we transported critical information for
the F-16 community concerning their new wheel and brake assembly. This
training saved over $120,000 in costs associated with travel of a
mobile team. We also continue to enjoy good working relations with the
Federal Judiciary Training Network, uplinking training to all their
Federal courts.
We continue to work with the DOD and all the Federal training
communities in developing and delivering expedient learning products,
and the net result of these actions is helping to increase unit and
member readiness. The challenge is funding for the future. The Air
National Guard needs to be positioned to compensate learners, to assist
with computer acquisition (or accessibility), Internet access, and to
pay for conversion of courses into a deliverable format. Additionally,
the Air National Guard plans to make increasing use of tuition
assistance which equates to a more informed, better trained and
educated National Guard member--one who is ready to meet the challenges
of the future.
In the last year, the Air National Guard filled more than just
``positions.'' We brought skills, experience, and training to the
theater that exponentially increased Air Force warfighting capability
and proved invaluable to immediate responses on September 11. The Air
National Guard pilots who launched over American cities on September 11
and deployed for overseas shortly thereafter, averaged over 2,000 hours
flying the F-16 versus 100 hours for their young active-duty
counterparts. Ninety-seven percent of our Air Guard pilots have more
than 500 hours experience in their jets compared to 35 percent of their
active-duty counterparts. Similar comparisons can be made for other
critical career fields. The Air National Guard received 186
undergraduate pilot training slots in fiscal year 2001, up 13 from the
previous year. The projected pilot shortage for most of the next decade
makes it imperative to increase the pipeline flow to help sustain the
National Guard's combat readiness--especially as we assimilate more
non-prior service individuals as a function of our overall recruiting
effort.
We in the Air National Guard are proud to serve this great Nation
as citizen-airmen. Building the strongest possible Air National Guard
to meet the needs of the President, Secretary of Defense, CINCs and our
Air Force partners is our most important objective. Our people,
readiness modernization programs, and infrastructure supported through
congressional actions are necessary to achieve this vital objective.
We count on the support of the citizens of the United States of
America to continue meeting our mission requirements--especially the
members of this committee. We are confident that the men and women of
the Air National Guard will meet the challenges set before us. With
your sustained support, we will remain an indelible part of American
military character as an expeditionary force, domestic guardian and
caring neighbor--protecting the United States of America--at home and
abroad.
______
Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Roger C. Schultz, ARNG
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Senate Armed Services
Subcommittee on Personnel:
On behalf of the 350,871 men and women of the Army National Guard
(ARNG), I want to thank you for this opportunity to address you today
and for your continued support to the Guard.
Our Nation relies on the ARNG now more than ever to accomplish an
increasing number of vital missions. In response to the events of
September 11, 2001, the ARNG is deployed across the country and around
the world. No matter where the duty location, our soldiers possess high
morale, because they are doing what they signed on for: serving their
country. This high morale can be attributed in large part to the
unflagging support of our soldiers' family members and their employers.
We have experienced no adverse effects on our personnel programs, and
are achieving, even exceeding, our goals in recruiting and retention.
We are working within the Army to maintain a sustainable personnel
tempo, by providing the longest possible lead times to our soldiers and
their employers. We continue to monitor employer support, and I'm
pleased to inform you, it is high. In order to sustain the high
employer support we are experiencing, we are developing a recognition
program to enhance efforts with Employer Support of the Guard and
Reserve (ESGR) in sustaining support for our soldiers.
In order to continue this proud tradition of exceptional service to
our Nation, the Army National Guard needs your continuing support.
Recognizing that your focus is on personnel, I want to make you aware
of our program priorities, and provide you with background on what we
have identified as critical issues for the Army National Guard. The
continued support of Congress is critical in fulfilling our
responsibilities and commitment to our Nation.
One great asset of the Army National Guard is our extremely
dedicated full-time workforce, that small team of Active Guard and
Reserve or Military Technicians back home in your communities that look
after our units on a day-to-day basis. Full-time manning is our most
critical issue, and our number one priority. I want to thank you for
your support in increasing the ARNG full-time manning. In addition,
inadequate full-time support issues can have an adverse impact on
retention and the quality of life of our soldiers and their families.
With the Guard's increasing role in worldwide day-to-day operations, it
is extremely important to have a sufficient number of full-time
soldiers ready to help their units meet current operational tempo
readiness needs. National Guard leaders throughout the Nation
repeatedly cite the lack of full-time support as a significant
readiness inhibitor. The Army Guard's current full-time manning level
is 57 percent of Army validated requirements. The additional
authorizations for AGR soldiers and military technicians you provided
were sent to the States and Territories to improve readiness in units.
Those AGR soldiers are on the ground in our armories that facilitate
every aspect of readiness by providing the day-to-day support necessary
to allow units to perform their operational missions when mobilized.
The Army provides funding beginning in fiscal year 2005 to continue the
momentum you established in reaching our high risk requirement, but
more work needs to be done. The Army is seeking additional full-time
support authorizations and associated funding to incrementally increase
the ARNG full-time support program over the next 11 years.
Operational demands on the Armed Forces have stressed active
military forces. Since the end of the Cold War, the Armed Forces
experienced a reduction of total personnel while our security strategy
has increased the demands placed on the Reserve Forces. To meet the
increasing mission requirements on the ARNG, we must not only attract
but retain our soldiers.
Enlisted personnel recruiting and retention were continuing success
stories for the ARNG during fiscal year 2001. Enlisted accessions for
the year exceeded the program objective of 60,252 by totaling 61,956 or
102.8 percent of the goal. The overall ARNG loss rate through the end
of fiscal year 2001 was 19 percent, nearly meeting the overall
objective of 18 percent.
The total officer strength at the end of fiscal year 2001 was
36,579. Officer end strength was 821 short of the programmed objective.
The ARNG continues to have a higher than expected loss rate among
officers. Some of this is attributed to resignation from the ARNG due
to family pressures, Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO) and better income
opportunities offered in the civilian sector.
The shortage of company grade officers in the ARNG, particularly at
the rank of captain, results in a large number of lieutenants and
warrant officers occupying captain positions. Our company-grade
shortfall in units creates a decrease in our overall readiness posture,
unit morale and unit effectiveness.
The Army National Guard continues to address significant challenges
in warrant officer accession and personnel management. Of significant
concern is the critical shortage of technical service warrant officers
and the impact this has on unit readiness. Currently the assigned
warrant officer strength is 81 percent fill of the authorized strength.
Technical warrant officer strength is down to 71 percent, while
aviation warrant officer strength has fallen slightly below
requirements to 95 percent.
The ARNG continues to employ a number of measures to combat the
critical shortfall in company grade and warrant officers. Measures
include developing a robust advertising campaign; creating an officer/
warrant officer recruiting and retention course; capitalizing on
alternate commissioning sources for increased accessioning into the
ARNG; and identifying and resourcing programs to assist in the
acquisition of new officers. These initiatives will contribute to our
ability to effectively man the force with quality officers and warrant
officers.
In order to fully capitalize on recruiting and retention successes
and improve readiness, an effective and resourced Reserve component
compatible schools system must be employed. Duty Military Occupation
Specialty Qualification (DMOSQ) of individual soldiers is a critical
element of Personnel Readiness. The Total Army School System and
Distance Learning capability are the Army answers to this challenge.
Support for training days for Guard soldiers, distance learning
courseware and other training support needs are critical to raising the
personnel readiness of ARNG units.
The Army's Personnel Transformation effort will merge personnel and
payroll programs and databases across all components and provide
greater accuracy and integration. The ARNG supports the Personnel
Transformation effort and would encourage support for the program.
Today, the Army National Guard is on duty in 57 countries.
Operations in fiscal year 2002 are dramatically illustrating the
increasing role of the Army National Guard in supporting theater
commanders in chief (CINCs) in Stability and Support Operations. To
date this fiscal year, the ARNG has provided approximately 31,770
soldiers to the CINCs, representing an increase of 23,829 soldiers from
fiscal year 2001. This includes support to the Olympics, Overseas
Deployment Support, Temporary Tours of Active Duty, Presidential
Reserve Call-Ups, and Partial-Mobilization.
To meet the needs of the future, the ARNG must provide our soldiers
with the resources they need to remain trained and ready. The Army
National Guard must anticipate the requirements of today's world while
we plan for tomorrow's challenges. In addition, the ARNG will have a
major role in supporting domestic civil support missions, including
such diverse tasks as managing the consequences of weapons of mass
destruction, national missile defense systems, and other threats to our
Nation.
The Army National Guard is clearly an essential force in America's
military. We must, however, continue to strive forward in order
progress and sustain both national and civil support initiatives. The
future will demand an ever-increasing OPTEMPO. Your continued support
ensures that we maintain our momentum and meet those demands. Your help
in supporting these issues is greatly appreciated by the National Guard
as a whole and in particularly by those soldiers in your home
districts.
______
Prepared Statement by Rear Adm. R. Dennis Sirois, U.S. Coast Guard
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I am Rear Admiral Dennis Sirois, the Coast Guard's
Director of Reserve and Training. It is a pleasure to appear before you
today.
Protecting America from terrorist threats requires constant
vigilance across every mode of transportation: air, land, and sea. The
agencies within the Department of Transportation, including the Coast
Guard, touch all modes of transportation. Ensuring port and waterway
security is a national priority and an intermodal challenge with
impacts on America's heartland communities just as directly as the U.S.
seaport cities where cargo and passenger vessels arrive and depart
daily. The U.S. has more than 25,000 miles of inland and coastal
waterways serving 361 ports, containing more than 3,700 cargo and
passenger terminals. The vast majority of cargo handled on our
waterways is immediately loaded onto, or has just been unloaded from
railcars and trucks, making the U.S. seaport network particularly
vulnerable, with its direct linkage to our Nation's rail and highway
systems.
First, let me say we in the Coast Guard are proud members of the
Department of Transportation team. As such, I want to thank Secretary
Norman Mineta for his unwavering support of the Coast Guard and Coast
Guard Reserve, particularly during the recent national emergency. On
the afternoon of September 11, Secretary Mineta exercised his special
recall authority under 14 U.S.C. 712, making the Coast Guard Reserve
the first Reserve component to be mobilized. Within hours, our members
were on duty working shoulder to shoulder with their active duty
counterparts. By week's end, we were engaged in the service's largest
mobilization since World War II and had substantially enhanced the
security of the Nation's seaports and waterways. Over the next several
days, nearly 2,800 reservists, over one third of our Selected Reserve
Force, were recalled to active duty.
I wish to thank the members of the subcommittee for their
longstanding support of the Coast Guard Reserve, which is having a
direct and positive effect on our ability to contribute daily to our
national homeland security mission. Additionally, I wish to express my
personal gratitude to all our Coast Guard reservists, who were called
away from their families, employers, businesses and professions to
serve their country. Every day, wherever the Coast Guard is found, at
small boat stations and marine safety offices, aboard cutters, and
deployed overseas in support of our maritime security and naval force
protection missions, our reservists stand the watch with
professionalism and exceptional dedication. Simply put, we could not
have done it without our Reserve workforce!
As the current recall continues, our recalled reservists face the
same challenges as those of the other Reserve components. Over the past
several years, the National Defense Authorization Act has supported a
myriad of new benefits and benefit enhancements which has had a
positive impact on the Coast Guard Reserve component. As new
legislation is proposed, we seek your support for maintaining Coast
Guard parity with our DOD services. We must continue to ensure our
recalled reservists receive the support they need to sustain themselves
and their families over the long haul.
The task of ensuring America's maritime homeland security is
daunting. We foresee a need for a larger Coast Guard to carry out this
important mission. We also project a need for a larger Reserve
component to support our Active-Duty Force. As a result of September 11
and the subsequent recall, we are re-evaluating our force requirements
and foresee a need to grow the end strength of our Reserve Force beyond
the current 8,000. Last year, we initiated a Reserve Requirements Study
to determine future force size based on validated national security
contingency requirements. The results of that study will be based on
post-September 11 threat assessments and our subsequent partial
mobilization experience. We anticipate the need for significant,
incremental growth of the Selected Reserve over the next several years.
In order to meet ongoing and emerging contingency needs. To manage this
growth within the service capabilities to recruit, train, and assign
new personnel, we are seeking for fiscal year 2003 an increase in the
Selected Reserve end strength authorization to 9,000. We hope you will
support the President's Budget request for fiscal year 2003, which
provides the resources to fully train, support, and sustain a Selected
Reserve Force of 9,000 members, as well as the additional full time
support personnel to train and administer our Reserve Force.
I wish to express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and the
distinguished members of the subcommittee for your understanding of the
challenges facing the Coast Guard and its Reserve component. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Cleland. I would like to welcome all of you. We
fully recognize that you are an integral part of the total
force. We ask our Reserve components to do more than anyone
would have predicted just a few years ago. Our Armed Services
depend on members of the Reserve components for virtually every
mission they are assigned. We need to keep our Reserve
components fully manned and ready to respond to the Nation's
needs. As with the previous panels, I will include your
prepared statements in the record and ask you to take a few
minutes to highlight the issues you believe are the most
important. We will start with Mr. Duehring, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. Following
Mr. Duehring will be General Davis, Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, followed by General Bambrough, representing the Army
Reserve, then Admiral Totushek of the Naval Reserve, General
Sherrard of the Air Force Reserve, and General McCarthy of the
Marine Forces Reserve.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG W. DUEHRING, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Duehring. Mr. Chairman, in years past they were simply
called the Reserves. Webster defines them as forces not in the
field but available, or the military force of a country not
part of the regular services. Simply put, an inanimate object
more clearly defined by explaining what it is not, rather than
by what it is, but September 11 changed that definition
forever.
In the first moments after the terrorists struck, members
of the National Guard and the Reserve components of this great
country raced to the scenes of destruction in their roles as
policemen, firemen, and medics, blending military and civilian
skills as they rushed to save lives, giving no thought to
preserving their own, while overhead, racing on clean silver
wings above the towering columns of smoke and ash were fighters
and tankers of the Air National Guard, the Air Force Reserve,
and the Marine Air Reserve.
By the end of the day, an estimated 6,000 members of the
National Guard and Reserves, including 700 alone from the Coast
Guard Reserve, had voluntarily reported for duty. Within 3
days, President Bush had issued a recall for, as he put it
during his subsequent visit to the Pentagon, no other single
act more clearly demonstrates the national resolve than to
mobilize the National Guard and Reserve Forces of the United
States.
It is no longer a force not in the field but available. Our
Reserve Forces were the first to confront the enemy in the
skies over our homeland, and the mere act of mobilizing those
forces proved our resolve to the entire world, that we were
committed to bringing our enemies to justice, or justice to our
enemies. This profound change in the National Guard and Reserve
may have come as the epiphany to some, but not to our men and
women in uniform, nor should it have been for those Members of
Congress who have steadily supported our Reserve programs
through funding initiatives, pay increases, equipment
purchases, and common sense laws that enhance and encourage
participation in our programs.
On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the National Guard
and Reserve, thank you for providing us with the means to
respond now that our Nation, our families, and our way of life
are threatened. Thank you for allowing us to train and equip
ourselves so that we can defeat a dangerous enemy, and thank
you for considering the concerns of our employers and of our
families, without whose support this war would be even more
difficult to endure.
My colleagues and I are delighted to be here today. We are
eager to tell you about new programs we have undertaken such as
the QDR-directed comprehensive force review, which we hope with
your assistance will make the National Guard and Reserve Forces
of the United States even better prepared to defend our Nation
in years to come.
Thank you for your invitation. May God bless America.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duehring follows:]
Prepared Statement by Craig W. Duehring
introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the invitation to testify before you today. I represent the men
and women of our military Reserve components as the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. Today, I will
articulate their concerns and provide you with information to assist
you in making the critical and difficult decisions you face over the
next several months. This committee has been very supportive of our
National Guard and Reserve members and on their behalf, I want to
publicly thank you for all your help in strengthening our Reserve
components. The Secretary and I appreciate it, and our military
personnel are grateful. Thank you.
asd/ra mission
The mission of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs (ASD/RA), as stated in Title 10, U.S.C., is the overall
supervision of all Reserve components affairs in the Department of
Defense. I take this responsibility very seriously because our Guard
and Reserve perform vital national security functions and are closely
interlocked with the states, cities, towns, and every community in
America. During my short time in this position, I have made it my
business to get out in the field--to see and listen to the men and
women in our Guard and Reserve. I have spent time with them here at
home station, in Antarctica, and around the world as they perform their
duties. I have listened carefully to their comments and concerns. The
events last September put great strain on the men and women who serve
in our Reserve components. We are closely monitoring the impact of that
increased use on our Guard and Reserve members, their families, and
their employers.
reserve components are full partners in the total force
Because the Reserve components now comprise almost 50 percent of
the Total Force, they are a key part of America's Total Force defense
and an essential partner in military operations ranging from Homeland
Defense, peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, and small-scale
contingencies to major theater war. The new defense strategy proposed
in the recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), calls for a portfolio
of military capabilities. This capabilities-based approach will
continue to find the Reserve components supporting the Active Forces
across the full spectrum of military missions.
The fiscal year 2003 Defense budget recognizes the essential role
of the Reserve components in meeting the requirements of the National
Military Strategy. The fiscal year 2003 budget provides over $30.8
billion for Reserve component personnel, operations, equipment
procurement, and facilities accounts, more than 12 percent above the
fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. Included are funding increases to
support full-time and part-time personnel, as well as additional
resources to strengthen employer support for mobilized Guard and
Reserve members. It continues last year's effort toward RC equipment
modernization and interoperability in support of the Total Force
policy. These funds support more than 864,000 Selected Reserve
personnel. The Selected Reserve consists of the following: Army
National Guard 350,000; Army Reserve 205,000; Naval Reserve 87,800;
Marine Corps Reserve 39,558; Air National Guard 106,600; and Air Force
Reserve 75,600. Our total Ready Reserve, which also includes the Coast
Guard Reserve, Individual Ready Reserve, and Inactive National Guard is
1,240,008 personnel.
Maintaining the integrated capabilities of the Total Force is key
to successfully achieving the Defense policy goals of assuring allies,
dissuading military competition, deterring threats against U.S.
interests, and decisively defeating adversaries. Only a well-balanced,
seamlessly integrated military force is capable of dominating opponents
across the full range of military operations. Using the concepts and
principles of the National Defense Strategy and the Total Force policy,
DOD will continue to optimize the effectiveness of its Reserve Forces
by adapting existing capabilities to new circumstances and threats and
developing new capabilities needed to meet new challenges to our
national security.
comprehensive review of the reserve components
The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) calls for a ``Paradigm Shift
in Force Planning'' and states, ``To support this strategy, DOD will
continue to rely on Reserve component forces. To ensure the appropriate
use of the Reserve components, DOD will undertake a comprehensive
review of Active and Reserve mix, organization, priority missions, and
associated resources. This review will build on recent assessments of
Reserve components issues that highlight emerging roles for the Reserve
components in the defense of the United States, in smaller-scale
contingencies, and in major combat operations.'' In November, the
Deputy Secretary of Defense tasked the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to conduct this review, with participation from
the other Under Secretaries of Defense and the Joint Staff. My office
is working diligently on this effort and we expect to provide an
interim report to the Deputy Secretary in early March, and to complete
our review in May 2002. Our review focuses on the principles of the
Total Force in the 21st century, options to enhance Reserve component
roles in major mission areas, how the Guard and Reserve can support the
Department's transformation efforts, and what business practice
improvements, management changes, and resourcing improvements are
needed to enable Reserve components to be effective in supporting the
National Military Strategy. Finally, the QDR calls for a thorough
reexamination of DOD methods and procedures for determining and
reporting readiness. My organization is working very closely with the
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Readiness to ensure this system
will fully integrate Reserve components into the entire picture of
military readiness.
reserve components in a changing world
The Guard and Reserve continue to maintain their presence in
ongoing contingencies worldwide. In October 2001, the 29th Infantry
Division, Virginia Army National Guard, became the second National
Guard Division to assume command of the U.S.'s mission in Bosnia with
2,500 soldiers from all Army components--Active, Reserve, and National
Guard. The Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard continue to provide
planes, crews and support personnel to Operations Northern Watch and
Southern Watch over Iraq. The Army National Guard continues to provide
soldiers in a force protection mission to Patriot Missile Batteries in
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Naval and Coast Guard reservists continue to
provide essential port security capabilities in the Middle East to U.S.
Central Command as well as supporting increased requirements at home.
The Army Reserve continues to provide the majority of the logistics
support to U.S. and Allied forces in Kosovo. In January of this year,
the 39th Separate Infantry Brigade, Arkansas Army National Guard,
assumed the Multinational Force Observers' Sinai mission and will be
followed by the 41st Separate Infantry Brigade, Oregon Army National
Guard.
Some 91,000 reservists have been called to active duty for three
separate Presidential Reserve Call-Ups (PRCs) in Bosnia, Kosovo and
Southwest Asia to date include: in Bosnia, over 25,000 reservists have
been called involuntarily since 1995, with another 22,000 having served
in a voluntary capacity; for Kosovo, we have called 8,400 involuntarily
with another 5,700 serving in a voluntary capacity; and for Southwest
Asia, 4,600 have been called involuntarily and these have been joined
by 25,000 volunteers. The events of September 11 and the ensuing
Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom missions have confirmed
continued efforts to promote many initiatives that have enhanced
Reserve component integration in the Total Force. These initiatives
lower cultural hurdles to integration and increase confidence and
reliance on Guard and Reserve Forces.
The national defense strategy is based on the ability to project
U.S. forces globally and sustain operational tempo in a theater upon
deployment. A significant element of this strategy is an increased
reliance upon Guard and Reserve Forces. A seamless Total Force is key
to fielding a fighting force capable of supporting multiple missions,
whether in the current war in Afghanistan, peacekeeping in the Balkans,
humanitarian missions around the globe or in protecting America's
homeland.
reserve component support to the global war on terrorism
For the first time since the Gulf War, we are calling reservists to
active duty under Partial Mobilization Authority as a result of the
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in
western Pennsylvania. Within minutes of the attacks, the National Guard
and Reserve responded. New York Guard members were on the streets of
lower Manhattan assisting New York's emergency services units. Shortly
thereafter, Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia Guard members
were on duty at the Pentagon, even before receiving the official call.
By noon on September 12, more than 6,000 Guard and reservists were
providing medical and technical assistance, patrolling streets, flying
combat air patrols and providing security at numerous critical sites
across the country. By the end of week, the Coast Guard was engaged in
its largest mobilization since World War II.
On September 14, 3 days after the attacks, when President Bush
authorized a partial mobilization of up to 50,000 Guard and Reserve
members, there were already 10,331 National Guard and Reserve filling
critical positions in a voluntary status. A review of events show that
reservists were among the first military on the scene in New York,
Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, not to mention the large numbers who
were already serving as civilian police, firefighters or EMTs.
In addition to flying homeland combat air patrols and providing
coastal and port security, reservists are manning Commando Solo
psychological warfare flights over Afghanistan, serving on Navy ships
in the Indian Ocean, preparing humanitarian supplies in Germany and
performing numerous other missions around the world. A small group of
hand-selected reservists are serving in key mission areas with the
National Infrastructure Protection Center of the FBI. As of February 5,
the Reserve components have over 65,000 Guard and Reserve members on
active duty supporting the global war on terrorism, both at home and
abroad.
Support to Mobilized Reservists
With the issuance of the President's Executive Order authorizing
the mobilization of Reserve components, the Department immediately
initiated actions to take care of mobilizing members, their families
and employers.
Detailed personnel polices are in place, including a
limit on the duration of initial orders to active duty of no
more than 12 months to reduce disruption for reservists, their
families and employers.
A medical care enhancement package is available, which
is designed to reduce out of pocket expenses for Reserve family
members and makes it easier for them to maintain continuity of
care with existing providers.
An employer database to help improve communication
with civilian employers is being expedited.
A comprehensive mobilization information and resources
guide and a family toolkit are now available on the Reserve
Affairs website for access by military members, families and
employers.
The Department is also engaged in more in-depth
studies to strengthen employer support, to review alternatives
for ensuring continuity of healthcare for the families of
reservists and to more effectively address Reserve component
quality of life concerns.
RC Support to Civil Authorities
The National Guard will play a prominent role supporting local and
state authorities in terrorism consequence management. At its core is
the establishment of 32 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams
(WMD CSTs) comprised of 22 highly skilled, full-time, well-trained and
equipped Army and Air National Guard personnel. Congress authorized 10
WMD CSTs to be fielded in fiscal year 1999 to be stationed within each
of the ten Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions. An additional
17 WMD CSTs were authorized in fiscal year 2000 and 5 in fiscal year
2001 for a total of 32 teams. To date, the Secretary of Defense has
certified 24 of the 32 teams as being operational.
The WMD CSTs will deploy, on order of the State Governor, to
support civil authorities at a domestic chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, or high yield explosives (CBRNE) incident site
by identifying CBRNE agents/substances, assessing current and projected
consequences, advising on response measures and assisting with
appropriate requests for additional state and Federal support. These 32
strategically placed teams will support our Nation's local first
responders as a State response in dealing with domestic WMD incidents.
The Reserve components WMD CST funding for fiscal year 2001 was $75
million, for fiscal year 2002 it was $123 million and the budget
request for fiscal year 2003 is $136 million.
The DOD is leveraging the capabilities of existing specialized
Reserve component units. During fiscal year 2001, DOD completed the
training and equipping of 25 chemical decontamination companies and 3
chemical reconnaissance companies in the Army Reserve to provide
support to domestic incidents. They were provided with both military
and commercial off-the-shelf equipment and received enhanced training
in civilian HAZMAT procedures. This enhanced training and equipment
will improve the readiness of these units to perform their warfighting
mission, while allowing them to respond effectively to a domestic
emergency, if needed. A budget request of $3 million is submitted for
fiscal year 2003.
Medical
From a medical perspective, the recent attacks have reinforced the
importance of preparedness in the event of future attacks. The Reserve
components possess nearly 70 percent of DOD's medical assets and are
postured to play a significant role in the Federal response to a
consequence management incident. Although not considered first
responders to civilian emergencies, the Active and Reserve component
assets can provide a full spectrum of medical support to the civilian
community up to and including definitive care facilities. A budget
request of $62.5 million for medical training and logistics has been
submitted.
Airport Security
In response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the President
directed the Governors to assign National Guard personnel to U.S.
airports to provide additional security and to restore public
confidence in aviation transportation. The first States began assigning
personnel on September 28. Currently, there are approximately 7,200
National Guard personnel providing security at 434 airports across the
U.S.
Border Security
The Department of Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) have increased the security level at the U.S. land ports-
of-entry. The DOD has put plans in place to federally mobilize 824
National Guard personnel to support the INS Border Patrol at land
ports-of-entry in nine States along the northern and southern borders
of the U.S. The purpose of the DOD's support to the INS is to assist
civil authorities in monitoring and securing those borders for
approximately 6 months, or until sufficient additional INS agents are
hired, trained, and operational. Many Guard personnel are on State
active duty in at least three States today.
manpower and personnel
Recruiting and Retention
It is too early into this mobilization to determine the long-term
impacts on National Guard and Reserve recruiting from increased
operational deployments to support homeland security while continuing
to support existing commitments in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Southwest Asia.
One immediate factor will be how well the mobilization and
demobilization is managed. Predictability is important, which means
ensuring reservists receive advance notification of mobilization so
they can notify their employers well in advance. Also, communication
with families and employers is key to ensuring their cooperation and
support and in making them feel like ``part of the team.''
The Reserve components have cumulatively achieved better than 99
percent of their authorized end strength for the sixth consecutive
year. During the years immediately following the Operation Desert Storm
involuntary call-up, when nearly 266,000 personnel were activated,
Reserve component end strength only declined to 97 percent of
authorized. When viewed as a composite for all seven Reserve
components, attrition has decreased to its lowest level in 16 years
(excluding fiscal year 1991 when stop loss was invoked for Operation
Desert Storm). However, this macro view of overall Reserve component
attrition may mask problems in high demand units so we must continue to
focus on attrition in units that have been used frequently to support
contingency operations.
Historically, the recruiting market for Reserve components has been
a mix of prior service personnel who recently separated from Active-
duty and individuals with no previous military experience. Both market
segments now present significant recruiting challenges. A smaller
Active force (36 percent smaller than in 1989) means a smaller number
of prior service military members available for the Reserve Force--a
force that is only 26 percent smaller than in 1989. Compounding these
difficulties, all services and their Reserve components are trying to
recruit from essentially the same non-prior service market--the same
population from which civilian employers also recruit.
Last year, even in the face of the challenges mentioned above, the
Reserve components--in the aggregate--achieved their end strength
objective. This success was due to exceptional efforts by our Guard and
Reserve recruiters during a very challenging period and excellent
retention rates by all components. Moreover, all components achieved or
exceeded the DOD benchmark for upper mental group accessions and all
components were at, above or just slightly below the high school
diploma graduate DOD benchmark of 90 percent.
In achieving this level of success, the components used a
combination of tools that included: an increase in the recruiter force,
expanded bonus programs, enhanced advertising campaigns, increased
focus on retention resources, and increased use of the MGIB-SR kicker
benefit.
For 2002, all Reserve components are continuing to focus their
efforts on managing departures in addition to maintaining aggressive
enlistment programs by targeting both enlistment and re-enlistment
incentives in critical skill areas. Although limited stop loss is
slowing down departures, Reserve components continue to optimize
retention incentives while expanding their recruiting efforts,
particularly in the prior service market. Well-established programs in
the Reserve components should yield equal or better results in fiscal
year 2003.
Health Care Enhancements
Dependents of Reserve component members who are ordered to active
duty for more than 30 days are eligible for TRICARE--and for TRICARE
Prime if the member is ordered to active duty for more than 179 days.
Recognizing that changing healthcare systems can be disruptive, the
Department developed and the Secretary approved a new TRICARE
Demonstration Program specifically to assist mobilized reservists with
the transition to TRICARE. The Demonstration Project is designed to
reduce out of pocket expenses for Reserve family members and makes it
easier for them to maintain continuity of care with existing providers.
The Demonstration Project provides for three important enhancements
for mobilized Reserve members. First, it waives the annual deductible
(up to $300 per family) for those members who do not or cannot enroll
in TRICARE Prime. Second, the requirement to obtain a non-availability
statement to receive inpatient care outside a military treatment
facility is waived so Reserve family members can maintain continuity
with their existing local providers, if they wish. Finally, the
Department will pay up to 15 percent above TRICARE maximum allowable
charges for family members receiving care from providers not
participating in TRICARE, who bill in excess of TRICARE maximum
allowable charges.
The TRICARE Dental Program, implemented last February, offers
reservists and their families a comprehensive and affordable dental
program. The normal minimum 12-month service commitment to enroll in
this program is waived for Reserve members ordered to Active-duty in
support of a contingency operation, such as Operations Nobel Eagle and
Enduring Freedom.
Pay Issues for Mobilized reservists
Reserve service under mobilization is often characterized by
economic strains placed on the member and families. Preliminary results
from a recent survey of Reserve component members indicate that one
third of our Reserve members experience reduced income when mobilized
or deployed. The potential for economic loss has been an issue since
1990 when the Department called Guard and Reserve members to active
duty for the Persian Gulf War. Nearly two thirds of those mobilized
reported economic loss as a result of military pay being less than
civilian income, additional expenses incurred by the member and his
family as a result of activation, and continuing losses after release
from active duty due to erosion of the business or practice.
The Department has explored and tried ways to address this from the
approach of supplementing income, with little success. Therefore the
Department would like to study, as an alternative, the potential for
better debt management. More effective debt restructuring or deferment
of principal and interest payments on preexisting debts may prove to be
a more efficient means of addressing the specific income problems of
Reserve component members ordered involuntarily to active duty for
extended periods of time. We are prepared to work closely with Congress
and those industries that might be affected to consider possible
options to resolve this important issue.
Family Readiness
One of the lessons learned from the Persian Gulf War was the need
to improve family readiness within the Guard and Reserve. Our first
initiative was the 1994 publication of a DOD Instruction that provided
the framework for improving Reserve component family readiness. The
next major milestone was publication of the first-ever Guard and
Reserve Family Readiness Strategic Plan 2000-2005, which was developed
through the collective efforts of the OSD staff, the military services,
the Reserve components and family readiness program managers. It
provides a blueprint for offering greater support to National Guard and
Reserve families and assisting them in coping with the stresses of
separations and long deployments. The plan set out specific goals and
milestones and we have already accomplished a number of these. Also, it
established a link between family readiness and unit mission readiness.
The foundation for support of family members lies in the
preparation and education of professionals and family members alike
well before a reservist is called to active duty or actually deployed.
The ability of Reserve component members to focus on their assigned
military duties, rather than worrying about family matters, is directly
affected by the confidence a member has that his family can readily
access family support services.
We published a Guide to Reserve Family Member Benefits, designed to
inform family members about military benefits and entitlements,
including medical and dental care, commissary and exchange privileges,
military pay and allowances, and reemployment rights. A Family
Readiness Event Schedule was developed to make training events and
opportunities more accessible for family support volunteers and
professionals. It also serves to foster cross-service and cross-
component family support, which supports the desired end-state of any
service member or family member being able to go to a family support
organization of any service or component and receive assistance or
information.
From our previous survey of spouses of deployed Reserve component
members, we know that information and communication are essential to
Reserve families. In addition to information concerning their deployed
spouse, family members request information on available benefits,
services, and programs, to include locations of commissaries,
exchanges, healthcare and other facilities. Communication through an
establish unit or organizational point of contact is also key.
To support better communications, we recently published a family
readiness tool kit. It is a comprehensive guide on pre-deployment and
mobilization information for commanders, service members, family
members and family program managers. It contains checklists, pamphlets,
and other information, such as benefits and services available that
inform family members how to prepare for deployment. The tool kit is
based on ``best practices'' from the field as identified by the Reserve
components. As with other informational products, the family readiness
tool kit can be accessed on the Reserve Affairs website at http://
www.defenselink.mil/ra.
Employer Support
Since most Reserve component members have a full-time civilian job
in addition to their military duties, civilian employer support is a
major quality of life factor for personnel. The DOD recognizes the
positive impact employer support has on Reserve component readiness,
recruiting and retention, and completion of the Department's missions.
The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
(ESGR) coordinates the efforts of a community based national network of
54 committees consisting of 3,500 volunteers in every state, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. ESGR's
mission is to obtain employer and community support that ensures
availability and readiness of National Guard and Reserve Forces.
Strengthening employer support is a major focus of current
Department planning guidance. It requires the existence of a strong
network, comprising both military and civilian-employer leaders, and
capable of providing for communication, education and exchange of
information. To build this support, we are increasing our efforts to
improve communications between the Department and employers, identify
future actions that will provide some relief for employers when we call
upon their reservist-employees, and strengthen the relationship between
the Department and employers that will enable us to continue to use our
shared employees.
To support the community-based efforts of ESGR and its nationwide
network of volunteers, the Department expedited its development of a
web-enabled database that we hope will eventually provide a ready
listing of civilian employers of National Guard and Reserve personnel.
The database could then be used to improve communications and outreach
programs and to target information to those employers most affected by
mobilization.
Additional funding is programmed to increase interaction between
Selected Reserve units and employers, support a marketing campaign to
inform senior business leaders about the Guard and Reserve, and survey
employers to determine their overall attitudes toward participation of
employees in the Guard and Reserve. An important new study is ongoing
to consider options for providing some relief for employers whose
reservist-employees are called to active duty.
The fiscal year 2003 budget request adds $5.5 million to improve
relationships and strengthen employer support of the Guard and Reserve
in the following ways:
To develop an employer database management system that
will collect information on civilian-acquired skills and joint
operations experience of RC members.
To enhance the ESGR website to provide information
exchange between DOD and civilian employer leadership.
To support an employer marketing campaign to inform
business leaders and professionals about the National Guard and
Reserve to foster stronger business community support of the
military.
To perform periodic surveys of Guard and Reserve
members to assess the impact of actions and incentives that
encourage increased employer support and participation.
To create a call center for management of telephone
calls initiated from users of the ESGR website.
Despite the increased utilization of our Reserve Forces since the
events of September 11, and the obvious impact that the call up of more
than 71,000 reservists has had on our Nation's employers, our Nation's
employers have responded in overwhelmingly positive fashion. Many
employers have extended benefits for their reservists mobilized to
support Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle, provided pay
differential while they serve, continued their civilian health
programs, and given both financial and moral support to their families,
wives and children. Our Nation's employers have overwhelmingly
supported our reservists in this war on terrorism, and we are extremely
appreciative of their support to the Nation and to our men and women of
the Reserve components who are supporting this effort.
training
The Armed Forces of this Nation have long enjoyed a well-deserved
reputation as the best equipped, best-trained and best-led military
throughout the world. U.S. leadership similarly recognizes that
training, based on tough, demanding and relevant performance standards
is the cornerstone of readiness and dominance in today's evolving
world. Training will continue to be a critical contributor to military
preparedness.
While referring to current operations in our war on terror, the
Secretary stated: ``The lesson of this war is that effectiveness in
combat will depend heavily on jointness, how well the different
branches of the military can communicate and coordinate their efforts
on the battlefield, and achieving jointness in wartime requires
building that jointness in peacetime. We need to train like we fight
and fight like we train and, too often, we don't.'' Our Armed Forces
must transform training and ensure total operational integration in
order to successfully counter emerging asymmetric warfare threats of
the 21st century.
Joint warfighting experiments, modeling, and simulations
(coordinated in live, virtual and constructive environments) are tools
that will define the capabilities required to dominate combat
operations in this new millennium. It is essential that we identify and
deploy new training technologies and delivery media, while
simultaneously developing individual, unit, and leader training
requirements that ultimately produce coherent, integrated training
systems for our Total Force. Working in partnership with other DOD
organizations, we must continue to ensure that Reserve components are
fully considered, funded and integrated into emerging training
initiatives.
Training for dominance in future conflicts will depend on
dedicating resources that exploit technology and provide both
traditional school-house and distributed performance-enhancing
training. Scenarios must be realistic and delivered at the time, place,
and by the most appropriate means to support desired outcomes. This
focus demands a significant emphasis on distributed learning strategies
and employing more robust communications tools to deliver training. An
increased availability of training for our reservists at their local
Reserve Center, Armory, training site, or home is a significant
advantage in improving readiness. This advantage is enhanced by the
provision of identical training opportunities for reservists and their
Active duty counterparts.
Increased emphasis and participation by Reserve Forces in joint
training and operations requires that we develop this training.
Reservists have participated extensively in support of joint exercises
and are currently involved in support of Operations Noble Eagle, Joint
Endeavor, and Intrinsic Freedom. All training must focus on the ability
of our forces to operate effectively and efficiently with other
services, other governmental agencies and in all likelihood, within a
multinational framework. This is the reality of today and the way we
will fight in the future--this is how we must train our Armed Forces.
Peacetime training for the Reserve Forces that provides a realistic,
joint, multi-national scenario is critical. The support of asynchronous
distributed learning provided by the Fiscal Year 2002 NDAA is making a
difference in our overall training transformation success. We thank you
for your support in this area.
civil military programs
In January, the President highlighted his support for Federal,
State, and local programs that promote Americans improving their
communities through volunteerism and community service. In support of
the President's call for Americans to serve, the Department continues
to fund two youth outreach programs, ChalleNGe and STARBASE. Both
programs help improve the lives of children by surrounding them with
positive military role models and helping them not just dream big
dreams, but achieve them. The ChalleNGe program, operating in 25
States, has successfully given young high school dropouts the life
skills, tools, and guidance they need to be productive citizens. The
budget request for fiscal year 2003 is $63.6 million for ChalleNGe and
$13.4 million for STARBASE.
On November 1, the National Mentoring Partnership awarded the
Excellence in Mentoring Award for Program Leadership to the ChalleNGe
program. This award acknowledges the program's accomplishments in
mentoring more than 32,000 young people. The STARBASE program,
operating at 39 military facilities located in 26 States, has enhanced
military-civilian community relations and reached over 200,000 young
children. Active, Guard and Reserve members volunteer their time to the
STARBASE program in order to provide a military environment/setting in
which local community youth, especially the disadvantaged, are provided
training and hands-on opportunities to learn and apply mathematics,
science, teamwork, technology, and life skills. These two successful
DOD outreach programs are another way in which this administration
works with State and local governments to provide opportunities for
Americans to become more involved with serving their communities.
The third Civil Military program is the Innovative Readiness
Training (IRT) program. IRT is similar to the overseas deployment
exercise program in that it provides valuable military training;
however, IRT projects help address serious community needs within the
50 States, U.S. territories and possessions. The program is a
partnership effort between local communities and Active, Guard, and
Reserve units. Individuals and units involved are primarily from
medical, dental, and engineering career fields.
All IRT projects are compatible with mission essential training
requirements. IRT projects must be conducted without a significant
increase in the cost of normal training and are designed to enhance
training in a real world scenario without deploying overseas. Program
history proves that these projects have a very positive impact on
recruiting and retention by providing military personnel an opportunity
to train in support of the communities where they live. Of interest are
several ongoing annual projects for Native American and Alaskan Indians
in Alaska, North and South Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico. These
projects specifically address underserved populations through medical
and dental health services, as well as road and house construction on
reservations. Examples include: Operation Alaskan Road on Southeast
Annette Island constructing 14 miles of road to a new ferry landing;
and Operation Walking Shield constructing new homes, roads and bridges,
providing well drilling and medical and dental assistance. In 2001, 122
projects were completed in 34 states, the District of Columbia and the
Virgin Islands. Program expenditures for fiscal year 2001 were $29.764
million. The budget request for fiscal year 2003 is $20.0 million.
equipment and facility readiness
Equipment
There is an increased awareness of Reserve component equipment
issues. The fiscal year 2003 budget includes $2.34 billion in equipment
procurement funding for the Reserve components, representing an
increase of $680 million above the fiscal year 2002 President's budget.
The fiscal year 2003 budget demonstrates a concerted effort by the
Department to apply more resources to the Reserve components' equipment
needs and to buy down deferred repairs of aging equipment currently in
the inventory. It also reflects a conscious effort to improve
interoperability of the Reserve components with Active Forces. I am
convinced the continued modernization of our Reserve Forces is a
cornerstone for the Total Force integration and that properly equipping
the Reserve components with compatible, up-to-date equipment is an
important piece of this strategy.
Key equipment to be procured for Reserve components with fiscal
year 2003 appropriations includes:
Army National Guard: UH-60 Helicopters, Multiple
Launch Rocket Systems, Javelin Systems, Small Arms Weapons M-
16/M-240, Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles, Family of Medium
Tactical Vehicles, Trucks, M915/M916 Tractors, Training
Devices, SINGARS Radios, and Communications and Electronics
Equipment.
Army Reserve: UH-60 Helicopters, Family of Medium
Tactical Vehicles, Reserve component Automation System,
Hydraulic Excavators, All Terrain Lifting Army Systems, and
other support equipment.
Air National Guard: C-130J Aircraft, Vehicular
Equipment, Electronics and Telecommunications Equipment,
Modifications for A-10, H-60, C-5, C-21, C-130, KC-135, F-16,
and F-15 Aircraft, and Aircraft Support Equipment and
Facilities.
Air Force Reserve: C-130J Aircraft, Vehicular
Equipment, Electronics and Telecommunications Equipment,
Modifications for A-10, H-60, C-5, C-130, KC-135, and F-16
Aircraft, and Aircraft Ground and Base Support Equipment.
Naval Reserve: Modifications for C-130, F/A-18, and
CH-46 Aircraft, Cargo/Transport equipment, Aviation Support
Equipment, Fire Fighting Equipment, and Mobile Sensor Platform.
Marine Corps Reserve: Amphibious Assault Vehicles,
Improved Recovery Vehicles, Material Handling Equipment,
Training Devices, Construction Equipment, and Communications
and Electronics equipment.
Facilities
The fiscal year 2003 Reserve component military construction
(MILCON) President's budget request is $297 million. The President's
budget will provide new Armed Forces Reserve Centers, vehicle
maintenance facilities, organizational maintenance shops, training and
administrative facilities for Reserve components. These new facilities
begin to address Reserve component infrastructure issues neglected in
the past. The fiscal year 2003 budget provides a good start to directly
affect the quality of life for the Guard and Reserve by improving where
they work and train. This also applies to Reserve component facilities
sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) request of $821.2
million in the fiscal year 2003 President's budget. In fiscal year
2002, the Department made a conscious decision to increase resources
aimed at reducing a significant backlog of facilities maintenance and
repair. The fiscal year 2003 budget reflects a concerted effort by the
Department to reduce a $1.165 billion backlog and improve the Guard and
Reserve facilities readiness and quality of life.
The installation environmental programs managed by each Reserve
component continue to be a good news story of professionalism and
outstanding efforts to protect, preserve, and enhance the properties
entrusted to our Reserve Forces. The RC environmental programs are
budgeted at $315.9 million, which includes $193.7 million for
environmental compliance requirements, providing 91 percent of the
overall validated RC environmental requirements for fiscal year 2003.
An initiative of the Reserve components is construction of joint-
use facilities. Congressional support for joint construction projects
is included in Title 10, with new emphasis for inclusion of Active
components in this initiative beginning in fiscal year 2003. The
Department is looking at incentives and alternatives to capitalize on
joint use opportunities, to include Active, Guard, and Reserve
component requirements. Joint construction has yielded approximately 20
percent cost avoidance when compared to unilateral construction.
conclusion
This administration views a mission-ready National Guard and
Reserve as a critical element of our National Security Strategy. As a
result, the National Guard and Reserve will continue to play an
expanded role in all facets of the Total Force. While we ask our people
to do more, we must never lose sight of the need to balance their
commitment to country with their commitment to family, and to their
civilian employer.
I commit that I will do all in my power to ensure the readiness of
the Reserve components and support the quality of life initiatives I've
outlined for our service men and women and their families. I also
pledge to work hard to ensure the National Guard and Reserve are a
well-trained, fully integrated, mission-ready, and accessible force.
Thank you very much again for this opportunity to testify on behalf
of the greatest Guard and Reserve Force in the world.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Mr. Duehring.
General Davis.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RUSSELL C. DAVIS, ANG, CHIEF, NATIONAL
GUARD BUREAU
General Davis. Chairman Cleland, distinguished members of
the subcommittee, I would like to first off thank you for the
opportunity to appear before your subcommittee, and thank you
for the tremendous support you provided to the Army and the Air
National Guard over the years. National Guardsmen are busy as
part of the homeland security mission today, as they have been
for the last 365 years, to help protect life and property in
the individual States, as well as in their communities, while
at the same time maintaining readiness for their wartime
mission.
Today, over 50,000 Army and Air Guardsmen have been called
into Federal duty as well as in-State duty to respond to the
events of 11 September. This is in addition to the thousands of
guardsmen who are already serving overseas and performing
missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iceland, Operation Northern Watch,
and Operation Southern Watch.
When this terrorist act occurred, the number 1 priority for
the National Guard was people. Full-time manning is a very key
component of that. We thank you for your help and assistance in
providing additional full-time manning, because that is what
helps relieve the stress points. As part of our force, the
intensity of today's operations highlight this need even more.
This full-time manning is what allows us to handle the training
and administration of our part-time force. Your support has and
continues to be well-appreciated by all of us.
In both the Army Guard and Air National Guard, I am happy
to report to you good news, sir. We are making our recruiting
and retention goals. Recruiting goals--we look at and were able
to achieve those as a result of the funding you have provided
us for incentives and bonuses. That has made a significant
difference in our force and has allowed us to meet those goals.
Last year, while not meeting the recruiting goal, we did not
adjust the goal, but we exceeded our end strength, and so in
effect we had the people on board we needed--quality, trained
people.
Our ability to retain people in the Guard and in the other
services and components has very positive trends. This year, we
have increased the number of OPTEMPO hours that are required
for our people and days that are required, but right now we
have not been able to determine if that has had a negative
impact. We will obviously continue to watch that and monitor it
very closely.
The benefits that are provided to the Active component,
most of which have been shared with the National Guard and the
Reserve, are certainly all appreciated by us. This, as I said,
has been a major factor in our retaining as well as our
recruiting programs. National Guardsmen and women are motivated
to serve, as are other members of our U.S. military service.
Thousands serve in partial mobilization and involuntary
service, but we have a significant number who still volunteer
to serve long tours of duty, 180 days or so. As to the other
components, transformation is another key issue. As part of our
personnel efforts, our focus on people is very important to us,
while at the same time we need to understand that one of the
components of that is the quality of life for these people,
these soldiers and these airmen. As we focus on that, we look
at things like modernization of equipment and those kinds of
things, which have a major impact on our people as well as
their retention.
The infrastructure, the areas in which they work, their
workplace for the Army and the Air Guardsmen, we think, is a
key factor as a quality of life issue, along with health care
and many of the other issues that the other earlier panels have
talked to.
The inclusion of family in the Servicemember's Group Life
Insurance (SGLI), as well as TRICARE, are other initiatives
which have been applied to the National Guard and Reserve, and
for this we are thankful to your subcommittee. These are our
top personnel issues.
Our family and our employer support are things that we deal
with every day. The earlier panels have talked about the
families, and we want to remain focused on them as well as the
employers.
The last issue I would like to talk to you about just
briefly is diversity. We are a very diverse force, becoming
more diverse. We are celebrating 2002 as the year of diversity,
acknowledging the differences in our people while knowing full
well that their ability to come together as a team, a finely
tuned machine, will be one of the major issues and challenges
as we move into the 21st century.
I thank you and the subcommittee for the opportunity to
come before you and make some remarks. I stand ready and
willing to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Lieutenant General Davis
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Russell C. Davis, ANG
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to address some
of the personnel-related issues of concern to both components of the
National Guard--the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard.
Like their counterparts in the other Reserve components represented
here today, the men and women of both the Army and the Air National
Guard have also been heavily called upon to step away from their
families, their homes, and their jobs since September 11. In addition
to answering the call of the Nation, however, National Guardsmen have
also been answering the call of their States. This is as it should be.
The National Guard has a dual mission. Members of the National Guard
take oaths to serve both the Nation and their individual home States.
When the security of our homeland is threatened, we answer the call
to service from the President and we answer the call to service from
the Governor. This dual-mission flexibility provides the American
people and their leaders with a tremendous scope of capabilities for
responding to a crisis in a highly cost-effective manner. It also
raises some unique issues affecting the people who serve in the
National Guard. I am very pleased to have the chance to address some of
those with you today.
overview
There are about 460,000 men and women in the Army and Air National
Guard. As we speak, over 50,000 of them are serving on either Federal
or State duty as a result of the September 11 attacks. The breakdown of
that number tells a lot about where our people are and how they have
answered the call to service since September 11.
Over 10,000 members of the Army National Guard and over 23,000
members of the Air National Guard have joined their Army and Air Force
Reserve counterparts in being called to active Federal service as part
of Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle. For the Army National
Guard this means providing security at key facilities here in the
United States and in Europe. For the Air National Guard this has meant
flying Combat Air Patrols over American cities, performing in-flight
refueling, flying cargo and countless other missions. It is
particularly important to note, both Army and Air National Guardsmen
are also participating in diverse operational aspects of the war on
terrorism in other theaters.
In addition to that, however, many thousands more have been called
to duty under the command and control of their governors. There are
over 7,000 members of the National Guard involved in providing airport
security. This mission was created and authorized by the President but
it is being carried out under Title 32 by State governors. In addition,
over 4,000 members of the National Guard from several States are
bolstering security at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Over
2,000 members of the National Guard are on duty providing security at
National Guard armories and other key facilities. Finally, an
additional 2,000 are on State duty, on orders and pay from State
governors to help meet the security or other requirements of the
States.
All of this full-time duty for our Guardsmen has come on top of the
existing missions we were performing in support of our Active component
services prior to 11 September. In all of the attention to the war on
terrorism, some may forget that we also have had over 1,700 National
Guardsmen on duty in Bosnia through this same period. About 1,000 more
are supporting operations from Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
Hundreds more are helping to enforce the no-fly zones over Northern and
Southern Iraq. In fact, National Guardsmen were helping meet the
ongoing requirements of the CINCs in each of the Unified Commands all
over the world at the time the first plane struck the World Trade
Center on September 11. As busy as we were, that incident made us a
whole lot busier.
immediate responses to the terrorist attacks
Among the very first military responders to the terrorist attacks
were Massachusetts Air National Guardsmen flying F-15s scrambled out of
Otis Air National Guard Base. We find this fact to be entirely
appropriate because the roots of the National Guard and indeed the
citizen-soldier tradition of this Nation go back to the first militias
of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Then as now, citizens stood ready to
take up arms in defense of their homeland and that is precisely what
happened on September 11.
Immediately, the New York National Guard began a tremendous
operation to support recovery efforts at the World Trade Center site as
well as missions to bolster security throughout New York City. From the
beginning, the citizen-soldiers and airmen performing these missions
did so in State Active Duty--that is on the orders and payroll of the
Governor of New York. By all accounts, they did a superb job. The long
hours and days they had previously spent training wartime skills like
guard duty, use of weapons and vehicles, leadership, planning,
logistics and so forth provided many of the skills needed to support
civil authorities in New York. In short, the people of the National
Guard provided exactly the dual-mission leverage they are supposed to
provide.
Likewise, Military Police soldiers of the Maryland Army National
Guard were immediately called for duty to help provide security at the
Pentagon. They were on-site the very next day.
On the ground and in the skies, the men and women of the National
Guard responded immediately and have sustained that response in the
subsequent weeks and months. They have served in every possible duty
status--State Active Duty, Title 32, and Title 10--and they have done
so under stressful and sometimes hazardous conditions. They deserve the
very best we can give them.
army national guard
Our Nation relies on the ARNG now more than ever to accomplish an
increasing number of vital missions. In response to the events of
September 11, 2001, the ARNG is deployed across the country and around
the world. No matter where the duty location, our soldiers possess high
morale, because they are doing what they signed on for: serving their
country. This high morale can be attributed in large part to the
unflagging support of our soldiers' family members and their employers.
We have experienced no adverse effects on our personnel programs, and
are achieving, even exceeding, our goals in recruiting and retention.
We are working within the Army to maintain a sustainable personnel
tempo, by providing the longest possible lead times to our soldiers and
their employers. We continue to monitor employer support, and I'm
pleased to inform you, it is high. In order to sustain the high
employer support we are experiencing, we are developing a recognition
program to enhance efforts with ESGR in sustaining support for our
soldiers.
In order to continue this proud tradition of exceptional service to
our Nation, the Army National Guard needs your continuing support.
Recognizing that your focus is on personnel, I want to make you aware
of our program priorities, and provide you with background on what we
have identified as critical issues for the Army National Guard. The
continued support of Congress is critical in fulfilling our
responsibilities and commitment to our Nation.
One great asset of the Army National Guard is our extremely
dedicated full-time workforce, that small team of Active Guard and
Reserve or Military Technicians back home in your communities that look
after our units on a day-to-day basis. Full-time manning is our most
critical issue, and our number one priority. I want to thank you for
your support in increasing the ARNG Full Time manning. Inadequate full-
time support has an adverse impact on retention and the quality of life
of our soldiers and their families. With the Guard's increasing role in
worldwide day-to-day operations, it is extremely important to have a
sufficient number of full-time soldiers ready to help their units meet
current operational tempo readiness needs. National Guard leaders
throughout the Nation repeatedly cite the lack of full-time support as
a significant readiness inhibitor. The Army Guard's current full-time
manning level is 57 percent of Army validated requirements. The
additional authorizations for AGR soldiers and military technicians you
provided were sent to the States and Territories to improve readiness
in units. Those AGR soldiers are on the ground in our armories that
facilitate every aspect of readiness by providing the day-to-day
support necessary to allow units to perform their operational missions
when mobilized. The Army provides funding beginning in fiscal year 2005
to continue the momentum you established in reaching our high risk
requirement, but more work needs to be done. The Army is seeking
additional full-time support authorizations and associated funding to
incrementally increase the ARNG full-time support program over the next
11 years.
Operational demands on the Armed Forces have stressed active
military forces. Since the end of the Cold War, the Armed Forces
experienced a reduction of total personnel while our security strategy
has increased the demands placed on the Reserve Forces. To meet the
increasing mission requirements on the ARNG, we must not only attract
but retain our soldiers.
Enlisted personnel recruiting and retention were continuing success
stories for the ARNG during fiscal year 2001. Enlisted accessions for
the year exceeded the program objective of 60,252 by totaling 61,956 or
102.8 percent of the goal. The overall ARNG loss rate through the end
of fiscal year 2001 was 19 percent, nearly meeting the overall
objective of 18 percent.
The total officer strength at the end of fiscal year 2001 was
36,579. Officer end strength was 821 short of the programmed objective.
The ARNG continues to have a higher than expected loss rate among
officers. Some of this is attributed to resignation from the ARNG due
to family pressures, Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO) and better income
opportunities offered in the civilian sector.
The shortage of company grade officers in the ARNG, particularly at
the rank of captain, results in a large number of lieutenants and
warrant officers occupying captain positions. Our company-grade
shortfall in units creates a decrease in our overall readiness posture,
unit morale, and unit effectiveness.
The Army National Guard continues to address significant challenges
in warrant officer accession and personnel management. Of significant
concern is the critical shortage of technical service warrant officers
and the impact this has on unit readiness. Currently the assigned
warrant officer strength is 81 percent fill of the authorized strength.
Technical warrant officer strength is at 71 percent, while aviation
warrant officer strength has fallen to 95 percent.
The ARNG continues to employ a number of measures to combat the
critical shortfall in company grade and warrant officers. Measures
include developing a robust advertising campaign; creating an officer/
warrant officer recruiting and retention course; capitalizing on
alternate commissioning sources for increased accessioning into the
ARNG; and identifying and resourcing programs to assist in the
acquisition of new officers. These initiatives will contribute to our
ability to effectively man the force with quality officers and warrant
officers.
In order to fully capitalize on recruiting and retention successes
and improve readiness, an effective and resourced Reserve component
compatible schools system must be employed. Duty Military Occupation
Specialty Qualification (DMOSQ) of individual soldiers is a critical
element of Personnel Readiness. The Total Army School System and
Distance Learning capability are the Army answers to this challenge.
Support for training days for Guard soldiers, distance learning
courseware and other training support needs are critical to raising the
personnel readiness of ARNG units.
The Army's Personnel Transformation effort will merge personnel and
payroll programs and databases across all components and provide
greater accuracy and integration. The ARNG supports the Personnel
Transformation effort and would encourage support for the program.
The Army National Guard has been on duty in 57 countries during the
last year. Operations in fiscal year 2002 are dramatically illustrating
the increasing role of the Army National Guard in supporting theater
commanders in chief (CINCs) in Stability and Support Operations. To
date this fiscal year, the ARNG has provided approximately 31,770
soldiers to the CINCs, representing an increase of 23,829 soldiers from
fiscal year 2001. This includes support to the Olympics, Overseas
Deployment Support, Temporary Tours of Active Duty, Presidential
Reserve Call-Ups, and Partial-Mobilization.
To meet the needs of the future, the ARNG must provide our soldiers
with the resources they need to remain trained and ready. The Army
National Guard must anticipate the requirements of today's world while
we plan for tomorrow's challenges. In addition, the ARNG will have a
major role in supporting domestic civil support missions, including
such diverse tasks as managing the consequences of weapons of mass
destruction, national missile defense systems, and other threats to our
Nation.
The Army National Guard is clearly an essential force in America's
military. We must, however, continue to strive forward in order
progress and sustain both national and civil support initiatives. The
future will demand an ever-increasing OPTEMPO. Your continued support
ensures that we maintain our momentum and meet those demands. Your help
in supporting these issues is greatly appreciated by the National Guard
as a whole and in particular by those soldiers in your home districts.
air national guard
With growing mobilization authority, the Air National Guard
currently provides more than 25,000 men and women to Operations Noble
Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and the 10 U.S. Air Force's Air Expedition
Force. Today those numbers include nearly 6,000 volunteers, 14,000
mobilized men and women, a sustained 1,300 AEF participants--many under
partial mobilization and volunteerism--all supported extensively by
over 21,000 fulltime technicians and 11,000 AGRs--all with meager 1984
end strength numbers. We will continue these contributions for the
unforeseen future--``Always ready--Always there.''
At the end of January, our end strength approached nearly 110,500,
almost 2,500 above our current allocation--a sign of the patriotism and
dedication of your men and women in today's Air National Guard, as well
as an indicator of the important role your strong support has given us
for critical retention programs like control grade relief, Aviator
Continuation Pay, bonus programs, pay increases, family readiness and
employer support. We have depended heavily on every one of these
dedicated citizen warriors--their families and employers.
In Cycle One and Two of the AEF, the Air National Guard deployed
25,000 of its people--nearly 24 percent--almost 2,500 per AEF. We
contributed over 20 percent of the Total Force aviation package and
nearly 10 percent of the Expeditionary Combat Support or ECS
requirements. Air National Guard contributions to the Total Force have
been even more robust in EAF Cycle 2--especially with the advent of the
war on terrorism. The events of 11 September have, for the short term,
adjusted the AEF rotations and the ANG contributions in both numbers
and duration. We expect to return to the AEF construct as part of the
U.S. Air Force during AEF rotations 3 or 4 this year.
We've been successful because you have given us the necessary
resources to place recruiting and retention emphasis on Air Force
specialties where shortages exist, such as aircraft maintenance career
fields, by offering enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, Student Loan
Repayment Program, and the Montgomery GI Bill Kicker Program. As a
result, in many of our critical maintenance AFSCs, we have seen real
growth from 2-6 percent over the last 2 fiscal years. These incentives
have contributed greatly toward enticing and retaining the right talent
for the right job. We thank you for this help.
During the past year the Air National Guard continued to see an
increase in Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) take rates. Currently 450
out of 483 eligible Active Guard Reserve pilots have signed up for the
bonus. That equates to a 93 percent take rate. ACP has accomplished
it's goal by retaining qualified instructor pilots to train and sustain
our combat force--a critical force enabler in today's environment.
Additionally, our priority is to increase our traditional pilot force,
which has maintained a steady state of 90 percent. We are also
implementing recruiting procedures to expediently identify eligible
prior-service military pilots that may be interested in a career with
the Air National Guard.
Thanks to the efforts of Congress, the Air National Guard has been
able to place priority on several quality of life imperatives. Each of
these initiatives represents a significant accomplishment in making Air
National Guard membership more attractive, one of our biggest
priorities. Our first priority is the recent increase in the maximum
coverage under the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program to
$250,000. On the heels of that improvement, SGLI was expanded to
include families. The SGLI and Family SGLI programs provide our members
a single comprehensive source of affordable life insurance.
The recent creation of the Uniformed Services Thrift Savings Plan
(UNISERV TSP), is another equally impressive example of far reaching
quality of life initiatives. Under this program, all members of the
Uniformed Services, to include Air National Guard members, are now
eligible to supplement their retirement by participating in this
program using pre-tax dollars, providing yet another incentive to
continue to serve.
We believe TRICARE and the TRICARE For Life legislation is an
important enhancement that encourages our members to serve to
retirement. By doing so, retired members who become eligible for
Medicare at 65 are also eligible to have TRICARE as a supplement to
Medicare, saving them significant amounts of money in their retired
years. Recent improvements for TRICARE of mobilized Guard members will
reduce the burdens on their families.
Our Human Resources Enhancement programs, in particular our
diversity effort has increased mission readiness in the Air National
Guard by focusing on workforce diversity and assuring fair and
equitable participation for all. In view of demographic changes in our
heterogeneous society, we have embraced diversity as a mission
readiness, bottom-line business issue. Since our traditional sources
for recruitment will not satisfy our needs for ensuring the diversity
of thought, numbers of recruits, and a balanced workforce, we are
recruiting, retaining and promoting men and women from every heritage,
racial, and ethnic group.
Leadership's continuous emphasis on diversity ideals and issues is
necessary to maintain momentum and ensure training and program
implementation. In addition, declines in prior service accessions
require increased emphasis on training and mentoring programs. The
Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS)
recommended the Air National Guard Diversity Initiative as the
``Benchmark for all the services and Reserve components.''
In the future, our diversity initiatives will focus on areas of
career development including the implementation of an Air National
Guard formal mentoring process and the development of automated tools
to track progress towards increasing opportunities for women and
minorities. In the area of education and training we plan to develop
and execute an innovative Prejudice Paradigm and Gender Relations
training modules. Also, as part of our minority recruiting and
retention efforts, we will sponsor an initiative to evaluate the
retention rates of women in the Air National Guard to determine factors
contributing to the attrition rate.
We've made participation for today's employers easier by our
Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) predictability and stability. We
implemented a dedicated rotator to get our men and women to and from an
AEF location. We've identified employer support in our Strategic Plan.
The ANG has taken the lead to establish a Reserve Component Airline
Symposium where we meet with the Nation's airline industry's chief
pilots--as we did shortly after the September 11 attacks. We
accomplished several goals in our ``Year of the Employer 2001''
efforts--including the introduction of phase one of an employer
database that not only captures vital information on our traditional
National Guard employers to improve communication, but also the added
advantage of capturing critical ``civilian'' skills that can be
leveraged for military experience. These are but a few of the
initiatives taking hold as we focus on the ``silent partner'' behind
all of our men and women.
Since 1997, the Air National Guard has repeatedly identified the
importance of family readiness. Since 11 September, the Air National
Guard has asked its families to make great sacrifices to sustain
contributions in support of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring
Freedom--concurrently with sustained AEF rotations of much longer
durations. This means today, nearly 50,000 Air National Guard member
families are in immediate need of dedicated full time family readiness
and support services--specifically information referral support and
improved communications and education capabilities. Until this year,
Air National Guard Wing/CRTC family readiness and support was run
entirely by volunteers on a mere average annual budget of $3,000-
$4,000. Through this committee's great support in the supplemental last
year, we received $8 million to bring ``fulltime-dedicated'' contract
capability to the Air National Guard for the first time ever to enhance
our support to the ANG families of Air Guardsman who are deployed or
otherwise on duty.
The Air National Guard has developed and implemented the program
solution in fiscal year 2001 to fund a full-time contracted family
readiness program at each Wing and CRTC. While funding for fiscal year
2002 has been added in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental
appropriations, there is still no sustained program funding in the
FYDP. Properly funded and resourced, the Air National Guard family
readiness program will significantly enhance mission capabilities by
reducing pressures on Air National Guard personnel and their families
as well as improve their quality of life.
The Air National Guard has also identified a need for childcare
alternatives. With increasing demands from Air National Guard
Commanders and family members, the Air National Guard formed a
Childcare Integrated Process Team (IPT) to study innovative childcare
options for the National Guard to include drill-weekend childcare
access. Quality, affordable, and accessible childcare for Guard and
Reserve members is an important quality of life issue, especially for
single and dual-working spouses, just as it is for our active duty
counterparts. The Air National Guard has proposed a pilot program in 14
locations nationwide to provide a low-cost, simple approach to
providing quality, childcare access to National Guard and Reserve
members. At completion, an assessment of the pilot program will be
reviewed and any necessary guidance with projected costs will be
validated. Our Active Duty Child Development Centers (CDC) have
recently opened their doors for National Guard and Reserve childcare
use on a space available basis at each of their sites. However, with
only 14 of 88 Air National Guard Wings on an Active Duty Base where
many of the CDCs are already operating at capacity, this will probably
have limited opportunity for many. With increasing demands on Air
National Guard families and their children, cost-effective and
supportive solutions must be found. We currently have no funding for
this test program. This is an opportunity to assess the viability of
those options in highly effective ways.
The ANG uplinks training from our three studios in Knoxville,
Tennessee; Panama City, Florida; and Andrews AFB, Maryland. As a
forerunner in this dynamic medium, the satellite-based Air National
Guard Warrior Network has (since 1995) transported training and
information to our members at the 203 downlink sites at our bases
throughout the Nation. In addition to training delivery and production,
these studios also serve as full communicative links to the states and
territories in times of national and local contingencies. From the
Andrews studio, we provided timely updates to the field in support of
Operation Noble Eagle. From the Training and Education Center in
Knoxville, TN, we transported critical information for the F-16
community concerning their new wheel and brake assembly. This training
saved over $120,000 in costs associated with travel of a mobile team.
We also continue to enjoy good working relations with the Federal
Judiciary Training Network, uplinking training to all their Federal
courts.
We continue to work with the DOD and all the Federal training
communities in developing and delivering expedient learning pieces, and
the net result of these actions are helping to increase unit and member
readiness. The challenge is funding for the future. The Air National
Guard needs to be positioned to compensate learners, to assist with
computer acquisition (or accessibility), Internet access, and to pay
for conversion of courses into a deliverable format.
In the last year, the Air National Guard filled more than just
``positions.'' We brought skills, experience and training to the
theater that increased Air Force AEF warfighting capability and proved
invaluable to immediate responses on September 11. The Air National
Guard pilots who launched over American cities on September 11 and
deployed for Operation Enduring Freedom and AEF shortly there after,
averaged over 2,000 hours flying the F-16 versus 100 for their young
active duty counterparts. Ninety-seven percent of our Air Guard pilots
have more than 500 hours experience in their jets compared to 35
percent of their Active Duty counterparts. Similar comparisons can be
made for other critical career fields. The Air National Guard received
186 undergraduate pilot training slots in fiscal year 2001, up 13 from
the previous year. The projected pilot shortage for most of the next
decade makes it imperative to increase the pipeline flow to help
sustain the National Guard's combat readiness--especially as we
assimilate more non-prior service individuals as a function of our
overall recruiting effort.
We in the Air National Guard are proud to serve this great Nation
as citizen-airmen. Building the strongest possible Air National Guard
to meet the needs of the President, Secretary of Defense, CINCs, and
our Air Force partners is our most important objective. Our people,
readiness modernization programs and infrastructure supported through
congressional actions are necessary to achieve this vital objective.
We count on the support of the citizens of the United States of
America to continue meeting our mission requirements--especially the
members of this subcommittee. We are confident that the men and women
of the Air National Guard will meet the challenges set before us. With
your sustained support, we will remain an indelible part of American
military character as an expeditionary force, domestic guardian and
caring neighbor--protecting the United States of America--at home and
abroad.
year of diversity--a celebration in both the army and air national
guard
I would like to mention that all National Guardsmen--in blue
uniforms and green--will celebrate this calendar year 2002 as our Year
of Diversity.
The National Guard is a diverse organization made up of men and
women, civilians and military, of every religion, ethnic group, and
race. It serves and is drawn from the people of an even more diverse
American Nation. With current demographic trends, it is clear that
America will become even more diverse in the years ahead. This
diversity is a source of strength for the National Guard just as it is
for America. Indeed, if the National Guard is to be successful over the
long term, it must strive to become more representative of America's
diversity. This year both the Army and the Air National Guard will be
developing and launching initiatives to celebrate the diversity we have
now and to lay the groundwork for expanding that diversity for the
future.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, General Davis.
General Bambrough.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. CRAIG BAMBROUGH, USAR, DEPUTY COMMANDING
GENERAL, U.S. ARMY RESERVE COMMAND
General Bambrough. Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the nearly 360,000 men and women serving in the Army
Reserve units and as individual mobilization assets, all
soldiers of the Army. I extend my appreciation to the
subcommittee for its sustained assistance and strong support of
our citizen soldiers, and by asking me to discuss the
challenges we face, you clearly demonstrate your concern for
our Reserve soldiers and their families, and how we can best
assist them to accomplish the missions they have been assigned.
The opportunity to testify before the subcommittee comes at
a time when the challenges we faced before September 11 had
increased both in number and complexity. Not only must we wage
and win this war, but we must concurrently transform our Army
while we prosecute the war. What was important for an Army
Reserve in peacetime is also important for an Army Reserve at
war.
Thus, our priorities remain consistent to sustain and
improve our already high levels of readiness, to obtain more
full-time support, which is essential for readiness, to improve
our infrastructure so that our outstanding soldiers work and
train in the modern facilities that they deserve, to acquire
modern equipment so that they cannot only support our Army
transformation, but also the Army warfighter, and build on
successes in recruiting and retention to be sure we have the
force necessary to do our job and what our Nation requires of
us.
Of these priorities, the ones most pressing for the
attention of this subcommittee deal with readiness, recruiting,
and retention. Additional authorization and funding increases
for our full-time support is essential to improve Army Reserve
readiness in order for us to continue to meet our operational
requirements. The funding for medical and dental readiness
continues to be at less than 30 percent of requirements. Given
the increased operational tempo, achieving full readiness and
the attendant ability to mobilize literally at a moment's
notice will not be achieved.
We have been successful in meeting our recruiting missions
for the last 2 years, and we are well underway to making
mission again in fiscal year 2002. However, we continue to
experience difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified
individuals in certain critical wartime specialties,
particularly within the medical department. Your continued
support on behalf of recruiting and retention initiatives,
expanding the 90-day rotation policy to cover all but full
mobilization, and allowing for innovative readiness training
and the funding of continuing educational opportunities will
help us make this success story complete. We must be able to
provide a variety of incentives for both officer and enlisted
personnel to attract and retain quality soldiers. The funding
of our critical advertising needs is also imperative, so we can
reach the young people of today, progressively advertising
through mass media.
Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
and the subcommittee, and I look forward to answering any
concerns you may have.
[The prepared statement of Lieutenant General Plewes,
presented by General Bambrough, follows:]
Prepared Statement by LTG Thomas J. Plewes, USAR
introduction
Mr. Chairman, members of this subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on behalf of the nearly 360,000 men and women
serving in Army Reserve units and as individual mobilization assets--
all soldiers of the Army.
As I appear before you today, there are Army Reserve citizen-
soldiers on duty, on all fronts of the global war against terrorism--
defending our homeland and our fellow citizens, supporting the battle
against the terrorists wherever they may hide, and bringing assistance
to those who have long suffered from their oppression. We have been in
this war since it was brought upon our Nation. We will be there when we
finish it--an indispensable and strategically responsive force, an
essential component of the Army.
Before I continue, I wish to convey my sincere appreciation to this
subcommittee for its sustained, consistent, and strong support of
citizen-soldiers. By asking me to discuss the challenges we face, you
clearly demonstrate your concern for our Reserve Forces and how well
they can fulfill the missions assigned to them.
The opportunity to testify before this subcommittee comes at a time
when the challenges we faced before September 11 have increased in
number and complexity. Not only must we wage and win this war but we
must concurrently transform our Army while we wage war. Yes, the
challenges that the Army faces are great. Do we shy from them? Never.
To back away is not something done by American soldiers. The men and
women of the Army Reserve exemplify this spirit, the spirit of Hometown
U.S.A. While flames and smoke still rose from the Pentagon and the
World Trade Center, thousands began to come forward. They had not been
called up yet. They just knew their country needed them; they did not
wait to be asked to serve. That unstoppable spirit can be found
throughout the Army Reserve today.
When last I addressed this subcommittee, I discussed with you how
the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard and the Active Army were full
and equal partners in the fully focused American Force that is the most
responsive ground combat force in the world. I told you that wherever
the Army has gone, so, too, has gone the Army Reserve, and that
wherever the Army is today, so are we. I also told you that the U.S.
Army today cannot perform its missions or meet its mission goals
without the Army Reserve, that we were being utilized more frequently
than ever before as an indispensable Army partner--one increasingly
committed to our national defense in several important ways.
The events of September 11, a little over 5 months ago, have
dramatically proved all that I said last July.
As unimaginable horror came to our country, Americans rose to the
occasion. Among the great heroes of that day were many Army reservists.
They displayed the highest qualities of courage and selflessness,
whether that meant rushing into the World Trade Center, helping injured
comrades out of the burning Pentagon or organizing rescue and recovery
activities regardless of personal safety concerns. Some lost their
lives in the performance of their duty.
Yes, Army reservists have been on the frontlines of this war since
it began and even as the flames continued to be fought, more of the
Army Reserve went into action all across America.
Among the first units to respond to the World Trade Center disaster
was our 77th Regional Support Command, headquartered in Flushing, NY.
Hundreds of support items were identified and delivered promptly to
assist in the disaster recovery effort. Other support was also provided
to aid the heroic rescue workers at Ground Zero.
Equally quick to respond and critical to the rescue and recovery
operation were the Army Reserve Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers
(EPLOs) in the New York City area. They arrived on scene immediately to
facilitate support requests from civilian agencies as quickly and
effectively as possible.
Crisis action teams were in full operation in every major Army
Reserve command headquarters within hours. Military Police units took
up station at key facilities.
The Army Reserve response continued to grow. Thousands of trained
and ready Army Reserve men and women came forward, first as volunteers
and then in response to the partial mobilization ordered by President
Bush on September 14, just 3 days after the attacks.
The President's rapid decision to order partial mobilization
underscored how serious the threat was to America. During the Gulf War,
we had a Presidential Selected Reserve Call-up less than 3 weeks after
Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, but a partial mobilization did not
occur until January 1991.
The first call-ups under the September 14 partial mobilization
began on September 22, 2001. Just as in 1990, however, the Army Reserve
was already engaged before the orders were issued. By the time the
first units were called up, the Army Reserve already had seven units,
one installation, six facilities and approximately 2,300 personnel
involved in support of operations. Most units and personnel were in a
training status.
They responded quickly, more quickly than ever before, conducting
hasty mobilizations or mobilizing on the go. Arriving at their places
of duty, they immediately started their missions: force protection and
security at installations and facilities, intelligence and
investigation support, training and training validation, headquarters
augmentation and historical documentation, logistics and transportation
operations. Whatever our leaders and the Nation needed the Army Reserve
to do, we did it--quickly, efficiently, and professionally.
Let me relate one example that demonstrates how quickly our
soldiers and units went into action. Immediately after the Pentagon was
attacked, it became clear that the active Army's only mortuary affairs
company could not handle, by itself, the highly sensitive mission of
recovering the remains from the Pentagon with the efficiency, dignity
and honor required. It needed immediate additional help. That help was
available in the Army Reserve's 311th Quartermaster Company (Mortuary
Affairs) from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.
The call went out on September 13 to the 65th Regional Support
Command in Puerto Rico. The next day, volunteers were called for from
the 311th. Eighty-five soldiers raised their hands and moved out that
same day. They flew to Dover Air Force Base, DE, and then moved down to
Fort Myer, VA, arriving early on Saturday, September 15. By daybreak of
Monday, September 17, they were working in the Pentagon's north parking
lot, conducting 24 hour-a-day operations alongside the FBI, searching
through tons of debris for both evidence and human remains. This unit
was called up, deployed overseas and operational within 72 hours.
The rest of the company, another 105 men and women, joined the
first 85 soldiers on September 26. By this time, they were all under
partial mobilization orders. The orders had caught up with a unit that
had already been ``at war'' for more than a week.
For some of the 311th's newest soldiers, their first drill with the
company since their graduation from Advanced Individual Training was
the one on September 14. Other 311th soldiers were veterans of the
company's Gulf War service in Southwest Asia, who were now the senior
noncommissioned officer leaders of the company.
Quality soldiers and solid, proven leadership are the bedrock of
all Army Reserve units. The example of the 311th was repeated again and
again as dozens and then hundreds of units were called up and moved
out, conducting hasty mobilizations or mobilizing after they deployed.
Now, some 5 months and 2 days after the attacks, there are more
than 400 Army Reserve units and some 14,000 Army Reserve soldiers on
duty, doing what needs to be done. They are accomplishing our core
competency missions, as well as other assignments. They are part of the
more than 72,000 members of the Nation's combined Reserve components on
duty today, critically engaged in defending the homeland. All of them
put aside their own lives and concerns for the good of the Nation. No
acts of terror could ever deter patriots like these. As Winston
Churchill said of reservists, they truly are ``twice the citizen,''
prepared to serve and defend at personal sacrifice for themselves,
their families, their employers and their communities for the good of
the Nation. Their spirit and resolve remain undaunted.
The bulk of those called up are in support of Operation Noble
Eagle, helping with the recovery from the attacks or engaged in the
defense of our homeland. The missions being performed include: force
protection and security at installations and facilities, intelligence
and investigation support, training and training validation,
headquarters augmentation, garrison support and legal support,
communications, postal and personnel support, engineer support,
historical documentation, logistics and transportation operations.
The Army Reserve also has units and soldiers in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom, the operation taking the war to the
terrorists and bringing assistance to the long-oppressed people of
Afghanistan. These mobilized forces include public affairs, military
intelligence, civil affairs, medical, and other combat support and
combat service support specialties. We also continue to fill
headquarters and agency-level requests for Individual Ready Reserve and
Individual Mobilization Augmentee soldiers to support current
operations.
The men and women on duty today and those who may be called forward
tomorrow understand the task that lies before them, how difficult it is
and how long the struggle ahead may be.
Along with their own abilities and dedication, the citizen-soldiers
of the Army Reserve went into this fight from a position of strength.
Recurring deployments since the Gulf War have given our units a great
deal of experience in being able to mobilize quickly and effectively. A
decade earlier, we learned the importance of family support and
employer support programs. These programs were in place when this new
conflict began and have been an absolutely essential part of our
activities today. Because of our integral involvement in Army
transformation, we have become accustomed to innovative thinking and
this has facilitated our finding solutions to ever-changing situations.
It has been often said that everything changed on September 11, but
much remains the same. What was important for an Army Reserve in
transformation is also important for an Army Reserve in transformation
while at war. The transformation we were undergoing before September 11
was to prepare for the sort of uncertainty and evolving world that we
now have.
Our priorities before the attacks remain our priorities today:
sustaining and improving our already high level of readiness; obtaining
more full-time support, which is essential for readiness; improving our
infrastructure so that our outstanding soldiers work and train in the
modern facilities they deserve; acquiring modern equipment so that we
cannot only support Army transformation but also support the Army
warfight; and building on successes in recruiting and retention to
ensure we have the force necessary to do what our Nation requires of
us.
I like to use the five R's when I discuss our priorities:
Recruiting, Retention, Readiness, Relevance, and Resources. Because of
all that the men and women of the Army Reserve have accomplished in the
last decade and certainly as of result of all we have done for the Army
and the Nation since September 11, I believe there is now a sixth R:
Respect. Today's Army Reserve and today's Army reservists have gained
the respect of both those they serve alongside and those they serve.
Respect is hard to earn and can be easy to lose. The citizen-soldiers
of the Army Reserve have no intention of losing what they worked on so
long and so well to earn.
recruiting and retention
Recruiting and retention is an area of highest importance to the
Army Reserve. The Army Reserve is a major participant in supporting and
training a 21st century Army. This requires the best soldiers America
can provide. In this regard, we are most appreciative of the help your
subcommittee has provided us. We certainly would be remiss if we did
not thank you for the attention you have paid to our recruiting needs
in recent legislation. With your help we were, for the first time in
several years, able to meet our recruiting mission in fiscal year 2000.
We met our mission before the end of fiscal year 2001, before September
11. We are going to make mission again in fiscal year 2002.
Although successful in overall mission numbers, we continue to
experience difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified individuals
in certain critical wartime specialties, particularly within the Army
Medical Department. Your continued support on behalf of recruiting and
retention incentives, expanding the 90 day rotation policy to cover all
but full mobilization, allowing for innovative readiness training and
the funding of continuing educational opportunities will help make this
success story complete.
The Army Reserve, in partnership with the United States Army
Recruiting Command (USAREC), recently conducted a thorough review of
Army Reserve recruiting. This review has helped us forge a stronger
relationship with the Recruiting Command and has streamlined our
processes to support the symbiotic relationship between recruiting and
retention. To that end, we are taking the following measures:
-- We are seeking to ensure that all Army Reserve soldiers are
involved in recruiting and retention activities--we all are a
part of the Army's recruiting efforts.
-- We are removing mission distracters allowing the Recruiting
Command to focus on their core competency of recruiting non-
prior service applicants.
-- We are focusing on life cycle personnel management for all
categories of Army Reserve soldiers, troop unit members, and
soldiers in the Individual Ready Reserve. Career counselors
talk to Army reservists about joining the Active Guard Reserve
(AGR) program, training to become warrant or commissioned
officers, and sharing other opportunities available in our
troop units.
-- Our retention program seeks to reduce attrition, thereby
improving readiness and reducing recruiting missions.
-- We are jointly working with the Recruiting Command to
ensure AGR personnel assigned to that command are given
leadership and professional growth opportunities.
We recently initiated the first of these activities by transferring
responsibility for the prior service mission from the Recruiting
Command to the Army Reserve. This transition is a three-phased process
that culminates in fiscal year 2003. Tenets of this transfer include:
establishment of career crosswalk opportunities between recruiters and
retention transition NCOs; localized recruiting, retention and
transition support at Army Reserve units; and increased commander
awareness and involvement in recruiting and retention efforts.
We expect to reduce attrition and improve recruiting efforts by
reducing no-shows to initial active duty training, highlighting all
Army Reserve personnel lifecycle opportunities and improving delivery
of recruiting promises. In Phase I of the prior service mission
transition, we transferred 61 recruiters from USAREC and assigned them
to Army Reserve Centers within the southeastern United States and
Puerto Rico. The assignment of new Retention NCOs will allow the Army
Reserve to lower its attrition significantly, ensure prior service
soldiers are provided opportunities in our units, and assist our
commanders in delivering recruiting promises. Phase II, which began
October 1, 2001, increased the total Army Reserve Retention and
Transition Division (RTD) mission to 10,000 prior service transfers. We
continue extensive collaboration with USAREC to ensure a smooth
transition of these responsibilities.
To support these efforts, the Army Reserve uses non-prior service
and prior service enlistment bonuses, the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)
Kicker and the Student Loan Repayment Program in combinations to
attract soldiers to fill critical MOS and priority unit shortages.
Program funding must be sufficient to attract and retain both prior and
non-prior service soldiers. The Army Reserve must be able to provide a
variety of enlistment and retention incentives, for both officer and
enlisted personnel, in order to attract and retain quality soldiers.
Our new retention program is a success. Faced with an enlisted
attrition rate of 37.5 percent at the end of fiscal year 1997, we
adopted a corporate approach to retaining quality soldiers. Retention
management was a staff responsibility before fiscal year 1998. In a
mostly mechanical approach to personnel management, strength managers
simply calculated gains and losses and maintained volumes of
statistical data. Unfortunately, this approach did nothing to focus
commanders on their responsibility of retaining their most precious
resource--our soldiers.
The Army Reserve developed the Commander's Retention Program to
correct this shortcoming. A crucial tenet of this program places
responsibility and accountability for retention with commanders at
every level of the organization. Commanders now have a direct mission
to retain their soldiers and must develop annual retention plans.
Additionally, first line leaders must ensure all soldiers are
sponsored, receive delivery on promises made to them, and are provided
quality training. In this way, the Commander's Retention Program
ensures accountability because it establishes methods and standards and
provides a means to measure and evaluate every commander's performance.
Since the introduction of the Commander's Retention Program, the Army
Reserve has reduced enlisted Troop Program Unit attrition by nearly
nine percentage points. The enlisted attrition rate in fiscal year 2001
was 28.8 percent.
The Army Reserve is also experiencing a 4,200 company grade officer
shortfall. The active Army has a shortfall of these junior leaders,
too. Retention goals focused commanders and first line leaders on
junior officers, as well. Our retention program seeks to reduce
attrition, thereby improving readiness and reducing recruiting
missions.
The Army Reserve will successfully accomplish its 41,700 recruiting
mission for fiscal year 2002 while achieving the Department of the Army
and Department of Defense quality marks. Next year our enlisted
recruiting mission will stabilize at about 42,000 due to the success of
our retention efforts. The accomplishment of the recruiting mission
will demand a large investment in time on the part of our commanders,
our retention NCOs, and our recruiters as they are personally involved
in attracting the young people in their communities to their units.
However, the same environmental pressures that make non-prior
service recruiting and retention difficult affect prior service
accessions. With the end of the defense drawdown we have seen a
corresponding decrease in the available prior service market as
reflected in the IRR. This has meant greater training costs, due to the
increased reliance on the non-prior service market, and an overall loss
of the knowledge that comes when NCO leadership fails to transition to
the Army Reserve. Consequently, the Army Reserve's future ability to
recruit and retain quality soldiers will be critically dependent on
maintaining competitive compensation.
Additionally, the young people of today need to be made aware of
the unique opportunities available in the different military
components. The best way to get this message out is to advertise
through the mass media. Special attention needs to be placed on the
recruiting budget, especially for advertising, to meet our requirements
in the next several years. Funding our critical advertising needs is
imperative if we are to be honestly expected to meet our recruiting
goals. Your continued support of our efforts to recruit and retain
quality soldiers remains essential if we are to be successful.
readiness
Our readiness on September 10, 2001--the highest measured readiness
in Army Reserve history--enabled us to respond in the decisive and
rapid manner that we did on September 11 and in the days, weeks, and
months that followed.
The Army Reserve's readiness posture continues to improve. As of
January 2002, 74 percent of our units meet deployment standards, a 6
percent increase over the previous 2 years. It is imperative that we
preserve our readiness, personnel and equipment to continue to meet our
operational requirements.
Our Force Support Package (FSP) units, those which scheduled for
early mobilization, average 85 percent deployable readiness. With your
assistance, the Army Reserve continues to achieve a high number of
units rated deployable, despite having the lowest level of full-time
support of any Reserve component. Today's readiness levels are a
testimony to the Army Reserve's ability to adapt and succeed in our
assigned mission. Limited resources require the Army Reserve to manage
risks in an attempt to achieve the proper balance between current and
future readiness. In the past, the Army worked to protect near-term
readiness at the cost of modernization and infrastructure. During the
past couple of years, Army transformation sought to leverage the
benefits obtained through science and technology, recapitalization, and
similar investment opportunities.
In regards to medical and dental readiness, the picture for the
Army Reserve continues to improve. The Federal Strategic Health
Alliance (FEDS-HEAL) program is filling in the gaps and allowing
commanders to provide mandated medical and dental readiness services.
The provider network continues to grow. A robust dental network of more
than 15,000 was recently added to the provider panel and a further
expansion with academic dental clinics (dental schools, hygienist
schools) is pending. During calendar year 2001, more than 18,100
requests for services were submitted, most during the last quarter.
Most were for physical examinations and other services (dental and
immunizations). More than 1,100 were for dental screening and
treatment. In January 2002, over 4,000 requests were submitted.
The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review supports maintaining force
structure while balancing competing requirements such as modernization,
recapitalization, and operations and maintenance. Equipment readiness
demands the right kinds of equipment, fully operational, properly
maintained, mission capable, in the hands of the forces that will
employ them. Commensurate with equipment readiness considerations is
the Army Reserve's personnel readiness goal of improving Duty Military
Occupational Skill Qualification (DMOSQ). The Army Chief of Staff set a
goal for the Reserve components to achieve and sustain an 85 percent
DMOSQ and Professional Development Education (PDE) qualification level
by fiscal year 2005. Recent increases in funding have raised both DMOSQ
and PDE qualification rates by several percentage points. The Army
Reserve is projecting that DMOSQ rates will climb to 85 percent by
fiscal year 2005 and NCOES qualification rates will achieve 85 percent
by fiscal year 2004 due to programmed increases to our funding level.
We also continue to aggressively manage and monitor soldiers attending
DMOSQ to achieve this goal. Your continued support of our mutual goal
to have a trained and ready force remains essential to our success.
relevance
The relevance of the Army Reserve is unquestioned today. The
capabilities that we possess are in great demand.
For example, we have about 120 Military Police units of various
sizes and types, from Criminal Investigation Division detachments to
Internment and Resettlement Brigades. We have now called up about half
of these units. They are on duty now: serving in the Balkans, engaged
in homeland defense missions, and conducting operations in other parts
of the world. There are more than 200 Army Reserve Military Police
soldiers on duty at Camp X-Ray in Cuba or otherwise participating in
the detainee operation. Those MP units not yet employed are leaning
forward. Those units know how critical their capabilities are and
expect they, too, will be called up.
Our other commitments did not cease when the war on terrorism
began. We have nearly 800 Reserve soldiers supporting contingency
operations in Operations Joint Forge and Joint Guardian (Bosnia and
Kosovo) in the European theater. Since 1995, more than 17,000 Army
reservists have participated in our operations in Bosnia and Kosovo or
in support operations in neighboring countries.
In the last 5 years, we have had more than 27,400 Army reservists
supporting operations worldwide. Overall, in fiscal year 2001, the Army
Reserve deployed more than 100,000 soldiers to 64 countries
operationally and for exercises. We provided a total of 3.7 million man
days in the United States and abroad. Our deployments abroad ranged
from Central America and Southwest Asia to places like East Timor and
now Afghanistan and Cuba.
Furthermore, the Army Reserve did this at the same time that it
achieved its highest readiness status in history. Much of this
achievement was the direct result of your support to improve our full-
time manning and provide the funding required for our operating tempo
and training requirements.
Worldwide deployments are nothing new for the soldiers of the Army
Reserve. The Army's reliance on the Army Reserve's capabilities,
especially in such areas as civil affairs, medical, engineering,
logistics, transportation, military police, postal, public affairs and
psychological operations, will ensure that wherever the Army deploys,
so, too will the Army Reserve.
When not working alongside their active Army, Army National Guard
and sister services, Army Reserve soldiers honed their always-in-demand
skills on exercises.
Two examples of these were the annual Translots exercise in June
2001 and Roving Sands 2001. In the first exercise, more than 2,200
soldiers from 27 units used landing craft to unload equipment and truck
supplies to the ``front lines.'' More than half of the units for
Translots came from the Army Reserve, to include the executive agent
for the exercise, the 143rd Transportation Command from Orlando,
Florida. More than 2,600 Army reservists from 51 units were
significantly involved in the joint theater air and missile defense
exercise, Roving Sands.
The Army Reserve provides contributory support to the Army on a
daily basis. This support reduces operational costs, increases
efficiency and provides excellent production-based training
opportunities. Our soldiers benefit from this contributory support by
performing challenging, time-sensitive missions. Soldiers do not like
make-work missions. They want to do something meaningful, something
which has a benefit and a purpose, which offers a challenge. We have
moved from a training model of ``train, then do'' to ``train and do.''
Army Reserve soldiers rise to that challenge constantly.
Army Reserve Materiel Management Commands conduct year-round
resupply operations for active Army units in Southwest Asia and the
National Training Center in California. Army Reserve intelligence
centers at Fort Gillem, GA, and Fort Sheridan, IL, provide strategic
analysis for the Army on a full-time basis. This seamless support of
real-world missions clearly demonstrates how effectively Army Reserve
units integrate into the Army.
Contributory support helps the Army focus its Active Forces on
their primary warfighting tasks. Another way we help the Army
concentrate on warfighting is in our core competency of training.
Through focus on our part of the training function, we help the
Army return soldiers to combat divisions. Army Reserve soldiers are
fully integrated into every aspect of training. Our soldiers provide
quality training to soldiers and units from all components.
Army Reserve Institutional Training Divisions provide skill,
leadership, and professional development training. They also provide
basic combat and one station unit training at Army Training Centers.
Army Reserve Training Support Divisions provide collective lanes and
simulation training to units of all three Army components.
The Army Reserve Readiness Training Center (ARRTC) at Fort McCoy,
WI, which provides a myriad of training support to all components of
the Army, is developing a well-earned reputation as a center of
training innovation. Army Reserve, as well as Army National Guard and
Active component soldiers, can now graduate from a Military
Occupational Skill (MOS) or a functional course by taking an
interactive, distance-learning course, developed and taught by ARRTC.
The ARRTC has successfully piloted one distance-learning or DL
course last summer which was broadcast to 12 locations, qualifying Army
Reserve and Army National Guard soldiers in their MOS. I envision that
in an age of evolving technology, we will soon have connectivity to all
of our locations, thus enhancing the interoperability between active
and Reserve component units worldwide by reinforcing the premise that
as we train together, we fight together, all as part of one Army team.
Your continued interest and support of the Army National Guard
Distributed Learning project and its expansion to include the Army
Reserve will greatly enhance the individual and collective training
readiness of the Army.
The Army Reserve is well placed to benefit the Army in finding
innovative ways to do business because of the civilian acquired skills
of our soldiers. Our soldiers, many of whom are corporate and community
leaders, bring their civilian acquired skills, talents and experience
with them. This has been true from the beginning of the Army Reserve:
the very first reservists were civilian doctors who could be called up
in time of emergency.
Civilian technological advances are taking place at a dramatic
pace. Army Reserve soldiers who take part in these advances in their
civilian jobs are ideally placed to bring them into the Army for its
benefit.
To better capitalize on the ``citizen'' part of ``citizen-
soldier'', the Army Reserve is collecting information on the civilian
skills of its soldiers, skills acquired outside the Army and thus
perhaps unknown to it.
Army reservists can now input those skills into the Civilian
Acquired Skills Database (CASDB) at the Army Reserve Personnel Command
(AR-PERSCOM). By going to the website at www.citizen-soldier-
skills.com, soldiers can enter those skills they obtained from civilian
training or work experience. Soldiers who volunteer to register their
civilian acquired skills are afforded the opportunity to serve in
duties outside of their traditional branch or MOS. CASDB gives
commanders at all levels the means to identify those soldiers with
specific skills to meet special needs. Those skills and talents can
then be used to benefit the Army Reserve, the Army and the Nation.
Using our skills in the information area is one part of our strategy
for assisting the Army to become a more strategically deployable and
responsive force. By leveraging advanced communications and information
technology, we can conduct split-based support operations. Army Reserve
units can operate from home station to accomplish missions in forward
locations utilizing this technology, thus reducing lift requirements.
We are evolving our support organizations to build a reach-back
capability for logistics, intelligence, and training support, thereby
reducing the deployed logistical footprint.
We will also reduce lift requirements by strategically stationing
Army Reserve equipment and forces, capitalizing on our forward-
stationed Reserve units and soldiers, such as the 7th Army Reserve
Command in Europe and the 9th Regional Support Command in the Pacific.
Since Army Reserve power projection units have key roles in moving
the Army overseas and receiving deployed units once they arrive, it is
vital we get our own equipment--that not already strategically
positioned--overseas quickly.
The Strategic Storage Site (SSS) is such an initiative to better
facilitate deployment response times. The program is designed to place
select Army Reserve combat support/combat service support equipment
into strategically located controlled humidity storage facilities
within the continental United States and outside the continental United
States. This program improves responsiveness and materiel readiness,
and extends the life of the legacy equipment at reduced cost. About 37
percent of a typical Army Reserve unit's equipment that is not required
for peacetime training can be positioned in strategic storage to be
available for contingencies. The initial Strategic Storage Site is a
150,000 square foot facility at Gulfport, MS, which was resourced in
the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. The Army Reserve is
appreciative of this congressional support and is examining another six
locations strategically located to support the Reserve units. Sites
inside the continental United States will be established near large
metropolitan areas with consideration to location and types of
equipment, such as engineer, medical, signal and transportation, needed
to support homeland defense and disaster relief.
Consequence Management
Our presence throughout America and our commitment to America,
combined with the civilian-acquired skills of our soldiers and the
capabilities of our units, are all key factors that enhance our
abilities to manage the consequences of a domestic terrorist event. We
have been preparing and training ourselves, our Army National Guard
partners and other Federal, State, and local agencies to effectively
respond to this mission long before September 11.
For example, 4 months before the terrorist attacks on America, Army
Reserve units were key participants in two major back-to-back weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) response training exercises, Operation
Dangerous Wind 2001 and Operation Consequence Island 2001. The first
exercise was held May 7-17 at the Regional Training Site--Medical at
Fort Gordon, GA. Following immediately was Operation Consequence Island
2001, held May 18-26 at the Euripedes Rubio Army Reserve Center in San
Juan, Puerto Rico.
These exercises allowed Federal, State, and local agencies to hone
the coordination and other skills necessary to respond to a WMD-related
emergency. Although the Army Reserve is not a ``first responder'' in
the case of a WMD incident or natural disaster, we know that our Combat
Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) capabilities are the very
capabilities that are much in demand by both civil authorities and by
the Army. A listing of the units that participated in these two
exercises gives an indication of some--but not all--of the capabilities
we have to provide: 883rd Medical Company (Combat Stress), Roslindale,
MA; 1982nd Medical Detachment (Surgical), Niagara Falls, NY; 1883rd
Medical Team (Infectious Disease), Chamblee, GA; 427th Medical
Logistics Battalion, Forest Park, GA; 369th Combat Support Hospital,
Puerto Nuevo, PR; 407th Medical Company (Ground Ambulance), Fort
Buchanan, PR; 597th Quartermaster Company (Field Services), Bayamon,
PR; 346th Transportation Battalion, Ceiba, PR; and 311th Quartermaster
Company (Mortuary Affairs), Aquadilla, PR.
The 311th Quartermaster Company that trained for a domestic
terrorist event during Exercise Consequence Island 2001 in May was the
same company that I discussed earlier, the one that deployed to the
Pentagon as part of Operation Noble Eagle in September.
The Army Reserve is ideally placed for civil support. Our units are
stationed in Hometown, U.S.A., with our soldiers located in 1,200 Army
Reserve centers in towns and cities all across America, putting the
Army's footprint in every part of our country. They are part of
America's communities because those communities are their communities.
Our soldiers are the local doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, police
officers, Little League coaches, and soccer moms and dads, who enable
the Army Reserve to respond with a multi-faceted capability. We provide
key emergency preparedness leaders. Army Reserve Civil Affairs units
contain 97 percent of the Army's expertise to rebuild shattered
infrastructure--social, civil, and physical. Military Police units can
shelter up to 56,000 displaced persons.
The Army Reserve, ready to respond to a chemical incident, contains
63 percent of the Army's chemical capability. Today, the Army Reserve
has the largest chemical decontamination capability within DOD. The
Army Reserve is currently training 100 out of a total of 127
decontamination platoons and 9 of the 15 reconnaissance platoons called
for in Defense Reform Initiative Directive 25. One of the Army's two
Biological Integrated Detection System (BIDS) companies is in the Army
Reserve. That unit, the 310th BIDS Company, has already been activated
for participation in Operation Enduring Freedom. The requirement for
increased biological detection capabilities has resulted in the
proposal to create additional Army Reserve BIDS companies, which will
stand up over the next several years. One of these, the 375th BIDS
Company, is a high demand/low density unit that requires state-of-the-
art BIDS equipment. This unit, which officially activates in Sep 2003,
will be in strong demand for both defending the homeland and protecting
U.S. forces against biological attacks in combat theaters.
Residing within the Army Reserve are 68 percent of the Army's
medical assets. Our medical professionals are working closely in DOD
and among the interagency community to leverage our capabilities in
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) consequence management. The Army
Reserve contains 50 percent of resourced Mortuary Affairs units, as
well as Aviation, Logistics, Engineer and Signal units, which are
essential capabilities for WMD consequence management. The Army Reserve
stands ready to support WMD consequence management operations in
combat, in the homeland or overseas in support of our coalition
partners.
The challenge of defending America's homeland continues to grow.
Although the Army Reserve is not a ``first responder'' organization, it
is ready to provide assistance to support and sustain those
organizations that do respond first. The civil support mission requires
capabilities resident in the Army Reserve.
Civil support and WMD operations are combat support and combat
service support intensive. Army Reserve core capabilities enable the
Army to provide rapid support that complements the Federal response
that sustains local responders.
As a community-based force, the Army Reserve is--by definition--
America's people. We are a reflection of the values and traditions
embodied in our culture. Those values and traditions are what make the
Army Reserve, the National Guard and the Army strong, able to meet the
Nation's missions. The men and women of the Army Reserve, all of whom
volunteered to be ``twice the citizen'', have taken on the sacrifices
to serve the Nation. In their hands is the future of the Army Reserve.
Information Operations
Information Operations (IO) ensures that our leaders have the
information they need, when they need it, in a form they can use to win
the fight and protect America's vital interests. We use IO to defend
our own information and information systems while disrupting those of
the enemy.
These are not new concepts. The Army has long understood the
importance of controlling the decision cycle. Units with IO
capabilities that intercept or interrupt communications, that collect
and analyze information about the battlefield and that influence the
attitudes and will of the opposition, are a legacy in the Army Reserve
structure. The Army Reserve provides a wide variety of experts who
accomplish missions such as Civil Affairs, Psychological Operations,
Public Affairs, Military Intelligence, and Signal. The Land Information
Warfare Activity (LIWA), the National Ground Intelligence Center and
the Joint Reserve Intelligence Program now are utilizing Army Reserve
units, facilities, and personnel to conduct IO.
The Army Reserve is also building additional capability to
reinforce Army information and LIWA operations. The Army Reserve Land
Information Warfare Enhancement Center directly expands the scope and
sophistication of LIWA information capabilities. When complete, one
fourth of LIWA manpower will be Army Reserve soldiers. The Defense
Information Systems Agency has created a 22-member Joint Web Risk
Assessment Cell. This cell will monitor and evaluate Department of
Defense web sites to ensure no one compromises national security by
revealing sensitive defense information. Five members of this cell,
whose civilian skills are particularly suited to this hard skill
requirement, are Drilling Individual Mobilization Augmentees of the
Army Reserve.
Further, the Army Reserve is actively carving out its niche in this
evolving area of cyber warfare by creating the Reserve Information
Operations Structure. This organization was activated on October 16 to
provide contributory support to the Army's Computer Network Defense and
information assurance efforts. Army Reserve Information Operation
Centers (IOCs) identify and respond to viruses and intruders in Army
computer networks. Currently, Army Reserve IOCs are located in the
National Capital Region, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, and
Texas, and satellite units can be found in over a dozen large cities.
Information Operations support the Army's portion of the Defense
Information Infrastructure to ensure the availability, integrity and
confidentiality of information systems.
Counter Drug Operations
The Army Reserve provides intelligence, linguistic, transportation,
maintenance, and engineer support to drug law enforcement agencies and
unified commanders-in-chief in an ongoing program in effect since 1989.
The Army Reserve supports local, State, and Federal law enforcement
agencies in operations designed to reduce the flow of illegal drugs
both within and outside of American borders. Feedback from High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area directors was overwhelmingly positive.
The Army Reserve also participates with the Drug Demand Reduction
Program to help reduce the demand for illegal drugs and alcohol abuse
through education and through deterrence by randomly testing our
soldiers on a regular basis. We received a program funding increase to
raise our testing level to more closely match the Active component
testing level. The increased funding also allows the retention of those
civilians most critical to program administration.
resourcing
The Army Reserve greatly appreciates your support in providing
resources to enhance our readiness and relevance; however, we still
face several challenges. At the outset, I would like to emphasize that
many of our resourcing challenges are a consequence of our being
victims of our own achievement. Successfully executed operations lead
to additional operations, thus increasing operating tempo and personnel
tempo costs. This places stress on personnel, equipment and facilities
with bills that ultimately must be paid. Both people and equipment wear
out faster under frequent use. For example, units deployed in Somalia
took 10 months to restore their equipment to predeployment levels.
Multiple, concurrent, and sequential commitments erode warfighting
readiness.
Full-Time Support
An increase in Full-Time Support (FTS)--Active Guard/reservists
(AGRs) and Military Technicians (MILTECHS)--is essential to improve
Army Reserve readiness. One of the greatest challenges facing the Army
Reserve today is an insufficient number of FTS authorizations to
support over 2,300 Army Reserve units in day-to-day operations. FTS
levels directly impact the readiness of Army Reserve units by providing
the additional training, command and control, technical, functional,
and military expertise required to transition from a peacetime to a
wartime posture. The FTS staff performs all the day-to-day support
functions for the unit. When FTS levels drop, this affects readiness
levels.
The Army has identified critical thresholds for FTS, based on the
minimum essential levels to prepare and maintain units to meet
deployment standards identified in Defense Plans. The fiscal year 2002
transformation of the Army's go to war structure included eliminating
approximately 251 Title XI Active Army authorizations from Army Reserve
units. As a coordinated ``Army'' decision, the Army Reserve AGR end
strength was increased by 182 in fiscal year 2003 to accommodate the
loss of Title XI soldiers. The revised ramp end strength is 16,263. The
goal is to restore the loss of Active Army end strength from Army
Reserve units with AGRs while continuing to work towards improving the
overall unit readiness with increased full-time support.
Congress has been sensitive to the importance of FTS, and we are
grateful for the fiscal year 2002 congressional increase in AGRs and
MILTECHs. This increase reduced the Army Reserve FTS shortfall by
almost a thousand (650 MILTECHs and 300 AGRs). The Army Reserve
utilized the 300 AGRs in fiscal year 2002 to restore Title XI soldiers
that remained unfunded.
Recruiting and Retention Bonus Programs and Increased Army Reserve
Advertising
Recruiting resources pay dividends beyond the year of execution.
For example, Army Reserve advertising in fiscal year 2002 influences
potential recruits making enlistment decisions in fiscal year 2003-
2005. Thus, we must look at recruiting resources over time and not
limit consideration to the current or next fiscal year.
Resourcing the Army Reserve sufficiently to achieve its average
recruiting workload over the next several years enables the Army
Reserve to achieve its end strength. A steady, even flow of resources
ensures a better recruiting environment.
Media advertising costs continue to increase. Television is the
most effective at targeting desired Army audiences because it
dramatically illustrates the Army experience through sight, sound, and
motion. Successfully meeting the recruiting mission, which we did in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, following several years of failure, comes
from many complex and rapidly changing factors. The recruiting
advertising program, however, is one of the few factors that we can
control.
summary
As we approach the 6-month mark since September 11, the men and
women of the Army Reserve are serving proudly and performing their
duties in the manner expected, professionally and skillfully. They are
fully backed by their families, by their employers, by their comrades
at home and by a united Nation. They have leaders who understand their
needs and who are working to meet those needs and to prepare for the
future.
The citizen-soldiers of the Army Reserve, confronted with attacks
to Americans on American soil for the first time in our lives, have
answered the Nation's call and are adding a new chapter to our nearly
94-year history of service. It is a great chapter but it is not yet
completed. It may take a long time to finish but we know the part we
have in it.
Our part was clearly stated by the commander in chief when he
signed the proclamation for National Employer Support of the Guard and
Reserve Week 2001 on November 9:
``We're fighting a war on many fronts. It's a diplomatic war,
it's a financial war. The military is performing brilliantly in
Afghanistan. We could not win the war without the help of the
Guard and the reservists.''
The citizen-soldiers of the Army Reserve are proud of their country
and of the role they play in its defense and in winning the war forced
upon us. As our citizen-soldiers have always done, they have come
forward, without hesitation, at a moment of crisis and danger to our
country. Although today's Army reservist is more ready, better trained,
more adaptable, and more relevant than ever before, we readily admit
that we cannot surpass the love of country and willingness to sacrifice
of all those who have served before us. Those great American citizen-
soldiers passed to those who serve today a tremendous responsibility--
to uphold their legacy of defending this Nation, its citizens and its
freedoms, no matter what it costs. We proudly and confidently accept
that responsibility.
We are grateful to Congress and the Nation for supporting the Army
Reserve and our most valuable resource, our soldiers--the sons and
daughters of America. United we stand--united we will win.
Thank you.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, General Bambrough.
Admiral Totushek.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. JOHN B. TOTUSHEK, USNR, COMMANDER, NAVAL
RESERVE FORCE
Admiral Totushek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the opportunity not only to come before you today to talk about
the United States Naval Reserve, but to thank you sincerely,
and the committee, for all the work that you have done for all
the military over the years. Your efforts in particular have
made a great impact on the naval service and all of the
military services, and I would like to thank you on behalf of
the 88,000 people in the U.S. Naval Reserve.
I am going to, in the interest of brevity, summarize my
brief remarks so that we can move on with questions and
answers. I would like to talk about a couple of things that
have already been broached. The first is that on September 11,
before the mobilization, over 200 naval reservists volunteered
in a variety of ways within hours of the attacks.
Chaplains were on duty in Washington administering to the
needs of Pentagon personnel and their families; Naval Reserve
F-18s were flying air combat missions; a Reserve helicopter
squadron was operating on a training mission in Northern
Virginia, and came in a medevac role to the Pentagon. Our naval
emergency preparedness liaison officers began working with
civilian authorities in rescue and relief efforts both here and
in New York City.
Reservists, from our intelligence specialists to law
enforcement and security personnel, began showing up to provide
their support before anybody called them up. Our phone lines
lit up in New York and in Washington with people volunteering
that had already been retired to come back to active duty to
support the effort.
The second aspect I would like to touch upon is the
mobilization itself. While the numbers are changing daily, the
Naval Reserve has recalled approximately 10,000 people at this
time, and they are serving the Nation all over the globe in
roles that range primarily physical security and law
enforcement to the intelligence specialists that I talked
about.
These people are doing a wonderful job for us, and it is
interesting to note that in many cases we are calling people
because of their civilian skills as much as we are for the
military skills. While none of us knows how long we are going
to need to tap their talents, I am confident that we are going
to continue to have reservists volunteering and stepping up to
answer the call.
The mobilization has gone much smoother this time than it
did during Operation Desert Storm, largely due to some of the
things we put into effect during the 1990s, but also due to the
really hard work of some of my people, and that of our active
service. Because of the differences and the nuances instituted
this time, Naval Reservists in addition to the mobilization
have already provided over 15,000 man-days of direct support
this year.
Our frigates continue to make 6-month deployments, the same
length of time as our active duty counterparts, to support
exercises such as BALTOPS and UNITAS. Our coastal warfare
Reserve units have served in Vieques, they have served all
around the globe, and continue to be one of the highest demand
and lowest density organizations we have out there. In fiscal
year 2001, our logistics aircraft flew more than 4,400
missions, transporting 172,000 naval personnel and over 14
million pounds of cargo in direct support of the Navy and
Marine Corps team.
In order to continue to provide this kind of support, I
need to continue to receive the support of Congress to have an
immediate reconstitution of our aging equipment. We have needs
in the transport area such as new C-40s to replace the aging C-
9s. Our coastal warfare equipment, our P-3 Charlie and our F-18
upgrades are things we desperately need to keep consistent and
continue to provide the wonderful support that we do to the
Navy and Marine Corps.
Finally, I will echo a couple of things that my colleagues
have already underlined in the manpower area. We have
challenges in recruiting, mainly from the veterans that
ordinarily answer the call of the Naval Reserve. Traditionally,
we have been a highly veteran force. Up to 80 percent of our
members had previous service in the active service. Now,
however, in our last few months we have been only recruiting
about 55 percent veterans. I think that is a reflection on the
fact that those who want to stay on active duty are staying
there to answer the Nation's call, and those that have made the
decision to leave active service actually do not want to get
recalled.
The Naval Reserve Force's adequate funding does continue to
retain people. In fact, that is how we are making end strength
these days, by concentrating on driving attrition out of our
ranks, and we are making wonderful progress. We hit all-time
historical lows last year, and so I would like to just talk
about two additional things, if I could.
I know that Secretary Navas mentioned the income-protection
problem that we have with reservists that have spent some time
on the outside and have been fairly successful, and then come
back to answer their country's call, only to have to take money
out of their pocket to make their house payment. We did not do
a very good job the last time around when we did income
insurance. Mobilization insurance, we called it. The
implementation was wrong. The idea was right, and we still do
need something to protect our reservists that have become
successful and continue to serve the Navy.
The second is continuity of health care. When people are
mobilized from places in the middle of the country, where there
are not a lot of TRICARE providers, it is a big issue for them
and something that needs to be addressed.
In closing, I would like to say that I am very fortunate to
have the good men and women that I do in my force today. We are
truly fighting the good fight and meeting the threats posed to
us as we must. We are called to serve, and we are out there
serving. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Vice Admiral Totushek follows:]
Prepared Statement by Vice Adm. John B. Totushek, USNR
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to
discuss the Naval Reserve and our role in Operations Enduring Freedom
and Noble Eagle. There are really two distinct aspects of Naval Reserve
support of the war effort: the first deals with the immediate aftermath
of the attacks. Even before the mobilization, more than 230 Naval
reservists began immediately assisting in any way they could:
Within hours following the attacks on the Pentagon and on New York,
Naval reservists responded:
Chaplains were on duty in Washington administering to
the needs of Pentagon personnel and their families;
Naval Reserve F/A-18s were flying combat air patrol
missions in Texas;
A Reserve helicopter squadron training in Northern
Virginia was providing Medevac support at the Pentagon;
Naval Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers began
working with civilian authorities in rescue and relief efforts;
A Naval Reserve augment unit began round-the-clock
support for the New York City Port Authority;
Reservists--from intelligence specialists to law
enforcement and physical security personnel and more--began
showing up to provide support to their gaining commands in
Washington; and
Phone lines lit up in New Orleans and Washington with
reservists volunteering for recall to active duty.
The second aspect is the mobilization itself. The numbers change
daily, but we've recalled approximately 10,000 personnel. The majority
of these Naval reservists have been recalled individually based on
specific skills; primarily law enforcement, security and as cohesive
units of the Naval Coastal Warfare command. Other skills reflected in
the mobilization include medical, supply, intelligence, and other
specialties. There is a Naval Reserve C-130 based in Bahrain that last
month moved approximately one million pounds of mission critical
equipment. We are providing an additional logistics aircraft to support
personnel and equipment movement throughout the fleet, and our newest
Naval Reserve C-40A logistics aircraft are ferrying men and equipment
to the Gulf with great reliability.
I found it interesting that one of the frequent comments heard in
the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks on our country was
that the Navy and the Naval Reserve--and the Armed Forces in general--
would have to change the way we do business.
The attacks left the impression in some circles that our military
was not prepared for what had happened, that we were not equipped to
deal with new realities and that a fundamental rethinking of our
training and our mission was in order.
I believed then, as I do now, they were wrong. Our response since
the moment of the attack has been proving them wrong. The fact is that
our sailors--and the marines, airmen, and soldiers in our sister
services--are well trained to respond to a terrorist crisis at home, to
track down enemies of freedom abroad--and well suited to carry out
their roles in homeland defense.
While none of us knows how long we will need to tap into this
reservoir of talent, it is heartening that--once again, as in Operation
Desert Storm--many Naval reservists stepped up and volunteered for
recall in the early days of the crisis.
As a Nation, before September 11, we already knew that we lived in
a troubled world. Now we know how dangerous the enemy in that world can
be. We know how vulnerable an open society such as ours can be to those
who seek to do us harm.
the price of liberty
The patriot John Philpot Curran said in 1790, ``The condition upon
which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.'' This
passage provides as much relevant guidance for us today as it did then.
The question is this: what can the Naval Reserve do in support of
eternal vigilance?
Two things are certain: we are ready--ready to live in freedom,
ready to pay the price for freedom; and we are capable.
Every day, the Naval Reserve maintains facilities in every state.
Every day, we support operations and exercises on a global basis. As
you read this statement, Naval reservists are deployed in support of
operations in the Arabian Gulf, in Bosnia/Kosovo, in the Caribbean and
South America, in Korea, throughout Europe, and afloat on every ocean.
Today's Naval Reserve Force consists of 34 air squadrons, including
a carrier air wing, a maritime patrol wing, a helicopter wing and a
fleet logistics support wing. We operate 26 ships, including 9
frigates, 10 mine hunter coastal patrol ships, 5 mine countermeasures
ships, 1 mine control ship, and a tank landing ship. Further strength
lies in additional fleet support units. Among the most notable of these
are 2 Naval Coastal Warfare Group staffs, 22 Mobile Inshore Undersea
Warfare units, 14 Inshore Boat units, and 9 Harbor Defense Command
units; 12 construction battalions, 12 cargo handling battalions, 4
fleet hospitals, and many other units.
The force that we deploy is highly educated. Nearly 11 percent of
our enlisted members have college degrees, and more than 97 percent
have a high school diploma. Within the Reserve Force officer ranks,
nearly 35 percent have master's degrees, and more than 9 percent have a
doctorate.
The state of the Naval Reserve is strong, and our fundamentals
remain unchanged. Let's take a look from three perspectives:
Alignment of the Chief of Naval Operations' (CNO) top
priorities and the Commander, Naval Reserve Force's (CNRF) top
priorities.
Our progress and achievements over the past year, and
how our ships, aircraft and people are being employed.
Our goals for the future, some of which are unfunded
priorities. Congressional support of these initiatives and
upgrades will keep our Naval Reserve Force strong and
integrated into the Active Force.
goals
Our first--and most immediate--goal is to assist the CNO in his
providing a capable and effective Naval force and to help in
prosecuting and winning the war on terrorism. Our supporting goals
complement this primary one and align with the CNO's following
priorities:
Manpower and personnel. Just as the active Navy
competes for people, the Naval Reserve makes every effort to
attract and retain the best, and to reduce first-term
attrition. The Reserve Force focuses on retaining our best
people, recruiting to fill future needs, and sustaining end
strength. Through a combination of leadership training,
financial and educational incentives, and career decision
surveys, we watch closely and encourage the career paths of our
talented reservists. We continue to innovate and support new
concepts such as income protection insurance and health care
protection for mobilized reservists and families. Similarly,
our recruiting efforts have been strengthened this year with
the addition of new recruiters, a new advertising campaign, new
incentives to recruit the best candidates, and by the ability
to recruit in the 21-25 year old non-prior service market. Our
main recruiting concern at this time is that the sense of
renewed patriotism following the attack upon our homeland did
not translate into hikes in enlistment contracts. The major
change Naval Reserve recruiting has experienced since September
11, 2001 is the decrease in Navy Veteran (NAVET) recruiting
from about 80 percent of SELRES accessions having been Navy
veterans to around 55 percent. We believe that this is due to
the desire of many sailors to remain on active duty to support
our Nation's war on terrorism. Reserve recruiting is closely
monitoring this trend. Coupled with the efforts outlined above
and the renewed thrust into the non-prior service market,
Reserve recruiting is combating the downward trend in NAVET
affiliations. Naval Reserve recruiting is currently well ahead
on officer recruiting.
Current Readiness. The Active force has benefited from
additional funding for training and maintenance and continually
reviews the balance between requirements and resources. On the
reserve side, we're using Just-In-Time Training to support
homeland defense requirements. Specifically, the Naval Reserve
has established the Law Enforcement Specialist Course in
response to force protection mobilization requirements.
Personnel who have been mobilized are being sent to the 2-week
course in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, and Ft. Worth, Texas.
Graduates will receive a certificate and Joint Qualifications
Booklet to bring back to their gaining command. When the
booklet is completed, they will earn the Navy Enlisted
Qualification for Enlisted Law Enforcement Specialist. Training
is also taking place through the new Navy Learning Network, as
well as in non-traditional settings such as the Senior Enlisted
Academy and Navy Apprentice Schools.
Future Readiness. The Navy makes continuous
investments for the near-mid-and-long term. These include
investments in training, technology, and new equipment. The
Naval Reserve strives to upgrade its equipment, with
acquisitions such as the new C-40A aircraft, F/A-18 and P-3
upgrades, and building a new Information Technology structure.
Alignment and Fleet Support. The CNO has set as a
priority the unification of systems, processes and
organizations, which increases support to the fleet. The role
of the Naval Reserve is fleet support, and we are aligning our
systems, processes and organizations to serve our primary
customer: the active force.
2001 achievements
Our current mobilization has gone much smoother than in Operation
Desert Storm, due to changes put into effect in the 1990s, and the
extremely hard work put in by our Reserve and active duty personnel.
With that said, the mobilization alone doesn't reflect the whole story
of success in the past year.
Naval reservists supported fleet operations and
exercises throughout the year. Naval Surface reservists
provided over 15,000 man-days of direct support to fleet
exercises in Bahrain, Germany, Korea, Iceland, Italy, Norway,
Istanbul, Thailand, and Puerto Rico.
Naval Reserve Force frigates continued to make the
same 6-month length deployments as the their active Navy
counterparts, focusing on counter-narcotics interdiction and
exercises such as Unitas, Baltops, and Carat. Naval Reserve
Force Frigates were on station in either the Caribbean or
Eastern Pacific supporting drug interdiction operations for 356
days during calendar year 2001. The U.S.S. Stephen W. Groves
proved to be one of the Navy's most productive counterdrug
units. During her deployment, Groves interdicted three go-fast
boats, interrupted one significant smuggling event, detained 10
suspects, and recovered 3,600 pounds of cocaine.
VAQ-209 continued to support tactical electronic
warfare deploying to Saudi Arabia for 6 weeks as part of
Operation Southern Watch.
Naval Reserve P-3 and E-2 squadrons provided year-
round patrols supporting counter-drug detection and monitoring
operations in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.
Naval Coastal Warfare Reserve (NCW) Units were in high
demand during 2001. Before 9/11 units deployed to the Arabian
Gulf and Vieques, PR in vital AT/FP missions. Units also
participated in exercises Bright Star, Northern Edge, Natural
Fire, and CARAT. Subsequent to the homeland attacks, 17 full
units within the NCW organization mobilized and deployed both
at home and overseas. The demand for this robust capability by
warfighting CINCs is so great. NCW will expand to include units
both in the Active and Reserve component. The Reserve NCW
organization will provide valuable training and operational
expertise as the Active and Reserve component emerge as an
important segment of homeland security.
Naval Reserve Strike Fighter and Adversary squadrons
provided 100 percent of fleet adversary training (more than
9,000 hours in 2001).
More than 30 Naval Reserve divers participated in an
historic expedition to raise the Civil War Ironclad Monitor
from 240 feet off the coast of Cape Hatteras, NC.
Reserve Carrier Air Wing 20 (CAG-20) embarked three
squadrons and staff on U.S.S. Nimitz for a 54-day
circumnavigation of South America during a coast-to-coast
homeport change.
In fiscal year 2001, our logistics aircraft flew more
than 4,450 missions, transporting 172,220 personnel and 14
million pounds of cargo in direct support of Navy fleet
operations worldwide. Presently, there is a Naval Reserve C-130
transport flying out of Bahrain supporting the war effort in
Afghanistan, as well as several C-9, C-20, and C-40 flights per
week in direct support of deployed forces in theatre.
We took delivery of our first four C-40A Clippers: the
last two were named ``Spirit of New York City'' and ``Spirit of
the Pentagon.''
We began to roll out the long-anticipated Navy-Marine
Corps Intranet, which over a 5-year period will equip the Navy
with access, interoperability and security for the Navy's
information and communications by providing voice, video and
data services to Navy and Marine Corps personnel. The Navy's
first site was our own Naval Air Facility Washington.
the future
With a mobilization underway--and mindful of President Bush's
caution that the war on terrorism could last for years--the near-term
future of the Naval Reserve will be focused on continuing to sustain
the Navy's warfighting capabilities. Given the uncertainty of how the
war might develop, the challenge for the Naval Reserve will be to
remain flexible in adapting existing capabilities--both function and
structure--to meet evolving and previously unanticipated requirements.
Yet, the Navy's requirements for reservists to support the war are
in addition to its need for reservists to conduct `normal' peacetime
operations, including exercises, training, watch standing, and
administrative duties.
While the Navy's demand for Naval Reserve longer-term capabilities
is not clear, there are some implied and important Reserve roles.
Homeland security will create demand for capabilities to guard the
Nation's borders, and the Reserve components are being considered for
this major role. Further, a recently published Quadrennial Defense
Review indicated that future forces would be shaped to meet an expanded
list of threats, and that the Department of Defense would transform
itself simultaneously. These have the potential of adding to Navy's
challenges at a time when it is fighting the war and otherwise
maintaining a forward presence worldwide. The Naval Reserve will
undoubtedly play a part.
In addition, to continue supporting the fleet, our long-range plans
include upgrading our aircraft, implementing information technology
improvements, and maintaining our real estate holdings.
Aircraft upgrades. The introduction of the C-40A
Clipper into the Naval Reserve is maintaining our worldwide
intra-theater logistics lift support for the fleet. Without
these aircraft, the Reserve could not conduct its essential
airlift operations in foreign airspace. The C-40As are slowly
replacing the fleet of aged C-9s. Four C-40As have been
delivered to the Naval Reserve and two additional C-40As will
be delivered by the end of this year. The C-40A delivery begins
the process of increasing safety, improving compatibility and
meeting environmental requirements. Our goal is to replace all
27 of our aged Navy C-9 aircraft and 2 Marine Corps Reserve C-9
aircraft at a rate of three per year.
My aging, but well maintained, P-3 aircraft assets are in
need of modernization upgrades in the form of Block
Modification Upgrade Program (BMUP) and Aircraft Improvement
Program (AIP) kits. These kits provide new mission computers
and acoustic sensors to achieve a common P-3C configuration
with our fleet counterparts.
In addition, two of our four F/A-18 Hornet aircraft squadrons
will benefit from the purchase of 28 upgrade kits that will
improve radar systems, armament controls, weapons station
wiring and cockpit indicators. We are pursuing funding to
purchase 12 additional ECP-560 kits to outfit our third F/A-18
squadron.
Navy and Marine Corps Intranet. The NMCI is an
opportunity for the Reserve Force to show the way in
integrating the best in Information Technology. We are
replacing disparate 20-year old systems with a unified system
accessible by fleet commanders and Reserve units alike.
Real estate maintenance and management. With the Naval
Reserve as a landlord for 1,224 structures (average age of 33
years) on 6,800 acres in all 50 States and Puerto Rico,
maintenance and efficient management are issues of continued
concern.
summary
Our primary mission--before and after September 11--has been to
support the Navy/Marine Corps team throughout the full range of
operations, from peace to war. At this time, it is war. Fortunately, we
are a well-trained force dedicated to enduring freedoms. In the words
of Edmund Burke, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
for good men to do nothing.'' I am very fortunate to have good men--and
women--in my force, and we are truly fighting the good fight and
meeting the threats posed to us, as we must. As the war on terrorism
unveils we will all be called to serve. The Naval Reserve is ready to
answer the call.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Admiral.
General Sherrard.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JAMES E. SHERRARD III, USAF, CHIEF, AIR
FORCE RESERVE
General Sherrard. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed our pleasure
on behalf of the men and women of the Air Force Reserve Command
to have the opportunity to speak to you today and echo the
words that our colleagues have already expressed on panels I,
II, and now III, the great service that this committee and you
in particular have stepped forward to do, the things that in
fact enhance our ability to ensure that the welfare of the men
and women of our commands are in fact taken care of.
To summarize very quickly, fiscal year 2001 started out as
a very good year, and continued for us in terms of recruiting,
where we were able to achieve 105 percent of our recruiting
accession goal, as well as exceed our end strength authority by
achieving 106 percent of our authorized end strength at the end
of the year. Retention was at an all-time high, 89.3 percent
for the force.
Unfortunately, the tragic events of September 11 made all
that joy that we all were so looking forward to expressing go
away, because immediately the men and women of our commands
stepped forward and started volunteering, as Mr. Duehring has
mentioned. They started leaving without being called. They were
just showing up immediately to serve in any fashion that they
could, based upon the needs of our command and the needs of our
great Nation at that point in time. In fact, they continue
today. We have over 3,000 volunteers a day that are performing
duty around the world in support of the needs of the Air Force.
To date, we have mobilized more than 11,600 people with
more than 2,200 of those members deployed overseas. It should
be interesting to note that while we have mobilized about one-
half of the numbers we did in Operation Desert Shield and
Operation Desert Storm, we in fact have increased by more than
36 percent the number of individual mobilization augmentees
that are performing duty under mobilized status. This is
particularly important because of the key roles they are
performing in very critical areas such as intelligence and
security forces.
In addition, I would tell you that the men and women that
are out there are very proud of doing what they are doing, and
I echo the same things that Admiral Totushek said. The phones
were ringing from the retired members. They continued to ring,
and the authority that your committee has given us and that we
were given in legislation in the recent past to in fact bring
retired members back into the Reserve Forces to serve serves us
all very well, and it is a great opportunity for us to utilize
that legislation to get those members back into our fold and
let them bring those high experience levels we all need in
order to do our business.
The concerns and challenges we face are very
straightforward; retaining the highly skilled force that we
have to the maximum years' service possible certainly is
important so we can again maximize that return on investment
that the American public has made in each one of us through the
valuable training we received. We are very concerned in
watching very carefully any recruiting impact that stop loss,
as was mentioned earlier, may have on our ability to recruit
prior service members, because again, more than 80 percent of
our members being prior service, it is critical for us to be
able to do the missions we are being asked to do.
Likewise, the impact of mobilization, what will that do on
future retention, are certainly areas of key concern to us. The
most critical point I want to make is sustaining the current
high levels of support we are receiving from employers and
families. They are part of this process. They are critical
elements of the way we do business today, and remembering those
members and ensuring that their protections and their needs in
fact are met are critical for us in the military side of the
business to do our duties.
I want to thank you and your subcommittee, sir, for your
continuing support, and look forward to the opportunity to
answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Lieutenant General Sherrard
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. James E. Sherrard III, USAF
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchinson, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
Thank you for your continuing support, which has helped your Air Force
Reserve address vital recruiting, retention, modernization, and
infrastructure needs. Your passage of last year's pay and quality of
life initiatives were especially important as your actions sent an
unmistakable message to our citizen airmen that their efforts are truly
appreciated.
I am pleased to tell you that the Air Force Reserve continues to be
a force of choice for the Air Force and the warfighting commanders in
chiefs (CINCs), whenever an immediate and effective response is
required to meet the challenges of today's world.
The Air Force has enjoyed over 30 years of unparalleled Total Force
integration success. Today, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) members
are performing in almost every mission area within our Air Force
including the war on terrorism, and we plan to seek involvement in all
future mission areas, as they evolve. Key to our successes, to date, is
the fact that AFRC is a very dynamic organization in a rapidly changing
environment, and we are finding new and advanced ways to seamlessly
link all our forces in both peace and war.
In the Air Force Reserve, our priorities are people, readiness, and
modernization, and it is toward these three key areas that our
attention is focused to assure that our members are provided the full
spectrum of training opportunities which ensure they achieve and
enhance their warfighting skills and capabilities. We put people first,
emphasize readiness, and continue to seek balanced, time-phased
modernization and infrastructure programs.
People are our most important asset. In an effort to retain our
best and brightest, we must continue to reward our people through
compensation and promotion and ensure they know their efforts are
appreciated. We need to look after their families while they are
deployed and reach out to their employers with our thanks for their
support. We should ensure that there is open dialogue among the troops
and from the troops to me to make sure that we're doing our job the
best that it can be done. More than ever, we need to continue to
partner with you to ensure we maintain the strongest air force in the
world.
The Air Force is a team--we train together, work together, and
fight together. Wherever you find the United States Air Force, at home
or abroad, you will find the active and Reserve side-by-side. You can't
tell us apart and that's the way it should be. The bottom line is that
when the Air Force goes to war, enforces a peace agreement, or
undertakes prolonged humanitarian missions anywhere in the world today,
the Air Force Reserve will be there. During my comments today, I will
discuss the status of many of our Air Force Reserve programs.
highlights of 2001
Until September 11, this year had been shaping up to be one of our
most productive ever. Our key goals had been to achieve our authorized
manning levels, continue to improve retention of our talented members,
meet the extensive Reserve commitments to the Aerospace Expeditionary
Force (AEF) and execute our Flying Hour Program as authorized in the
fiscal year 2001 defense budget. The hard work of the men and women of
the Air Force Reserve assured we attained our goals and, even more, met
the many additional challenges presented following the September
attacks.
We exceeded our fiscal year 2001 end strength authorization;
achieving a final manning percentage of 100.6 percent of our authorized
end strength. This was possible only through outstanding efforts of our
recruiters, who accessed 105 percent of our recruiting goal, and with
the superb assistance of our assigned personnel who help tell our story
of the true value of service to country. Likewise, we exceeded our
command retention goals for officers, first-term airmen, second-term
airmen, and career airmen by achieving retention rates of 92.1 percent,
81.7 percent, 79.6 percent, and 91.4 percent respectively. The overall
command retention rate of 89.3 percent is the result of great teamwork
by members, first sergeants, supervisors, and commanders who led us to
this exceptional achievement.
We are also very proud of our Air Expeditionary Force contributions
in 2001. We have met virtually 100 percent of both aviation and combat
support commitments, deploying 14,000+ personnel in volunteer status in
the current 15-month AEF cycle (1 Dec 2000-28 Feb 2002). The challenge
for 2002 will be to meet ongoing AEF commitments with volunteers from a
Reserve Force which has had much of its operations and combat support
mobilized for homeland defense and the war on terrorism.
Through the dedicated efforts of our operators and maintainers,
along with assistance from our support personnel, AFRC flew 99.5
percent of the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funded portion of our
flying hour program. Due to the lack of available cargo and passengers,
we, like our fellow active duty and ANG partners, were unable to fly
the full Transportation Working Capital Fund (TWCF) commitment.
However, overall, this was our best year of flying hour execution
within the past 5 years.
Air Force Reserve Command personnel participated in several key
operational exercises in which combat training events were accomplished
by our members, while critical command and control processes were
tested and evaluated to determine overall readiness of our military
forces. Pacific Warrior was a medical exercise conducted in Hawaii in
which AFRC was the lead Air Force agent. Deployment and redeployment
consisted of 72 missions, 1,030 passengers, and 445 short tons of
equipment and supplies. Ground and aeromedical patient care and
evacuation was conducted utilizing all deployable specialties assigned
within the Air Force Medical Service. More than 1,000 patients were
treated and 533 patients were evacuated by aeromedical missions. Over
400 patients were moved via C-130 aircraft in the tactical phase and
130 patients were moved in the strategic phase. Additionally, units
performed a pre-F3 (form, fit, and function) on proposed new manpower
packages to validate proposed innovations in aeromedical support.
Exercise Consequence Island was a large Veterans Administration and
Federal Emergency Management Agency-sponsored exercise in Puerto Rico
to evaluate United States response capabilities to a weapons of mass
destruction attack. A big emphasis was on post attack health care
delivery and aeromedical evacuation. AFRC provided the majority of
airlift and aeromedical evacuation capabilities. The long hours and
changing dynamics of the exercise proved to be very realistic, and the
hard work, dedication, and problem solving abilities demonstrated by
our Reserve Forces made the exercise a big success.
Another operation with heavy AFRC involvement this past year was
Operation Palmetto Ghost, which is the resupply mission for Army
counter-drug operations in the Caribbean. Each quarter, this
requirement calls for a significant number of strategic and tactical
airlift sorties, as well as a Tactical Airlift Control Element (TALCE)
for command and control on the ground. Though this mission is not
assigned specifically to the Air Force Reserve, we stepped up to
provide the majority of the airlift support with C-5s, C-17s, C-141s,
and C-130s, and provided 100 percent of the TALCE support.
The past year saw the Reserve enhance their continued role in
training pilots for all Air Force components. As the Air Force
determined a requirement to increase the production of fighter pilots,
it became evident that our training capability needed to increase as
well. To meet that demand, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force directed
the Air Force Reserve to convert a combat flying unit to a training
flying unit. The 944th Fighter Wing at Luke AFB, Arizona now trains
active duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command pilots
in all phases of the F-16 formal training program. This program
utilizes its unit-equipped aircraft and instructor pilots assigned to
the 302d Fighter Squadron and the instructor pilots assigned to the
301st Fighter Squadron, the Air Forces' only associate F-16 training
organization. This associate squadron is an integral part of the
overall Air Force training capability. Through its use of highly
experienced instructor pilots, it is truly the benchmark upon which all
future operational training needs will be measured.
The Air Force Reserve Associate SUPT (Specialized Undergraduate
Pilot Training) Instructor Pilot Program is managed by the 340th Flying
Training Group at Randolph AFB, Texas. They provide administrative
control for Reserve flying training squadrons at six Air Force bases:
Laughlin, Randolph, and Sheppard in Texas; Columbus AFB, Mississippi;
Moody AFB, Georgia; and Vance AFB, Oklahoma. The units are associate in
nature and belong to the host active duty flying training wing for
operational control. They provide programmed flying training support
for all phases of SUPT. Overall, the AETC/AFRC Associate Instructor
Pilot Program provides 16 percent of all Air Force SUPT training
capability.
September 11, 2001 changed life in the United States forever, and
its impact on Air Force Reserve operations will also be felt for a long
time to come. Perhaps more so than any other potential scenario for
military operations, it highlighted the huge importance and unique
missions of the Air Force Reserve.
Air Force Reserve aeromedical evacuation (AE) aircrews were among
the first to respond and provided almost half of the immediate AE
response that was provided. Tragically, we found there was little need
for their service. The larger need was in mortuary affairs support, of
which the Air Force Reserve provides more than 75 percent of our Air
Force's capability. One hundred eighty-six trained reservists
immediately stepped forward, in volunteer status, for this demanding
mission. Reserve airlift crews were among the first to bring in
critical supplies, equipment and personnel, including emergency
response teams from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
fire trucks, search dogs, and earth moving equipment. F-16s fighters
and KC-135 air refueling tankers immediately began pulling airborne and
ground alert to provide combat air patrol support over major U.S.
cities. They were quickly joined by our AWACS aircrews and our C-130
aircrews under the direction of NORAD in support of Operation Noble
Eagle.
The response of our reservists in this time of crisis has been
simply overwhelming. Over 11,000 Air Force reservists have been
mobilized, and thousands more continue to provide daily support as
volunteers. Three thousand of those mobilized are Individual
Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs), providing critical support to the
Unified Commands, MAJCOMs, and various defense agencies supporting
homeland security efforts. Required support functions span the entire
breadth of Reserve capabilities . . . security forces, civil
engineering, rescue, special operations, strategic and tactical
airlift, air refueling, fighters, bombers, AWACs, command and control,
communications, satellite operations, logistics, intelligence, aerial
port, services, and medical. Never have I been so proud to be part of
the outstanding group of patriots who make up the Air Force Reserve
Command.
Equally important to the Air Force Reserve Command's ability to
meet the requirements being levied on us is family and employer
support. Their sacrifices and support make it possible for our members
to carry out their duties in such a spectacular manner.
recruiting and retention
While significant progress has been made in Air Force Reserve
recruiting and retention, my principal concern today remains attracting
and retaining high quality people.
Recruiting
In fiscal year 2001, the AFRC exceeded its recruiting goal for the
first time in 5 years. Also, we surpassed our fiscal year 2001 end
strength by achieving a final manning percentage of 100.6 percent of
our authorized end strength. This was possible only through outstanding
efforts of our recruiters, who accessed 105 percent of our recruiting
goal, and with the superb assistance of our assigned personnel who help
tell our story of the true value of service to country. Several
initiatives contributed to Reserve recruiting success. In fiscal year
2001, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) with great congressional support
increased recruiter authorizations by 50, instituted a new call center,
redesigned the web site, launched a ``Prior Service Other'' advertising
campaign, and re-energized the ``Get One Program'' in which current Air
Force Reserve members give recruiters referrals. Air Force Reserve
recruiting leads all other services in monthly accessions with 3.55 per
recruiter.
While fiscal year 2001 was an outstanding year for Reserve
recruiting, fiscal year 2002 is shaping up to be a very demanding year.
After September 11, ``Stop Loss'' was initiated for all service
members. Historically, Reserve recruiting directly accesses 25 percent
of eligible members (i.e. no break in service) separating from active
duty which accounts for a total of 30 percent of annual AFRC
accessions. Recruiting will have to make up that part of the goal, more
than 3,000, from other sources including ``non-prior'' and ``prior
service other'' (i.e. Air Force separatees with a break in service or
accessions from other services) applicants until stop loss is lifted.
Once lifted, we expect there will be challenges in filling many vacated
positions.
One of the biggest challenges for recruiters this year is Basic
Military Training (BMT) quotas. With recruiting services increased
emphasis on enlisting non-prior service applicants, BMT allocations
have not kept pace. This problem is forecasted to worsen this year as a
result of stop-loss since more non-prior applicants will have to be
accessed to offset the decrease in members separating from active duty.
We are working diligently to increase our number of BMT allocations and
explore solutions to address BMT shortfalls.
A new recruiting initiative we are currently implementing focuses
on bringing back retired military members. We are actively encouraging
retired members to continue serving their country by returning to
active service in the Air Force Reserve. By accessing retired military
members, the Air Force Reserve and Total Force benefit by gaining
personnel with proven experience, training, and leadership talents.
Moreover, we save valuable training dollars and benefit from the
specialty skills, experience and knowledge these individuals already
possess. Once returned, members earn additional pay, retirement points,
years of service, and promotion opportunity by returning to active
Reserve duty. Accessed members may continue serving as long as eligible
under High-Year Tenure (HYT) guidelines, Mandatory Separation Date
(MSD), or until age 60. This scenario presents a ``win-win'' situation
for the member and the Air Force and allows valued service members the
ability to continue serving while providing a vast amount of technical
and mentoring experience to our USAFR. We are processing our first
applicants and have discovered a couple of obstacles to effective
implementation along the way.
Retention
The Air Force Reserve exceeded Command retention goals for first
term airmen, second term airmen, and career airmen during fiscal year
2001. Again, it was the team effort of the members, first sergeants,
supervisors, and commanders that led us to this exceptional
achievement.
At the end of calendar year 2001, the USAFR was paying enlistment/
reenlistment bonuses in 67 percent of its traditional Reserve enlisted
specialty codes and 50 percent of the enlisted individual mobilization
augmentee specialty codes.
The Air Force Reserve is currently exploring the possibility of
expanding bonus authorities for air Reserve technicians and certain
career fields for active Guard and Reserve members. These initiatives
are designed to enhance both recruiting and retention of key Reserve
component assets. Additionally, special duty pay initiatives are also
being studied for later implementation for senior enlisted positions
such as command chief master sergeants and unit first sergeants.
We are continuing to pursue substantial enhancements to the
Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) and Career Enlisted Flyer
Incentive Pay (CEFIP) to increase retention in the aviation community,
as well as attract/retain individuals to aviation. These initiatives,
which effect over 13,343 officers and enlisted crew members in the
Guard and Reserve, are aimed at providing an incentive to our
traditional aviators who do not qualify for the Aviation Continuation
Pay for AGRs and the Special Salary Rate for Technicians.
Quality of Life Initiatives
To provide increased financial benefit to its members, the USAFR
began enrollment of its members in the congressionally authorized
Uniformed Services Thrift Savings Plan in October 2001. This program
allows members to augment their retirement income through ``401(k)''
type investment accounts.
To better provide insurance benefits for members, we began
implementation of the family coverage Service Member's Group Life
Insurance (SGLI) program. This program allows the spouse and children
of a service member to be covered for specified SGLI insurance coverage
amounts. The enhanced coverage program allows service members and their
families to take advantage of a comprehensive insurance package that
might not be otherwise available to them.
In sum, the matter of recruiting and retention is an issue of major
concern to me, and we are taking positive steps to address ongoing
recruiting and retention challenges as I lead the Air Force Reserve in
this new millenium
readiness and modernization
Readiness
As full participants in the Total Air Force, our readiness remains
fair overall. At present, the Air Force as a whole is in the process of
addressing a significant decline in readiness level due to sustained
OPTEMPO, cumulative effect of chronic underfunding, declining skill-
level manning and aging equipment. It will take several years of
significant investment to restore readiness through substantial and
sustained recapitalization of people, equipment, infrastructure, and
``info''-structure. Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom will
also require a reconstitution period to regain pre-attack readiness
levels. Reserve units have comparable equipment in quantities
proportional to their active duty counterparts and participate in day-
to-day operations, exercises, and training. Reserve units train to
active duty standards and receive regular inspections from their
gaining major commands.
Our 70 assigned F-16s, using the information being provided through
the LITENING II targeting pod combined with Global Positioning System
(GPS) software enhancements, provide a remarkable precision munitions
delivery capability. This outstanding capability, combined with the
information being provided through the Situational Awareness Data Link
(SADL), give our pilots a capability that is acknowledged as one of the
weapon systems of choice for combat missions. We have seen in
operations in Southwest Asia, both in Iraq and most recently in
Afghanistan, how this capability in the hands of our experienced pilots
provides combatant commanders the ability to conduct attacks against
``time-critical targets'' in conjunction with the Predator. The F-16
pilot can put a laser mark on the target for confirmation by the
Predator controller. So now, the Predator and its controller are
operating as a Forward Air Controller from a remote location.
Our B-52 aircrews were among the first to deploy in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom. Their efforts have been superb and clearly
demonstrated that value of this weapon system in today's arsenal of
capabilities. While the B-52 was first built 50 years ago, it shows, on
a daily basis, it has a ``mean bite'' and remains the enemy's ``worst
nightmare.''
Modernization
As AFRC continues to work within the Active component structure,
modernization is key to our ability to provide like capability for
deployed operations and homeland defense. This is true across our
airlift/special mission areas, as well as with our bomber, fighter, and
aerial refueling aircraft.
As AFRC moves into the future and we analyze our interoperability
with the Active component (AC), a key issue is our ability to work
within the AC structure while providing like capability. AFRC has 127
C-130s including the E, H, J, and the N/P models. Air Mobility Command,
as the lead command for C-130 modernization, has published a ``Road
Map'' detailing the fleet modernization schedule. Near term
modernization specifics for the AFRC C-130 fleet are additional
removable cockpit armor sets for deploying aircraft, traffic alert and
collision avoidance systems, autopilot replacements, and night vision
compatible aircraft lighting systems. Specifically for the HC-130, we
have equipped nine HC-130s with the APN-241 navigation ground map radar
to improve aircrew survivability and weapon system reliability. Also in
the combat search and rescue area we are beginning the upgrade of the
forward-looking infrared for the HH-60G helicopter fleet.
AFRC equipment is compatible to support all applicable Air Force
missions. One exceptional highlight is the 10 WC-130H aircraft at
Keesler Air Force Base, MS soon to be replaced by 10 WC-130J models.
These aircraft and crews are specially trained and equipped to
penetrate severe storms while collecting and transmitting data to a
special ground station. The extensive meteorological data necessary to
track and forecast the movement of these severe storms requires a
dedicated aircraft with special equipment and crew. Conversion to the
WC-130J should be completed in 2002.
There are 52 O/A-10 aircraft assigned to the Air Force Reserve
inventory. Plans call for upgrading all A-10 aircraft with the revamped
precision engagement program that will incorporate Situational
Awareness Data Link, targeting pods, and smart weapons capability. This
precision engagement modification, with its major upgrade in
communications, is a key stepping stone that will be key to keeping the
current ground attack fighters (F-16, F-15E and A-10) compatible with
the next generation of information intensive ground attack system, the
Joint Strike Fighter.
AFRC's 70 KC-135E/R aircraft provide about 13 percent of the Air
Force's KC-135 aerial refueling capability. In an effort to increase
reliability and sustainability, the Air Force began a KC-135 engine
retrofit in 1996. There are 16 AFRC KC-135E aircraft requiring upgrades
to the KC-135R configuration.
In addition, modernization of the avionics and navigation systems
on all Air Force KC-135 continues, including those in the AFRC
inventory. Called Pacer CRAG (compass, radar, and global positioning
system), the project provides for a major overhaul of the KC-135
cockpit to improve the reliability and maintainability of the
aircraft's compass and radar systems.
The project also meets the congressionally-mandated requirement to
install the GPS in all Defense Department aircraft. As an added safety
measure for formation flying, a traffic collision avoidance system
(TCAS) will be installed. TCAS will give pilots the ability to actively
monitor other aircraft and will provide advance warning of possible
mid-air collisions.
In 2002 we will continue to work closely with Air Mobility Command
to finalize the Air Staff led Mobility Tiger Team beddown plan for the
C-17 aircraft and establish viable, long-term replacement missions for
our C-141 locations. Currently our C-141s are scheduled to leave the
inventory starting in fiscal year 2004. AMC is working hard to ensure
Reserve mobility experience is preserved and follow-on missions for
these units is a top priority. A great deal of work remains to be done
and senior leaders at Air Force Reserve Command are engaged at every
level. Already funding has been secured to ensure our C-141 manpower is
retained; operation and maintenance dollars will follow once
replacement missions are finalized in the 2004 program.
new missions
In the 21st century, the U.S. Air Force anticipates deriving its
strength from the flexibility and diversity of its integrated active
duty, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard more than ever before.
Optimum use of Air Force component resources is critical in providing
the complete potential of American aerospace power. Future campaigns
will include new ways to optimize the Active, Reserve, and Guard
components to make the best use of our resources and people and to
build on a foundation of high standards and strong cooperation among
the components.
September 11 attacks have brought homeland security to the
forefront with the publication of Executive Order 13228 establishing
the Office of Homeland Security. Total Force components are being
called upon to counter a new class of foreign and domestic terrorist
threats with both defensive and offensive actions. Air Force Reserve
Command has begun the process of identifying and coordinating the
extent of its role and participation in homeland defense. Among
foreseeable needs relating to this vital mission are augmentation of
existing security forces, firefighters, and home station operational
support personnel, both full-time and traditional Reserve.
Both AFRC and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) see space as a
growing mission area in which AFRC can help support Department of
Defense and national requirements. To that end we will maintain our
work with AFSPC in the determination of long-range plans in space
operations and support. We currently provide over 8 percent of total
Air Force Space Capability and have the capacity to contribute even
more with this growing mission.
Our 310th Space Group at Schriever AFB, Colorado provides direct
warfighter support to 14th Air Force at Vandenberg AFB, California. In
addition, many AFRC squadrons and units have been established within
AFSPC to provide full mission support, including satellite operators
that provide support for Global Positioning System and Defense Support
Program surge requirements.
The 6th Satellite Operations Squadron, the only unit-equipped space
squadron in AFRC, operates the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
in support of both the Commerce Department and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Full- and part-time operational augmentation to the Space-Based
Infrared Radar System at Buckley AFB, Colorado, the Satellite
Operations Center at Vandenberg AFB, California, and the 17th Test
Squadron at the Space Warfare Center at Schriever AFB, Colorado, round
out our current involvement in the space mission area. As we develop
our synergistic relationship with AFSPC, we continue to look at
additional mission area projects for potential implementation.
AFRC has one existing Air Operations Center (AOC) supporting
organization--the 701st Combat Operations Squadron, March AFB,
California. This unit represents approximately 33 percent of the
current AOC units, with Active component units in Korea and Germany,
and Air National Guard units in Missouri and New York. Plans for at
least three additional AOC units are projected for fiscal year 2002 and
beyond, with one additional tasking for an AFRC organization. All
command and control units will provide equipment and/or manning support
for an eventual 19 AOC units for aerospace command and control
operations worldwide. Eventual crew and equipment standardization will
promote effective aerospace command and control in the United States
and abroad.
Final Thoughts
The Air Force Reserve supports the Air Force mission to defend the
United States through control and exploitation of air and space by
providing global reach and global power. As we have repeatedly
witnessed, the Air Force Reserve Command plays an integral role in the
day-to-day Air Force mission and is not a force held in Reserve for
possible war or contingency operations.
The events of September 11 clearly changed our normal manner of
business as we continue to fulfill the needs of our Nation, maintain
our increased vigilance, and prepare for the unexpected. As we are
presented with new and challenging missions, I remain confident in the
tremendous capabilities of reservists to measure up to the task.
While this new mission activity continues, we need to keep our
focus--assess the impact of stop loss on our operations, provide
adequate funding for continuing activations, and keep an eye on
sustaining our recruiting efforts. The challenge will be to retain our
experience base and keep our prior service levels high.
Based on the actions of reservists over the past year and
especially since September 11, I'm sure the challenge will be met by
the outstanding men and women assigned to Air Force Reserve Command. It
is these hardworking, professional, and patriotic individuals who are
the heart and soul of the command. Our accomplishments during this past
year are the accomplishments of everyday Americans who are proud to
serve.
In summary, Air Force Reserve Command is committed to meeting our
people, readiness and modernization challenges, to remain a fully
integrated partner with the Air Force. Reservists with the support of
their families and civilian employers enable AFRC to be fully combat
capable and meet its worldwide commitments.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and your subcommittee once again for your
assistance in making us part of the world's best air force, the USAF. I
appreciate the opportunity to meet with the subcommittee today to share
my views with you, and I look forward to answering any questions you
might have for me.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, General.
General McCarthy.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. DENNIS M. McCARTHY, USMCR, COMMANDER,
MARINE FORCES RESERVE
General McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I join my
colleagues in saying thanks for the opportunity to appear this
morning, and even more importantly, for the consistent support
that your committee has provided.
Like everyone else, I am enormously proud of the people
with whom I serve. The marines and sailors and Marine Forces
Reserve have really stepped up to the plate during this
emergency, but they have not done anything that they really
were not doing very well before this really critical period
began.
I am also proud of the way our Commandant and our Corps
have used the Marine Forces Reserve--in my judgment, exactly
right. We are a combat unit force, and he has resisted some
pretty heavy pressure to start breaking that force up and
piecemealing its employment. The fact is, it remains a force in
readiness for whatever the future role will bring.
There are two issues that I wanted to highlight from my
prepared remarks, and the first has to do with medical care.
The committee made great progress last year, I believe, in
working a provision to help Reserves who were leaving active
duty to transition back to their private health care, and that
is an important step forward, but as I think the committee has
recognized since Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert
Storm, the Reserve components of all of the services have been
used in a dramatically different way.
We have more and more Reserve members, Guard members who
are flowing back and forth between Active and Reserve service,
repeatedly changing their status for relatively brief periods
of time. The model of our health care system simply does not
support that. We need some kind of a portable system that will
ensure that a marine and his or her family are protected as
they move back and forth and transition from Active status to
Reserve and back again.
I would also echo the point that Admiral Totushek made
about TRICARE for our service members, and in our case
primarily Active component members who support the Reserve
around the country and depend on the TRICARE remote system.
Every place I go, I talked to people about that. That remains a
real constant source of concern for marines and sailors who are
assigned around the country.
The other point I would like to make dovetails to your
discussion with earlier panels on the Montgomery GI Bill. The
Montgomery GI Bill is and can be a powerful tool for retention.
I have suggested several times, and I do so in my prepared
testimony, that you to consider expanding the way that is
applied to the Reserve.
Right now, you have to enlist in the Reserve for 6 years of
Active service in order to be entitled to the Montgomery GI
Bill provisions. We would ask that you expand that so that a
young man or woman who enlists in the Reserve for 4 years of
Active service followed by 4 years in the Individual Ready
Reserve (IRR) could also qualify for the Montgomery GI Bill.
It would be revenue-neutral. It does not cost any money. We
would simply spread the available benefit to a wider group of
marines, and I think that would have tremendous benefit for us
as we go through the process of retaining and recruiting men
and women for this force. Those two points are important. There
are obviously others, but I stand by to try to respond to any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Lieutenant General McCarthy
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Dennis M. McCarthy, USMCR
Chairman Cleland, Senator Hutchinson, and distinguished members of
the subcommittee, it is my privilege to report on the status and the
future direction of your Marine Corps Reserve as a contributor to the
Total Force. On behalf of marines and their families, I want to thank
the subcommittee for its continued support. Your efforts reveal not
only a commitment for ensuring the common defense, but also a genuine
concern for the welfare of our marines and their families.
current status
The Marine Corps Reserve continues to make an extraordinary
contribution at home and abroad, most evident now during this time of
crisis. With Reserve personnel reporting daily on active duty orders,
by the end of February we are projecting the number of Marine
reservists activated in support of the global war on terrorism at
nearly 5,000. From provisional security platoons manning the fence line
at the U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, to a reaction force ready to
respond to terrorist attacks on American soil, the men and women of
your Marine Corps Reserve are ready, willing, and able to answer the
call to duty.
The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center had a direct and
personal impact on the Marine Corps Reserve. Two heroic marines,
Gunnery Sergeant Matthew Garvey and Corporal Sean Tallon, both members
of FDNY, made the ultimate sacrifice when the buildings collapsed
during their desperate efforts to save others. The Secretary of the
Navy awarded both marines the Navy and Marine Corp Medal, posthumously,
for their extraordinary heroism.
Today we have 172,600 marines in the Active component and another
39,558 in the Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR). This force can be
expanded by drawing from the 60,000 marines who serve in the Individual
Ready Reserve (IRR). As an integral part of our Total Force, Reserve
Marines augment and reinforce the Active component by performing a
variety of missions in wartime and in peacetime. The missions assigned
to our Reserves in the global war on terrorism are a clear reflection
that Marine Forces Reserve (MARFORRES) possesses capabilities across
the full spectrum of military operations.
- Two provisional security platoons have relieved two Fleet
Anti-terrorism Support Team (FAST) platoons of the security
mission at U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay.
- Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron (HMH) 772 will be deploying
its CH-53s and personnel with the 24th Marine Expeditionary
Unit.
- 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines and 2nd Battalion, 25th Marines
will act as ready reaction forces in support of homeland
security.
- Civil affairs and intelligence detachments are augmenting I
and II Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) staffs, along with
detachments from our MEF Augmentation Command Elements.
- 25th Marines regimental headquarters, HMH-769, and
detachments from Marine Aerial Transport Squadrons 234 and 452
are providing much needed operational tempo relief for our
Active Component Forces. The mobilization of our Reserves for
the global war on terrorism has been a very deliberate and
prudent process. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General
Jones, has stressed the need to scrutinize and validate every
request for Reserve support. The priority mission for the
Reserve is to augment and reinforce the operating forces;
therefore, the Marine Corps must be judicious in committing its
Reserves to ``other'' missions.
The partial mobilization authorized by President Bush gave the
Marine Corps full access to the IRR. This pool of trained and
experienced Reserves has always been particularly important to the
Marine Corps to fill critical individual augmentation requirements. We
have attempted to activate marines most ready and willing to serve in
order to avoid, as much as possible, disrupting the lives of our IRR
members and their families. Our Reserve Career Management Team added a
database link to their well-established website for individual Reserves
to identify themselves and their skills and their availability for
activation. The database has been used to assess individuals with
specific skills and fill validated requirements.
Our close partnership with the U.S. Navy has been evident in the
mobilization process. When two platoons from Company B, 1st Battalion,
23rd Marines were mobilized in early November, their Navy Reserve
Program Nine corpsmen were mobilized on the same timeline and deployed
with the marines to Guantanamo Bay. This success from one of our first
unit activations has carried over to subsequent activations and is
directly attributable to the close coordination of our marines and
their Navy counterparts. Also, for the first time we have activated the
Medical Augmentation Program, which provides active duty Navy personnel
to support certain SMCR units.
The ability of the Reserve to rapidly mobilize and integrate into
the Active component in response to the Marine Corps' operational
requirements is a tribute to the dedication, professionalism, and
warrior spirit of every member of Marine Forces Reserve. Our future
success relies firmly on the Marine Corps' most valuable asset--our
marines and their families.
One of our top concerns is the provision of an affordable health
care benefit for Reserve Marines as they transition to and from periods
of active duty, which we believe is necessary to support the increased
use of the Reserve. Switching into and out of TRICARE clearly adds to
the burdens the families bear when the Reserve member is called away.
We need your continued support to attract and retain quality men
and women in the Marine Corps Reserve. While we experienced a surge in
prior service recruiting after September 11, the recruiting challenge
remains. This year our prior service recruiters were integrated with
Marine Corps Recruiting Command, which has always had our non-prior
service recruiting mission, to provide more synergy in our overall
recruiting effort. Our mission is to find those potential marines who
choose to manage a commitment to their family, their communities, their
civilian careers, and the Corps. While such dedication requires self-
discipline and personal sacrifices that cannot be justified by a drill
paycheck alone, adequate compensation and retirement benefits are
tangible incentives for attracting and retaining quality personnel.
During the past fiscal year we achieved 102 percent of our
recruiting goals for both prior service and non-prior service marines.
It was not easy! Our retention rates for Reserve enlisted marines who
stay beyond their initial obligation are also improving. We do,
however, still have some work to do in keeping non-prior service
Reserve Marines in a satisfactory participation status for the full
length of their obligated drilling commitment. The incentives provided
by Congress, such as the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and the MGIB Kicker
(Kicker) educational benefits, enlistment bonuses, medical and dental
benefits, and commissary and PX privileges, have helped us to attract
and to retain capable, motivated, and dedicated marines, which has
contributed to the stability of our force.
The MGIB and the Kicker, which provide up to $600.00 per month for
college, are our most popular incentives. But, they compete with more
lucrative educational enticements offered by the National Guard. I
appreciate the additional MGIB funding Congress provided in fiscal year
2001. It expanded our ability to offer the Kicker to more marines in
critical billets and it helped to level the field of competition
between the Guard and the Reserve component.
Many of our Reserve marines serve initially in the Active
component, and we staff transitional recruiting stations at Marine
Corps bases and stations to begin the prior service recruiting process
before marines leave active duty. Congressional support for increased
educational benefits and reenlistment and affiliation bonuses in fiscal
year 2001 helped us attract these marines to join and to stay in our
units. During that year, not only did we exceed our enlisted accession
goal, but unit attrition decreased by 2 percentage points to 27.1
percent, well within our target range.
The Marine Corps Reserve today is a daily use force, not just
dedicated solely to supporting a Major Theater of War effort. Our
contribution to Total Force requirements, measured in terms of work-
days, has doubled from an average of 150,000 work-days per year, to
well over 300,000 in recent years. This fiscal year, the Marine Corps
Reserve is assuming the marine portion of the United American States
(UNITAS) deployment around South America, a major OPTEMPO relief
effort. The goal is to assign the UNITAS deployment to the Reserve
every other year. We are using the Reserve for manpower augmentation to
Active and Reserve staffs, units, and exercise forces by providing
short-term and full-time personnel to plan and perform training,
administration, maintenance, and logistical support not otherwise
available through existing manpower levels or traditional Reserve
participation (drills and annual training). These additional personnel
are also of absolute necessity in maintaining our ability to plan and
participate in OPTEMPO relief operations, Joint and Combined Exercises,
and essential combat, combat support, and combat service support
training. To meet Total Force training and support requirements
sufficient funding in Special Training and ADSW-AC is critical.
Maintaining overall SMCR end strength at 39,558 (including 2,261
Active Reserves) will ensure the Marine Corps Reserve's capability to
provide OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO relief to Active Marine Forces, maintain
sufficient full-time support at our small unit sites, and retain
critical aviation and ground equipment maintenance capabilities. The
current Marine Forces Reserve Force structure also reflects a small
tooth-to-tail ratio with a minimal number of active duty personnel in
support of a majority of deployable warfighters.
future roles and missions
As directed by QDR-01, we are participating in the comprehensive
review of Reserve Forces. In the process we will look at possible new
missions and organizations for our Reserve Force to better integrate
with the Active component in support of our new National Military
Strategy. We conducted a similar internal review in 2001 at the
direction of our Commandant. Regardless of what changes may result, we
know that certain challenges will remain.
Our future commitments depend on our marines to be ready, willing,
and able to respond quickly to contingencies worldwide, as they have
thus far in the war on terrorism. The value of the Marine Corps Reserve
has always been measured in our ability to effectively augment and
reinforce the Active component. Accordingly, all operational units of
the SMCR have been assigned to a unified combatant commander and
apportioned to each commander in chief (CINC) for Major Theater War
(MTW) plans. In the event of an MTW, our Reserve commanders know: when
and where they can expect to mobilize and deploy, what missions and
tasks they will be expected to perform, and which Active component
commander will employ them in combat. Most Marine Reserve units are
identified to deploy in the earliest phases of a conflict, to include
units identified to marry up with Maritime Prepositioned Shipping
equipment. These facts clearly demonstrate how important the Marine
Corps Reserve is to the total Marine Corps planning effort.
The demands of the global war on terrorism will increase
operational challenges and amplify the need to effectively resource the
Marine Corps Reserve. Congressional support for increased use of the
Reserve has been a key element in providing OPTEMPO relief to the
Active Forces, and we seek your continued support. With proper planning
that takes into account the specific demographics of the Marine Corps
Reserve, and with adequate resources, we can do more and still take
care of our marines.
Our Commandant has made it clear that combat readiness and personal
and family readiness are inseparable. We are aggressively working to
strengthen the readiness of our marines and families by enhancing their
quality of life (QOL). Our many Marine Forces Reserve Marine Corps
Community Services (MCCS) programs and services are designed and being
developed to reach all marines and their families regardless of
geographic location; a significant and challenging undertaking
considering the geographic dispersion of our marines and their families
throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico. One area I'm particularly proud of
is our Marine Corps Family Team Building program. During the past 3
years we have made a considerable commitment and investment in
building, training, and supporting family readiness teams--comprised of
marines and volunteers--at sites and units across the force. In short,
these teams are vital to our family readiness efforts prior to, during,
and after a deployment or mobilization. Our other MCCS programs include
chaplain delivered retreats; physical fitness and healthy lifestyle
programs; children, youth, and teen support; and continuing education
programs just to name a few. Much work remains to extend MCCS programs
and services to our unique force, but even today MCCS is positively
impacting our mobilization readiness.
The most sacred honor we can provide veterans is that of a military
funeral. The Active duty staff members and Reserve marines at our 185
manned sites performed approximately 5,750 funerals in 2001 and we
project to support approximately 7,000 funerals this year. The
authorization and funding to bring Reserve marines on active duty to
perform funeral honors has particularly assisted us at sites like
Bridgeton, MO, where we perform several funerals each week. We
appreciate Congress exempting these marines from counting against
active duty end strength. Furthermore, as a result of the increase in
funeral honors, we have realized increased operations and maintenance
costs associated with vehicle maintenance and fuel for transportation
of funeral honors duties and for the cleaning and maintenance of dress
uniforms. Continued support for military funeral honors funding, in our
Military Personnel and Operation and Maintenance accounts, is critical
to ensuring mission success in this most worthwhile endeavor.
Our Career Management Team (CMT) continues to expand its efforts to
support ``Career reservists''--those marine officers and enlisted who
have completed their initial obligation and who remain affiliated. The
CMT staff provides record reviews and counseling, offers career
guidance, and communicates promotion information to assist and guide
Reserve marines in making the best possible career decisions. Via the
CMT website, marines can access CMT services as well as find and apply
for open Reserve billets and ADSW opportunities using the Reserve Duty
On-Line (RDOL) database. RDOL replaces the Reserve Career Management
Support System and allows units to advertise billet vacancies and ADSW
opportunities and provides units with online visibility of marines who
are actively seeking Reserve career options. RDOL will also be the
linchpin in our effort to leverage the civilian job skills of our
marines. We want to stratify the IRR to tap into skills not associated
with traditional Marine Corps military occupational specialties but
needed for special assignments. The RDOL will include the capability to
capture and maintain data on civilian job skills, as well as allowing
Reserve marines to identify their periods of availability.
The Marine For Life Program is being developed to achieve the
Commandant's vision of ``improving assistance for our almost 27,000
marines each year who honorably leave active service and return to
civilian life, while reemphasizing the value of an honorable
discharge.'' The Marine For Life Program will enhance current
assistance by providing valuable sponsorship to these marines as they
transition to civilian life. The Marine for Life Program will build,
develop, and nurture a nationwide network of transitioning marines,
veterans, retirees, Marine Corps affiliated organizations, and friends
of the Corps. The program will foster a mutually supportive life-long
relationship between the marine, his/her Corps, and the public that we
serve, thereby strengthening our ethos of ``Once A Marine, Always A
Marine.'' The Marine For Life program has entered the formal
acquisition process and initial opertional capability with at least 50
hometown links across America will be achieved by summer 2002.
Our benchmark for achieving our goals is simple--``One Corps, One
Standard'' for all marines, Active and Reserve. The Marine Corps Total
Force System (MCTFS), our single integrated personnel and pay system,
encompasses the records of all marines in a single logical database. To
meet the unique requirements of the Reserve, we are constructing MCTFS
compatible automated systems to reduce costs and provide better service
to our marines. An example is the Reserve Order Writing System (ROWS),
fielded just last month, which integrates our orders request and
writing systems and facilitates reconciliation of funding obligations,
thereby expediting orders and travel processing for our Reserves coming
on Active duty. We actively participate in development of the Total
Force Administration initiatives, a Marine Corps program to update and
further automate our Manpower Management System.
The U.S. Navy continues to directly support MARFORRES personnel
readiness by providing over 2,700 medical, dental, religious, and naval
gunfire support staff. I enthusiastically support the Navy plan to fund
a full 15-day annual training for these sailors in fiscal year 2002 and
out. Our joint training is essential to the successful accomplishment
of our training and operational mission.
summary
The Marine Corps Reserve is ready, willing and able to answer our
Nation's call to duty in the global war on terrorism, as has been so
well demonstrated by the mobilization and integration of Reserves into
the Active component. Our greatest asset is our outstanding young men
and women in uniform. Your consistent and steadfast support of our
marines and their families has directly contributed to our success. The
Marine Corps appreciates your continued support and collaboration in
making the Marine Corps and its Reserve the Department of Defense model
for Total Force integration and expeditionary capability.
Senator Cleland. Thank you all very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Duehring, obviously we have had some challenges here.
When we call up reservists to do active duty around the world,
Lord knows, in today's unstable environment one can go anywhere
at any time. Is the Department of Defense working on a Reserve
benefits package, and if so, what are the benefits you are
considering? We have heard challenges about health care and
portability.
Mr. Duehring. We have done quite a bit since this began.
Some of the programs were started prior to September 11. The
TRICARE guidance that we gave out was that you can qualify for
TRICARE if you are on active duty for 30 days or more, TRICARE
Prime if it is over 179 days, and so we gave guidance to our
people that when you call people up, when you mobilize them, we
recommended a year. That gives us some options, some time to
work at least. It made those people and their families eligible
to use the TRICARE system.
We also waived the annual deduction of $300 for those who
were in TRICARE Prime. We waived the nonavailability statement
for in-patient care outside of military treatment facilities
and authorized up to a 15 percent payment greater than what
TRICARE normally would authorize if you were using a doctor or
facility that did not normally take TRICARE. We were trying to
encourage these other facilities to accept our people.
We put together a mobilization guide that is now available
on the Internet, so we do not have to worry about distributing
it through normal means. In fact, I saw it printed out, and it
was about this thick. It was just about the size of these
testimony papers here, which our folks can access and use in
preparation for mobilizing.
We have a family tool kit that is again about this same
size, that answers a lot of the questions that the spouses may
have about their family members, about where they go for help.
We have a wonderful family support center program that is
working very well, I think. They are coming to our offices in
the Pentagon, and we are recognizing the work they have done to
help our folks out.
I cannot go very far without talking about ESGR, Employer
Support for the Guard and Reserve. We have about 35 people in
this office working as hard as they can, with so many of the
employers around the country, and helping them. We have a team
of about 3,600 volunteers, 250 of whom are trained ombudsmen
who will actually go out into the workplace and work some of
the problems whenever they are identified to us. They can call
a 1-800 number, they can e-mail, any way they wish, and we will
actually get involved in the individual cases as a result.
I did a survey yesterday because I knew we would be here
today talking about this. I said, what are you hearing about
complaints, what are the phone calls telling you? They said, we
are not getting any, and I said, come on, you have to be. After
6 months in this program, you have to be getting complaints.
They said, not really. We are not getting many complaints at
all.
I said, if you have to pick one area where you were still
having some problems, what would it be? They said, well, we get
most of our calls actually from Federal Government agencies
that are losing their people and needing help and asking how we
make this transition.
So the program has been very effective. We have about 94
companies we have identified that are giving differential pay
incentives. We have a study ongoing talking about the medical
program, how to make that more seamless, how to make that
transition. We have another study we are doing on how to make
the transition from the Reserve life into the active duty phase
more seamless.
Right now, we think there are 32 different ways to come on
active duty, and that is just far too complex. These folks have
been helping us tremendously by identifying the problems, and
we have quite a number of different programs underway to try
and resolve them.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Thank all of you for coming today. Thank you for waiting, and
the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Max Cleland
dacowits
1. Senator Cleland. Dr. Chu, women serve very important roles in
all of our Armed Services. Today, they comprise about 14.6 percent of
our military personnel. Over the years, the Defense Advisory Committee
on Women in the Services, commonly referred to as DACOWITS, has given
the Secretary of Defense valuable advice on issues concerning our
female service members. We have recently received letters from
constituents expressing concern about the future of DACOWITS, and
recent press reports indicate that some groups have urged that the
charter for DACOWITS not be renewed. What is your view on the value of
the service of our female service members and of DACOWITS' role in
advising the Secretary of Defense?
Dr. Chu. Women service members are an integral and valued part of
our team. We anticipate no changes to long-standing policies that have
provided women service members with unparalleled opportunities to serve
and succeed. Our commitment to them remains steadfast.
For the past 50 years, DACOWITS has functioned as an important
advisory committee to inform the Secretary of Defense and military
service leadership on matters affecting women service members. It has
also been an important forum for surfacing the issues and concerns of
the women of the Armed Forces. We are committed to ensuring the voices
of the women of the Armed Forces continue to be heard.
2. Senator Cleland. Dr. Chu, do you support renewing the charter
for DACOWITS?
Dr. Chu. On March 5, 2002, the Department announced a reconstituted
role for DACOWITS. The committee will be revitalized to make it more
relevant, efficient, and effective. The new charter will focus the
activities of the committee to provide recommendations with regard to
recruiting and retaining highly qualified professional women while
continuing to consider their treatment, employment, integration, and
well-being. Under its new charter, the committee's focus will also
include making recommendations on how to improve conditions for those
who serve and their families.
vaccination policy
3. Senator Cleland. Dr. Chu, both the House and Senate have had
great interest in the Department's policy for vaccinating military
personnel against anthrax. This committee held several full committee
hearings where commanders testified that this was a force protection
issue and they strongly encouraged support for the policy that required
vaccination of all service members. The assessment that the threat of
the use of anthrax was real was born out by the release of anthrax
right here in the Senate Hart building. Despite testimony from the FDA
and Service Surgeons General, some groups objected to the policy,
claiming that the vaccine produces an unacceptable level of adverse
effects. The Department was forced to curtail the anthrax vaccination
immunization program because it was running out of FDA approved
vaccine. Now that the FDA has approved the license for the manufacture
of anthrax vaccine, the supply of approved vaccine has greatly
increased. Is the Department going to reinstate its previous policy
requiring the vaccination of all service members, or adopt some
different policy?
Dr. Chu. The Department of Defense is evaluating policy options to
determine the most appropriate anthrax vaccine policy in response to
what we all now know is a very real threat. Once the Secretary has
determined the anthrax vaccination policy we will notify Members of
Congress. Our primary concern is the health and safety of our men and
women in uniform.
army end strength
4. Senator Cleland. Mr. Brown, the Army Reserve and the Army
National Guard have made it clear that their number one readiness issue
is full-time manning. The Army developed an 11-year plan for gradually
increasing the number of military technicians and Army Guard Reserves
(AGRs) to gradually reach a minimally acceptable level of full-time
manning. Last year, the administration's legislative proposal didn't
provide for the first year's increase in these personnel, but we fixed
that in our authorization bill by authorizing the personnel increases
to meet the plan's first year full-time manning goals. Does the
Department's budget proposal for fiscal year 2003 provide for the
second year of the Army's 11-year plan? If not, why not?
Mr. Brown. The fiscal year 2003 budget submission does not support
increasing the Reserve component full-time manning program during
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 due to more pressing funding
priorities. The Army recognizes and supports the critical issue of
full-time manning for the Reserve components. We have resourced
additional full-time manning to support the 11-year plan in fiscal
years 2005-2007.
5. Senator Cleland. Dr. Chu, we continue to hear that our Armed
Forces are stretched to the limit; that we do not have enough military
personnel. Did any of the services propose increases in their Active
duty end strengths for fiscal year 2003, and what is your view of the
need for such increases?
Dr. Chu. In their fiscal year 2003 budget requests, the services
all expressed their views that additional military manpower is required
to fight the war on terrorism and perform associated force protection
responsibilities. In particular, the Marine Corps requested 2,400
additional military members to stand up an expeditionary brigade
focused on providing a proactive anti-terrorism capability. This
increase was included in our budget request. While we believe that, in
isolation, many of the services' requests have merit, the Secretary is
concerned that many, if not all, of these emerging missions can be
satisfied by redirecting military manpower from lower priority
requirements.
To achieve the Secretary's objective, the Department has initiated
several studies that will evaluate overseas presence, re-examine
missions and military engagements worldwide, exploit technology, and
capitalize on our ongoing efforts to streamline headquarters and
identify workloads that do not require active duty military personnel
for conversion to civilian or commercial performance. We expect these
studies to be completed by late summer. We are confident that the
results of these studies will help posture our military resources to
the areas that truly require unique military skills, focusing military
manpower on the most critical missions, while simultaneously reducing
operations and personnel tempo.
end strength
6. Senator Cleland. Mr. Dominguez, Mr. Navas, and Mr. Brown, did
your respective service request an end strength increase, and does your
service have all the personnel you need to carry out all of your
missions and not wear out your people?
Mr. Dominguez. The events of September 11 exacerbated both our
overall and High Demand/Low Density OPTEMPO, resulting in a higher
steady state manpower requirement in certain specialties. While we have
been able to meet our end strength requirements short-term through the
partial mobilization of the Reserve components and stop-loss actions,
these tools may affect Total Force retention down the road. We must
plan to exit from stop loss, while also allowing our dedicated Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel to return to their
normal, citizen-airman roles in the future. In achieving that end,
Secretary Rumsfeld has challenged us to pursue more innovative
solutions to offset the need for end strength growth. We see this as
one more dimension of our transformation effort, and are investigating
a variety of options for shifting resources from ``tail to tooth.'' We
are also looking at cross-leveling within our force to lessen impact on
stressed AFSCs. These ``fixes'' will take time to develop and
implement, however, while the stress on our force is very much here and
now.
Mr. Navas. My response is in two parts to address Navy and Marine
Corps needs separately.
Re Navy: New requirements have emerged in force protection as we
increase our baseline posture across the Navy to the heightened
condition of Threat Condition Bravo Plus. Nearly 4,400 additional
personnel are required to adequately safeguard our ships and stations
against potential terrorist attacks. The Reserve activation has gone a
long way in helping us fill these requirements in the short-term, but
our ability to maintain the heightened security posture will gradually
diminish as Selected Reserves are demobilized.
The fiscal year 2003 budget request seeks an end strength
authorization of 375,700, while the additional AT/FP tasking increases
our total fiscal year 2003 manpower requirement to 380,083. Congress
has authorized the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) to permit the services
to over execute end strength by up to 2 percent. While the difference
between the budget request and actual manpower requirement could be
accommodated within SECDEF's 2 percent discretion, the cost of over
executing end strength to meet requirements is unfunded. We continue to
examine our manpower requirements against the existing end strength
flexibility provided by Congress. For example, thanks to increased
retention and reduced attrition across the board in the Navy, we have
already been able to reduce the fiscal year 2002 accession missions by
4,000. As retention improves, the cost of the resultant richer force
mix will increase beyond current budget authority. When combined with
mission driven increases in manpower execution, the estimated funding
necessary to support Navy manning increases to $427 million.
In keeping with Navy's longstanding deployment practices we are
well positioned to continue to perform our mission without further
impact on our sailors. However, while Navy will do what it takes to win
the war on terrorism it is reasonable to anticipate a decline in the
current strong retention rate, given the uncertainty of current and
future extended deployments.
Re Marine Corps: For the past decade, the Marine Corps has
aggressively examined its force structure to ensure effective Marine
and civilian-marine staffing in our operating forces at the level
required by the tempo and variety of full spectrum capabilities. To
date, we have made substantial progress in increasing the manning in
our operating forces by shifting approximately 2,500 marines from the
supporting establishment. However, the new security environment has
increased our Nation's need for more Marine Corps operating forces. As
a direct result of the events of September 11, 2001, the Marine Corps
created the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (Anti-Terrorism) (4th MEB
(AT)). This unit was activated from existing Active-Duty Forces and has
already been deployed to Capitol Hill (Anthrax), Incirlik (Force
Protection), and Kabul (reactivation of the U.S. Embassy). The 4th MEB
provides the Unified Commanders a new capability for joint force
operations. Sustaining that new capability requires the addition of
2,400 marines to active duty end strength, an increase in the Marine
Corps fiscal year 2003 active manpower requirement to 175,000.
Mr. Brown. No, the Army has not requested an increase in end
strength in its fiscal year 2003 budget submission. Post September 11
operations have placed increased demands on Army personnel needs. We
have met those needs by initiating a partial stop loss, and by
mobilizing Guard and Reserve Forces.
Additional flexibility is provided by the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense
Authorization Act which permits the Department of Defense to allow the
services to exceed their end strength by 2 percent in any fiscal year
in which there is a war or national emergency. Full allowance of this
provision would allow the Army to increase its Active component end
strength to 489,600. To achieve this increase, the Army would move
forward with a ramp of 4,000 in fiscal year 2003 and 4,000 in fiscal
year 2004 to address the most immediate needs of the war on terrorism.
army review boards agency
7. Senator Cleland. Mr. Brown, the Army Board for Correction of
Military Records was created as a fair, practical, feasible, and cost-
effective substitute for private relief bills as a means of correcting
errors or removing injustices in an individual's military record.
Timely processing of applications for relief is essential. The Army has
just recently reduced an unacceptable backlog of applications and
reduced the time to process applications from receipt to adjudication.
Is the Army considering a proposal to reduce the staffing for the Army
Review Boards Agency, and if so, what measures will be taken to ensure
that applications will continue to be adjudicated in a timely manner?
Mr. Brown. I agree the Army Review Boards Agency has done a superb
job of reducing an unacceptable backlog of applications and reducing
the time to process applications from receipt to adjudication. The Army
is considering a reduction in staffing for the Army Review Boards
Agency (ARBA) subject to the constraint that ARBA continues to meet or
exceed congressionally-mandated standards for processing applications.
We are examining alternatives to see if we can continue to meet those
standards through substitutions of technology or contracted services.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson
recruitment
8. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Chu, I know that maintaining the
personnel levels we need to conduct our missions across the world is
difficult. It is difficult in poor economic times as well as times of
prosperity. All of the services should be applauded for meeting their
manpower missions last year. Have the events of September 11 and the
wave of patriotism eased the difficulties of recruitment?
Dr. Chu. Not much. Survey results, including our most recent youth
poll administered in October 2001, indicate that more young people
considered joining the military after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, and showed an increase in propensity levels (the
percent of young people who report they ``definitely'' or ``probably''
will serve in a branch of the military or the military in general).
However, hikes in propensity did not translate directly to enlistment
contracts. In short, the recently high levels of patriotism have not
translated to any significant increase in actual enlistments.
9. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Chu, is there concern that if the
country increases its operational commitments that the ``well will run
dry'' with an all volunteer force?
Dr. Chu. None of our recent studies or polls indicate that the war
on terrorism is having a negative impact on the propensity of young
people to enlist. We have a number of polls in place to gauge the state
of the recruiting environment. Although propensity is no longer as high
as it was immediately following the terrorist attacks, it remains at
historically ``normal'' levels. Consequently, I do not anticipate that
the recruiting ``well'' is in danger of running dry.
We are monitoring all of the factors we measure to ensure a ready
force, propensity of youth to serve, enlistment numbers, retention
statistics and surveys of those who are serving, to ensure we can
predict, and hopefully prevent, any serious downward trends. The
nobility of military service and the patriotism and enthusiasm for
service of our young men and women give me confidence in our ability to
maintain the quality force we have today.
10. Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Chu, are the services having difficulty
recruiting officers due to universities and colleges not allowing
access to students on campus?
Dr. Chu. None of the services have reported substantial difficulty
in recruiting officers as a direct consequence of campus access issues,
and all services are commissioning a generally adequate number of
officers. Congress has, in statute, prohibited colleges and
universities from barring our recruiters access to the campus and the
students. Doing so would place the university at risk of losing their
Federal grants and contracts.
11. Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Brown, the Army asked for an increase
in end strength of 40,000 soldiers to meet its current operational
commitment. If it were authorized, can the Army successfully recruit
40,000 more quality soldiers?
Mr. Brown. I am unaware the Army has asked for an increase in end
strength. However, if it were authorized, the Army could successfully
recruit more soldiers.
perstempo program
12. Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Navas, the PERSTEMPO program was
designed to minimize and/or compensate over-deployed service men and
women. The accrual of deployed days has been suspended due to September
11, but even in peacetime more than 22 percent of the Marine Corps is
forward deployed. How has the PERSTEMPO program affected a service like
the Marine Corps prior to September 11, and is it a program that needs
adjustment?
Mr. Navas. Marine Corps and Navy agree that the PERSTEMPO program
has created a significant administrative and management burden for
units and their commanders. Both services believe that the program is
not compatible with the expeditionary nature of their missions and
therefore, it would be appropriate to consider legislative
modifications. The Navy and Marine Corps submitted specific
modifications to the existing PERSTEMPO for inclusion in the Secretary
of Defense's March 2002 PERSTEMPO report to Congress.
There is no apparent impact on the Marine Corps for several
reasons. First, the Marine Corps did not sacrifice organizational
stability, cohesion, and mission essential training to avoid the
PERSTEMPO payments. Instead, the Marine Corps continued to train,
operate, and deploy as necessary to meet its missions and support
CINCs' requirements. Second, the Commandant assumed the responsibility
for paying the PERSTEMPO costs as a necessary cost of our business and
relieved commanders of this burden.
Prior to September 11, marines were accruing PERSTEMPO for the
first time and there was no need to transfer many marines with accrued
PERSTEMPO to another unit, so it was only beginning to become a
significant factor. As more marines with PERSTEMPO become eligible for
normal reassignment, and more marines accrue more deployed days,
PERSTEMPO will become a larger factor in personnel assignment and
manpower management decisions.
The existing PERSTEMPO program needs adjustment. The management and
penalty thresholds are below our norms and inconsistent with our
expeditionary, forward-deployed nature. Additionally, we believe that
the $100 per day payment for members who exceed the penalty threshold
is excessive.
personnel
13. Senator Ben Nelson. Sergeant Major Tilley, Sergeant Major
McMichael, Master Chief Petty Officer Herdt, and Chief Master Sergeant
Finch, if anyone on these three panels knows what our servicemen and
women need, it is you. What aspect of the personnel area needs to be
addressed the most? Is it inadequate or untimely healthcare, base
housing, pay compensation...what is the feeling of our service members?
Sergeant Tilley. The areas of concern that I hear from soldiers
mainly focus on a comparable standard of living with the society that
we serve. They greatly appreciate the recent increases in pay and
housing allowances provided by Congress. Those increases are a
tremendous step in the right direction. However, soldiers, Army
civilians, and their families remain behind society and need your
continued support for the plan to reach pay comparability over the next
few years, particularly through targeted pay raises.
The elimination by 2005 of median out-of-pocket housing expenses
for soldiers and families receiving Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
to live off post remains another high priority. The recent increases in
BAH significantly helped; however, slightly more than one in every $10
soldiers spend on off-post housing comes from their own pockets.
Finally, and particularly in light of the crucial role our Reserve
components shoulder in the war on terrorism, is employer support to the
Guard and Reserve. We currently fight a war of unknown duration and are
dependent upon the skills and abilities of the Reserve component
soldiers, and their families, to win this war. I ask that you continue
to strengthen the partnership between the employers, the Reserve
components, and the military. Our success in so many ways depends upon
the continued, enthusiastic support of the employers of our citizen-
soldiers.
Our soldiers and their families truly appreciate the improvements
in their pay, housing, and overall well-being. We are grateful for the
overwhelmingly positive support of the Nation. Everything I have listed
as concerns are already being addressed--I just ask for your continued
support for the programs already initiated.
Sergeant McMichael. The Marine Corps continues to discuss our top
five priorities of: pay and compensation; health care; bachelor and
family housing; infrastructure/installation management; and community
services. We do think that these components of QOL are interrelated and
we cannot fund one program to the detriment of the others. We think a
balanced approach that addresses all of these areas would be the best.
Chief Herdt. Considering the tremendous gains that have been made
recently in these issues, I believe that the most important issues to
our sailors that need to be addressed are educational benefits and
quality of work. As I stated during my testimony, educational benefits,
including MGIB transferability options, are important to our sailors.
Equally important to educational benefits is the need to continue
working to improve quality of work. We must put the proper emphasis on
sustainment, restoration, and maintenance to ensure that our service
members are able to work in a first-rate environment, no matter where
they are stationed.
Chief Finch. Our February 2002 major air command quality of life
revalidation highlighted TEMPO as the number one issue that concerns
our people. I believe that TEMPO and necessary manpower are directly
linked, with one significantly impacting the other. The Air Force's
eight core quality of life priorities cover a wide spectrum of issues
because while all are important, each individual Air Force member views
them from a different perspective and priority. The Air Force's eight
priorities are: necessary manpower; improved workplace environment;
fair and competitive compensation and benefits; balanced TEMPO; quality
health care; safe and affordable housing; enhanced community and family
programs; and improved educational opportunities.
national guard funding
14. Senator Ben Nelson. General Davis, it appears that the National
Guard is underfunded in critical areas that directly affect the ability
to recruit and train traditional citizen-soldiers to attain higher unit
readiness levels in support of the war on terrorism. For example,
annual training funds for Nebraska are more than $2 million less for
fiscal year 2002 than fiscal year 2001. Similarly, funding for
technical schools is down more than 23 percent from 2 years ago, and
training days funding has been reduced by 37 percent from 2 years ago.
In addition, key support programs such as Distributed Training
Technology Program (DTTP) and the counterdrug program, which enhance
training and provide a key outreach to high schools have been severely
cut.
How does the National Guard Bureau and the Department of Defense
propose to restore the Army National Guard funding levels to ensure our
traditional soldiers are fully trained and ready to fight?
General Davis. The National Guard Bureau has developed a strong
relationship with the Department of the Army and Department of Defense
to identify and fund the individual training requirements of the Army
National Guard. The Chief of Staff of the Army has directed the Army
National Guard achieve 85 percent Duty Military Occupational Skill
Qualification (DMOSQ) and Professional Development (PD) of assigned
personnel by fiscal year 2005. Headquarters Department of the Army has
resourced the ARNG to reach this goal by providing the required
training seats, schoolhouse support, and student funding. The ARNG will
achieve a DMOSQ rate of 75 percent in fiscal year 2002 on the ramp for
85 percent by fiscal year 2005.
[Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
-------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARNG Students........................................... 161.7 175.9 206.5 222.9 218.6 196.1 212.7
ARNG Schoolhouse........................................ 14.2 18.5 25.8 29.2 26.9 23.3 30.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data From: PROBE PB 03--d.
military funerals
15. Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Duehring, Lieutenant General Davis,
Major General Bambrough, Vice Admiral Totushek, Lieutenant General
Sherrard, and Lieutenant General McCarthy, military burials are a
service that we owe our veterans. It is a service that becomes
increasingly difficult as National Guardsmen and reservists are called
to active duty. Many guardsmen and reservists are involved in homeland
defense and it is a manpower issue you juggle daily. Are we having
difficulty providing this service and if so what solutions do you
propose to ensure veterans in Nebraska and all over the country get the
burial they deserve?
Mr. Duehring. We share your concern. We inquired with the DOD
office that has primary responsibility for military funeral honors, and
were advised that none of the services have reported any difficulty in
providing military funeral honors. During a time of mobilization, the
area of responsibility for units not mobilized increases to cover the
area of responsibility for mobilized units. This is a total force
mission supported by all Active, Guard, and Reserve components. The
Department is determined that every request to provide military funeral
honors for a veteran is fulfilled.
According to the Veterans Administration where the Department of
Defense obtains veteran demographic data, approximately 670,000
veterans and retirees died in calendar year 2001. The Department
supported military funeral honors for 93,000 veterans whose family
requested honors. The number of veteran deaths is expected to increase
each year and peak in 2005 at approximately 687,000. The increase in
veteran deaths will make providing military funeral honors more
challenging.
One of the provisions of Public Law 106-65, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, was to provide the services
with a way to augment the mandatory two uniformed person detail. This
provision in law indicated that ``The remainder of the detail (two-
person) may consist of members of the Armed Forces or members of
veteran organizations or other organizations approved under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.'' To implement this provision,
in August 2001, the Department of Defense initiated the Authorized
Provider Partnership Program (AP\3\). The AP\3\ allows military units
to train volunteers to assist with the rendering of funeral honors and
the adding of additional elements to the funeral service. Additional
elements consist of firing party, bugler, color guard, pallbearers, and
may assist in folding the flag. This program is still very new and
growing.
General Davis. Yes, the Army National Guard (ARNG) is having
difficulty in trying to maintain and sustain the growing mission of
performing funeral honors. As an example, the ARNG performed 18,770
honors in calendar year 2001 (35 percent of Total Army). This number is
an increase of 25 percent over the 14,976 honors rendered in calendar
year 2000. The ARNG continues to render honors at the same rate of
demand. In calendar year 2003 and beyond, additional funding has been
authorized for this program at sufficient levels to cover the estimated
costs and growth of the program. The use of soldiers in an Active Duty
for Special Work (ADSW) status would provide a stable workforce with
benefits and entitlements not provided to those soldiers performing
military funeral honors for a short duration, inactive duty status. In
addition, we propose contracting state coordinators to handle the
increase administrative workload the program has encountered. Federal
appropriation to match the growing requirements in this area is
critical.
General Bambrough. Presently, we are not having problems providing
military funeral honors anywhere in the country due to your support.
The Regional Support Commands have performed all funeral honor requests
tasked to them by the Casualty Area Commands. As long as we have
adequate funding to bring reservists on Active Duty for Special Work to
perform funeral honors, we can fully support all funeral honors
requirements.
Admiral Totushek. I agree that providing funeral honors is a
service that our Nation's veterans deserve. The Naval Reserve is not
having a problem supporting these efforts at this time, and I do not
see any problem in the near future.
General Sherrard. At this time, all military funeral commitments
are being met, although the demands of the mobilization have
complicated the matter to a degree. The HQ USAF Services Directorate
(AF/ILVS) continues to work with the Air Force Reserve to utilize non-
mobilized Reserve members in man-day status to augment military funeral
teams around the country. The Air Force Reserve also supports the AF/
ILVS initiative to have major commands create full-time personnel
authorizations for burial detail teams, which should offer some relief
from multiple Reserve component funeral taskings.
General McCarthy. The Marine Corps has not encountered difficulties
to date in providing funeral honors. Upon mobilization of Marine Corps
units, a site support section, the Peacetime/Wartime Support team is
also mobilized, and they assume the duties of the active duty staff at
the site. They are capable and prepared to provide funeral honors in
the absence of the Reserve unit.
fiscal year 2003 budget for active duty benefits
16. Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Duehring, Lieutenant General Davis,
Major General Bambrough, Vice Admiral Totushek, Lieutenant General
Sherrard, and Lieutenant General McCarthy, does the fiscal year 2003
budget reflect the activation of our reservists and National Guardsmen
to receive active duty benefits?
Mr. Duehring. All members of the Reserve components receive
``active duty benefits'' if they are mobilized. The fiscal year 2003
budget makes no distinction between active duty and reservists called
to active duty. However, the budget request does not reflect all of the
costs associated with the current call-up. This is the reason for the
supplemental currently under consideration within the Department.
General Davis. The Army and Air Force fiscal year 2003 budgets
include active duty benefits for those reservists and National
Guardsmen who are activated for planned deployments during the fiscal
year. Unforeseen activations would pay for active duty benefits out of
Emergency Relief Funds, Defense (ERF-D) that would be released to cover
necessary requirements.
General Bambrough. The budget request does reflect the pay,
allowances, and other benefits for activated Army reservists under the
Military Personnel, Army account. This is not included in the Army
Reserve portion of the budget, since activated reservists are place on
active duty under U.S.C. Title 10, Section 12302.
Admiral Totushek. The services' fiscal year 2003 military personnel
budget requests do not reflect the activation of our reservists and
National Guardsmen to receive active duty pay and allowances. However,
the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) appropriation submission is
part of the fiscal year 2003 President's budget request to Congress.
Activated reservists would be funded out of this transfer account.
General Sherrard. The fiscal year 2003 President's budget
submission for the active Air Force does not include any funding for
Reserve and Guard activation. Instead, the Air Force submitted the
requirement ($4.9 billion) to OSD as part of the fiscal year 2003
Unfunded Priority List. That request included funding for pay and
allowances.
General McCarthy. No.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
junior reserved officers training corps
17. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Chu, Junior Reserved Officers Training
Corps (JROTC) is an extremely important program to me. JROTC not only
enhances good citizenship, but has an extremely positive impact on our
Armed Forces. In fact, in a letter I received from General C.C. Krulak,
then Commandant of the Marine Corps, he aggressively endorsed the JROTC
program by stating, ``I can think of nothing that helps instill the
virtues of honor, courage, and commitment in our young people more than
this program. As we seek to identify and develop young men and woman of
character, this program does it all.''
The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act eliminated the cap
of 3,500 JROTC units to allow for greater participation throughout the
Nation's high schools. However, it has come to my attention that many
schools have been on the waiting list since the mid-1990s and have come
no closer to realizing the goal of obtaining a JROTC unit. What can be
done to help these schools so that they too can benefit from the JROTC
program in the future?
Dr. Chu. Several years ago when the ceiling on JROTC units was
first elevated to 3,500, the Department funded an expansion to reach
that number by 2007. This is the level we have programmed and are
committed to attaining. Since fiscal year 2000, we have opened 472 new
units and have almost 700 schools on waiting lists which we now are
prioritizing in a way that would distribute units across the Nation in
an equitable way, including geographical equity.
18. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Chu, it is my understanding that many
schools on the waiting list are still there due to an ``equal
geographical distribution'' clause within the current law. I personally
feel that we should spread this outstanding program to every corner of
the Nation. Nevertheless, many schools are still waiting years for a
unit while other schools can obtain a unit within 1 year due to this
clause calling for geographical distribution. Would you support an
exception to the ``equal geographical distribution'' rule allowing
schools that have been on the list for more than 5 years to receive a
unit?
Dr. Chu. There are many schools in ``over-represented'' states with
currently-approved applications which, owing to that over-
representation, are relatively lower priorities. Placing those with 5
years on the waiting list at the top of the priority scheme would have
the effect of pushing those in under-represented states down the list,
delaying our ability to, as you say, ``spread this outstanding program
to every corner of the Nation.''
19. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Chu, if not, would you consider some
other exception that would provide an opportunity for schools that have
been on the ``waiting list'' for extended times to receive a JROTC
unit?
Dr. Chu. The means to preserve geographical diversity as a
priority, while reducing wait lists, rests with an increase in the
number of units. However, I believe the Junior ROTC program is
prudently funded and properly scoped to recognize Defense interests.
reserved officers training corps
20. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Chu, I find it disheartening that Harvard
University, a center known for free speech, would prohibit the posting
of fliers that endorse or even support our Armed Services. An October
4, 2001, article in the Wall Street Journal detailed many difficulties
faced by a Harvard ROTC recruiter. Specifically, the article stated,
``When he wants to send a flier, he can't visit Harvard and stuff
mailboxes. Last year, he used $500 from the ROTC budget to mail
information to about 1,600 freshman--while permitted student groups
including the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Supporters
Alliance, the Harvard Boxing Club, and the Harvard Global Peace Project
can all solicit free.'' Many of these schools receive millions of
dollars in Federal funds each year. I find it troubling that schools
that benefit from Federal funds can deny our military access to their
campuses. How can a school prevent our Nation's military recruiters
from posting fliers on campus or placing fliers in mailboxes while they
allow other campus organizations to do so?
Dr. Chu. Although there was a conflict with one of the mail-outs at
Harvard last year, the specifics were not exactly as represented in
this article, and the Army reports that the situation was resolved
without the expenditure of ROTC funds. That solution included a change
that will prevent such conflicts in the future. Recent actions by the
leadership of Harvard indicate good support of the ROTC program, and
the Army reports that it is pleased with its current relationship with
university leadership.
More generally, current statute (10 U.S.C. Sec. 983) and policy (32
CFR 216) provide excellent tools for the Department to deal with
problems. For example, current policy establishes that the ROTC
department must be treated on a par with other academic departments and
may not be singled out for unreasonable actions that would impede
access to students (and vice versa) or restrict ROTC operations. Any
professor of Military, Aerospace, or Naval Science who finds that a
school impedes such access is obligated to notify the school of the
problem and to request remediation. Should a school fail to meet access
standards, it would subject itself to the penalties set forth in the
statute.
21. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Chu, what action would be appropriate to
assure recruiters access to campuses in the future?
Dr. Chu. The application of current law and policy are powerful
enough to ensure access to college campuses, as evidenced by the fact
that no schools are presently in violation of the standards. We are
grateful to Congress for the statutes presently in place, and believe
we have the tools necessary to sustain appropriate access for military
recruiters.
prohibition of rotc on campus
22. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Chu, it has come to my attention that
certain institutions of higher education have prohibited the Reserved
Officers Training Corps (ROTC) from participating on their campus for
more than 3 decades. Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia, and Stanford are
among the institutions that restrict ROTC from participating on their
campuses. According to Title 10 U.S.C. 983, the Secretary of Defense
can deny certain funds to an institution of higher education that
denies ``the Secretary of a military department from maintaining,
establishing, or operating a unit of ROTC at that institution.'' In
your December 18, 2001, response to my letter of November 19, 2001, to
Secretary Rumsfeld, you stated that schools such as Yale, Harvard,
Brown, Stanford, and Columbia are partnered with other universities to
accommodate its ROTC cadets. According to the statute, the denial of a
unit's operation or maintenance is a violation of Title 10. Is
requiring cadets at Yale to drive 75 miles to the University of
Connecticut at Storrs for class and drill preventing the operation of a
unit at Yale?
Dr. Chu. To be in violation of current law (10 U.S.C. Sec. 983), a
university must ``prohibit or effectively prevent'' its students from
participating in an ROTC program. The services report that the present
arrangement is satisfactory, particularly given the alternative--
drawing additional strength from operating forces to establish
additional ROTC detachments. But I am pleased to report that Army ROTC
plans to open a satellite unit (using its University of Connecticut
ROTC staff) at Sacred Heart University during the forthcoming school
year. Located near Yale, that satellite unit will serve roughly six
colleges or junior colleges in Southwest Connecticut, and will be
intermittently manned as needed to carry out the program using ROTC
staff from the University of Connecticut. We will continue to monitor
this issue carefully.
23. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Chu, according to the Wall Street Journal
article mentioned previously, Harvard alumni donors pay $150,000 a year
to Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for overhead costs for
training Harvard ROTC cadets. If we cut the funding from a
participating school, would this be violating Title 10?
Dr. Chu. We have no present intention of cutting funding for those
schools.
24. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Chu, additionally, in Harvard's case, if
they cut the alumni support and Harvard does not fund the ROTC cadets
that travel to MIT would Harvard be violating Title 10?
Dr. Chu. To the extent the situation you describe prevents the
enrollment of students in ROTC, it probably would represent a violation
of the statute. But we look at each case individually.
survey on policies and practices
25. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Chu, in your December 18, 2001, response
to my letter regarding the ROTC program at various universities, you
mentioned that you have contacted 23 schools notifying them that they
may be in conflict with the statute. Now that these schools have had
more than 30 days to respond and define their policies and practices, I
ask that you provide me your findings and conclusions.
Dr. Chu. The 23 schools I mentioned were all law schools. Each
received a letter advising of the potential violation of campus access
standards. Of those, two requested and received extensions for their
response. One reply initially appears to rise to the level of a
violation, and Army is developing the case for review by my office. Of
the remaining 20 law schools, 8 did not respond and 12 responded in
ways short of acknowledging that their present policies are not in
compliance with the law. These 20 schools will receive a second letter
shortly, which will specify the events or situations which have led to
their inclusion on this list. Each will be provided an additional 30-
day period to rebut those specifics, consistent with policy codified at
32 CFR 16. If a school fails to reply, or if that reply does not
persuade the affected service of the school's compliance with statutes,
the cases will be forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Force Management Policy) for disposition consistent with present law
and policy. Our due process requires that the affected service document
their case and the school's position and forward through the Secretary
of the Military Department to Assistant Secretary for Force Management
Policy. I will be pleased to keep you abreast of further developments
as they occur.
nomination and promotion review process
26. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Chu, I have been closely monitoring the
promotion of Colonel Robert P. Smart to Brigadier General for several
years. Colonel Smart is a member of the South Carolina National Guard.
He is respected and supported by his peers in the State as well as
leadership in the National Guard Bureau. It is my understanding that
his package has successfully passed through all the necessary channels
in the Department of the Air Force with the recommendation to proceed.
It was sent to your office for final approval before forwarding to the
White House. It appears that your office sent it back to the Department
of the Air Force due to an unsubstantiated allegation that has been
thoroughly investigated previously. This is yet another delay in
Colonel Smart's promotion that I feel is unwarranted due to the
investigations that have already taken place. Can you assure me that
Colonel Smart's promotion package will be reviewed in a way that will
not incur any additional unnecessary delays in the hopes that the
United States Senate can vote on his, and all other candidates for
promotion, in an expeditious manner?
Dr. Chu. We can assure you that the Department's nomination and
promotion review processes ensure a careful review of all relevant
matters pertaining to the recommended nomination of a general or flag
officer. Colonel Smart's nomination package, which includes reported
substantiated adverse information, is being thoroughly reviewed to
ensure that decision-makers at all levels within DOD have access to all
pertinent information so they can make informed recommendations to the
Secretary of Defense as to the fitness of Colonel Smart for promotion
to brigadier general.
military funerals
27. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Brown, Mr. Navas, and Mr. Dominguez,
according to a February 11, 2002 article in the Wall Street Journal,
roughly three-quarters of all funerals for veterans do not have a
bugler to play Taps. As stated in the article, these funerals play a
recording of Taps instead of a live bugler. Accordingly, with nearly
580,000 veterans expected to pass away this year, only 174,000 will be
honored with a live bugler. I am confident that you agree with me that
we should afford the men and women who fought for this Nation the
dignity of a bugler. After contacting several military bases in South
Carolina, I discovered that nearly 90 percent of the time the casualty
affairs office did not have a bugler to play Taps. Do you agree that we
should do better for our Nation's veterans?
Mr. Brown. We should do all we can within our means to honor our
Nation's veterans. Based on congressional guidance, the Army has taken
the necessary action in our Disposition of Remains program to expand
the North Korea recovery operations. In fiscal year 2001, the Army
implemented instructions, established requirements, and funded a
military burial honors entitlements for all veterans. The burial honors
program provides for the rendering of the final tribute and
reorganization to our Nation's veterans in a very important tradition.
This program has received positive feedback from veteran's families and
friends. The Army continues to work diligently to ensure that all
veterans receive the services and entitlements that were promised. The
Department of the Army is committed to recognizing our Nation's
veterans.
Mr. Navas. We can and should always strive to do better for the men
and women who served this country. Of all the military bugle calls,
none is so easily recognized or more apt to render emotion than Taps.
Despite our desire to provide buglers for our fallen sailors, there
are factors that stand in our way. Navy has only 93 billets for
buglers, 75 of which are in the continental United States. These are
assigned primarily to fleet concentration areas such as Norfolk and San
Diego as well as to Washington, DC. In calendar year 2001, Navy
provided funeral honors for 17,580 sailors (an average of 48 per day)
across the United States. The limited availability of buglers in
relation to the sheer number of funerals and possible locations
precludes our providing a bugler in response to every request for
funeral honors.
Mr. Dominguez. While all veterans are entitled to funeral honors,
not all veterans request them. For example, out of 627,000 eligible
veterans and retirees in DOD who passed away in calendar year 2001,
only 93,000 families requested funeral honors (a 15 percent request
rate). A live bugler performed Taps at approximately 17,700, or over 19
percent of the funerals we supported; military buglers from military
bands supported 13,000 (14 percent of the total) while civilian buglers
supported 4,700 (4 percent of the total by contract, and 1 percent by
Veteran Service Organizations, or VSOs). About 74,400 funerals (80
percent of the total) used a high-quality CD recorded version of Taps.
For the remaining 1 percent of the funerals, a live bugler was not
available and the families declined the offer of the recorded version
of Taps.
We agree that a quality bugler, especially a military member, is
better than using a recorded version. However, DOD cannot support more
funerals with military buglers because we do not have dedicated funeral
detail buglers. Military buglers do funerals in addition to their
normal duties in military bands. In calendar year 2002, we expect
approximately 635,000 veterans and retirees to pass away; within the
Air Force, though, we have a total of only 86 trumpeters assigned to
our various bands. To cover the shortfall, we encourage our bases to
engage with their local veteran service organizations to determine if
and when they can provide buglers. In addition, some Air Force
installations are pursuing contract buglers.
28. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Brown, Mr. Navas, and Mr. Dominguez, what
steps have you taken to assist base Casualty Affairs Officers in their
efforts to create local networks with civilian and local schools to
provide civilian buglers for military funerals?
Mr. Brown. The Casualty Affairs Officers continue to work with
organizations, such as Veteran Service Organizations, the Retired
Officers Association, the Non-Commission Officers Association, and
other local civilian organizations to ensure that they are kept
informed of items of interests such as the burial honors programs. The
Casualty Affairs Office provides monthly updates of all ongoing search
and recovery missions and other events of interest to the families in
the local communities. The Casualty Affairs Office continues to work
with funeral directors to ensure that information is being publicized
to the families concerning burial entitlements, thereby addressing the
burial honors. The Casualty Affairs Office contacts the music
departments at local colleges and universities for musicians to play
Taps at the veterans' funerals. The Army is in the process of
establishing a resource pool to provide buglers for veterans' families
who request a live bugler.
Mr. Navas. Navy efforts have been directed to strengthening the
partnership with Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs). Our Regional
Casualty coordinators have refocused their efforts to strengthen the
ties and provide training to the VSOs in the prescribed manner of
conducting funeral honors. While this has helped in finding escorts for
the services, these efforts have paid limited dividends in providing
buglers for the funerals.
We are continuing to evaluate the possibility of partnerships with
local schools; however, our Regional Coordinators have met with mixed
responses from the school officials. While all recognize the importance
of paying tribute to our Nation's veterans, school officials are
understandably concerned about student time away from school,
particularly when the vast number of funerals occur during the school
week during school hours.
There are also significant concerns about transportation to and
from the funeral sites and liability associated with such travel.
Significant complicating factors emerge when funerals occur in
extremely remote areas where the student may be required to travel
significant distances, in some cases justifying overnight stays, which
would entail lodging expenses and the need for parental supervision.
The services would also lack the ability to ensure quality control
in terms the students rendering of the tribute, appropriate attire and
decorum, and timely arrival at funeral sites, again a significant
challenge in remote areas of the country.
Mr. Dominguez. The Air Force funeral honors units are working with
their local Veteran Service Organizations to determine if and when they
can provide buglers. Many bases have had bad experiences with high
school and Junior ROTC buglers not being qualified to play a quality
version of Taps; therefore, they look to college bands, and local city
bands for the availability of more experienced buglers. We continue to
encourage the use of good civilian buglers.
29. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Brown, Mr. Navas, and Mr. Dominguez,
would you consider creating a small fund to allow Casualty Affairs
Officers to advertise to create networks or pay transportation costs or
other unforeseen costs that would increase the likelihood of providing
a live bugler instead of a recording of Taps at military funerals?
Mr. Brown. The Army is currently reviewing the resources it would
take to provide buglers for burial honors. Currently there are only
approximately 500 buglers in the service, which is insufficient to meet
all the burial honor requests received. The Army is reviewing options
to deal with these requests.
Mr. Navas. If the present rate of mortality of veterans continues,
the potential cost of such a program might exceed $50 million per year.
For example, with 580,000 funerals per year, and the services
providing currently providing buglers for approximately 174,000 of
them, 406,000 would require contracted or commercial service. Several
of our Regional Coordinators have started small pilot programs for such
contracts with preliminary costs for the rendering of Taps and
associated cost running at nearly $125 per service. Associated costs
include such things as travel to and from the funeral site, which take
place throughout the United States, lodging, and in some cases laundry
services due to inclement weather or the environment in which the
funeral occurs (410,000 funerals X $125 = $50,750,000/year). If such a
program were instituted the Regional Coordinators would be responsible
for the quality and dignity of the service provided.
Mr. Dominguez. Some Air Force installations are pursuing contract
buglers now. For example: Patrick and MacDill Air Force Bases share a
contract where they pay $135 for each detail. This is an unprogrammed
expense that most bases just cannot afford. The Air Force would
willingly pursue more civilian buglers if the resources were made
available.
milcon and housing
30. Senator Thurmond. Sergeant Major Tilley, Sergeant Major
McMichael, Master Chief Petty Officer Herdt, and Chief Master Sergeant
Finch, Congress, in particular the Armed Services Committee, has in the
past years made the adequacy of military housing and the working
conditions of our military personnel an area of particular interest.
Due to this interest, we increased funding for military construction
and family housing. I would like your views on whether or not we are
getting the desired results. If not, what do you consider the most
critical shortfall in these areas?
Sergeant Tilley. The outlook for eliminating inadequate Army family
housing is extremely bright. The original goal was to eliminate all
inadequate family housing by fiscal year 2010. However, The Department
of Defense accelerated that goal to fiscal year 2007. The Army has
programmed additional funding in fiscal years 2005 to 2007 to meet this
goal. This acceleration is contingent upon congressional support in the
fiscal years 2005 to 2007 budget cycles for increased Army Family
Housing funds. This additional funding, along with the privatization of
family housing on certain installations and the elimination of excess
housing will enable the Army to meet this new goal. The results can be
seen in the increasing number of housing improvement projects which
will continue to ramp up over the next 5 years.
The Army is committed to completing its permanent party barracks
modernization program by fiscal year 2009. The buyout slipped from
fiscal year 2008 because the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations
Act eliminated the centrally managed Barracks Upgrade Program (BUP),
and reallocated the requested Operation and Maintenance Army (OMA)
funds to the Army Major Commands (MACOMs). The Army will try to recover
in future budgets, but it will be difficult without congressional
support for a centralized OMA funded BUP program.
Our military construction budget request will fund our highest
priority facilities and family housing requirements. In fiscal year
2002, the Army presented a budget that was a down payment on our goal
to better support our infrastructure. The fiscal year 2003 Army budget
provides the required funding to continue our commitment of eliminating
all inadequate family housing by 2007 and upgrade barracks by 2009.
Sergeant McMichael. We are seeing the desired results. Marines and
their families are much more optimistic about their future. Family
housing, bachelor housing, and operational construction have finally
become visible on Marine Corps installations. This is primarily due to
our healthy fiscal years 2001 and 2002 construction programs. Although
our fiscal year 2003 program is not as large as our 2002 program, it
does provide urgently needed bachelor quarters, operational and
readiness necessities, and family housing.
In the area of family housing, new or replacement construction or
renovation work is underway through public-private ventures (PPV) or
traditional military construction at the following locations: Camp
Lejeune, Cherry Point, Camp Pendleton, Twenty-nine Palms, Yuma, Hawaii,
Iwakuni, 8th & I, and MCRD San Diego. Demolition of older, excess,
deteriorated homes is underway now at MCB Quantico and other demolition
is planned for MCSA Kansas City and Barstow. PPVs will be awarded
within the next 12 months at Stewart, NY, and Beaufort Parris Island,
SC, which will not only eliminate all the inadequate housing at both
locations, but will also provide recreational and community support
facilities needed to create ``complete communities.'' Our fiscal year
2003 budget request supports continuation of these critical efforts.
Top line constraints over most of the last decade forced us to
defer investment in areas that did not have an immediate impact on
near-term readiness, such as investment in military construction,
family housing, and maintenance of our existing facilities. We
sustained our combat readiness at the expense of construction because
we had no other option. Our most critical requirement and challenge is
to maintain the funding levels we have achieved in the past 2 years.
Chief Herdt. Yes, we are starting to see significant improvements
in this area. Public private ventures, combined with Military
Construction enhancements are starting to pay dividends in improved
housing for our personnel. While we are making tremendous progress,
there is still a strong need for continued support for government owned
and leased military family housing. The BAH is based on median housing
costs and does not provide sufficient compensation for every Navy
family to obtain housing in the private sector. Owned and leased family
housing is a necessity to suitably and affordably house many of our
Navy families because of private sector housing shortfalls in
surrounding communities. We are on track to eliminate approximately
28,000 inadequate homes that were on our roles at the beginning of
fiscal year 2001. Military family housing is, and will continue to be
essential for acceptable quality of life for sailors.
Our PPV program for Military Family Housing projects continues to
develop and create more opportunities for military families to reside
in quality, affordable housing. We continue to increase the number of
homes we can improve for the same money using leveraged savings of PPV.
Chief Finch. The welfare of our people is critical to overall
readiness and is vital in our efforts for recruiting and retention.
Congress' efforts in improving family housing and in fixing our
facilities are a major part of the welfare and we are seeing good
results. The Air Force continues to pursue improvements in all of our
core quality of life priorities; necessary manpower; improved workplace
environments; fair and competitive compensation and benefits; balanced
tempo; quality healthcare; safe, affordable housing; enriched community
and family programs; and enhanced educational opportunities.
reserve differential pay
31. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Duehring, as you no doubt recall, Section
512 of the 1996 Defense Authorization Bill created a Mobilization
Income Insurance Program. This legislation was designed to address the
income disparity many of our reservists face when mobilized.
Unfortunately, the program failed and we still have no system in place
to address income disparity despite the fact that this problem
continues to financially harm many reservists. In fact, I recently met
a Mobilized Marine Corps reservist who is facing potential financial
problems for a second time due to mobilization. To avoid bankruptcy,
this reservist is selling his wife's new car and exhausting all of his
civilian job leave to continue receiving pay to compensate for the pay
loss. Has the Department considered revisiting the issue of the
Mobilization Income Insurance Program and if not, what assistance can
we provide the individual reservist?
Mr. Duehring. I share your concern about the severe economic impact
mobilization may have on some Reserve families. We continue to assess
the impact of involuntary call-ups on reservists and will consider any
support programs that make sense and are cost-effective. We are
especially concerned about the impact on reservists who are self-
employed or small business owners.
As you may be aware, the Department's previous efforts to establish
an effective mobilization insurance program to address the income and
business losses sustained by many Reserve members as a result of their
mobilization during Operation Desert Storm met with a decided lack of
success. There were a number of factors that led to the decision to
terminate the program within a year of its implementation. First and
foremost, the program was not self-sustaining as originally intended,
partially because the timing of the implementation coincided with a
decision to extend support operations in Bosnia. Also, enrollment
remained low and because of the timing, there was extremely high
adverse selection. There was insufficient time to effectively market
the program to the Reserve community and more importantly no time to
build up a mobilization fund before benefit payouts were due. As a
consequence, the program experienced a significant loss the first year
of operation and failed to provide an effective mechanism for
addressing some reservists' concerns about income disruption. Any
replacement program, at a minimum, would have to require sufficient
participation to spread the risk; be designed to minimize adverse
selection; and have a stable funding base. This would almost mandate a
compulsory or involuntary program and assured funding beyond the
premiums collected from participants--conditions that DOD does not feel
would be acceptable at this time.
With this experience, the Department would like to consider
alternative approaches, such as the possibility of some form of debt
management. This type of approach might feature provisions that would
allow for debt restructuring or deferment of principal and interest
payments on preexisting debts. Similar features are included in a bill
introduced in the Senate, S. 1519, which would amend the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act to provide farm credit assistance for
activated reservists, and the policy implemented by the Department of
Education, which provides relief on Federal loans held by student-
reservists who are called to active duty in support of the war on
terrorism. A program that focuses on pre-service debts may prove to be
a more efficient means of addressing the specific income problems of
Reserve component members and could overcome some of the major
shortcomings of the mobilization insurance program--specifically
providing for means testing and limiting relief to those who experience
a significant reduction in income. However, this approach would not be
without some impact on financial institutions in the private sector. We
are prepared to work closely with Congress on any possible options to
resolve this important issue of income loss.
travel compensation
32. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Duehring, I am aware that an active duty
member assigned to a duty station for 180 days or greater automatically
receives a permanent change of station or PCS move. This PCS move
entitles an active duty military member to bring his dependents and
automobile among other things, if applicable and appropriate. I am
informed, however, that a Reserve military member, on the other hand,
is not entitled to a PCS move when mobilized for the same period. As
you are aware, in many cases, reservists are mobilized to backfill
positions when active duty members are forward deployed. Obviously,
beyond the emotional strain such a system places on a military
reservist, this disparity in treatment further financially harms
Reserve members who must pay transportation costs for their spouses as
well as rental car costs and other assorted costs. Do you agree that we
should eliminate this disparity?
Mr. Duehring. The Joint Federal Travel Regulations, which govern
both permanent duty travel and temporary duty travel, specify that a
Reserve component member is entitled to a permanent change of station
move if the period of service is for 20 weeks (140 days) or more.
However, to provide the services with flexibility during this
mobilization and in order to accommodate unique circumstances a
reservist may face if mobilized, the Department issued the following
guidance:
In the case where the reporting location is not within
commuting distance of the member's home of record, the Service
Secretary may, IAW Section U7150, paragraph A4 of the JFTR,
call the member to active duty in a temporary duty status, so
long as the order states the call to active duty is in a
temporary duty status.
In the event orders move individuals or the entire unit to a
location away from the reporting location, such orders will
normally indicate temporary duty status. Per diem will be paid
in accordance with the JFTR.
While the standard remains to provide a permanent change of station
move when a Reserve component member is mobilized, the flexibility
authorized in this policy guidance allows the Service Secretary to
retain the member in a TDY status--which entitles the member to per
diem in addition to his or her normal pay and allowances--when it is
determined that this is in the best interest of the reservist. We are
not aware of any situations in which the services have been
inappropriately applying this authority to the disadvantage of the
reservist.
full-time support
33. Senator Thurmond. General Davis, General Bambrough, General
Sherrard, and General McCarthy, this committee has shown a great deal
of interest in full-time support. In the Fiscal Year 2002 National
Defense Authorization Act, we took a very positive step by authorizing
increases in both Active Guard Reserve and military technicians. Were
adequate funds appropriated to support those authorizations? If not,
what is the unfunded requirement?
General Davis. The Army National Guard received authorized end
strength increases in Full-Time Support in the Fiscal Year 2002
National Defense Authorization Act of 724 Active Guard Reserve and 487
Military Technicians. The Army National Guard received an increase of
$24.7 million in the National Guard Personnel, Army appropriation that
fully supported the authorized increase of 724 Active Guard Reserve
personnel. The increase in the Operations and Maintenance, Army
National Guard appropriation was $11.2 million. This increase did not
fully support the authorized increase of 487 Military Technicians. The
unfunded requirement to fully support the fiscal year 2002 authorized
military technician increase is $2.4 million, however, the Army
National Guard has adjusted hiring plans to execute the increased
authorization with funds appropriated.
General Bambrough. The Army Reserve is grateful for the increase in
full-time support in fiscal year 2002; however, adequate funds to
resource the hiring of the 250 increased Military Technicians
authorized were not funded. The executable resources necessary to
support these authorizations is $8 million in Operations and
Maintenance, Army Reserve funds.
Funds were provided for the fiscal year 2002 increase in AGR
authorizations; however, the sustainment of the previously authorized
13,106 soldiers had a shortfall of $20 million in Reserve Personnel,
Army funds coming into the fiscal year. We have been able to reduce the
shortfall to $15.9 million in Reserve Personnel, Army funds by slowing
permanent change of station moves and reducing the program's overall
average strength.
General Sherrard. The Air Force Reserve was funded for the
additional AGRs at the appropriate rate for additive personnel (half
year funding). We thank you for your support.
General McCarthy. The fiscal year 2002 RPMC appropriation was
sufficient to support fiscal year 2002 Reserve manpower authorization
of 39,558, including 2,261 Active Reserve. An unfunded requirement does
not exist.
incentives program
34. Senator Thurmond. General Davis, General Bambrough, General
Sherrard, and General McCarthy, incentives are a necessary recruiting
tool to attract and maintain quality soldiers. Have you been adequately
resourced in the Incentive Program in fiscal year 2003? If not, why
not?
General Davis. Yes, the Army National Guard's (ARNG) Incentive
Program is fully funded in the fiscal year 2003 President's budget and
programmed adequately for the out years. Continued congressional
support for incentives is essential to attracting potential members and
retaining quality soldiers.
General Bambrough. No, Senator, the Army Reserve has not been
adequately resourced for the Incentives Program in fiscal year 2003. As
a result, the Army Reserve remains $19.0 million short of validated
requirements in Reserve Personnel, Army funds. There is an overall
shortfall in resourcing the Army Incentive Program and the Army
resourced all its components at the same level to share the shortfall.
General Sherrard Frankly, the Air Force Reserve has historically
initiated the majority of its incentive offerings initially ``out-of-
hide'' because the lead time to program and budget for requirements is
so long. Fiscal year 2003 is a case in point. We would like to offer
selective reenlistment bonuses to more categories of personnel than we
are fiscally able to do so. We would also especially like to offer
retention incentives to personnel past the 16-year point, but recognize
this will require enabling legislation.
General McCarthy. During fiscal year 2001 the Marine Corps received
a congressional enhancement of $3.3 million, provided to attract and
retain quality marines. Correspondingly, Reserve unit attrition
declined by 2 percent. The decline in attrition experienced in fiscal
year 2001 suggests that incentive programs improve retention. The
fiscal year 2003 funding level for the incentive programs are
consistent with that in fiscal year 2002.
full-time support
35. Senator Thurmond. General Bambrough, we understand the Army is
supporting an increase in full-time support, both Active Guard Reserve
and Military Technicians, to improve Army Reserve unit readiness. What
is the annual requirement to support the ramp?
General Bambrough. The fiscal year 2003 ramp for both Military
Technicians and Active Guard Reserve is currently unfunded. The
validated annual ramp for the Army Reserve is 300 Active Guard Reserve
soldiers and 250 Military Technicians. For fiscal year 2003, the
requirement is $11.4 million in Reserve Personnel, Army funds for the
active Guard Reserve and $8.0 million in Operations and Maintenance,
Army Reserve funds for the Military Technicians ramp.
36. Senator Thurmond. General Bambrough, is the ramp supported in
the fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense budget?
General Bambrough. The fiscal year 2003 ramp for both Military
Technicians and Active Guard Reserve is currently unfunded. The
validated annual ramp for the Army Reserve is 300 Active Guard Reserve
soldiers and 250 Military Technicians. For fiscal year 2003, the
requirement is $11.4 million in Reserve Personnel, Army funds for the
active Guard Reserve and $8.0 million in Operations and Maintenance,
Army Reserve funds for the Military Technicians ramp.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
end strength
37. Senator McCain. Dr. Chu, Sergeant Major Tilley, Sergeant Major
McMichael, Master Chief Petty Officer Herdt, Chief Master Sergeant
Finch, Major General Bambrough, Vice Admiral Totushek, Lieutenant
General Sherrard, and Lieutenant General McCarthy, more than a year
ago, servicemen and women were promised that the frequent number of
deployments that they became all too familiar with during the Clinton
administration would ease and the number of worldwide commitments would
be reduced. I am told that most of the services feel that has not
happened to the extent promised and may have even worsened because of
ongoing war operations. While all support the budget recently
submitted, privately all the services admit they need additional end
strength to get the job done. In fact, one service has told me that
they may need as many as an additional 42,000 service members. Do you
have any comment on the need for additional servicemen and women?
Dr. Chu. We are examining how to meet these requirements from two
perspectives: the near term and longer range. This issue is one of
the most pressing challenges facing the Department, and is receiving
our close attention.
Sergeant Tilley. Post September 11 events have increased demands
placed on the force. Our Total Army Analysis process will help
determine the size and composition of the Army within the budget.
The immediate solution for the war on terrorism was the
mobilization of our magnificent Army National Guard and Army Reserve
soldiers and the implementation of ``stop loss'' for selected skill
sets. The performance of these soldiers has been exemplary, but these
are temporary measures, not a long-term solution.
Chief Herdt. With our high reenlistment and recruiting levels over
the past year, the Navy appears to be in good position to maintaining
the right force size. While we continue to examine our evolving
manpower requirements, it appears that we will be able to execute our
mission within the existing end strength flexibility provided by
Congress.
Chief Finch. Necessary manpower is a quality of life factor that we
added to our list in recent years. The demands to support both current
contingencies and homeland defense have required us to take a hard look
at our force structure. Even with improved recruiting and retention we
are still short of our actual requirement as outlined by the mission
demands. The bottom line is that we don't have the people or the
resources to perform all the missions our Nation asks of us.
General Bambrough. The Army Reserve is an essential provider of
training and support units and individuals to our Army. We currently
have 12,609 reservists mobilized to support Noble Eagle and Enduring
Freedom operations. In addition, we along with the rest of the Army
have also been supporting smaller scale contingencies. The Army Reserve
is experiencing pockets of stress, particularly in high demand career
field such as Civil Affairs and Military Police. With the strategy
coming out of the Quadrennial Review, the evolving global war on
terrorism, the emerging requirements for homeland security and the
Secretary of Defense's Active and Reserve Component Mix study still
ongoing, it is difficult to know how what end strength is required to
reduce these pockets of stress.
Admiral Totushek. Yes, as a result of the events of September 11,
Navy has increased Naval Reserve end strength in support of new
requirements for Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) and Mobile
Inshore Undersea Warfare (MIUW) units. The Naval Reserve feels
confident that it will be able to achieve this end strength and sustain
AT/FP missions in fiscal year 2003 through change of rate programs,
retraining trained personnel within these functional areas, and
aggressive recruiting in the 21-25 year old market. Requests for
supplemental funding to support AT/FP requirements have been identified
and submitted to DON/OSD.
General Sherrard. SECDEF has challenged us to pursue more
innovative solutions to offset our need for additional manpower
requirements for homeland security, anti-terrorism and force protection
for the Total Force as a result of Operations Enduring Freedom and
Noble Eagle. The AF Reserve has documented an additional requirement
that is part of the Total Force additional requirements post September
11. Requirements are based on the new increased ``steady state''
conditions produced by Operations Enduring Freedom/Noble Eagle.
Increased requirements are in Security Forces, Intelligence, Office of
Special Investigations, and other specialties. We see this as one more
dimension of our transformation effort and are investigating a variety
of options resourcing these requirements.
General McCarthy and Sergeant McMichael. The Marine Corps is
requesting an active duty end strength increase of 2,400 marines in the
fiscal year 2003 budget to support the formation of the 4th Marine
Expeditionary Brigade (Anti-Terrorist). Currently, the Marine Corps
Reserve is at an appropriate end strength to fulfill its mission and
mobilization requirements.
reserve deployments
38. Senator McCain. Dr. Chu, Major General Bambrough, Vice Admiral
Totushek, Lieutenant General Sherrard, and Lieutenant General McCarthy,
I understand that there are over 85,000 National Guard and Reserve men
and women supporting Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom--
citizen solders who juggle two careers: civilian and military. Also
included in the category of ``twice the citizen'' are the employers
who, for no incentive that I know of, hire reservists and National
Guardsmen and put up with monthly weekend drills, 2-week annual
training periods, and recalls to active duty with little information on
how long they will be away from their job. Today every single one of
the recalled 85,000 reservists are told that they are on 1 year orders
and may be continued for 2 years or more. It seems that the same open-
ended deployments that the Secretary of Defense has been directed to
end with active duty servicemembers has not been fixed and instead has
drifted over the Reserve components. What is the plan to bring the
reservists back home and back to their civilian jobs that they left,
and who will replace them if we have a force structure that according
to the services is already stretched thin.
Dr. Chu. In the days, weeks, and months since September 11, 2002,
our National Guard and Reserve personnel have responded immediately
when called upon in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Noble Eagle. Early on, the demands to provide force protection and
address other security needs were extremely high and significant
augmentation by our Reserve components was necessary to meet
operational demands and force protection requirements levied by our
military commanders. A number of critical skills necessary to both
force protection and prosecution of the al Qaeda exist only in the
Reserve components. Under 10 U.S.C. 12302, there the authority is
granted to the President to mobilize Reserve component personnel for up
to 2 years. However, it has been the Department's policy to write
mobilization orders for only 1 year and to direct the services to
conduct an ongoing evaluation of the needs for continued augmentation.
We recognize the stress this places on our reservists and National
Guard and have, in cooperation with the Central Command, developed a
rotation policy in order to provide a level of predictability for our
personnel, their families, and their employers. We have sought to
strike a balance between the needs of our theater commanders, the
requirements to provide adequate force protection for our military
installations, and the necessity to minimize stress on our Reserve
component.
The Department will continue to evaluate our mobilization policies
in light of the various requirements and we will be proactive in the
management of our human resources.
General Bambrough. We do not have open-ended deployments. We order
reservists to active duty under United States Code, Title 10, Section
12302 for support of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. This
authority allows for mobilization up to 24 consecutive months.
Currently all Army Reserve orders are for 12 months. If circumstances
change, it may be necessary to retain some individuals and units for
the maximum time allowed. Once the mobilization tour has been
completed, the soldiers will be demobilized and returned to their
civilian employment. They will be replaced as needed by other Army
reservists.
Employer support is critical to the success of the Army Reserve. We
work closely with the National Committee for Employer Support of the
Guard and Reserve in this area.
Our soldiers bring hometown America support for these operations.
The American public is a vital part of these operations through that
linkage to our soldiers. Their support connects the Army to the people
it defends. It reminds us all of the commitment and momentum that is
critical to successful long-term operations.
Admiral Totushek. The mobilization of Naval reservists for the war
on terrorism has resulted in approximately 10,600 Naval reservists
activated in support of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom,
providing critical force protection, intelligence, logistics,
meteorology, linguistics, mobilization support, and staff augmentation.
The Navy expects to involuntarily extend some reservists with high
demand skills beyond 365 days. The requirement to extend individual
reservists beyond 365 days will be based on operational requirements,
which continue to evolve. Our intent is to minimize the impact on
individuals beyond the initial 365 day commitment. Most Reserve
personnel currently filling requirements for Operations Noble Eagle and
Enduring Freedom will be demobilized at the end of the year, and active
duty personnel or other reservists will fill those requirements that
remain valid.
General Sherrard. The mission capability of the Reserve components
is essential to Air Force operations around the globe and we play a
significant role in reducing tempo for Active-Duty Forces. We still
have a lot of work ahead of us in the war on terrorism and also here at
home. Air Reserve component airmen are filling a sizable portion of our
Air Expeditionary Force rotations. Subsequently, Air Force must
continue to ensure the appropriate mix of Active Duty and Reserve
component forces are available to meet operational requirements.
Reserve component members will continue to be mobilized until mission
requirements allow them to be demobilized. In fact, the Secretary of
the Air Force has already approved some Air Force Reserve
demobilizations. In the Air Force Reserve, we will continue to backfill
requirements with volunteers to the maximum extent possible.
General McCarthy. The Marine Corps was authorized by the Secretary
of Defense to mobilize up to 7,500 reservists to support Operations
Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. The Marine Corps has been very
judicious in utilization of this mobilization authority and as of March
27, 2002, the Marine Corps has a total of 4,455 Marine reservists on
active duty. Additionally, we have already demobilized 66 reservists
who are no longer needed on active duty. The Marine Corps is currently
participating in a DOD sponsored Mid-Year Review of USMC Component
Activations to determine whether or not further reductions can be made.
If we need to continue to fill these billets, we will either have to
find another ``volunteer,'' involuntarily extend the current
individual, or find an active duty marine to fill the billet. The
mobilization initially authorized a 1-year call up and, if required, an
additional year.
39. Senator McCain. Dr. Chu, Sergeant Major Tilley, Sergeant Major
McMichael, Master Chief Petty Officer Herdt, Chief Master Sergeant
Finch, Major General Bambrough, Vice Admiral Totushek, Lieutenant
General Sherrard, and Lieutenant General McCarthy, is it possible that
you may need to increase end strength at some point to replace the
National Guard and Reserve service members who eventually will have to
come home? If so, what options would you consider to increase our end
strength?
Dr. Chu. The Reserve component mobilization issue is a key element
of our total force end strength review. In our deliberations on
military end strength we are examining a wide variety of alternatives.
Sergeant Tilley. Post September 11 events have increased the
demands placed on the force.
In 1999 the Army started using the Reserve components in the
rotational mix in Bosnia and the Sinai to reduce Active component
operations tempo. These soldiers have performed magnificently in these
enduring missions. Reserve component soldiers are also supporting
emerging, immediate missions--both for the global war on terrorism and
homeland security. These missions, such as airport security, will
eventually be turned over to civilian authorities. Mobilizing Reserve
component soldiers to meet these immediate requirements is not a long-
term solution.
If we increase end strength, we must ensure the recruiting increase
is achievable, the training base can meet additional requirements, and
high standards and quality of life are maintained. All of which are
achievable, but can't be overlooked as part of the equation.
Sergeant McMichael. The Marine Corps is requesting an active duty
end strength increase of 2,400 marines in the fiscal year 2003
President's budget to establish the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade
(Anti-Terrorist). No Reserve end strength increase is currently
required.
Chief Herdt. While determining end strength requirements is outside
the scope of my normal duties, I do not immediately foresee the need
for changes to the Navy's end strength. However, we are analyzing our
long term commitments to see if requirements currently being performed
by recalled Naval reservists can be effectively absorbed by the Active-
Duty Force.
Chief Finch. We've reviewed our new tasking from Operations
Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle in detail, and verified additional new
requirements for Security Forces and other specialties, such as Office
of Special Investigations and Intelligence. As an immediate fix, we
partially mobilized a significant number of personnel from the Reserve
and Guard Forces to help us in this area. Also, we energized the entire
AF Team from recruiting throughout the rest of the service to enable us
to increase the help to these stressed career fields in the future.
Realizing the resource constraints we are facing, we have taken steps
to help offset our increased requirement in the years ahead through new
technology, reducing overseas taskings, etc.
General Bambrough. We are not projecting a requirement to increase
end strength; however, we do need additional full-time support
authorizations and appropriations. The Army Reserve participates in
Total Army Analysis, which is the Army's method for structuring and
resourcing the requirements of the Combatant Commanders in Chief in
accordance with the Secretary's Title X responsibilities. Any request
for an increase in end strength would result from an analysis of risk
coming from this process. The Army Reserve is a full partner in this
process and our personnel and force structure requirements are
incorporated by the Army.
Admiral Totushek. As previously stated, the Navy has budgeted for
additional Naval Reserve end strength in the fiscal year 2003 budget
request to support requirements for Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection. In
addition, Navy realizes that there are some high demand/low density
mission areas that are strictly found within the Naval Reserve, that
because of the recent events, are under review to determine the proper
Active/Reserve mix to sustain the war effort.
General Sherrard. SECDEF has challenged us to pursue more
innovative solutions to offset our need for additional manpower
requirements for homeland security, anti-terrorism and force protection
for the Total Force as a result of Operations Enduring Freedom and
Noble Eagle. The AF Reserve has documented an additional requirement
that is part of the Total Force additional requirements post September
11. Requirements are based on the new increased ``steady state''
conditions produced by Operations Enduring Freedom/Noble Eagle.
Increased requirements are in Security Forces, Intelligence, Office of
Special Investigations, and other specialties. We see this as one more
dimension of our transformation effort and are investigating a variety
of options resourcing these requirements.
General McCarthy. The Marine Corps is requesting an active duty end
strength increase of 2,400 marines in the fiscal year 2003 President's
budget to establish the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (Anti-
Terrorist). No Reserve end strength increase is currently required.
call to service act of 2001
40. Senator McCain. Dr. Chu, in your written statement you briefly
discuss the Call to Service Act of 2001. Unfortunately, you appear to
have misunderstood the basic essence of the program. Senator Bayh and I
envision this program not as an exact replica of existing, effective
career military service programs, but as a complementary, avocational
program to match Americans' propensity to serve their country with
national community service opportunities, including military service
opportunities, that are generally non-career-related and of short-term
duration. The incentives proposed for such service cannot be compared,
on an apples-to-apples basis, with those developed to attract and
retain career military service men and women. To attract top-notch
National Service Plan candidates to address immediate short-term
military service needs, for example, our plan would not offer an
incentive of TRICARE for Life and the full complement of Montgomery GI
Bill benefits. Instead of accruing this tremendous long-term cost, we
would propose offering a much more modest severance pay that would
permit the National Service Plan participant to use that money for
educational goals or other similar efforts immediately after concluding
his or her service. Is this an effort that you and your staff would
commit to working on with Senator Bayh and me this year?
Dr. Chu. Yes.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Personnel,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in
room SR-232-A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Max
Cleland (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committe members present: Senators Cleland and Hutchinson.
Committee staff member present: Cindy Pearson, assistant
chief clerk and security manager.
Majority staff member present: Gerald J. Leeling, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Patricia L. Lewis,
professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, minority
counsel.
Staff assistants present: Dara R. Alpert and Andrew Kent.
Committee members' assistants present: Andrew
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Charles Cogar,
assistant to Senator Allard; James P. Dohoney, Jr. and Michele
A. Traficante, assistants to Senator Hutchinson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND, CHAIRMAN
Senator Cleland. The committee will come to order.
Thank you all very much for joining us today. I would like
to welcome everyone to the Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
the Defense Health Program. This is our second hearing of the
year to discuss the issues that pertain to our military
personnel and families.
As you all know, health care is expensive. No matter what
your age or career, every American is affected by the rising
costs of health care. We have all heard various estimates of
the growing cost of Medicare.
Every year private businesses have increased costs to
provide health care to employees. The amount these individuals
pay for health insurance increases every year.
The Defense Health Program is not immune to these
increases. It is one of the fastest growing accounts in the
Defense budget. The administration has invested more than $20
billion in the military health system for fiscal year 2003.
Even though health care is expensive, it is necessary. As a
Nation, we cannot even think of sending our young men and women
into harm's way unless we are prepared to offer them state-of-
the-art health care for those injuries they incur while
performing their duties.
We have also committed to them that we will provide world-
class health care to their family members in return for their
selfless service to the Nation.
I know this all too well. I personally am here because of
the health program in place in 1968. I am a living example of
why it is important to have skilled medical personnel available
for our troops on the front line. The first person that
actually came to my aid after a grenade went off April 8, 1968
and almost mortally wounded me, was a young Marine corporal by
the name of David Lord.
Corporal Lord was not a medic. He was a mortar squad
leader. He jumped out of mortar pit and ran over to assist me.
He obviously had some good medical training, because he knew
what he had to do. He cut my pant leg off and used his belt to
put the tourniquet on what was left of my leg--which reminds
me, I may even owe him a belt these days. [Laughter.]
Several Marine corpsmen got to me right after that, and
they really saved my life.
I know that our medical program is not perfect, but we have
been steadily working to improve it. We have responded to
concerns about health care for our active-duty members by
enacting provisions that improve the quality of health care and
access to health care providers.
We authorized the TRICARE Remote Plan for families of
active duty personnel assigned to where military medical
facilities were in need and were not available.
We eliminated co-pay for active duty personnel and their
families when they received care under the TRICARE plan option.
We responded to military retirees, who then called our
attention to the broken promise of health care for life.
We started with a series of pilot programs, which included
access to the Federal Health Benefit Program, a TRICARE senior
supplement, and Medicare subvention.
Ultimately, we found an even better answer: TRICARE for
Life (TFL). Under this program, TRICARE pays for virtually
everything that Medicare does not pay for. It is the best
health program for Medicare eligibles in the United States. We
are really proud of this program.
Our first panel today will discuss DODs' plans for the next
generation of contracts for medical care. Last year, the
Department asked for changes in the law that would give them
more flexibility in contracting for the health care delivered
by the managed support contractors.
It asked for authority to move away from the statutory
requirement that contractors ``share the risk'' with the
Government. We were reluctant to give them that though without
knowing their plan for using it.
We want to know what they plan to do, so that we can
fulfill our responsibility to make sure our service personnel
and their families get the top quality health care they
deserve. We want to know what problems they have tried to solve
with the new contracts, and how the changes will affect the
beneficiaries.
We are more than willing to work with the Department on
ways to control the costs of the Defense Health Program. One
thing we will not do is compromise the quality of health care
for beneficiaries solely for the sake of saving money.
For our second panel, we are doing something that has not
been done since I have served the subcommittee. We have always
focused our hearings on the TRICARE benefit, on mainly the
benefit to families and retirees. We have not looked at the
health care available to our front line troops.
Today, we have the surgeons from several of our Unified
Combatant Commands (CINCs) here to tell us about the health
care we provide the service members serving on one of our many
contingency operations. We want to hear about the kinds of
medical care provided on the front lines.
We also want to make sure that you have the resources you
need to provide the top quality health care we want to our
members, especially those in harm's way.
It is my pleasure now to welcome Senator Hutchinson,
ranking member of this committee, and I would like to invite
him to make an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM HUTCHINSON
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you
have outlined the issues before us today very well. I am
pleased that the second hearing in our subcommittee in review
of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2003 will
be to receive testimony on the Defense Health Program.
This subcommittee has oversight of quality of life programs
for our military members. Working together, Mr. Chairman, we
have made, I think, very significant gains over the last
several years.
In addition to the significant pay raises that we have
seen, I am particularly pleased at the accomplishments that we
have made in respect to the military health care program. Major
initiatives in improving the TRICARE program, authorizing the
prescription benefit for our older retirees and, most notably
as you have observed, meeting the commitment for health care
for life, by enacting the TRICARE for Life Program. These are
some of the areas that we have focused on.
Keeping faith with our military retirees and their families
is critical. Meeting the commitment of health care for life is
a top priority.
The President's budget request provides a significant
increase in the Defense Health Program. The Department of
Defense has committed to fully funding the program for fiscal
year 2003.
I am very glad about our panels today. The first panel will
afford us the opportunity to receive an overview of the health
program, get an update on implementation of TRICARE for Life,
and receive testimony on how the Department of Defense plans to
move forward with the next generation of major health care
support and contracts. That is going to be very important
information for us to hear. Our second panel provides an
opportunity to hear, firsthand, about the status of medical
support for our active-duty deployed troops. Having just
returned from Afghanistan about two weeks ago, and having had
the opportunity to stop at the K2 camp in Uzbekistan there, it
was inspiring, particularly visiting the hospital there at that
K2 base, all in tents.
A young Arkansan who was an operating room assistant has
been there since before Thanksgiving, for Thanksgiving,
Christmas, and New Year's. She did not have any idea of when
she would be relieved or rotated, but the morale was incredibly
high, the sense that they are doing something for America, that
they are there for a purpose. I did not meet one among of the
hundreds that we met at K2 who wished they were anywhere else
in the world. They are glad they are doing something for our
country.
I look forward to that testimony. Military medical
personnel need to be prepared to address disease, environmental
threats, exposures, battlefield wounds, non-battlefield
injuries, provide force health surveillance, and respond to
potential chemical and biological attacks.
I know our second panel is going to address some of the
needs concerning a vaccine program, and I look forward to that.
We ask our medical troops to ensure the health of our
forces and their families, respond to the needs of our allies,
and often local populations, as well as administering to our
enemies we have captured. That is a lot to ask. I think they
are well prepared and doing a great job. I look forward to the
testimony of our witnesses today.
Thank you, Chairman Cleland.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchinson.
Thank you for your contributions to this panel. It means an
awful lot having you here and your contribution.
We welcome the first panel. We welcome Dr. Winkenwerder,
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; and Mr.
Carrato, the Executive Director of the TRICARE Management
Activity (TMA).
I especially would like to acknowledge Dr. Winkenwerder,
who has served as the Associate Vice President for Health
Affairs and the Vice President of Emory Health Care in Atlanta.
We received your joint prepared statement and it will be
included in the record. We would appreciate your summary. Dr.
Winkenwerder, I understand you will be making an opening
statement on behalf of both you and Mr. Carrato. Please include
a brief description of responsibilities of your positions, so
that we can understand how you relate to each other
organizationally. Thank you very much for coming.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM WINKENWERDER, JR., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS
F. CARRATO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY
Dr. Winkenwerder. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchinson, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today. I am pleased to be here with Mr. Tom Carrato,
who is the Executive Director of TRICARE Management Activity.
As you requested, I will provide a brief verbal statement
on behalf of the Department and submit our written statement
for the record. Before going into my verbal comments, I will
answer your question with regard to my responsibilities and Mr.
Carrato's.
As the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, I
have responsibility for the Defense Health Program. That
includes the peacetime health care system, our medical
readiness activities and, all the plans, strategies, and
preparations that we undertake on an ongoing basis to ensure
that what we do in wartime is of the very best that we can
offer to protect our men and women who are in harm's way; and
if they are injured or hurt in some way, to address those
injuries or wounds and get them back either into their
positions or back home, and under the best care that we can
provide.
There are many activities. We will touch on some of the
specific responsibilities here today. One of the biggest
responsibilities under my purview is the TRICARE program. Mr.
Carrato acts as my chief lieutenant, so to speak, for those
activities. He is really responsible for the day-to-day
management of the TRICARE program, which is an insurance
program that also is involved in a wide range of activities,
also covering some of the medical readiness components of our
sphere of work.
With that, let me move forward. First, I want to take a
moment to acknowledge the heroic and exemplary contributions of
our military health professionals and what they are doing
around the world.
Our military medics are engaged in a number of diverse and
challenging activities in support of the war on terrorism, both
here and abroad. In Afghanistan, our medical professionals are
providing lifesaving care to our troops and allies in a very
austere environment.
I get briefings from the Joint Staff on a daily basis with
regard to those activities. I have to tell you with the number
of stories I have heard, lives have been saved and will be
saved as we go forward because of the preparations that we have
undertaken to have the right kind of medical support to be
right on top of injuries when they happen.
I would also add that we have provided lifesaving treatment
to some of our allies and to other people like reporters and
people that are in the theater.
Senator Cleland. It is the reporters I would question. It
is a joke.
Dr. Winkenwerder. No comment. [Laughter]
In Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, our Navy medics are delivering
high-quality medical care for a number of the detainees, I
think that is another important thing to note they are
providing care in the same way that they would to our own
people. They are doing an outstanding job. They have held back
in no way with respect to the level of care, the quality of
care that those people receive.
We are operating as if they are people that deserve the
full level of care, and I can talk further about that if there
are questions about it.
In the United States, our health professionals continue to
work closely with other Federal agencies in the Office of
Homeland Security in responding to biological and chemical
warfare threats facing us today.
Of course, we also continue to provide the finest medical
care every day, throughout the world to active duty personnel,
their families, and our retirees.
Everything we do within the military health system is
designed to support our warfighters, from preventive medicine
activities to complex multi-specialty care requirements for the
most severely ill or injured patients. This support includes
the design and operation of TRICARE and the management of
TRICARE contracts.
TRICARE was intended to better integrate the care we
provide our beneficiaries in our military hospitals and clinics
with the $7 billion that we spend on that care every year, that
we deliver through the private sector.
In the 7 years since TRICARE was first introduced, it has
been very successful in this effort. Virtually every indicator
of success has moved in the right direction. We have increasing
beneficiary satisfaction, increased perceptions of quality of
care, increased use of preventive services, and decreased use
of the emergency room. We have metrics that we can share with
you on all of those measures.
Our costs have increased too, but they have remained within
the overall cost increases seen in the private sector. As we
have implemented a new set of health care benefits,
particularly the establishment of TRICARE for Life and a
prescription drug benefit for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries
in a timely and effective manner.
We are proud of these successes, and yet there is still
room for improvement. The current contracts, and the current
TRICARE contractors, have provided us with a strong foundation
upon which to build. We do need to move forward with a new set
of TRICARE contracts that build upon both its successes and the
lessons we have learned from the past 7 years.
Over the years, we have placed a number of new requirements
on the existing contracts. Very often, our requirements have
been too prescriptive and not provided the proper incentives
for contractor innovation.
Our next generation of TRICARE contracts will be made
simpler. They will adopt the best practices in the private
sector, and they will invite greater competition from the
private health care market place.
I believe that financial incentives are a powerful tool to
enhance contractor performance. In the next set of contracts, I
expect to retain some form of financial risk-sharing that
rewards outstanding performance. I will be glad to talk further
about that, should there be questions.
However, we will also look to fee-based rewards for
achieving certain performance targets, for example, in
beneficiary satisfaction or efficiency of claims payments.
Finally, I will ensure that our new contracts enhance
quality and continuative care for beneficiaries, and minimize
any disruption in beneficiary services. In sum, we want to
improve and make better what we can, and we do not want to
break what is working well right now. That has been my pledge.
I strongly believe that these actions will improve the
health care delivery system for our patients, improve the
predictability of our health care budgets, and establish the
military health system as one of the preeminent health systems
in the country.
I want to assure the committee that I will continue to
consult with you regularly as we proceed with our TRICARE
contracting strategy.
In the President's budget request for fiscal year 2003, the
Defense Health Program submission is based on realistic
estimates of providing health care for DOD eligible
populations. It includes assumptions for growth rates in both
pharmacy and private sector health costs to reflect our recent
experience, which mirrors the rest of the private market place.
As we strive to raise the performance of our health care
system, we are also reaching out to other Federal agencies to
improve collaboration and coordination of services, and in
particular I want to note our efforts with respect to the
Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) and the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
DOD's collaboration with the VA dates back many years. Our
efforts for the VA are similar to our experiences with the
TRICARE contracts. We have accomplished a lot but there is much
more that we can do. There really, truly are many opportunities
here.
We are investigating the means by which we can increase
collaboration on a number of fronts; for example, VA
participation in TRICARE contracts, a unified and simplified
billing system, so that we know what the relative costs of
services are in both systems, and there is one system of
billing; increased cooperation on our capital asset and
construction plans; and improvements that will permit
appropriate sharing of electronic patient records. Those are
just a few, and there are many more.
The focus of these efforts will be to identify those
opportunities that are congruent with our departmental mission
and also with the VA's, and that will benefit both the
beneficiary and the U.S. taxpayer.
To elevate the performance of our system, we must continue
to recruit and retain the best qualified medical professionals
and ensure that they are clinically challenged in their medical
practice.
We have initiated several efforts to better understand the
reasons that military medical professionals stay on or why they
leave the service and what factors would convince one to remain
in the military.
We have proposals that we are now developing to ensure that
we attract and retain the best people and that we pay them
appropriately. As the military health system continues to meet
its many missions and challenges, I am certain that we will
emerge even stronger.
Again, I thank you for the chance to speak with you about
the military health system and the exceptional people who make
it vibrant and the best that this country has to offer.
I look forward to answering any questions that you might
have. Thank you.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Dr. Winkenwerder and
Mr. Carrato. Thank you very much for being here.
[The joint prepared statement of Dr. Winkenwerder and Mr.
Carrato follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement by Hon. William Winkenwerder, Jr., MD, MBA,
and Thomas F. Carrato
Chairman Cleland, Senator Hutchinson, and distinguished members of
the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Military Health System.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, and the bioterrorist
incidents that followed in October have awakened us all to a very real
threat of terrorism. Through that prism we examined the Military Health
System, refined its responsibilities and mapped a course that we must
pursue in order to protect the health of our men and women in uniform.
This course is preeminent in our priorities and is encompassed in our
vision for military medicine. That vision is to attain world class
stature as a healthcare system, one that meets all wartime and
peacetime health and medical needs for the active military, retirees,
their families, and other entitled beneficiaries.
Achieving this vision will require more than just the traditional
focus upon preventive medicine and the delivery of restorative
healthcare. To meet the health and medical needs of our entire
beneficiary population while meeting our requirements for the force
health protection of our active duty personnel, we must continue to
improve and seek to optimize our integrated system of healthcare. This
integrated system consists of uniformed, civil service and contract
medical personnel working together to improve the health of our
beneficiaries across the country and around the world.
This system must rapidly identify and mitigate potential health
threats, and provide preventive measures and education to preserve the
health and vigor of our population. Should these measures fail, we must
be prepared to treat disease and restore the sick and injured to health
through use of the most efficacious treatments that medical science can
offer. The need for an effective, integrated system also extends beyond
the period of active service, for those in need of rehabilitation
following injury or illness, and for the care of our retired
beneficiaries who have honorably served their country. All the while,
we must continuously improve the quality of care we provide, the safety
and satisfaction of our patients and exercise fiscal stewardship in
managing the system.
We must use the concepts of evidence-based medicine to ensure that
patients receive treatments that are effective. We must continue to
contribute to the body of medical knowledge by participating in
scientific research, particularly in our knowledge of hazards of the
battlefield, chemical and biological terrorist threats, and the
operational environment.
As we face the threat of terrorism, it is more important than ever
that we ensure effective coordination and cooperation with other
Federal agencies and organizations with necessary expertise. These
include Congress, and especially the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Health and Human Services.
Accomplishing this vision will require that we create and maintain
high quality information systems, that we attract and retain high
quality medical professionals, that we provide the necessary tools and
training for our personnel, and that we maintain our commitment to
achieving the vision.
military health system funding
In the President's budget request for fiscal year 2003, the Defense
Health Program (DHP) submission is based on realistic estimates of
providing healthcare benefits to DOD eligible populations. It includes
inflation assumptions for pharmacy of 10.5 percent plus anticipated
program growth for an overall of 15 percent from fiscal year 2002
program. Private sector health costs have been inflated at 7 percent to
reflect our recent experience: anticipated program growth brings the
overall rate of change to 12 percent from fiscal year 2002. We will
manage the healthcare system to improve performance and contain the
healthcare costs within budgeted amounts. We will make prudent
decisions that result in effective performance. We seek your assistance
in making permanent the contract management flexibility you provided in
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 and in
alleviating the restrictions on moving resources across budget activity
groups. The Department must have the freedom to move funding in
response to where healthcare is received, either within the military
healthcare facilities or through the private sector.
The President's budget for the DHP consists of the following
amounts:
[In millions of dollars]
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)............................ $14,360
Procurement................................................ 279
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E)........ 67
------------
Total.................................................... $14,706
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M Funding by Budget Activity Group
[In thousands of dollars]
Direct Care................................................ $ 4,070,811
Private Sector Care........................................ 7,159,674
Consolidate Health Support................................. 809,548
Information Management..................................... 666,709
Management Activities...................................... 221,786
Education and Training..................................... 350,092
Base Operations/Communications............................. 1,081,651
------------
Total O&M................................................ $14,360,271
In addition to the DHP budget, the Military Health System is
supported with $6.0 billion for Military Personnel (MILPERS) and $0.165
billion for military construction. The fiscal year 2003 total unified
MHS budget is $20.9 billion.
The DOD Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund is projected to
provide an additional $5.7 billion for the healthcare costs of
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, $4.3 billion for private sector care,
$0.8 billion for direct care (O&M), and $0.6 billion for MILPERS.
This budget request reflects implementation of accrual financing
for the healthcare costs of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, including
their new TRICARE for Life benefits. This will entail both payments
into the fund ($8.1 billion) to cover the Government's liability for
future healthcare costs of current military personnel and receipts from
the fund (projected $5.7 billion) to pay for care provided to eligible
beneficiaries. Our budget reflects a decrease to the DHP appropriation
to account for the payments from the fund and an increase to the
military services' Military Personnel accounts to cover the
Department's normal cost contribution. This alignment ensures
consistency with the accrual funding for the military retirement
pension costs under Title 10, chapter 74. We ask your help in modifying
NDAA 2001 and 2002, which currently direct that the Defense Health
Program make the annual contribution to the accrual fund. It is the
Military Personnel accounts that should make these payments. They have
received increases for this purpose in the fiscal year 2003 budget
request.
force health protection and medical readiness
Even before the events of September 11, Secretary Rumsfeld's
Quadrennial Defense Review assented that both terrorism and chemical
and biological weapons would transform the strategic landscape for the
Department. The terrorist acts of last fall placed us on a war footing
and escalated the urgency of our need for preparedness. The MHS has
underway numerous activities to ensure that preparedness, including
formation of a high-level working group with Department of Health and
Human Services representatives to improve collaboration on defense
against biological and chemical terrorism. Deliberations continue on
the future of the anthrax vaccine immunization program now that we have
confidence in an assured supply of FDA-approved vaccine. The MHS has
also placed renewed emphasis on training military healthcare personnel
in recognizing symptoms of and refreshing treatment plans for exposure
to chemical and biological agents.
We are actively developing Investigational New Drug (IND) protocols
and guidelines for possible use during the war on terrorism, to include
protocols on smallpox vaccine, pyridostigmine bromide (PB) tablets,
botulinum toxoid vaccine, and anthrax vaccine post-exposure with
antibiotics. The MHS is developing and implementing a seamless system
of electronic healthcare and surveillance data, integrating the entire
spectrum from fixed facility systems to field hand-held technology. The
deployment health system is maturing in response to a growing array of
acute and chronic deployment health concerns, with recent added
emphasis on environmental and occupational health surveillance.
We continue to expand and improve both the vaccine healthcare
center network to support our world class vaccine safety assessment
program, and the deployment health clinical center network to provide
multidisciplinary evaluation and treatment of service members with
deployment related health problems.
tricare
This military health system (MHS) program benefit provides an
essential and interdependent link between medical readiness and
everyday healthcare delivery. Meeting the force health protection
responsibilities of the MHS depends upon the success of TRICARE in
providing both quality healthcare and challenging clinical experiences
for military healthcare providers. Very important to this success is a
stable financial environment. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget
request for the DHP provides that stability.
TRICARE Contracts. TRICARE's success also relies on incorporating
best business practices into our administration of the program,
specifically our managed care contracts. Our new generation of TRICARE
contracts (T-NEX) will encourage best business practices by the
contractors without over direction by the government. We also are
working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to make sure T-NEX
provides appropriate opportunities for VA participation in provider
networks. We have listened to the advice of industry and our
beneficiaries on how to structure these contracts and we are confident
that the design will help us to continue providing high quality care.
We enter this new generation of contracts with a commitment to our
beneficiaries to earn their satisfaction and to ensure continuity of
quality services. We place a great deal of importance on contractor
customer service performance--to include positive and negative
financial incentives--to ensure that our beneficiaries are provided the
kind and type of information and services they seek in a timely and
accurate manner. Also, we will continue to partner with The Military
Coalition and National Military and Veterans Alliance, who collectively
represent the interests of more than four million current and former
military personnel. This partnership ensures that we really know what
our beneficiaries feel and think about the TRICARE Program. Their
feedback helps us to better address the concerns and needs of our
beneficiaries.
TRICARE for Life. Implementation of TRICARE for Life has proceeded
exceptionally well. As in all new program startups, we have experienced
problems. Nevertheless, we aggressively handle each one until we reach
a satisfactory resolution. Since the October 1, 2001, start date, we
have processed over six million claims and the overwhelming majority of
information we receive is that our beneficiaries are extremely
satisfied with TRICARE for Life. They speak very highly of the senior
pharmacy program as well. This program began April 1, 2001, virtually
problem-free, and through February 15, 2002, 8.6 million prescriptions
have been processed through the TRICARE retail pharmacy networks and
the our National Mail Order Pharmacy program, providing over $539
million in prescription benefits for our age 65 and over beneficiary
population.
Examples of the problems we identified and addressed with the
initial implementation of TRICARE for Life include a group of 185,000
beneficiaries inadvertently excluded from the initial data match with
CMS to verify Medicare Part A and B coverage. This problem did not
involve denial of benefits for these beneficiaries. Rather, Medicare
could not forward their claims automatically to TRICARE for the first
60 days. We have corrected this problem.
Another example involves approximately 4 percent of potentially
eligible TFL beneficiaries who have not revalidated their military
benefits eligibility status as required every 4 years. This affected
only family members, as retirees retain eligibility without periodic
revalidation. The failure to revalidate eligibility (sometimes referred
to as obtaining a new ID Card) resulted in claims being denied. We have
several steps underway to address this issue:
We determined that the potential for these individuals
to be eligible is so high that TRICARE began paying claims for
these beneficiaries February 15, 2002. Concurrently we are
notifying each beneficiary through personal letters and
Explanation of Benefits messages that they must revalidate
their eligibility. We will continue paying claims for these
individuals through August 1, to allow them ample opportunity
to update their eligibility.
The Defense Manpower Data Center developed a letter
that beneficiaries may sign and return to validate their
continuing eligibility. This eliminates the need to travel to
an ID card issuing facility to obtain a new ID card. In the
mean-time, DOD will track these beneficiaries and use every
reasonable means to assist them with this process.
In addition to contacting individual beneficiaries, we
will renew our efforts through the media, caregivers,
beneficiary organizations, and other organizations to inform
all beneficiaries about their TRICARE for Life opportunity.
TRICARE for Life is secondary payer to all other health insurance
(OHI). When TRICARE records indicate that a beneficiary has other
health insurance, an informational Explanation of Benefits is issued
showing how much TRICARE would have paid had the beneficiary not had
other health insurance. This provides the beneficiary with helpful
information to determine if the premium they pay for their OHI is worth
the benefit. When a beneficiary cancels their OHI, they may simply
telephone TRICARE with the date their other coverage was canceled and
TRICARE will reprocess any incorrectly denied claims.
Sub-acute and Long Term Care. The reform actions implemented
through NDAA-02 ensure availability of high-quality sub-acute and long-
term medical care and services for all DOD beneficiaries in the most
efficient manner. The new authority to provide home healthcare and
respite care for qualifying active duty family members supports
readiness through the improved quality of life for special needs
families. Alignment of the TRICARE benefit and payment system for
skilled nursing facility and home health care with Medicare will
greatly improve coordination of benefits for our age 65 and over
beneficiaries and simplify authorization and provision of medically
necessary sub-acute and long-term care for all.
Portability. The TRICARE National Enrollment Database (NED),
implemented July 2000, provides health coverage portability to all
TRICARE Prime enrollees. NED provides a standardized beneficiary-
centered enrollment process and eliminates the procedural and automated
systems' disconnects that existed throughout the military health
system, including the contractors' systems, prior to the implementation
of the NED.
In our continuing efforts to improve and optimize our military
health system, the military services are developing plans for the
fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 optimization dollars provided by
Congress. Service health leaders developed the MHS Optimization Plan in
1999 setting forth an overarching 5-year strategy to guide health
system improvements to achieve a more efficient, cost-effective, world
class integrated health system supported by advanced information
technology and reengineering of our clinical and business processes.
The foundation of the optimization plan is population health
improvement and prevention, also the cornerstone of Force Health
Protection in support of our readiness mission, delivered proactively
with optimal use of our resources. A Special Assistant for Optimization
was established at the TRICARE Management Activity to assist in
integration of these efforts. A MHS Population Health Improvement Plan
and Guide has been published which provides our clinical staffs with
guidance for most efficiently managing the health of our beneficiaries.
coordination, communication, and collaboration
The MHS has built many strong relationships among other Federal
agencies--including Congress--professional organizations, contractors,
and beneficiary and military service associations. These relationships
facilitated the MHS's ability to respond in the aftermath of the
terrorist actions of last fall. The MHS role in the new homeland
security responsibilities will span an array of Federal, State, and
local agencies and will demand effective cooperation among all
involved. Our close working relationship with beneficiary associations
and our contractors can be credited for the smooth implementation of
TRICARE for Life.
DOD's collaboration with the VA dates back many years and much has
been accomplished. We have eight joint ventures throughout the country
providing coordinated healthcare to VA and DOD beneficiaries. We have
over 600 sharing agreements in place covering nearly 7,000 healthcare
services. However, all of these agreements are not fully utilized.
Eighty percent of VA facilities partner with us through our TRICARE
networks. It should be noted, that the level of participation by VA
within the TRICARE networks varies. Our Reserve components capitalize
on education and training opportunities with over 300 agreements in
place. DOD, VA, and the Indian Health Service collaborate in the
Federal Health Care Information Exchange (formerly known as the
Government Computerized Patient Record) which will enable DOD to send
laboratory results, radiology results, outpatient pharmacy, and patient
demographic information on separated servicemembers to the VA. Before
fiscal year 2005, we expect not only to have the ability to transmit
computerized patient medical record data to VA but also to receive this
information from VA. While we have achieved many successes, it is time
to reinvigorate these collaborative efforts to maximize sharing of
health resources, to increase efficiency, and to improve access for the
beneficiaries of both departments. The focus of our efforts is to move
the relationship with the VA from one of sharing to a proactive
partnership that meets the missions of both agencies while benefiting
the servicemember, veteran, and taxpayer.
Our vision of DOD/VA coordination is a mutually beneficial
partnership that optimizes the use of resources and infrastructure to
improve access to quality health care and increase the cost
effectiveness of each department's operations while respecting the
unique missions of the VA and DOD medical departments. Our guiding
principles include collaboration; providing the best value for the
taxpayer; establishment of clear policies and guidelines for DOD/VA
partnering; and fostering innovative, creative arrangements between DOD
and VA. As DOD and VA move toward a more proactive partnership, we have
established short-term goals to be accomplished during this fiscal
year. These include establishing solid business procedures for
reimbursement of services, improving access to health care through VA
participation in TRICARE, examining joint opportunities in
pharmaceuticals, facilitating healthcare information exchange, and
establishing a long-range joint strategic planning activity between DOD
and VA. We will accomplish this through the VA-DOD Executive Council,
where senior healthcare leaders proactively address potential areas for
further collaboration and resolve obstacles to sharing.
Concurrent with these ongoing efforts, DOD actively supports the
President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery to Veterans
announced by President Bush on Memorial Day 2001. DOD has provided
office space, administrative support, and functional experts to ensure
the Task Force accomplishes its mission of developing recommendations
to improve quality and coordination of healthcare for our Nation's
veterans. I will continue to work closely with my colleague, Dr. Gail
Wilensky, to ensure the success of the Task Force in meeting their
objectives, and we look forward to the Task Force's recommendations.
military medical personnel
The Quadrennial Defense Review directs development of a strategic
human resource plan to identify the tools necessary to size and shape
the military force with adequate numbers of high-quality, skilled
professionals. The MHS depends on clinically competent, highly
qualified, professionally satisfied military medical personnel. In
developing the MHS human resource plan, we have begun several
initiatives to determine retention rates, reasons for staying or
leaving the service, and what factors would convince one to remain in
the military.
At the request of Congress, we commissioned a study by the Center
for Naval Analyses (CNA) to examine pay gaps, retention projections,
and the relationship between pay and retention. We acknowledge the
significance of the findings. The CNA study shows a relationship
between pay and retention--although it points out that there are
factors other than pay that affect retention. A typical military
physician--for example, a general surgeon with 7 years of service--
receives one half of his or her income in incentive pays. While base
pay and other components which make up the remaining half of total
compensation have been increasing recently, the incentive pays have not
kept up with changes in the civilian community. CNA estimates the pay
gap for the surgeon is currently $137,000, or 47 percent. The
challenges of military service can be unique and tremendously rewarding
personally and professionally. We know that financial compensation is
not the sole determinant of a medical professional's decision to remain
in the service or to leave. We can never expect to close the pay gap
completely. However, we are concerned by the CNA findings and are
analyzing them now. Incentives to optimize our ability to shape
military medical staff size and mix with appropriate experience levels
are critical to meeting our mission requirements.
We will simplify the health professions' incentives authority to
place more management authority within the Department. The rapid pace
of change in the civilian healthcare personnel market, which competes
directly with our military accession and retention programs, requires
flexibility in the management of incentives for optimum effectiveness.
Additionally, we are expanding our use of the Health Professions
Loan Repayment Program (HPLRP). The President's budget provides funding
for an increase of 282 scholarships. In addition we are exploring ways
the Department can maximize use of incentives in the efforts to
optimize the accession and retention of appropriate personnel to meet
mission requirements.
military health information systems
We leverage advances in information technology to contribute to the
delivery of quality care, patient safety, improved system management,
and ease of patient access to healthcare. An essential element of
quality remains the assurance of the credentials of the health
professionals practicing in our health system. We have now in
operational testing at 10 military medical facilities a single database
that supports the management of the professional credentials for active
and Reserve component health personnel across all services. We
anticipate that this system, the Centralized Credentials Quality
Assurance System, will begin full deployment to all sites this Spring.
We plan to explore the potential for integrating this system with the
Veterans Administration's credentials system, VetPro.
The Theater Medical Information Program supports the medical
readiness of deployed combat forces. This system will aggregate medical
information from all levels of care within the theater thereby
supporting situational awareness and preventive medicine needs for
operational forces. Medical data generated at battlefield locations
will be transmitted to a central theater database, where the command
surgeon will have a comprehensive view of the theater medical
battlefield and be in a better position to manage the medical support
to all forces. This system serves as the medical component of the
Global Combat Support System and has an integrated suite of
capabilities that includes the Composite Health Care System II. User
testing will be conducted this summer during Exercise Millennium
Challenge and initial operational test and evaluation is scheduled for
later this year.
The Military Health System has successfully created an electronic
computer-based patient record. The Composite Health Care System II
(CHCS II) generates, maintains and provides secure electronic access to
a comprehensive and legible health record. CHCS II merges the best
commercial off-the-shelf applications on the market into a single
integrated system capable of worldwide deployment both in fixed
facilities and in the field environment, as part of the Theater Medical
Information Program. The Composite Health Care System II will undergo
formal operational test and evaluation this summer. Once completed, a
worldwide implementation decision will be made in 3Q fiscal year 2002.
Optimizing the Military Health System continues to be a high
priority in our efforts to effectively manage and operate the TRICARE
program. The Executive Information/Decision Support Program assists
health managers at all levels throughout the MHS. This program provides
an exceptionally robust database and suite of decision support tools
for health managers. It supports managed care forecasting and analysis,
population health tracking, MHS management analysis and reporting,
Defense medical surveillance, and TRICARE management activity
reporting. The data repository began operating in fiscal year 2001.
The Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support Program reflects how
information technology and business process re-engineering can lead to
significant return on investment and tremendous user satisfaction. This
program provides responsive medical logistics support to all military
services. Electronic catalog sales have grown from $204,000 in April
1999 to over $23.2 million in fiscal year 2001. The prime vendor
section of this program has grown to electronic sales of $1.3 billion
in fiscal year 2001. More importantly, it has reduced procurement lead
times from up to 45 days to 2 days or less, reduced medical logistics
inventory by 85 percent and allowed a 95 percent fill rate with
delivery in less than 24 hours. This program is the first in DOD to
receive Clinger-Cohen Act certification.
TRICARE Online uses the Internet to assist our beneficiaries gain
access to the Military Health System. It is an enterprise-wide secure
Internet portal for use by all DOD beneficiaries worldwide. It provides
information on health, medical facilities and providers, and increases
patient access to healthcare. Beneficiaries may create their own secure
health journals securely on this site, TRICARE Prime patients may make
appointments with their primary care providers, and all beneficiaries
may access 18 million pages of health and wellness information. This
system is scheduled for worldwide deployment later this year following
operational testing now underway.
We believe that our medical technologies can be helpful to the
Department of Veterans Affairs and together we are exploring joint
technologies as a means for closer collaboration.
As the MHS pursues the many initiatives outlined above, it will
become even stronger. The Military Health System's continued mission-
oriented focus on its primary responsibilities has further cemented its
world-renowned stature as a leader in integrated healthcare.
Again, I thank you for this chance to speak with you about the
Military Health System and the exceptional people who make it the
vibrant, innovative, comprehensive system that it is.
Senator Cleland. Dr. Winkenwerder, I know that you and Mr.
Carrato have been working on plans to change TRICARE,
implementing greater flexibility in contracting. We would like
to learn a little bit more about this contracting with managed-
care support contractors. I am always concerned when I hear
about changing TRICARE, because during its national
implementation, TRICARE had problems with, as you pointed out,
program instability, beneficiary confusion, less than desirable
customer service levels, and poor administrative performance.
We were overwhelmed, quite frankly, a number of years ago
with complaints about TRICARE. I think we worked through all
that. TRICARE now enjoys, as you point out, unprecedented
stability and extremely high beneficiary satisfaction.
Let us not make the kind of changes to TRICARE that would
rekindle all those old problems. With that in mind, what is
your plan? Is your plan to contract out to HMOs?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Our plan, Senator, will build upon what
we have done, and frankly, what we are doing right now. Our
intention and our plan is to work with the private sector
health plans, like the plans that we are working with now that
have done a good job and who I would view as being the leading
candidates to continue to work with us, given their track
record and their performance.
That said, I think it is important that we ensure that
there is a competitive system that allows others who would love
to have the chance to work with us and bring innovation and
excellence in their execution to the table.
The way we view the role of the prime contractor--which is
a health insurance or managed care plan--is to build a network
of hospitals, physicians, and other care providers around the
military treatment facilities and clinics, so that there is
greater breadth of access for the covered populations. We
cannot do all of that within the military treatment facilities.
We look to them to really be our right arm, to be our
program managers and integrators of all the services. We do not
look to change that basic integrator role. In other words, they
would continue to contract with hospitals and physicians and
for the breadth of health care services that are part of the
whole benefit.
The changes are principally focused on making what I would
call the back room and the nuts-and-bolts activities work more
smoothly, the administrative aspects, the financing mechanism.
I think you would hear from the contractors themselves, if you
have not already, that there are many things that we can do to
improve the way we work together. That is what we will be
focusing upon.
Now, there is one area where I think we would also agree
that there is an opportunity for improvement in service and
cost management, and that relates to pharmacy.
In today's world, there are companies that are called
pharmacy benefit management companies. They have come into the
market place during my experience, over the last 10 years or
so, in working at companies like Blue Cross and Prudential. The
health plans, I think, have learned that these companies do it
better than the health plans could, because they are focused
totally on the pharmacy world.
I know the Government is thinking about what role pharmacy
benefit managers might have with the Medicare program. Our view
is that there is an opportunity there to improve the TRICARE
program, in terms of customer satisfaction, capability,
technology, and cost management, by taking that one piece and
working to develop a national contract or contracts for those
services.
Other than that one significant change, which we have had
open discussions with our current existing contractors about,
the basic construct of how we work together would continue.
We have one or two other very small areas where we want to,
for example, have a national, uniform look with respect to
marketing materials, so that the program materials that
beneficiaries and their families and retirees receive look the
same, that each health plan is not developing them separately.
That is a very tiny piece.
The concerns that the contractor community had last fall
about making radical changes to the program that would be
disruptive, I think we have addressed that. We feel quite
confident that we are going to move forward in a way that
improves what needs to be improved, but is not going to disrupt
the experience of the beneficiary.
Senator Cleland. From my point of view, we have to be very
careful about contracting out with HMOs. In my experience, HMO
means Help Me Out.
I jokingly say that it is a good thing that when I was
wounded in Vietnam, I was not covered by an HMO for two
reasons. First, I would have bled to death before I had them on
the phone; and second, once I got them on the phone, they would
have said, ``Well, you are not cost-effective.'' I think we
have to be very careful we walk down that road.
May I say, Mr. Carrato, that TRICARE has unique claims
requirements that seem to differ from the industry standard
Medicare process.
Some health care providers choose not to participate in
TRICARE, because they do not want to have to deal with claims.
In this process that they think the claims are more cumbersome
than the Medicare claims they file. Some potential contractors
for managed-care support elect not to compete for TRICARE
contracts because of the claims process.
Why can TRICARE not use the same widely accepted claims
process that Medicare uses?
Mr. Carrato. Mr. Chairman, the TRICARE program is a bit
different than the Medicare program. The Medicare claims
processing system is supporting the Medicare fee-for-service
program. TRICARE, Mr. Chairman, has an enrolled option, a
preferred provider/organization option, and a fee-for-service
option.
There are some differences. We have done a fair amount of
work in the claims processing area. As you had talked about,
among our early challenges as we implemented the TRICARE
program, claims processing was one of those challenges.
I am happy to report today that, after a significant amount
of activity in re-engineering our claims processing, we now
process 98 percent of our retained claims within 30 days and
99.9 percent of our retained claims within 60 days. We have
also reduced turn-around time.
Having said that, we have made great strides. This is
certainly one area that we want to look to in the next
generation of contracts.
As Dr. Winkenwerder said, there have been great
improvements in technology, certainly in the claims processing
technology, and we would like to move in that direction. We are
mindful of providers' concerns.
We do not want providers to have to face hassles or have to
deal with multiple requirements to participate in our program
and participate in other programs. So we are also keeping an
eye on what we can do to reduce the hassle factor that has been
identified to us by providers.
Senator Cleland. Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Winkenwerder, in your opening statement, you mentioned
that the new contractual configuration would have some form of
risks and fee-based rewards so that you were willing to expand
on that. Would you explain a little more what you had in mind?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes. We believe that there is a way to
make changes in the current very complex, very--frankly--
overly-convoluted bid price adjustment. That is the technical
term, which is a basic financing mechanism of how the
Government and the contractor look at the prices that are bid
and make adjustments and determine payments.
We think there is a simpler way and a better way to do
that. One of the ways that certainly was among the broad range
of options out there, is to have no risk involved simply for
the contractor to be an administrator and a payer of claims in
the same way that a traditional insurance company is with an
employer.
On the other hand, if we want to provide some financial
incentive for that contractor who I mentioned has a role in
integrating all of the services and a network of doctors and
hospitals and looking at costs, then it might make sense to
have some portion of that amount of money that they would
receive at the end of the day, at risk.
In my experience in the private sector, the private sector
has experimented with risk sharing over the last decade or
more. Many people got into these arrangements where the
contractor--in some cases, it was the health plan, in some
cases, it was just a group of doctors and hospitals--would take
the full financial risk. That led to bad decisions.
I think there may be too much influence and concern on the
part of the provider, too much thinking about the costs, and
there may be inappropriate decisions. I think that is where
some of the bad decisions that some HMOs and some doctors that
were in HMOs got off on the wrong track.
I think there is a difference between that and just
creating a small amount of risk so that there is both up-side
opportunity, but limit to what might be the down-side. That is
what we are looking at, a model along those lines. I think our
discussions with the contractors themselves, that is a model
that I think we all think makes sense.
I think they can speak for themselves, but I have had
enough discussion to get that sense.
Senator Hutchinson. I share the Chairman's feeling that we
have gone through a lot of turmoil in TRICARE and taken a lot
of hits over the years, and that has been worked through and we
have a very stable and well-received program. Any changes now
might throw us back into that kind of disarray.
My understanding is, we gave 1-year relief from the risk.
Dr. Winkenwerder. Right.
Senator Hutchinson. In order to implement your new
approach, you are going to need that to be extended or made
permanent; is that correct?
Dr. Winkenwerder. We would prefer to have that, just
because what I would like as a program manager, what the
Secretary would like is that flexibility and to be trusted with
it, that we are going to use it appropriately and not abuse it.
I have tried to establish a track record so far in speaking
candidly and talking straight about these issues and saying,
this is why we want this flexibility.
Senator Hutchinson. Right.
Dr. Winkenwerder. But we are going to talk with you as we
work forward to develop this new round of contracts and the
further changes. We look forward to and want your input.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you. I think in terms of the
extended flexibility, the subcommittee has to feel that we are
not going to have beneficiaries who are going to receive less
service or who are going to be--that this is going to cause
that kind of turmoil. We will look forward to working through
that with you also.
Dr. Winkenwerder, you mentioned Pharmacy Benefit Managers
(PBMs) and their potential role in a future plan. You referred
to the administration's plan last year that was actually, I
think, struck in the courts as not being permissible. How do
you work through that?
Dr. Winkenwerder. I am not familiar with all of the details
of that plan, but my understanding of that plan is that it is
very different from what I am describing.
Senator Hutchinson. I hope so.
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes. No. It is a different approach. It
is not a retail network discount approach.
Senator Hutchinson. Is it a card?
Dr. Winkenwerder. No.
Senator Hutchinson. Would it use these managers?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Right now, we have networks of retail
pharmacies where people can get their prescriptions, and we
would continue to have those. It is just that we would have an
administrator that would assist with our management of those
networks and that would also help us negotiate discounts with
the pharmacy manufacturers--if that is the approach that we
chose.
The bottom line is that either the Government has to take
on a role in that negotiation or a benefit management company
would.
Senator Hutchinson. Have you decided? Are you going to
contract, or do it in-house?
Dr. Winkenwerder. That is an important decision that we
have not yet come to a final resolution on. That takes a lot of
careful thinking through, financial and economic evaluation. We
have to look at our own capabilities and assets.
There are many factors involved there. We want to make the
right decision.
We hope to be able to speak about which direction we would
like to go in the near future. I would hope it would be within
the next 2 to 3 months, but hopefully, sooner than that. We are
working on it.
Senator Hutchinson. Is there any difficulty now in small,
independent pharmacies as opposed to the large chains,
participating in the program?
Dr. Winkenwerder. I am going to turn to Tom on that matter.
Mr. Carrato. We deliver prescription drugs through three
venues: our direct care system, our military hospitals, and
clinics.
We also have a national mail-order pharmacy program a
retail pharmacy benefit. That retail pharmacy benefit delivers
prescription drugs through a network option. They can be part
of the network, or our beneficiaries have freedom of choice and
can go to a non-network pharmacy.
Senator Hutchinson. They pay more?
Mr. Carrato. The beneficiary would pay more to go to a non-
network retail pharmacy.
Senator Hutchinson. Right.
Mr. Carrato. In response to the question you posed, I
think, most of our managed care support contractors who are
currently responsible for building the pharmacy network go with
regional chains, because there is broad coverage by large
retail, either regional or national chains.
There are some areas where the chains have not penetrated
yet. In those areas, the networks are supplemented by
independent pharmacies.
I know there has been some concern where the contract is
with a chain. There may be an independent who would like to
have an opportunity to participate in the network, as well.
Senator Hutchinson. Yes. I personally would like to be a
part of your decision-making process on the use of PBMs and how
you determine whether that is in-house and what kind of program
is set up.
Now, Dr. Winkenwerder, you mentioned 2 to 3 months on
making this decision on the PBM issue. Is that the same time
frame that you would see for the soliciting, awarding, and
implementing of new health care support contracts?
Dr. Winkenwerder. We think it makes sense to come forward
and have discussions with you as we have worked these issues
internally with a comprehensive plan.
Senator Hutchinson. Do you have any time frame on that
plan?
Dr. Winkenwerder. It is roughly that time frame that I have
described. The only caveat I have to give you is that, I have
some important folk who have to sign off for this program that
I report to, namely Under Secretary Chu, Secretary Rumsfeld,
and the office of the comptroller. They have to get a comfort
level with what we are doing.
There are many important people that need to get
comfortable with what we are doing. That is what takes us time.
It is not only our own analysis, but it is ensuring that
everybody that has an important say in things at the Defense
Department is on board with the direction we would like to go.
Senator Hutchinson. We would ultimately have some say about
that as well.
Dr. Winkenwerder. You sure will.
Senator Hutchinson. The sooner the plan can be presented to
us, the better.
Dr. Winkenwerder. You sure will.
Senator Hutchinson. The beneficiaries, do they have means
by which they can participate in the development of this new
plan?
Dr. Winkenwerder. They do. We have met with the
beneficiaries, and we meet with the representative
organizations on a regular basis. I have spoken to the
leadership.
We have a group of roughly 15 or 20 leaders of various
benefit service organizations. I have asked them very directly
and said, ``Give us your ideas. Give us your thoughts. Tell us
what you think is working well, what is not, your ideas for how
we can improve the program.''
They have been forthcoming, so yes, I think it is
important, essential, I would say, to get their thoughts and
input.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. Thank you very much
for being part of our panel today. It means an awful lot to
have you take time to come and help us sort these issues out.
We would like to bring the second panel to the table. We
will take a 10-minute break. [Recess.]
If we could come back to order here. We thank all of our
panelists for being here.
I was just out in the anteroom here in the committee room
and saw this, quite frankly, incredible sculpture by Rodger
Brodin. I do not know whether you can see it or not, but it is
a serviceman helping an obviously wounded fellow serviceman,
with a female nurse in attendance. It says, ``The price of
freedom.''
I think we often forget that we do not send impersonal
people into battle. We send real live human beings into battle,
and invariably, there is a price exacted.
We are very pleased to welcome our second panel, which
includes the command surgeons from several of our U.S. military
commands. We have Rear Admiral Mayo from Pacific Command;
Brigadier General Green from Transportation Command; Colonel
Maul from Central Command; Captain Hall from European Command;
and Colonel Jones from Southern Command.
We have received your prepared statements and they will be
included in the record. We have also received a prepared
statement from Lieutenant General Peake, the Surgeon General of
the Army. If there is no objection, his statement will be
entered into the record.
[The prepared statement of Lieutenant General Peake
follows:]
Prepared Statement by LTG James B. Peake, USA
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Lieutenant General
James B. Peake. I thank you for this opportunity to submit a statement
for the record to your committee. It is my privilege to serve as the
40th Army Surgeon General.
This morning I would like to discuss the opportunities and
challenges that face the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) as we provide
medical support to the force. As we all know the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, have dramatically changed America and the world. On
that day Army medics were front and center providing quality and
compassionate health care to their fallen comrades at the Pentagon.
Today as I speak, Army medics are providing that same quality and
compassionate care in support of Enduring Freedom and many other
operations around the world to include our homeland. The AMEDD is
uniquely capable of supporting these operations. We are able to place
an integrated health care delivery system any place in the world.
Stories of how our combat medics are providing life saving care to
injured soldiers in Afghanistan; followed by rapid evacuation to a
forward surgical team, to a deployed combat support hospital and back
to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center or Walter Reed Army Medical Center
demonstrates how we take our combat casualty care from point of injury
back to the United States for tertiary care.
deploy a trained and equipped medical force
Medics in support enable the soldier to be on point for our Nation.
In October 2001, we began a new era of Army Medicine. Soldiers began a
16-week training program at the Army Medical Department Center and
School to become more skilled and competent medics in the 21st century.
Training is focused on emergency care, primary care, medical force
protection, and evacuation and retrieval. All medics now graduate with
National Registry Emergency Medical Technician certification and will
be required to routinely revalidate their critical medical skills. Both
Active and Reserve components are transitioning to the 91W MOS.
Army graduate medical education programs are augmented with
military-unique aspects of a given specialty, which prepares physicians
for the rigorous demands of practice in a wartime or contingency
environment. Residents receive orientations and lectures concerning war
zone injuries, trauma, and military deployments. Additionally, they
attend formal training that includes a centralized combat casualty care
course, advanced trauma life support, medical management of chemical
and biological casualties, and the bushmasters course conducted at the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. After completing
an Army graduate medical education, a physician is uniquely qualified
to deploy at all levels within the theater of operations to support the
military medical mission.
We must ensure that the infrastructure and the capabilities of the
institutional AMEDD are robust and are leveraged to meet our
obligations to operational forces. We do this through comprehensive,
planned support to Power Projection Platforms, by deployment of a
trained and expert medical force through professional officer filler
system (PROFIS) and assignment rotations, and by targeted new
initiatives that can fill operational medical gaps anywhere in the
world as well as in support of homeland defense requirements.
To have a capable and ready Army medical force, we must have the
ability to recruit and retain quality, highly skilled health care
professionals. We are 5 months into what is projected to be a 15-year
war on terrorism, a war that will take us around the globe and will
require the sustained efforts of our entire military--active and
Reserve. Without adequate funding to recruit and retain these vital
health care professionals we face growing shortages that could prove
harmful to our deployment platform.
Our Reserve Medical Forces are valued members of the Army and the
AMEDD Team. This is particularly true of the AMEDD where in 2002, 63
percent of the total medical force is in the Reserve components.
Ensuring that all Reserve forces are medically prepared, and that
soldiers are healthy, is a critical issue for the military. The Federal
Strategic Health Alliance (FEDS-HEAL) is an important program to assist
in providing medical and dental care to Reserve forces. We must ensure
that our Reserve members are medically and dentally ready, so when
called upon they can immediately deploy and fulfill their vital role as
part of 11 the AMEDD.
Medical evacuation of casualties from the battlefield has been one
of the AMEDDs modernization priorities for several years. Clearing the
battlefield serves as a critical enabler for the combat commander,
allowing him to concentrate on the prosecution of the mission. Air
evacuation is the fastest and most flexible method, and the AMEDD has
been working with the aviation community to improve the UH-60 Blackhawk
and create a state-of-the-art evacuation platform--the HH-60L.
Another AMEDD modernization effort is exploratory work on the next
generation of medical shelter systems. These systems will have multi-
functional design that will allow for quick reconfiguration for
multiple medical applications. At home or abroad, across the spectrum
of conflicts and full ranges of environments including chemical and
biological scenarios, these shelter systems will improve the quality of
care for our patients.
To promote tactical mobility, the AMEDD is working with the
Transportation Corps to define medical requirements for trucks in the
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). The FMTV-LHS consists of a
truck with a pneumatic load-handling system that will be used to
transport current and future deployable medical systems.
Using new technologies, digitization, and enhanced mobility to
achieve a lighter, faster, more responsive medical capability will
ensure that military medicine is there to support the deployed service
member.
project and sustain a healthy and medically protected force
We must provide the capability to train, project, and sustain a fit
and healthy force that is protected against disease and non-battle
injury. We must continue to develop and sustain effective disease- and
injury-prevention programs that increase productivity and improve the
health and fighting strength of the force. We must improve and
streamline rehabilitative services for injured and ill soldiers to
expedite return to full duty status. We must continue to develop and
maintain surveillance programs and databases to monitor the health and
medical readiness of the force. Finally, we must be able to reliably
detect and assess threats to health from the environment this includes
the timely identification of infectious diseases, chemicals, climatic
extremes, and other threats.
Among the lessons learned by military medicine from the Persian
Gulf War is the importance of Force Health Protection and the need for
attention to it before, during, and after the deployment. It is the
leverage of information and information systems that will allow us to
take this core competency of military medicine and make major advances.
We continue to work towards a longitudinal and queriable patient record
will facilitate this proactive approach.
Environmental monitoring entails knowledge of potential health
threats in the air, water, and soil to which our service members are
exposed. Army Preventive Medicine Units are currently assessing the
occupational and environmental health risks to our force in
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and numerous other locations
throughout the world. For example, our medics are monitoring our troops
for altitude sickness a common occurrence when fighting at such high
altitudes in Afghanistan. There are also some age-old diseases that we
continue to combat such as tuberculosis and malaria that have the
potential to affect the combat readiness of our troops and newer ones
like HIV that we continue to research and study as we plan for future
operations.
Army Medicine is more than an HMO. Our system of integrated care,
teaching medical centers to outlying health clinics, schoolhouse to
research and development, form the base for supporting the Army across
the world and across the spectrum of conflict. We do that quietly and
on a daily basis as we field the TOE force, engage with both active and
Reserve forces, and respond to the Chief of Staff's vision of our
Army's role in alleviating human suffering and ensuring our soldiers
have world class health care available no matter where they are
deployed. I would like to thank this committee for your continued
commitment and support to quality care for our soldiers and to the
readiness of our medical forces.
I now would like to offer each of you the opportunity just
to take a few moments. I know you have traveled a long
distance, so relax and take your time. Take a few moments to
make an oral statement to the subcommittee, if you would like.
Admiral Mayo, we would like to welcome you and have you
kick it off. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. (LOWER HALF) RICHARD A. MAYO, USN,
COMMAND SURGEON FOR UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND
Admiral Mayo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure,
and indeed an honor, to be with you here today and speak about
Health Service Support in the Pacific area of responsibility
(AOR). I will try to make my comments brief, since a more
lengthy statement was submitted.
I want to thank you for including enhanced health care
benefits in the National Defense Authorization Acts the last 2
years. You have clearly demonstrated Congress' commitment to
providing comprehensive, world-class health care to our active
duty, their families, and retired service members.
Your efforts to ensure adequate funding of all health care
programs sends a strong signal that we are truly committed to
providing quality health care for our family members.
The Asia-Pacific region, with its large, educated
populations, wealth, technology, military forces, national
heritages, and ambitions, is one of the world's most important
and dynamic regions. The United States Pacific Command Area of
Responsibility, or USPACOM AOR, contains 43 countries and over
105 million square miles, totaling 52 percent of the Earth's
surface.
The United States has a strong historic commitment to the
region and has fought three major wars in the Pacific over the
past 100 years. Since World War II more American servicemembers
have died there than in any other region. This is the landscape
on which the U.S. Pacific Command carries out its mission.
The Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Command is responsible
for ensuring a healthy, fit force, medically prepared to
execute any mission in peace, crisis, or war, and a totally
integrated, fully capable, and ready military health care
system prepared to sustain forces to fight and win. We
implement this mission completely through TRICARE, our
Department of Defense health care delivery system. TRICARE is
an integral part of the health care continuum from point of
illness or injury to our military medical treatment facilities.
USPACOM has fully integrated TRICARE as our day-to-day
approach to maintaining the mental and physical well being of
our forces. In short, we use TRICARE as the foundation for all
of our health care support functions.
It is a medical force multiplier, caring for the forces,
focusing on Force Health Protection, and ensuring we take care
of family members left behind. Our military medical treatment
facilities serve as a readiness training platform for
maintaining the medical skills required to care for our people.
Now, I will just add that when I talk about that as a
training platform, it is not only important to maintain skills,
but it is also the skills or the teamwork that is necessary to
deploy. I am a general surgeon, and when I deploy, it is very
important that the OR technicians or the nurses that deploy
with me are familiar, so that we work together as a team. Our
medical treatment facilities serve as a venue for that team
training for deployment.
Force Health Protection in the Pacific involves maintaining
a healthy, fit force, preventing injuries and casualties, and
providing casualty care and management when necessary.
While challenged by the tyranny of distance, aging DOD
medical infrastructure, vaccine availability, and realtime
medical surveillance tools, we can nevertheless support our
theater. Current operations have demonstrated the ability of
our outstanding health service personnel to be flexible,
adapting current medical support capabilities to meet the
unique situations and multitude of demands that have been
placed upon them.
The U.S. Pacific Command has fully capable, rapidly
deploying assets to meet the current health care needs of
forces participating in Operation Enduring Freedom. We have,
and continue to pursue, aggressive Force Health Protection
programs in support of our multiple deployments.
Our commanders understand and have implemented our programs
by command enforcement, commitment, and engagement.
We will continue to integrate our operations with other
organizations, as well as with our allies, friends, and
coalition partners, to ensure the highest level of care for our
servicemembers and their families at home and abroad.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to address any
questions or concerns that you have or any other members of the
subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Rear Admiral Mayo follows:]
Prepared Statement by RADM Richard A. Mayo, USN
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hutchinson, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, it is my pleasure and indeed an honor to be with you
today and speak about Health Service Support in the Pacific Area of
Responsibility (AOR). I want to thank you for including the enhanced
healthcare benefits in National Defense Authorization Acts the last 2
years. You have clearly demonstrated Congress' commitment to providing
comprehensive, world-class healthcare to our active duty, their
families, and retired servicemembers. Your efforts to ensure adequate
funding of all healthcare programs sends a strong signal that we are
truly committed to providing quality healthcare for our military
members.
The Asia-Pacific region, with its large, educated populations,
wealth, technology, military forces, national heritages, and ambitions,
is one of the world's most important and dynamic regions. The U.S.
Pacific Command (USPACOM) AOR contains 43 countries and over 105
million square miles totaling 52 percent of the earth's surface. The
U.S. has a strong historic commitment to the region, and has fought
three major wars in the Pacific over the past 100 years. Since World
War II, more American servicemembers have died here than in any other
region. This is the landscape on which the U.S. Pacific Command carries
out its mission.
The Commander in Chief USPACOM is responsible for ensuring a
healthy fit force medically prepared to execute any mission in peace,
crisis, or war, and a totally integrated fully capable and ready
military healthcare system prepared to sustain forces to fight and win.
We implement this mission completely through TRICARE, our Department of
Defense (DOD) healthcare delivery system. TRICARE is an integral part
of the healthcare continuum from point of illness or injury to our
military medical treatment facilities. USPACOM has fully integrated
TRICARE as our day-to-day approach to maintaining the mental and
physical well being of our forces. In short, we use TRICARE as the
foundation for all of our healthcare support functions. It is a medical
force multiplier, caring for the forces, focusing on Force Health
Protection, and ensuring we take care of family members left behind.
Our military medical treatment facilities serve as readiness training
platforms for maintaining the medical skills required to care for our
people.
I would like to start off by addressing some of the most
significant challenges we have in the Pacific. As I mentioned, our AOR
is vast, the tyranny of distance manifests itself in many ways, the
most significant of which are the ability to move medical augmentation
into theater when required and the ability to move patients back to
definitive care. In the initial stages of a major operation in the
western pacific, we are extremely dependent on staffed host nation
hospital beds provided by our allies in order to provide medical care
and holding for patients awaiting airlift. In order to move our sick
and injured to definitive care facilities both within the Pacific and
back in the Continental United States, we rely on a robust aeromedical
evacuation system. For example, moving a patient in the Pacific usually
entails flying 6 hours at a minimum to reach a definitive medical
treatment facility either in Hawaii or on the U.S west coast. In
peacetime or conflict, our success is contingent upon continued
availability of adequate airframes, trained aeromedical personnel, and
approved and tested aeromedical equipment. Another challenge is the
aging of all of our medical treatment facilities, many of which were
built during World War II. For example the United States Naval
Hospital, Guam provides medical care not only for DOD beneficiaries but
Department of Veterans Affairs beneficiaries as well. Finally, the
services are already aware of shortfalls in certain physician and nurse
specialties. We believe this problem will only be accentuated in time
of war and directly impact our ability to medically support our
theater.
The most valuable, complex weapon systems the U.S. military will
ever field are its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. These human
weapons systems require life-cycle support and maintenance just as
other less complex weapons systems do. Force Health Protection is that
life-cycle maintenance program for the human weapon system. Force
Health Protection in the Pacific involves maintaining a healthy fit
force, preventing injuries and casualties; and providing casualty care
and management when necessary.
The specific intent behind USPACOM's Force Health Protection
program is to provide health protection policy, guidance, and assign
responsibility for all deployments into the Pacific AOR. While this is
a considerable challenge, given the size and diversity of the Asia-
Pacific Region, we have been tremendously successful in promoting
individual and unit preparedness, injury and disease prevention, and in
enhancing service members' and commanders' awareness of health threats
and risks. The low incidence of disease among members of the United
States Support Group East Timor (USGET) is as an example of our
successful Force Health Protection efforts. Ensuring compliance with
recently implemented occupational and environmental health surveillance
will further our objectives and increase our successes.
While we have made significant strides in both health threat
awareness and preparedness, the events since September 11, have made it
clear that force protection and force health protection are truly
intertwined. Moreover, the mandate to improve our health threat
monitoring and surveillance capabilities has never been more evident.
Implementation of force health protection measures designed to address
casualty prevention and enhance survivability of our forces continues
to be an area of concern. Ensuring the health of our forward-stationed
and forward-deployed forces is directly related to our capability to
implement effective infectious disease countermeasures. These
countermeasures include readily available vaccines, adequate supplies
of antibiotics, automated disease surveillance systems, and greater
reliance on basic research to combat infectious disease threats. This
highlights the need for military medical research. A good example of
this is the ongoing research efforts by our facilities in Thailand and
Indonesia to develop a malaria vaccine. In the past, we have
experienced occasional shortages of vaccines, and it indicated to me
the need to assure vaccine production capabilities, especially for less
common vaccines. The Global War on Terrorism is pushing us into ever
more medically hazardous destinations in a time when global patterns of
disease migration and emergence have made the medical dimension of U.S.
war operations a greater factor.
One of our challenges is that health threat risks within our region
are wide and varied depending on the country. The Naval Environmental
Preventive Medicine Unit in Hawaii assists us to prepare our force
health protection country assessments and communicate our guidance
prior to, during, and after deployments. We are bridging any gaps with
technology, which allows us to share data, perform real time research,
and shorten the distance between the need and the capability.
In partnership with other DOD agencies, we are developing real time
and near real time data streaming and aggregation of joint service
medical encounter data, medical facility reports, web-based clinical
consultation tools, and an advanced medical disease surveillance
system. These new technologies have the potential to replace old
medical paradigms. The days of stubby pencils and green log books are
being replaced with new capabilities that are smaller, lighter, and
automated, resulting in quicker analyses, more appropriate medical
responses, and improved force health protection and disease prevention.
In our role of providing Operation Enduring Freedom support for
U.S. Central Command forces from Diego Garcia, we gained insight into
the requirements for medical augmentation required in future
operations. Through medical augmentation, we transformed a Navy clinic,
with limited primary care and no inpatient beds into a joint Air Force-
Navy Expeditionary Medical facility that provides the structure to
fully care for and stabilize patients until they can be moved to
definitive care. Health service support in the Philippines is also a
unique joint requirement. We have an Army Joint Task Force Surgeon
augmented by Air Force medical and surgical capabilities. The existing
Marine Corps medical logistics unit in Okinawa is coordinating supply
orders with the Air Force and Navy medical supply activities and
ensuring the required items are sent forward as needed. Operation
Enduring Freedom highlighted the need to continue the ongoing work to
develop lighter and easily transportable medical support packages that
are more readily available, tailored to specific requirements, with a
transition from arrival to fully operational quantified in hours vice
days or weeks. The services are in the transition phase from having
medical packages with heavy logistics requirements to those that are
significantly lighter and more mobile.
While challenged by the tyranny of distance, shortages of DOD beds
in the Western Pacific, aging DOD medical infrastructure, medical
professional personnel shortages, vaccine availability, and real time
medical surveillance tools we can nevertheless support our theater.
Current operations have demonstrated the ability of our outstanding
health service personnel to be flexible, adapting current medical
support capabilities to meet the unique situations and multitude of
demands that have been placed upon them.
In summary, U.S. Pacific Command has fully capable, rapidly
deploying assets to meet the current healthcare needs of forces
participating in Operation Enduring Freedom. We have, and continue to
pursue, aggressive Force Health Protection programs in support of our
multiple deployments. Our commanders understand and have implemented
our programs by command enforcement, commitment, and engagement. We
will continue to integrate our operations with other organizations as
well as with our allies, friends, and coalition partners to ensure the
highest level of care for our servicemembers and their families at home
and abroad.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to address any
questions or concerns you or the other members of the subcommittee may
have.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Admiral. Thank you
for your service.
General Green.
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. CHARLES B. GREEN, USAF, COMMAND SURGEON
FOR UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION COMMAND
General Green. Mr. Chairman, my sincere thanks for this
opportunity to speak on the role of air medical evacuation in
support of military operations. It is truly an honor.
From the very beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, our
goal has been to provide seamless and responsive patient
evacuation for our deployed forces.
The effectiveness of air evacuation forces far forward,
coupled with the use of the most responsive airlift, is saving
lives. Forward trauma stabilizing surgery is being done less
than 20 minutes after injuries.
Air evac planes have responded multiple times in less than
one hour to get patients to the next level of stabilization
surgery within hours and to definitive care in Europe within
one to 2 days--superb by any standard, but exceeding the
American College of Surgeons standards for U.S. trauma care.
I recently traveled to the Arabian peninsula and found the
morale of our troops very high. In a recent movement of two
critically injured Afghan troops and one American soldier, our
air evacuation crews and critical care teams flew for
approximately 17 hours--around a 22-hour day to get these
warriors to definitive care at Landstuhl in Germany.
Two of these patients were on ventilators with massive
tissue loss from their wounds and are alive today because of
the movement and getting them to definitive care.
The air evacuation mission is vital, even more vital today
with reduced medical footprints; and to continue to excel in
this vital mission, we must continue to modernize and
recapitalize our strategic airlift system.
We appreciate your concerns and support for our accomedical
evacuation requirements; and, Mr. Chairman, I submit my
statement for the record and stand ready to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Brigadier General Green
follows:]
Prepared Statement by Brig. Gen. Charles B. Green, USAF
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:
I am privileged to testify before this committee as the Command
Surgeon of the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) and
Air Mobility Command (AMC). As I'm sure you know, our Transportation
Command's mission is ``to provide global air, land, and sea
transportation for the Department of Defense in peace and war.'' My
role at USTRANSCOM as Command Surgeon in particular is to serve as the
Department of Defense single manager for the implementation of policy
and standardization of patient movement. AMC, as a component of
USTRANSCOM, is lead command for the Department of Defense's (DOD)
worldwide Aeromedical Evacuation (AE) system.
Since the events of September 11, 2001, our ability to accomplish
this mission has been put to a real-life challenge. Fortunately, our
patient movement policies and the AE community have more than met this
challenge. From the very beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF),
our singular goal has been to provide a flexible, seamless, and
responsive system capable of providing an extraordinary level of prompt
and appropriate patient movement for our deployed soldiers, sailors,
airmen, marines, coalition forces, and others needing life saving
medical treatment.
One of the great success stories has been our ability to carefully
balance and coordinate the forward deployment of medical assets with a
robust patient movement capability. This is all the more remarkable
given the extensive theater of operations that spans several nations
and thousands of miles in difficult terrain and austere conditions. AE
uses any available airlift and far forward AE personnel to support
operations so that we can quickly and safely evacuate patients to a
higher level of care. This balancing act is only possible through the
use of cutting edge technology and highly skilled personnel. The
reduced forward medical footprint requires a robust patient movement
capability. This capability becomes a true readiness enhancement to the
war fighters. It gives each of our personnel on the ground the
confidence that should the need arise; they will indeed receive prompt
evacuation and appropriate medical care.
The current AE strategy is ``Targeted Capability.'' This strategy
entails anticipating requirements and placing AE assets far forward to
support rapid evacuation. USTRANSCOM has taken the initial definitive
steps to ensure the AE system is able to support the entire spectrum of
AE requirements, from peacetime/steady-state to a full-scale casualty
flow.
Since the end of the Cold War, the services have significantly
reduced their medical footprints. AE is now tasked to rapidly evacuate
casualties from numerous, forward locations supported by small
expeditionary medical units. This changed operational environment
demanded paradigm shifts in both the medical community and AE system.
Significant for AE is the shift to evacuation of stabilized patients,
use of airlift platforms capable of performing multiple missions, the
requirement for multi-role AE crews, shift from a requirements-based
system to a capabilities-based strategy, and positioning of AE teams
forward to support rapid evacuation.
The AE system deploys forces based on projected casualty flow. This
minimizes evacuation delays by strategically positioning AE crews,
Critical Care Air Transport Teams (CCATT) and Mobile AE Staging
Facilities (MASF) forward to optimize use of all available airlift.
This has been extremely successful in OEF, where we have evacuated over
500 patients on C-130, C-141, and C-17 aircraft already flying in the
airlift system.
An equally significant success story has been the TRANSCOM
Regulating and Command and Control (C\2\) Evacuation System, better
known as TRAC\2\ES (pronounced TRACES). On July 12, 2001, USTRANSCOM
activated TRAC\2\ES, a web-based automated decision support tool, which
provides visibility of patients requiring movement, resources required
for patient movement, available hospital beds (by medical specialty),
and patient in-transit visibility. TRAC\2\ES supports the United States
Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) mission to combine transportation,
logistics, and clinical decision elements into a seamless patient
movement information management system.
Currently, TRAC\2\ES is being utilized by numerous, forward-
deployed units in support of OEF. As a result of TRAC\2\ES' flexibility
and portability, even forward surgical teams and forward support
medical companies are able to easily input patient movement
information. This was previously not possible at levels of care below a
combat support hospital (CSH) or equivalent. Since the beginning of
OEF, the flexibility and capability of TRAC\2\ES have been challenged
many times and those challenges have been successfully met.
Employing these new initiatives, the AE system is now in a period
of transition from a process that was separately funded, scheduled, and
flown, to a system that is integrated or ``mainstreamed'' into normal
airlift processes. Our vision requires AE to be viewed as a specialized
airlift mission supporting patient movement on any mobility airlift
platform. To accomplish this, we must achieve the following:
Develop light, modularized, and independently operable
AE equipment.
Design an adaptable, multi-airframe capable,
palletized litter/seat system.
Design AE capability into all appropriate future
mobility airframes.
Ensure modernization and re-capitalization of multi-
role airlift platforms.
These initiatives are transforming the patient movement system to
best mirror the wartime structure and simultaneously ensure AE
personnel ``train as we fight and fight as we train.'' The strategy of
mainstreaming AE into airlift operations and employing the full
spectrum of lift for the AE mission worldwide ensures DODs AE system is
capable of providing the finest standard of care for men and women in
uniform in peace and in war.
Let me close by saying thank you, once again, for this
opportunity--to present USTRANSCOM and its ongoing patient movement and
aeromedical evacuation efforts to this committee.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, General Green.
It was an incredible airlift in 1968 that helped save my
life. It started with a dust-off in Huey, then I was
transferred to a C-130, and finally to a C-141 that took me
from Japan to Walter Reed. The whole airlift experience in 1968
was frankly quite incredible. I know it has been dramatically
improved upon since then.
Colonel Maul.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL RONALD A. MAUL, USA, COMMAND SURGEON FOR
UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND
Colonel Maul. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. Good morning, sir.
Colonel Maul. It is an honor to be with you today and speak
with you about the health care of our troops participating in
contingency operations, and particularly medical support for
our forces participating in Operation Enduring Freedom.
Full spectrum medical care, along with a robust force
health protection program for our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and marines, is critical to ensure the health and welfare of
these outstanding citizens who proudly defend our Nation. We
recognize their contributions to this great country, and I
thank you for your interest to ensure their health care remains
a top priority.
Providing full spectrum contingency medical support is a
continuous process. It starts with maintaining the physical,
mental, and spiritual wellness of our personnel here at the
home front and keeping them ready to deploy.
At U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), our task is to provide a
comprehensive, integrated contingency medical support system
within the Central Region.
This is a significant challenge, as the United States does
not maintain an extensive, permanent medical infrastructure
within this area of the world.
Before Operation Enduring Freedom, our limited medical
capabilities within the area of responsibility were focused on
supporting our forces participating in Operation Southern Watch
and our Intrinsic Action task force in Kuwait.
With the deployment of U.S. forces to the region for the
global war on terrorism, U.S. Central Command has partnered
with its service components, supporting unified commands, and
various other Department of Defense agencies and coalition
members to deploy a sophisticated, mobile, and highly capable
medical support structure.
Our focus is always on the prevention of disease and
injury. However, should prevention efforts fail, our goal is to
provide state-of-the-art combat casualty care to our forces,
wherever and whenever they fight.
While our service components plan medical support for their
respective forces, the integration of these forces into a
seamless, synergistic theater-wide health care system is the
task of U.S. Central Command.
We look across component planning efforts and align
capabilities to protect and serve our joint and coalition
forces, regardless of service affiliation. Further, we provide
strategic-level oversight of all component medical activity to
include force health protection and medical surveillance
policies.
Prior to Operation Enduring Freedom, an aggressive force
health protection program was in place to support our forces
that have remained deployed to the Central Region since
Operation Desert Storm. This program included policies and
procedures for immunization of the force, publication of
preventive medicine guidelines, assessments for the
identification, monitoring, risk management of environmental
threats, establishing policies to ensure that safe water and
food sources are available to our forces deployed to the
region.
As Operation Enduring Freedom commenced, and with the
assistance of the Army's Center for Health Promotion and
Preventive Medicine, we researched additional environmental
challenges and potential health threats to our military members
in the areas of the Central Asian states, as well as
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
One particular valuable source of information was drawing
upon U.S. military lessons learned from past conflicts and, in
particular, the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.
The Soviet experience, an example of a modern force whose
operational effectiveness was seriously hampered by disease and
poor field sanitation, provided information on some of the
unique threats in that region. In response to all of these
assessments, U.S. Central Command implemented a specific robust
force health protection and medical surveillance program to the
already established ongoing activities in the area of
responsibility.
Preparation prior to deployment, sound prevention and
surveillance while employed, and follow up upon re-deployment,
are the key tenets of this program.
Specific policy guidance for Operation Enduring Freedom was
developed and communicated through several avenues to our
service components to assist their planning and preparation
efforts.
These included, but were not limited to, publication on
regional threats by the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion
and Preventive Medicine and coordination with the U.S. Air
Force Institute for Environment Safety and Occupational Health
Risk Analysis.
Additionally, guidance was provided to components in
detailed medical operations planning and preventive medicine as
part of the Commander in Chief's Operation Enduring Freedom
campaign plan.
Force health protection and medical surveillance guidance
and requirements are specifically articulated in all deployment
orders. This guidance is based on joint directives and is
detailed further in the Force Health Protection appendix of the
Medical Support Annex to the U.S. Central Command Operation
Enduring Freedom campaign plan.
The command continually issues follow-up messages with
guidance on potential threats and specific health issues, such
as Rift Valley Fever, meningiococcal disease, malaria, and
tuberculosis.
The Land Component Command was particularly aggressive in
anticipating the health threat potential posed by detainee
operations and instituted sound preventive policies and
procedures to address that threat.
At this point, we are satisfied with our efforts, and our
disease and non-battle injury rates have been among the lowest
of any U.S. armed conflict, to date.
U.S. Central Command continues to monitor medical trends
for potential impact, future threats, and potential
environmental concerns.
Ongoing surveillance and close monitoring of food and water
sources of supply by our service components for compliance with
command policies has to date nearly eliminated outbreaks of
food-borne contamination and have alerted other commanders to
the potential threat when unsafe conditions exist.
Unfortunately, we are not able to prevent all combat
injuries and disease. When they occur, we have the obligation
to provide the best possible care to our forces. Operation
Enduring Freedom has seen tremendous dividends and returns on
the investment the Department of Defense has made to re-
engineer medical readiness following Operation Desert Storm.
The services' effort to modularize and develop processes to
task organize their medical systems in conjunction with
conversion of larger deployable medical systems to lightweight,
mobile, highly capable, deployable medical assemblages has paid
off immensely.
Further, the ability of the services to tailor, improvise,
and adapt doctrine of the operational realities of this new
type of warfare has been extremely noteworthy.
Examples include the far-forward deployment of tailored
surgical resuscitation assets, coupled with the ready
availability of casualty and aeromedical evacuation.
This combination has saved lives, which would have
otherwise been lost in years past. Additionally, the
incorporation of critical-care assets into the aeromedical
evacuation system has brought an added dimension of capability
to our system, which has also saved lives and provided what, I
believe, will be a template for future operations.
In summary, U.S. Central Command has fully deployed an
integrated theater-wide medical system to meet the health care
needs of forces participating in Operation Enduring Freedom. We
have established strong force health protection and medical
surveillance programs and policies now being executed by our
deployed components in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
We will continue monitoring the health and well-being of
our military forces and search for ways to advance our state of
the art contingency medical care as we proceed in the campaign
ahead. Our servicemembers deserve no less than the very best
quality of care our Nation may provide now and in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be happy to address
any questions or concerns that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Maul follows:]
Prepared Statement by Col. Ronald A. Maul, USA
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hutchinson, and members of the subcommittee, it
is an honor to be with you today and speak about the health care for
our troops participating in contingency operations and, particularly,
medical support for our forces participating in Operation Enduring
Freedom. Full spectrum medical care along with a robust force health
protection program for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines is
critical to ensure the health and welfare of these outstanding
citizens, who proudly defend our Nation. We recognize their
contributions to this great country and thank you for your interest to
ensure their healthcare remains a top priority.
Providing full-spectrum contingency medical support is a continuous
process. It starts with maintaining the physical, mental, and spiritual
wellness of our personnel here at the home front and keeping them ready
to deploy. At U.S. Central Command, our task is to provide a
comprehensive, integrated contingency medical support system within the
Central Region. This is a significant challenge, as the United States
does not maintain an extensive, permanent medical infrastructure within
this area of the world. Before Operation Enduring Freedom, our limited
medical capabilities within the Area of Responsibility were focused on
supporting our forces participating in Operation Southern Watch and our
Intrinsic Action (Operation Desert Spring) task force in Kuwait. With
the deployment of U.S. forces to the region for the global war on
terrorism, U.S. Central Command has partnered with its service
components, supporting unified commands, and various other Department
of Defense agencies and Coalition members to deploy a sophisticated,
mobile, and highly capable medical support capability. Our focus is
always on the prevention of disease and injury. However, should
prevention efforts fail, our goal is to provide state of the art combat
casualty care to our forces, wherever and whenever they fight. While
our service components' plan medical support for their respective
forces, the integration of these forces into a seamless, synergistic
theater-wide healthcare system is the task of U.S. Central Command. We
look across component planning efforts and align capabilities to
protect and serve our joint and coalition forces regardless of service
affiliation. Further, we provide strategic level oversight of all
component medical activity to include force health protection and
medical surveillance policies.
Prior to Operation Enduring Freedom, an aggressive force health
protection program was in place to support our forces that have
remained deployed to the Central Region since Operation Desert Storm.
This program included policies and procedures for immunization of the
force, publication of preventive medicine guidelines, assessments for
the identification, monitoring and risk management of environmental
threats, and establishing policies to ensure safe water and food
sources are available for our forces deployed to the region.
As Operation Enduring Freedom commenced, and with the assistance of
the Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, we
researched additional environmental challenges and potential health
threats to our military members in the areas of the Central Asian
States as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan. One particular valuable
source of information was drawing upon United States military lessons
learned from past conflicts and, in particular, the Soviet experience
in Afghanistan. The Soviet experience, an example of a modern force
whose operational effectiveness was seriously hampered by disease and
poor field sanitation, provided information on some of the unique
threats in that region. In response to all of these assessments, U.S.
Central Command implemented a specific robust force health protection
and medical surveillance program to the already established ongoing
activities in the Area of Responsibility. Preparation prior to
deployment, sound prevention and surveillance while employed, and
follow-up upon re-deployment are the key tenets of this program.
Specific policy guidance for Operation Enduring Freedom was developed
and communicated through several avenues to our service components to
assist their planning and preparation efforts. These included, but were
not limited to, publication on regional threats by the U.S. Army Center
for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine and coordination with the
U.S. Air Force Institute for Environment Safety and Occupational Health
Risk Analysis. Additionally, guidance was provided to components in
detailed medical operations planning and preventive medicine as part of
the Commander in Chief's Operation Enduring Freedom campaign plan.
Force health protection and medical surveillance guidance and
requirements are specifically articulated in all deployment orders.
This guidance is based on joint directives and is detailed further in
the Force Health Protection Appendix of the Medical Support Annex to
the U.S. Central Command Operation Enduring Freedom campaign plan. The
command continually issues follow-up messages with guidance on
potential threats and specific health issues such as Rift Valley Fever,
meningiococcal disease, malaria, and tuberculosis. The Land Component
Command was particularly aggressive in anticipating the health threat
potential posed by detainee operations and instituted sound preventive
policies and procedures to address that threat. At this point, we are
satisfied with our efforts, and our disease and non-battle injury rates
have been among the lowest of any U.S. armed conflict to date. U.S.
Central Command continues to monitor medical trends for potential
impact, future threats, and potential environmental concerns. On-going
surveillance and close monitoring of food and water sources of supply
by the our service components for compliance with command policies has
to date nearly eliminated outbreaks of food-borne contamination and
have alerted other commanders to the potential threat when unsafe
conditions exist.
Unfortunately, we are not able to prevent all combat injuries and
disease. When they occur, we have the obligation to provide the best
possible care to our forces. Operation Enduring Freedom has seen
tremendous dividends and returns on the investment the Department of
Defense has made to re-engineer medical readiness following Operation
Desert Storm. The services' efforts to modularize and develop processes
to task-organize their medical systems in conjunction with conversion
of larger deployable medical systems to lightweight, mobile, highly
capable, deployable medical assemblages has paid off immensely.
Further, the ability of the services to tailor, improvise, and adapt
doctrine for the operational realities of this new type of warfare has
been extremely noteworthy. Examples include the far-forward deployment
of tailored surgical resuscitation assets coupled with the ready
availability of casualty and aeromedical evacuation. This combination
has saved lives which would have otherwise been lost in years past.
Additionally, the incorporation of critical care assets into the
aeromedical evacuation system has brought an added dimension of
capability to our system, which has also saved lives and provided what,
I believe, will be a template for future operations.
In summary, U.S. Central Command has fully deployed an integrated,
theater-wide medical system to meet the healthcare needs of forces
participating in Operation Enduring Freedom. We have established strong
force health protection and medical surveillance programs and policies
now being executed by our deployed components in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom. We will continue monitoring the health and well being
of our military forces, and search for ways to advance our state of the
art contingency medical care as we proceed in the campaign ahead. Our
servicemembers deserve no less than the very best quality of care our
Nation may provide now and in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to address any questions
or concerns you or the other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Colonel Maul.
Captain Hall.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN RICHARD B. HALL II, USN, COMMAND SURGEON
FOR UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND
Captain Hall. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
inviting us.
As I figured before this meeting started, my fellow
surgeons have already stolen most of my thunder, so I will try
and pick it up from there.
I think the emphasis that Colonel Maul placed on force
health protection is very important. It is something that all
of us are doing on a regular basis.
Certainly, my area of responsibility includes all of
Europe, most of Africa, and just a tad of Asia while we have
your attention there.
The force health protection requirements that Colonel Maul
has for his folks in Asia apply equally to the folks in Africa,
when we send troops down, and in Europe, as well.
Our command right now, the European Command (EUCOM), is
engaged in significant medical support for our forces in the
field. As a supported Commander in Chief, EUCOM is heavily
engaged in current operations against terrorism on a large
scale, unexploded ordnance mission in Nigeria, enforcing the
``no-fly zone'' in Operation Northern Watch, conducting peace
operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, and for Maritime Interdiction Operations in the
Mediterranean.
In addition, we are doing the same thing in EUCOM that the
other Combatant Commanders are doing, which including numerous
activities associated with executing a global war on terrorism
in our own theater. Of course, our unified command is
supporting CENTCOM in what they are doing as far as their
efforts in Operation Enduring Freedom.
I think that the importance of what he has said and what
the other surgeons have said so far, is that what we have
discovered over the couple of years that I have been in my
office is that the close cooperation among the Combatant
Commanders surgeons and their bosses has led directly to what
has happened here as far as the success in CENTCOM.
Certainly, in addition to the cooperation between the U.S.
forces, there is also the opportunity for us to cooperate with
our friends and allies.
In Kosovo, right now, we have an arrangement called the
Multi-national Integrated Medical Unit where we operate with
the British and take care of the patients in the multi-national
brigade east and multi-national brigade-center sectors. The
agreement that established this facility has been used by the
U.S. Central Command as a template for coalition medical
operations that they are doing in Enduring Freedom.
I believe that this sort of international and coalition
cooperation is the wave of the future, insofar as medicine
goes, for the simple reason that there are not enough assets to
go around sometimes and this is the best way to make use of
what we have.
Finally, key to what we do, as compared to Dr. Winkenwerder
and his team at TRICARE, is we do not make the tools of our
medical trade, we employ them.
The services, individually and in concert, supply us with
the trained people, with the equipment, and with the supplies
in order for us to do our job. As marvelous as the teams we
have right now are--I am talking about the critical care air
transport teams, the force health protection that we are
providing, and so forth--we still have a short shopping list
essential to our moving forward.
There is a lot of work to be done and a lot of money
implied in this shopping list. First is what we call measured
deployable medical platforms, which need to be interoperable,
need to be modular, and need to be deployable. We have a
certain amount that is available to us now, and I think in the
future we are going to have to work especially hard to make
these inter-operable among the services.
The second thing that has been mentioned briefly, and I
would second it--is the need to have vaccines for the various
diseases in places we are going that you are not going to find
in Peoria.
Finally, not really mentioned too much, is the biological/
chemical warfare specter that is out there. One of the things
that we are going to need to do as an enterprise is to be
better at what we do as far as surveillance, detection, and
real time reporting on what is happening, so that we can better
protect our troops. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Captain Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement by CAPT Richard B. Hall II, MD, USN
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is my
pleasure to appear before you today to discuss Medical Readiness in the
United States European Command. Medical Readiness is my job. It is the
name of the staff division I lead and paramount in every decision I
make. As Command Surgeon I have dual responsibilities. First, I ensure
our peacetime medical care systems are in place and functioning to
support our forces, their dependents, and other beneficiaries. Second,
I ensure the medical care we provide to our forces in the field, those
at risk both from enemy action and natural diseases, is second to none.
Both these aspects are critical to the concept of medical readiness. It
is our peacetime health care that ensures soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and marines go into the fight healthy and fit. These systems immunize
them against disease and enhance their morale and mental well being by
ensuring their loved ones are well cared for. Perhaps more visible is
the second of my responsibilities, the provision of direct medical care
to our deployed forces. It is this responsibility that I would like to
concentrate on today.
U.S. European Command is at this moment engaged in significant
medical support to forces in the field. As a supported Commander in
Chief (CINC), USEUCOM is heavily engaged in current operations
including: a large-scale unexploded ordnance mission in Nigeria,
enforcing the Northern No Fly Zone over Iraq, conducting peace support
operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Former Yugoslavia Republic of
Macedonia (FYROM) and Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO) in the
Mediterranean. In addition to the numerous activities associated with
executing the global war on terrorism in our own theater, our unified
command is also extensively involved in supporting the U.S. Central
Command's (USCENTCOM) efforts. USEUCOM provides hospitalization, blood,
medical supplies, and patient movement capabilities. In each of these
operations, we are applying modern and improved philosophies of
contingency medical support. Fundamentally, these philosophies include:
protecting our military force from disease and non-battle injuries,
stabilizing patients as far forward as possible, and providing rapid
and robust aero-medical evacuation to definitive care. I would now like
to discuss these points in more detail.
Historically, the fighting force suffers more casualties from
disease and non-battle injuries than from direct enemy contact. To
date, of the Operation Enduring Freedom patients moved to the Landstuhl
Regional Medical Center in Germany, 75 percent have been the result of
disease and non-battle injuries, with 25 percent of the patients being
wounded in action. These numbers are consistent with what we have
experienced in the Balkans over the last 6 years. When available,
vaccination programs are one of the very best and most effective means
of protecting our troops from disease threats. In this regard, I want
to reaffirm our position that the Anthrax Vaccination Program is a
critical force protection tool for U.S. military forces. USEUCOM
appreciates the vigorous support expressed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the services to support this program. We believe safe and effective
vaccination, when available, is our best defense against both natural
diseases and bio-terrorist weapons, and we are looking forward to the
imminent re-institution of the Total Force vaccination policy for
anthrax.
Force Health Protection encompasses more than immunization
protocols. It is a total approach to maintaining the health of our
deployed forces. A revised Joint Staff Memorandum on Deployment Health
Surveillance became effective on March 1, 2002. This memorandum, which
we are working hard to implement, mandates a detailed program of
medical surveillance to detect disease outbreaks as quickly as
possible. In the absence of adequate capabilities to detect and
identify pathogenic warfare agents, this near real-time disease
reporting initiative provides our most timely detection system for such
events. By keeping our forces healthy in a deployed environment we
preserve their fighting strength and reduce forward medical
requirements.
Past conflicts were medically characterized by deploying large
hospitals in the field, with the idea that patients could be treated
and, if possible, returned to duty without being evacuated. In part,
this philosophy was driven by the inability to effectively stabilize
and transport patients quickly from the area of conflict. Modern
technology has altered this situation and our military medical forces
are now stabilizing critically injured patients closer to the forward
edge of the battle area than ever before through the use of forward
surgical teams.
During Operation Focus Relief last year, for example, we placed a
forward surgical team on the ground in Nigeria to support the Special
Forces train and equip mission. While attempting to defuse an
unexploded light anti-tank weapon, one of our soldiers lost his life
and another was critically wounded. The injured soldier was operated on
and stabilized by the forward surgical team, and then evacuated to our
Theater medical center in Landstuhl, Germany for definitive care.
Without a large field hospital, this soldier's life was saved using
highly trained medical specialists and responsive patient movement
systems. We currently have similar forward surgical teams in the
Balkans and in Nigeria and are preparing to field teams in support of
the upcoming mission in Georgia as well. In addition, these teams are
critical to USCENTCOM efforts in Enduring Freedom. Given the demands
for these teams, they are routinely in short supply.
Stabilization of the injured far forward is only feasible when we
can combine this effort with a responsive patient movement system.
United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) uses organic C-9 Nightingale
medical evacuation aircraft and opportune strategic lift from United
States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) to execute USEUCOM's patient
movement mission. Our Patient Movement Requirements Center at Ramstein
Air Base, Germany covers both the USEUCOM and USCENTCOM areas of
responsibility in peacetime and during contingency operations.
Currently, it is fully engaged in supporting Enduring Freedom
operations.
Moving a stabilized patient from a forward location to definitive
care is only half of the equation. Many critically ill patients also
require in-flight care provided by specialized critical care transport
teams. USEUCOM in-flight medical teams were instrumental in saving the
lives of the U.S.S. Cole crew members injured in the terrorist attack
off the coast of Yemen. In this rescue effort, our most critically
injured sailors were initially treated by French surgeons in Djibouti
then aero-medically evacuated for definitive care to the Landstuhl
Regional Medical Center using the Critical Care Air Transport Teams.
Like the Forward Surgical Teams, these air transport teams are highly
trained assets. They are critical to stabilizing and rapidly evacuating
our people to a higher level of care.
The final phase of our medical treatment to support contingency
operations depends on the continued ability to maintain the quality
care, infrastructure, and range of medical specialties available at our
fixed-base clinics, community hospitals, and medical centers. Our
concept of evacuating patients to central facilities such as Landstuhl
Regional Medical Center means that we can obtain maximum productivity
from very highly specialized physicians, such as vascular surgeons and
burn specialists. We bring the patients to the specialists rather than
trying to take the specialists to the place of injury. Maintaining the
physical infrastructure and the state-of-the-art training of medical
staff that takes place at these facilities is essential.
Having addressed our medical support pillars of force health
protection, forward stabilization, and evacuating our injured
servicemembers to definitive treatment, I would like to briefly touch
on a series of coalition partner medical initiatives that are well
entrenched in both the European and Central Commands.
Among the Unified Commands, European Command is unique in that it
works daily with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and
Partnership for Peace nations. We have many years of experience in
allied and coalition operations, experience heightened by our past 6
years in the Balkans. I want to specifically highlight our Multi-
national Integrated Medical Unit initiative in Kosovo. Each of the five
Kosovo sectors operated by the U.S., United Kingdom, France, Germany,
and Italy has a significant hospital, but across the Kosovo province,
an average of only 15 percent of these hospital beds are utilized at a
given point in time. At Camp Bondsteel, in our Multi-national Brigade
East sector of Kosovo, we have developed, along with the British
Forces, a medical facility staffed by both American and British health
care providers. It provides world-class medical support to all NATO and
coalition forces in the British and American sectors of Operation Joint
Guardian. The agreement that established this facility has been used by
the U.S. Central Command as a template for coalition medical operations
in Operation Enduring Freedom, and I believe that this type of
international and coalition cooperation is the wave of the future.
Let me close by stating that this is an exciting time of great
change in military medicine, one which is made more challenging by the
fact that our people know more, and expect more, from their government
and military. We at USEUCOM are proud to have the opportunity to serve.
I am proud of the excellent medical support we are able to offer our
deployed forces and our beneficiaries. On behalf of all military
medical personnel in U.S. European Command, I wish to thank Congress
for its continuing support of our Nation's sons and daughters serving
overseas. I appreciate this opportunity to outline our concept of
medical support, and will be pleased to provide you with any further
information you may require.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Captain Hall.
Colonel Jones.
STATEMENT OF COL. STEPHEN L. JONES, USA, COMMAND SURGEON FOR
UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND
Colonel Jones. Mr. Chairman, good morning and thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss this
issue that is really of enormous importance, and that is the
medical care we provide the men and women was defend our
Nation. Since I have served as Command Surgeon at U.S. Southern
Command, that has been my first priority.
I would like to emphasize just three points from my written
statement. First is that Southern Command has an aggressive
Force Health Protection Program. We continually monitor the
threat to our forces, and we take actions to mitigate those
risks. We ensure that our commanders and our servicemembers are
aware of the threat, that they are well trained, and that they
are implementing the appropriate counter-measures.
As an example, we require the use of protective masks on
the flights from Kandahar to Guantanamo Bay. Because we
instituted that action, 36 servicemembers on one flight and
over 50 servicemembers on a second flight did not have to
undergo a several-month drug regimen for the treatment of
tuberculosis; because we have identified two detainees on those
two flights with active TB.
A second issue that I would like to highlight is that the
Department of Defense provides the same standard of medical
care in the field as we do in the garrison. Along with the
commander of the hospital down at JTF Bravo in Honduras, I
employed the same quality assurance program and provided the
same standard of care as when I commanded the hospital at Fort
Belvoir, Virginia, just down the road.
The quality of the care that we provide is being
demonstrated on a daily basis now in Guantanamo Bay. One
detainee arrived from Afghanistan with multiple combat wounds.
He had malaria, active tuberculosis, and he weighed only 78
pounds. But today he is recovering in the Fleet Hospital, and
his weight is up to 98 pounds.
The Red Cross physician that examined him in Kandahar
before he flew to us pulled me aside and told me that he was
dying of tuberculosis. It is a testament to the care that they
are providing in Guantanamo Bay that this detainee is doing
well.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the ability to
provide high-quality care on the battlefield requires realistic
and rigorous training, and not only for our medical personnel,
but also for our soldiers and, in your cases you mentioned, a
mortar squad leader.
As an example, when I was the Division Surgeon in the 25th
Infantry Division, I would go to the field and take one of the
family practice docs from the clinic at Schofield Barracks, and
that is Ron Maul, who is sitting just down from me. It was
important to have him out in the field, practicing with his
unit learning how to deploy and provide care in an austere
environment. But we also recognize that there is a cost to
that, because while he was in the field, he was not able to
provide care to the family members back at Schofield Barracks.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the United States Southern
Command recognizes our responsibility to the men and women who
defend our Nation. We recognize the risks they face on a daily
basis and we are committed to providing them with compassionate
and quality care.
Thank you, again, for your steadfast support and the
opportunity to discuss these issues. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement by Col. Stephen L. Jones, USA
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchinson, and members of the committee. I
appear before you today to discuss an issue that is of enormous
importance, the medical care we provide America's sons and daughters
who are defending our Nation. On behalf of the men and women of the
United States Southern Command, I extend my sincere appreciation for
your efforts to ensure that they are supported by a world class
military health care system. I have served as Command Surgeon since
September 8, 2000, and the protection of the health of our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen has always been my first
priority. I welcome the opportunity to present the Force Health
Protection Program of the United States Southern Command.
deployed forces
Currently there are over 6,000 servicemembers deployed to 31
countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. These forces are
participating in our global war against terrorism, and are conducting
engagement activities to strengthen democracy, promote prosperity, and
foster regional stability.
Joint Task Force 160 and Joint Task Force 170 are conducting
detainee operations in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Joint Task Force Bravo
operates a C-5 capable airfield at Soto Cano Air Base, Honduras, and
provides command, control, and logistical support to operations and
exercises in Central America. Joint Inter-Agency Task Force East
provides planning and tactical command of over 30 counterdrug
operations annually. Additionally, Security Assistance offices in 26
countries are conducting security cooperation activities.
medical threat in latin america and the caribbean
Our deployed forces face numerous medical threats while executing
their missions. Among these are tropical diseases not present in the
United States such as malaria and dengue fever. There are over 200
species of poisonous snakes in the region. Other threats include
accidents, sports injuries, heat/cold injuries, altitude sickness,
crime, and environmental hazards.
Southern Command has long recognized the threat to our forces from
terrorism. Detainee operations now pose unique challenges. We remain
alert to the security risk while transporting, guarding, interrogating
and providing detainees with medical care. Aggressive measures are
required to prevent the transmission of diseases such as tuberculosis
to our forces.
force health protection program
Southern Command conducts an aggressive Force Health Protection
Program to maintain a healthy and fit force, prevent disease and
injuries, and provide compassionate and quality care. The program
emphasizes fitness, preparedness, and preventive measures.
The Surgeon's staff continually monitors the health threat to
deployed forces and ensures that commanders and individual
servicemembers are both aware of the threat, and are implementing
appropriate countermeasures. Crew members and security escorts
transporting detainees from Kandahar to Guantanamo Bay are required to
wear protective masks during the flight. Although one detainee has been
found to have active tuberculosis, the 36 service personnel on his
flight are not being subjected to several months of anti-tuberculous
drug therapy because appropriate precautions were taken.
The Southern Command Emergency Medical Response Program assesses
the capability of host nations to respond to terrorist incidents at our
Embassies and Security Assistance Offices. During each assessment,
instructors from the Army Medical Department Center and School train
Department of Defense and State Department personnel in Self Aid and
Buddy Aid. Two weeks after this training was conducted in the Dominican
Republic last year, a Foreign Service Officer fractured his neck in a
bicycle accident. An Embassy staff member, who received the training,
immobilized his spine and instructed the ambulance crew on the
appropriate method of transporting him. Because of her actions, the
Foreign Service Officer did not sustain any neurological impairment and
was evacuated to Miami for treatment.
Fixed medical treatment facilities in theater include the U.S.
Naval Hospitals at Roosevelt Roads and Guantanamo Bay, and Rodriguez
Army Health Clinic, Ft. Buchanan. Deployed hospitals include the Joint
Task Force Bravo Medical Element and Fleet Hospital 20 at Guantanamo
Bay which provides Level III Care to detainees.
Small units may deploy with their medic or independent duty medical
technician to provide limited sick call services. Larger units may
deploy with a battalion aid station. On major exercises such as New
Horizons, a more robust medical element with limited patient holding
capability may be established.
In the past year, Southern Command developed deployable teams at
Joint Task Force Bravo and Roosevelt Roads to provide forward
resuscitative surgery. These teams can deploy rapidly with their
equipment in 5 backpacks and perform life- and limb-saving procedures.
Department of Defense medical personnel provide the same high
quality treatment to servicemembers whether in garrison or in the
field. While commanding the Medical Element of Joint Task Force Bravo
in Honduras, I conducted the same Quality Assurance Program and
provided the same standard of care as when commanding the hospital at
Ft. Belvoir, just down the road.
The quality of this care is being consistently demonstrated in our
operations at Guantanamo Bay. The staff of Fleet Hospital 20 recognized
progressive lower extremity paralysis and the development of
incontinence in a wounded detainee newly arrived from Afghanistan.
Using an Army mobile CT scanner, they discovered an abscess compressing
his spinal cord. After emergency surgery and antibiotic therapy, the
detainee is now able to walk with assistance and has had return of his
bowel and bladder function.
Host nation treatment capabilities vary widely throughout Latin
America and the Caribbean. In several major cities, medical care meets
U.S. standards. In remote areas, however, host nation capabilities are
limited. TRICARE Latin America & Canada (TLAC) provides the TRICARE
Overseas Program benefit to beneficiaries in the Region. Active duty
and their family members are eligible to enroll in TRICARE Prime
Overseas. The TLAC travel benefit provides emergent and urgent care to
active duty personnel deployed, on temporary duty, or on leave. TLAC
has contracted with International SOS to develop a provider network,
24-hour call center, case management and claims payment. A
credentialing process assures the quality of providers in the network,
and care is cash-less and claim-less.
medical readiness
Southern Command plays a major role in maintaining the medical
readiness of our Active and Reserve forces. In fiscal year 2002, we
will conduct 67 Medical Readiness Training Exercises. These exercises
significantly enhance the readiness of our forces as they learn to
deploy and provide care in an austere field environment. On January 9,
2002 members of the Army's Institute of Surgical Research deployed to
Peru and received outstanding training while providing care to the 162
survivors of the Mesa Redonda fire.
the way ahead
Southern Command will continue to conduct Force Health Protection
activities to promote a healthy and fit force, prevent illnesses and
injuries, and provide world class medical care to our servicemembers.
Working with the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and the U.S.
Naval Research Lab in Lima, we will expand the Department of Defense
Global Emerging Infections System, and our ability to detect new
threats. We will continue to improve the readiness of Active and
Reserve medical units through our Medical Readiness Training Exercises.
Activities to professionalize the medical departments of the region's
militaries, and improve the capabilities of governments to respond to
disasters, will also enhance their ability to provide care to our
servicemembers and their families.
conclusion
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the United States Southern Command
recognizes our responsibility to the men and women who defend our
Nation. We recognize the threats they face, and we are committed to
providing them with exceptional care. Thank you again for your
steadfast support and for providing me the opportunity to discuss these
issues.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Colonel Jones.
Colonel Maul, I would like to focus on the incident about
10 days ago, where some four Rangers and one airman died. Those
four Rangers were stationed in Georgia at the 75th Ranger
outfit there, and the airman was from Moody Air Force Base.
Five out of the eight that were killed happened to be based
in my state. Can you tell me a little bit about the involvement
of the forward health care personnel that were in direct
support of that operation, and what was their involvement?
Colonel Maul. Yes, sir. One success story of Operation
Enduring Freedom is the first line point of wounding care that
we have been able to provide.
Sir, this has been a very intense campaign from the
standpoint of special operations forces of which these Rangers,
which you speak of, were members. The special operations forces
community is very intense when it comes to their medical
capabilities.
I am sure you have heard of the special force medics on the
Army side, the 18 Deltas. They basically are paramedic trained,
have the special skills, equipment necessary to provide point
of wounding immediate care, and these types of incidents and
success stories have been demonstrated many times over in
Afghanistan--most of which do not make or meet press release
requirements.
These obviously did make the press and so forth, but in
answer to your question, Senator, the health care that is in
the field with our forward line troops--and not just with our
special operations forces--but with our conventional forces
from the 10th Mountain Division or 101st Airborne Division, for
example, also on the recent Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan,
have their own organic medics with them. They have non-medical
troops trained in what we call ``combat lifesaver capabilities
and techniques,'' so we are very pleased and very proud of our
capability to provide immediate care at the point of wounding.
Senator Cleland. I would like for all of you to put on your
philosophical cap for just a moment. I have been trying to
think through the impact of September 11, by shifting our focus
in terms of being on the strategic offensive against terrorists
versus basically against, shall we say, nation states.
I am in my sixth year here, and we have bombed Saddam
Hussein twice. We have gone into Bosnia. We have had a war with
Milosevic. Now we are in a war against terrorism, particularly
the al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
In some ways, the war against nation states has certain
rules of engagement. For instance, POWs may be taken on both
sides. However in the war on terrorism, it is painfully
obvious, it is a take-no-prisoners world. The terrorist does
not seek land or regime survival. The terrorist seeks massive
destruction of, believe it or not, primarily civilian
casualties on the other side.
We saw that when the young airman was down, and he was
promptly, in effect, assassinated, take no prisoners. I wonder
in this environment for our forces that are going to be
deployed if we don't need to maybe ratchet it up a little bit.
The concept which we see dramatically in the two movies out,
``We Were Soldiers,'' which was my old unit, First Air Cavalry
Division, and ``Black Hawk Down,'' was that they would leave no
one behind.
In other words, part of that is going back in for a wounded
soldier. You saw that in the movie, ``Black Hawk Down,'' where
a soldier fell out of the chopper, and it caused the chopper to
stay on site. Ultimately it got hit and went down. The point
being, I think the ethic of ``leave no one behind'' is
powerful. It keeps us all focused on looking after one another.
I think we need that.
But in a world in which terrorists take no prisoners, it is
maybe even more important to train all of our young men and
women that are going to be in harm's way in how to take care of
one another.
I know there is standard training out there, and I know
there is accelerated training for special operations forces. I
wonder in your line of work--and all of you have been in this
business for a long time--if that thought has crossed your
mind. There are new rules of engagement, and it may be in the
mountains of Afghanistan. It may be in the jungles of the
Phillippines. It may be in Indonesia. It may be in Africa;
perhaps Somalia again.
When our forces are sent there, it does look like the
people on the point of the spear, the young sergeants, the
young corporals, the young lieutenants, the young captains, the
young chopper pilots, the people who really are in the thick of
the action that must be trained to a new level in order to deal
with this new world that we are facing. Has that thought
crossed your mind from time to time?
Colonel Maul.
Colonel Maul. Indeed, it has. I might say that part of
whenever you have a situation where U.S. military forces either
return to a site to recover remains of a servicemember who has
been killed in action or to free a servicemember who is alive
that has been captured, I would submit that part of that is the
American ethic that you described. But part of that also is
training.
We do have in our ethos the creed that we will look out for
each other, that we will take care of each other, and so forth.
We actually expect that of our buddies. There have been many
tales already in this particular campaign.
What comes to my mind are the marines who first landed at
Camp Rhino in Southern Afghanistan and later established a base
at Kandahar Airfield, the first Americans there. In my personal
dialogue with them on one of the trips that I have made to that
area, they commented how they were constantly being told, being
trained to look out for their buddies.
This war particularly true in the aspects of where they
went. That country still is very riddled with land mines and so
forth, and they were taught never to wander off by themselves,
for example.
So our servicemembers had that ingrained, but clearly with
the new enemy that we are facing--and we have faced for these
last 5 months in Enduring Freedom--yes, we have to be very
cognizant of the fact that the enemy we are fighting now does
not take prisoners. There is a mandate to kill Americans. Not
capture Americans, but kill Americans.
Senator Cleland. Right, exactly.
Colonel Maul. So, you are exactly correct that heightened
awareness is required. Our commanders are teaching that.
Senator Cleland. Admiral Mayo, you have the Phillippines,
right?
Admiral Mayo. Yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. Has this thought come to your mind?
Admiral Mayo. Yes, it has. Not only the Phillippines, but
over the past 2 years or even since the Gulf War, we have been
focused a lot more on that. Right now with the global war on
terrorism, as we are sending troops into more medically
hazardous locations, we have to be very astute. We have to do
our homework real well to prepare the troops before they go in,
whether it is with our occupational health assessments or our
environmental assessments of the area and its endemic disease.
In a lot of the countries, at least in our AOR, it differs
from location to location. Our personnel have to be trained
before they go on what is there, what they have to do for
preventive measures, how to help each other.
We also have to try to provide them, not only now but in
the future, easier ways of doing this. We will. Malaria has
been mentioned once. Malaria and Dengue fever are things that
occur in our theater in many locations, as well as many others.
I pick on those, because right now, at least there is not a
treatment or a pre-treatment for Dengue, but with malaria, our
people have to take medications or multiple pills before they
go, while they're there, and after.
Compliance can be an issue. You begin to forget doing it.
We have to have better ways of dealing with it, such as it's
creating a vaccine, which, in fact, the DOD medical personnel
are researching in labs there, as well as here in Washington,
to try to come up with a vaccine to eliminate that.
That is just an example, and there are a lot of others that
may be predictable. But whether they are biological infections
that occur naturally or unnaturally, we just have to be more
astute with all of them.
Senator Cleland. General Green, any comments?
General Green. Sir, we have found that, with our air-evac
forces far forward now, that we are being asked to actually fly
on some fairly hazardous missions. In one C130 mission out of
Uzbekistan, we had some of our critical care teams, who are not
fully trained in survival in combat operations, where the
aircraft took two or three RPGs fired at it and one man--
fortunately, they were not hit, but it has clearly identified
that we need to train these people to a different level. So I
agree with your position. We are working on that training now.
Senator Cleland. Captain Hall, any comments?
Captain Hall. Yes, sir. We certainly have considered this
as well. The type of operations that we do in European Command
oftentimes involve countries down in Africa where hemorrhagic
fevers, malaria, you name it, are down there.
So the whole force health protection requirement that we
all have can be very, very extensive. When folks are going down
to these countries, we normally will work with both the medics
who are going to be going with them as well as the troops
themselves, ensuring that they understand that the requirements
and the possible problems that they are going to have there and
ensuring that they are fully prepared.
This is essential to how we do business. It is certainly
something we cannot ignore.
Senator Cleland. Colonel Jones, comments?
Colonel Jones. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Southern
Command has long recognized the threat from terrorism in our
AOR, particularly since the bombings of the Israeli Embassy in
Argentina in 1992 and the Jewish/Argentine Cultural Center in
1994.
We have instituted a program that we call our Emergency
Medical Response Program. The first part of that program is to
assess the capability of the host nations to respond to a
terrorist incident in one of our embassies or military groups
in country.
We take a look at the ambulance services, the fire
departments, and the medical facilities there, so that we can
understand what type of care they can provide. But more
importantly we also provide first aid training for the Embassy
staff; and buddy aid train, on how to take care of each other
in the event of an incident.
I have a good example of the effectiveness of this training
that occurred just last year. We conducted some training in the
Dominican Republic. Two weeks after the team from the AMED
Center and School in San Antonio left, one of the Foreign
Service Officers in the Embassy ran his bicycle headlong into a
concrete barrier and fractured his neck.
One of the Embassy staff members who attended the training
responded to the incident, and she was able to stabilize his
spine. She directed the ambulance crew on the appropriate means
to transport him to the hospital after the accident.
Because of her quick action and training, the foreign
service officer did not have any paralysis and was able to be
transported to Miami for treatment. We have completed this
program throughout the AOR and are going back now, on a
recurrent basis, to the assessments and the training as well.
Senator Cleland. Thank you. It does seem to me that the
powerful ethic of the military that we will not leave anybody
behind and that the servicemen and women knows that is
dramatically reinforced in your world. If something bad does
happen to you, if you do get hit, then your buddies, your
fellow servicemen and women, are trained to help you out as
the, shall we say, first responders.
In my case, the first guy to me on the battlefield was a
young marine who was an expert in mortars. He was not an expert
in health care, but he had some basic rudimentary understanding
of what to do in a crisis.
The second guy to me was actually a Navy corpsman, and the
third guy was a marine. So the first people to me that really
stabilized me and helped save my life were just buddies. They
just happened to be there. They were the so-called ``first
responders.''
It does seem to me that your mission out there is a
powerful one, and that it reinforces the basic ethic that gives
our young men and women confidence in going into harm's way;
particularly now in this war on terrorism, a war without rules,
take no prisoners, without lines, without particularly any
rules of civilized warfare or engagement in, shall we say, the
netherworlds of the earth, the mountains of Afghanistan, the
jungles of the Philippines, the villages of Africa.
These are not the plains of western Europe that we are used
to fighting on with rules of engagement, the Geneva convention,
POW status, and everything else.
I think this war on terrorism brings with it some new,
frightful consequences, and a need to dramatically invest
ourselves in taking care of one another, particularly if bad
things happen. Let me conclude.
We are going to have a vote around 11:15. I would like to
ask each one of you, what do you think the United States
Congress should do, and could do now, to help you with your
mission?
Admiral Mayo, if you would just like to give us a sense of
what we ought to be doing, or what we ought to be thinking
about to help you help our young men and women survive.
Admiral Mayo. Yes, sir. I think you have hit on a few of
the points already, Senator. From the PACOM AOR, as well as
probably in all AORs, we need your continued support for the
health care program.
I mentioned TRICARE and emphasize it for a reason, because
without that, our deployed personnel will not feel comfortable
being alone with their families back home, questioning whether
there is care available. So, continuing to fund that adequately
is very important for the morale and to keep the members,
deployed in isolated locations, focused on their mission.
In the same vein, as the Department is working on medical
surveillance tools; we have to make sure that we can get those
sooner rather than later for the reasons you mentioned. With
the global war on terrorism, things are more important today
than planning for the future.
We have to ensure that not only for our homeland, but also
for our deployed forces, that we have realtime ways of making
that determination.
We also need, in our theater and probably all theaters, a
mechanism to have assured and safe vaccines before deployment
for personnel for whatever the vaccines are. This is one of the
ways to help protect our personnel when they deploy into harm's
way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
General Green.
General Green. Yes, sir, I agree with what Admiral Mayo has
said. I am going to stick specifically with TRANSCOM business
and tell you that over the next years, there are some gaps in
strategic airlift.
The C-141, which has been a mainstay in air-evac, is due to
retire in 2006; the C-9 is aging. We need your help in
continuing the modernization of strategic lift. No particular
agenda here, but just to say please stay focused. The air
medical mission is vital, as you look at what is going to be
planned in terms of modernizing our strategic fleet.
Senator Cleland. That old C-141 was my hospital ship, my
freedom bird home. Every time I see one, I get a little chill
down my spine.
But they are aging and will be phased out, and we have to
keep your global reach now more global and more reach.
General Green. Yes, sir, exactly correct.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
Colonel Maul.
Colonel Maul. Yes. As Senator Hutchinson remarked earlier
about the hospital in the tents that he visited in Uzbekistan
recently, that is an example of how we strive to maintain the
same standard of health care in a combat environment that we
provide our servicemembers and their families back home in the
States.
However, that comes with a great deal of cost. Just as our
fixed facilities in the States, military treatment facilities
in the States strive to modernize and maintain the
technological edge in the health care arena, so must we also be
able to do that in a deployed setting in a combat environment.
Operation Enduring Freedom is full of so many success
stories in terms of the medical care that we have been able to
provide our servicemembers who are deployed. They are not just
in Afghanistan, but aboard the ships in the Arabian sea and et
cetera.
We have the gold standard in the world. No one I will
submit openly here, that no one can do what the U.S. military
medical system can do in terms of establishing, taking to the
servicemembers, and taking to the battle a world-class health
care system.
We just ask for your continued support in helping us
modernize, helping us transform, helping us maintain the
technological edge and superiority that we have to have to
maintain that high standard of care. Thank you very much.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Captain Hall.
Captain Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question
actually goes back to my final point, which was my shopping
list. Rather than repeating it, I would echo what Colonel Maul,
Admiral Mayo, and General Green have said that the technical
superiority and the ability to provide this technical
superiority out to the troops, wherever they are, is incredibly
important.
But unless we are working toward advances, we are going to
be falling behind rather than proceeding ahead, so that the
deployable medical facilities that I talked about before, the
safe and effective vaccines and the medical surveillance, which
each of us have talked about in turn, I think are incredibly
important.
The whole thing of TRICARE does not just provide for the
families back on the home front, it also provides for a fit and
healthy force. That is incredibly important as well, so that
your continued support of TRICARE is very important to us.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
Colonel Jones.
Colonel Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not need to
repeat the comments of my colleagues here. I just need to thank
you again for all the support and say that we have a world-
class health care system, and we will continue to improve it.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. Winding up on a high
note, for those who came back from being wounded in the recent
operation in Afghanistan, where 8 servicemen were killed, it is
interesting to note that out of the 49 others who were wounded,
apparently 34 are back on duty, which is quite a testimony to
them and to all of you. Thank you very much for coming.
The subcommittee adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Max Cleland and Senator Tim Hutchinson
lessons learned
1. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, last fall, DOD proposed a new TRICARE delivery strategy called
T-NEX (TRICARE Next Generation). The proposal called for the
``unbundling'' of the successful regional TRICARE contracts into
component parts of healthcare delivery, claims processing, marketing
and education, etc. DOD did not consult with Congress prior to
announcing T-NEX, a proposal that would dramatically alter the existing
TRICARE program. The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Conference
Report provides clear direction to DOD to confer with Congress prior to
proceeding with any public proposals for significant structural changes
to TRICARE managed care support contracts. What are DOD's plans for
consultation with Congress on its procurement strategy for any upcoming
TRICARE contract modifications?
Dr. Winkenwerder. The direction provided in the fiscal year 2002
Defense Appropriations Conference Report is understood and is reflected
in the T-NEX Communications Plan. The Department did receive very
constructive input from industry based on a deliberate attempt to float
a viable concept proposal for comment and consideration. The industry
forum held in October 2001 did result in the refinement of our concept
of unbundling Administrative Services such as claims processing from
Healthcare Delivery requirements. The direction we are heading in will
result in regional contracts that are similar to what is in existence
today with only retail pharmacy and some overarching elements of
marketing and education being carved out.
The Department's communications plan incorporates consultation with
Congress prior to going public with solicitation documentation. The
major decisions resulting in change in procurement strategy will be
shared with Congress during the very beginning of our external
coordination process. I have included a slide to more clearly
illustrate our steps.
2. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, in developing the T-NEX contracts, did you review the current
contracts to identify which components worked well and which ones did
not in order to incorporate specific ``lessons learned'' into the new
procurement approach? Please describe the ``lessons learned'' that you
are going to address under T-NEX and how you plan to address them.
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes, we accomplished a number of reviews of the
current contracts over the last 5 years to determine which component
and which approaches are most suited to the delivery of unique services
required by the Department. These reviews were accomplished with
representatives of industry, current contractors, beneficiary groups,
consultants, and representatives of our Military Treatment Facilities,
Lead Agents, and Surgeons General. From these many sessions and our
daily management of and initiatives to improve the current contracts,
we've learned that the focus of future contracts must be on the
Government's high level objectives. This focus encourages prospective
contractors to offer contemporary approaches for achieving the
Government's required outcome. This focus is included in our initial
drafts of T-NEX. This focus, however, does not eliminate Government-
specific tasks. These defined tasks were specified only after careful
review to determine if industry practice and/or inconsistent
administration of the program through the application of best practices
by various contractors could not be accepted. Examples of these
specific requirements include a Government mandated appeals system to
ensure beneficiaries are treated fairly, a legislatively directed
reimbursement system, automatic data processing (ADP) interfaces with
Government systems, and covered benefits.
We've also learned that it is critical to structure the contracts
in a manner that incentivizes the contractor to deliver the services
while also holding the contractor fiscally responsible for failure to
perform.
3. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, in developing T-NEX, how did you take into account industry
trends and best practices? Please provide specific examples of how the
industry best practices were incorporated into T-NEX.
Dr. Winkenwerder. When discussing ``Best Practices,'' there is no
single ``industry wide'' best practice. Rather, most third-party payers
have their own proprietary best practices that are used in responding
to their clients. Within TRICARE we will adopt the best practices of
the winning bidder for each contract. The key we have emphasized
throughout the development process is to mandate outcomes, rather than
prescriptive processes, wherever possible. This allows the winning
contractor to use their proven techniques to manage TRICARE and, more
importantly, to continuously improve upon these techniques as the
situation, technology, or other factor dictates. The T-NEX contracts
will be structured to allow contractors to implement contemporary best
practices without requiring a Government change order.
4. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, we are aware that a consultant provided recommendations for
the design of the T-NEX contracts. Please describe the recommendations
you incorporated and why you chose to do so as well as the
recommendations you chose not to use and why.
Dr. Winkenwerder. In the aftermath of the operational hold on
further development of TRICARE 3.0, a consultant received a Government
contract to support the Defense Medical Oversight Committee (DMOC) in
concert with their analysis of what steps should be taken to improve
the structure and direction of the Defense Health Plan (DHP). Some of
the consultant's recommendations that specifically address medical
acquisition strategy have been included in T-NEX strategy and concept
of operations.
Summary of adopted strategies: A number of consultant's Business
Planning Recommendations were reviewed and found suitable with minimal
modification. One qualifier to note relates to specific references to
``58 Market Managers'' and ``38 Integrated Delivery Systems (IDS)
Managers.'' Our adopted strategy incorporates elements of their local
market concept, but instead, focuses on Empowered Lead Agents versus a
multitude of IDS Managers. This practical adaptation allows the
department to better accommodate many of their other recommendations.
TMAs updated expectations of ``empowered'' TRICARE Regional Offices
(TRO) is supplemented to include a limited number of ``Market
Managers.'' Our concept is modeled around ``Market Managers versus IDS
managers and centers around established referral patterns in our direct
care system. The use of the term Market Manager better reflects our
concept of operations than does the IDS Manager Model. This concept
favorably reflects elements of their advice. Other adopted strategies
include:
Operate regional business enterprise with managers who
do budget and planning in coordination with the services over
all DHP resources in their region
Local control over all DHP expenditures where possible
Accurate performance information on their region
Locally developed tactics for optimization and
recapture to direct care system
From a system-wide perspective our strategy of national control and
regional implementation encapsulates the following additional
recommendations:
Contract for health plan services (similar to large
employers)
Purchase administrative services on a firm fixed price
basis where possible
Some of the main features of our procurement development activities
include:
We held a Government Industry forum in October to
obtain industry input and put them in the context of the MHS
health plan
Our requirements documents are being built by cross-
functional Working Integrated Program Teams
We are shortening the selection process by utilizing
``Commercial Buys'' to the greatest extent possible
We are aligning performance incentives for maximum
flexible response by the government and creating easy to track
performance guarantees that will require demonstrated savings
The consultant helped justify Pharmacy Benefit Carve-
Out for award to a national vendor and also called for flexible
choice for MTFs to choose support services they most desire
through local TRO facilitated contracts.
The pace and timeline of this program have required analysis of
multiple recommendations from many sources combined with a series of
lessons learned from the TRICARE 3.0 venture. Based on these inputs, we
have made a major shift toward industry standards regarding how health
benefits are managed. We are contracting for services in more discrete
and industry standard groupings. We will try to limit benefit changes
to annual pending legislative approval, and our fast paced contracting
process will facilitate the replacement of poor performing vendors. The
consultant's articulated ``elements of an optimal model'' have been
understood and now help bolster the foundation of our adopted strategy
and concept of operations.
Conversely, the consultant recommendation to have DOD bear the
financial risk for health costs (i.e. self-insure) is not widely
accepted. Analysis and development of our financial model is still in
progress. The specific elements of risk and/or risk sharing with
contractors is not yet determined.
5. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, what input has the Department solicited from existing TRICARE
contractors to ensure best industry practices are included?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Prior to the initiation of the T-NEX activities,
Tricare Management Activity (TMA) senior management met with
representatives of the Surgeons General and approved an outcome-based,
best practices approach to the development of the contracting structure
to continue the TRICARE program in all regions. Management approved the
establishment of an integrated product team (IPT) (known as the request
for proposal (RFP) Development Team (RDT)) to develop the concepts of
the new performance-based contract. The RDT, composed of
representatives from the Surgeons General, each TMA directorate, and
each Lead Agent, developed the Government's objectives and
requirements. Interspersed between these Government-only meetings were
2 week-long public forums attended by health care delivery industry
representatives to include the current TRICARE Managed Care Support
contractors (MCSCs), consultants, and TRICARE beneficiary fraternal
organizations. The RDT, upon considering the public's input, developed
a draft RFP and posted it on the TRICARE website for comments. A third
public forum was held to provide the government an opportunity to
present the concepts contained in the RFP and once again solicited the
public's input, which again included input from the incumbent
contractors. Meetings on the retiree dental program, National Mail
Order Pharmacy (NMOP) and contract design were held on January 10,
2002, September 26, 2001, and October 25-26, 2001, respectively.
The T-NEX contracts' development has greatly benefited from this
public and industry input as many of the concepts developed for a best
practices approach will be carried over into the new contracts. Our
partnership with industry, to include all current TRICARE contractors,
continues as evidenced by their active participation in the recent
industry forums held for the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program, the
TRICARE National Mail Order Program and the proposed design for the
contracts to replace the MCSCs. These forums are invaluable as we
continue to explore industry best practices to improve on the current
TRICARE contracts structure while not changing the basic structure of
the program. Occasional items of concern will dictate further input
from industry. In each instance public notices will be posted followed
by a comment period for e-mail comments.
6. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, has the Department considered extending the best performing
contracts and conducting limited test of its new T-NEX concept?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes, we have considered this approach and we will
continue to consider all possible options as we continue to develop T-
NEX.
7. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, the RFP for the current TRICARE contracts were large, complex,
and costly to bid-all of which hindered competition. How are you going
to avoid repeating this situation under T-NEX?
Dr. Winkenwerder. The Department is in the process of replacing its
current TRICARE contracts and, using the lessons learned from prior
procurements, is preparing the RFPs in a manner that promotes
competition among bidders. In particular, T-NEX requirements are less
prescriptive, outcome-based, and have financial incentives weighted
toward performance. Additionally, the Department has made it a priority
to use best business practices as a means to promote competition among
bidders. While the Department wants to maximize competition among
prospective bidders, it will be important to ensure that the number and
structure of these contracts are also manageable. In discussions with
industry, there was considerable discussion about whether the T-NEX
contracts should be structured as one national contract or even upwards
to 50 contracts. Although this decision is close to being made, it has
always been deliberated with an interest in maximizing competition.
8. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, contractors allege that the prescriptive requirements of the
current contracts restrict the use of best practices. How are you going
to adjust the level of prescriptiveness to create best practice
opportunities to improve cost efficiency and quality of care? Please
provide specific examples.
Dr. Winkenwerder. Our new contracts will be less prescriptive,
thereby promoting the use of best practices by offerors. T-NEX is
operationally predicated by ``objectives'' that represent desired
outcomes. There is a wide latitude of freedom by contractors to propose
their best business practices to achieve the outcome. In order to
achieve consistency across the country, the Managed Care Support (MCS)
contractors will meet with the Government on a quarterly basis to
review ``current policies and procedures'' to determine where proven
best practices from the participant's Government and private sector
operations can be implemented in the administration of TRICARE. This is
intended to help further TRICAREs leading role as a ``world class
health care delivery system.'' There are also performance incentives
associated with exceeding standards that will help drive efficiencies
in meeting contractual obligations. It would be misleading to state
that best practices will be entertained in all facets of T-NEX as the
Department has certain areas where statutory requirements necessitate
prescriptiveness; however, the Department is pleased that this will be
the exception rather than the rule. Given our strong partnership with
industry there are many areas where the Department welcomes best
business practices--specifically in the areas of clinical management,
population health and network management.
9. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, more than 1,000 changes to the current contracts contribute to
both program instability and funding shortfalls. How do you plan to
deal with future contract changes to minimize or eliminate these
problems?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Contract changes are required due to benefit
changes, updates to allowable amounts, improvements/new developments in
the practice of medicine, base closures, the call-up of Reserve
members, et cetera. Some of these changes will continue to occur in
future contracts. But designing the new contracts as outcome-based,
processes necessary to remain up-to-date with current trends in third
party administrator procedures will be accomplished by each contractor
through the implementation of their best practices for the delivery and
financing of health care services without requiring change orders.
In the fall of 2001, we built on the very successful Global
Settlement initiative to develop an Integrated Product Team (IPT)
approach for our current list of proposed contract changes. We grouped
the changes in lots, and established IPTs with TMA experts in all
facets of contract, program and product line management. To support the
IPT process and facilitate resolution of the outstanding change orders,
we implemented a temporary moratorium on contract changes. The IPTs are
progressing well and we track their progress weekly.
Now, TMA is expanding the IPT process to include our industry
partners in a bilateral negotiation strategy for most currently
mandated and future change orders. Under the bilateral process, TMA
will meet with the Managed Care Support (MCS) contractors on proposed
changes that have been approved for negotiation by the TMA Change
Management Board, and discuss change-related concerns or assumptions.
The goal of this initial meeting is to establish a framework and
timeline for follow-on meetings. The follow-on discussions will be more
detailed and focus on the contractors' change implementation approach
and price. When a mutual understanding is reached, the contractor will
submit a package that reflects the results of the meeting discussions.
The Government team will review the proposal, and, if necessary,
schedule additional meetings to resolve differences. Once a mutually
acceptable negotiated position has been reached the supplemental
agreement (bilateral modification) and the settlement documentation
(Price Negotiation Memorandum) will be finalized. We expect this
structured approach to stabilize the planning and budgeting processes,
and increase the predictability of programmatic and financial
requirements.
10. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, complicating the design of the current contracts is the
periodic adjustment to the contract price for health care costs. DOD's
current method of adjusting these costs has been fraught with problems,
including faulty assumptions regarding the shift in patient workload
between military treatment facilities (MTFs) and the contractors'
networks. In addition, contractors have expressed concern about the
accuracy and completeness of the data used to determine MTF workload.
How will you simplify and improve this adjustment process under T-NEX?
Dr. Winkenwerder. The Department completely agrees and is
considering a number of financial models for T-NEX that completely
eliminate or replace the current Bid Price Adjustment (BPA) formula.
The Department is aware of concerns about MTF data and is attempting to
minimize the use of such data in contract pricing. We have solicited
comments from the private sector to get their views, and are
incorporating them into the new contracts as much as possible.
11. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, current contracts have provisions that directly relate to MTF
behavior, such as resource sharing. However, while good in concept,
these provisions failed to achieve projected cost savings, which
resulted in payments to some contractors. What type of provisions will
you incorporate in T-NEX to ensure the sharing of resources and
enhanced cooperation between the contractor and the MTF commanders that
will ultimately result in increased cost efficiency?
Dr. Winkenwerder. We are still evaluating the options available for
financing the T-NEX contracts. In our assessment of the many available
models, we are ruling out models that rely on projections of MTF
capability and capacity. Concurrently, we are examining financing
models to ensure that fiscal responsibility is properly assigned to
either the contractor or the MTF and to ensure that contractors are
directed to fully utilize the MTF before purchasing care in the
civilian sector.
12. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, in February 2000, DOD issued an RFP for a new TRICARE contract
commonly referred to as TRICARE 3.0. This RFP was pulled 6 months later
due to concerns about its design. Further, the contractors voiced
continuing concerns about the level of prescriptiveness as well as
concerns about the fairness of the structure for financial penalties
and incentives. How do you plan to address or avoid these issues under
T-NEX.
Dr. Winkenwerder. The TRICARE, 3.0 RFP was withdrawn to allow the
Department an opportunity to reevaluate our internal management
structure as well as our data systems. This process began when a
consulting firm was chartered to offer input and recommendations on a
number of areas including management structure. The development process
for T-NEX contracts was designed in a manner that does not rely upon
DOD's decisions for regional governance and organizational structure.
The contracting milestones will be appropriately achieved regardless of
the number and location of TRICARE Regional Offices. Additionally, we
were able to eliminate the concern with DOD's data systems by
considering contract finance models that are not reliant on this data
at the micro facility level, as was the case with 3.0. Positive and
negative incentives are also being re-evaluated for application with
contractor compliance performance standards.
rfp development and transition planning issues
13. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, how many RFPs do you plan to issue? Please list the RFPs along
with their intended functions.
Mr. Carrato. Our current plans are to issue RFPs for the following
services:
Healthcare/Administrative Services: This RFP will
include the majority of the functions included in our current
Managed Care Support Contractors (MCSC) contracts. These
functions include the provision of provider networks in areas
surrounding all military treatment facilities and base
realignment and closure sites; customer service and education,
including TRICARE Service Centers; claims processing and
reporting; and medical management.
Marketing and Education: This RFP is designed to have
a single contractor produce consistent marketing and education
materials for use by the Health Care/Administrative Services
Contractor, MTFs, Surgeons General, and TMA.
TRICARE Retiree Dental Program: This RFP will continue
the current Retiree Dental Program.
TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy: This RFP will continue
the current National Mail Order Pharmacy Program.
TRICARE Retail Pharmacy: This RFP will enable the
Government to have a single, national contractor for retail
pharmacy services. This single contractor will eliminate the
problems traveling beneficiaries currently encounter with
regional pharmacy contracts (as part of the larger regional
MCSC contracts) while bringing the expertise of a specialty
contractor to bear in managing the fastest growing segment
(pharmaceutical costs) of health care.
National Quality Monitoring: This contract will
continue the quality monitoring services currently obtained
through this contract.
14. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, do you have a time line for issuing and awarding each of the
RFPs? If not, when do you plan to have one? If so, please provide your
timeline as well as your current progress compared to it.
Dr. Winkenwerder. We do not have definite timelines for the health
care/administration RFPs at this time as we are still in he process of
developing requirements. In addition, significant contract related
decisions have not been finalized. Once these key decisions have been
made we will be able to develop timelines.
15. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, what type of organizational structure and/or process do you
have in place for developing the RFPs?
Mr. Carrato. TMA has tailored program management principles as
described (and governed) in the DOD 5000 Series instructions for
purchased care acquisitions and major program changes. ``TMA,''
approach is managed, resourced, and facilitated by the TMA Program
Management Office (PMO) and TMA-appointed Project Managers. Although
PMO has used program management concepts as a foundation for numerous
successful projects, the first tailored use in an acquisition program
resulted in the successful award of the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP).
This $1.8 billion procurement was guided to completion using DOD 5000-
tailored program management principles. Since activation 3 years ago,
the Program Management Office's use of the DOD 5000 Program Management
Model has led to completion of 23 major projects.
Elements and Practices Taken from DOD 5000: The PMO Users Guide
(TMA guidance document) and human resources applied to TMA projects
follow a disciplined approach that includes structured project
oversight and reporting protocols. Project Managers (PMs), with cradle-
to-grave responsibility, report to a Program Executive Officer (PEO),
who in turn reports to a Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). DOD 5000
management tools and core documents also include Mission Needs
Statements, Milestone Charts, Project Structure Charts, Phase and Gantt
Timeline Charts, and administrative documentation associated with
advancing the program. Project Managers lead cross-functional
Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) that in some cases are further
supported by sub-groups called Working Integrated Project Teams
(WIPTs). Project deliverables are identified with a signed Charter and
milestones are closely monitored. The T-NEX Acquisition Program has
incorporated all of these elements as prescribed and modeled in DOD
5000 Series documents.
The attached slide illustrates our structure for producing Requests
For Proposals.
16. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, given DOD's continuing effort to provide as much health care
as possible within the Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) versus the
contractors' civilian network, how will you accurately reflect the
shift in workload in the RFPs?
Dr. Winkenwerder. The Department has as an objective with its T-NEX
contracts to optimize the use of the MTF and has maintained language,
e.g., first right of refusal on referrals, etc., to ensure that this
occurs. In addition, performance standards have been included to ensure
that the contractor fulfills this objective.
17. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, how do you plan to ensure that the data provided in the RFP is
complete and accurate? For example, how do you plan to provide data on
non-enrolled beneficiaries who are potential system users?
Mr. Carrato. In the RFP, the Department will provide complete
information on all defense-eligible individuals using data from the
Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC). The information will provide
demographic data on enrollees, partial users, and total non-users
alike. The information on partial and total non-users will inform
prospective bidders about potential system users that are not currently
enrolled. The Department will provide information on multiple years of
purchased care claims for enrolled and non-enrolled beneficiaries, and
on multiple years of care provided in military facilities for enrolled
and non-enrolled beneficiaries. In addition, the Department will
provide descriptions of the operating capabilities of military health
care facilities obtained from the Service Surgeons General and the
regional Lead Agents. Analysts from the TRICARE Management Activity
will check the accuracy and completeness of all data prior to release.
18. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, how will the RFPs address the issue of providing care in areas
where there is a shortage of doctors willing to participate in the
TRICARE program?
Mr. Carrato. T-NEX will require the development and maintenance of
provider networks surrounding Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) and
in Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites. In these areas, the
contractors have the ability to pay up to the legislatively mandated
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)
Maximum Allowable Charge (CMAC). In addition, contractors will have the
opportunity to pay bonuses, reduce administrative burdens, offer
incentives such as payment within 10 days, et cetera. The key is that
the Government will establish requirements for access (the timely
availability of providers) in the contracts while allowing the
contractors to implement their best practices to ensure adequate
networks.
19. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, please explain what role the Department of Veterans' Affairs
(DVA) will play in T-NEX.
Dr. Winkenwerder. First, we have been very deliberate in our
efforts to bring VA desires relative to T-NEX to the table. The
Overarching Integrated Project Team (IPT) now includes two senior DVA
representatives who actively articulate VA interests in the T-NEX
development process. This has the effect of creating an environment of
greater understanding of how the two healthcare systems can participate
in beneficial endeavors. An example of how this is being played out is
best illustrated by the inclusion of VA desires for T-NEX in the agenda
of IPT meetings.
Seven items were presented for inclusion. Through the work of the
project team, all but the major policy issues which center on the
status of the VA medical facilities under T-NEX appear to be a definite
``go.''
What I can say at this point is it is very likely we will include
VA specific information in network provider briefings by contractors,
and incorporate the use of TRICARE Service Centers by the VA for
distributing information. We will also make our networks available to
both Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (CHAMPVA) and veterans on a voluntary basis without adding any
encumbrances to the provider population.
The VA would like CHAMPVA eligibles and Veterans to have access to
TRICARE network providers at the same discounted rates and have the
claims sent to appropriate locations. As stated above, this is
achievable on a voluntary and case-by-case basis for referrals from VA
Medical Centers.
20. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, have you developed a plan to transition from the current
contracts to T-NEX to ensure a seamless process for beneficiaries and
providers? If not, when do you plan to have one? If so, please provide
a copy of your plan.
Mr. Carrato. We have analyzed our options on how these new
contracts will be phased-in across the Nation. The transition plans and
schedule, though not risk free, are being designed with our
beneficiary's best interests at stake. We have implemented a
Transition, Planning, and Integration workgroup composed of staff from
the TRICARE Management Activity, the services and selected Lead Agent
offices. They are tasked to integrate the development of all new
proposed contract language, analyze the risks and develop transition
requirements accordingly. We have instituted a proven program
management support structure that helps mitigate transition risks. We
understand that the uninterrupted provision of health care to all
beneficiaries plus minimal disruption to our providers during
transition is essential to the continued success of the TRICARE
Program.
As of yet there are no transition plans. This information will not
become known until the RFPs are completed and proposals are received
and discussed. The requirements for the plans will be spelled out
either in each contract's RFP or a contract's companion operations
manuals. In addition, proposed transition plans are submitted with each
bidders proposals and are evaluated for completeness and integration.
The actual plans are not fully developed until after award and all
parties, government and contractors, meet to detail and integrate the
required activities.
Furthermore, we have developed a communication plan that includes
contacting all stakeholders in a logical pattern so that no one is left
out of the decisional, coordination, or information processes.
21. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, to date, all of the TRICARE managed care support contracts
have been protested, which resulted in delayed contract start dates.
Given the likelihood of bid protests, what is your contingency plan for
handling associated schedule delays?
Mr. Carrato. The Department, in previous protests, has used the
``urgent and compelling'' justification to extend current contracts.
This approach has worked to ensure that no disruption in patient care
occurred during the protest period.
22. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, how will you ultimately evaluate contractor compliance and
performance under T-NEX?
Mr. Carrato. Concurrent with the development of each contract
provision, we also develop a surveillance plan that will allow us to
monitor contractor performance on a continuing basis. When a contractor
fails to perform, we have a number of options that range from working
with the contractor to reach a satisfactory level of performance to
termination of the contract. In critical areas, we will also be
including positive and negative financial incentives to provide an
additional motivation for the contractor to deliver the required level
of service.
cost effectiveness
23. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, how did you determine that contracting for specific functions
is the most cost effective approach?
Dr. Winkenwerder. In determining the proposed structure of the T-
NEX contracts, the Department looked at the core competencies of
various companies within the industry, held industry forums to discuss
the approach, evaluated the cost of subcontracts when the bundling of
services exceeds core competencies, and reviewed redundancies to
determine where it was appropriate to eliminate duplications. In our
current proposal, for instance, we will be contracting with a single
contractor for the development of marketing and education materials.
These materials are currently being prepared by each of our managed
care contractors and, to varying degrees, by each of the services and
by a number of our Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs). This
redundancy is very expensive and does not always result in the best
product. We believe eliminating these redundancies will result in much
better products and will, undoubtedly, result in the elimination of the
costs associated with duplicate efforts.
Pharmacy services is a prime example of where the health care
industry has identified opportunities to ``carve out'' these services
as a means of better managing and overseeing both the quality of
services delivered while simultaneously providing better visibility of
the costs associated with delivering the benefit. The concept of
separate contracts positions the organization to be more responsive to
managing the costs.
24. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, what type of analysis did you use to identify the specific
functions for which you will solicit contracts? For example, why is
there a national contract for marketing and education but not for
claims processing or appointments?
Dr. Winkenwerder. As noted in our response to your previous
question, our analysis included the examination of the industry to
determine how it is structured to deliver the services the Department
requires and what redundancies occur in our current model. In your
example, marketing and education materials will be contracted for from
a single source to eliminate the redundancies involved with every
managed care contractor developing materials covering the same topic.
On the other hand, the development of provider networks,
credentialling, and negotiating provider reimbursement levels must be
fully integrated with claims processing activities. Additionally,
medical review must be fully integrated with claims processing to
ensure medical management programs are fully enforced. With fully
integrated services, it is efficient to award a single contract
responsible for the entirety. Appointing presents a third situation. We
have determined that services required to support the internal
operations of a specific, MTF should be excluded from the world-wide
contracts. There are a number of contracting options available to the
Department for obtaining local services and we are continuing to
explore these options to determine the best approach for each
situation.
pharmacy carve-out
25. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, DOD proposes to carve the TRICARE pharmacy benefit from the
current managed care support contracts and offer it as a single
nationwide contract. What is DOD's rationale for the benefit carve-out,
and what are its advantages and disadvantages?
Dr. Winkenwerder. The rationale behind consolidating the current
multiple managed care support retail network contracts under one
contract is based on management and control principles not possible
under the current scenario. Advantages of consolidation include reduced
administrative costs through centralized pharmacy claims processing and
customer service. It will also resolve portability problems in the
current retail network benefit. Consolidation will permit uniformity in
policy implementation by reducing the risk of multiple interpretation
and will allow centralized Government controlled formulary management.
Disadvantages to the Government are few and relate primarily to the
risk of relying on a single contractor.
26. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, could the carve-out harm the current integrated structure?
Dr. Winkenwerder. We do not believe consolidating the retail
pharmacy benefit under one contractor will put the integrated structure
at risk. On the contrary, while acknowledging that transition and
integration issues will exist, we believe that we will be able to
provide substantially improved service to our beneficiaries in terms of
customer service, drug utilization review and quality control.
Integration may be enhanced as a result of consolidation leading to an
improved management structure.
27. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, when will an RFP for the TRICARE Consolidated Pharmacy Benefit
be released?
Dr. Winkenwerder. The requirements of the RFP are still being
determined. After the draft RFP is written it must undergo review by
our Office of General Counsel and the Contracts Management Board of
Review. The time associated with the preparation and review process can
take anywhere from 6 months to a year. Although a firm release date is
not yet available, the RFP will be released on a schedule to allow
implementation of the retail pharmacy benefit coincident with the T-NEX
healthcare/admin contract(s).
national contracts
28. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, DOD plans to carve beneficiary and provider marketing and
education from the current TRICARE contracts and provide those services
through a single, national contract. What is the timeline for RFP
release for the carve-out? What is DOD's rationale for proposing this
administrative carve-out? How does DOD plan to address the distinct
geographic area needs and the uniqueness of provider communities and
beneficiary populations in the RFP?
Dr. Winkenwerder. DOD's decision to use a single contract to
provide marketing and education was based on the current production and
performance of marketing materials and education/training throughout
the TRICARE program. Review of current marketing and education
activities demonstrated that marketing and education activities were
performed throughout the program by multiple entities, to include the
Uniformed Services, Lead Agents, and managed care support contractors.
As each entity developed their marketing and education program,
customized to fit their requirements, the program gained multiple
images, thereby resulting in a lack of consistency in the message that
is shared.
The proposed strategy to use a single contract to provide all
marketing and education services was briefed at an industry forum and
was well received. DOD has determined that in order to gain the maximum
benefit and contain costs from marketing and education resources, the
Government would be better served to have a single, national contract
for the development, design, and distribution of marketing and
educational materials. Cost containment will be achieved through the
payment of costs incurred by one contractor for the development,
design, and distribution of marketing materials rather than by multiple
entities. The resulting advantage to the government will be the
assurance that TRICARE maintains a single image and that a consistent
message is provided throughout the program. In addition, the
development of a training program by one contractor will ensure
consistency in the provision of program information to TRICARE
beneficiaries. In spite of the fact that the TRICARE program and its
benefits are uniform throughout the country, DOD also recognizes the
need to address differences in program delivery unique to distinct
geographic areas. In order to maintain a single image and consistent
message, DOD plans to ensure unique nuances of the program that are
geographic specific, are identified and addressed through the
facilitation of interfaces between contractors and incorporated into
marketing and educational materials developed by the contractor.
The timeline to release the RFP will be closely tied to the release
of the healthcare/administration contract(s). The exact date is still
unknown at this time.
29. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, have you determined the financing arrangements for these
contracts yet? If not, when will these fundamental decisions be made?
If so, please describe the type of contract envisioned (i.e. fixed
price or cost plus) and who will assume the financial risk for health
care costs. Please explain the rationale used to arrive at these
decisions to include the advantages and disadvantages of each
arrangement.
Dr. Winkenwerder. No final decision on the financing model has been
made to date. It is not clear precisely when the decision will be made.
My staff is currently evaluating the various options and estimating how
the options under consideration will affect the performance of the
contracts in the future. Currently, contract types under evaluation
include cost plus fixed fee, cost plus incentive fee, cost plus award
fee, and fixed price. Associated risk for health care varies by
contract type and financing model. Criteria for evaluation of the
models include:
Incentives and impact on Military Treatment Facility
optimization
Ability to forecast budgetary requirements
Ability to close out prior fiscal years
Simplicity of financing mechanisms
Ability to implement change orders
Incentives for quality care and customer service
Ease of implementation
Avoiding requests for equitable adjustments (REAs)
Ease of bidding and evaluation
Enhancing competition
competition
30. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, attaining sufficient competition is key to obtaining the best
quality for the best price for the T-NEX contracts. What steps, such as
benchmarking with the industry, are you taking in your procurement
strategy to maximize competition?
Dr. Winkenwerder. We believe that continually seeking comments and
suggestions through industry forums and publishing draft documents for
comments keeps the interest of potential bidders high. This allows
numerous industry entities to participate in the development and
formulation of the T-NEX contracts, ensuring their needs and concerns
are considered. Also, we continue to explore industry best practices to
ensure, where possible, that the future contract requirements are less
prescriptive and are outcome-based as opposed to the current contract
requirements that are one-of-a-kind Government-designed, and are
procedures driven. In conjunction with our financing design, we will
have incentives for superior performance and service.
utilization management
31. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, attaining sufficient competition is key to obtaining the best
quality for the best price for the T-NEX contracts. What steps, such as
benchmarking with the industry, are you taking in your procurement
strategy to maximize competition.
Dr. Winkenwerder. We have held conferences with the industry over
the last 5 years to obtain and use their input in designing our
contracts. We are continuing this benchmarking by making public, to the
maximum extent possible, all proposals and asking for both industry and
beneficiary input. We are also changing the contract structure to focus
on outcomes rather than process. This will allow industry the
opportunity to sell the Government its best practices rather than
creating separate units simply to comply with TRICARE requirements.
This will reduce the cost of proposal preparation to a fraction of
previous proposal costs and should encourage competition while also
reducing the ongoing infrastructure requirements and associated costs,
which will also increase competition.
tricare regions
32. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, we understand that you are considering reducing the number of
TRICARE regions. What would be gained (i.e., cost efficiency) by
realigning the regional structure? Have you made this decision yet? If
not, when do you expect to do so? If so, please describe the new
regional structure as well as the rationale supporting the new
configuration.
Dr. Winkenwerder. By realigning the regional structure, we look to
reduce TRICARE administration burden by reducing the number of contract
change orders, eliminating redundant contractor overhead costs, and
decreasing the number of contracts to monitor. We are also looking at
minimizing disruption of the beneficiary and provider communities
during transitions between regions; and lessening jurisdictional issues
and regional differences.
We expect to finish our analysis and decide on whether or not to
change the current of number of TRlCARE regions prior to the end of the
fiscal year.
33. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, further, how will reducing the number of regions impact the
role of the lead agent in terms of consolidation and regional
authority? What additional ramifications do you envision from such a
change (i.e. impact on competition)?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Reducing the numbers of regions will result in
increased responsibility for the Lead Agent--in terms of the number of
covered lives, number of Military Treatment Facilities, and contract
responsibilities for a larger geographic region. Because of the
increased scope and complexity associated with a larger region, the
Lead Agent must have the authority and resources to integrate
operations. Therefore, it will be necessary to ensure that the Lead
Agent has a strengthened role in management of both the direct and
purchased care entities within the region. Roles, responsibilities,
authorities, and reporting authorities under several consolidation
scenarios are under study.
Benefits of consolidation include reduction of TRICARE
administration burden through reducing the number of contract change
orders, eliminating redundant contractor overhead costs, and decreasing
the number of contracts to monitor. Other effects of consolidation
include minimizing disruption of the beneficiary and provider
communities during transitions between regions; and lessening
jurisdictional issues and regional differences. Consolidation could be
viewed as limiting competition to only current incumbents or other
large players due to regional size and financial risk. However, the
potential effect of consolidation on competition is more than offset by
simplification of the RFP process and the move away from prescriptive
Government requirements resulting in a health care delivery model much
more familiar to potential bidders than any of the current TRICARE
contracts.
beneficiary protection (continuity and quality of care)
34. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, how do you plan on educating beneficiaries about the potential
changes under T-NEX, such as new regions and contractors?
Mr. Carrato. In an effort to educate beneficiaries regarding
potential changes under T-NEX, TMA has begun developing a
communications plan that identifies the specific objectives, goals, and
strategies to educate beneficiaries and other target audiences
regarding potential program changes such as new regions and
contractors.
The communications plan includes key messages to be conveyed to
each target audience, and the appropriate communication vehicles and
tools that will be used to carry the message to the target audiences.
Such vehicles will include major U.S. media, military and Government
media. Service Surgeons General and Lead Agent public affairs offices,
the TRICARE Web site, meetings and other interactions with The Military
Coalition and the National Military and Veterans Alliance groups.
Communication tools include a suite of integrated marketing and
communications products such as briefings, marketing materials, news
releases, fact sheets and frequently asked questions. We also will make
T-NEX a theme for our TRICARE Communications Plan, and focus on the
changes in the Executive Director's column, ``Plain Talk,'' in the
``Salute to the Heroes of TRICARE,'' ``Champion of TRICARE,'' ``The
Doctor Is In,'' the Media Readiness Room, and other vehicles. Through
the Media Readiness Room, our Media Roundtable, and our Public Affairs
Officers Video teleconference, we can ``pitch'' T-NEX related topics
and subject matter experts to our media sources for interviews and news
features.
35. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, how are you going to incorporate continuity and quality of
care for beneficiaries into the transition plan? How do you plan to
notify beneficiaries about changes in the network, Obtaining their
prescriptions, and who to contact for health care information?
Mr. Carrato. Experience has shown that very little change will
occur in the network of participating institutions and individual
providers. Our expectation is that all bidders will contact existing
network providers and negotiate continuing contracts. Certainly, we'll
encourage this behavior through the evaluation factors. Nevertheless,
we will employ a massive marketing campaign, including public service
announcements, flyers, handouts, and briefings to ensure that our
beneficiaries are aware of any changes. We will also be individually
contacting any beneficiary whose primary care manager (PCM) has changed
in order to assist them with a obtaining a new PCM.
financial model
36. Senators Cleland and Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder or Mr.
Carrato, DOD has expressed concern for the underlying financial models
of existing TRICARE contracts and their linkage to budget
predictability, and change order implementation and negotiation. In
developing its strategy for the next generation of contracts, is DOD
proposing a new financial model? If so, was a comprehensive independent
analysis performed and if yes, please share this report to the
committee. Does the new methodology cure the financial difficulties
associated with the bid price adjustment and alternative financing
processes in current managed care support contracts? Does it provide
the contractor with the appropriate incentives and shared risk?
Dr. Winkenwerder. DOD has used both internal and external
evaluators for T-NEX financing model options under consideration. DOD
has not selected a financing option to date. Elimination of the current
bid price adjustment process is a key requirement for all of the
financing models under consideration. DOD is in support of the
principles behind alternative financing and believes that the
difficulties associated with its early implementation in Regions 1, 2,
and 5 have been eliminated. There is strong support from the services
to expand alternative financing to the rest of the regions regardless
of the contract type or risk arrangement selected in the final
analysis. DOD believes that alternative financing is a key feature of
population health, supports optimization, and is an integral part of
the alignment of incentives between our managed care support partners
and the direct care system.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Hutchinson
health care management oversight structure
37. Senator Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder, are you considering any
modification to the current regional management structure either
organizationally or geographically?
Dr. Winkenwerder. We are considering modification of our current
regional management structure. By modifying our current regional
structure we look to reduce TRICARE administration burden by reducing
the number of contract change orders, eliminating redundant contractor
overhead costs, and decreasing the number of contracts to monitor. We
are looking at minimizing disruption of the beneficiary and provider
communities during transitions between regions and lessening
jurisdictional issues and regional differences.
We are in the process of studying the best regional structure to
achieve our vision of being the best world class integrated healthcare
delivery system that efficiently and cost effectively provides quality
healthcare services to our beneficiaries. Roles, responsibilities,
authorities, and reporting authorities under several organizational and
geographical scenarios are under study.
resource sharing
38. Senator Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder, a component of the
current contractual structure provides flexibility to the military
health care system and increased utilization of the direct care
resources through a program called ``resource sharing.'' For example, a
managed care support contractor could provide staff or equipment for a
vacant or under-utilized clinic on a military post and avoid costs both
for the military and the contractor. This appears to be a win-win
situation. Is this a viable component of the next generation of
contracts? If the process is too cumbersome, is there a way to simplify
its implementation to ensure its continued benefit to the direct care
system?
Dr. Winkenwerder. The Department, too, views resource sharing as a
win-win proposition and, depending upon the financial model chosen for
T-NEX, will include language in the T-NEX contracts that supports this
concept.
A number of the financing models under consideration provide a
strong incentive to the managed care support partner to invest in the
capabilities of the Military Treatment Facility in order to lower the
overall health care cost in the region. This reduction in heath care
costs would result in shared savings for the program and would increase
the fee or profit that the contractor could earn. Elimination of the
current bid price adjustment (BPA) process will greatly simplify the
implementation of resource sharing under the new contracts.
special pays for military health care professionals
39. Senator Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder, there has been no
legislative modification increasing special pays for military health
care professionals for over 10 years. We have seen in the past that
these special pay authorities lose their buying power over time. Have
you seen any evidence of shortages of military health care providers,
and is there any consideration of proposals to enhance existing special
pay authorities or to modify the existing legislative framework?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Over the past 10 years the Department has
performed analyses on special pays of physicians on an annual basis and
for other health professions periodically. These analyses have resulted
in upward adjustments to the discretionary pays, but in some cases to
the limit of maximum authority, as is the case for several physician
specialties. Consequently, the special pays are no longer serving their
intended purpose.
We do have evidence of shortages. The shortages vary among the
services, in many cases, in a way that makes increased cross-leveling a
possible alternative. We have senior service officials evaluating that
as one option. Other shortages exist across all services and are, or
are projected to become, significant enough in magnitude that
recommendations for major changes to the pay authorities are being
crafted to simplify existing incentive legislation. These
recommendations are aimed at adding flexibility and expanding fiscal
authority for the incentives programs aimed at attracting and retaining
quality personnel to meet our mission requirements. They are designed
to continue present incentives that are important to the success of our
program, while combining some and removing restrictions from others to
allow the Department to make timely changes currently restricted by the
languorous process of law.
The Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) has completed a study called
Health Professions Retention/Accession Incentives Study (HPRAIS), in
which they support a more broad, simplified authority for use of
incentives based on analysis of manning levels and gaps in civilian-
military pay. There has been similar broad authority granted in the
fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act for a Critical
Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) with certain restrictions that make it
inadequate for health professions. The two main problems are that CSRB
limits the career total of retention bonus funds to be received by an
individual to $200,000, and that it does not allow payment of bonus
funds to those who will exceed 25 years of active duty service during
the obligation period incurred by participating.
The key points of the incentive simplification plan being crafted
are:
Add and/or change language of Title 37, Chapter 5 to
facilitate optimal use and to simplify statutory restrictions
Create 5 broad health professions incentive
authorities vice the 19 currently available: Variable Special
Pay; Board Certification Pay; Incentive Special Pay; Retention
Bonus; Accession Bonus
Each of the five new incentive authorities will have
the flexibility to be targeted for all health professions
In fiscal year 2000, the Department commissioned the Center for
Naval Analyses to take a look at our incentive program for health
professions, including pay gaps and potential recommendations for
changes to the incentive program. This study validated many of the
Department's concerns. CNA's evaluation is being used in developing the
Department's plans addressed above.
homeland defense
40. Senator Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder, how do you interact with
the Office of Homeland Security on healthcare issues, especially,
chemical and biological defense?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Homeland Security Presidential Directive-1
established eleven Homeland Security Council Policy Coordinating
Committees (HSC/PCCs) to coordinate the development and implementation
of homeland security policies throughout the Federal Government. These
PCCs provide policy analysis and proposals for consideration by
Governor Ridge and the Cabinet-level Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries
of departments or agencies who meet as needed to gain consensus on
policies to be forwarded for presidential decision. Each PCC is chaired
by a designated Senior Director from the Office of Homeland Security
and comprised of functional representatives from each of the executive
branch departments, offices, and agencies with a stake in the eleven
policy areas.
To ensure DOD's efforts and concerns are conveyed to the Office of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense stood up a Homeland
Security Task Force Office for the purpose of coordinating with the
Office of Homeland Security and other Federal, state, and local
agencies. To ensure all the policy initiatives are addressed, our
Homeland Security Task Force Office has developed a series of eleven
PCCs as well, each with a designated lead and assist organization. My
office has the lead for the Medical and Public Health Preparedness PCC.
I have designated my Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force
Health Protection and Readiness to head this up with assistance from
other organizations within OSD, the Joint Staff, and other Federal
agencies such as the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center (AFMIC).
We have been working extensively with the Office of Homeland
Security, Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and others to look at effective means to counter
potential threats of biological and chemical agents that might be
deliberately introduced into a targeted population. We expect to
continue interagency coordination on this topic well into the
foreseeable future. My office will remain engaged as an active partner
with these agencies while maintaining our focus on our mission of
protecting and preserving the health of DOD personnel, their
beneficiaries, and retirees.
pharmacy contracts
41. Senator Hutchinson. Mr. Carrato, I understand that a RFP was
recently issued to nationally procure mail-order pharmacy support for
the Department of Defense. I believe that one or more retail pharmacy
support solicitations are still under consideration. The ``President's
Task Force to Improve Health Care for Our Nation's Veterans'' has
vigorously pursued investigation of consolidated purchasing of
pharmaceuticals by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense and
believes there is significant opportunity for cost efficiency in a
joint endeavor. Did you consider any type of joint initiative prior to
issuing the recent RFP for the mail order pharmacy support contract? If
no, why not?
Mr. Carrato. Yes we did consider a joint initiative. However, the
VA does not have or offer to its beneficiaries a full service mail
order pharmacy program to include filling new prescriptions written by
civilian physicians mailed in by the beneficiary. The VA's Consolidated
Mail-Out Patient (CMOP) pharmacy program is a refill mail-out program
only and is best described as an electronic extension of VA medical
facility pharmacies. The TRICARE Pharmacy Benefit includes a
comprehensive mail order pharmacy program as a ``stand alone'' pharmacy
and is not simply an extension of DOD's Military Treatment Facility
(MTF) pharmacies. Since the VA does not offer a full-service mail order
program comparable to the current DOD National Mail Order Pharmacy
Program (NMOP) it is unable to meet the requirements of the new RFP.
It should be noted, however, that the DOD and VA have entered into
an agreement to initiate a pilot program at three DOD military medical
facility pharmacies to utilize the VA CMOP for prescription refills.
Beneficiaries who have new prescriptions filled at one of the three DOD
sites will be offered the opportunity to have refills mailed to their
homes through the CMOP. Although not a full service program like the
NMOP, the joint CMOP pilot will offer added convenience to the
beneficiaries and resource utilization efficiencies.
42. Senator Hutchinson. Mr. Carrato, are you exploring this
opportunity and its advantages or disadvantages prior to moving forward
with a decision on a retail approach?
Mr. Carrato. We are continuing to explore all areas where pharmacy
related best business practices can best be achieved through joint
efforts with the VA. Currently, TRICARE's 40,000 retail pharmacies are
an integral part of the purchased care TRICARE pharmacy benefit. The
next generation retail contracts will further improve and refine this
portion of the benefit. The VA does not offer or participate in a
retail pharmacy benefit, making a joint effort unrealistic at this
time.
43. Senator Hutchinson. Mr. Carrato, how can smaller independent
retail pharmacies participate in large Federal programs with the ``most
favored nation'' clauses that most large insurance companies require?
Mr. Carrato. ``Most favored nation'' clauses are imposed by State
governments for Medicaid programs. TRICARE retail pharmacy networks are
not under the purview of State run programs. Small independent retail
pharmacies may become part of the large TRICARE retail pharmacy
networks by accepting reimbursement rates negotiated with the
contractor responsible for establishing TRICARE networks. Currently,
the regional TRICARE Managed Care Support contractors are responsible
for establishing retail networks and negotiating rates with
participating pharmacies. It is our intent to follow commercial
business practices to the greatest extent possible in the next
generation retail contract. The offerors submitting proposals and the
resulting successful contractor will be responsible for establishing
and maintaining networks in accordance with the terms of the contract
and Federal and State law.
vaccines
44. Senator Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder, the Department of Defense
is well aware of my frustration regarding the military's vaccine
acquisition strategy. As we sit here today, our troops that are
deploying across the globe are critically and unacceptably vulnerable
to biological weapons. This is a truly frightening situation. We know
that each member of the ``axis of evil'' has some biological warfare
capability. For over a decade, numerous studies have been done that
point to one solution to this deficiency . . . the creation of a
Government-owned vaccine production facility. However, the Department
refuses to move forward. This is especially frustrating in light of the
fact that the Department itself has issued two reports advocating this
approach. I understand that your office does not handle the acquisition
of vaccines. However, you do represent the health interest of our men
and women in uniform. When Under Secretary Chu testified before this
subcommittee recently, he said that the Department was conducting a
review of the anthrax inoculation program. In fact, he said that a
decision on this is to be made ``very shortly.'' Has the Department
revised its anthrax inoculation program?
Dr. Winkenwerder. The Department of Defense is considering its
policies regarding the vaccination of U.S. forces against the very real
threat of anthrax. As we do this, DOD must balance the manufacturer's
recent FDA approved production capability with the demands of providing
adequate protection to personnel in higher threat areas. In addition,
we are working to ensure that the requirements of other Federal
agencies are also included.
45. Senator Hutchinson. Dr. Winkenwerder, do you believe that
vaccination is the best defense against biological weapons? Do we
currently have adequate quantities of vaccines against these kinds of
weapons? Do we have vaccines for botulinum toxin or ricin? (Botulinum
and ricin are biological weapons that Iraq has reportedly developed.)
Dr. Winkenwerder. Vaccination represents the best defense against
biological weapons when there is time to prepare for the threat. It is
the medically preferred method for enhancing military readiness and
protecting U.S. Forces facing a potential biological warfare (BW)
threat. From a cost/benefit perspective, vaccines are the most cost-
effective method for protecting large populations against BW threats.
The protective immunity vaccines can last for months or years. In the
absence of prior vaccination, drugs (e.g., antibiotics) and immune
serum (e.g., antitoxins)--either as prophylaxis or post-exposure
treatment--may offer immediate protection/therapy. Additionally, there
is some scientific evidence that post-exposure vaccination can provide
therapeutic benefit against select BW threats. From a national
perspective, we must use a systematic approach to dealing with
bioterrorism, balancing use of different products available for optimum
protection or therapy.
The Department of Defense is expanding its stockpile of vaccines
against high threat biological agents and analyzing requirements for
vaccines against other biological warfare threats in order to ensure an
adequate supply.
We have an existing stockpile of botulinum toxoid vaccine and we
are in advanced development on a new vaccine that is safer to
manufacture. There are also a limited number of botulinum antitoxins
available for post-exposure therapy. Several ricin vaccine candidates
are in early development. None of these vaccines are currently licensed
by the Food and Drug Administration.
anthrax vaccine status
46. Senator Hutchinson. Admiral Mayo, General Green, Colonel Maul,
Captain Hall, and Colonel Jones, in the statements that you have
submitted to the subcommittee, many of you spoke about the need for
adequate vaccine protection. Captain Hall, I was particularly
interested by your perspective. You wrote:
``I want to reaffirm our position that the Anthrax Vaccination
Program is a critical force protection tool for U.S. military
forces. USEUCOM appreciates the vigorous support expressed by
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Services to support this
program. We believe safe and effective vaccination, when
available, is our best defense against both natural diseases
and bio-terrorist weapons.''
Do you believe that the problems that the DOD has had in procuring
adequate stocks of anthrax vaccine has placed our troops in the field
at risk? Should ensuring that our military has a reliable source of
vaccines be a top priority?
Admiral Mayo. Yes, ensuring the health of our forward-stationed and
forward deployed elements is directly related to our capability to
implement effective infectious disease countermeasures. These
countermeasures include readily available vaccines (such as anthrax
vaccine), adequate supplies of antibiotics, automated disease
surveillance systems, and greater reliance on basic research to combat
infectious disease threats such as at DOD medical research facilities
in Thailand and Indonesia. A good example of this is the ongoing
research efforts by these facilities to develop a malaria vaccine.
Ensuring that our military has a reliable source of vaccines must
be top priority. We have seen that there are occasionally shortages of
commonly used vaccines, this highlights the need for improved assured
vaccine production capabilities, especially for those other less common
vaccines. The global war on terrorism is pushing us into ever more
medically hazardous destinations in a time when global patterns of
disease migration and emergence have made the medical dimension of U.S.
war operations a greater factor.
General Green. Yes, anthrax tops the DOD list of agents that could
easily be used against our deployed forces. There are numerous reasons
why anthrax is such a credible threat to include: it is highly
infective, it is easy and cheap to make, it has a short incubation
period, it can easily be mass produced, there is a low immunity to this
bacteria (except for our personnel that are immunized), it is stable
and persistent, it is highly lethal, it is easily weaponizable, it is
difficult to detect, and it is a breathable-sized particle. Deployed
U.S. forces that are unvaccinated are at increased threat of anthrax.
The Centers of Disease Control (CDC) just wrote an excellent
summary of the huge impact vaccines have had in the control of
infectious diseases, ``Vaccines have reduced, and in some cases,
eliminated, many diseases that routinely killed or harmed many infants,
children, and adults.'' CDC has compiled this excellent table to show
the impact vaccines have had in controlling diseases in America, see
attachment titled ``Cases of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the U.S.
Reduced Dramatically in the Twentieth Century!''
Colonel Maul. The force health protection of our soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines is a top priority. The anthrax vaccine is a safe
and effective medical pre-exposure countermeasure against what I
consider to be one of the greatest biological warfare threats in the
world today. In view of the impending threat of anthrax as a weapon,
and the current unavailability of adequate stocks of anthrax vaccine,
mitigation steps have included providing each servicemember with a mask
to protect against a known inhalation exposure of anthrax, and the use
of biological agent detectors near troop concentrations. In addition,
in the U.S. Central Command region, servicemembers carry a 3-day supply
of antibiotics to initiate a post-exposure treatment in the event of an
attack, while larger supplies of pre-positioned antibiotics are moved
to exposure locations.
Without question, vaccines are a most effective means of providing
protection against, and thereby preventing, many infectious diseases.
This is true with both naturally occurring diseases and those
potentially produced by weaponized biologic agents. Clearly, vaccines
play a key role in promoting and maintaining a fit and healthy force.
Any means to further enhance force health protection should be a top
priority.
Captain Hall. This question requires a ``good news, bad news''
response--the bad news is that during the suspension of the Anthrax
immunizations, the level of force health protection has dropped,
translating into increased risk. But the good news is that the Anthrax
vaccination is a much more effective vaccine than realized back in the
1970s. So the residual protection is effective much longer than
officially recognized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There
is good clinical evidence to suggest that those who have had the
vaccine series (at least three, possibly even as few as two shots) will
maintain protection up to 2 years. That means that many of these troops
have not yet outlived the usefulness of their original series, even
while there has been a hiatus--far more troops than would have been
projected by official figures.
The second part of your question states U.S. European Command's
position: safe and effective vaccines are the best defense against both
natural diseases and biological weapons. Thus they should be a top
priority in the military establishment for research, development and
fielding.
Colonel Jones. Ensuring that our military has a reliable source of
vaccines is critical and should be a top priority in our Force Health
Protection Program. However, because the risk of exposure to anthrax in
the United States Southern Command's theater is extremely low, problems
in the procurement of adequate stocks of anthrax vaccine have placed
our troops in the field at minimal risk.
percentage of troops inoculated against anthrax
47. Senator Hutchinson. Admiral Mayo, General Green, Colonel Maul,
Captain Hall, and Colonel Jones, what percentage of the troops in your
commands have been inoculated against anthrax?
Admiral Mayo. Pacific Command does not monitor a database detailing
anthrax vaccinations administered to our servicemembers. This
information is reported through our service components on separate
databases, the information of which is fed into a DOD worldwide
database, the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS).
The DEERS database reveals the percentage of servicemembers in the
Pacific Command that have been inoculated (received at least one
inoculation of anthrax vaccine) against anthrax to be 28 percent. By
service component, the figures are U.S. Army--19 percent; U.S. Navy--25
percent; U.S. Air Force--38 percent; U.S. Marine Corps--35 percent.
General Green. In TRANSCOM, 25.5 percent of the total deployable
personnel have initiated the series of anthrax vaccinations.
Colonel Maul. Typically, each of the services track anthrax vaccine
compliance. U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) establishes the
requirement for anthrax vaccine in its region. The services provide
their respective soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with the
vaccine (when available) and ensure compliance with USCENTCOM
requirements. Due to the shortage, the current Anthrax Vaccine
Implementation Policy (AVIP) only targets special mission units and
personnel in research programs. As a result, DOD has been in a 2 year
slowdown period. It is the AVIP agency's best estimate that, because of
the slowdown, only 20 percent of the total force has had at least the
first three injections of the series (-95 percent immunity) and will
need the fourth as soon as the new policy is executed. We have received
similar comments from each of the services and the USCENTCOM
components, stating the same estimates.
Captain Hall. For U.S. European Command (USEUCOM), the approximate
percentages, by Component, of those who have at least begun the anthrax
immunization series are as follows:
Army: 14 percent
Air Force: 34 percent
Navy: less than 10 percent
Because of the movement of personnel into and out of the USEUCOM
Theater, especially concerning ships that enter and leave the area,
these percentages are our current best estimates. The figures for those
who have actually completed the six-shot series are much lower, with
the majority of individuals having stopped taking immunization shots.
Colonel Jones. Of the troops assigned to the United States Southern
Command, 15 percent have begun and 3 percent have completed the anthrax
immunization series.
[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the subcommitte adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Personnel,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION IN THE MILITARY SERVICES
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m. in
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Max
Cleland (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Cleland and McCain.
Majority staff member present: Gerald J. Leeling, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Patricia L. Lewis,
professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, minority
counsel.
Staff assistants present: Dara R. Alpert and Nicholas W.
West.
Committee members' assistants present: Andrew
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Marshall A.
Hevron, assistant to Senator Landrieu; Christopher J. Paul,
assistant to Senator McCain; James P. Dohoney, Jr., and Michele
A. Traficante, assistants to Senator Hutchinson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND, CHAIRMAN
Senator Cleland. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
morning. Senator Hutchinson and I welcome you to this hearing.
We are going to receive testimony regarding recruiting and
retention of military personnel. Recruitment and retention are
the core of the subcommittee's business. Everything that we do
is designed to care for our service members and their families.
Our goal is to make military service an attractive option to
all young Americans and a desirable career for those who choose
it.
During my time on this subcommittee, under the leadership
of Senators Kempthorne, Allard, and Hutchinson, we have done a
lot to improve the lives of our service members and their
families. These improvements should make military service more
attractive to young Americans. Over the last 5 years we have
approved pay raises that total over 20 percent, we have
directed the Secretary of Defense to assist those members who
qualify for food stamps with a special pay of up to $500 a
month, we removed the requirement that service members living
off post pay 15 percent of their housing cost out-of-pocket,
and authorized increases for the basic allowance for housing to
eliminate out-of-pocket expenses by 2005.
We improved the retirement benefits by providing an
alternative to the unpopular REDUX retirement system and
authorizing service members to participate with other Federal
employees in the Thrift Savings Plan. We have made significant
improvement to TRICARE, the military health program. We enacted
provisions that improved the quality of health care and access
to health care providers. We authorized TRICARE Prime Remote
for families of active duty personnel assigned where military
medical facilities were not available. We eliminated copayments
for active duty personnel and their families when they receive
care under the TRICARE Prime option, and we authorized TRICARE
for Life for our Medicare-eligible military retirees and their
families.
Both recruiting and retention are improving. Just a few
years ago, the services reported great challenges in meeting
recruiting goals, and service members were leaving at alarming
rates. I like to think that the improvements in benefits that I
just described helped to turn our recruiting and retention
around.
I understand that the downturn in the economy and the
terrorist attacks on our Nation also contributed to the
increase in the desire to serve our Nation. I know that we
recruit individuals and retain families.
With this in mind, we have two panels of witnesses. The
first panel is one of our favorites, the recruiters themselves.
We look forward to their candid assessment of the recruiting
market and the tools they have for enlisting young Americans.
The second panel consists of the officers responsible for
service recruiting and retention policies, the personnel chiefs
and recruiting commanders of the services. We are anxious to
hear from them about innovative recruiting and retention
practices that are helping the services to man the force.
We are glad to have Sergeant Gwyn, is it?
Sergeant Gwyn. Yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. Petty Officer Piatek, is it?
Petty Officer Piatek. Piatek, sir.
Senator Cleland. We are glad to have you.
Gunnery Sergeant Parker.
Sergeant Parker. Here, sir.
Senator Cleland. Tech Sergeant Quintana.
Sergeant Quintana. That is correct, sir.
Senator Cleland. We are glad to have you all here.
I would like to have your candid thoughts about recruiting.
Your assessment is very important to us. In earlier years
recruiters told us their number one challenge was lack of
access to potential recruits in high schools. We responded by
passing a law that would require schools to give you the same
access to students as they give to other potential employers
and colleges and universities. Last year we made this provision
even stronger by requiring secondary schools to provide to
military recruiters upon request student names, addresses, and
telephone listings unless the student or parent has submitted a
request that this information not be released without prior
written parental consent. This law will go into effect in July.
The point I am trying to make is that we listened to you
and tried to respond to your concerns. Would each of you tell
us a little bit about yourself, where you are from, how long
you have been in the service, and where you are assigned now?
Sergeant Gwyn, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF SGT. LINDSEY E. GWYN, USA, UNITED STATES ARMY
RECRUITER
Sergeant Gwyn. Senator, first of all my name is Sergeant
Lindsey Gwyn. I am a recruiter in Lapeer, Michigan, where I am
originally from. I grew up in Lapeer, Michigan, sir. I joined
the Army in January of 1999, went to basic training and
Advanced Individual Training (AIT) in Fort Jackson, South
Carolina, and was then stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
I have been deployed overseas to Bosnia-Herzegovina for 7
months. Then I applied for recruiting duty under the Corporal
program as an E-4 and went to recruiting.
The Corporal program is a 12-month tour of recruiting to
get the younger service members and recruiters out so they can
relate with the younger students and college students better.
Senator Cleland. I am curious to why you wanted to
volunteer to be a recruiter.
Sergeant Gwyn. Sir, I love to interact with people and
being able to relate with the younger students in high school
and in college. It is a great honor to be able to be out and
have this ability and the privilege to do it at my point in
service.
Senator Cleland. Wonderful. Thank you.
Petty Officer Piatek.
STATEMENT OF ELECTRICIAN'S MATE FIRST CLASS PETTY OFFICER BRUCE
PIATEK, USN, UNITED STATES NAVY ENLISTED RECRUITER
Petty Officer Piatek. Yes, sir. I am originally from
Lockport, New York. I joined the Navy shortly after graduating
from high school, went to basic training in Orlando, Florida,
followed that with advanced training and nuclear power school
in Orlando, Florida, and then went to school up in Balson Spa,
New York, for a nuclear power prototype. After that school I
stayed as an instructor.
Following that tour of duty for 2 years, I went to the
U.S.S. Hampton, a submarine based out of Norfolk, Virginia,
where I spent the next 4\1/2\ years as a submariner, did two
and a half deployments basically. Following that tour, I
volunteered for recruiting duty.
Why did I do that? I will go ahead and answer that now. I
went to recruiting duty because I am always looking for a new
challenge, something new. I saw it as a challenge. I heard a
lot of people talking about how difficult it would be, and I
felt I was up to the challenge, and here I am today.
Senator Cleland. Maybe you were just coming up for air.
[Laughter.]
Petty Officer Piatek. Maybe so, sir.
Senator Cleland. I admire anybody in the submariner force.
Gunnery Sergeant Parker.
STATEMENT OF GUNNERY SERGEANT RYAN L. PARKER, USMC,
NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER IN CHARGE, RSS MARIETTA, GEORGIA
Sergeant Parker. Yes, sir. How are you doing today, sir?
Senator Cleland. Nice to see you.
Sergeant Parker. I am originally from Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, sir. Once I graduated from high school, I joined
the military, the Marines, and went to recruit training in
Parris Island, South Carolina. Upon graduation of recruit
training in the school of infantry, I went to communications
school in California; stationed out in California for the first
2 years and then was stationed in Japan; then after Japan went
to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After being stationed in Cuba, I went
to North Carolina and spent some time in North Carolina, sir,
where I did several deployments.
Once I left North Carolina, I was an instructor in a
leadership school. After being an instructor at a leadership
school, I volunteered for recruiting duty. I have been on
recruiting duty now for almost 3 years sir, RS Atlanta in
Georgia. My main area I concentrate on is Marietta in the Cobb
County area.
Recruiting duty is a challenge. I wanted to take on a
challenge, something different and unique. I believe I learned
a lot and it helped me out a lot as far as improving myself as
a better marine, sir.
Senator Cleland. I appreciate your courage. You volunteered
for recruiting duty. Any particular reason?
Sergeant Parker. I just wanted to take on a different
challenge, sir. Being a marine itself is challenging.
Senator Cleland. Amen.
Sergeant Parker. But just taking on a different type of
challenge at a higher level was something that I was definitely
willing to do. I believe if you can survive recruiting duty,
you can do almost anything, sir.
Senator Cleland. My cousin was a marine in Vietnam and
ultimately retired as a gunnery sergeant in the recruiting
force. So I appreciate you.
Sergeant Parker. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cleland. Sergeant Quintana.
STATEMENT OF TECHNICAL SERGEANT GABRIEL QUINTANA, USAF, UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE ENLISTED RECRUITER
Sergeant Quintana. First of all, sir, just a sincere note
to let you know: Thank you and all the panel members for what
you guys do for us. It is critical that we have this and just
really go out and say thanks because you guys listen to us and
help us, and that is really important.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
Sergeant Quintana. I graduated from high school and had an
option from my father that said: Look, it is either going to be
one of the services, or you can come work with me. I was not
going to work with my dad, just was not going to do that. But I
knew that the program was my ticket out for coming to the Air
Force. I knew that that was my ticket. It was going to provide
me a lot of opportunities, and that is why I joined the Air
Force.
I did the 6 weeks of basic military training in San
Antonio. From there I went to school at Colorado. I did an
overseas assignment in Italy, came back to San Antonio,
volunteered for Desert Storm, went out there where the U-2 is,
and then from there came into recruiting.
I joined recruiting because of the program. I am a true
testament to the program that the Air Force offers. What better
way to go out and tell those men and women out there it can be
done, it can happen--here is proof.
This recruiting job here, make no mistake about it, it is
the most challenging and difficult job that there is. Twenty-
four hours a day, 7 days a week, we are out there recruiting.
It is tough, very tough, but most rewarding by far. I love
every minute of it.
Senator Cleland. Thank you all very much for taking on this
challenge. It is a challenge for us all.
I was the product of a draftee environment, but I
volunteered for ROTC and other missions. I think the country
itself is challenged to exist with a great force in an all-
volunteer environment. I think it is like reaching for
infinity. We continue to try to improve the opportunities to be
in the force and the quality of life in the force, but we never
reach infinity, because there is always that challenge hanging
over our heads that, if we do not continue to improve, we begin
to lose and not get the kind of people we want or the numbers
of people we want.
It is a challenge for the country and you all are out there
on the cutting edge of it.
May I just ask as we go down the line again, what is your
take on the impact of September 11? Are young Americans
responding to you, the uniform, your pitch, shall we say,
better or worse, or what changes have you seen? Sergeant Gwyn?
Sergeant Gwyn. Sir, the changes in the recruiting
environment were, I am in a very small city in Michigan and
military is kind of viewed upon, honestly, as a fallback,
because I am in a very upper class area. The parents have a lot
of money to send their children to college, and a lot of them
are from the post-Vietnam era, they are Vietnam veterans, and
if they have enough money they grow up with a silver spoon in
their mouth, and they do not see it.
It is usually the kids that want to go somewhere, that want
to get away, that do not want mom and dad's money to go to
school. They come and see us, and we provide the opportunity.
We are not really viewed upon as one of the main influences in
the community.
Since September 11 we have gotten a lot more respect. We
used to not be able to go into shopping centers in uniform.
They did not like us talking to their employees, afraid that we
were going to try to take their employees, to recruit them. It
has changed a lot. The attitude has changed a lot. There has
been a lot more patriotism towards us in uniform when we go out
in public.
There is a lot more respect from the schools. Our schools
in our area do not release complete directory lists. They do
not give us access. We have access two times a year in our city
high schools, our two biggest high schools, with over 300 kids
in their senior class alone. That is in each school. We can go
in twice a year, once a semester, for a lunch room set-up, and
that is it. They have no exception. It is very supervised. They
do not like us actually approaching the kids themselves. They
want the kids to come approach us.
There is a lot of openmindedness in the kids now. It has
drawn a lot from the high school market recently. They pay a
lot more attention to us now. They see it as something that
they would really like to do. A lot of the young men, even more
women, I would say, since September 11 have come around to talk
to me. Especially seeing me in uniform, it makes a very big
impact on the community, and also not ever having a female
recruiter in the area before.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
Petty Officer Piatek.
Petty Officer Piatek. Yes, sir. I am a recruiter, ranking
recruiter in charge in the recruiting station here in
Annapolis, Maryland. I see a lot of flags waving, I see a lot
of patriotism going on. I see a lot of people coming to my
office, primarily those that are unqualified to join the Navy.
What I mean by unqualified is they are retirees, people that
have already served. They want to come back in.
Senator Cleland. Put my father down as one of them. He
served in Pearl Harbor after the attack. He is 88. I have to
tell you a good story. I received an award from the Association
of the United States Army, the General Abrams Award. About a
week ago, my father and mother got this invitation in the mail
to come and attend. This is a true story, just to show you a
little bit about the greatest generation and one of the reasons
why they are still great.
Down at the bottom it said ``Duty uniform required.'' My
daddy thought he was required to get back in his old Navy
uniform, which was down in the basement. He looked at me and he
said: Son, I am not sure I can get in it. [Laughter.]
I said: Daddy, you have not been in the Navy since 1945.
You do not have to get in your uniform. It is funny that in his
mind he was ready to suit up and attend if he could fit into
his uniform. I thought that was kind of cute.
I have had people approach me, from World War II
especially, they are ready to sign back up. You are right, I
think it is an incredible phenomenon. It is a really incredible
country.
Others that you see, young people who might not be
qualified, why would they not be qualified?
Petty Officer Piatek. The Navy, the Armed Forces, we are
looking for the most qualified individuals. We are competing
with the colleges, we are competing with the job market. We do
not want a person that is minimally qualified. We will take
them if they qualify, period.
What are the qualifications? Physical, moral, and mental.
Morally, do you have drug usage? Have you committed any crimes?
You see that occasionally. Convicts are very patriotic
sometimes, and they come in. Mentally, can they pass the
entrance exam? They may or may not meet some of those
qualifications.
Initially, after September 11 happened I did have a few
individuals come in. I actually had one join, and that was the
reason he joined. Other than that, I have not had anybody say
that was the reason they joined. Once again, you have people
coming in, you see a lot of flags waving, but you do not see
them joining the Navy or joining any of the branches of the
military to serve their country in that fashion.
Senator Cleland. Gunnery Sergeant Parker?
Sergeant Parker. Yes, sir. Similar to what the Petty
Officer was talking about as far as when the initial attack
took place there were a lot of phone calls, people wanting to
join the military, but they were unqualified, high school
dropouts, moral disqualifications, just a lot of people who
thought that the military was the place to go now to get their
life back on track, but they were not initially qualified.
The actual target market that we are looking for, there was
really no change as far as the patriotism. A few individuals
that we had talked to prior, the event either made them totally
afraid to join the military or it was just the event that it
took to make them make the hard decision and actually join the
military. So there has been an increase in patriotism, but not
really anyone that is qualified to join the military.
Senator Cleland. Wow.
Tech Sergeant Quintana?
Sergeant Quintana. Sir, my perspective is a little bit
different in that up to September 11 the Los Angeles area where
I recruit out of was doing fantastic. September 11 happened and
a silence. No more calls from folks that were wanting to come
into the Air Force. It just stopped.
However, the market from 17 to 25 stopped, but phone calls
I was receiving were age 25 and up: Hey, I want to come back
in; I am ready to go right now; please take me; and I will do
whatever I can to help you guys out.
Fast forward to today. After September 11 folks are coming
in now at a gradual pace and saying: Up to that point I was
going to come in anyway, but after September 11 I just needed
to see what was going to happen; things have calmed down, and I
am ready to follow through. So there was a spell there.
Senator Cleland. Let me ask you an interesting, shall we
say, cultural question. The movies, the silver screen, have
always been a trend-setter, motivator, setting the tone,
especially for, I think, young people. I can well remember that
after the Vietnam War the media message out of Hollywood was
extremely negative: Vietnam veterans were drug-addicted
crazies, Robert DeNiro in ``Taxi Driver,'' or else winning the
war single-handedly, a la ``Rambo,'' that kind of image, naked
with a bow and arrow. I thought that was pretty interesting.
In other words, the media message was just all over the
place and primarily negative or not suitable for belief. We
have had two movies come out, both based on a true story: one,
``We Were Soldiers,'' which is my old outfit, the First Air
Cavalry Division, based on the battle of the Ia Drang Valley in
1965, is the powerful message of Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore
and his battalion that ran into the equivalent of a North
Vietnamese Division.
Part of the message, what makes it so important, is the
sense in which there is an obligation: We will leave no one
behind.
I saw ``Blackhawk Down'' and there was also a powerful
message there: We are not going to leave our buddy on the
ground; we are going to go in and get him. As a matter of fact,
the two Medal of Honor recipients out of that incident were two
young men who volunteered to go down and rescue a helicopter
pilot, and they knew that they would not be rescued. That kind
of thing, that is significant.
When you lay those stories out, and you match it up with
what we saw in Afghanistan a couple weeks ago, where one young
airman was down and others went to retrieve him and risked
their lives, that sense of moral obligation, that sense of
military ethic, shall we say, I think has been strongly
underscored.
I look at the firefighters going back into the inferno of
the Twin Towers. They do not think they are heroes, they are
just ``doing their job.'' The same thing occurred in the
Pentagon here.
I just wonder if you are picking that up. In other words,
these media messages, particularly through the movies and on
television, where in effect we have cultural heroes now. We had
respect for people in uniform on September 10, but now, with
the loss of life in Afghanistan, young men and women risking
their lives for the rest of us, media messages, powerful
movies, top-notch characters like Mel Gibson and others playing
the role, being the hero--has that had any effect? Do you pick
that up among young people? Do you see any of that?
Sergeant Gwyn.
Sergeant Gwyn. Sir, in relation to the movies and the young
people, I think they relate more to what is going on over in
Afghanistan. I do not really get many comments when they relate
it to us. They do not ask many questions about it. The movies,
they do not really relate a lot to it. I think the movies kind
of have an aura about them because, like you said before, they
have a lot of misconceptions in the movies. The newer movies
that are coming out now definitely benefit us versus before
when a lot of the movies did not. But I have not really gotten
any feedback on it, sir.
Petty Officer Piatek. Yes, sir. As a recruiter, I relate
the Navy to anything I can. You have to be very resourceful.
You have to relate to anything you can that you can explain
things in their terms, so they can understand what it is you
are talking about, because you do not really understand
anything until you experience it yourself.
You and I know that teamwork is important. That is what we
are doing. We are here as a team. They do not know that. They
do not know what teamwork is. They are thinking about
themselves.
Yes, sometimes I use the movies. Sometimes I use other
things, sports examples, all kinds of different things to
relate that to them.
Senator Cleland. Sergeant Parker?
Sergeant Parker. Yes, sir. I think to some extent the
movies do create, you can say, such a sense of awareness about
the military and what possibilities may lie if you go into
combat, things of that nature. Sometimes it helps out a lot of
guys, especially the ones who are seeking that eventual
lifestyle. They want to do the infantry. It gives them a sense
that this is what they want to do.
In a sense, it does pay to paint a positive picture as far
as what we do in the military.
Senator Cleland. There is a powerful movie soon to be
released about the Navajo talkers, ``The Wind Talkers,'' which
will paint a picture of the Marine Corps under combat.
Movies are such an important part of our lives. We have the
Academy Awards coming up. I just was wondering if you all are
picking any of that up.
Sergeant Parker. Yes, sir. Any source of media, Internet.
Nowadays, the younger generation is quite different than when I
grew up, because everything you learned was on the outside,
from movies and television. But now the younger generation, the
movies, television, sporting events, anything that can produce
advertisement and just expose awareness to what is going on in
the world definitely is a ticket as far as creating awareness
about the Marine Corps.
Senator Cleland. Sergeant Quintana, what about the movies
and the establishment of culture heroes from September 11?
Sergeant Quintana. Sir, it has done both. It has helped and
it has also hurt. I would hope that they would just be a little
bit more careful. Remember, these minds are young and can be
influenced very easily. It is not like the generations in the
past where there was a sense of loyalty to your country. When
you were called to arms you did not have to ask, you went and
did it willingly--loyalty, the older generations.
This generation is not like that. When you go watch the
movies, you are influenced very easily, sometimes good,
sometimes bad. It affects, certainly it does. Lately they have
been doing real well, I agree, with the team unity and the
honor, and they have been showing that, and that is good. I
just hope that they are vigilant and keep being careful.
Senator Cleland. I want to ask you something that I have
been personally interested in for quite a while, ever since a
report came out about 3 years ago that looked at the benefit
structure in the VA and in DOD and talked about the possibility
of transferability of the GI bill to spouse and to kids. We
were able to pass some legislation that I was interested in and
a key part of about giving the service secretaries authority
under certain critical skills to allow a service man or woman
to take half of their unused GI bill benefit and apply that to
their spouse or to their youngsters.
That is probably more a retention question, but I wonder if
you see that as a plus or an arrow in your quiver when you talk
about educational opportunity. I understand that about three
out of four reasons why anybody joins the military has to do
with education. Do you want to talk a little about education
and its role in your sales pitch and anything you want to
comment about in terms of that specific spin on critical skills
using the GI bill for transferring to your spouse and kids to
keep people in the military?
Sergeant Gwyn.
Sergeant Gwyn. Sir, just last week I had a young couple
come in that are getting married in a few weeks, and his
fiancee asked if she could use any of his college money, if it
were available. It is amazing, because she is going to college
right now and that was one of the biggest appeals, that he is
getting all this college money, and he can go for 75 percent
tuition paid. She wanted to know if she could.
As of right now, that is not something that I can offer
them. But that was definitely something that would have totally
sealed that contract. He actually has already enlisted and they
are good to go now. But it is definitely something that I think
would be a very positive thing.
Senator Cleland. The thing that called my attention to it
was that we have a married force now.
Thank you very much.
Petty Officer Piatek.
Petty Officer Piatek. Yes, sir. I am married. I have a wife
and two children. If my wife could use the benefits, I am sure
she would be smiling ear to ear. As a matter of fact, with the
benefits that we have for us career folk, those of us who are
staying in for the full haul, by the time I get out I am not
going to use the Montgomery GI Bill. I have already used
college benefits to get my college degree. So the Montgomery GI
Bill is just going to go away for me more than likely.
You find that those that are using the Montgomery GI Bill
are those that do one or two terms, not the people that are
staying in for their career.
As far as education and my sales pitch, it is always part
of it. Education is very important to a lot of people and there
are a lot of great educational opportunities out there.
Anything that we can do more for that definitely would help.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
Petty Officer Piatek. Yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. Sergeant Parker.
Sergeant Parker. Sir, education is definitely on the minds
of everyone who wants to join, and if it is not on their mind
it is definitely on the minds of their parents, who ultimately
have a big influence on a young person's decision whether to
join the military or not. If they are not talking about it,
their parents are definitely talking about it.
I also think that the GI bill, if it can also be used for
family members it would definitely help out, not only in
recruitment, but also in retention. There are a lot of service
members right now who are helping their spouses to get through
school out of their own pocket. We have marines who have
spouses who are going to medical school, things like that, and
the costs can get expensive. If there were funds from the GI
bill that could be used for the family members, that would help
a lot.
Senator Cleland. I always thought it was ironic that, as
the Petty Officer here pointed out, the people who in effect
put the most time in and have actually earned all of these
credits, these benefits under the GI bill, that if you really
do stay for the long haul, the service man or woman has already
gone to school on the bootstrap and gotten a college degree,
maybe a master's degree, and so forth, and by the time they
exit at 25 or 30 years old all that educational benefit
structure that was created for them, in effect they may not
need it or use it now.
However, they accrued it. They earned it. So it was
surprising to me to learn that only half of the people that in
effect earned the credits for the GI bill actually ever use it.
Of course, the GI bill was originally created for a single
disposable force, not for a married retainable force. That is
why I thought we had to make the benefit structure more family-
friendly, especially for retention.
It is interesting now you are running across, Sergeant
Gwyn, some young married couples or soon to get married that
are looking at the benefit package, not just what is good for
the service man or woman, but how does the spouse fit in. I was
running across that in Hawaii when I interviewed a young E-5
and he said he was losing a lot of good people because, in
effect, if mama ain't happy ain't nobody happy. If mama wants
to get out of the military 80 percent of the time that is what
the family is going to do. So it is a concern.
Sergeant Quintana.
Sergeant Quintana. On this side, sir, I think that is a
good program. I believe that it will only help us. However, my
question is, being single, what do I get to do? Do I get to use
it for my brother or my sister? I am sure that that will be
worked out, but that is going to be an issue that will arise.
Should we use it for a wife? Most definitely, yes. It is a
great program. Is our education process as far as the Air Force
is concerned--you mentioned retention versus recruiting. When
crossing into the blue, make no mistake about it, our
applicants that come in, their priority is education. On this
side, the Air Force, our folks are going to school. They are
using that education. They are getting that 4-year degree and
associate's and moving on, they definitely are. They come in
asking about it.
We use it as a sales pitch per se. It is an effective tool.
It is a great tool for our program.
Senator Cleland. Speaking of tools, and I will wrap it up
here and then we will take a 10-minute break and change panels,
if there was one thing the United States Congress could give
you as a tool, Sergeant Gwyn, what would that be?
Sergeant Gwyn. Sir, over the last few years there have been
a lot of things that we have gotten totally disbursed, like
laptop computers, cell phones, Government vehicles for every
recruiter. In the area that I am in, everybody has adequate
tools of those.
The thing that a lot of the kids these days, the new age
kids, their computers, Internet, they are always on the
computer. I have a 14-year-old brother who is always on the
computer. The one thing that I would say, that you would need
to just keep the funding up for the Internet and all the online
accessibilities. It is an amazing program, because they can get
online and they can talk to recruiters, and they can talk to
the people and get advice about everything, because that way
they are not there themselves. They like to make their own
minds up before they come in and feel like they have to be
pressured or have somebody watching over their shoulder. It is
kind of an independent thing on their part.
But I would say funding for Internet is definitely a big
one, sir.
Senator Cleland. I forget, I have traveled so much I do not
know whether it was Bosnia or Korea. That narrows it down, does
it not, or Bosnia or Korea. But I remember the image that I
saw. Where did the young soldiers spend their time off-duty to
a certain extent? The library is virtually empty. Some people
were on the phones. But the computer room to email back home,
that had waiting lines to get to that equipment.
That is a generational thing. My generation, of course,
used the phone. The phone was the thing. We sent tapes home,
but then if you could get a phone that was really hot stuff.
But now, as you point out, youngsters expect to be connected.
They expect to be wired. If they are in an environment in which
they are not wired and connected, that is alien. To me, being
wired and connected is alien.
It is an interesting point that you raise as part of our
efforts to recruit young people.
Any comment, Petty Officer Piatek?
Petty Officer Piatek. Yes, sir. I think Congress is doing a
great job in providing the funding that they currently are.
More money always helps. There are always new things that you
can do. One thing, I do not know how do you do it, would be to
change the attitude of people saying military is not the second
fallback choice, it is a first choice. How do you do that,
though? Got any suggestions?
Senator Cleland. That is why I asked the question about
culture. December 7, 1941, was the day of infamy for my
father's generation. We have a U.S. Senator here, Jesse Helms,
who went down and enlisted the next day. The next day was
Monday. He enlisted December 8. There was no question. You run
across tales of people who just filled the recruiting lines the
week after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That is why I wondered about our generation's day of
infamy, what were you seeing, what were you picking up. I think
it is fascinating.
Also, about World War II, there are 500 movies about World
War II, all of which showed the good guys winning. That did not
necessarily follow after the Vietnam War. So I wondered about
the cultural aspect of the movies, of the media message,
particularly coming out of Hollywood, the portrayal of people
in uniform, are they good guys or bad guys, heroes or not. That
is why I asked the question.
Petty Officer Piatek. One thing along those lines is after
September 11 happened and I had these retirees coming in and
they were saying, what can I do to help you, I would give them
a stack of business cards and say, pass them out for me, tell
them your story, get them to come into my office so I can talk
to them. That is a lot of it, people that were in that
generation, who know what it is like; they can go out there and
talk, spread the word.
Senator Cleland. Good point.
Gunnery Sergeant Parker.
Sergeant Parker. Yes, sir. Anything additional that you can
do will always help out. With the new law passed with access to
schools and all this, I just think the number one concern with
that is just the word actually getting down to some of the
educators. So just a more heightened awareness that the
military is around and we are not trying to do any harm, we
just want to do what is good and serve the country.
Senator Cleland. Thank you. Good point about the lists and
our staff will take that under advisement. Thank you.
Sergeant Quintana.
Sergeant Quintana. The program. We are in a competitive
business. Colleges, doctors, lawyers--we are competing. We have
to have a great program. Funding, internet, you name it. You
are an 18, 19-year-old man or woman out there, you are looking
for the best program. We have to continually offer the best
program. We have a great program crossing into the blue.
The decisions that you guys will make today, tomorrow, will
affect a year from now, 2 years from now. It is a great
program; let us better it. How can we do that? That is not at
my level. That is at your guys'. We need a great program.
Senator Cleland. Well, thank you very much. One of the
things we know is we have great recruiters out there like you.
We will adjourn this panel, take a 10-minute break, and
call the second panel. Thank you very much for your service to
our country. [Recess from 10:20 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.]
If we can have a seat, we will continue our hearing on
recruiting and retention issues confronting our military.
We are honored to welcome Lieutenant General Le Moyne and
Major General Rochelle from the Army, Vice Admiral Ryan and
Rear Admiral Voelker from the Navy, Lieutenant General Parks
and Major General Humble from the Marine Corps, and Lieutenant
General Brown and Brigadier General Deal from the Air Force.
Admiral Ryan, I understand that you will be retiring later
this year and that you think that this is maybe the last time
you will testify before us. Well, we have good news and bad
news. The good news is you are retiring, the bad news is you
may have to come before us again. It may be your last
opportunity to testify as the Chief of Naval Personnel, but I
understand the you have been selected as the new President of
TROA, The Retired Officers Association. I am a retired officer,
and as long as I pay my dues I expect full respect from you. We
frequently ask members of The Retired Officers Association to
testify at our hearings, so do not think that you are off the
hook. We might just bring you back in your new capacity.
It has always been wonderful to deal with you and to
receive your testimony, your insight into some of our
challenges in terms of recruitment and retention. We look
forward to working with you in your new capacity. Thank you for
your wonderful service to our country and to our sailors and
congratulations on your selection as President of TROA.
At this point I would like to invite each of the services
to make a short opening statement. Your prepared statements
will, of course, be included in the record. I will let you
decide who wants to speak for the service. Why do we not just
start off with the Army, General Le Moyne.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JOHN M. LE MOYNE, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF FOR PERSONNEL/G1, UNITED STATES ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY MAJ.
GEN. MICHAEL D. ROCHELLE, USA, COMMANDING GENERAL, UNITED
STATES ARMY RECRUITING COMMAND
General Le Moyne. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
today. We are pleased to be here today to testify before you. I
want to emphasize that the Army thanks you and your committee
members personally for the successes we have had in the
personnel policies reflected in the Fiscal Year 2002 National
Defense Authorization Act. Your concerns and those of your
staff provided proven support to our service members, men and
women in uniform, their families, our civilian work force, and
our retirees.
We appreciate the pay raise, the Montgomery GI Bill
changes, the education savings bond legislation, the Thrift
Savings Plan, the benefits under the College First program, and
TRICARE for Life. These programs will clearly increase the
overall well-being of our force.
Sir, when the terrorists flew a jetliner into the Pentagon
on September 11, the Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel (DCSPER) suffered close to 20 percent casualties in
dead and wounded. The very next day, the surviving DCSPER work
force was back at work. You look at the casualties, sir, and
you will find that there are service members, civilians,
contractors, and retirees of various ages, ranks, and
religions. They truly represent America's military and our
Nation.
This global war on terrorism, sir, has emphasized the
critical importance of manning America's Army. Recruiting to
man the force will continue to be our first priority. Our
recruiting requirements are based on a steady state of just
over 180,000 new soldiers each year in our Active, National
Guard, and Reserve Forces, more than all the other services
combined. We will meet our recruiting goals again this year.
Our continuing success in recruiting, coupled with the
record number of soldiers deciding to reenlist in our Army, has
allowed us to fill our warfighting units to levels not seen
since the Gulf War. As the Army's Human Resources Manager, sir,
my concerns center on maintaining the momentum that we have
achieved in manning the Army and the well-being of our
personnel.
Thank you, sir, for the opportunity. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared joint statement of Lt. General Le Moyne and
Major General Rochelle follows:]
Prepared Joint Statement by Lt. Gen. John M. Le Moyne, Deputy Chief of
Staff, G1, and Maj. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, Commander, United States
Army, Recruiting Command
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the men and
women of the United States Army, we appreciate the opportunity to
appear before your subcommittee today to give you a military personnel
overview of America's Army. I would like to start by publicly
expressing our thanks for your support and assistance in the major
successes and achievements in the human resources environment this past
year.
When terrorists flew a commercial jetliner into the Pentagon
September 11, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel
suffered almost 20-percent casualties in dead and wounded, yet the
surviving personnel workforce was back functioning the next day. They
were working 24/7 within a week at the Hoffman Building in downtown
Alexandria, Virginia. It is a source of pride for me, and at the same
time humbling, that the G1 staff sections are filled with heroes--
quiet, compassionate, and sincere. Look at the casualties and you will
find the Army of One well represented. They are soldiers, civilians,
contractors, and retirees of varying ages, ranks and religions, truly
representing America.
As we move into the 21st century, the momentum of the professional
Army continues, marked by dramatic changes and proud accomplishments.
The Army of today is facing challenges in the proper manning and
readiness of the force, but we feel we are taking the necessary steps,
with your help, to ensure that it remains the best Army in the world.
We would like to discuss several key issues.
recruiting
In the aftermath of September 11, the greatly increased security
requirements here in the U.S. and the challenges of fighting terrorism
serve to emphasize the critical importance of Army recruiting. The Army
continues to recruit in a highly competitive environment. The private
and public sectors, to include post-secondary educational institutions,
are all vying for high quality men and women. Maintaining adequate
resourcing for recruiting is essential to ensure that we sustain our
improvement over the past 2 years. Recruiting will continue to be my
first priority for manning the force.
The Army's recruiting requirements are developed from projected
needs based on a steady state of 480,000 soldiers. The recruiting
environment remains tough with youth unemployment holding at record
lows. Even with the current economy, youth unemployment has remained
relatively steady. This makes for a very tight labor market. The Army
must recruit far more than any other service. We must recruit quality
applicants from the non-propensed market with incentives and innovative
programs as well as the positively propensed market in order to meet
our goals. To make this possible, the Army must continue to be equipped
and resourced to meet its accession goals. By maintaining our
competitive edge, the Army will meet its recruiting goals.
In fiscal year 2001, the Army made its recruiting mission and met
or exceeded all three DOD quality goals with 90.2 percent having a High
School Diploma, 63.2 percent scoring in the top 50th percentile on the
Armed Forces Qualification Test (categories I-IIIA) and only 1.9
percent scoring in category IV (26th to 30th percentile).
To fulfill the fiscal year 2002 enlisted accession mission, the
Active component must write 97,500 new contracts to cover the 79,000-
accession requirements and build an adequate Delayed Entry Program
(DEP) of 35 percent to start fiscal year 2003. The Army Reserve must
access 41,457 and the Army National Guard, 60,504. These workloads
combine to require productivity not seen since 1990 and under more
difficult market conditions.
We are on track to meet our goals. Through February 2002, we have
exceeded our Active component accession requirements by 553
enlistments. The Army National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve are also
exceeding their missions. We are fully engaged to meet this year's
accession missions and believe we can accomplish all three components'
missions. We are implementing initiatives to expand the recruiting
market in cost-effective ways, without degrading the quality of the
force.
We continue to address the minority equation (e.g. African
American, Asian-Pacific-Islander, Hispanic), understanding that
diversity is key to reconnecting with America today and representing
our population in the future. One significant effort is our continuing
outreach to the Hispanic demographic. We know that Hispanics are
underrepresented in the Army relative to their share of the U.S.
population. As a result of our efforts, enlisted Hispanic population
increased from 8.3 percent of the Army as of September 1999 to 9.1
percent as of September 2000 and 9.7 percent as of September 2001. One
program that the Recruiting Command has implemented to help accomplish
this goal is the Foreign Language Recruiting Initiative (FLRI). The
FLRI is a 2-year pilot program designed to increase the number of
Hispanics in the Army. The Army will access 200 recruits per year
during the 2-year pilot program. The program began 2 January 2002 and
will provide quality individuals who speak Spanish with an opportunity
to improve their ASVAB score and use of the English language. As of 31
January 2002, Hispanics account for 12.1 percent of all fiscal year
2002 contracts.
In recent years, you have passed legislation to assist us in our
recruiting mission. Two of those programs were the ``College First''
test and the ``GED Plus--the Army's High School Completion Program.''
There were 673 enlistments in College First through fiscal year 2001,
and 237 in fiscal year 2002 as of 27 February 2002. You granted us
changes to the College First program for fiscal year 2002 that will
improve the test and the ability to determine expansion to the bound-
for college market. The GED Plus program achieved 3,449 accessions in
fiscal year 2000, and exceeded the 4,000 (5,947 Total Regular Army)
program limit in fiscal year 2001. As of 27 February 2002, there have
been 3,680 accessions through this program.
In fiscal year 2002 you gave us the opportunity to conduct an 18-
month enlistment option pilot test designed to increase the
participation of prior-service soldiers in the Selective Reserve and
assistance in building the Individual Ready Reserve.
Additionally, you directed us to conduct a test of contract
recruiters replacing active duty recruiters in 10 recruiting companies.
The Army is implementing this initiative. The plan is to bring on the
10 company contractors throughout fiscal year 2002 and run the full
test from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2007. We have awarded
this pilot program to two independent contractors each receiving
contracts to perform the full complement of recruiting services,
including prospecting, selling, and pre-qualifying prospective
applicants for the Regular Army and Army Reserve, and ensuring that
contracted applicants ship to their initial entry training starting
this spring in selected locations across the country.
Finally, our partnership with industry program, the Partnership for
Youth Success has been a resounding success with the business
community. Savvy business leaders are eager to recruit the young
soldier who is ending his or her tour of duty with the Army, knowing
they are getting top-notch individuals with leadership and skill
training, as well as self-discipline, maturity, and values.
Today's young men and women have more employment and educational
opportunities than ever before. Competition for these young people is
intense. The enlistment incentives we offer appeal to the dominant
buying motive of young people and allow us to fill the skills most
critical to our needs at the time we need them most. The flexibility
and improvements you provided to our incentives in the past have helped
us turn the corner regarding recruiting. The initial four $20,000
Enlistment Bonus specialties have seen dramatic increases in volume and
quality fill. The combination of all incentives will help fill critical
specialties as the Army continues its personnel transformation. The
combined Montgomery GI Bill and Army College Fund, along with the
Army's partnership with education, remain excellent programs for Army
recruiting and an investment in America's future.
While the actions we have taken will help alleviate some of the
recruiting difficulties, we also know more work has to be done to meet
future missions. We must continue to improve the recruiting efforts
from developing a stable, robust resourcing plan to improving our core
business practices. We must capitalize on the dramatic improvements in
technology from the Internet to telecommunications and software. We
must improve our marketing and advertising by adopting the industry's
best business practices and seeking the most efficient use of our
advertising dollars.
Business practices, incentives, and advertising are a part of
recruiting, but our most valuable resource is our recruiters. Day in
and day out, our Army recruiters are in the small towns and big cities
of America and overseas, reaching out to young men and women, telling
them the Army story. We have always selected our best soldiers to be
recruiters and will continue to do so. These soldiers have a demanding
mission. We owe it to these recruiters and their families to provide
them the resources, training, and quality of life that will enable them
to succeed.
The Army appreciates Congress' continued support for its recruiting
programs and for improving the well-being of our recruiting force. We
are grateful for recent congressional initiatives to increase military
pay and benefits and improve the overall well-being of our soldiers. We
believe these increases will not only improve quality of life and
retention, but will greatly enhance our recruiting effort, making us
more competitive with private sector employers.
enlisted retention
The Army's Retention Program continues to succeed in a demanding
environment. Our program is focused on sustaining a trained and ready
force and operates around five basic tenets:
Reenlist highly qualified soldiers who meet the Army's
readiness needs.
Enlist or transfer qualified transitioning soldiers
into a Reserve component unit based on the soldier's
qualification and unit vacancy requirements within geographic
constraints.
Achieve and maintain Army force alignment by
reenlisting qualified soldiers in critical skills.
Maintain maximum command involvement at every echelon
of command.
Ensuring that a viable and dynamic retention program
continues is critical to the sustainment function of the Army's
personnel life-cycle.
Our retention efforts demand careful management to ensure that the
right skills and grades are retained at sufficient levels that keep the
Army ready to fulfill its worldwide commitments. Our Selective
Retention Budget continues to provide this leverage, which ensures a
robust and healthy retention program.
Over the past several years, retention has played an even greater
role in sustaining the necessary manning levels to support our force
requirements. Retention has been a key personnel enabler, considering
the difficult recruiting environment that has existed over that period.
This past year was an excellent example of the delicate balance between
our recruiting and retention efforts. Through a concerted effort by the
Department of the Army, field commanders and career counselors, the
Army not only made it's fiscal year 2001 mission, but finished the year
by retaining 982 soldiers above that adjusted mission for a
reenlistment percentage of 101.5 percent.
Although the annual mission is below the 64,982 soldiers who
reenlisted last year, the decreasing separating soldier population will
make the annual mission just as difficult. Last year the retention
accomplishments equated to 67 percent of all separating soldiers, which
was a historic high for the Army. This year the retention mission is
56,000. This requires us to retain 67 percent of all separating
soldiers.
The ultimate success of our retention program is dependent on many
factors, both internal and external to the Army. External factors that
are beyond our ability to influence include: the economy, the overall
job market, and the world situation. While we are enthusiastic about a
healthy economy and high employability of our soldiers in the job
market, we are also aware that these factors play heavily on the minds
of soldiers when it comes time to make reenlistment decisions. Our
force today is more family oriented. Today 55 percent of the Army is
married. Army spouses, who are equally affected by these external
factors as the service member, have great influence over reenlistment
decisions. The internal factors that we can influence include: benefit
packages, promotions, the number of deployments, adequate housing,
responsive and accessible health care, attractive incentive packages,
and reenlistment bonuses. Not all soldiers react the same to these
factors. These factors challenge our commanders and their retention
non-commissioned officers (NCOs) to provide incentives to qualified
soldiers that encourage them to remain as part of our Army.
Our incentive programs provide both monetary and non-monetary
inducements to qualified soldiers looking to reenlist. These programs
include:
The Selective Reenlistment Bonus, or SRB, offers money
to eligible soldiers, primarily in the grades of Specialist and
Sergeant, to reenlist in skills that are critically short or
that require exceptional management.
The Targeted Selective Reenlistment Bonus program, or
TSRB, is a sub-program of the SRB that focuses on eleven
installations within the continental United States and Korea
where pockets of shortages existed in certain military
occupational specialties (MOS). The TSRB pays a reenlisting
soldier a higher amount of money to stay on station at a
location in the program or to accept an option to move.
Both of these programs, which are paid from the same budget, play
key roles in force alignment efforts to overcome or prevent present
shortfalls of mid-grade NCOs that would have a negative impact on the
operational readiness of our force. We use the SRB program to increase
reenlistments in critical specialties such as Infantry, Armor, Special
Forces, Intelligence, Communications, Maintenance, and Foreign
Languages. The fiscal year 2001 SRB budget, as a result of the
congressional markup, was increased by $44 million to $106.3 million.
Non-monetary reenlistment incentives also play an important role in
attracting and retaining the right soldiers. We continue to offer
assignment options such as current station stabilization, overseas
tours, and CONUS station of choice. Training and retraining options are
also offered to qualified soldiers as an incentive to reenlist. By
careful management of both the monetary and non-monetary incentive
programs, we have achieved a cost-effective program that has proven
itself in sustaining the Army's career force.
The Army's retention program today is healthy. Into the second
quarter of fiscal year 2002, as of 31 January 2002, we have reenlisted
109 percent of our year-to-date mission and are on track to make the
56,800-reenlistment mission that is required to sustain our 480,000
soldier Army. Our Reserve component transition efforts during last year
were also successful. We transferred 12,099 Active component soldiers
into Reserve component (RC) units against a mission of 10,500 for a
115.2 percent success rate. For fiscal year 2002 year-to-date, we have
transferred 2,925 soldiers into RC units against a mission of 2,441 for
a rate of 120 percent. The Army is expected to exceed its annual RC
mission again this year.
Despite these successes there are a growing number of concerns
surrounding the direction and future success of the Army Retention
Program. With the eligible separating population of soldiers decreasing
during the next 3 years, the actual retention rate will have to be
sustained at about 67 percent, which is 7 percent above what the Army
has previously accomplished prior to fiscal year 1999. Additionally,
MOS support skills, which include required language proficiency, signal
communications, information technology, and maintenance, present a
significant challenge caused by those external factors mentioned
earlier (e.g., the economy, the job market, and increased PERSTEMPO).
Even in the current economy, civilian employers are actively recruiting
service members with these particular support skills. They are offering
bonuses and benefit packages that we simply cannot expect to match
under current bonus allocation rules and constrained budgets. Although
retention in the aggregate is healthy, we continue to be concerned with
retaining the right numbers of soldiers who possess these specialized
skills.
To achieve our retention mission, we concentrate our efforts
primarily on first-term and mid-career soldiers. It is within these two
mission categories that the foundation for the career force is built.
However, retention decisions are significantly different between these
two groups. First-term soldiers cite educational opportunities and
availability of civilian employment as reasons for remaining in the
Army or separating. Mid-career soldiers are affected more by health
care, housing, compensation, and availability of commissary, exchange,
and other post facilities. Consequently, a higher percentage of mid-
career soldiers are married, although the number of married first-term
soldiers continues to increase. We continue to monitor both groups
closely for any change in reenlistment behavior. They are the key to
continuing a successful retention program. First-term retention rates
continue at historic levels, as they exceeded 52 percent during fiscal
year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and fiscal year 2001. Mid-career rates
continue to be above the pre-drawdown levels, at approximately 74
percent. We consider these rates to be the minimum levels necessary to
sustain the force. Non-retirement-eligible soldiers continue to remain
in the Army at a 98 percent rate. However, retirement-eligible soldiers
who are still retention-eligible are leaving the service at higher than
expected rates. The Army is keeping the right number of soldiers in the
force necessary to maintain our readiness. This is due in large part to
the help from Congress, existing incentive programs, and the continued
involvement by Army leaders at all levels.
officer retention
It is anticipated that we will finish fiscal year 2002 at slightly
below our officer budgeted end strength of 77,800. We continue to
monitor officer retention rates, particularly that of captains. Post-
drawdown (1996-1999) captain loss rates remain slightly higher than
pre-draw down (1987-1988) loss rates (.9 percent difference); manning
levels are constrained by deliberately under-accessed cohorts during
the drawdown years. However, the impact of the captain shortage has
been historically offset by a lieutenant overage, in aggregate number.
The Army steadily increased basic branch accessions beginning in fiscal
year 2000 with 4,000, capping at 4,500 in fiscal year 2002 and beyond,
to build a sustainable inventory to support captain requirements.
Administration and congressional support on pay table reform serve
to redress the pay issue. We continue to promote captains above the
DOPMA goal of 90 percent and are currently promoting all fully
qualified lieutenants to captain at the minimum time authorized by
DOPMA (42 months).
Army initiatives to improve retention among its Warrant Officer
AH64 (Apache) pilot population have stabilized attrition trends; a
reduction from 12.9 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 8.6 percent in
fiscal year 2001. Since fiscal year 1999 we have offered Aviation
Continuation Pay to 665 eligible officers, of which 565 accepted (88
percent take rate). Additionally, we have recalled 209 pilots since
1997, and have 21 Apache pilots serving on active duty in selective
continuation status.
During fiscal year 2001, the Army Medical Department's recruiting
faced stiff competition from the civilian health care sector and other
services, specifically in the recruitment of active duty, fully
qualified nursing, dental, physician, pharmacy, and optometry health
care providers; and Reserve nursing, oral surgery, physicians,
pharmacy, and optometry health care providers. Despite the stiff
competition, and the documented national shortage of nurses, AMEDD
recruiters achieved 91 percent of their overall mission with over-
production for the total Reserve mission. There was a healthy 25
percent improvement in accomplishment of the critical Reserve physical
mission that could be directly credited to more aggressive market
penetration.
well-being
A significant part of Army Transformation is Army well-being. Army
well-being is the driving force for a successful transformation because
it directly impacts the human dimension of the force. Army well-being
is the personal--physical, material, mental, and spiritual--state of
soldiers, retirees, veterans, families, and Army civilians that
contribute to their preparedness to perform and support the Army's
mission. Army well-being encompasses and expands upon quality of life
successes by providing a standardized, integrated approach to programs
at the soldier, community/installation and senior-leadership level.
Well-being provides a clear linkage between quality of life and Army
institutional outcomes such as performance, readiness, retention, and
recruiting--outcomes that are strategically critical to sustaining a
healthy Army into the future.
The motivating force of Army well-being is ensuring we consistently
and adequately provide for the people of the Army while improving
readiness. Helping individuals connect to the Army, feel part of the
team, and derive a sense of belonging is inextricably linked to
readiness. Well-being pursues an adequate standard of living for
soldiers and Army civilians and their families. Well-being connects
soldiers, civilians, retirees, veterans, and families to the Army by
fostering pride and a sense of belonging. Well-being encourages members
to grow by providing meaningful and supportive personal enrichment
programs.
Well-being seeks to enhance morale, recruiting, and retention by
incorporating all well-being related programs such as command, pay and
compensation, health care, housing and workplace environment,
education, family, and recreational services into an integrated
approach that succinctly communicates to soldiers, civilians, retirees,
family members, veterans, and leaders the various programs and
resources provided by the military. It gives members of the Army a
holistic view that the Army is pursuing fair, balanced, and equitable
compensation benefits; consistently providing safe, affordable,
excellent housing; ensuring quality health care; enhancing community
programs; and expanding on educational and retirement benefits by
developing universal standards and metrics to evaluate and deliver
these programs.
Well-being will continue to be linked to the capabilities,
readiness, and preparedness of the Army as we transform to the
Objective Force. Well-being means predictability in the lives of
soldiers and their families, access to excellent schools and medical
facilities, educational opportunities, housing, and recreation. Well-
being means soldiers and civilians will not be put in the position of
choosing between the profession they love and the families they
cherish.
closing
We know that military service offers tremendous opportunities to
America's youth. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines return to
America's communities better educated, more mature and with the skills
and resources to prepare them for a productive and prosperous life.
They make valuable contributions to their communities.
Our recruiting mission continues to be a challenge. The success of
our retention program rests on the shoulders of unit commanders,
leaders and our retention professionals throughout the Army. Our
concerns for the remainder of fiscal year 2002 and beyond center around
the momentum that was initiated by the administration and Congress last
year to improve the lives of our soldiers through improved pay
initiatives.
We are hopeful that your support and assistance will continue as we
demonstrate our commitment to fulfilling the manpower and welfare needs
of the Army; Active, Reserve, civilian, and retired.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, General Le Moyne.
For the Navy, Admiral Ryan.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. NORBERT R. RYAN, JR., USN, CHIEF OF
NAVAL PERSONNEL AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (MANPOWER
AND PERSONNEL); ACCOMPANIED BY REAR ADM. GEORGE E. VOELKER,
USN, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES NAVY RECRUITING COMMAND
Admiral Ryan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You
mentioned the improvements that we have all made in recruiting
and retention, and certainly we owe a great debt of thank you
to all of you for your support of our men and women. We have
made our recruiting goal for the last 3 years. Our retention of
our first term sailors has gone in 2 years from 45 percent to
65 percent and our attrition is down 10 percent. As a result
today, Mr. Chairman, we have 103 ships deployed in this global
war on terrorism, 49,000 of our best men and women like Petty
Officer Piatek who just testified before you.
In fact, one of those ships will be home a week from today,
the Teddy Roosevelt. The Teddy Roosevelt you may remember
surged over there early. It is coming home about 8 days late.
In between they spent 5 straight months on deployment, no port
calls, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, flight operations. 4,000
combat sorties later, they are coming home.
Those are the types of men and women that we see out there,
thanks to the support that we have received from particularly
this committee and Congress, and we are very grateful.
The big question for me as the Chief of Naval Personnel is
can we sustain this effort. Our Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)
has asked us to look at a 5-year horizon. I believe we can
sustain the effort and get a better balance between what we
have in the Active and Reserve. Our mobilization of our
Reserves has been inspirational. We have about 10,000 Reserves
on active duty right now that have really helped us in the
force protection area, particularly with the 315 ships that we
have. That was a new thing for us to really take on as a
mission, with the degree of effort that we have.
For us, can we sustain our effort? Yes. But to do that we
need the CNO's top priority, we need help in the funding area,
and that is for an additional 4,400 active duty personnel in
the force protection area, because right now we have too many
Reserves doing that function. To ask them to do it for a 5-year
type of horizon will be very challenging. But with that number
of people, I think we can maintain the tempo and take care of
the quality of service and the families of those that are
involved in this kind of higher tempo operation.
We are very optimistic about where we are going. We have
asked for your consideration in that one initiative. I think we
will continue to make you and the rest of the country proud of
what our men and women are doing. Thank you.
[The prepared joint statement of Admiral Ryan and Admiral
Voelker follows:]
Prepared Joint Statement by Vice Adm. Norbert R. Ryan, Jr., USN, and
Rear Adm. George E. Voelker, USN
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for this opportunity to appear before you today to testify on
behalf of the outstanding men and women of the United States Navy. I
want to express our deep gratitude for the outstanding support
Congress, especially this subcommittee, continues to show for Navy
people and their families during this unprecedented time in our
Nation's history.
Even as we continue to wage war on terrorism, the military
readiness of the greatest Navy in the world continues to improve. Navy
men and women are at the top of the Chief of Naval Operations' (CNO)
top five priority list and he has remained committed over the last
year-and-a-half to the resources necessary to win our battle for
people. This year's Navy military personnel budget request continues
the momentum we have been building. We have met recruiting goals for
the past 3 years and our reenlistment rates are reaching unprecedented
levels and we continue to reduce the attrition of our junior sailors.
The pay raises, both across-the-board and targeted; enhancements to
special and incentive pays, especially career sea pay; efforts to
improve housing and reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses; the
authorization to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan and
improvements in medical care and retirement reforms, are among the most
significant factors that have helped us attract and retain the sailors
we need today, many of whom will form the core of tomorrow's Navy
leadership. As a result of these and other accomplishments, battle
groups deploying to execute the Nation's global objectives are better
manned than any time in recent memory.
Readiness Dividend
The investments made in our people over the last few years paid off
when Navy was called into action on September 11. Five Carrier Battle
Groups and Amphibious Readiness Groups have deployed (some early) in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom in the highest states of
personnel readiness. They have operated at wartime tempo--24 hours a
day, 7 days a week--without requiring additional personnel. Having the
right number of people with the right skills on deck as the war started
enabled Navy to lean forward and strike the first blows into
Afghanistan without having to wait for more people to arrive.
Last year, Navy made a strategic decision to pay for approximately
4,000 additional strength above the original budget submission, to
improve fleet readiness. Today, we are continuing those efforts to
maintain the highest states of personnel readiness by minimizing gaps
at sea, especially for deploying units. On average, battle group
manning has increased by approximately 800, with additional personnel
arriving as early as 12 months before deployment.
sustaining the war
Since the attacks of September 11, Navy has activated over 10,000
reservists, from those who provide force protection and intelligence
capabilities to linguists and medical personnel. Navy also invoked a
limited stop-loss which impacted less than 10,000 people in the same
skill areas, but recently reduced that requirement by about half. The
CNO has directed the Navy staff to develop plans for a prolonged
conflict, which will require phasing out the first wave of mobilized
reservists with new reservists, active personnel or technological
alternatives to force protection functions.
New requirements have emerged in force protection as we increase
our baseline posture across the Navy to heightened threat conditions.
The Reserve activation has gone a long way in helping us fill these
requirements in the short-term, but our ability to maintain the
heightened security posture will gradually diminish as Selected
Reserves are demobilized.
We are continuing to examine our evolving manpower requirements.
While the fiscal year 2003 budget request seeks an active end strength
authorization of 375,700, we are working to adjust our force mix as new
or increased requirements in particular skill areas emerge. Our
retention success this year, while significantly improving fleet
readiness, has also led to more people remaining on active duty than
originally anticipated. This has permitted us to reduce our recruiting
accession mission by 4,000 (from 54,000 to 50,000).
Readiness Challenges
Even in the current wartime environment, we must continue to
closely monitor the individual personnel tempo of our sailors to ensure
that we are not overburdening them and degrading our long-term
personnel readiness. We are striving to minimize the increased wartime
operational tempo of the fleet through careful planning and innovative
training. We are continuing to examine the best way in which to
properly balance the need to keep our forces forward deployed, ensure
their preparedness for operations during deployment work-ups, and still
permit them to enjoy quality of life at home and time with family and
friends.
continuing to invest in our people
Pay Raise
The significant pay raise in fiscal year 2002 was a critical step
in ensuring our ability to recruit and retain a force in sufficient
numbers and quality to meet our military manpower needs. While we made
progress, we must continue to ensure that basic pay achieves
competitiveness with the private sector.
Career Sea Pay (CSP)
Using the authority enacted by Congress in fiscal year 2001, Navy
recently increased CSP rates and expanded it to E-1 to E-3 and all
officers, regardless of time at sea, thereby adding 25,000 people on
sea duty to the 86,000 already receiving CSP. This pay directly
recognizes and compensates for the arduous nature and sacrifices of
those serving at sea. This action was taken as Navy men and women were
deploying around the world in support of the new war against terrorism.
Fleet feedback has been overwhelmingly favorable.
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
Reducing the BAH out-of-pocket expenses to 11.3 percent in fiscal
year 2002 was another major compensation enhancement that has resonated
very well in the fleet. The fiscal year 2003 budget submission reduces
out-of-pocket expenses even further, to approximately 7.5 percent. This
brings us closer to the goal of zero percent (on average) out-of-pocket
expense by 2005.
Another major initiative this past year was extending BAH to single
E-4 sailors on sea duty. Allowing single sailors to reside off the ship
while in homeport is one of our most important quality of service
initiatives. While we are currently paying BAH only to those E-4s with
over 4 years of service, we are considering options to move all sailors
off of ships over the next several years.
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
The net effect of the compensation improvements this past year was
to give sailors more opportunity to invest in their futures. TSP has
proven to be the investment vehicle of choice for a significant number
of our people. Our Navy men and women, like their Federal workforce
counterparts, now have the opportunity to develop individual savings,
which will greatly enhance their chances for long-term financial
security. As of the end of January 2002, nearly 68,000 active and
Reserve Navy members have enrolled in TSP. This represents 16 percent
of the total force. Through continued wide-scale educational efforts,
we hope to increase this number substantially during the next open
season this May.
Individual Personnel Tempo (ITEMPO)
Since October 1, 2000, Navy has been tracking the individual
deployment days of its sailors in accordance with the fiscal year 2000
and fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Acts. Navy fully
supports the congressional intent of managing individual member
deployments, but has concerns with some elements of the legislation and
its unintended consequences on sailor choice. In the interest of
national security, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, on October 8, 2001,
suspended certain ITEMPO management constraints and the accumulation of
deployment days in determining per diem payments. After this
suspension, Navy, with the support of the Secretary of Defense,
invested $150 million in CSP enhancements, sending an immediate signal
to our people that their deployment time mattered and is recognized by
leadership. CSP has long been Navy's most effective tool for
compensating those whose primary duty it is to deploy.
Navy is working with the Secretary of Defense in developing the
required Report to Congress on the impact of, and suggested changes to,
ITEMPO legislation. Navy favors a system that adequately compensates
individuals whose ITEMPO exceeds that which would normally be
associated with an expeditionary force. The system should not force
Navy to limit an individual's personal preference by imposition of a
fiscal penalty. Navy also fully supports congressional intent that
payment should be from the Operations and Maintenance account.
Educational Enhancements
I am a strong proponent for ensuring that the Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) remains an effective tool for attracting young men and women
into the military services and, more importantly, that it adequately
recognizes them for their selfless commitment to service to our Nation.
This helps them transition when they eventually leave our ranks and
bring their wealth of experience, training, education, and
professionalism back into the civilian workforce. Our sailors
appreciate recently enacted enhancements to MGIB and will benefit from
them personally and professionally.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your foresight in recognizing the
desire for choice that sailors have consistently expressed as a
priority when it comes to their benefits package. We are currently
examining ways in which we might best implement the new authority by
which sailors could transfer to eligible family members a portion of
their Montgomery GI Bill benefits so that it is cost-effective and
yields the greatest return on investment. We see this authority as a
potential incentive for retaining certain senior, experienced, members
serving in critical skill areas, who might otherwise opt to transfer to
the Fleet Reserve at the earliest opportunity, rather than staying Navy
until they reach mandatory retirement thresholds. Our ability to retain
such sailors will permit us to continue to capitalize on their many
years of experience, advanced training, leadership and mentoring
expertise, and will support our efforts to grow the seniority of the
force to reflect validated requirements in the 21st century high-tech
Navy.
retention
We continue to challenge our leaders to motivate and retain the
sailors under their charge. That leadership coupled with expanded
reenlistment bonuses, enhanced special and incentive pays, increased
advancement opportunity, and significant quality of service
improvements has paid off. In fiscal year 2001, we saw impressive
improvements in reenlistment rates across all zones of service, most
noticeably in our critical initial term population (less than 6 years
of service) where reenlistment rates improved nearly 19 percent over
the previous year. Mid-career and career reenlistment rates also showed
improvement over the previous year. Equally important, we saw 8.5
percent fewer initial term attrition losses than the previous year
thereby allowing more young sailors to complete their obligations.
Early indications are that fiscal year 2002 will be equally successful.
While challenges still exist, we will continue to cultivate a command
climate throughout Navy that offers plentiful opportunities, encourages
participation, and is conducive to personal and professional growth.
Overall officer retention in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
showed marked improvement over previous years; however, we must
continue to work to improve officer retention, especially among our
aviator, submarine, and surface warfare officers.
Direct fleet engagement in the retention battle is critical to our
continued success. Through a variety of means, we have carried
leadership's message directly to fleet sailors to ensure that they are
aware of the things being done to improve their quality of service. At
fleet concentration areas, teams of retention and professional
development experts host Career Decision Fairs (CDF) and speak to
sailors and their families about various aspects of Navy life including
compensation and benefits, and career opportunities. In the last 18
months, these CDFs have reached over 50 commands and 35,000 sailors and
family members, resulting in the immediate decisions of more than 600
sailors to stay Navy. In return, CDFs provide a means by which issues
most important to sailors are brought to the attention of Navy
leadership at the highest levels. For example, sailors want greater
choice in their assignment process, so Navy has begun a number of
initiatives to make the process more sailor-centered, including a
Sailor Advocacy Program that has expanded outreach by personnel
managers to sailors. This type of initiative will move Navy into the
future as we broaden our human resource horizons.
Navy retention experts also share success stories and best
practices with command leadership teams and brief all prospective
commanding officers, executive officers, and command master chiefs at
the Command Leadership School and Senior Enlisted Academy, thereby,
ensuring that those in critical leadership positions are well informed.
Other initiatives include collecting sailor feedback on areas of
Navy life that they find enjoyable or unattractive, and using
advertisements and the latest information technology to provide sailors
with timely and quality career decision information. For example, since
it was launched nearly a year ago, the www.staynavy.navy.mil website,
commonly known in the fleet as the ``one-stop shop for career
information,'' has registered over 1.2 million visits, averaging over
4,000 visits per day. The site is an extremely popular tool that
provides sailors and their families, worldwide, with high-tech, timely,
and accurate career information. The Naval Media Center has also
produced televised public service announcements (PSAs) addressing
various pay and benefit topics. PSAs began airing on Armed Forces Radio
and Television Service in December 2001 and will continue throughout
2002. More than 180 ship and shore units have access to these
commercials, which reach a daily viewing audience of over 200,000.
Initiatives such as these will allow us to continue building upon
recent retention successes.
Special and Incentive Pays
Special and incentive pays are a key component in retaining sailors
with critical skills and experience, and are an essential part of the
total military compensation package.
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) continues to be our most cost-
effective and successful retention and force shaping tool. Our
retention successes are largely attributable to improvements in
reenlisting members in critically manned skills who are eligible for
these bonuses. It is vital that we continue to maintain a robust SRB
program while continuing our efforts to improve reenlistments among
ratings that are not eligible for SRB. With recent enactment of
authorizations of continuation pays for Surface Warfare Officers and
Special Warfare Officers and enhancements to Aviation Continuation Pay
and Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay, we have seen improvements as we
strive to retain these highly trained and experienced warfighters.
We appreciate your recognition of the importance of these
incentives and your support for keeping them the effective tools that
they are. We solicit your continued assistance as we explore further
improvements, which will enhance Service Secretary flexibility in
adjusting and targeting cost-effective special and incentive pays to
react quickly to the ever-changing recruiting and retention picture.
More Senior/Experienced Force
As the Navy force structure has stabilized somewhat since the end
of the drawdown, it has become increasingly evident that our smaller
more high-tech force would require us to change the mix of our
personnel both in terms of skills and level of experience. As a result
of constrained advancement opportunity during the drawdown, as a cost
saving measure, our top six enlisted pay grades were limited to less
than 70 percent of the force. As we replaced older labor intensive
ships and aircraft with more modern platforms, validated fleet
authorizations for sailors in the top six grades grew to over 75.5
percent of the force. A widening of the inventory to authorizations gap
among the top six pay grades has resulted in billet mismatches with
sailors routinely being tasked to perform at levels above their pay
grade and level of compensation. We have been focused on shifting the
balance of our grade mix by increasing the number of people in the top
six enlisted pay grades.
Personnel Distribution Incentive Pay
Navy is pursuing establishment of a flexible, market-based
incentive to encourage service members to volunteer for hard-to-fill
jobs or less desirable geographic locations. This would replace more
costly or ineffective measures currently in use. For example, we
currently use a variety of monetary and non-monetary incentives to
compensate for assignments to billets in different locations. However,
existing incentives are neither flexible enough nor sufficient to
encourage the required number of qualified volunteers to fill these
billets. We have also used many non-monetary incentives such as sea
duty credit, neutral duty credit, points towards promotion, choice of
assignment or homebase, and other means to attract sailors to serve in
billets in both the continental United States and overseas. Although
traditional incentives have been somewhat effective in manning these
billets, they have unintentionally imposed an adverse impact on the
sea/shore rotation structure. With shortages in critical sea intensive
ratings, any incentive that adversely impacts our ability to assign
members to sea duty only exacerbates the problem.
Distribution Incentive Pay would augment existing special pays and
compensation, while replacing the non-monetary incentives described
above. It would enable the services to provide monetary incentive to
encourage adequate numbers of volunteers for hard-to-fill jobs in an
effective and responsive manner.
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) Moves
The fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Act cut $30 million from Navy's
PCS account, which has significantly impacted our ability to move many
people. Since accession and retirement moves must be funded, the true
impact of the cut is on operational and training moves, now at a
critical juncture with the war in progress. We are working to mitigate
the effects of the PCS cut on readiness, but it has already had an
effect on the fleet. Up to 5,000 planned moves may not occur this
fiscal year, potentially disrupting the lives of many sailors and their
families. Additionally, mandated PCS reductions could adversely impact
our ability to move sailors from ITEMPO-intensive jobs.
meeting the recruiting challenge
While we have been successful in sustaining an all-volunteer force,
it is important to emphasize that we still have to recruit our people
and compete against other career and educational opportunities.
Recruiting success demands a professional recruiting force that has the
tools they need to get the job done. We have invested in maintaining
the right number of recruiters and recruiter support programs. Our
recruiters have been delivering.
Navy Recruiting met its overall goal for the last 3 years and in
fiscal year 2001, achieved 90 percent High School Diploma Graduates
(HSDG), with more than 63 percent scoring in the upper half of the
Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). We also achieved our very
important Nuclear Field and General Detail (GENDET) sailor mission.
Through February 2002, we are on a string of 7 consecutive months
in which we have met new contract objective and cumulative accession
mission--a feat we have not accomplished since the drawdown of the
early 1990s. Meeting new contract objective is important because it
builds our Delayed Entry Program (DEP) to a level suggesting a high
probability of long-term recruiting success. This success is partly
attributed to a new dynamic approach to monthly accession goaling of
our recruiting districts, which allows them to work as a team and
ensures that accession shortfalls at individual districts do not
preclude attainment of the national mission. While there were some
early adjustments to this new system, the results speak for themselves
in how our professional recruiting force has responded.
Improving Quality
Our data clearly indicates that a higher quality recruit is less
likely to attrite in the first term of enlistment. The higher quality
recruit is also well suited for the highly technical Navy of the future
that will require sailors to develop and maintain increasingly complex
skill sets through higher levels of education and a broader range of
training. Recruit quality, in this context, is measured by the
percentage of HSDGs, percentage scoring in the upper half of the Armed
Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), number enlisting with college credits
and the number requiring waivers of standards.
This year we are raising our target of HSDGs from 90 to 92 percent
and are focused on recruiting 2,500 new accessions from junior colleges
(up from about 1,850 in fiscal year 2001) to help grow Navy's career
force of the future. We are on track to meet the 92 percent HSDG goal
for fiscal year 2002 and have provided recruiters with tools with which
to increase penetration into the college market.
Navy is rewarding recruits with college credits by offering
advanced pay grades and bonuses based on college credit attained.
Applicants who have satisfactorily completed 20 semester hours of
college credits are enlisted in pay grade E-2, while applicants with at
least 45 semester hours are enlisted in pay grade E-3. Additionally, we
offer an enlistment bonus of $2,000 for those with as little as 24
semester hours of college credit, and up to $8,000 for those with a
bachelor's degree.
Recognizing the importance of the college market, Navy is
developing a college penetration strategy. One Navy Recruiting District
(NRD) in each of four recruiting regions will participate in a pilot
program designed to incorporate the expertise of education specialists,
advertising representatives, public affairs officers, and officer
recruiters already familiar with recruiting in the college market.
Using the best practices and lessons learned from the pilot, all NRDs
will incorporate a junior college penetration strategy into their
annual marketing plan.
Another way in which Navy is working to improve quality is
reflected in waiver standards. The number of recruits requiring waivers
dropped from over 14,000 in fiscal year 2000, to 9,835 in fiscal year
2001. A full review of waiver standards is underway to identify those
that should be further restricted or completely removed. By raising the
bar on these standards, Navy expects to continue decreasing first term
attrition, further contributing to improved fleet readiness.
Advertising
Navy's ``Accelerate Your Life'' advertising campaign was rolled out
approximately 1 year ago. The campaign communicates Navy as an
adventure that will accelerate one's life to the highest level of
achievement. Its objectives have included building awareness and
consideration of the Navy as a career option and generating leads for
recruiter follow-up. During the campaign's inaugural year, the strategy
has focused on media channels and creative solutions targeted at the
18-24 year old audience. Navy has increased spending in radio (95
percent of teens listen to radio at least 10 hours a week) and makes
full use of the Internet (target market on-line time is 50 percent
greater than that of adults). Television advertising has been targeted
to youth-oriented programming. Action-oriented imagery provides a sense
of urgency and excitement in all our messages, while showing sailors
getting hands-on experience with the latest technology.
The centerpiece of our campaign is the Interactive Life Accelerator
found on the Navy.com website. It enables individuals to indicate their
likes/dislikes and translates their interests into a range of
possibilities for a Navy career. Leads are captured and sent directly
to the National Advertising Leads Tracking System providing recruiters
with timely and invaluable prospect information. At launch, the website
averaged 12,000 visitors per day. This number continues to grow, and
today the site averages 18,000 visitors per day. Through February,
nearly 230,000 people have logged on to the Life Accelerator with 85
percent completing the assessment. Many recruiters report prospects
walking into recruiting offices with Life Accelerator assessments in
hand.
Navy's recognition of rapid growth in the Hispanic community has
led to the development of El Navy.com, a Spanish/English recruiting
website that deploys within Navy.com and addresses the Hispanic
community to include parents family members, and other youth
influencers. We effectively communicate the benefits of the Navy
experience to this audience by tailoring the look, language, and
subject matter of the site to Hispanic culture and traditions. The site
focuses on Navy Hispanic heritage, achievements and success stories;
and depicts education, benefit, and travel/recreation opportunities
available to those who choose Navy.
Non-Instrumented Drug Testing (NIDT)
Based on attrition levels for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000, recruit drug screening failures at boot camp cost Navy over $10
million in lost resources each year. To reduce these lost funds and
improve recruit quality, the Secretary of the Navy authorized a new
Pre-Accession Drug Testing Program pilot aimed at reducing Recruit
Training Center (RTC) attrition and associated losses. Through an
inexpensive field test instrument, Navy now tests recruits for drugs
prior to sending them to boot camp. If tested positive upon arrival at
boot camp a recruit is discharged and permanently disqualified from
future naval service. Individuals testing positive on the NIDT are not
shipped to RTC but are evaluated by the NRD commanding officer to
determine if they are a good prospect for naval service. If deemed to
be so, the individual's ship date to boot camp is delayed a minimum of
45 days. If they remain drug free throughout this period, during which
they are provided further indoctrination on Navy anti-drug use policy,
they are offered a second opportunity to attend boot camp. Attrition
due to positive drug tests at boot camp was reduced by 30 percent from
fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 as a direct result of this
program. NIDT is credited with saving $3.3 million in RTC resources
during its first 12 months. Navy is committed to continued use of the
program following its initial pilot phase.
Influence of September 11 on Recruiting
While the tragic events of September 11 resulted in a significant
increase in the volume of calls to our toll free Navy Recruiting phone
line (1,586 on September 11 alone; a 112 percent increase over the
previous Tuesday), it has not translated to a measurable increase in
qualified applicants who want to enlist in the Navy.
We have, however, observed American patriotism and willingness to
support Navy in other ways. Navy Recruiting District public affairs
officers, who assist in getting airtime for PSAs have noticed an
increased access to local media outlets as a result of strong patriotic
sentiment in the aftermath of September 11. Through new PSAs entitled
``Freedom Campaign,'' which are distinctly different than the paid
``Accelerate Your Life'' campaign, we are focusing on the freedoms
Americans enjoy that the Navy has protected for over 200 years.
Officer Recruiting
While officer recruiting has been generally successful thus far in
fiscal year 2002, several communities still face significant
challenges. Fiscal year 2002 goals for pilots, naval flight officers,
surface warfare officers (conventional and nuclear), nuclear reactor
engineers, cryptologists, intelligence officers, aviation maintenance
duty officers, public affairs officers, Civil Engineering Corps
officers, and Judge Advocate General officers, have been met. The
Chaplain, Supply and Nurse Corps and the Medical Service Corps
specialties of Health Care Administration, Environmental Health,
Optometry, and Pharmacy remain communities of greatest concern.
Nuclear, Civil Engineering, and Chaplain Corps recruiting have
improved over the last few years. Officer recruiters adopted strategic
plans between the recruiters and their respective officer communities.
By making the officer communities aware of the recruiting challenges
and offering practical ways in which the communities could help,
recruiters gained valuable support and the additional leads necessary
to realize significant accession increases. These strategic plans have
served to improve accession results in these communities and we will
continue to export best practices to other communities.
Diversity
Navy's fiscal year 2001 enlisted accessions (20.9 percent African
American, 15.7 percent Hispanic and 9.8 percent Asian/Pacific Islander/
Native American) largely match the diversity of the American
population. Cognizant of projections for continued growth in minority
populations we continue in our efforts to ensure all segments of the
American population are aware of the opportunities and benefits
associated with Naval service.
Accession of minorities into our officer ranks in fiscal year 2001
(8.0 percent African American, 5.8 percent Hispanic and 7.1 percent
Asian/Pacific Island/Native American), although significantly lower
than their respective enlisted accession percentages, closely resemble
minority representation in the college market. To improve performance
in accessing minority officers, we have conducted three flag-level
diversity summits this past year to share best practices among the U.S.
Naval Academy, the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), Officer
Candidate School, and Officer Indoctrination School. In conjunction
with these summits, we are taking junior officer volunteers from the
fleet to minority conferences to talk to college students about their
Navy experience and to demonstrate that officers do not lose their
cultural identity while serving in the Navy. These visits have been
uniformly well received and generate great interest from students who
see their peers doing well in the Navy. Organizations such as the
National Society of Black Engineers, the Society of Hispanic
Professional Engineers, and the Society of Mexican American Engineers &
Scientists, have been valuable partners in these outreach efforts.
Continued partnership will ensure that minorities possessing technical
backgrounds are aware of the many exciting opportunities available in
today's Navy.
Another successful initiative has been offering minority officer
applicants the opportunity to make VIP trips to fleet concentration
areas. Applicants visit various afloat units and other commands, where
they meet with Naval officers (many of whom are minorities) who
illustrate the point that upward mobility is available to all talented
individuals. The results of these VIP trips over the past 2 years have
been very encouraging. Of the 39 participants, 27 have submitted
applications with 8 more still working on their applications. Of the 27
applications submitted, 19 were selected and 17 accepted their
commission.
quality of life
The events of September 11 and the declaration of war on terrorism
were a call to enhance support for sailors as they rise up to defend
our Nation. The Navy team of professionals who manage and deliver
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) and Family Support services
around the world embraced the challenge posed by the President. Navy
has developed an MWR program that is a major sailor-centered force,
which acts aggressively to meet the heightened level of needs of
sailors and their families. The CNO has targeted a 20 percent increase
in the level of MWR program support provided to deployed sailors and
their families. Navy MWR is well on the way to meeting this challenge.
Navy's goal is to make an unequivocal and tangible statement of its
commitment to ensure outstanding support to our sailors. The approach
is to ``wow'' sailors and their families with new, innovative, and
expanded programs delivered with the speed and intensity that sends the
message, ``You are important and your Navy is deeply committed to
meeting your needs.''
Building on outstanding core programs, MWR has stepped up the pace
and ``raised the bar'' to respond to the special wartime needs of
sailors at sea who are deployed in pursuit of freedom. I will share a
number of actions to enhance MWR support and reinforce the message that
the Navy is committed to meeting sailors' needs as warfighters while
also supporting their needs at home. Among the actions taken are:
- Navy MWR, with the support of the Navy Exchange, completed a
sponsorship agreement that provided over 400,000 15-minute CONUS/OCONUS
prepaid calling cards that were issued free to all active duty
personnel and active reservists. In addition, Navy MWR issued free 10-
minute prepaid calling cards to all Naval reservists recalled to active
duty. Working together under the banner of ``Let Freedom Ring'' penny-
a-minute phone calls were arranged for sailors from every ship afloat
over the holiday period. All of these services were a big hit in the
fleet and allowed sailors to stay connected with their families during
the holidays, which are always a difficult time to be away from home.
- Arduous deployment schedules required expanded fleet recreation
opportunities. Navy MWR procured and delivered to afloat units over 530
pieces of cardiovascular fitness equipment, and over 300 deployment
kits consisting of 89,000 recreational games and sports equipment. Navy
MWR sent 221 pallets containing over 314,862 items of holiday and
recreation material to units afloat and ashore during the holiday
season with particular emphasis on commands in the Middle East, Arabian
Sea, and Central Asia.
- Navy MWR had teams of forward deployed recreation programmers at
Naval Support Activity Bahrain to provide support and assistance to
deployed units. These trained recreation professionals worked as
expeditors and recreation programmers.
- Navy MWR has, and continues to, furnish programming materials for
deployed units for special celebrations and events such as Super Bowl
parties, Valentine's Day, March Madness, Mardi Gras, and steel beach
picnics ensuring sailors have an opportunity to enjoy these events.
- Fleet sailors around the world, responded enthusiastically to
operation ``HO, HO, HO'' (Helping Our Heroes Overcome Holiday
Obstacles) in which holiday kits were distributed, including six foot
tall stockings stuffed with electronic games, T-shirts, battery
operated fans, and post cards. Every sailor and embarked marine in the
Operation Enduring Freedom area of operation was provided a candy
filled stocking.
- Special holiday snack packs were provided for all sailors and
marines on the ground in Afghanistan. The shipment of over 5,000
individually wrapped Famous Amos Cookies and over 2,500 half-pound bags
of energy mix were delivered before Christmas.
A program entitled ``Saluting Sailors and Their Families'' was
recently created to provide greatly expanded recreational opportunities
for sailors and families. The purpose of the program is to send a clear
message to sailors that, as a result of their Naval service they have
access to high quality, high profile leisure activities that are not
available anywhere else. The goal for 2002 is to touch over 100,000
sailors and family members with a wide variety of events that create
memorable and special experiences.
Fleet and Family Support Centers also expanded several programs to
ensure services are available to every member of our Navy community, at
every point in their career. The Spouse Employment Assistance Program
has entered a pilot program called Career Accelerator with a world
class staffing services company. Recruiters will help military spouses
take command of their careers by providing them career counseling,
training and placement in temporary and full-time jobs.
The Personal Financial Management program provides education that
focuses on money management and proactive, long-range, financial
planning. The program is aimed at preventing financial crises often
faced by our sailors and their families. The Fleet and Family Support
Centers also responded to the needs of our sailors and their families
during Operation Enduring Freedom with increased support in the areas
of pre-deployment briefs for deploying units and families, crisis
incident stress debriefings, and reserve mobilization support.
conclusion
History will remember September 11 for how it changed the course of
events of our Nation. At the same time, it will look critically at how
we, as a Nation, responded to the newest threat to our national
security. I will reflect that Navy was ready. Largely, because of the
sweeping improvements to our pay and benefits, the manning of our
operational units reached unprecedented levels due to success in
recruiting and retaining top quality people.
Service matters. So too does the recognition of that service by
those in positions of leadership, both in uniform and civilian. Our
people are grateful for the support from Congress, and this committee
in particular. We have a long struggle ahead of us, both in fighting
the war and in retaining our volunteer force with the high tempo of
operations we face in the coming years. Our Navy men and women deserve
nothing less than an absolute commitment to recognize their service and
support their families while the Nation is at war.
Senator Cleland. We are very proud of you.
I would like to recognize Senator McCain, who just walked
in. Senator, if we could just go through the brief opening
statements here, I will turn it over to you and see if you have
any opening statement or questions.
Senator McCain. I have no opening statement, Mr.Chairman. I
will have some questions for the witnesses at the appropriate
time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
General Parks.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. GARRY L. PARKS, USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT
FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS;
ACCOMPANIED BY MAJ. GEN. JERRY D. HUMBLE, USMC, COMMANDING
GENERAL, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RECRUITING COMMAND
General Parks. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of
the subcommittee: It is my pleasure to report on the personnel
status and future manpower picture of your Marine Corps and to
thank you for your support of our families, our civilian
marines, and their devoted families as well.
Today's Marine Corps is comprised of young men and women of
character who possess a strong work ethic, solid moral fiber,
and a desire to be challenged, as our previous witness
testified to his desire to be challenged as a Marine recruiter.
The President's budget continues to raise their basic pay
and reduce their out-of-pocket expenses for housing.
Additionally, this budget provides valuable funding for
recruiting and retention programs, the very issues that are so
important to today's demanding personnel environment. We
continue to remain optimistic about our posture in this
challenging environment. Due to the hard work of our recruiters
and indeed our leaders all across the Corps, we will once again
exceed all recruiting and retention goals for fiscal year 2002.
Paralleling the retention interest of this subcommittee is
the need for passage for the Military Homeowners Equity Act.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief
to millions of Americans. However, due to extended active duty
and frequent relocation, active duty military personnel are
often unable to qualify for the home sales provision. This
inequity should be eliminated so service members can enjoy the
same tax benefit as the Americans that they defend. Thank you
for your support on this important matter.
Finally, I wish to express the Marine Corps' thanks for the
subcommittee's desire to safeguard the needs of the Marines as
we seek to positively influence recruiting, retention, and
morale by increasing pay, benefits, and the quality of life of
our marines and their dedicated families.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared joint statement of General Parks and General
Humble follows:]
Prepared Joint Statement by Lt. Gen. Garry L. Parks, USMC, and Maj.
Gen. Jerry D. Humble, USMC
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: we are pleased to
appear before you today to provide a recruiting and retention overview
of your Marine Corps. Your commitment to increasing the warfighting and
crisis response capabilities of our Nation's Armed Forces and to
improving the quality of life of our marines is central to the strength
your Marine Corps enjoys today. We thank you for your effort in
ensuring that marines and their families were poised to respond to the
Nation's call in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, in
a manner Americans expect of their Corps. The Marine Corps achieved its
recruiting and retention goals for fiscal year 2001. We recruited
37,335 non-prior service regular and Reserve marines, with 96.3 percent
being high school graduates, as well as 1,610 new commissioned
officers. Additionally, the Marine Corps will meet both enlisted and
officer recruiting objectives for fiscal year 2002.
recruiting overview
Mr. Chairman, as we begin this report about your Marine Corps'
recruiting efforts, I would like to thank you and your colleagues for
supplementing our advertising funds over the past 2 years. Put simply,
it was money that produced success. This added financial support is
enabling us to affect more awareness of the Marine Corps in America's
youth, which in turn yields more of the result we desire--attracting
and recruiting the Nation's finest young men and women to the Marines.
These results are tangible, as evidenced in the success we have enjoyed
over the past year. Additionally, we would like to thank you for the
extraordinary legislative efforts aimed at increasing recruiter access
to high schools and colleges. This emphasis will assist in bridging the
gap between the educational system and the military. With your
continued support, we will overcome the increasing challenges of this
very demanding, but vital business of national defense.
Fiscal Year 2001 Update
It is important that we update you on key recruiting projects
initiated last year--the Marine Corps Recruiting Information Support
System-Recruiting Station (MCRISS-RS), our web-based initiatives, and
our nationwide restructuring effort. Put in place at the end of fiscal
year 2001, MCRISS-RS replaced a 20-year-old mainframe system that
merely captured information on applicants after enlistment. The new
system allows users to capture data electronically, just as soon as an
applicant declares they would like to become a marine. MCRISS-RS is
streamlining the entire enlistment process and providing immediate
benefits in man-hour savings by eliminating redundant data entry and
improving the speed and quality of information available.
Our totally revamped web-based recruiting tools continue to
successfully target the population interested in opportunities as an
enlisted marine in Marines.com and for commissioning opportunities,
Marineofficer.com. Our aim is to attract, engage, and encourage those
qualified applicants to register their contact information. We believe
that individuals who are influenced by our advertising will actively
seek out these sites to pursue more information on opportunities than
those who receive direct mail. Both these sites are focused in scope:
to attract prospects to recruiters. Our increased emphasis with initial
electronic contact is to maximize a personal one-on-one exchange
between a recruiter and a prospect. That is, we do not seek to replace
Marine recruiters with virtual recruiters.
To ensure that our recruiters are given equal opportunities to be
successful, we continue to adapt our recruiting force. This nationwide
optimization effort balances recruiter areas of responsibility, based
on a distribution of assets among the 2 recruiting regions, 6
recruiting districts and 48 recruiting stations. The final phase of
this current effort is planned for execution in fiscal year 2003.
Fiscal Year 2002 Prognosis
For almost 7 years, the extraordinary efforts of marines assigned
to recruiting duty have successively forged a formidable reputation of
recruiting high quality people to transform into America's Marines. In
fiscal year 2001, the Marine Corps Recruiting Command attained 103
percent of enlisted recruiting objectives and 100 percent of officer
accession requirements. Nevertheless, despite our previous successes,
it is essential that the command not rest on its laurels. Recruiting is
a battle that must be won every day. Meeting our accession requirements
is difficult work and will become increasingly more difficult as time
progresses. Therefore, to ensure continued success in recruiting young
men and women of character, we have focused our recruiting initiatives
in four strategic areas:
1. Exploit success through focused leadership, selecting the Corps'
best for recruiting duty and innovative marketing;
2. Achieve the next level of organizational efficiency and
effectiveness with a renewed emphasis on fiscal accountability and
comprehensive organizational review and restructure;
3. Recruit our recruiters, making recruiting a duty where marines
want to be assigned; and
4. Improve safety and quality of life for marines and families.
Exploiting Success
The cornerstone of any organization rests in the strength of its
leadership. This is particularly critical in our recruiting stations,
and the Marine Corps takes pride in placing great leaders in these
positions. As an illustration of this fact, 24 percent of the current
general officers in the Marine Corps have served on recruiting duty. To
serve in this environment brings out the best in marines and enhances
leadership qualities and traits requisite for expeditionary operational
command. We believe that the Recruiting Station Commanders are our
strategic centers of gravity, and that the Officer Selection Officers,
and the Recruiting Sub-Station Commanders are our tactical centers of
gravity in the continuous battle to achieve the recruiting mission. To
support this belief we handpick all Recruiting Station Commanders using
a command selection board. Additionally, focusing education, training,
and support to these key individuals reinforces successful leadership
and ensures our continued success. To this end, we have completely
overhauled our training to include a new Commanders Course for
Recruiting Station Commanders. These efforts and initiatives have
produced unprecedented quality as evidenced by a 1.9 percent and 4.5
percent increase in high school graduates and upper mental group
attainment, respectively, compared to this time last year.
Fiscal Year Percent
2001 High School Grads...................................... 96.3
2001 Mental Group I-IIIA.................................... 63.8
2002 High School Grads...................................... 97.2
2002 Mental Group I-IIIA.................................... 68.3
A residual effect from this success has been a steady, albeit
small, increase in early mission attainment, further enhancing our
recruiters' quality of life.
The next tenet to exploiting success is innovative marketing,
stretching every advertising dollar to maximize awareness. At first
glance, because of the high level of patriotism, it appeared that
increased interest in military service stemming from September 11 might
add to the number of qualified individuals seeking military service.
There is no evidence, however, to indicate that this perception has
translated into an easier recruiting environment. In the weeks
immediately following the terrorist attacks, we did see a surge in
overall interest in military service. However, that increased interest
was very short lived. In fact, according to Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) polls, propensity levels in subsequent weeks indicate
that individuals expressing interest in joining the military when asked
have remained relatively constant since September 11.
In light of this fact, it is imperative that we continue to seek
ways to exploit the success we have enjoyed by delivering the Marine
Corps' message to America's populace in new and innovative ways. From
our new television commercial campaign, labeled ``The Climb,'' to what
can be described as ``guerilla marketing'' techniques in other areas,
we continue to spread our brand messages of ``Transformation of Young
People'' and ``Tough, Smart, Elite, Warrior,'' to the American people.
``The Climb'' marks a turning point in our advertising campaigns in
that it not only portrays enlisted marines, but also features a female
marine. It is also designed to appeal to the new millenial generation
that has recently come of military enlistment age. This is achieved by
illustrating our humanitarian capabilities in addition to our strong
warfighting heritage. An example of our guerilla marketing techniques
would be the recognition of our birthday broadcast on CNN this past
November. Regardless of the medium, the aim is simple and constant--to
exploit success and make our dollars have more impact.
To gain increased awareness in minority circles, we continue to
participate in several minority workshops and media events such as the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
National Council of La Raza (NCLR), and The Society of Mexican American
Engineers and Scientists (MAES). Furthermore, we are increasing our
involvement with the fraternities and sororities of historically black
colleges and universities as well as canvassing marquee-sporting events
like the Bayou Classic and the College Inter-Athletic Association. We
believe this, combined with advertisements in publications such as
People En Espanol and Ebony, will further elevate awareness of the
Marine Corps and provide a rich recruiting venue.
Achieve the Next Level of Organizational Efficiency and Effectiveness
As with any organization (regardless of how successful it may be)
there is always room to increase efficiency and effectiveness.
Consequently, the Marine Corps Recruiting Command has conducted an
internal analysis of its organizational structure as well as its
current business practices.
In an effort to maximize our overall effectiveness, we have
structurally reorganized our headquarters staff as well as our command
relationship with our two Recruiting Regions in a way that more
supports unity of command and unity of effort. After detailed internal
analysis, we have eliminated redundant responsibilities within the
command and created new ones commensurate with operational staff models
and contemporary staffing requirements. This restructuring has created
better visibility on critical staff functions, increased
accountability, streamlined staff work, and ultimately provided better
support to the recruiters out on the street.
We have increased fiscal efficiency with more utilization of
available military transport aircraft for long distance travel,
increased usage of ground transportation, and utilization of video
teleconferencing. As an illustration of these efforts, we have
decreased our headquarters' temporary additional duty travel spending
nearly 50 percent compared to the first quarter of last year.
Recruit the Recruiter
Our data clearly shows that volunteers succeed at a higher rate
than those who are ordered to the task of recruiting. To achieve the
Marine recruiting mission in today's recruiting environment is not an
easy task and is one that ultimately falls on the shoulders of our
recruiters and their immediate commanders. This mission has implied
responsibilities: first, they must accomplish that mission while
maintaining quality standards; second, they must take care of their
recruiters and their families; and third, they must ensure that they
represent the Corps as ambassadors to the Nation's citizens. The Marine
Corps is constantly trying to improve our recruiter selection teams in
order to select the best that the Corps has to offer for this demanding
duty. This emphasis on selecting high-quality Marines to be recruiters
is directly responsible for our continued success. We have also
enhanced our awards system so we can better recognize our recruiters
for their superlative efforts.
In another new effort to help ease the difficulties of recruiting
duty, the Marine Corps' Career Retention Specialists are diligently
working to show the benefits of continued services to those marines
considering separation, ultimately reducing the burden on the
canvassing recruiter. Additionally these Career Retention Specialists
are actively seeking those marines that demonstrate the skill and
desire to become recruiters and identifying them to our screening
teams. As a part of this new incentive, we are allowing each marine who
volunteers for recruiting to select his or her recruiting district for
assignment.
Through the above mentioned and other initiatives, we have begun to
see an increase in the number of volunteers for enlisted recruiting
duty from roughly 20 percent to about 35 percent in the past 8 months.
This progress is also exemplified in the fact that 100 percent of all
our Officer Selection Officers are volunteers. Recruiting duty in the
Marine Corps is becoming increasingly sought after by all ranks.
Improve Safety and Quality of Life
Marine Corps Recruiting is committed to improving the health and
safety of all marines, sailors, civilian-marines, and members of the
officer and enlisted entry pools. Safety is inextricably linked in our
operational commitments. Through continued support of initiatives that
convince individuals of the importance of reducing vehicle speed, using
safety belts, and appropriate personal risk management techniques, we
will reap the benefits of a revitalized safety campaign plan. Our goal
in this is to achieve the mission with reduced risk, injury, and damage
to personnel and equipment.
Along with improving overall safety, we are also employing various
measures to gauge the effectiveness of our quality of life programs
that support our family members. Recruiting is a lifestyle that is
especially demanding on families, in which many are isolated on
independent duty from the kinds of support structures common on posts
and stations throughout the Marine Corps. Accordingly, we realize that
in many cases, the strongest support a recruiter can have comes from
his or her own family. ``Welcome Aboard'' programs that help prepare
marines and their families for recruiting duty and the surrounding
community, TRICARE Prime Remote to address health care needs, obtaining
affordable housing, and a dynamic and viable Key Volunteer Network with
top down leadership participation, contribute to the quality of life
issues most important to marines and their families.
The Marine Corps Recruiting Command recently instituted a survey to
measure the effectiveness of quality of life support to marines and
family members at the lowest level, which is the recruiter on the
street. We are trying harder to ``walk the talk'' and affect better
quality of life programs that are responsive and action oriented. The
uniqueness of serving in this assignment demands that we pay attention
to these quality of life areas as they have great impact on a
recruiters' continued quest to attain and exploit success.
retention overview
A successful recruiting effort is merely the first step in the
process of placing a properly trained marine in the right place at the
right time. The dynamics of our manpower system then must match
occupational specialties and grades to our Commanders' needs throughout
the operating forces. The Marine Corps endeavors to manage stable,
predictable retention patterns. However, as is the case with
recruiting, civilian opportunities abound for our marines as private
employers actively solicit our young marines for lucrative private
sector employment. Compensation is one of the main reasons marines
decide not to reenlist. The Marine Corps appreciates the efforts the
members of the committee have made to help raise the compensation level
of our marines. We need to keep pay competitive with the civilian
sector. Reduction of the out-of-pocket (OoP) expenses should continue
at a pace to achieve the goal of reducing the average OoP expense to
zero by 2005.
Enlisted
We are very mindful of enlisted retention issues. Our enlisted
force is the backbone of the Corps and we make every effort to retain
our best people. Even though we are experiencing minor turbulence in
some specialties, the aggregate enlisted retention situation is
encouraging. Some shortages exist in a number of high tech Military
Occupational Specialties (MOSs) that represent an important part of our
warfighting capability, and these young marines remain in high demand
in the civilian sector. We are a young force, making accessions a chief
concern for manpower readiness. Of the 154,000 active duty enlisted
force, over 28,000 are still teenagers--108,000 are still on their
first enlistment. In fiscal year 2002, we will have reenlisted
approximately 27 percent of our first term eligible population. These
5,908 marines represent 100 percent of the marines we need to
transition into the career force. This will be the ninth consecutive
year we will have achieved this same objective. Prior to fiscal year
2002, we had experienced a slight increase in the number of marines we
needed to reenlist. To counter this rising requirement, we are now
focusing greater attention on retaining marines in their 6th through
12th years of service. The Subsequent Term Alignment Plan (STAP) was
introduced, in fiscal year 2002, to focus on retaining experience. Due
to a strong draw from the civilian sector, we must elevate the
importance of retaining our career force by paying additional attention
as well as allocating resources to keep the experience level of our
force on par with previous years.
This year we continue to see smaller first term non-Expiration of
Active Service (EAS) attrition rates similar to the lower attrition we
experienced in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The implementation of the
Crucible and the Unit Cohesion programs continue to contribute to
improved retention among our young marines. The impact of lower non-EAS
attrition allowed us to reduce our accession mission in fiscal year
2001 and fiscal year 2002. This ``good news'' may allow us to continue
this trend in fiscal year 2003. The ``bad news'' is it has increased
the cost of our manpower account by extending the average length of
service of individual marines. This is the type of ``bad news'' we
don't mind having, as these positive results have reduced the burden
placed on our recruiters, as well as provided our operating forces with
more experience.
In the larger context, we are extremely pleased with our recruiting
and retention situation. We anticipate meeting our aggregate personnel
objectives and we continue to successfully maintain the appropriate
balance of first term and career marines. The management of youth and
experience in our enlisted ranks is critical to our success and we are
extremely proud of our accomplishments.
We attack our specialty shortages with the highly successful
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program. These shortages persist in
some highly technical specialties such as intelligence, data
communications experts, and air command and control technicians.
Currently, the Marine Corps has allotted $48.4 million in new SRB
payments to assist our reenlistment efforts in fiscal year 2002. These
payments will be split 60/40 between the First Term Alignment Plan and
STAP, respectively. The SRB program has significantly aided our
reenlistment rates and improved retention for some of our critical
skill shortages. In fiscal year 2003, we anticipate alloting $51.7
million in new payments. In fiscal year 2002, we continued lump sum
payments increasing the net present value of the incentive and
positively influencing highly qualified personnel who are currently
undecided. This is an incredibly powerful incentive for the undecided
to witness another marine's reenlistment and award of SRB in the total
amount. With the Thrift Savings Plan having begun this year, our
marines can now confidently invest these funds towards his/her future
financial security.
Officers
Overall, officer retention continues to experience success with
substantive improvements in retention, beginning in fiscal year 2000.
Our fiscal year 2002 results continue to reflect an overall officer
attrition rate that is lower than historical rates. We believe that the
reduction of voluntary separations may be attributed to the
Congressionally approved compensation triad and the strategic, albeit
limited, use of specialty pays. As with the enlisted force, we still
have some skill imbalances within our officer corps, especially in the
aviation specialties, intelligence, and command/control.
Although we are cautiously optimistic, pilot retention remains a
concern. Fixed wing pilot ``take rates'' for the fiscal year 2002
Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) Plan have not met retention targets
because of an inadequate eligible population that resulted from large
previous years' losses. The aggregate fiscal year 2002 retention target
for aviators is anticipated to be met based on ``take rates'' from the
rotary wing and naval flight officer communities. Retaining Marine
Corps aviators involves a concerted Marine Corps effort in multiple
areas that have been identified as impacting an officer's decision to
remain in the Marine Corps. Many recent fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001 retention initiatives have made substantial corrective
strides, strengthening the Marine Corps' position towards retaining
aviation officers (i.e., Marine Aviation Campaign Plan, and pay
reform). Supplementary pay programs such as ACP can provide an
additional incentive by lessening the significant difference between
civilian airline and military compensation. We will continue to focus
on retaining our mid-grade aviators (junior majors and lieutenant
colonels) and will continue to reevaluate our aviation retention
situation to optimize these resources.
The Marine Corps officer and enlisted retention situation is very
encouraging. Through the sensational efforts of our unit commanders, we
will achieve every strength objective for fiscal year 2002 and expect
to start fiscal year 2003 solidly poised for continued success. Even
though managing our retention success has offered new challenges such
as maintaining the appropriate grade mix, sustaining quality
accessions, and balancing occupational specialties, we will continue to
press forward and meet all challenges head on. In this difficult
recruiting/retention environment, the so-called ``War for Talent,'' the
Marine Corps remains optimistic about our current situation and expect
these positive trends to continue.
civilian-marines
Civilian-marines are an integral part of the Corps' Total Force
concept. We have approximately 13,000 civilian-marines, which is
approximately 2 percent of the total DOD civilian workforce. The Marine
Corps has 1 civilian-marine per 12 active duty marines. Our civilian-
marines fill key billets aboard Marine Corps bases and stations thus
freeing our Marines from the supporting establishment to return to the
operating forces. Like other DOD agencies, our civilian workforce is
aging and within the next 5 years, 30 percent of our workforce will be
optional retirement eligible. Although historical data indicates only
25 percent of those eligible in any given year actually retire, our
growing eligible population will still produce significant losses. In
fiscal year 2002, we have embarked on a new program centered on the
career and leadership development of our civilian-marines. Our goal is
to make the Marine Corps the employer of choice within the DOD.
end strength
For the past decade, the Marine Corps has continued to aggressively
examine its existing force structure. This is to ensure proper staffing
of our operating forces at the level required for the tempo and variety
of our full spectrum capabilities, and the efficient and effective use
of marines and civilian-marines. Through various efforts, we have made
substantial progress to increase the manning in our operating forces by
shifting approximately 2,500 marines from the supporting establishment.
However, the new security environment has increased our operating
forces needs. The Marine Corps has responded by reactivating the 4th
Marine Expeditionary Brigade (Anti-Terrorism) (4th MEB (AT)) that
requires an increase of 2,400 marines to our end strength. Our fiscal
year 2003 end strength goal is a total of 175,000 active duty marines.
The 4th MEB was activated utilizing existing Active-Duty Forces and has
already been deployed to Capital Hill (anthrax), Incirlik (Force
Protection), and Kabul (reactivation of the U.S. Embassy). The 4th MEB
(AT) provides the Unified Commanders a new capability for joint force
operations. The increased marines and funding for the 4th MEB (AT) has
been included in the fiscal year 2003 President's budget, and we
respectfully request that you support this important initiative.
total force integration
The events of September 11, 2001 forced the services to shift their
priorities to meet new challenges. The Marine Corps ``Total Force
Team'' was ready to meet these new challenges. Our Active forces
reacted initially, while we selectively integrated our Reserve Forces
to meet mission requirements. We have mobilized Individual Mobilization
Augmentees (IMA) and Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Marines to meet
staff augmentation requirements in the communications, intelligence,
force protection, and headquarters planning areas. Selected Marine
Corps Reserve (SMCR) units have been activated to provide Homeland
Security and Quick Reaction Force missions in Federal Emergency
Management Agency regions 3 and 9. To date, we have filled our
requirements with ``volunteers.'' In respect to stop loss, the Marine
Corps has made judicious use of the authority and to date have only
held 106 marines beyond their EAS. Under current conditions the maximum
number of marines that may be affected by stop loss is 395.
managing time away from home (personnel tempo--perstempo)
The Marine Corps is in compliance with PERSTEMPO legislation, and
we are meeting the OSD tracking and reporting criteria. We remain
committed to maintaining the proper balance between operational
deployments and the quality of life of our marines and their families.
But, marines join the Corps to train and deploy, and we do not
disappoint them. Service in the Marine Corps requires deployments for
readiness and mission accomplishment. As written, PERSTEMPO legislation
is inconsistent with the Corps' expeditionary, forward deployed nature
and could have adverse effects on our unit cohesion, stability,
training, and readiness. Therefore, in concert with the Navy, we have
recommended modifications to PERSTEMPO legislation be included in the
Secretary of Defense's March 2002 PERSTEMPO report to Congress.
Summary
We remain optimistic about our current status in this challenging
recruiting and retention environment. Due to the hard work of our
recruiters and Marine leaders all across the Corps, we will once again
exceed our recruiting and retention goals.
The Marine Corps continues to be a significant force provider and a
major participant in joint/combined operations. For 6 percent of the
DOD budget, the Marine Corps provides 20 percent of the active ground
maneuver battalions, 20 percent of the active fighter/attack squadrons,
19 percent of the attack helicopter squadrons, and nearly one-third of
the active duty combat service support. Your Marine Corps remains
strong and able to accomplish its mission, yet only a sustained
increase in resources will yield the flexibility and resilience we need
in both the short and long term. Our successes have been achieved by
following the same core values today that gave us victory on
yesterday's battlefields.
With your support, we can continue to achieve our goals and provide
our marines with what they need to accomplish their tasks. Marines are
proud of what they are doing. They are proud of our Eagle, Globe, and
Anchor and what it represents to this country. It is our job to provide
for them the leadership, resources, quality of life, and moral guidance
to carry our proud Corps forward. With your support, a vibrant Marine
Corps will continue to meet our Nation's call as we have for the past
226 years!
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, General Parks and
General Humble.
General Brown.
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RICHARD E. BROWN III, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF FOR PERSONNEL, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; ACCOMPANIED BY
BRIG. GEN. DUANE W. DEAL, USAF, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES AIR
FORCE RECRUITING SERVICE
General Brown. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain,
it is my honor to come before you and address our recruiting
and retention challenges and initiatives on behalf of the
dedicated men and women of the United States Air Force. Every
airman owes Congress and particularly the members of this
committee their gratitude for your staunch support last year,
which included improving military pay and compensation through
targeted pay raises and reducing the out-of-pocket expenses of
all service members.
Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom have levied
significant additional operational requirements for homeland
security, anti-terrorism, and force protection, and our total
force today is overstressed. In order to meet the near-term
challenges and complexities of world events, we mobilized our
forces and implemented stop-loss to sustain the surge in these
new requirements. This is a coordinated effort with our Air
Reserve component.
Many of our critical assets are in the Air Reserve
component. In some mission areas, the Guard and Reserve perform
100 percent of the total Air Force mission. They own 83 percent
of the air medical evacuation, more than 55 percent of our air
refueling, and 33 percent of our security forces.
Stop loss is not a viable option for sustaining this long-
term campaign. Therefore, our number one priority this year is
to meet the increasing demand of our warfighting skills. Our
long-term strategy is to shift resources from tail to tooth
through the transformation of the force.
Secretary Rumsfeld has challenged us to pursue innovative
solutions to offset the need for end strength growth. We see
this as one more dimension of our transformation effort and are
investigating a variety of options for shifting resources. But
we intend to meet our programmed end strength of 358,800
through continued robust recruitment and retention. To help
fund these programs, we are pursuing supplemental funding to
replace the unprogrammed reduction to our military personnel
appropriations (MPA) account.
The Air Force is well postured, if needed, to increase
recruiting goals. We exceeded our enlisted recruiting goals and
line officer accession target in fiscal year 2001 and we expect
to do so again here in fiscal year 2002. However, we do
continue to fall short in some enlisted skill areas and
officers, such as scientists, engineers, and health care
professionals. In response to these critical shortfalls, we
have enhanced the initial enlistment bonus program and are
working to fund an officer accession bonus in fiscal year 2003.
Meeting our retention targets remains our greatest
challenge. To retain the high caliber of professionals we need
to decisively win America's wars, we must provide a
comprehensive compensation package that rewards service,
provides for an acceptable standard of living, and assures a
high quality of life.
Now, we have seen almost 100 pilots return to active duty
since September 11. The post-September 11 long-term bonus take
rate has increased over 11 percent over last year's take rate
for pilots. Despite the patriotic dividend, we ended fiscal
year 2001, though, over 1,200 pilots under the requirement. We
project to end fiscal year 2002 short by about 900 pilots. The
pilot force is not well, but the pain is just a little less
severe than it was.
The aviator continuation pay program, coupled with pilot
production increases and other initiatives, have helped to
arrest the inventory declines. Many of our skilled airmen,
scientists, engineers, air traffic controllers, comm-computer,
are also in high demand by the civilian sector, making
retention even more challenging.
Thanks to Congress and this committee, we have received
several bonus authorities that provide us the flexibility to
target our critical officer and enlisted skills. However, when
we lose program funding, we lose our flexibility and our
troops' trust and confidence.
We are also concerned with our civilian force manning. In
the next 5 years more than 40 percent of our career work force
will be eligible for optional or early retirement. While we are
meeting today's mission needs without the proper civilian
force-shaping tools, we put at risk the possibility of not
being able to meet future challenges.
Sir, we greatly appreciate Congress', especially this
committee's, tremendous support in recognition of our troops by
providing them a top-notch quality of life. I look forward to
discussing the challenges and any questions that you have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statements of General Brown and General Deal
follow:]
Prepared Statement by Lt. Gen. Richard E. Brown III, USAF
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is a
tremendous honor to appear before you to present our Air Force
Personnel priorities on behalf of the dedicated men and women of the
United States Air Force. Every airman owes Congress, and particularly
the members of this committee, their gratitude for your staunch support
last year which included improving military pay and compensation
through targeted pay raises (largest pay increase since 1982), and
reducing out-of-pocket expenses of all service members. Your passage of
last year's National Defense Authorization Act sent a very clear
message to America's Air Force that their valiant efforts and selfless
service are appreciated.
The events of 2001 brought poignant change to our people focus in
the Air Force. On average, we were deploying our people at a rate three
times higher than 10 years ago. However, after the events of September
11, 2001, the demand on the Total Force warfighting skills
significantly increased; and we are stepping up our efforts to meet the
challenge. Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom have levied
significant additional operational requirements for homeland security,
anti-terrorism, and force protection. The Total Force is overstressed
due to these operations.
To bear the complexities and challenges of September 11 world
events in the short term, we mobilized our forces and instituted stop
loss to sustain the surge in new requirements. This has been a
coordinated effort with our Air Reserve component. However, these
initiatives are not viable options for sustaining this long-term
campaign. It is imperative that we address the need to meet our
warfighting requirements in the near term to enable the release of stop
loss specialties, provide relief on augmentation, and to begin the
demobilization process. Our long-term task is to shift resources from
``tail'' to ``tooth'' through the transformation of the force.
Recognizing these initiatives will take time, we are seeking relief in
the short term. The Air Force cannot lose pace as we continue to
concentrate our efforts on attracting and retaining the right people
with the right skills to lead us in the 21st century.
We are giving top priority to quality of life initiatives and
competitive compensation and benefits legislation. These initiatives
help us achieve our recruiting goals and make steady strides in
retaining our best people in the right skills, despite the increasing
demands we are placing on our people.
Due to the terrorist attacks, increased operations and homeland
defense have further amplified the stress on our critical career
fields. Our attention now turns to sizing the force appropriately to
meet new demands, steady state maintenance of our recruiting
initiatives, and continued focus on achieving our retention objectives.
We will continue to review and improve on how we develop, educate, and
train our people to keep our military force technologically superior.
With that in mind, we have formally established the Developing
Aerospace Leaders Support Office chartered to understand the leadership
needs of our transforming aerospace force and design a requirements-
driven, competency-based development strategy that creates Air Force
members better prepared to serve and lead in that environment. Our
Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) calls for more diversified
leaders--airmen with the balanced depth in mission area and breadth
necessary to effectively integrate the full range of air and space
capabilities, achieving desired military effects.
The bottom line: people are the key to readiness and
transformation. To retain high quality people, we must provide not only
the appropriate compensation, but also deliberate educational and
training opportunities so they develop into the kind of airmen we need
to lead our Air Force in the future. Further, our civilian force needs
our continued attention to ensure we have the force management
flexibilities in place to properly size and shape the force. Our
civilian force is exceptional; however, the Air Force is facing
difficulties replacing the loss of a skilled and experienced civilian
workforce.
personnel force shaping
Our primary ``people'' focus this year is to meet the increasing
demand for our warfighting skills. Through the implementation of the
EAF structure, the Air Force has been able to better measure manpower
requirements from TEMPO over time. We identified an enduring TEMPO of
2+ AEFs in the pre-September 11 environment with acute impact on
manpower requirements supporting high demand/low density (HD/LD)
assets. Before September 11 we projected having on board 358,800 by the
end of this fiscal year.
The events of September 11 exacerbated our overall TEMPO and have
resulted in an ongoing reassessment of Air Force total manpower
requirements. While we meet our short-term end strength requirements
through the partial mobilization of the Reserve components and stop
loss actions, these tools may negatively affect Total Force retention
down the road. We must plan to exit from stop loss, while also allowing
our dedicated Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel to
return to their normal, citizen-airman roles in the future.
In achieving that end, Secretary Rumsfeld has challenged us to
pursue more innovative solutions to offset the need for end strength
growth. We see this as one more dimension of our transformation effort,
and are investigating a variety of options for shifting resources from
``tail'' to ``tooth.'' We are also looking at cross leveling within our
force to lessen impact on stressed career fields. Consistent with this
strategy, the AF needs tools to shape our force as we transform, while
maintaining a stabilized end strength with the correct skill mix. These
``fixes'' will take time to develop and implement. However, the stress
on our force is very much here and now.
recruiting
In 1999, the Air Force fell short of its recruiting goal for the
first time in 20 years. In response, we pulled out all the stops to
fight the ``recruiting war'' and we're winning. Without lowering
standards, we exceeded the fiscal year 2000 enlisted recruiting goal of
34,000 by over 400 and fiscal year 2001 goal of 34,600 by almost 800.
We still require 99 percent of our recruits to have high school
diplomas and nearly 75 percent to score in the top half of test scores
on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. In addition, we brought 1,155
prior-service members back on active duty; nearly double the number
from fiscal year 1999.
Meeting our overall goal is a positive trend; however, the United
States economy continues to affect Air Force recruiting. We are
transforming our force to meet mission requirements and to be
successful; we must enlist airmen whose aptitudes match the technical
requirements we need. In response to our missed fiscal year 2000
recruiting goal for mechanical aptitude, we developed targeted
recruiting programs for mechanically skilled recruits. A successful
effort, we exceeded our goal in fiscal year 2001 for these skills by
763. We did, however, fall short of our recruiting goal in the general
skill area by 203. This area includes the Special Forces career field,
which, like Security Forces, has become vital in light of current
operations. We continue to focus our attention on these critical areas.
The Air Force is well postured, if needed, to increase recruiting
goals. We can meet future recruiting challenges through our previously
approved increases in advertising, a more robust recruiting force, and
competitive compensation and benefits. In order to meet the growing
enlisted accession requirements; we are employing a combination of
accession bonuses, more recruiters, and improved marketing including
broader recruiter access to secondary and college school students. For
fiscal year 2002, we programmed an additional $9 million for the
enhanced initial enlistment bonus program, up from $123.8 million in
fiscal year 2001. These bonus programs help to recruit hard-to-fill
critical skills and to encourage recruiting during historically
difficult recruiting months. Additionally we budgeted $89.65 million
for recruiting advertising in fiscal year 2002, which is nearly five
times the amount from fiscal year 1998. Laying the foundations of more
competitive compensation, a robust recruiting force, and increased
advertising are the cornerstones for meeting future Air Force
recruiting needs.
We face many of the same challenges with officer recruiting--a
competitive job market for high-tech skills. Although we met overall
officer accession goals in fiscal year 2001, we continue to fall short
for certain critical skills. We were nearly 250 below the accession
goal for scientist and engineering career fields. In response to these
critical shortfalls, we are working to fund an officer accession bonus
in fiscal year 2003 to attract these critical skills. Overall in fiscal
year 2001, we achieved 105 percent of our line officer accession
target, despite a projected shortfall, up from 97 percent of our
accession target in fiscal year 2000. The Reserve Officer Training
Corps (ROTC) produced a surplus of more than 100 officers in fiscal
year 2001, and projects a surplus of 100 in fiscal year 2002. To
attract more candidates, we offer contracts to freshmen cadets rather
than waiting until their sophomore year, and a 1-year commissioning
program to attract both undergraduate and graduate students.
Additionally, recent legislative gains which increased the maximum age
for appointments as cadets into Senior ROTC scholarships programs
further increases our recruiting opportunities.
We are also finding it difficult to recruit health care
professionals. Many medical, dental, nurse, and biomedical specialties
are critically short. For example, only 80 percent of our clinical
pharmacy positions are currently filled. We are now reviewing accession
initiatives for pharmacists.
retention
We are a retention-based force that continues to prove that
experience improves readiness and mission capability. Retention remains
a top priority and continues to challenge our resources. In fiscal year
2002/2003, approximately 46 percent of the enlisted force will be
eligible to make a reenlistment decision. Things have changed since
this time last year that may impact retention. The economy is not as
strong; yet, patriotism is stronger than ever. With the help of
Congress, our airmen now have better benefits. What has not changed is
the increase in workload and TEMPO and the availability of higher-
paying civilian jobs that match the experience and high-tech skills of
our airmen. To sustain our readiness posture for rapid deployment, we
must retain our highly trained, experienced, and skilled people. When
we lose our experience, we increase recruiting and training
requirements. Maintaining our technical expertise helps alleviate
increased TEMPO in our stressed career fields. We are watching the
affects of stop loss and the increased TEMPO of Operations Noble Eagle
and Enduring Freedom and the possible negative affects on retention.
It is painstakingly clear that to retain the high caliber
professionals we need to decisively win America's wars; we must provide
a robust compensation package that rewards service, provides for an
acceptable standard of living, and ensures a high quality of life. In
this package we must continue to provide appropriate pay increases and
continual reduction of out-of-pocket expenses incurred through moves,
deployments, and other temporary duty. The Air Force must remain
competitive if we are to maintain a superior all-volunteer force.
Because retention is more than improving quality of life,
leadership must ensure all airmen know what they do is valued. As such,
we created the Career Assistance Advisor (CAA) position to assist
commanders in developing wing-level retention programs for our enlisted
personnel. Career Assistance Advisors are making a positive impact
across the force. Today, Air Force members are more aware of how they
fit into the military and the benefits of service, which make them
better equipped to make critical career decisions.
We also initiated an aggressive campaign to ``re-recruit'' our
present force, to capitalize on efforts already begun by focusing on
retaining our quality people. We recognize that our high-caliber airmen
expect and need mentoring and career counseling. Initially, the re-
recruiting effort focused on engineers; however, we will expand this
effort to other critical skills, to include, but not limited to,
pilots, navigators, and scientists.
We are paying close attention to officer retention trends,
especially in critical skills. We monitor these trends through the
officer cumulative continuation rate (CCR), or the percentage of
officers entering their fourth year of service (6 years for pilots and
navigators) who will complete their 11th year of service given existing
retention patterns. Although the fiscal year 2001 CCR for pilots
increased from 45 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 49 percent, it's
significantly lower than the high of 87 percent in fiscal year 1995. We
have fully manned our cockpits, but our pilot staff manning has fallen
to 51 percent. Since September 11, we have witnessed a short-term
patriotic dividend, but caution that long-term shortages remain. Since
September 11, we've seen 92 pilots return to active duty, but despite
the ``patriotic dividend,'' we ended fiscal year 2001 short 1,239 (9
percent) pilots and project to end fiscal year 2002 short 902 (7
percent) pilots. Additionally, the airlines are forecasted to hire
approximately 1,500 new pilots in calendar year 2002. The pilot force
still is not healthy--the pain is just less severe. Simply training
more new pilots does not solve the problem; retention of experienced
pilots is the key.
The Aviator Continuation Pay program, coupled with pilot production
increases and other initiatives, have helped to arrest inventory
declines, and the pilot shortage has remained steady at approximately
8-9 percent of the requirement over the last 3 years. Because of the
low production ``bathtub'' year groups created in the 1990s, even with
relatively low retention assumed in our forecasting models, we expect
to make some improvement in aggregate pilot inventory over the future
year defense plan with increased production. However, toward the end of
the decade, growing numbers of losses in larger year group sizes
diminish much of the headway made until the effects of the 10-year
active duty service commitment take hold soon thereafter. Granted, this
situation is affected by recent events, but with the goal being
economic recovery and operations tempo promising to remain a challenge,
a continued robust Aviator Continuation Pay program will further
diminish these negative effects toward the end of the decade.
The good news is the post-September 11 long-term bonus take rate
has increased to 43.2 percent, a 13 percent point increase over last
year's rate. On the other hand, this year's group of eligible pilots is
small. Therefore, the higher bonus take rate has not resulted in
greater number actual numbers of pilots being retained, but the trend
is positive. But, we continue to believe the pilot bonus continues to
be the most effective tool to keep pilots.
The mission support officer fiscal year 2001 CCR has held steady at
44 percent, although lower than the fiscal year 1994 rate of 66
percent. Conversely, retention rates for several high-tech specialties
have decreased--scientists (36 percent), developmental engineers (32
percent), and acquisition managers (40 percent). Navigator and air
battle manager (ABM) rates in fiscal year 2001 were 72 percent and 47
percent respectively, not high enough to solve our long-term problems
in both of these areas.
Our retention trends and philosophy have not changed significantly
since September 11. Bonuses continue to be an effective tool in
retaining our members, and the recent legislative gains are a positive
step. Thanks to prompt congressional action, we have the authority to
implement bonuses, adjust funding to create retention allowances, and
work toward implementing special salary rates for the most difficult to
retain career fields. The Air Force recognizes the great need for these
bonuses and has programmed funds accordingly. However, funding levels
were cut during the appropriations process.
As mentioned earlier, the flexible Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP)
program is an important part of our multi-faceted plan to retain
pilots. Our fiscal year 2001 program, where we offered ACP payments
through 25 years of aviation service at up to $25,000 per year,
resulted in a substantial increase in committed personnel. Because of
this success, we implemented a very similar design for the fiscal year
2002 ACP program. In the near future, we plan to offer ACP to the other
rated career fields: navigators and ABMs. Both the SECAF and the CSAF
have approved the policy decision to implement a navigator and ABM
bonus. Our navigators are a critical rated resource that is being used
to fill pilot vacancies in headquarters staff positions--as a direct
result of the Air Force's pilot shortage. Using navigators to fill
pilot staff positions has brought headquarters rated staff manning up
from 51 percent to 76 percent. Currently, 22 percent of the navigator
force is retirement eligible with no remaining service commitment and
almost half the navigator force will be retirement eligible within the
next 5 years. Our ABMs are just as important; they are a high demand/
low-density career field, currently manned at only 76 percent. This
already overstressed career field has been stretched even further since
September 11. We need to retain every ABM and navigator to maintain our
warfighting capability; we hope to do this by offering them a bonus.
Personnel in 82 percent of our enlisted skills are now receiving
reenlistment bonuses. The authorization to pay both officer and
enlisted personnel in critical skills a retention bonus of up to
$200,000 during a career should help retain individuals in high demand
by the civilian sector. We are initially targeting this new authority
to officer career fields, to include scientists, developmental
engineers, and program managers. Also, the authority to increase
special duty assignment pay provides the flexibility to target our
arduous enlisted skills. The fiscal year 2002 NDAA authorizes
installment payment authority for the 15-year career status bonus, and
the transfer of Montgomery GI Bill benefits to family members to
encourage re-enlistment in critical specialties.
training and education
There is no substitute for highly skilled, trained people--tied to
successful readiness and transformation. Flexible, agile training
enables rapid response to dynamic missions. However, meeting our
training requirement has been a challenge in today's expeditionary
environment. The war on terrorism and protecting our homeland from
further attack has put additional strain on our infrastructure.
Increased accessions stress our trainers as well as our training
facilities. For example, during surge periods, we operate at maximum
capacity by triple-bunking students in two-person dorm rooms.
Although we are holding steady on retention, lower enlisted
retention rates add to our increasing training burden. Despite these
challenges, our technical training schools have been able to meet their
mission. To ensure we continue to have world-class training, we have
increased our use of technology and streamlined training processes
through advanced distributed learning to produce fully qualified airmen
ready to support the mission. Since training is a continuous process
throughout the member's career, we are also using emerging technologies
to establish a training management system capable of documenting and
delivering the right training, at the right time, to the right people.
Increased TEMPO also makes educational pursuits difficult. Our
learning resource centers and Advanced Distributed Learning initiatives
address this situation by offering deployed personnel education and
testing opportunities through CD-ROM and interactive television.
Additionally, we have joined with the other services, the Department of
Labor, and civilian licensing and certification agencies to promote the
recognition of military training as creditable towards civilian
licensing requirements.
If we are to transform the Air Force to meet 21st century
challenges, we must invest in human capital. We can strengthen
intellectual capital with increased and focused investment in advanced
education. Our target is to increase the number of Air Force funded
advanced degrees from world-class institutions in mission critical
competencies. Our plan is to shape the Air Force Institute of
Technology (AFIT) and Naval Postgraduate School partnership, creating
Centers of Excellence and sustaining both schools as world-class
educational institutions.
In summary, training and education has an impact on recruiting and
retention. The expectation of receiving valuable training makes people
want to join the Air Force. For 6 consecutive years, the Basic Military
Training Survey Report validated that ``gaining skills'' and ``job
experience'' was the second most compelling reason for joining the Air
Force (from among 18 factors).
Defining the Air Force's institutional training and educational
requirements for leadership development allows the services to better
weigh resource decisions and emphasizes to our people the institution's
investment in their careers. The Air Force is pursuing leadership
development and career mentoring strategies, to prepare the Air Force
Total Force for leadership in this century. These competency-based
strategies are focused on understanding the leadership needs of our
transforming force and creating a development process that will create
airmen better prepared to serve and lead in that environment. The Air
Force is examining more deliberate career broadening, emphasizing two
categories of competencies--occupational (what we do) and universal
(who we are). We are also examining potential changes to the
professional growth of officers including the rationalization of
advanced degrees and professional military education. Force readiness,
sustainability, and mission performance all depend on selecting,
training, and retaining the best individuals with the necessary skills,
as well as motivating every member of the service and taking care of
Air Force families.
civilian workforce shaping
Since 1990, the Air Force has drawn down 100,000 civilian slots and
constrained hiring as we attempted to minimize impact on existing
employees. As a result, less than 10 percent of our civilians are in
their first 5 years of service. In the next 5 years, more than 40
percent of our civilian career workforce will be eligible for optional
or early retirement. While not all will retire simultaneously,
historical trends indicate that approximately 33 percent of white-
collar employees and 40 percent of blue-collar employees will retire
the year they become eligible. In addition, downsizing over the past
decade skewed the mix of civilian workforce skills, compounding the
loss of corporate memory and lack of breadth and depth of experience.
While we are meeting mission needs today, without the proper civilian
force shaping tools, we risk not being ready to meet tomorrow's
challenges.
The Air Force is facing difficulties replacing the loss of skilled
and experienced staff. We are committed to accession and retention
planning from the perspective of identifying the skill sets tomorrow's
workforce will need.
To meet the demands of an increasingly technical force, we must
invest in our current workforce. Our focus is on career broadening
expansion, supervisory training, and skill training/retraining. To help
shape the civilian workforce, it is imperative that we fund civilian
degrees and tuition assistance programs as well as provide flexibility
to pay for job licenses and certifications. In fact, the fiscal year
2002 NDAA authorized the payment of expenses to obtain professional
credentials.
In addition, separation management tools are essential in shaping
the force by opening the door to new talent so we are able to create
the right skill mix. These initiatives include pay comparability and
compensation and extending special Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay
(VSIP) and Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) for workforce
restructuring. Also, the fiscal year 2002 NDAA provided the authority
for a pilot program allowing for payment of retraining expenses.
quality of life
We place intense demands on our mission-focused Total Force, and
it's imperative that we provide our airmen with a quality life. The Air
Force will pursue necessary manpower; improve workplace environments;
provide fair and competitive compensation and benefits; balance
deployments and exercise schedules; provide safe, affordable, and
adequate housing; enhance community and family programs; improve
educational opportunities; and provide quality health care, as these
have a direct impact on our ability to recruit and retain our people
and sustain a ready force.
We thank Congress for the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), which provided the largest pay raise in 20
years. The mid-level and senior NCOs received 7-10 percent, junior
enlisted members received a 6-6.7 percent pay raise, and captains and
majors received a 6-6.5 percent raise. All other personnel received a 5
percent raise. In addition, you improved the Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH) rates effective 1 January 2002, based on 11.3 percent
out-of-pocket for the National Median Housing Cost for each grade and
dependency status. The fiscal year 2002 NDAA also authorizes several
additional travel and transportation entitlements that will reduce out-
of-pocket expenses for our military personnel.
Providing safe and adequate housing enhances readiness and
retention. The Air Force Dormitory Master Plan and Family Housing
Master Plan identify and prioritize our requirements through new
construction, revitalization, and privatization of existing military
family housing and dormitories, while DOD is championing the reduction
of median out-of-pocket housing expenses to zero by fiscal year 2005.
The Air Force sets the standard in providing quality childcare and
youth programs. Air Force child care centers and all of its before- and
after-school programs for children 6-12 are 100 percent accredited. In
fiscal year 2002, the Air Force will test using the extended duty
childcare program to provide care to members working at missile sites
and who need care for their mildly ill children.
The Air Force recognizes the economic benefit our members derive
from the activities and services provided within our base community.
Programs like child development, childcare, youth programs, fitness
centers, libraries, skills development, clubs, golf courses, and
bowling centers all offer programs and services that support and
enhance the sense of community and meet our members' needs for
relaxation and stress reduction. Beyond these benefits, on-base
programs are part of the non-pay benefit system providing savings over
the cost members would pay to receive similar services off base.
The Air Force continues to support the commissary and exchange
benefits as vital non-pay compensation benefits upon which active duty,
retirees, and Reserve component personnel depend. Commissaries and
exchanges provide: value, service, and support; significant savings on
high quality goods and services; and a sense of community for airmen
and their families wherever they serve.
The recent implementation of DOD health care initiatives such as,
TRICARE for Life provide the missing link to the Air Force Medical
Service's (AFMS) population-based health care strategy. The AFMS
continues to make great strides in its population health initiatives
and customer satisfaction. Central to the AFMS's population health plan
is its Primary Care Optimization program. This program improves
clinical business processes through best use of medical personnel and
other resources, assisted by robust information management systems that
support effective decisionmaking. The Primary Care Manager by Name
program provides much-needed continuity of care and, ultimately, better
patient management by providers. Other population health initiatives
include the Air Force Suicide Prevention program, which has served as a
model for DOD and the Nation in their efforts to address this
significant public health issue. As a result of the expanded senior
benefit and the AFMS's population health initiatives, health care
customer satisfaction continues to rise in the Air Force. According to
the latest Customer Satisfaction Survey Results, 90 percent of the Air
Force's enrolled beneficiaries indicate they would enroll or re-enroll
in TRICARE Prime if given the option. The overall satisfaction with
clinics and medical care exceeds national civilian HMO averages.
in closing
Our number one priority is to increase our warfighting skills to
meet mission requirements. We understand we must optimize our current
force, and transform the force to meet critical skill shortages over
the long term. However, we have short-term requirements that are
becoming more difficult to sustain.
The Air Force continues to attract and retain the highest quality
individuals. We are successful when we have the flexibility to use the
right tools to target needed areas, such as retention and force
shaping. We also understand that we can never take our eye off
recruiting and will continue our steady state maintenance of recruiting
initiatives.
Although the Air Force was successful in fiscal year 2001 in
meeting recruiting goals, we have not been as successful in meeting
retention goals. Meeting retention targets will continue to provide us
the greatest challenge. There is no getting around the fact that
bonuses have been our most successful incentive. We thank Congress for
providing the authorities that give us the flexibility we require in
targeting key skills. However, when funding is eliminated from our
accounts, we lose our flexibility to target key warfighting skills
which, which impacts our force readiness and mission capability.
We also recognize the increasingly important role of civilians to
our Armed Forces. They are our leaders, scientists, engineers, and
support force who provide reachback for deployed and forward-based
forces. We need flexible tools and policies to manage this force.
We depend on a highly skilled, educated, and technologically
superior force. We continue to state that there is no substitute for
high-quality people. Our airmen have met challenge after challenge and
are proud to serve our Nation, but they are tired. They consistently
identify their number one quality of life issue is to have enough
personnel to do the job. We continue to expect more and more with
little relief in sight. It is imperative that we address our short-term
warfighting needs today.
We thank you for the many tools you have provided--your continued
support is critical to the Air Force future and to the future of our
Nation. We need your continued support to ensure the quality of life
for our people and their family remains a priority.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this committee and share
the concerns of our proud and capable Air Force people.
______
Prepared Statement by Brig. Gen. Duane W. Deal, USAF
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I'm
honored to appear before you on behalf of the dedicated men and women
of the Air Force Recruiting Service to present a few perspectives
regarding recruiting. To echo General Brown, we owe Congress, and
particularly the members of this committee, our deepest gratitude for
your tremendous support last year, and particularly your passage of the
National Defense Authorization Act. Your actions demonstrate to our
airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines that you both understand and
appreciate their service.
Fiscal year 2001 proved to be a banner year for recruiting the
Nation's finest young men and women into America's Air Force. Our
Nation can be proud of the selfless dedication, integrity, and effort
that Air Force recruiters and recruiting support personnel put forth
every day in fulfilling the recruiting mission. Recruiting lays the
foundation for readiness, and charts the Air Force's ability to respond
to any call with trained, professional airmen.
enlisted recruiting
As you're well aware, we continue to perform the recruiting mission
in an extremely competitive environment. Continued relatively low
unemployment, higher college opportunities and enrollments, and a
declining awareness among young people of the advantages and benefits
of life in the military all add to the challenges facing our Nation's
recruiting forces. Until 3 years ago, we were seemingly able to meet
most of our recruiting objectives with significantly less manning and
less funding than is necessary today. Fiscal year 1999 accessions
numbers proved the inadequacy of previous manning and funding levels.
While fiscal year 2000 numbers looked better and overall goal was
exceeded, we were still not recruiting enough of the needed skills to
meet all of the Air Force's needs. I am pleased to inform you that in
spite of the increased recruiting demands of fiscal year 2001, our
recruiters were able to exceed their goals and ship more airmen to
basic training than in any year since fiscal year 1990. We exceeded the
goal by putting hundreds of new recruiters on the street, along with
additional marketing and bonus programs. With such course corrections
made, enlisted production is not only on the upswing, it is currently
meeting all of the current category needs that can be satisfied by
young airmen--specifically, needs in the mechanical, administrative,
general, and electronic aptitude areas.
But quality is not being sacrificed for quantity. In terms of
quality, the Department of Defense asks the services to access at least
90 percent of its new recruits as ``Tier 1''--high school graduates or
individuals with 15 or more semester hours of college. Compared to a
DOD standard of 90 percent, the Air Force maintains a target of 99
percent--and we exceeded that in fiscal year 2001. Against a DOD
benchmark of 60 percent of new accessions scoring in the top half (Cat
I-IIIA) of the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), last year the
Air Force surpassed 75 percent. A further reflection on quality is our
first measure once they put on a uniform: compared to an historic Basic
Military Training attrition rate of 9 percent, attrition last year
dropped to 6.8 percent--a low level not seen since fiscal year 1983.
Even through fiscal year 2001, we knew that challenges would remain
and evolve regarding the fiscal year 2002 accessions goal of 36,000.
Already this fiscal year, this goal has been raised twice in order to
support homeland defense and the war on terrorism, and currently rests
at 37,283. Without the increased recruiter manning and funds for
enlistment bonuses, we would not have been able to dig our way out of
the enlistment contracts deficit; as things presently stand, we have
been able to exceed by 867 our goal of 13,612 accessions for the first
5 months of fiscal year 2002. We expect our summer months to be very
productive in terms of new enlistment contracts--we plan to ship more
airmen to basic training than in any year since fiscal year 1989 and
anticipate being well postured to start meeting fiscal year 2003
accessions goals.
officer recruiting
The challenges that face our officer accessions recruiters continue
to grow. These men and women must persuade doctors, dentists, nurses,
and other professionals with high-earnings potential and often
significant college debt to become members of the Air Force. Despite
this challenge, fiscal year 2001 was punctuated with many successes in
officer recruiting. The men and women of Air Force Recruiting Service
attained at least 100 percent of their production goals in physician
scholarships, dental scholarships, medical administration specialists,
and non-technical line officers. The nationwide nurse shortage has
impacted us as well, making nurse recruiting particularly difficult; as
a result, we could recruit only 228 of a desired 349 nurses in fiscal
year 2001. Other shortfalls occurred with biomedical scientists,
dentists, and technical officers. Officer recruiting in fiscal year
2002 is presenting yet another challenging year. To address officer
recruitment difficulties, we are pursuing a number of initiatives with
the Air Staff, which include expanded bonus and loan repayment
programs. We are grateful for the fiscal year 2002 National Defense
Authorization Act increasing the individual limits for an officer
accession bonus from $30,000 to $60,000, and allowing us to offer
bonuses to line officer candidates with skills certified as critical by
the SECAF. This act is a good start on our road to achieving our bonus
and loan repayment needs.
marketing
We continue to make great strides in creating and implementing new
ways to get the Air Force message across to young Americans. During
fiscal year 2001, Air Force Recruiting Service began partnering with
the GSD&M advertising agency from Austin, TX. GSD&M began last year
concentrating efforts last fall to develop and field our ``Cross Into
The Blue'' advertising campaign through various media efforts,
including television, radio, print, the Internet, motor sports, and
other interactive projects. In concert with in-house Government
civilian marketing experts and field-proven recruiters, GSD&M continues
to develop and research new ideas to help the Air Force achieve
recruiting and retention goals by increasing public awareness of the
opportunities an Air Force career offers.
With our target audience spending an average of 10-12 hours per
week on-line, we are increasingly using the Internet as a front-line
weapon to reach this increasingly technology-savvy audience. Activity
on our web site continues to increase dramatically; inquiries from the
site in 2001 were up over 165 percent from 2000 alone. To help capture
and attract the teenage audience, AirForce.com launched a new site on 5
November 2001 promoting the ``Cross Into The Blue'' campaign. The site
includes multiple sections to help people learn more about Air Force
careers, educational opportunities, and the Air Force lifestyle. Also,
it provides the public a chance to read about specific airmen serving
today and how they support the Air Force mission. In addition, the site
provides the ability to contact a recruiter and locate the closest
recruiting office.
Although the new site has been operating for only 3 months, initial
figures show it to be extremely popular. In November-December 2001,
there were over 1.5 million visits to the page, over 100,000 locator
searches were conducted, and 15,000 leads were generated from the
website. Each month our team of recruiters supporting the Internet site
responds to over 2,250 inquiries, answers questions from site visitors
about all aspects of the Air Force, and provides additional information
on how to join. The team also e-mails, reviews, and routes over 600
health professions and engineering resumes per month via the
Monster.com system and other career search sites.
In addition to the advancements made on the web, concentrated on-
line media placement has also increased. Links to AirForce.com and Air
Force advertisements can now be seen on ESPN.com,
SportsIllustrated.com, the MSNGaming Network, Yahoo.com, and many more
high-traffic web sites. The Air Force also posted job descriptions on
various career search pages including Monster.com, producing high-
quality leads for officer accession recruiters.
We have experienced increasing, quantifiable success promoting the
Air Force through our television campaign. At the beginning of March
2002, approximately one quarter of 18,000 Air Force applicants and
active duty members said they were influenced by television advertising
material. To complement this effort, our national print campaign has
produced new advertisements currently appearing in Teen People, VIBE,
and U.S. News and World Report.
We continue our outreach to minorities and women. We were gratified
when the Air Force was one of five companies nationwide recognized for
their diversity outreach during last July's NAACP convention in New
Orleans; we were also gratified that just last month the Black
Collegian magazine cited the Air Force as number 3 of the Nation's top
100 companies in outreach to African-American college graduates. As a
new element of such outreach, we are currently fielding a campaign
honoring the distinguished Tuskegee Airmen. This campaign reflects the
expertise, courage, and dedication this group of airmen displayed
during a time of immense hostility, at home and abroad. The campaign
involves both print and television advertisements. With tag lines such
as ``They escorted bombers into Europe, and equality into America,''
and ``Before the Air Force broke the sound barrier, these airmen broke
the race barrier,'' this campaign will appeal not just to the minority
population, but also to the public at large. Other campaigns honoring
women aviators and celebrating the centennial anniversary of flight are
being prepared.
This year marks the second year the Air Force has been an associate
sponsor of NASCAR Winston Cup Series driver Elliot Sadler and the
legendary Wood Brothers' No. 21 racing car. We're particularly excited
with a new venture as this year we are also teaming with the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to sponsor a Busch Series car.
Sponsorship of this car creates an ideal partnership between our Air
Force and the ONDCP, sending both a public service and anti-drug
message. Finally, a NASCAR Air Force show car is making its way across
the country serving as a recruiting tool to use at high schools, local
shopping arenas, and other places and events which may attract our
target market. This Air Force blue show car enables teens, children,
and families to see inside the car and speak with recruiters about our
job opportunities.
As the Air Force continues to compete with the general market for
overall qualified applicants, there are certain career fields that
continue to remain hard to fill and pose a problem for targeted
marketing. Principal challenges in the enlisted arena include such
skills as our Special Tactics and Rescue Specialists--or STARS;
formerly called Air Commandoes, these include our combat controllers
and pararescue airmen, vital skills not often associated with the Air
Force. Officer challenges include chaplains, nurses, pharmacists,
physicians, dentists, and engineers. To help recruiters attract people
to these positions, we use brochures, posters, sales aids
(``giveaways''), targeted advertisements, distinct sections on
AirForce.com, and direct mailings that target these groups.
resource utilization and support
Our efforts are supported by our growing ability to exploit current
and emerging technologies that improve the recruiter's ability to
target and interact with the market and capitalize on opportunities to
enter educational institutions.
Resources dedicated to increasing our technological edge and
modernizing the recruiting processes have seen enlisted and officer
accessions recruiting become automated through our web-based
application processing. We are able to gather information and provide
statistical analysis to support informed decisionmaking, and that
capability is being expanded continuously through targeted reporting.
Internet technology promises to grow into our greatest asset and
tool by allowing communication and coordination to widespread manpower
assets, as well as reaching a vast pool of potential applicants for
marketing purposes. We continue to build web-based tools to assist our
recruiters and support infrastructure to become more effective as a
single-minded entity, despite the complications of being spread across
every state and six countries around the world. As goals increase for
our recruiters, our investment in computer and web-based solutions must
continue to grow to meet the on-line, time-sensitive demands of our
target audience.
``LifeWorks'' is a very successful contracted work/life balance and
employee assistance program for Air Force Recruiting Service's
geographically separated personnel and their families. Initiated in
1999, LifeWorks offers 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per
year toll-free and Internet access for counseling, information, and
referral on a multitude of family coping issues such as legal,
financial and work issues, and education and schooling issues. Customer
feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. As briefed to and
highlighted by the previous Secretary of Defense, more than 7,000 U.S.
corporations also use LifeWorks, with a combined dispersed workforce
totaling more than seven million employees; the other services are now
benefiting from LifeWorks as well.
TRICARE Prime Remote is a huge ``Quality of Life'' boon for
geographically separated AFRS personnel and their families. Occasional
isolated challenges arise in locating participating health care
providers in some areas and specialties, but access to care is
improving, as is payment timeliness for care received. This benefit is
critical to ensuring adequate medical care for our recruiters, who are
often great distances from Military Treatment Facilities.
The Air Force accounts for 11 percent of the total number of
production recruiters in the Armed Forces. With a total of 1,436
offices, the Air Force Recruiting Service supports the DOD's effort to
revise its space and quality standards to benefit all services,
upgrading the location and appearance of offices while providing more
space.
conclusion
Before I close, I thought it appropriate to share one of our
current thrusts in the Air Force Recruiting Service. In the 48-year
history of our Recruiting Service, never before has our sense of
mission been as heightened as it has been since September 11. For
starters, we have a recruiting office only a block away from the
devastation of the World Trade Center; like thousands of others in the
many nations affected, we could not contact our friends and family in
Manhattan for many hours after the attack, and thus shared a common
bond not only with the Nation, but especially within our own command. I
had the opportunity to tour that site with some fellow recruiters last
month. We were escorted by a Member of Congressman Fossella's staff,
Mr. Larry Morrish, who had attended 38 of his friends' burials; the
police officer with us was Detective Joe Nolasco, who witnessed the
attack, had lost 20 dear friends, and was unable to sleep for 2 weeks
after the attack. While our hearts went out to them and to the workers,
police, and firefighters at Ground Zero, it took us aback to have them
stop their work and applaud us as we visited the site in our military
uniforms. Goosebumps aside, that experience truly drove home the bond
between the citizen and the soldier, between all public servants, and
how we're linked--whatever and wherever duty may lead us. In
recruiting, we have always known we're contributing to our Nation's
readiness by recruiting America's finest for America's Air Force; this
cowardly attack on our Nation's soil against thousands of innocents
sharpened our resolve. To underscore that resolve, we have employed our
own component of Operation Noble Eagle throughout our worldwide offices
with its motto that we are ``Recruiting today--to win tomorrow.'' With
your support and resolve, backed by our Nation's determined recruiting
force, we will indeed win.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it has been an honor for me
to present you with testimony on what I consider the key enabler of our
great Nation's air and space power--its recruiters. In summary, coming
off a strong fiscal year 2001, the recruiting mission is poised for
even greater success in fiscal year 2002. Continued funding to support
outreach initiatives and improvements in infrastructure are necessary
to sustain these positive trends. Incorporating and adapting creative
marketing ideas will keep us continuously plugged into America's
awareness. Our new information systems and emerging technologies will
allow for decreased applicant processing time and productivity
increases. With your support, we will fully utilize existing tools
while exploring new paths to improve the processes, support, and
quality of life for our most formidable resource, and the foundation of
our future readiness--the Air Force recruiter. Thank you again for this
opportunity.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, General Brown. You
have touched on some points we want to follow up on.
I would like to recognize Senator McCain for some
questions.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here this morning
and all of the great work that they are doing.
My first comment is that we have 85,000 National Guard and
Reserve men and women who are extended, I guess indefinitely,
over their period of service. I would be interested in the
witnesses' view if that is not a problem over time and a
challenge that we need to meet because of the longevity
associated with the war on terrorism, and if they had any
thoughts. I would be glad to begin with whatever pecking order
is appropriate here.
Senator Cleland. Shall we begin with General Le Moyne.
General Le Moyne. Sir, I will start for the Army and tell
you that we are very concerned about overextending our National
Guard and Reserve men and women. Sir, we do try to regulate the
flow and have a rotational system that allows that without
impinging on their civilian occupations and careers. We do make
adjustments, particularly in the medical professions, for that
directly.
Testimony earlier, sir, made a comment that we are looking
at a 5-year focus on this, and the Army is doing the same
thing. We are very carefully trying to balance what our needs
are today with what we think they will be in the future to
allow this rotation policy to stay vibrant. Sir, it is on our
plate directly.
Senator McCain. Admiral.
Admiral Ryan. Sir, I mentioned in my brief opening remarks
that this is a big concern for the Department of the Navy. We
have had 10,000 of our men and women mobilized very rapidly and
they have performed remarkably. But we do not think that we can
sustain that level for the horizon we are planning on, which is
5 years. So we are rapidly trying, particularly in the force
protection area, to increase the active side of force
protection so that we can draw down the Reserve requirement in
that area and get to a level that we think we could sustain for
a period of time.
We are working very hard on that. It is the CNO's number
one unfunded priority, to get a better blend between our active
and Reserve mix in this particular area. What we intend to do
is to work each one of the Reservists who are mobilized as an
individual and if at the end of 1 year we still need that
particular billet filled, if they want to volunteer we are
going to let them. If they want to get back home to their
business and family, which we assume most of them will want to,
we are going to do our darnedest to let that happen and bring
somebody else on, and do it in that fashion, but very much pay
attention to the individual and do it as an individual
assignment for those that come up, whether or not they want to
say a second year.
We do want to change that blend. We do not have the right
mix right now and we are trying to get that.
General Parks. Senator, we have looked at this very
judiciously from the outset. Starting with a cap of our
intended, estimated picture of 7,500, we have mobilized now in
the vicinity of 4,600. As the Navy is doing, we are looking at
each one as they are coming up on their end of their obligated
time as an individual. Some are electing to stay, some are not.
Senator McCain. Some are being involuntarily extended.
General Parks. We have not gotten to that level yet, sir.
The ones we have brought in, those that have been mobilized,
have been mobilized for up to a year, and we will not cross
that threshold, obviously, until much later.
But we are looking at them as a group and as individuals
within, if they are in a unit, of course as a unit, evaluating
that for the long term. We had the benefit that those who were
activated as individuals were volunteers, and that pool has
evaporated now. We will now have to find more creative ways to
look at it.
We just held a conference last week on those that are
mobilized, looking at the long-term role in how we would face
that for the rest of the time.
General Brown. Sir, it is a huge concern to the Air Force.
As I indicated, we initiated stop loss on the Active-Duty
Force. We actually did it across-the-board, active duty, Guard,
and Reserve. We have about 28,000 mobilized and another 10,000
have volunteered to come on active duty. So we probably have
the highest number of all the services that have come to active
duty. It is a great concern to us.
Senator McCain. Particularly with your requirements to have
these flights over major cities in America.
General Brown. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is
something we ought to make a decision on yet, but one of the
options that we may have to consider in this subcommittee is
increasing end strength. I know how expensive it is, and I know
that the services have not asked for it. I would not expect the
witnesses here to give us that kind of opinion because of the
fact that it is such a very sensitive issue.
But, Mr. Chairman, we may have to look at that, maybe on a
service by service basis. I do not know, but clearly I do not
think we can sustain, particularly as the Air Force has pointed
out, this kind of demand on our Guard and Reserve Forces.
Otherwise we are going to suffer enormously with recruiting and
retention.
I thank you for your consideration. Mr. Chairman, I only
have one more question I would ask the witnesses. I want to
begin by thanking you for co-sponsoring our Call to Service Act
that gives Americans an opportunity to serve their country. I
am very pleased the President has been very involved in leading
in this effort to give Americans an opportunity to serve, and I
want to thank you because no one embodies service more than you
do, Mr. Chairman.
I want to elicit a response from our witnesses. I know they
have been looking at this issue and how it would fit in.
Putting it in the context, we have a long way to go, a lot of
hearings to conduct before we finish this. The President has
made national service a priority. In my view a key element of
it, besides Americorps, the Peace Corps, the Senior Service
Corps, and all the others, would be an opportunity for
Americans to serve in the military.
We are not wedded to a specific proposal. That is why we
have asked you to look at this. Yet we want this proposal to
maintain a careful balance between service to country and a
compensation reward component, but that not being the
incentive. Otherwise we lose the whole idea of what national
service should be all about.
So I would like to ask the witnesses for their general
thoughts on the subject and any ideas they would like to render
at this time or for the record, recognizing we are going to go
through a process here that does not require definitive answers
at this moment in time. But since these witnesses are the ones
who have been charged with the most serious responsibility of
the men and women in our military, I think they are best
equipped to respond.
I thank you for your courtesy in allowing me to do this,
Mr. Chairman.
General Le Moyne.
General Le Moyne. Yes, sir. We have discussed this, and the
Army's position is that the call to national service strikes a
tone, and we think a very good one. From this, sir, we think
that there will be a growing propensity of America's youth, men
and women, to look at the military as service. So in the call
to national service there is definitely a military part to
this, and we look forward to working this thing out.
Senator McCain. There is obviously, in the context of
homeland security, a requirement for men and women to preserve
homeland security. If you look at our ports, our borders, our
power plants, our reservoirs, there are enormous requirements
out there and they are personnel requirements, many of them. I
do not know if you wanted to add anything to that, General.
General Le Moyne. On the specifics, sir, I do not. But we
endorse that call to national service and certainly the
military part of that. Wherever we find the requirements, we
have to fill them. Each of us may be slightly different where
the need may be.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Admiral.
Admiral Ryan. Senator, three quick thoughts. First, the
bottom line: Sign the Navy up. Number 2, thank you for your
leadership on this. Then I would say finally, we think this has
a lot of merit, not only in exposing men and women to
connection to the Armed Services, but frankly we are looking
for something that would also expose men and women to service
in our Reserve. We think this fits very nicely with what we are
trying to do and where we are trying to go with the Reserve
also. It has really good implications for where we want to go,
and we are ready to sign up and work with you on it.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Admiral.
General Parks. Senator, I think from our approach I would
simply reinforce that service in the military is national
service, and as we look at extending this there are additional
opportunities here to continue to serve our Nation. It follows
the national patriotism that we have all felt so vibrantly
recently. It may provide an additional opportunity to narrow
either a perceived gap or a real gap between military and
civilian.
I think there are clearly opportunities there. As was
mentioned, as we craft this we may need some tweaks that fit
each service and each service's culture so that it parallels
the former panel that we had and what they are selling, if you
will, on a daily basis. But I think there is opportunity there,
sir.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
General.
General Brown. Senator McCain, the Air Force absolutely
applauds the concept of national service. We think that our
country would benefit. As we heard the young recruiters
earlier, you were not in the room, but they talked about part
of their need was to get a generation that would think about
patriotism, think about service to country. National service
would do that sort of thing for this young generation today,
the same thing that the greatest generation and the generation
we served in thought about.
So there is no doubt national service would be tremendous
for our Nation and the Air Force would want to play a role in
that.
Senator McCain. I thank all the witnesses.
I just want to make one additional point that I know that
you have thought about, that we have to get around. The
criticism against this concept will be that you are creating
two classes of men and women in the military. I do not think
that that holds water, but we are already starting to hear it.
I would hope that the recommendations and ideas that you come
up with would address that aspect of it as well. I think that
any American who is charged with homeland security feels that
they are carrying out a vital and necessary mission for the
security of our fellow citizens.
I thank you. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
time.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Senator McCain. I want you to
know that it is an honor to co-sponsor your legislation. I
think it is timely, no more timely than the challenges we face
since September 11. Thank you for your leadership. No one
personifies service to this great Nation, both in terms of
military service and as a civilian, than you do, and it is an
honor just to sit at the same table with you here and discuss
the issue.
I was just thinking about what you brought to my mind, that
national service seems to embody a continuum. It can be
civilian service, it can be homeland defense civilian service,
it can be military service. Looking at my own family history
here, my father was an original member of the CCC, the Civilian
Conservation Corps that Roosevelt created in 1934. That was a
civilian part of the service where he learned a trade and a
skill, which was as a truck driver. If you were just off the
farm in the Great Depression, that was a pretty good skill,
which he applied to get his first job.
Second, at one time in the early part of World War II he
was a security guard at the old Bell bomber plant, which is now
Lockheed Martin, guarding the mockup of the B-29. That was kind
of like a homeland security role. Then of course, he joined the
Navy and was stationed at Pearl Harbor after the attack.
In effect my own father did the whole thing. I grew up with
the spirit of national service at every level. I think it is a
classic American trait to be interested in all parts of
national service and I think this is a great model that we can
evolve, and we will need your help and input as we go along.
Any further questions from the Senator from Arizona?
Senator McCain. No, thank you.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
Let me follow up on the end strength question. I asked the
Chiefs when they came before the Armed Services Committee about
being in effect under strength for the new missions that we are
accomplishing now. I mentioned that a couple years ago Senator
Pat Roberts and I took the floor of the Senate five or six
times and talked about the overextension or the almost
hyperextension of American forces in our global reach around
the world.
Then we were just engaged in Bosnia and Kosovo with the
Balkan war. Now we are in Afghanistan. We are still pursuing
our initial objective there, Osama bin Laden and the terrorist
cadre. We have made a lot of progress, but we are very much
committed there and very much involved there.
Lord knows what is going to happen in the Middle East. Tom
Friedman in the New York Times today talks about a U.S.
occupation force separating the Israelis and the Palestinians,
in effect guaranteeing certain security there, as well as an
occupation force in Afghanistan, creating security there. In
other words, every time you turn around it looks like the
American military forces are called upon to do more and more,
in many ways with less and less.
In the direct questioning with the Chiefs, the Chief of
Staff of the Army mentioned that he felt he was 40,000 troops
short. That is a lot of folks. That is about three or four
divisions at least. That is a powerful undermanning.
We went to the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and
so forth, all of which felt that they needed more troops. If
you added all that up, that is more than 50,000 members of the
United States military that are underfunded or undermanned.
I do not want to get you involved in that, except to ask
you the question, if we somehow added powerfully to our end
strength in order to meet these challenges to our national
security abroad and our extension, almost hyperextension, of
the American military abroad, would you be able to then recruit
that kind of force? What would you need from Congress, any
particular thing, any particular new wrinkle, in order to do
that?
If you had to add, General Le Moyne, 40,000 troops to the
United States Army in the next year to fulfil some obligation--
Afghanistan, the Middle East, or some other contingency plan
that we run into--could you do that and what would it take?
Tell us some of the challenges you would face.
General Le Moyne. Sir, let me give you a snapshot. Then I
will turn it over to General Rochelle, who is our Chief of
Recruiting, because he has the details, and he has also been a
recruiter.
Right now, sir, Congress gave us the latitude to have a
plus or minus 2 percent strength above our baseline. We are on
a glide path right now, sir, to finish this year about 5,000
over our baseline of 480,000. That is a prudent, measured, well
managed increase overall and inside the limits that Congress
has given us.
The Secretary of Defense has asked us to look internally
first. Sir, we are doing that, to see where we can make the
adjustments based on the change in conditions that you just
alluded to. Once we have done that, sir, I think we will come
back to you with a hard figure. A prudent ramp-up of about
5,000 a year is what we are doing right now and that allows us
to stay inside our training base constraints and our budget
cycle.
If you want to go to 40,000 a year, sir, I will turn that
over to Mike Rochelle to talk about what he thinks we need as
far as plus-ups.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
General Rochelle. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me take
this opportunity to thank you on behalf of the 7,200 Army
recruiters across our country for whom you and this
subcommittee and Congress in general have absolutely done
magnificent things in the last several years. Those incentives,
the support, predominantly are the reason why we are in such
magnificent shape in recruiting the strength that the Army
needs today. I want to thank you on their behalf.
As General Le Moyne said, we are currently programmed to
come in about 5,000 above where we thought we were going to be
at the beginning of the year. I would submit to you that the
incentives we have in place and the magnificent young
recruiters, Sergeant Gwyn being a magnificent example of those,
are the reasons why we are on that excellent ramp.
Whether or not we could achieve 40,000 in a single year, I
am not prepared to answer that right now. Clearly it would
require a review of all of our incentives, vis-a-vis national
service incentives, so that there might be a natural synergy
created between them. We may even at that point have to look at
additional recruiter resources to be able to reach a larger
segment of America more effectively than we can today.
Senator Cleland. Admiral Ryan, if you had to crank up and
bring in 8,000 more people in the Navy in the next year, what
would it take to do that?
Admiral Ryan. I will turn it over to Admiral Voelker, but
just to give you a snapshot, Senator, right now we are funded
for 376,000. We expect to end the year at 382,000, 6,000 above
that. We have had no trouble recruiting the number of
individuals we need or, as I mentioned, in retaining people. So
all our vectors are in the right direction.
With the number of Reserves we have on active duty, we are
actually at 390,000. The CNO's number one unfunded priority is
4,400 more people. I think if you gave Admiral Voelker the same
sort of level funding that you have now in advertising and
recruiter support, he has made his goal for 3 years in a row,
his new contract objective. Our delayed entry program is
rising. That means we have more and more of a bench waiting to
come in the service.
I think we could certainly confidently bring in 4,000 more
if we had to, but frankly I already have the people in the
service right now.
George, would you want to add anything?
Admiral Voelker. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo General
Rochelle's comment about our gratitude in the Navy Recruiting
Command for all that you have provided us in allowing us to be
successful. The 5,000 enlisted production recruiters that we
have today across from Italy on the east side to Yokosuka,
Japan, on the west side and the 350 or so officer recruiters
are getting the job done, as Admiral Ryan has indicated.
I share General Rochelle's comments about the need for
potentially additional inducements or incentives, but primarily
I would say that the most important thing we should do is, if
we go back historically and look at recruiting over the years,
what we find is that it is a very cyclical business. We see a
significant rise in resources and then as the services begin to
make their goals or the outside dynamics change, we see a
reduction in resources.
I think the cyclical nature of that business ends up
hurting us, and when we get behind the power curve when the
requirement for accessions goes up that seems to happen more
quickly than the resources get turned on and we end up
potentially in a situation where we are unable to execute. So I
think stability of resources is an important thing to help us
over the long haul continue to be successful and remain
postured for success in the event of an increase of an
accession mission.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
General Parks, I think the budget actually provides about
3,400 or 3,500 additional marines. I gather you are able to
handle that?
General Parks. Sir, to be specific, we have been studying
our end strength now for a number of years and wanted to ensure
that we looked internally first before we came and asked for
additional end strength. As a result, as a direct outgrowth of
September 11, we stood up a new unit, the Fourth Marine
Expeditionary Brigade, Anti-Terrorism. It has been used in
multiple areas already and clearly proven its worth.
That cost us about 2,400 marines. Because of that, we asked
for that and that is the figure that you just alluded to that
is in the budget for another 2,400 end strength, which would
take us from 172,600 to 175,000 for fiscal year 2003. We are
absolutely confident that we can recruit to that level, and the
time line and the specifics of that, I will ask General Humble
to address that.
General Humble. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to
acknowledge the efforts of the committee over the years, which
has helped us sustain almost 7 years of success in our
recruiting efforts. The funding you put in a couple years ago
for advertising and marketing really has paid off now, I think,
for all the services.
To answer your question about the ability to recruit to the
needs of the Marine Corps, absolutely, we could accomplish that
this year if we had the funding to reach that end strength of
2,400 more marines.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
General Brown.
General Brown. Sir, our former Chief, General Ryan, even
before September 11 this past summer had indicated and gone on
record that he thought that our Air Force needed about another
10,000 with the new missions that had come on board and the new
requirements that we were being asked of around the world. That
was before September 11. Now, since September 11, we have done
a relook and again, like the other services, looked at what
kind of strength we need to sustain the current activity in
future and what is the realm of the possibility.
I will tell you, the strength number over the FYDP we think
we might need is even greater than that 10,000 that the Chief,
General Ryan, talked about last summer. I will let Duane Deal
talk a little bit specifically about what we can handle within
the Recruiting Command and the Training Command to absorb those
young recruits, because we have a goal for this year. I have to
also add that Secretary Rumsfeld, as we have gone in and talked
to him about end strength for this year, has asked us all to
first relook to see if we can solve some of the problems from
within. That is why I talked about the transformation that we
are trying to look at, the things that we could stop doing and
turn uniforms into the requirements that we need.
Let me let General Deal talk about specifically what we
could accomplish if given the opportunity to raise end
strength.
General Deal. Sir, I share exactly and echo what my
counterparts have already said, expressing extreme gratitude
for the work of this committee and yourself. We have come a
long way since the dark days of fiscal year 1999 when the Air
Force missed its goal for the first time in 20 years. We have
exceeded the goal the last 2 years. As a matter of fact, as we
sit today, between those we have already brought on active duty
in this fiscal year and those on contract, we are above 90
percent. We are well poised to finish this year well ahead of
goal as well. We thank you for that.
General Brown alluded somewhat to what we are already doing
within the Air Force in the event we are given the go-ahead to
access more people. We have had what we call a long haul task
force in place and steering groups examining what the needs
would be if we are given a green light to go ahead. Most of it,
as you would well expect, boils down to resource needs.
In the Recruiting Service by itself, as General Rochelle
was talking, in the Air Force we are poised for a surge. We
could surge up with our current number of recruiters, which is
resting around 1,600 right now, we could surge up to
approximately 40,000 new accessions. However, that would be for
a short time period, when we start burning people out with the
same type of recruits per recruiter per month that we had back
in 1999 when we missed the goal. We are poised for a surge, but
not to sustain.
Part of what this long haul task force has done is that it
looked at what it will take for different levels of accessions.
Some of it will involve, as my counterparts have said,
additional incentives. We will need more marketing emphasis out
there to reach and make sure the American public is aware of
our needs, and we will also need to plus up our recruiter
numbers.
Then, as General Brown was mentioning, that is only the
front of the pipeline here, sir. We would have to look at the
rest of our pipeline, which involves physical plants,
throughput at our different training facilities, bed space,
meals, you name it, everything involved logistically putting
people through our training pipeline.
But we are poised to do that should we be given the green
light. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
I really do believe that we are approaching a critical
point here in terms of management of our personnel with the
missions that we have picked up. I was concerned back with the
Bosnian incursion. Then I was additionally concerned with the
expansion into Kosovo and the Balkan war. Now I am really
concerned with the war in Afghanistan and in effect a permanent
war against terrorism, which is our worst nightmare. It drives
your planners nuts, it drives us nuts. What is the end game,
how many people, go where, do what? All those questions are on
the table.
I am beginning to be concerned about burnout. General Le
Moyne, great commander of our infantry school down at Fort
Benning, thank you for your service there. I am beginning to
pick up things about assignments to Korea, where we have been
in effect manning the ramparts for well over 50 years at a
pretty high rate of readiness and focus, which is still to some
extent required. As they say, ready to fight tonight. That is a
tremendous strain on the people there.
General Le Moyne, I hear that officers, senior enlisted,
are beginning to turn down assignments to Korea, leadership
opportunities, promotional opportunities, command
opportunities, everything that we train everyone to want. When
it seems to come to Korea, there is a pushback, there is a
backoff, there is termination of service.
I wonder in terms of assignment--I guess it has to do with
the officer corps--if the Army has thought about maybe a 12-
month assignment instead of a 2-year assignment there. I am
sure you have looked at this from time to time, and your good
colleague there may want to comment. With all the other
commitments around the world the United States Army has and the
pressure that the people in Korea feel, is there some ray of
hope here that you could give us in terms of some hope that we
will not see burnout to the extent that we are seeing it now?
General Le Moyne. Yes, sir, I can address it specifically
Army-wide and also about Korea. We are watching our force
requirements very carefully, sir, and then moderating that both
with the Guard and Reserve callups and our Active force to see
what the balance is. As we have said earlier, we are looking at
a 5-year focus right now.
As the force requirements generate from that, we will see
what the force availability is. From that, sir, we will have to
make the adjustments. We may change our structure based on
that. We may come to you and request permission to adjust our
Guard or our Reserve and our Active forces.
Specifically for Korea, sir, we had a spike last year in
command declinations. Specifically, we had five for Korea in
the brigade command level, which surprised us. Three officers
turned down the same command and two officers turned down a
second command. It made us look at how we do our notification
process and the options those officers have. We have changed
that process to give them more latitude, so it is not a career-
ender, so they have time to discuss it with their families and
their extended family and look at the impacts across-the-board.
We think this will make a difference for us. Those policies
went into effect this year.
We had a no-show rate in Korea of 21 percent. That is now
down to 17 percent for all people on orders. Most of that is
predicated on, a soldier gets orders, and his commander has an
alert notice to go somewhere else; the commander will ask us to
take them off orders to keep that soldier to do something else
for a 6-month or a 12-month period. But that is now down to 17
percent.
Better news is the fact that the requests to extend in
Korea has risen. We implemented a $2,000 bonus for enlisted
personnel that want to extend in Korea and that has increased
their extensions about 10 percent. That shows a very positive
sign for us. We are looking at other options we can do to
increase that.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
General Brown, can we talk a little bit about integration
and pilots?
General Brown. Yes, sir. You have hit on a real key issue
for both the Army and the Air Force, since we have the bulk of
the folks stationed in Korea. I will go into the pilot side,
too. I just came from being the commander of the personnel
center, which is down in San Antonio, and our main job there is
handing out assignments and promotions, all the execution part
of the personnel business. I will tell you that the single
biggest problem we have in the assignment business is putting
those 10,000 folks onto those remote assignments in Korea.
That is probably one of the single toughest issues driving
our assignment system.
We have been constantly looking at what can we do about
that, looking at incentives that we can give for a Korea
assignment. We are clearly a much more married force, as all of
us are today, than we were when we were all younger. We recruit
the individual, we retain the family. The biggest problem with
the Korea assignment is the bulk of the people that go there go
without their families. We have folks who continually raise
their hand and go, but that is a tougher issue today than it
ever was before in our past.
We need to look at more incentives, more ways to encourage
folks to serve us there, because we still have heavy
requirements.
The pilots that go to Korea, they actually enjoy the tours,
and once they get there they have some of the best flying that
they get and some of the top-notch operational flying. But many
of them go without families, so that makes it difficult. Mama
ain't happy, nobody is happy.
So Korea is a tough issue. Across-the-board for our pilot
force, right now they are more active than they have ever been.
They are deployed all over the world. You talk to the younger
jock, he or she that is out in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or
Korea, they love the camaraderie, they love the focus and the
fact they have a mission, and they know what mission they need
to accomplish.
But we are starting to press the burnout, because they have
been deployed for a long time. They might come home for a few
months and then they are back deployed again on another mission
somewhere else. That is a big concern to us in the Air Force
today.
Senator Cleland. You are 1,400 pilots short.
General Brown. Sir, we started fiscal year 2001 a little
over 1,200 short. We expect to finish this year, 2002, at about
900 short. Actually we are going to have a net increase of
around 300 pilots, because our retention is up and, as I
indicated, we have had 100 pilots come back and rejoin the Air
Force that had either separated or retired.
So the trend is in the right direction, but we are still
under strength in the pilot force. We still must stay with an
1,100 pilot production every year. We must constantly go out
and recruit young pilots.
Senator Cleland. We appreciate Moody Air Force Base
returning in many ways to its original mission in World War II,
and that is training pilots.
General Brown. Sir, it is a great base and one that we
treasure.
Senator Cleland. I was in Georgia at Warner Robins Air
Force Base with General Jumper, who actually went through Moody
as a young pilot.
I would like to go across-the-board now and talk about
aviation and pilot retention. What should we in Congress be
thinking about that we have not done before in terms of
retention? This can include the jets as well as chopper pilots
and so forth. General Humble, do you have any ideas that you
want to share with us?
General Humble. Well, sir, coming from Recruiting Command,
we recruit a lot of pilots, and I have a lot of pilots that
work for me as recruiters and so forth. I think the family life
and the salaries we pay are important factors. They do enjoy,
as General Brown said, the mission and flying, but when it
comes to the family, pay raises, those things do have an impact
for our pilots. Having commanded in the operational forces, our
pilots enjoy their missions, but life at home and what they are
compensated is awfully important.
Senator Cleland. Thanks.
General Parks, anything to add to that?
General Parks. Yes, sir, I do. We have instituted aviation
continuation pay and that has had a big impact on the retention
of our pilots, particularly among our rotary wing and our naval
flight officers. The challenge that we face, as the Air Force
faces, are fixed wing pilots because the opportunity for them
to make a considerably increased pay is there, and it is at a
later level in their career than it used to be because of the
opportunities in the aviation industry.
Obviously, as a direct result of September 11 that has been
muted somewhat for the near term, but, as has been mentioned by
a number of folks, these are behavioral decisions, they are
family decisions. They are people trying to do the very best
they possibly can. They love what they do. They love the
service. But economically, they are able to find a different
opportunity and can net the same result later in their career
than they have been able to previously.
Senator Cleland. That was a point that drove me to pursue
the whole transferability issue as a spousal and family issue.
The service man or woman, if they are going to stay in, they
are going to be pretty much taken care of in their 20- or 30-
year career in the military in terms of opportunities for
education and bootstrapping and so forth. But the GI bill is
only 50 percent used by American military forces, and what a
great tool it is. If you allow for the transfer, all of a
sudden it becomes an arrow in your quiver to allow the spouse
to be educated.
The concern that I have heard, where that pilot,
particularly an aviator, has been in 8 or 9 years, they come in
with tears in their eyes and salute and say: Sir, I have to get
out. Why? Not because you are scared, not because you do not
like flying. You love the missions, and you are doing what you
are trained to do. It is: But my wife and kids, and then it
goes on from there, particularly the kids. They are thinking
about, if I stay in 13 more years or so, how am I going to
educate Sam and Suzy, where am I going to get the money and so
forth.
All of a sudden, about that particular period of time, it
seems to me, there is a pressure point for senior enlisted,
senior captains, particularly aviators. They begin thinking
about the family and particularly the kids. That is why I was
trying to provide the service secretaries the option of taking
up the issue of transferability, so that we could help the
families to have a reason to stay in, not get out.
Is that pretty much on target, General Parks, as far as you
know?
General Parks. Sir, I appreciate your creativity in looking
at that, as you alluded to, the latitude to look at things
differently in the way we package them. We think that this
transferability idea may well be very popular. We are working
with OSD in that regard and going to do an internal poll to
find out the desirability of the MGIB transferability vis a vis
our selective reenlistment bonus vis a vis the savings
education program, the U.S. savings bond plan, to see what the
take rate would be, what the interest level is, following which
then we can go out and budget for that, because of course we
are not currently budgeting for that.
Yet the other side, we have to balance that against the
aspect of the desire to have that for all marines, because
otherwise we create different communities of the haves and
have-nots. So these are very delicate ecosystems that we are
dealing with and we have to make sure that we get it right.
Senator Cleland. We would appreciate that feedback from all
of you here. It is just we are all struggling with the same
bear and some have a foot, some have a neck, and we see it
differently. But any feedback you can give the committee based
on your studies, your polling data, your surveys, and your
feedback from the troops would be welcome.
Admiral Ryan, any particular comment on this point,
particularly in relation to aviators? Are we doing good things
by our aviators? What else can we do?
Admiral Ryan. I would say first of all, to echo what
General Brown has said, we have a shortage of 600 pilots in the
Navy. It was not necessarily a retention problem initially. It
was that we did not bring enough in the mid-1990s, so we are
short 600 pilots right now.
What has helped is the support of Congress in giving us the
bonus program and last year allowing us to offer the bonus 1
year early. We have a 10 percent increase in our pilot
retention rate overall since we have implemented the bonus
program.
What the CNO and the Secretary of the Navy are trying to do
is also take on the issue that you alluded to, the concern over
the quality of service, as we call it: Do they have a good
plane to fly with plenty of parts and plenty of gas? Do they
have a good mission, and have we balanced their time between
deployments?
As we have gone from a 600-ship Navy to a 315-ship Navy, we
have gone from having 20 percent of our ships deployed to
having one-third of our ships deployed, as they are today. So
we are in a very busy tempo of operations. What we need to do
is keep that in balance and make sure that we provide quality
service for those men and women and their families.
I think Congress has done a lot. We are headed in the right
direction with the program that we have now. I think we just
have to sustain it.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
Admiral Voelker, anything you would like to add?
Admiral Voelker. Nothing to add, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. General Le Moyne?
General Le Moyne. Sir, we are about 500 warrant officers
short. Most of those are aviators. We have had a selective
recall for those that wanted to come back in. That has had some
success for us. We have had continuation of service to allow
those to stay that were not subject to promotion. Like the
other services, we have added to our aviation incentive pay at
the mid-career level and that is having an impact on us.
We also have an initial entry program for our recruiters to
enlist young men and women who want to join the Army to be
aviation warrants. Mike handles that for us, sir. I will let
him address that.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
General Rochelle. Sir, thank you for the opportunity. That
is a very popular program. It is our means within the Army to
expand rather quickly our aviation warrant officer assets. As
General Le Moyne said, we have both technical warrants, who are
military intelligence and other specialties as well as
aviators, but we are the only service that allows an individual
to walk right out of a high school graduation ceremony and
literally, if you will, into the front seat or cockpit of a
helicopter or a fixed wing aircraft. That is a powerful seller
for us, very powerful.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
We will end the hearing now. I just want to thank you all
for your service considering the tremendous pressure that you
are under, to take all of these challenges and try to meet them
up with resources and innovative ways to keep our military
staffed with the best people in the world.
Thank you very much for coming. The subcommittee is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
nascar sponsorship
1. Senator Levin. Admiral Ryan, the Navy has experienced great
success using NASCAR sponsorship to support its retention program.
Other services report even greater success using NASCAR sponsorship as
a recruiting tool. It is apparent that NASCAR racing appeals to the
target audience for our military recruiters.
Has the Navy considered expanding is NASCAR sponsorship to support
its recruiting effort?
Admiral Ryan. Navy has considered expanding sponsorship to support
recruiting but has chosen to remain in other advertising venues (such
as television and radio). Research by Navy's recruiting staff and our
advertising agency has shown that the Craftsman Truck Series is not the
venue to reach the target market. However, the recruiting advertising
team is watching the NASCAR retention initiative closely. Given the
limited advertising budget and the cost of a NASCAR or affiliate
sponsorship, participation would result in significant cuts in other
advertising venues.
2. Senator Levin. Admiral Ryan, the Navy has experienced great
success using NASCAR sponsorship to support its retention program.
Other services report even greater success using NASCAR sponsorship as
a recruiting tool. It is apparent that NASCAR racing appeals to the
target audience for our military recruiters.
Why does the Navy limit NASCAR sponsorship to its retention
program?
Admiral Ryan. The Navy has limited its NASCAR sponsorship to
retention because it has not demonstrated a competitive return on
investment compared to other recruiting advertising efforts. Research
by Navy's recruiting staff and our advertising agency has shown that
the Craftsman Truck Series is not the venue to reach our target market.
The extent of the retention office's successful sponsorship has been
difficult to gauge. However, we are watching this effort with interest.
Given the limited advertising budget for CNRC and the cost of a NASCAR
or affiliate sponsorship, participation would result in significant
cuts in other advertising venues (such as television and radio).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
stop loss
3. Senator Allard. General Brown, in your written testimony, you
state that ``it is imperative that we address the need to meet our
warfighting requirements in the near term to enable the release of stop
loss specialties. . .'' Additionally, the Air Force Chief of Staff's
message on September 22, 2002 stated: ``I do not take this
extraordinary step lightly and we will remove stop loss provisions as
soon as operational requirements allow.'' I commend the Air Force for
permitting members to request waivers to this stop loss, and I
understand that to date the Air Force has approved 80 percent of the
stop loss waivers. However, I'm concerned about the remaining 20
percent who haven't been approved. These men and women have served
their country proudly, and deserve to be treated fairly and
consistently. What factors are considered when granting a waiver from
stop loss?
General Brown. By direction of the Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, waiver approval/disapproval authority
resides with commanders and vice commanders of our major commands
(MAJCOMs). The decision to have this authority maintained at this high
level was multi-fold: (1) these senior leaders have knowledge regarding
current AF and MAJCOM requirements; (2) assigning them waiver authority
assures they remain in touch with the field; and (3) offers more
consistent approval/disapproval actions from MAJCOM to MAJCOM. Primary
factors each commander considers prior to rendering a waiver decision
are current mission requirements, manning, backfill availability, and
personal issues (family, job, etc).
4. Senator Allard. General Brown, for those members who are in
critical career fields, how is the Air Force ensuring that authorities
granting waivers are being consistent across the Air Force?
General Brown. Our primary tool to aid in the consistency of such
decisions is maintaining approval/disapproval authority at the major
command commander and vice commander level. This limits the number of
``voices'' in the process. In addition, we have suggested those items
which should be considered in the approval/disapproval process (current
mission requirements, manning, backfill availability, and personal
issues).
5. Senator Allard. General Brown, what steps is the Air Force
taking to enable the release of stop loss specialties?
General Brown. As of 9 April, we have conducted three full reviews
of specialties to determine which could be released from stop loss
without mission degradation. We plan to continue these reviews every 60
days. During each review, we solicit input from each MAJCOM, Air Staff
and Secretariat functional, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, and
the Air Force Personnel Center. These inputs are reviewed along with
data on requirements, manning, and mobilization and release
recommendations are made to the CSAF and SAF/MR for approval. To date
we have released 61 officer and 99 enlisted specialties from stop loss.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
air force warfighting activities
6. Senator Collins. General Brown, in your testimony you stated
that the Air Force is looking at ways to move more personnel from
support activities (``the tail'') to warfighting activities (``the
tooth''). Please discuss further, the options you're currently
reviewing to accomplish this.
General Brown. The Air Force is actively examining the additive
requirement impacts brought on by Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring
Freedom. The initial work is focusing on how the Air Force is
structured to meet the six AF core competencies: aerospace superiority,
agile combat support, global attack, information superiority, precision
engagement, and rapid global mobility. We are examining these areas to
determine if some military authorizations could be reallocated to these
military core competencies and the resulting vacancies converted to
civilian or contractor support.
military recruiter access
7. Senator Collins. Sergeant Gwyn, Petty Officer Piatek, Sergeant
Parker, and Sergeant Quintana, last year (fiscal year 2001) the
National Defense Authorization Act contained a provision, starting in
July 2002, which would require all secondary schools to allow military
recruiters access to campus and school directories for recruiting
purposes. This committee continues to follow the issue, and I would
like to ask each of you about your current ability to access secondary
schools campuses and their directories. Is the word getting out, in
regard to the fiscal year 2001 law requiring access, and if granted
access, how are these ``tools'' assisting you in your job as a
recruiter?
Sergeant Gwyn. It is better than it used to be. Every month the
number of schools that deny access is being reduced. My understanding
is that there will be fewer than 500 schools that deny access by July,
down from over 6,000. The reasons schools deny access are varied, which
makes a blanket solution difficult. I think recruiting personnel should
continue to make an effort to meet with educators, guidance counselors,
and school board members as often as possible, to keep the lines of
communication open.
In my area, there are six high schools. Most are good about
allowing us access, but one of the schools follows the letter of the
law. That is, they only allow us access 2 days a year, 1 day each
semester. On that day we're allowed into the cafeteria to set up a
table display where the students can come up to us. The schools still
see us as pulling their students away from the college track, so we
don't get directory information. Sometimes we get a list of names and
addresses, no ages, no phone numbers--so we can send out a mailing.
What would help? I guess a good definition of the terms ``access''
and ``directory information'' written into the law.
Petty Officer Piatek. The new legislation is a great step in the
right direction and will enable recruiters to contact more possible
candidates. I have approached the principals of all of my schools
regarding their current policy. Each has responded in similar fashion
stating that a Board of Education Policy restricts release of their
name lists and that name lists will not be provided to anyone for any
reason. My concern is that the law allows school boards to vote and if
the majority decides not to, name lists do not have to be released.
Access to name lists would free up a considerable amount of time that
is currently spent obtaining the same names through other methods.
Access to name lists does not force students to join the military, but
simply allows them to become aware of career opportunities available to
them through military service.
Sergeant Parker. Yes, the word is getting out in regard to the
fiscal year law requiring access. When directory information is
granted, it greatly assists me in doing my job as a recruiter.
Sergeant Quintana. Yes, it has become increasingly easier to access
schools.
recruiting tools
8. Senator Collins. Sergeant Gwyn, Petty Officer Piatek, Sergeant
Parker, and Sergeant Quintana, I would like to extend my appreciation
for your service to our country in your difficult job as a recruiter.
Congress has looked and continues to look at military personnel quality
of life. In recent years we have increased pay and housing allowance
and established healthcare initiatives to provide ``TRICARE for Life.''
These are part of an overall benefits package to provide our men and
women in uniform a quality total compensation package. As a recruiter,
are these initiatives helping in your ability to recruit quality
personnel? Further, if required, what other tools are needed to recruit
these highly skilled candidates?
Sergeant Gwyn. As the word gets out, people understand that the
military is trying to be more competitive in terms of total benefits.
Anytime recruiters talk to prospects about the Army, they get questions
about lifestyle and medical care. The single prospects ask about the
barracks, education services, and entertainment. Questions about
housing, the commissary, and medical care more often come from the
married applicants, those who have a family.
We need state-of-the-art portable computers and cell phones to
demonstrate in a visible way how ``high tech'' we are. We need to keep
our stations in good shape and to be located in high traffic areas.
As for recruiting highly-skilled candidates, we need to keep
monetary incentives attractive, because highly-skilled candidates have
so many options to choose from.
Petty Officer Piatek. Quality of life is extremely important to
potential military applicants. They ask ``What are living conditions
like?,'' or ``What is the food like?,'' and so forth. I find myself
describing military life as an unbeatable package deal. No one thing
makes the applicant join; it is usually a combination of college
benefits, pay, training, trade experience, etc. TRICARE for Life is
great, but most single young applicants don't care about health
benefits. They are young and feel invincible. Pay is a much larger
factor, and despite recent improvements, there is still need for
improvement to effectively compete with the civilian sector. The most
common reasons a prospect does not join are the desire to continue
their education and the military's low starting salary. I believe
improved compensation packages would greatly enhance our recruiting
abilities.
Sergeant Parker. Yes, these initiatives help me in my ability to
recruit quality personnel. Quality day care on base would be another
tool that would greatly enhance my ability to recruit highly skilled
candidates. The day care must be affordable, certified, and accessible.
As most young marines in their first enlistment are married with
children, quality day care would increase job effectiveness, provide a
healthy home environment, and assist in the recruitment of new marines.
Sergeant Quintana. Absolutely. Pay and healthcare are two issues
recruits often ask about. With regard to other needed tools, I think
education is the benefit prospective recruits most often ask about. A
continued focus on college loan repayment, funding for tuition
assistance, and a healthy Montgomery GI Bill make it much easier to
recruit.
aviator shortfall
9. Senator Collins. Admiral Ryan, General Brown, Admiral Voelker,
and General Deal, in your testimony you provide information on
retention shortfalls of aviators (Navy 600 and Air Force 1,200 aviator
deficit). Since the events of September 11, you also state that these
shortfalls have decreased somewhat, because numerous aviators have
decided to stay on active duty service in support of the global war on
terrorism. Further, you state that recruitment goals for aviators have
been met for fiscal year 2002. It appears that the quality of service,
quality of life, and civilian opportunities are part of a complex
retention problem.
Could you elaborate on initiatives your services are taking to
create more favorable conditions for quality of service (i.e. aircraft,
spare parts for aircraft, OPTEMPO, etc.) and compensation packages for
this critical skill?
Admiral Ryan and Admiral Voelker. Aviators are staying Navy at the
highest rate in 12 years and their decision to do so is based on a
combination of factors. The 68 aviator resignations to date for fiscal
year 2003, represents a 50 percent decrease from this point in fiscal
year 2002. Aviation retention, currently at 42 percent, is 5 percentage
points higher than fiscal year 2001 and 11 percentage points higher
than fiscal year 1999. Additionally, 94 aviators have pulled their
resignation requests since September 11. Our ability to recruit the
next generation of pilots and Naval Flight Officers (NFO) has also seen
a dramatic turnaround. Last year, at this time, Navy still needed to
recruit 66 NFOs and 51 pilots to meet fiscal year 2001 accession goal.
Not only have we met fiscal year 2002 accession goals, but we have
accessed 104 NFOs and 256 pilots for fiscal year 2003, or 38 percent
and 72 percent of fiscal year 2003 goals, respectively.
Much of this success can be attributed to a variety of robust
compensation initiatives including increases in basic pay, career sea
pay, and Aviation Career Continuation Pay (ACCP), as well as the
opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan.
Navy's primary weapon to retain aviators continues to be ACCP.
Introduced in November 1999, this has been Navy's key retention tool in
meeting current and projected aviator requirements and has proven
successful in improving aggregate aviator retention by 11 percentage
points above pre-ACCP levels.
While extremely pleased with the turnaround in aviator retention,
we remain 600 aviators short of overall requirements, and 1,000 short
of junior aviator requirements (O-1 to O-3). Consequently, we must
retain in excess of historic requirements to counter this deficit and
ACCP will be our most effective tool for accomplishing this.
Navy continues focusing on improving availability of aviation spare
parts. This has contributed to a 27 percent reduction in material
backorders and over 40 percent reduction in average customer wait time
to fill critical requirements in the past 2 years. Also contributing to
improving trends is the Defense Logistics Agency's aviation related
inventory augmentation initiative. It committed $500 million across DOD
toward aviation material, $190 million of which is for Navy peculiar
material.
Naval aviation is working hard to ensure we have enough pilots,
NFOs, and crew to fight our Nation's global war on terrorism. Community
performance and retention data show these efforts are paying off.
General Brown. The Air Force has a multi-faceted approach to ``hold
the line'' on the pilot shortage amidst today's challenging retention
environment. These initiatives include both management initiatives to
improve the quality of service, as well as compensation initiatives.
The specific steps taken to address the pilot shortage include
increasing compensation for pilots (through the pilot bonus program),
sustained pilot production at 1,100 per year, increasing the active
duty service commitment for pilot training from 8 to 10 years, working
to better manage OPTEMPO through the Expeditionary Air Force construct.
The pilot bonus program, officially called the Aviator Career
Continuation Pay program, has proven to be a viable, cost-effective,
and vital means to positively influence the retention behavior of
experienced Air Force aviators, ensuring better force predictability
and ultimately protecting inventory and combat capability. Of note, the
rate at which pilots have accepted agreements to remain in the Air
Force has increased significantly since September 11. Among those
initially eligible to sign an agreement, the ``take rate'' for long-
term agreements (meaning greater than 5 years) has risen from 30
percent in fiscal year 2001, to over 43 percent thus far in fiscal year
2002. Our short-term ``take rate'' (meaning 3 year agreements) has also
improved. When combined, the acceptance rate for both long-term and
short-term agreements totals over 52 percent of the initially eligible
pilots to this point in fiscal year 2002. In addition to Aviator Career
Continuation Pay (which rewards pilots who make long-term, agreements
to remain in the Air Force with a bonus of $25,000 per year in
additional compensation) a number of other compensation initiatives
also contribute, either directly or indirectly, to increasing pilot
retention. These include:
Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) [a.k.a. ``flight pay'']
- Air Force, along with the other services and OSD, is
exploring proposed increases to ACIP.
Bunning Amendment
- Fiscal year 2002 NDAA provided authorization to maintain
special pays at ``unreduced rates'' that would normally
decrease at specific intervals as a result of stop loss.
- This authorization would affect ACIP and some medical special
pay recipients.
- Air Force is currently exploring options and seeking approval
to implement this authority.
Other Initiatives
In addition to compensation and management initiatives, the Air
Force is also working to improve aircraft maintenance and manage
Operational TEMPO, both of which affect retention.
The Air Force is working to create ``world class'' maintenance and
repair operations at the depots. Getting aircraft, engines, and parts
repaired and returned to our operational units faster is a big help in
improving the readiness of our forces. This provides the airlift system
more available airlift assets to better manage the critical flow of
airlift cargo moving around the world in support of contingency
operations.
Air Force efforts to manage Operational TEMPO have made significant
gains in recent years through the adoption of the Expeditionary
Aerospace Force (EAF) construct; however, those efforts have been
superceded by the urgent requirements of the worldwide war on
terrorism. Increased operations in support of Noble Eagle and Enduring
Freedom coupled with previous commitments (Operations Northern Watch
and Southern Watch) have dramatically increased the demand for forces.
The Air Force is managing this through the EAF and by the Total Force
involvement of the Guard and Reserve, especially in the area of
Homeland Defense.
Over the past several years, officers with critical/technical
skills experience have separated from military service to seek higher
wages in the civilian job market. In an effort to reverse this negative
trend, the Air Force pursued the new Critical Skills Retention Bonus
(CSRB) to offset the approximate $10,000 pay difference. We identified
five officer skills in most need for a CSRB designation: Developmental
Engineers, Scientific/Research, Acquisition Program Mangers,
Communications-Information Systems, and Civil Engineers.
These officers will execute a written agreement to remain on active
duty for at least 1 year. The CSRB will be paid to members with 4-13
years of commissioned service consisting of a $10E; per year bonus for
4-year agreements. Members who have completed 11, 12, or 13 years of
commissioned service would receive 3-, 2-, and 1-year agreements
respectively also at $10,000 per year.
The Air Force is also exploring uses of the CSRB for enlisted
members as a possible expansion of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus.
The Air Force has long recognized that it recruits individuals, but
retains families. To aid in this effort, the Air Force focuses on
numerous initiatives that integrate all aspects of Air Force life into
a common quality of life emphasis. Our quality of life core priorities
are necessary manpower, improved workplace environments, fair and
competitive compensation and benefits, balanced TEMPO, quality health
care, safe and affordable housing, enhanced community and family
programs, and improved educational opportunities. Examples of a few of
our key initiatives follow. To enhance both recruitment and retention,
the Air Force provides initial enlistment bonuses to 54 percent and
reenlistment bonuses to 82 percent of the enlisted skills. Also in the
area of compensation, out-of-pocket housing expenses are being reduced
in fiscal year 2002 from 15 percent to 11.3 percent, with a projection
of 0 percent by 2005.
Housing is a top quality of life priority for both accompanied and
unaccompanied Air Force people. In fiscal year 2002, the Air Force
reduced the dormitory deficit by 1,300 rooms and renovated 300
inadequate rooms. We will continue this trend in fiscal year 2003 by
reducing the deficit by an additional 1,400 rooms while renovating
another 200 rooms. At the same time, the Air Force made significant
strides in family housing in fiscal year 2002 by reducing inadequate
family housing units by 13,000. Additionally, the Air Force is
currently constructing 90 Temporary Lodging Facilities (TLFs) at 3
bases and in fiscal year 2002 funded construction for 190 units at 4
bases.
As a final example, the Air Force considers fitness to be a force
multiplier; therefore our fitness centers must reflect this concept. To
that end, significant investments in fitness facilities, equipment, and
programs--$183 million in fiscal year 2000-2005 in quality of life
funding and $55 million in MILCON funding this year--have been made
because of the direct impact fitness has upon readiness.
The most critical factor affecting readiness today is the men and
women defending our Nation. Our people are crucial to the integrity and
sustainment of our Nation and our way of life. Quality of life is an
integral piece of the transformational Air Force. Quality of life
enables the Air Force to recruit and retain the best people in the
right skills who think differently and can adapt quickly to new
challenges and unexpected circumstances. We must ensure that our people
understand that the Nation is grateful for what they do and that they
are appropriately compensated.
General Deal. From our recruiting perspective, none of the items
mentioned are normal considerations for candidates applying for
aviation duty via the Air Force Officer Training School program. Air
Force recruiters do ``sell'' the Air Force as a way of life to aviation
candidates and highlight the many quality aspects of life in the Air
Force to include training, additional educational opportunities,
aviation pay, the high-tech aircraft, etc. However, we also expect our
recruiters to let all applicants, for officer or enlisted programs,
know about the expeditionary nature of military service--we rarely find
this diminishes the interest of an applicant. Specifics on Air Force
initiatives relating to quality of service and compensation are best
answered by General Brown.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Personnel,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
MILITARY PERSONNEL BENEFITS
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:42 a.m. in
room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Max
Cleland (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Cleland, E. Benjamin
Nelson, McCain, and Hutchinson.
Committee staff member present: David S. Lyles, staff
director.
Majority staff members present: Gerald J. Leeling, counsel;
and Christina D. Still, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Patricia L. Lewis,
professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, minority
counsel.
Staff assistants present: Dara R. Alpert and Daniel K.
Goldsmith.
Committee members' assistants present: Brady King,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Andrew Vanlandingham, assistant
to Senator Cleland; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben
Nelson; Christopher J. Paul, assistant to Senator McCain;
Charles Cogar, assistant to Senator Allard; James P. Dohoney,
Jr. and Michele A. Traficante, assistants to Senator
Hutchinson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND, CHAIRMAN
Senator Cleland. Good morning, everyone. The subcommittee
will come to order. Senator Hutchinson and I welcome you to the
hearing to receive testimony regarding military personnel
benefits. This is the last of our Personnel Subcommittee
hearings for this season as we prepare for the Fiscal Year 2003
National Defense Authorization Act.
The subject of this hearing, military benefits, is most
appropriate for our final hearing. I started thinking about the
relationship between benefits and military demographics when I
was working on my proposal to authorize servicemembers to
transfer unused Montgomery GI Bill benefits to family members.
I realized the GI Bill was designed for a conscripted military,
mostly single, mostly men, who served for a short time and then
returned to civilian life--in other words, the disposable
force.
The GI Bill then provided an excellent educational benefit
and other benefits to these veterans when they were in effect
retired or when they were discharged from the military to their
civilian occupations.
The composition of the services, though, has changed a lot
since then. A mostly male, single, conscripted force has
evolved to a mostly married force that includes more women,
families, servicemembers married to servicemembers, single
parents, and single servicemembers. Today's Active-Duty Force
has many young adults who are managing major personal
responsibilities, for example raising children and supporting a
spouse's career, coupled with the demands and stress of
military service. This includes frequent time away from family.
There are frequent moves that can disrupt family and social
support networks, and concerns about education and health care
for family members, too.
The GI Bill transferability provision is the first step in
bringing the GI Bill benefit in line with these changes in the
demographics of the military. Senator Hutchinson and I decided
that we should also look at other benefits to see if they have
kept pace with the changing demographics. So last August we
asked the Comptroller General to review current military
personnel benefits to determine whether they are properly
structured to support today's forces.
Our first witness today, Mr. Derek Stewart of the U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO), is here to report back on this
request. Joining him on our first panel is Charlie Abell, a
very able member of the administration and the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, who hopefully
will respond to the GAO report and talk to us about the
adequacy or inadequacy of military personnel benefits.
Our second panel consists of officers of organizations that
represent our servicemembers and their families. These
witnesses are here to discuss personnel benefits from the
perspective of the users of these benefits.
This is my sixth year on this subcommittee. As I look back
over the past 5 years, this subcommittee has done a lot to
improve the pay and benefits for our service men and women. I
would like to express my sincere appreciation to the former
chairmen of this subcommittee with whom I have served, Senators
Kempthorne, Allard, and Hutchinson. Every year we responded to
the concerns of our servicemembers. We heard our servicemembers
say that their pay was inadequate and not competitive with the
civilian market. We responded by approving pay raises that
totaled over 20 percent over the last 5 years and put into law
a provision that requires pay raises at least a half a percent
above inflation through fiscal year 2006.
We heard the pleas of our servicemembers that they were not
fully reimbursed for off-post housing expenses. We responded by
removing the requirement that members pay 15 percent of housing
costs out-of-pocket and authorized an increase in the Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH) in order to reduce out of pocket
housing expenses to zero by fiscal year 2005.
We also directed the Secretary of Defense to implement a
program to assist members who qualify for food stamps with a
special pay of up to $500 a month. This is a special interest
of the Senator from Arizona.
We heard the concerns about the REDUX retirement system. We
responded by authorizing servicemembers to choose between the
traditional high-three retirement system or to remain under
REDUX with a $30,000 bonus. We also authorized our military
personnel to participate with other Federal employees in the
Thrift Savings Plan.
We heard concerns about health care for our active duty
members and their families. We responded. We enacted provisions
that improve the quality of health care and access to health
care providers. We authorized TRICARE Prime Remote for families
of active duty personnel assigned where military medical
facilities were not available. We eliminated copayments for
active duty personnel and their families when they received
care under the TRICARE Prime option.
We heard the military retirees when they called our
attention to the broken promise of health care for life. We
started with a series of pilot programs which included access
to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP),
TRICARE Senior Supplement, and Medicare subvention. Ultimately
we found an even better answer--TRICARE for Life. Under this
program, TRICARE pays virtually everything that Medicare does
not pay. This is the best health care program for Medicare
eligibles in the United States. We are really proud of this
program.
We responded to concerns of our absentee military voters by
passing laws making it easier for military personnel and their
families to vote in Federal, State, and local elections.
Recruiting and retention ebbed and flowed during this 5-
year period. We responded by authorizing special pay and
bonuses, as well as innovative recruitment initiatives. We also
passed laws that would require high schools to give our
military recruiters access to student directory information and
the same access to students as the schools give to colleges and
potential employers.
I know that we recruit individuals, but retain families.
This committee knows this as well. Both recruitment and
retention are improving. Just a few years ago, the services
reported great challenges in meeting recruiting goals, and
servicemembers were leaving at alarming rates. I like to think
that the improvement in benefits that I just described passed
by this committee and by Congress helped to turn our recruiting
and retention around.
I understand that the downturn in the economy and the
terrorist attacks on our Nation also contributed to the
increase in the desire to serve our Nation. I am anxious to
hear from our witnesses about whether our current benefits are
the right ones and structured the right way for today's forces.
Senator Hutchinson, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM HUTCHINSON
Senator Hutchinson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad
to join you today in welcoming our witnesses. Our first panel
of witnesses includes someone well known to us here on the
committee, and I am very delighted that we have the opportunity
today to receive testimony from Assistant Secretary Abell about
military personnel benefits and the fiscal year 2003 defense
budget. Charlie, we welcome you back, and I appreciate all the
assistance that you gave the committee and particularly gave me
during your service here on the Hill.
I understand the committee has received your nomination, we
are going to perhaps be having you back soon, and I know today
will prepare you for that session. So we welcome you.
I would also like to welcome Mr. Stewart from the General
Accounting Office, who, as the chairman said, has been
overseeing a significant review of military benefits for the
subcommittee. I look forward, Mr. Stewart, to your testimony
and to the GAO report later this year on this very important
subject.
Looking ahead to our second panel today, it is always
productive and helpful to hear from the Military Coalition and
its representatives. That is a pleasure as well. You provide a
great service to your membership and to this committee through
your advocacy on behalf of military members, retirees, and
their families. We welcome you today.
Mr. Chairman, there are many elements of a compensation
package and those of our military members have changed
considerably over time. You and I have worked together as a
team to significantly enhance the key components of pay, health
care, education, and housing benefits over the past several
years.
The written statements of our witnesses today recognize
many important initiatives that we have taken in these areas to
improve the attractiveness of military service. Mr. Chairman,
you have outlined some of those, but it is encouraging to hear
that those initiatives have worked. Pay comparability gaps have
narrowed, the defense health care program is fully-funded, and
TRICARE is working. Current success in recruiting, retention,
and readiness certainly can be attributed at least in part to
the commitment of this committee to the men and women of the
Armed Forces.
As our witnesses have also pointed out, there are areas
where there is still room for improvement. We must continue to
enhance the attractiveness of service and address concerns of
our servicemembers and their families. We cannot be complacent,
and we cannot take for granted the dedication and sacrifices of
our personnel.
So I thank our witnesses today for the contribution that
you are making to a very essential dialogue. I ask that Senator
Allard's statement be included in the record at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Wayne Allard
Mr. Secretary, this is always an important hearing, and of course
there is no time more important than when we have thousands of
uniformed men and women overseas, in combat or under the immediate
threat of it, to review their health care, family benefits, and all the
other things not directly related to combat but vital to warfighting.
I would also today like to offer my thanks to the departing DC
Guard men and women who have been contributing to the defense of the
Capitol these last months. It was sobering, but welcome, to learn of
their talents and abilities. I thank them for their efforts.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. I have no opening statement, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. Thank you all for
being here.
Secretary Abell, we are delighted to have you. It is always
good to see you, and thank you for your service on this
distinguished committee. We appreciate all that you have
brought to the country in terms of your service here and your
service to our Nation in your current position. I commend you
for being such a staunch supporter of our troops and their
families.
Mr. Stewart, the results of your study will be very
important to us as we review the military benefit structure to
see if changes are indeed warranted. I think your work will be
a reference and a benchmark that will be used for many years to
come.
Both of you have provided us with written statements which
will be included in the record. I would like to now offer you
an opportunity to make an opening statement, beginning with Mr.
Stewart's report on the GAO study.
Mr. Stewart.
STATEMENT OF DEREK B. STEWART, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES
AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. We are pleased to be here today to discuss
employee benefits that the Department of Defense provides for
active duty servicemembers. By employee benefits, I am
referring to compensation above and beyond the servicemember's
basic take-home pay, benefits like housing, health care,
education, et cetera.
The subcommittee has expressed concerns about whether DOD
benefits have kept pace with changes in the demographic
composition of the force and whether these benefits position
DOD to compete with the private sector for high-quality
personnel. Because of these concerns, you asked us to determine
two things: one, the impact of demographic changes on active
duty benefits; and two, how the military's overall benefit
package compares with the array of benefits offered by private
sector firms.
In addition to these two objectives, we also made several
observations on DOD's new human capital strategic plan for
military personnel. This plan also addresses benefits and other
personnel issues.
As noted, our testimony today is based on preliminary
results of our work. We plan to issue a final report to you,
Mr. Chairman, this summer, and that report will address these
issues in more detail. I will briefly summarize our findings.
Mr. Chairman, as you noted, the force has undergone a
number of demographic changes since the advent of the all-
volunteer force. It is older, better educated, more diverse.
But the one most significant demographic change has been the
increase in servicemembers with family obligations. For
example, between 1974 and 2000 the Active-Duty Force
experienced increases in the percentage of married
servicemembers. There were also increases in the percentage of
servicemembers with children and single parents.
More than half the force is married. There are over 600,000
servicemembers with children. Of the 600,000 members with
children over 85,000 are single parents, and most of the single
parents are males--almost 63,000 single fathers.
Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to report that DOD has
responded positively to the increased numbers of servicemembers
with family obligations by incorporating a number of family-
friendly benefits. We did, however, identify opportunities to
improve several benefits that affect families. For example,
while DOD has worked successfully to improve the quality of its
child care programs, there just is not enough capacity.
However, the Department is working to meet its child care needs
by 2005.
Another area needing attention is DOD's spousal employment
assistance program. The data we analyzed showed that there are
almost 60,000 military spouses who are unemployed and seeking
work. That is over 10,000 officer spouses and over 46,000
spouses of enlisted personnel unemployed, seeking work. The
Department also has several initiatives planned to assist
unemployed military spouses.
The last area we identified was DOD's maternity and
paternity program. Up to roughly 20,000 female servicemembers
become pregnant each year. While new mothers and fathers may
take time off after the birth of a child, the military does not
offer extended leaves of absence to new parents. DOD told us it
does not track the number of servicemembers who separate from
active duty due to parental leave policies.
Several years ago we issued a report that showed over 2,000
women separated due to pregnancy before completing their
initial enlistment period. Given the increasing number of
female servicemembers and the growing cost to recruit and train
servicemembers, DOD may wish to explore this area further.
Mr. Chairman, turning to our second objective, when we
compared the military's overall benefit package with private
sector benefits, we did not identify significant gaps in the
benefit package offered to active duty servicemembers. As shown
on a chart to my right--Mr. Chairman and members, I believe you
have this as a handout as well--the shaded areas represent the
four core benefits offered by most private sector companies,
that is, retirement, health care, life insurance, and paid time
off.
We determined that the DOD also offers these core benefits
and more, as you see demonstrated there. Furthermore, we found
that military benefits in some cases exceed those offered by
the private sector. For example, benefits such as free health
care for members, free housing or housing allowances, and
discount shopping at commissaries and exchanges are not offered
as benefits to the typical private sector employee.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that, while
DOD offers a wide array of benefits to servicemembers, the
current benefit package has taken shape piecemeal over the
years in the absence of a strategic approach to human capital
planning.
However, DOD is developing a human capital strategic plan
for military personnel, and they shared a draft of that
component with us last month. Based on our review, we believe
the plan is a definite step in the right direction. But it
lacks elements of a fully-realized human capital strategic
plan.
For example, the plan does not address work force
requirements or gaps. A more fully developed strategic plan
would identify the skills and abilities needed for DOD's future
work force and the potential gaps that exist between current
and future work force needs. Once the work force requirements
have been identified, then the plan could be used by DOD to use
pay and benefits as tools to shape the work force and to meet
the current and future requirements.
We look forward to working with DOD in the future as it
refines its plan.
This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and we
would be pleased to respond to questions you and the members of
the subcommittee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]
Prepared Statement by Derek B. Stewart
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: We are pleased to be
here today to discuss the employee benefits that the Department of
Defense (DOD) provides for active duty servicemembers. By ``employee
benefits'' we are generally referring to indirect compensation above
and beyond a servicemember's basic pay.\1\ The overall military
compensation system is a complex structure of basic military pay,
special pays, and allowances, as well as employee benefits. (See app. I
for a list of specific elements of the overall military compensation
system.) This subcommittee has expressed concerns about whether the
current benefit package available to active duty servicemembers has
kept pace with changes in the demographic composition of the force and
whether the benefit package positions DOD to compete with private-
sector companies for high-quality personnel. Because of these concerns,
you asked us to determine (1) the impact of demographic changes on
active duty benefits and (2) how the military's overall benefit package
compares with the array of benefits offered by private-sector firms.\2\
In addition, we have made several observations on the military
component of DOD's new human capital strategy, which addresses benefits
and other personnel issues. Our testimony today represents the
preliminary results of our work. We plan to issue a report to you this
summer that will address these issues in more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines a benefit as ``non-wage
compensation provided to employees.'' For this testimony, we have
included such benefits as retirement, health care, and educational
assistance, as well as certain programs and services that support
military members and their families, including child care, spousal
employment assistance, and relocation assistance.
\2\ For purposes of this review, we obtained data on medium and
large employers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines ``medium and
large employers'' as those having 100 or more employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary
Mr. Chairman, one of the most significant demographic changes in
the active duty military since the advent of the all-volunteer force in
1973 has been an increase in servicemembers with family obligations.
Between 1980 and 2000, at least half of the Active-Duty Force consisted
of married servicemembers. Furthermore, active duty servicemembers had
about 1.23 million children in 2000. Although DOD has responded
positively to these demographic changes by incorporating a number of
family friendly benefits, opportunities exist to improve some current
benefits in this area. For instance, while DOD has worked successfully
to improve the quality of its child care centers, the department has
identified a need to further expand child care capacity. In addition,
the department has several initiatives planned to assist military
servicemembers' spouses who are seeking employment. Furthermore, DOD
faces challenges in reaching out to servicemembers to increase their
awareness and use of benefits.
When we compared the types of benefits offered as part of the
military's overall benefit package with private-sector benefits, we did
not identify significant gaps in the benefit package offered to active
duty servicemembers. Although we did not make direct comparisons
between individual benefits offered by the military and the private
sector, we did determine that all the core benefits offered by most
private-sector firms--that is, retirement pay, health care, life
insurance, and paid time off--are offered by the military. Furthermore,
military benefits in some cases exceed those offered by the private
sector. For example, benefits such as free health care for members,
free housing or housing allowances, and discount shopping at
commissaries and exchanges are not offered as benefits to the typical
private-sector employee. During the 1990s, some servicemembers
expressed concerns that their benefits were eroding, particularly their
health care and retirement benefits. In response to such concerns, the
military benefit package was enhanced. In recent years, for example,
Congress restored retirement benefits that had previously been cut for
certain servicemembers. Congress also significantly expanded health
benefits.
Although DOD offers a wide array of benefits to active duty
servicemembers, the benefit package has taken shape piecemeal over the
years in the absence of a strategic approach to human capital
management. A well-developed human capital strategy would provide a
means for aligning all elements of DOD's human capital management,
including pay and benefits, with its broader organizational objectives.
Pay and benefits are tools that an organization can use to shape its
workforce and to meet current and future requirements. DOD officials
told us they plan to issue a human capital strategic plan in April
2002. The plan includes a component on military personnel. The military
personnel strategy, however, lacks elements of a fully realized human
capital strategic plan. For example, the military personnel strategy
does not
link human capital goals with DOD's mission and
programmatic goals;
include adequate performance measures for assessing
the effectiveness of human capital approaches;
address military workforce requirements or gaps,
especially for mission-critical skills;
demonstrate a clear linkage between benefits and DOD's
ability to recruit and retain a high-quality workforce; or
address the dissatisfaction that servicemembers have
expressed about their work conditions.
background
In fiscal year 2002, Congress appropriated over $100 billion for
pays and benefits. The basic goals of the military's compensation
system are to attract, retain, and motivate the number and quality of
people needed to maintain our national security. Although a unique
institution, the military nevertheless competes with other
organizations for qualified people. It is the single largest employer
and trainer of youth, recruiting about 196,000 individuals into active
duty in 2001. The military may face increased competition for qualified
people over the next few years in response to projected labor shortages
through at least 2010. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects
that the civilian labor force will increase by 12 percent by 2010 while
total employment will increase by 15 percent.
demographic changes in active-duty force have influenced military
benefits
The Active-Duty Force has undergone several demographic changes
since the draft ended and the military became an all-volunteer force in
1973. The force has become older and better educated, and the force has
experienced increases in the representation of minority and female
servicemembers. The percentage of personnel over age 25 increased from
about 40 percent of the Active-Duty Force in 1974 to nearly 55 percent
in 2000. The proportion of enlisted personnel with at least a high
school diploma increased from about 80 percent of the enlisted force in
1974 to about 95 percent in 2000. During that time period, the
percentage of officers attaining a degree beyond a bachelor's degree
increased from 25 percent to 43 percent of all officers. The proportion
of minority servicemembers increased from 20 percent to 35 percent of
the Active-Duty Force between 1974 and 2000, and the proportion of
female servicemembers increased from 4 percent to 15 percent.
One of the most significant demographic changes has been an
increase in servicemembers with family obligations. While reliable
marital data is lacking for the years immediately following the advent
of the all-volunteer force, various DOD studies cite statistics showing
increases in the percentage of married enlisted personnel. According to
these studies, the percentage of enlisted personnel who were married
increased from approximately 40 percent of the force in 1973 to
approximately 50 percent in 1977. After a slight decrease from 1977 to
1980, the marriage rate increased through the mid-1990s. DOD attributed
the overall increases in marriage rates to the gradual aging of the
Active-Duty Force. Between 1980 and 2000, at least half of the Active-
Duty Force consisted of married servicemembers. Other DOD data also
indicate that servicemembers today have increased family obligations.
The percentage of servicemembers with children increased from 43
percent to 45 percent between 1990 and 2000. During that time period,
the proportion of single servicemembers with children increased from 4
percent to 6 percent. Figure 1 shows the composition of the Active-Duty
Force, by family status, in 2000.
A significant body of research by the military services shows that
family satisfaction with military life can significantly influence a
servicemember's decision to stay in the military or leave. On the basis
of this research, DOD during the last 2 decades established a variety
of institutions and services to support military families. For example,
family support centers were established at installations to deliver
programs such as personal financial management training, spousal
employment assistance, relocation assistance, new parent support
programs, and deployment assistance. Health care benefits for military
families also have been enhanced. For fiscal year 2001, for example,
Congress eliminated most co-payments for active duty families enrolled
in TRICARE Prime (the military's managed care health program) and
expanded benefits for family members living in remote areas. In the
area of education, Congress authorized DOD in fiscal year 2002 to grant
reenlisting servicemembers who possess critical skills the option to
transfer a portion of their Montgomery GI Bill benefits to their spouse
and dependents. Since the summer of 2001, DOD has been reviewing its
quality of life programs in an effort to articulate what it terms a
``new social compact'' with servicemembers and their families.
According to DOD officials, the social compact is needed to ameliorate
the demands of the military lifestyle, which includes frequent
separations and relocations, and to provide better support to
servicemembers and their families. The social compact focuses on
education, housing, work-life, family and community support, and
health.
Although DOD has responded positively to increases in
servicemembers with family obligations by incorporating a number of
family friendly benefits, opportunities exist to improve some current
benefits in this area. DOD has identified needs to expand child care
and spousal employment assistance. Another potential area for
improvement is maternity/paternity leave. In addition, DOD faces
challenges in reaching out to servicemembers to increase their
awareness and use of benefits.
child care
Active duty servicemembers have a strong demand for child care. In
2000, the services had more than 600,000 active duty members with
children, and about 85,000 of these members were single parents. Of the
1.23 million military children in 2000, nearly three-fourths were 11
years old or younger. DOD has placed a significant emphasis on
improving and expanding its child care system which includes child
development centers, family care centers, and school-age care programs.
DOD also operates centers for youths and teens. In 1982, we reported
that many military installations had child care centers that were not
suitable for the purpose and did not meet fire, health, and safety
standards.\3\ Following the passage of the Military Child Care Act of
1989, DOD worked to improve the quality, availability, and
affordability of military child care. In 1997, the President praised
the high quality of the military's child development programs, citing
improved resources, oversight, and training, as well as a commitment to
meeting national accreditation standards. Today, 99 percent of the 450
child development centers the military operates are accredited. DOD is
working to expand capacity to meet a range of child care needs,
including initiatives to extend care hours and subsidize the cost of
obtaining child care at commercial centers. The Department is seeking
to add 45,000 child care slots to the approximately 176,000 slots that
exist today. DOD hopes to meet 80 percent of its members' child care
needs by 2005.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Child Care
Programs: Progress Made, More Needed. GAO/FPCD-82-30 (Washington DC:
June 1, 1982).
\4\ In the early 1990s, DOD established a formula to estimate
military families' need for child care services. The formula was based
on the number of children up to age 12 in military families whose
parents worked outside the home and needed some type of child care. A
DOD official said the remaining 20 percent of military families with
young children will not request child care either because the parents
have alternating work schedules or because relatives care for their
children. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Care: How Do
Military and Civilian Center Costs Compare? GAO/HEHS-00-7 (Washington,
DC: Oct. 14, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
spousal employment assistance
DOD also has begun to pay increased attention to employment
assistance for military spouses. In 1999, 48 percent of officer spouses
and 55 percent of enlisted spouses were employed in the civilian labor
force, while 7 percent of officer spouses and 8 percent of enlisted
spouses were unemployed and seeking work. According to a March 2001
study conducted for DOD, working spouses of military servicemembers
contribute up to 40 percent of the family's income and earn an average
of 24 to 30 percent less than their civilian counterparts. In part,
this wage differential, which increases for those with higher levels of
education, is due to local labor market conditions. Some installations
are located in remote areas characterized by relatively poor labor
market conditions. Military spouses also face several other employment
challenges. For example, frequent relocations make it difficult to
sustain a career and amass retirement benefits. Junior enlisted
families face particular financial difficulties as the result of
housing and transportation costs, the high cost of credit, and child
care expenses. However, income from a spouse's job can help to mitigate
some of these problems.
Although DOD has had a formal spousal employment assistance program
since 1985, the department has taken a number of recent steps to
enhance the program.\5\ DOD held a spousal employment summit in 2000 to
identify needed actions. The Department is focusing on establishing
partnerships with private-sector employers who can offer jobs with
``portable tenure,'' which enables spouses to relocate and stay with
the same employer. Other efforts include expanding employment
preference for spouses working in Europe and establishing partnerships
with Federal agencies to increase private-sector career opportunities.
For example, DOD is developing a partnership with the Department of
Labor to resolve issues that occur at the State level. According to DOD
officials, each State maintains varying residency and licensing
requirements for jobs such as teaching, nursing, and child care.
Spouses who work in these fields and relocate may need to be
recertified after meeting residency requirements. DOD is seeking
Labor's assistance to help spouses overcome these employment barriers.
The Navy and Marine Corps also have launched a partnership with a
civilian employment services firm at two installations. These
initiatives are in the early stages of development. As a result, it is
too early to gauge their effectiveness in promoting spousal employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Congress has urged DOD to provide further employment assistance
for military spouses. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2002 directed the Secretary of Defense to help spouses access
financial, educational, and employment opportunities through existing
DOD and other Federal Government, State, and nongovernmental programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
maternity/paternity leave
Up to 10 percent of active duty female servicemembers become
pregnant each year, according to the military services. As of March
2001, there were about 75,000 military children under the age of 1.
While new military mothers and fathers may take time off after the
birth of a child, the military does not offer extended leaves of
absence to new parents. New mothers may take 6 weeks of paid
convalescent leave, which is similar to sick leave in the private
sector. Both new mothers and new fathers may use annual leave. The
services stated that they do not track information concerning the
number of women who separate permanently from active duty service
because of parental leave policies. We previously reported that of the
28,353 women without prior military service who enlisted in fiscal year
1993, 2,074 separated because of pregnancy from the 7th through the
48th month of their enlistment. These separations represented
approximately one-fourth of all female attrition.\6\ The Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993 does not cover military personnel. The act
requires private-sector employers with more than 50 employees to allow
their employees to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave to meet family
obligations, such as maternity or paternity leave, adoptions, and care
for a spouse, child, or parent with serious health conditions. Paid
maternity and paternity leave in the private sector appears to be rare.
In 1997, only 2 percent of employees had access to paid family leave
programs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of nine private-
sector companies we contacted,\7\ one allows employees to take up to 3
years of unpaid leave after the birth of a child and to return to a
comparable position. Another company gives mothers 12 weeks paid leave
with the option to take additional unpaid time off. If she returns
within 6 months, the company guarantees her position; if she returns
after 1 year, the company guarantees employment, but not the same
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Attrition: Better
Data, Coupled With Policy Changes, Could Help the Services Reduce Early
Separations, GAO/NSIAD-98-213 (Washington DC: Sept. 15, 1998).
\7\ We interviewed representatives from nine companies that have
been recognized as innovative or effective in strategically managing
their human capital. The nine companies are Federal Express Corp.; IBM
Corp.; Marriott International, Inc.; Merck and Co., Inc.; Motorola,
Inc.; Sears, Roebuck and Company; Southwest Airlines Co.; Weyerhaeuser
Co.; and Xerox Corp., Documents Solution Group. We previously reported
on the key principles that underlie these companies' human capital
strategies and practices. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Human
Capital: Key Principles From Nine Private Sector Organizations. GAO/
GGD-00-28 (Washington DC: Jan. 31, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
outreach and awareness
DOD faces a continuing challenge in making military personnel aware
of their benefits so they can take full advantage of what is available.
For example, the military offers a relocation assistance program to
provide transferring servicemembers with information on reimbursable
moving costs and other services. A 1999 DOD-sponsored study found that
the survey respondents who used the program had a higher portion of
their expenses reimbursed than those who did not use the program.
Specifically, personnel who used the program were reimbursed an average
of 62 cents for every reimbursable dollar spent. In comparison,
personnel who did not use the program were reimbursed 46 cents for
every reimbursable dollar spent.\8\ According to DOD officials, a
particular challenge is reaching out to the two-thirds of military
personnel and their families who reside off-base. In order to improve
outreach, DOD is increasing its use of the Internet by adding
information and transactional features to various web sites. DOD
officials also said the department is pursuing opportunities with the
private sector to provide certain services, such as fitness facilities,
child care, and employee assistance programs, especially for members
who reside in remote areas or away from bases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The 1999 study defined users of the relocation assistance
program as any survey respondent who used at least 1 of the 11
relocation services offered, one of which was information on permanent
change of station entitlements/travel pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dod offers wide array of benefits for active duty servicemembers
When we compared the types of benefits offered as part of the
military's overall benefit package with private-sector benefits, we did
not identify significant gaps in the benefit package offered to active
duty servicemembers. Most important, DOD offers all of the four core
benefits that are offered by most private-sector firms. These benefits
are retirement, health care, life insurance, and paid time off. As
figure 2 illustrates, DOD also offers a wide array of additional
benefits. Many private-sector firms, of course, offer additional
employee benefits as well.
On the basis of our prior work on military compensation and DOD's
compensation studies, we would like to note several difficulties
associated with making direct comparisons between military and private-
sector benefits. Such comparisons must account for: (1) the demands of
military service, such as involuntary relocation, frequent and lengthy
separations from family, and liability for combat; (2) certain
principles of military compensation that are absent in the private
sector, such as the principle that military compensation must work
equally well during peace or war; (3) the difficulty in identifying
appropriate private-sector industries and jobs to use as benchmarks for
the military; (4) difficulties associated with measuring the value of
employee benefits; and (5) military personnel practices--such as hiring
primarily at the entry level and ``up or out'' rules--that are uncommon
in the private sector.
For these reasons, we have not made direct analytical comparisons
between individual benefits offered by the military and those offered
by the private sector. For instance, we did not attempt to determine
whether the military retirement system is, based on certain criteria,
more lucrative or less lucrative than private-sector pension plans.
However, we sought to identify the types of benefits found in the
private sector--both traditional and emerging benefits--and used this
information to determine whether there are potential gaps in the
benefit package offered to active duty servicemembers. To gather
information on private-sector benefits, we conducted a broad literature
search of private-sector benefit practices and used survey results of
medium and large employers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and from
several human resources consulting firms. We also interviewed
representatives from nine companies that have been recognized as
innovative or effective in strategically managing their human capital.
Private-sector employers take a great variety of approaches when
designing their benefit package. Even so, three thematic trends have
become evident over the last decade or two. Specifically, private-
sector companies are: (1) offering a growing number and array of
benefits--such as long-term care insurance, convenience benefits, and
elder care assistance--while also making changes to their traditional
core benefits; (2) introducing more flexibility in their benefit
packages; and (3) adding benefits to help employees balance work and
life responsibilities. While private-sector firms use pay and benefits
packages to attract and retain employees, they are also concerned about
controlling costs. Employers increasingly are sharing a growing portion
of benefit costs with employees, particularly health care costs, while
requiring them to assume more responsibility for managing their
benefits. Some employers have reduced certain benefits or ceased to
sponsor coverage. We recently testified that the availability of
employer-sponsored retiree health benefits eroded during the late
1990s, and that rising cost pressures on employers may lead to further
erosion of these benefits.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Retiree Health Insurance:
Gaps in Coverage and Availability, GAO-02-178T (Washington DC: Nov. 1,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the military, the private sector also has reacted to
demographic changes in the workforce. Since the 1970s, the American
workforce has become more educated, more heterogeneous, and older. The
numbers of dual-earner families, working women, and single parents have
increased. Employers have reacted by offering benefits aimed at helping
employees balance work and life demands. Since the 1980s, employers
have begun offering benefits such as dependent care assistance,
parental leave, flexible work schedules, and convenience services.
Convenience services such as dry cleaning, banking services, and take-
home meals allow employees to save time by running errands during work
hours. Flexible schedules that allow employees to adjust the beginning
and ending of their work day, work more hours per day but shorter
weeks, or share a job with another part-time employee are some of the
ways that employers help employees to manage their work and family
responsibilities. Flexible benefit plans also help employees by
allowing them to select additional benefits that may help balance work-
life priorities.
Our work comparing the military's overall benefit package with the
array of benefits in the private sector showed that several military
benefits have their analogues or counterparts in the private sector. As
we noted earlier, the military offers benefits in the four core areas;
however, the military may structure its benefits differently. For
example, whereas the military retirement system requires 20 years of
service to be vested, private-sector firms typically have much shorter
vesting periods or no vesting period at all. The military's health care
benefit is provided through a network of about 580 military treatment
facilities, supplemented by civilian providers. The cost of this care
to servicemembers and their dependents is nil or minimal. Private-
sector firms, in contrast, typically offer individual and family health
care through private insurers and normally require employees to share
the cost burden. In 1999, private-sector employers paid the full cost
of medical coverage for 33 percent of participants with individual
coverage and 19 percent of those with family coverage, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of those participants required to
contribute to their medical coverage, the average monthly cost was
approximately $50 for individual coverage and $170 for family coverage.
In the core benefit area of life insurance, DOD offers low-cost rates
on group life insurance. Servicemembers pay $20 a month for the maximum
$250,000 coverage. In November 2001, coverage was extended to members'
spouses and eligible children. Finally, in the core benefit area of
paid time off, all servicemembers receive 30 days annual leave and may
carry over as many as 60 days accrued leave to the next year. The
military offers numerous other forms of paid leave for specific
reasons.
In some areas, the military offers benefits that would not normally
be available to civilians working for private-sector firms. For
example, servicemembers may obtain discount prices by shopping at
military commissaries (grocery stores) and exchanges (department
stores). They also have privileges to use an extensive array of
community facilities to include, among others, fitness centers,
swimming pools, officer and enlisted clubs, libraries, community
centers, hobby shops, and golf courses. Some private-sector firms offer
amenities such as fitness centers and company stores, but few, if any,
can match the breadth of facilities and programs available on a
military installation. It also would be rare to find private-sector
firms offering, as the military does, free housing or housing
allowances to all of their employees.
Military benefits, overall, have been enhanced in recent years.
During the 1990s, some servicemembers expressed concerns that their pay
was falling behind that in the private sector and that their benefits
were eroding, particularly their health care and retirement benefits.
Such perceptions were cited as one cause of the retention problems the
military was experiencing at that time. Congress subsequently enacted
legislation to increase military pay and enhance benefits. These
efforts were aimed at improving the financial well-being and quality of
life of servicememembers and at addressing recruiting and retention
problems. For example, Congress approved across-the-board pay raises of
4.8 percent for fiscal year 2000 and 3.7 percent for fiscal year 2001,
along with targeted pay raises to mid-level officers and enlisted
personnel. For fiscal year 2002, Congress approved pay raises ranging
between 5 and 10 percent, depending on pay grade and years of service.
Major enhancements to benefits included the restoration of retirement
benefits that had been cut for military servicemembers who entered
military service on or after August 1, 1986; increases in the basic
housing allowance to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for
servicemembers not living in military housing; and expansion of health
care availability and reduced costs for families and retirees.
military personnel strategy not linked to broader organizational
objectives
Although DOD offers a wide array of benefits to active duty
servicemembers, DOD's benefit package was developed piecemeal in the
absence of a strategic approach to human capital management. A well-
developed human capital strategy would provide a means for aligning all
elements of DOD's human capital management, including pay and benefits,
with its broader organizational objectives. Pay and benefits are tools
that an organization can use to shape its workforce, fill gaps, and
meet future requirements.
In prior reports and testimony, we have identified strategic human
capital management planning as a Government-wide high-risk area and a
key area of challenge.\10\ We have stated that agencies, including DOD,
need to improve the development of integrated human capital strategies
that support the organization's strategic and programmatic goals. In
March 2002, we issued an exposure draft of our model for strategic
human capital management to help Federal agency leaders effectively
lead and manage their people.\11\ We also testified last month on how
strategic human capital management can contribute to transforming the
cultures of Federal agencies.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Self-
Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington DC:
Sept. 2000); U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Major Human
Capital Challenges at the Departments of Defense and State, GAO-01-565T
(Washington DC: Mar. 29, 2001); and U.S. General Accounting Office,
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense,
GAO-01-244 (Washington DC: Jan. 2001).
\11\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, A Model of Strategic Human
Capital Management, Exposure Draft, GAO-02-373SP (Washington DC: Mar.
2002).
\12\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results:
Building on the Momentum for Strategic Human Capital Reform, GAO-02-
528T (Washington DC: Mar. 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several DOD studies also have identified the need for a more
strategic approach to human capital planning within the department. The
Eighth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, completed in 1997,
strongly advocated that the Department adopt a strategic human capital
planning approach. The review found that DOD lacked an institution-wide
process for systematically examining human capital needs or translating
needs into a coherent strategy. Subsequent DOD and service studies,
including the Defense Science Board Task Force on Human Resources
Strategy, the Naval Personnel Task Force, and the DOD Study on Morale
and Quality of Life, endorsed the concept of human capital strategic
planning.
DOD officials have acknowledged the need for a more strategic
approach and plan to issue a human capital strategic plan in April
2002. The plan has three components: a military personnel strategy
(which includes the Reserves), a civilian personnel strategy, and a
social compact that, as we mentioned earlier, addresses quality-of-life
issues. Since our work focused on military personnel, we reviewed that
component of the strategy. We had an opportunity to review a draft of
the military personnel strategy and to discuss it with DOD officials.
We will briefly describe the strategy, including the elements that
address pay and benefits, and then raise issues for consideration that
DOD may wish to incorporate in future iterations of the strategy.
DOD officials told us that the military personnel strategy outlines
a plan of action for the next 3 to 5 years. The strategy identifies
more than 30 initiatives organized into five ``lines of operation,'' or
goals. These five goals are (1) increase the willingness of the
American public to recommend military service to our youth; (2) recruit
the right number and quality of personnel; (3) develop, sustain, and
retain the force; (4) transition members from active status; and (5)
sustain the process and maintain its viability. A majority of the
initiatives are studies addressing various military personnel issues.
Some of the issues that DOD will study--such as the lateral entry of
civilians into the military workforce, the ramifications of variable
career lengths for officers, and the appropriate grade structure for
the manpower needs of future weapons systems-could lead to proposed
changes that have far-reaching impacts. The strategy does not call for
any near-term changes to pay and benefits. However, as shown in table
1, the department plans to study several pay and benefit issues.
TABLE 1: COMPENSATION-RELATED STUDIES AND MILESTONES IN DOD'S MILITARY
PERSONNEL STRATEGY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study Milestone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabbatical programs that could be Final report due September
implemented in DOD. 2002
Nonmonetary incentives that support Final report due December
retention. 2002
Programs designed to improve retention by Action plan due December
informing military members of career 2002
opportunities and military benefits
available to them.
Alternatives to the military retirement Report due January 2003
system.
Proposals of the 9th Quadrennial Review of Staff recommendations due
Military Compensation. March 2003
Programs designed to inform members of Final report due March 2003
their transition benefits when leaving
active duty service.
Military pay levels compared to pay levels Final report due December
of civilians by age, education, and 2003
occupation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While DOD has recognized the need for a strategic approach to
managing its human capital, the military personnel strategy is missing
elements that would be found in a fully realized human capital
strategic plan. Since the military personnel strategy is intended to be
a dynamic document that periodically will be assessed and refined, DOD
will have opportunities to incorporate additional elements of human
capital strategic planning in future iterations of the strategy.
Specifically, DOD may wish to consider the following questions as it
refines the military personnel strategy:
How can human capital approaches be linked to DOD's mission and
programmatic goals? Effective organizations link human capital
approaches to their overall mission and programmatic goals. An
organization's human capital approaches should be designed,
implemented, and assessed by the standard of how well they help the
organization pursue its mission and achieve desired results or
outcomes. The new military personnel strategy captures the DOD
leadership's guidance regarding aspects of managing human capital, but
the strategy's linkage to the overall mission and programmatic goals is
not stated. For example, DOD continues to rely heavily on technology to
carry out its overall mission ``to fight and win wars.'' DOD's human
capital approach to recruiting and retention--if it were linked to its
overall mission--would emphasize individuals with the skills needed to
fight and win ``high-tech'' wars. To the extent possible, DOD may wish
to determine the kinds of benefits, or combination of benefits, that
would best position it in the future to attract and retain individuals
possessing these skills.
How can human capital performance measures be improved? High-
performing organizations use data to determine key performance
objectives and goals that enable them to evaluate the success of their
human capital approaches. Collecting and analyzing data are fundamental
building blocks for measuring the effectiveness of human capital
approaches in support of the mission and goals of an agency. In our
Government Performance and Results Act work, we raised concerns about
DOD's human capital performance measures. For example, the performance
measures did not fully address the extent to which military forces are
highly motivated or DOD's efforts to develop personnel. The new
military personnel strategy provides measures of effectiveness for each
initiative; however, these measures are not adequate to assess the
success of DOD's human capital approaches because they (1) do not
describe the significance of outcomes in terms of programmatic goals
and results, (2) are not always specific or stated as measurements, and
(3) are activity-based rather than outcome-oriented. For example, one
initiative calls for a study of sabbatical programs. However, the
measure of effectiveness for this initiative is to implement guidance
for a sabbatical-type program. The relationship between sabbatical
programs and the goal of improving retention is not described.
Furthermore, the significance of sabbaticals in accomplishing DOD's
mission is not stated.
What skills and abilities will be needed in DOD's future military
workforce to accomplish its mission, and what potential gaps exist
between current and future workforce needs? Agencies must identify
their current and future human capital needs and then create strategies
for filling the gaps. Agencies' strategic human capital planning must
be results-oriented and data-driven, including, for example,
information on the appropriate number and location of employees and
their key competencies and skills. The new military personnel strategy
does not address workforce requirements or gaps.
How can benefits be more closely linked to the basic goals of
recruiting and retaining a high-quality workforce? Our prior work has
shown that retention decisions are highly personal in nature and that
many factors, including benefits, may affect the decision of a
servicemember to stay in the military or leave. The new military
personnel strategy does not discuss which combinations of benefits,
pay, and other factors have had the greatest influence on retention
decisions. In the last DOD-wide survey of active duty personnel in
1999, key benefits such as housing and health care for families were
not among the top reasons cited by military personnel for considering
leaving. In fact, the family medical care benefit was cited as a top
reason for staying.\13\ On the basis of the 1999 survey, we also found
that increasing housing allowances would do little to increase
retention. Less than 1 percent of servicemembers cited housing
allowances as a top reason to leave.\14\ Our work has shown that first-
term and mid-career enlisted personnel and mid-career officers
perceived that compensation was better in civilian life than in the
military, but they believed the military provided some better benefits,
such as vacation time and education and training opportunities. First-
term enlisted personnel cited education benefits and training for
civilian employment as top reasons for joining. But they were less
likely to stay on active duty than those who joined for other reasons,
like personal growth or travel.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel:
Preliminary Results of DOD's 1999 Survey of Active Duty Members, GAO/T-
NSIAD-00-110 (Washington DC: Mar. 8, 2000).
\14\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel: Higher
Allowances Should Increase Use of Civilian Housing, but Not Retention,
GAO-01-684 (Washington DC: May 31, 2001).
\15\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel: First-
Term Personnel Less Satisfied With Military Life Than Those in Mid-
Career, GAO-02-200 (Washington DC: Dec. 7, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To what extent should DOD's military personnel strategy address
servicemembers' dissatisfaction with their work circumstances? The new
military personnel strategy does not acknowledge or address the
dissatisfaction that servicemembers have expressed about their work
circumstances. Work circumstances include the availability of equipment
and materials, manning levels of units, frequency of deployments, and
personal time for family. While pay and benefits are important, factors
other than compensation appear to be a source of dissatisfaction with
military life that could lead to retention problems. In our prior work
we found that many factors were sources of dissatisfaction and reasons
to leave the military for personnel in retention-critical specialties.
The majority of the factors were associated with work circumstances
rather than with benefits.\16\ Our work on pilot retention problems
also confirmed these findings. Pilots raised concerns about their work
circumstances, leadership, career development, and aviation retention
bonuses.\17\ On the basis of the 1999 active duty survey, we found that
military personnel perceived that civilian life was more favorable than
military life with respect to personal and family time, quality of
life, and hours worked per week. The survey data also showed that the
duration of permanent change of station tours was related to
satisfaction. Those with shorter time spent between moves were less
likely to be satisfied with the frequency of moves and less satisfied
with the military way of life.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel:
Perspectives of Surveyed Service Members in Retention Critical
Specialties, GAO/NSIAD-99-197BR (Washington DC: Aug. 16, 1999).
\17\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Pilots:
Observations on Current Issues, GAO/T-NSIAD-99-102 (Washington DC: Mar.
4, 1999) and U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel:
Actions Needed to Better Define Pilot Requirements and Promote
Retention, GAO/NSIAD-99-211 (Washington DC: Aug. 20, 1999).
\18\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel: Longer
Time Between Moves Related to Higher Satisfaction and Retention, GAO-
01-841 (Washington DC: Aug. 3, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, this completes our prepared statement. We would be
happy to respond to any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have at this time.
contacts and acknowledgments
For future questions about this statement, please contact Derek B.
Stewart at (202) 512-5140 (e-mail address: [email protected]) or Brenda
S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 (e-mail address: [email protected]).
Individuals making key contributions to this statement include Ann
Asleson, Jocelyn Cortese, William Doherty, Thomas Gosling, Stacey
Keisling, David Moser, Krislin Nalwalk, Stefano Petrucci, Maria-Alaina
Rambus, Madelon Savaides, Lois Shoemaker, and Earl Williams.
appendix i: active duty pays, allowances, and benefits
This appendix lists active duty pays, allowances, and benefits that
we identified during our review. We compiled this list from Department
of Defense (DOD) financial management regulations, service budget
documents, military compensation background papers, DOD and service
websites, directives, and other Department documents.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Abell, that beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Pretty interesting report. Your commentary?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. ABELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR FORCE MANAGEMENT POLICY
Mr. Abell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain,
Senator Nelson. First of all, let me say it is a treat to come
back to this majestic room where I have spent so many hours.
Your letter of invitation and your preamble this morning
have explained that the purpose of this hearing is to assess
whether military personnel benefits are properly structured to
support today's military forces. I congratulate you for
identifying this subject as one worthy of review, I would like
to begin by reporting that in my opinion and that of the
Department of Defense the benefit package that accrues to our
military personnel is indeed comprehensive and a positive
incentive to join and to continue to serve.
As Secretary Rumsfeld recently testified, if we are to win
the war on terror and prepare for the wars of tomorrow we must
take care of the Department's greatest asset, our men and women
in uniform. Smart weapons are worthless to us unless they are
in the hands of smart soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
As the members of this committee know well, the widely
vaunted capabilities of the American military come at a
substantial cost. It is not because DOD is inefficient, but
because high end performance requires high end investment. No
other country in the world could move a force of our size
halfway around the world to a region with little or no
infrastructure and have that force operate effectively upon
arrival.
Such a feat requires people--people who can improvise, who
can devise a new solution when faced with unforeseen
circumstances. We can do it because we have a highly motivated,
intelligent, well-trained force, the product of the all-
volunteer concept in which we have invested so much, and about
which most of our allies have been skeptical until now. It is
no accident of history that so many of our allies are now
trying to build the kind of force that we have.
However, we acknowledge that that force requires
substantial funding. It cannot be had on the cheap.
With that report, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a
couple of points. First, let there be no doubt that people are
our highest priority, and I believe the President's budget
reflects that priority.
Second, we continuously monitor the recruiting and
retention environment to determine what is happening and what
the future portends. You and Congress have generously given the
Department a rich array of benefits and authorities, and we are
using them effectively to maintain the quality force that
America expects and demands.
Third, as Mr. Stewart has reported, our benefit package is
unmatched in the private sector. No single company can offer
the package we provide those who serve in the military.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, permit me to urge one caution. As
good as our force is, unmatched in the world, the most
expensive weapon system in the Department of Defense is the
individual servicemember. As you are urged by others to
increase the benefit package or to enrich an existing benefit,
please remember that it is possible to make our people too
expensive, and that would drive us to a dangerously low
personnel level.
Mr. Chairman, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to
loving our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. I want the
very best for them. However, I also want to ensure that the
taxpayer is getting a good return on our investment. I will
join with you and your staff to evaluate any proposal to create
a new benefit or to enrich an existing benefit, and if I am
allowed to participate in such a review I will suggest that we
evaluate the proposal from the perspective of do we really need
it to recruit and retain quality people, or is it a nice-to-do
expense with marginal return.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and this committee for your
support of our military people, and I think I would be remiss
if I did not say publicly that I am proud to be an alumnus of
this committee. I am prepared to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abell follows:]
Prepared Statement by The Hon. Charles S. Abell
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to be here today and thank you for your
continuing support of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces.
As Secretary Rumsfeld recently testified, ``If we are to win the
war on terror, and prepare for the wars of tomorrow, we must take care
of the Department's greatest asset: our men and women in uniform.
`Smart weapons' are worthless to us unless they are in the hands of
smart soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.'' The Department of
Defense is competing with the private sector for the best young people
our Nation has to offer.
The Defense family has changed over the last decade. U.S. military
personnel are more senior, educated, and diverse. More military spouses
work, and they are better educated than they were 10 years ago.
Opportunities and competition in the private sector for our highly
skilled and technically competent members have never been greater.
DOD's transformation of personnel policies, programs and benefits must
address these changing demographics and the expectations of a 21st
century military force. The Department must keep its ``side of the
bargain'' by providing relevant benefits, programs and policies for the
families who support members of the Armed Forces. DOD has embarked on a
strategic approach to managing its active and Reserve military force.
Today, I would like to outline these initiatives, programs and
benefits, as well as discuss some of the challenges we face.
human resources strategic review
In the past year the Department of Defense has embarked on several
initiatives to examine the state of our human resource programs and
determine what we need to do to meet the challenges of the 21st
century. These challenges are particularly poignant since the terrorist
attacks of September 11, and we are resolved to meet these challenges
head-on. One such effort is our recently completed Human Resources
Strategic plan. This plan will serve as our roadmap for military
personnel human resources issues over the next 3 to 5 years. The plan
details objectives, supporting actions, and measures of effectiveness
within defined lines of operation. It assigns tasks, establishes
milestones, identifies resource requirements, and facilitates synergy
for a wide range of military personnel issues. This plan is a dynamic
document intended to serve as a planning reference and management tool
for Department of Defense military human resource managers. Through
continuous assessment and refinement, the plan will provide the focal
point for ongoing and future military personnel legislative and policy
efforts.
compensation
Competitive pay for all personnel continues to be among the key
components in our efforts to attract and retain top quality, highly
skilled men and women. In addition to basic pay, compensation includes
all pays and allowances, such as housing and subsistence allowances,
and special and incentive pays. We are grateful to Congress for its
work in improving each of these areas, especially during the last
fiscal year. The largest military pay raise in 20 years and significant
progress in reducing out-of-pocket housing costs for servicemembers and
their families send a clear signal that our Nation values the courage
and sacrifice required of military service. Over half of today's
servicemembers in grades E-5 and above have at least some college, and
over 20 percent of personnel in grades E-8 and above have college
degrees, based on a DOD survey. We therefore applaud Congress' support
of the fiscal year 2002 pay raise to target additional raises for NCOs,
as well as mid-level officers, greater than required by law.
Housing Allowances
In addition to maintaining efforts to achieve competitive pay
tables, the Department recommends continuing to increase military
housing allowances significantly, with the goal of eliminating average
out-of-pocket costs by 2005. Building on the current year's increases,
the fiscal year 2003 budget requests further improvements in housing
allowances, reducing the average out-of-pocket costs from 11.3 percent
to 7.5 percent. Understandably, servicemembers view the housing
allowance as one of the key elements of their total compensation
package. Therefore, the Department has worked tirelessly to improve its
data collection to ensure the allowance accurately reflects the housing
markets where servicemembers and their families reside.
Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance
In concert with Congress' effort to address the issue of
servicemembers on food stamps, the Department is continuing to monitor
aggressively the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA)
program, which was implemented in May 2001. The number of military
personnel on food stamps has steadily decreased from 19,400 (9 tenths
of 1 percent of the force) in 1991 to an estimated 4,200 (3 tenths of 1
percent of the force) in 2001. In 2002, with FSSA in place, we
anticipate the number of members on food stamps will be reduced to
2,100 (1.5 tenths of 1 percent of the force). We expect this reduction
to occur both because of the large fiscal year 2002 pay raise, and also
because most FSSA-eligible members will choose to take the allowance.
Currently, approximately 2,500 servicemembers are FSSA eligible.
Although it would be ideal if no servicemember had to rely on the
use of food stamps, 100 percent participation of all eligible
individuals in FSSA may not be achievable. Participation in FSSA has a
detrimental effect on member eligibility for other income-based social
aid programs, such as the Free and Reduced School Lunch Program.
Additionally, for some, there remains a stigma attached to admitting to
the chain of command the need for more money. A FSSA website has been
established to educate personnel and address their concerns, and each
service has trained personnel available to offer personal assistance.
Special and Incentive Pays/Combat Zone Tax Exemption
Since Operation Enduring Freedom resulted in servicemembers moving
into new operational areas and settings, the Department has been
aggressively addressing their compensation needs. Military personnel in
Afghanistan, Kyrgykzstan, Jordan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and
those serving at Incirlik AB, Turkey in direct support of operations in
Afghanistan receive Combat Zone Tax Benefits. Members in these
countries also receive $150 per month in Imminent Danger Pay.
Additionally, these individuals qualify for Hardship Duty Pay-Location
at the rate of $50 or $100 per month, depending on conditions in their
particular location. Deployed members are housed in Government-provided
quarters and generally continue to receive the housing allowance
applicable to their home station. Their food is paid for out of the
subsistence portion of their per diem allowance, so they retain their
full Basic Allowance for Subsistence. As an example, a typical E-6,
married with two children, serving in Afghanistan will see a positive
difference of nearly $600 per month compared with a CONUS station. The
Department is committed to ensuring servicemembers and their families
are cared for through appropriate compensation while members are
deployed serving their country in dangerous locations.
Military Retirement
The retirement system for military personnel remains a premier
benefit for our members. The only area of recent concern was addressed
by Congress when it authorized newer members to have the High-Three
retirement or take the REDUX retirement and receive a lump sum career
status bonus at the 15th year of service, for which we thank you. The
value of military retirement is substantial. We believe the system is
among the best in the world and highly competitive with systems
available in the private sector.
In conjunction with the retirement system, the Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) protects a portion of a member's retired pay, providing
continued income for a member's survivors. The program is fully
subsidized for those who die on active duty and significantly
subsidized for retired members. SBP is structurally integrated with VA
survivor payments and those of social security. Together we believe
these programs represent a significant asset for military personnel and
their families.
Thrift Savings Plan
In fiscal year 2002, in addition to the pay and allowance
increases, the Department implemented a new authority provided by
Congress to allow the uniformed forces to participate in the Thrift
Savings Plan (TSP). This opportunity represents a major initiative to
improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families.
In its first open season, TSP attracted over 220,000 enrollees. The
Department estimated that 10 percent of active duty servicemembers
would enroll in the first year, and we have already exceeded that
number with two more open seasons remaining. Overall, military
compensation has made great strides in the last few years, with several
continued improvements on the way. We appreciate this significant
support by Congress in acknowledging the sacrifices and dedication of
our uniformed personnel.
quality of life
President Bush, in one of his first actions last year, issued a
National Security Presidential Directive to improve military quality of
life. Secretary Rumsfeld reiterated the President's commitment, stating
that the Department must forge a new social compact with its
warfighters and those who support them--one that honors their service,
understands their needs, and encourages them to make national defense a
lifelong career. The demographic changes in today's military--60
percent of troops have family responsibilities--foster the need for
such a new social contract that promotes a strong military community
and culture. The Department has undertaken a comprehensive and
systematic review of quality of life programs, and charted a course for
the future.
The partnership between the American people and our warfighters is
built on the tacit agreement that families, as well as our members,
contribute to the readiness and strength of the American military.
Military members and their families make sacrifices in the service of
our country and face special challenges. A new social compact must
recognize the reciprocal ties that bind servicemembers, the military
mission, and families, and responds to their quality of life needs as
individuals and as members of a larger community. The Department has
made a renewed commitment to underwrite family support programs and to
provide quality education and life-long learning opportunities.
Additionally, the military services are working with Reserve units to
make child care available through a variety of delivery methods,
including licensed Family Child Care homes, Child Development Centers,
and special arrangements for extended care.
Family Support and Spouse Employment
There is an integral link between military family readiness and
total force readiness. We are re-focusing family support programs to
address the two-thirds of active duty families who live off base, and
our Reserve families. We envision an outreach strategy that will
explicitly articulate to servicemembers and their families just how
important they are. To better underwrite our support to families, the
President's Budget Request increases funding for family centers by 8.5
percent or $17 million.
DOD successfully demonstrated this strategy in the aftermath of the
September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon. The entire Department
joined efforts to establish a Pentagon Family Assistance Center (PFAC).
We provided unprecedented outreach support to the families of victims
who were killed or injured in the attack. Personnel from OSD, military
service staffs, Government and non-Government agencies worked in
concert to provide the necessary support services, information, and
care to meet both immediate and long-term needs of families. Over 2,400
staff and volunteers donated their time and services to the mission.
To support the families of military personnel involved in Operation
Enduring Freedom, the Military Departments activated long-standing
deployment support programs including information and referral, crisis
intervention, and return and reunion programs. We paid particular
attention to communications programs such as Air Force Crossroads, Navy
LifeLines, Virtual Army Community Service, Hearts Apart, morale calls,
e-mail, and Web-based streaming video. Reserve components established
toll-free numbers for family members of National Guard and Reserve
units. In addition, the Air Force Reserve made child care available to
reservists and their families, and the Air National Guard implemented a
test Child Care Program in 13 locations around the Nation to serve the
child care needs of its mobilized and deployed members.
An essential element of the quality of life framework is improving
the financial stability of our military families. For this reason, we
are embarking on a financial literacy campaign that includes improving
personal and family financial training. As with most of America's young
adults, those entering the military have little understanding of the
basic tenets of personal financial management and little to no
practical experience managing their own money. As a consequence, they
often develop poor financial management habits and many become burdened
with credit card debt. The military services recognize the need to
increase the amount of training and assistance provided to members and
their families to ensure they can sustain a financially secure quality
of life.
At the same time, DOD has underscored its commitment to the
financial well being of military families through increased emphasis on
spouse employment. The 2002 NDAA directed DOD to examine its spouse
employment programs in the context of Federal, State, and private
sector programs. We welcome this instruction from Congress and the
opportunity to create new benchmarks for our programs, while continuing
to enhance the career options of military spouses through inter-
Department and private sector partnerships.
Child Care and Youth
Providing quality, affordable child care to the Total Force remains
a high priority throughout the Department of Defense. The fiscal year
2003 President's budget request increases child care funding by $27
million, or 7 percent. Although we have child development programs at
over 300 locations with 800 child development centers and over 9,000
family child care homes, we still project a need for an additional
45,000 spaces. We continue to pursue an aggressive expansion program
through a balanced delivery system that combines center construction,
an increased number of family child care homes, and partnerships with
local communities. We are providing family child care both on and off
the installation, encouraged by subsidies. Since about 99 percent of
DOD centers are accredited, compared with less than 10 percent in the
civilian sector, the military child development program remains a model
for the Nation.
In support of the war effort, we have expanded operating hours and
developed innovative co-use practices among child development programs,
with many locations offering around-the-clock care, as necessary. Many
have reacted to the needs of geographically single parents by offering
special operating hours and instituting projects for children to
communicate with the absent parent.
Teens also feel the impact of the pressures of the war. Computer
centers, available in most youth centers, offer a means for young teens
to communicate electronically with an absent parent. Teens receive
mentoring when parents work extremely long duty days.
The military community has made a strong commitment to provide
positive activities and environments for youth. The computer centers,
available in all youth programs, offer a means for young teens to
communicate electronically with an absent parent. Tutors are available
at the centers to help students complete school homework assignments in
a supervised setting. This decreases the amount of unsupervised time,
and increases the opportunities for relationships with caring adults.
Educational Opportunities
In the area of educational opportunities for our servicemembers,
participation in the off-duty education program remains strong with
enrollment in over 600,000 courses last year. Members were also awarded
30,000 higher education degrees by hundreds of colleges and
universities. This is an important benefit that servicemembers say is
part of their reason for joining. Tuition assistance policies are in
place to increase support for off-duty education. Effective October 1,
2002, tuition assistance for servicemembers will increase to the point
where virtually all of the cost of taking college courses will be borne
by the Department. The services have increased funding by $69 million
to implement the new authority.
In the fiscal year 2002 NDAA, Congress authorized two new programs
designed to promote reenlistments and extensions in critical
specialties--Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Transferability and an education
savings bond plan. We welcome the opportunity to explore the viability
and usefulness of the programs and are currently discussing how best to
implement them.
With the support of Congress, DOD last year provided $35 million to
heavily impacted school districts serving military dependent students
and an additional $10.5 million in grants to be used for repair and
renovation of school buildings. The Department is actively working with
public school districts and State education authorities to lessen the
displacement and trauma experienced by children of military personnel
who are forced to change schools frequently due to the reassignment of
military members. Within the last 2 years we have brought together over
300 students, parents, military leaders, school personnel, and State
policy makers to help address and give visibility to these issues which
affect about 600,000 children of active duty military personnel.
Troops-to-Teachers
The Troops-to-Teachers Program has successfully injected the
talents, skills, and experiences of military servicemembers into public
education. The program was recently expanded to include Selected
Reserve members with 10 or more years of service as well as Reserve
retirees with 20 or more years of service. Both the President and the
First Lady have expressed support for Troops-to-Teachers and talked
about the critical need for highly competent individuals to counter
America's critical shortage of teachers. More than 4,500 participants
have been hired to teach throughout all 50 States, and 70 percent of
teachers hired through the program are still in public education after
5 years. The Department has helped establish and financially support
placement assistance offices in 25 States. The recent congressional
appropriation of $18 million for this program will enable the
Department to again award stipends to help former servicemembers offset
the cost of becoming certified and employed as elementary and secondary
school teachers. This injects the best military leadership qualities
into American school systems.
Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA)
The Department has a school system to be proud of, and we continue
to address quality issues in the areas of curriculum, staffing,
facilities, safety, security, and technology. Our dependent schools
comprise two educational systems providing quality pre-kindergarten
through 12th grade programs: the DOD Domestic Dependent Elementary and
Secondary Schools (DDESS) for dependents in locations within the United
States and its territories, possessions, and commonwealths, and the DOD
Dependents Schools (DODDS) for dependents residing overseas. Today
approximately 8,800 teachers and other instructional personnel serve
more than 111,000 students in 224 schools. They are located in 14
foreign countries, 7 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Students include
both military and civilian Federal employee dependents.
The quality of DOD schools is measured in many ways, but most
importantly, as in other school systems, by student performance. DOD
students regularly score significantly above the national average in
every subject area at every grade level on nationally standardized
tests.
In addition, students participate in the National Assessment of
Educational Process (NAEP) tests. NAEP which is known as the ``Nation's
Report Card'' is the only nationally representative and continuing
assessment of what America's students know and can do in various
subject areas. DODEA students do well on NAEP and DODEA African-
American and Hispanic students, in particular, score exceptionally well
on this test. This outstanding performance led the National Education
Goals Panel to commission Vanderbilt University to study the
instructional program, teaching, and other aspects of DODEA schooling
to identify the variables that contribute to the students' success. The
findings, which were published in October 2001, received extensive
national coverage.
DODEA's 2001 graduates were awarded nearly $28 million in
scholarship and grant monies; 29 percent was for attendance at military
academies and 31 percent for ROTC scholarships. Graduates in 2001
reported plans to attend 762 different colleges and universities
worldwide.
To meet the challenge of the increasing competition for teachers,
DOD has an aggressive U.S. recruitment program. The program emphasizes
diversity and quality, and focuses on placing eligible military family
members as teachers in its schools.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs have proven to be
important to military communities, providing fitness and recreational
opportunities for servicemembers and their families. The 469 fitness
centers in DOD have the highest use rate of any MWR program, with 80
percent of active duty military using them at least once monthly, and
52 percent using them 6 times or more per month. The Department views
improving fitness programs as a high priority, not only due to their
popularity, but also because of their importance to the maintenance of
a servicemember's physical readiness. Physical fitness is critical to
providing forces that are more resistant to illness, less prone to
injury and the influence of stress, and better able to recover quickly
should illness or injury occur. Our fitness specialists are working
with health promotion and physical training specialists to make this
vision a reality. To accomplish this, the fitness center infrastructure
will require upgrade to bring them to acceptable standards.
Commissaries and Military Exchanges
Military members and their families consider their commissary
privilege to be one of their top two non-cash benefits, second only to
health care. The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) operates the
worldwide system of 281 commissaries. DeCA provides a 30 percent
savings on comparable market baskets in the private sector. Beginning
in fiscal year 2002, legislative authority permits funding of most DeCA
operations from appropriations, thereby leaving the Surcharge Trust
Fund available for capital investment. As a result of this change, the
fiscal year 2002 major construction program contains 10 commissary
projects at a total surcharge cost of $94 million--a significant
increase from prior years.
We are looking at various ways to reduce the appropriated fund
subsidy to commissaries. We want to improve how the benefit is
delivered, with the objective being to obtain the same benefit at
reduced cost to the taxpayer. We will work closely with congressional
oversight committees as we explore this issue.
Military exchanges also form a significant portion of the community
support program. They are the ``home town store'' for our
servicemembers and families assigned stateside, overseas, in remote
locations and to deployment sites around the world--including 16
tactical field exchanges supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. It is
important to troops and families stationed around the globe to have
American goods and services. Being a long way from home should not mean
giving up what is familiar and what adds comfort to our lifestyles.
Today's exchanges operate at 694 locations worldwide, with annual sales
of $9.5 billion.
Exchanges offer quality goods at significant savings, and then pass
the majority of their profits back to the MWR program to support
essential, morale-building programs, and to make capital improvements.
Our practice of using exchange earnings to support MWR programs is well
established; the exchanges provide over $320 million annually.
The Department is taking a very close look at the exchange business
practices and organizations to maximize efficiencies and improve
customer service and savings. We are looking closely at the services'
plans to ensure that the alternatives pursued reduce costs while
improving customer service, ensuring competitive pricing and continued
support for MWR.
Finally, as part of the new social compact with servicemembers, we
will better define, measure, and communicate the savings and services
provided to DOD personnel by the commissaries and exchanges.
health care
An essential element of the new social compact is a high-quality,
affordable, convenient Military Health System (MHS) that supports our
8.3 million military beneficiaries. With the numerous authorizations
you provided in the National Defense Authorization Act last year, these
beneficiaries have begun to receive that kind of health care. Today,
military beneficiaries have a comprehensive and generous benefit.
The MHS is far more than a benefit, however. This acknowledgement
crystallized for all of us in the aftermath of the September 11
terrorist attacks and bio-terrorist actions involving anthrax. The
capabilities of this system and its personnel contributed indispensably
to the care and treatment of survivors and families and in assisting
other Federal agencies in their responsibilities to identify remains as
well as to identify and track anthrax samples. Some of these efforts
continue even now.
Military Health System Funding
As we experience a new sense of urgency within the MHS to ensure
the ability to operate in a contaminated environment, to be alert to
potential exposures, and to treat casualties, we have budgeted
realistically for the Defense Health Program (DHP) for fiscal year
2003. These funds will support key initiatives to enhance chemical and
biological preparedness and deployment health support systems.
In the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2003, the DHP
submission is based on realistic estimates of health care benefits to
DOD eligible populations. It includes inflation assumptions for
pharmacy of 10.5 percent plus anticipated program growth for an overall
increase of 15 percent from the fiscal year 2002 program. Private
sector health costs have been inflated at 7 percent to reflect our
recent experience; anticipated program growth brings the overall rate
of change to 12 percent from fiscal year 2002. We will manage the
health care system to improve performance and contain the health care
costs within budgeted amounts. We will make prudent decisions that
result in effective performance. We seek your assistance in making
permanent the contract management flexibility you provided in the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 and in
alleviating the restrictions on moving resources across budget activity
groups.
This budget request reflects implementation of accrual financing
for the health care costs of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, including
their new TRICARE for Life benefits. This will entail both payments
into the fund ($8.1 billion) to cover the government's liability for
future health care costs of current military personnel and receipts
from the fund (projected $5.7 billion) to pay for care provided to
eligible beneficiaries. Our budget reflects a decrease to the DHP
appropriation to account for the payments from the Fund and an increase
to the military services' Military Personnel accounts to cover the
Department's normal cost contribution. This alignment ensures
consistency with the accrual funding for the military retirement
pension costs under title 10, chapter 74. We ask your help in modifying
NDAA 2001 and 2002, which currently direct that the Defense Health
Program make the annual contribution to the accrual fund. It is the
Military Personnel accounts that should make these payments; they have
received increases for this purpose in the fiscal year 2003 budget
request.
Force Health Protection and Medical Readiness
Even before the events of September 11, the Quadrennial Defense
Review observed that both terrorism and chemical and biological weapons
would transform the strategic landscape for the Department. The
terrorist acts of last fall placed us on a war footing and escalated
the urgency of our need for preparedness. The MHS has numerous
activities underway to ensure that preparedness, including formation of
a high-level working group with Department of Health and Human Services
representatives to improve collaboration on defense against biological
and chemical terrorism. Deliberations continue on the future of the
anthrax vaccine immunization program now that we have confidence in an
assured supply of FDA-approved vaccine. The MHS has also placed renewed
emphasis on training military health care personnel in recognizing
symptoms of and refreshing treatment plans for exposure to chemical and
biological agents.
TRICARE
This military health program benefit provides an essential and
interdependent link between medical readiness and everyday health care
delivery. Meeting the force health protection responsibilities of the
MHS depends upon the success of TRICARE in providing both quality
health care and challenging clinical experiences for military health
care providers. Very important to this success is a stable financial
environment. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget request for the
DHP provides that stability.
TRICARE's success also relies on incorporating best business
practices into our administration of the program, specifically our
managed care contracts. Our new generation of TRICARE contracts (T-NEX)
will encourage best business practices by the contractors without over
direction by the government. Also, we are working with the Department
of Veterans Affairs to make sure that T-NEX provides appropriate
opportunities for VA participation in provider networks. We have
listened to the advice of industry and our beneficiaries on how to
structure these contracts, and we are confident that the design will
help us to continue providing high quality care. We enter this new
generation of contracts with a commitment to our beneficiaries to earn
their satisfaction and to ensure continuity of quality services.
Implementation of TRICARE for Life has proceeded exceptionally
well. As in all new program startups, we have experienced problems.
Nevertheless, we aggressively handle each one until we reach a
satisfactory resolution. Since the October 1, 2001 start date, we have
processed over ten million claims and the overwhelming majority of
anecdotal information we receive is that our beneficiaries are
extremely satisfied with TRICARE for Life. They speak very highly of
the senior pharmacy program as well. This program began April 1, 2001,
virtually problem-free, and as of April 1 this year, 10.2 million
prescriptions have been processed, accounting for over 562 million in
drug costs.
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies
The MHS has built many strong relationships among other Federal
agencies--including Congress, professional organizations, contractors,
and beneficiary and military service associations. These relationships
facilitated the MHS's ability to respond in the aftermath of terrorist
actions last fall. The MHS role in homeland security responsibilities
will span an array of Federal, State, and local agencies and will
demand effective cooperation among all involved. Our close working
relationship with beneficiary associations and contractors led to the
smooth implementation of TRICARE for Life.
DOD's collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs dates
back many years and much has been accomplished. We have eight joint
ventures throughout the country providing coordinated health care to VA
and DOD beneficiaries. We have over 600 sharing agreements in place
covering nearly 7,000 health care services. However, not all of these
agreements are fully utilized. Eighty percent of VA facilities partner
with us through TRICARE networks, but the level of participation by VA
within the TRICARE network varies. Our Reserve components capitalize on
education and training opportunities with over 300 agreements in place.
With the Indian Health Service, both will collaborate in the Federal
Health Care Information Exchange, which will enable DOD to send patient
health care information on separated servicemembers to the VA. While we
have achieved many successes, it is time to reinvigorate these
collaborative efforts to maximize sharing of health resources, to
increase efficiency, and to improve access for the beneficiaries of
both departments. The focus of our efforts is to move the relationship
with the VA from one of sharing to a proactive partnership that meets
the missions of both agencies while benefiting the servicemember,
veteran, and taxpayer. DOD has provided office space, administrative
support, and functional experts to ensure the Task Force accomplishes
its mission of improving coordination of health care for veterans and
military retirees.
Military Medical Personnel
The Quadrennial Defense Review directs development of a strategic
human resource plan to identify the tools necessary to shape the
military force with adequate numbers of high-quality, skilled
professionals. The MHS depends on clinically competent, highly
qualified, professionally satisfied military medical personnel. In
developing the MHS human resource plan, we have begun several
initiatives to determine retention rates, reasons for staying or
leaving the service, and what factors would convince one to remain in
the military. The challenges of military service can be unique and
tremendously rewarding personally and professionally.
As the MHS pursues the many initiatives outlined above, it will
become even stronger. The MHS's continued mission-oriented focus on its
primary mission responsibilities has further cemented its world-
renowned stature as a leader in integrated health care.
military funeral honors
Since the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2000, the Department has worked tirelessly to ensure that
our Nation's veterans receive military funeral honors. It is our
national obligation to demonstrate the Nation's gratitude to those who,
in times of war and peace, have faithfully defended our country. The
rendering of a final tribute and recognition to our Nation's veterans
is an important tradition in the Department of Defense. Faced with one
of the largest active and Reserve military drawdowns in history, and
the increasing numbers of World War II-era veterans' deaths, this has
been a challenging mission, but one to which we remain committed.
Our recent policy directive clearly delineates the military
services' responsibility to provide military funeral honors upon
request. Additionally, we distributed a military funeral honors kit to
every funeral director in the country and activated a military funeral
honors web site. Each has significantly enhanced the ability of the
military services to respond to requests.
Recently, we initiated another program called the Authorized
Provider Partnership Program. This program allows us to partner with
members of veterans service and other appropriate organizations to
augment the funeral honor detail. The program will enhance our ability
to provide additional elements to the funeral ceremony. The Authorized
Provider Partnership Program symbolizes the continuity of respect for
deceased veterans by those who are serving and by those who have served
in the armed forces. Our overall and sustained goal remains the same:
to render appropriate tribute to our Nation's veterans and honor those
who serve.
benefits for reserves and national guard personnel
On September 11, the response of our National Guard and Reserve men
and women was both quick and complete. They volunteered and responded
to the Nation's needs without hesitation. Many reported to their
armories and Reserve Centers without being asked. Before the fireball
disappeared from above the Pentagon, Air National Guardsmen and Air
Force, Navy, and Marine reservists were patrolling the skies over
Washington, DC, New York, and several other American cities. At the
same time, New York guardsmen were on the streets of lower Manhattan
assisting New York emergency service workers. Maryland, Virginia, and
District of Columbia guardsmen were patrolling the hallways and
exterior of the still burning Pentagon on September 11. By the next
morning over 6,000 guardsmen and reservist were on duty--all
volunteers.
Today, we have over 90,000 National Guard and Reserve men and women
supporting Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. They are
performing force protection and security duties here in the United
States, flying refueling missions over central Asia, and are on the
ground in Afghanistan. At the President's request, about 7,000 Army and
Air National Guardsmen are protecting our airports.
The Total Force policy and our integration efforts of the past
decade are paying great rewards today. On no notice, America's National
Guard and Reserve were ``ready to roll.'' Their enthusiasm for the
mission remains high. They are in it for the long haul. We are
judiciously managing the force to ensure fair and equitable treatment
of our Reserve component members, but the bottom line is they are
committed and capable warriors in the war on terrorism.
When we call upon the Guard and Reserve, we need to make sure their
service is productive and meaningful, and that we make every effort to
take care of them and their families. With the help of Congress, there
have been many improvements in protections and benefits for mobilized
reservists and their families since the Persian Gulf War.
Health Care
Yet there is more we can and need to do. The transition to a
different health care system is sometimes not as smooth as we would
like. To help ease that transition, the Department has undertaken a
demonstration project that (1) waives the TRICARE deductible fees, (2)
removes the requirement to obtain a non-availability statement before
being treated outside military medical treatment facilities, and (3)
authorizes health care payments up to 15 percent above the allowable
charges for care provided for non-participating TRICARE providers.
Civilian Employer Relationships
We have also encouraged the Secretaries of the Military Departments
to exempt the service performed by those who volunteer for duty in
support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle from counting
toward the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 5-
year limit.
The increased reliance on the Reserve components to support
national security directly affects the civilian employers of Guard and
Reserve members. The Reserve commitment is no longer one weekend a
month and 2 weeks during the summer--which was the traditional training
regimen for the Reserve components. We have now established a new
paradigm in which we call upon reservists to leave their civilian jobs
more frequently to perform military duty, often at a time when
businesses are streamlining their workforce and are relying on their
reservist-employees to be in the civilian workplace. This places a
burden on civilian employers who must sustain their business operations
with fewer employees, while their reservist-employees are fulfilling
their military obligation and performing their military duties. From an
employer perspective, this affects their bottom line. Whether a for-
profit company or not-for-profit organization, the effect of calling on
their employees to serve in uniform is essentially the same for all
employers. The employer must make difficult decisions such as
redistributing the workload among other employees (overtime), hiring
temporary replacements (additional payroll expense), or reducing
production or services (reduced profit or decreased services provided).
If the Department is to continue to call upon these shared human
resources, we must determine what actions the Department can take to
identify employers of Reserve component members. We must increase our
focus on employer support efforts, improve communications between the
Department and employers, identify future actions that will provide
some relief for employers when we call upon their reservist-employees,
and strengthen the relationship between the Department and employers
that will enable us to continue to use our shared employees.
Reserve Force Employment
We also recognize that the process for employing Reserve component
members, given the wide array of different duty categories in which
they can serve, is unnecessarily complex and confusing. We have
undertaken a comprehensive review to determine if greater efficiencies
and increased flexibilities are possible in the process of employing
National Guard and Reserve units and individuals. Associated
compensation and benefits are also being addressed to identify and
eliminate disparities between the active and Reserve components.
New Missions
Finally, the Secretary's call for transformation of the Department
has offered new opportunities to look for innovative uses of the
Reserve components. One area we are exploring is the growing shortage
of cutting edge professionals in key areas such as biometrics and
information technology that exists worldwide. One possibility might be
to attract and retain individuals with cutting edge civilian skills in
the Reserve components. Civilian industry would keep their skills
sharp, yet they would be available when we needed them--putting the
right person with the right skill in the right place at the right time.
This may require building on or expanding some existing programs to
better capitalize on civilian acquired skills; encouraging innovative
forms of Reserve component participation such as virtual duty or remote
duty; creating new ``critical specialty'' categories of Reserves that
are incubators for new and emerging talent pools rather than way
stations where reservists are managed; and identifying innovative ways
to foster partnerships with leading edge firms in which we could share
individuals with cutting-edge technology skills.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I thank you and the
members of this subcommittee for your outstanding and continuing
support for the men and women of the Department of Defense. I look
forward to working with you closely during the coming year.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Abell.
I would like to go to Senator McCain for any comments or
questions.
Senator McCain. I thank you very much, Senator Cleland. I
want to thank you for your sponsorship of our Defend Our
Freedom Act and I hope that we can act on the military portion
of it in the markup of our bill.
Secretary Abell, we all know that Guard and Reserve people
are being extended now on active duty. Many of them are glad to
serve. To many it is a great hardship. Unfortunately, because
of the nature of the war, the conflict that we are in, we
really do not know how long we are going to have to keep some
of them; is that not correct?
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. That makes for future problems possibly in
recruiting and retaining people in the Guard and Reserve if it
is not clear to them how long they may have to remain on active
duty. My staff has had numerous discussions with you about this
provision that we would like to add to the President's National
Service Freedom USA Act, I believe. The President has strongly
supported and actively campaigned--just this week he was out
speaking, I think very eloquently, about the need for
volunteerism and national service, and I know that he has met
with staffers from the White House on this issue as well.
My question to you is, I am sure you have thought about it
and have some ideas, and I wonder if you have any thoughts or
opinions that perhaps you could offer that would help us in
trying to formulate this legislation and move it through the
committee at this time?
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. I have given it some thought, and I
should just be frank with you and say I have not vetted my
thoughts within the Department or within the administration. My
conversations with folks in the White House have been very
informal.
But as to the military component of it, one, we are very
proud that the President and you have included military service
as a part of national service. That is an important recognition
to us.
Senator McCain. Would you preface your comments with this
Guard and Reserve active duty issue that I alluded to?
Mr. Abell. Sir, we could not prosecute the war without the
Guard and the Reserve. I take the President and the Secretary
at their word that it is going to be a very long war, and the
uncertainty is a difficulty for the Guard and Reserve. We are
even as we speak conducting a 6-month review of our callup in
the Department to see what can we do, do the missions still
reflect the initial callup? Are there some that we can release?
What might the future portend and how can we address the needs
of the force with the expectations of the Guard and the Reserve
members and their families?
I am hopeful that in the very near future we will be able
to communicate with the individual members and their families
as to how long they should plan on being called up and then
what the future may portend for that.
Senator McCain. Please go back.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. As far as the military component of
the act that you and Senator Bayh have proposed, it seems to
me, sir, that there is something there that is very workable.
It is a great idea. My concerns are about the length of time. I
would like to be able to have folks who enlist under this
program have sufficient time after their initial training to be
able to deploy to an overseas assignment or to take a full tour
on-board a ship, whether it be Marines or Navy.
In my view, that probably is in the order of say 15 months
or so of service after their initial training. I think that in
discussions with your staff there are some very interesting
incentives that we might add to this program to offer it. We
are trying to be very active in attracting the college market,
and I would think that an incentive that would offer repayment
of a certain amount of an existing educational loan would be
very positive.
I note from some of the information I have seen in the New
York Times that the average would be around $18,000. I am sure
we could find a number up there that would be mutually
acceptable.
It is also possible to use the Montgomery GI Bill as an
incentive for a shorter term of service, to modify the
Montgomery GI Bill to say, in return for offering us this
service, we would offer you a scaled-down version of the
Montgomery GI Bill benefit. For those who do not choose to take
advantage of further education or whose education loans are
paid for, if on their separation we could be able to offer them
a modest, by defense means, maybe not modest by individual
perspective, severance bonus for taking advantage of this
national service program, and again I would just pick the
number $5,000 out of the air. There may be a more
scientifically derived number somewhere along the line.
It would seem to me that we could offer those benefits as a
series of options from which a potential recruit might select
one as their choices of how they would like to be incentivized
for their national service.
The first principles that I believe are necessary and I am
sure you share are that every recruit has to meet the same
physical, moral, and ethical standards as any other recruit,
and that every servicemember, no matter what program under
which they enter, would have the options to extend or reenlist
and stay with us for a longer time if they find military
service to be their calling.
Senator McCain. I thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I
understand those are your personal views because they have not
been vetted through the system. I just would make a couple
points.
One is that it is clear that the President would like to
see action soon on this whole issue of national service and
volunteerism. I think that is why he spent so much time out
talking to the American people about it. Therefore I hope that
we could get the official endorsement of at least of some of
your ideas as we go through the markup process.
I think it would be much more efficient to do that as part
of the defense authorization bill as opposed to trying to go to
the floor when the national service bill came up and amend
that. I think it is a much more orderly fashion, although we
would go that way if we had to.
There is one other point. Every time I look around, there
is another requirement for homeland security. We all know about
ports, nuclear power plants, reservoirs, airports, the list
goes on and on and on. Every time I walk through the airport,
which is frequently, I see these Guard members standing there,
and you could argue whether they were required or not. It would
be an academic discussion, but the fact is they are there, and
they are taking their time away from their home, their family,
their job, to serve the country.
I would envision that a lot of these people that we are
talking about under this program could fulfil some of those
homeland security requirements, which I just do not believe the
Guard and Reserve are capable of performing for an unlimited
period of time. Otherwise you are never going to get anybody to
join. Why not join the active duty component if you are going
to be on active duty all the time, as opposed to Guard and
Reserve?
Those are just thoughts that I had, and I would hope that
we can get some official recommendations from the Pentagon. I
thank you for your discussions with the staff and your already
very helpful and constructive suggestions as we move forward.
Finally, I would like to thank the chairman for his
commitment on this issue. I do not think there is anybody that
embodies more the concept of national service than the
chairman. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank
you very much for your leadership in terms of making it
possible for Americans to participate in defending their
homeland and participating as Americans. We appreciate that.
Mr. Secretary, a word to the wise. It would be nice to hear
from the administration in this regard. I will say that it is
interesting that the Reserves were created for Reserves in a
military sense. It is not wise to commit your Reserves in a
wartime capacity for a long period of time. Otherwise you have
no Reserves to commit if something else happens badly somewhere
in the world.
Second, the Guard was created pretty much for the home
guard. In my experience, I have heard from Guard members in my
State and they say they signed up to guard Albany, Georgia, not
Albania. So I think that we have to keep things in perspective
here. Certainly in the wake of 9-11 we all realize each one of
us in terms of a homeland security role can be each other's
first responder. So we have our work cut out for us.
Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR E. BENJAMIN NELSON
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our panelists for being here today. I
appreciate, Secretary Abell, the review that you are making on
the rotation of our reservists and Guard. In a visit to
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan, it was the one point
that was made quite often, that is the uncertainty as to their
future. These folks had jobs when they left and hope they have
the jobs when they get back and are able to get back to their
ordinary lives, clearly. Not one complaint about serving, but a
question about the uncertainty of the length of the service and
what would be required, even though they did understand that it
was not an easy thing to determine.
Another area that I would like to get your reaction to,
both of you: we recruit an individual and retain the family, so
clearly family benefits become extremely important in the
second part of the process. They are also important in the
first part, but most single people are not worrying about child
care centers, they are not necessarily worried about all the
family benefits.
In my experience in private life, one of the best things
that we ever were able to do with employees is to give them a
periodic listing--when I say ``periodic,'' I mean at relatively
short intervals--of the benefits that they receive and what the
true market value of these benefits are. For competition
purposes I can assure you that people in the private side are
doing that.
If we are being competitive we ought to be able to identify
benefits. For example, I am shocked that I cannot get a daily
accounting of what my pension contributions are. I get it
occasionally. But on the private side I can call and I can find
out what my 401-K is doing. The Government does not always ring
its bell as loudly as it can. This would be an area where I
think we could do a great deal for educating and informing our
personnel.
I wonder, if you are doing something like that right now,
how extensive is it, and how beneficial have you found it?
Usually you get a pay slip that tells what your pay is, what
was deducted, where it went, stuff like that, but you do not
get an explanation of the value of the benefits that are not
taxed that you are receiving.
Mr. Abell. Senator, that is a good point. When I was
growing up in the Army, we would get exactly that list
occasionally, I think once a year.
Senator Ben Nelson. That is probably not often enough,
because you forget from year to year.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. In preparing for this hearing, one of
the questions I asked is do we still do that, and the answer is
no. Somewhere over the years that practice has lapsed. So then
I said: All right, well then, just show me the list of benefits
so that we can work from there. Again, quiet in the room.
So this hearing has been beneficial from the perspective of
at least we have assembled all in one spot, at least what we
believe is all in one spot, a comprehensive list of the
benefits, and we are in fact discussing this exact point as to
how best to array the list of benefits and their apparent
value.
Senator Ben Nelson. If it helps you in the process, you
should let them know that I will continue to ask the question
until it gets answered.
Mr. Abell. Sir, that will be motivation for us.
Mr. Stewart. Senator, I would like to add. That is a point
that we found when we were doing our work, that servicemembers
just are not aware of what benefits are available to them. So I
think it would do a lot for the individual servicemember to
know just what benefits there are, and then if you could put
some value with those benefits I think that would be a real
revelation for most of them.
Senator Ben Nelson. It would help if you can do it in a way
so it is informational as opposed to disclosure. Disclosure is
what you get with a stock, something you cannot read, it is too
thick, and you cannot understand it. Information is something
that is readily understandable, presented in a user-friendly
manner so that people can truly understand it.
In that regard, one of the competitive benefits that is
being offered by a lot of employers today is the child care
center. We had some inquiries from Offutt Air Force Base in
Nebraska and we have heard this from other military bases, that
we do not have that child care center. If we are going to be
focused on the family, that is one of the best things that can
be done, and the cost of providing that service is relatively
small in comparison to what the value is to the military
personnel.
I would hope that as we try to retain that family that
those incentives can be considered. Clearly, to recruit and
find a way to be able to help reduce the education debt, the
loan, that is a tremendous advantage. I think in the Senate we
have something comparable to that for personnel. It seems to me
that we do not need to engage in give-away programs, but until
our recruitment and our retention is at the level where we want
it to be and until we are more than adequately competitive with
the private sector, I think we have to continue to look for
those types of benefits that will be helpful.
I am pleased that we are increasing the base pay. Clearly,
we do not want to lag behind in that area. But it is not the
only thing that matters. If you do surveys among your
personnel, very often you will find that it is not just the
base pay that they focus on, but it is on other things,
benefits being one of them, and esprit de corps obviously when
it comes to the military is a major factor there.
I think that is everything I have right now, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for responding, and for that motivation.
Let them know that the next time we are together I am going to
be asking to see the explanation. It can be presented in a very
user-friendly way, and I think you will find it a useful tool.
Mr. Abell. We will go to work on it, sir.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Mr. Abell, recent press reports indicate that a Pentagon
plan to give some servicemembers the chance to transfer GI Bill
benefits to family members appears to be unraveling. Would you
like to comment on the Department's plans to implement the
authority given by Congress to transfer unused GI Bill benefits
to family members? Bring us up to date on that, please, sir.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. The Navy has a plan that they intend
to implement or begin implementing in June, I believe, that
will allow in categories selected by the service secretary
folks to take advantage of your legislation and transfer some
part of their GI Bill benefit in return for a commitment. The
Air Force has a plan that is a little less developed, that they
intend to implement in October, I understand, pretty much along
the same lines.
The Army and the Marine Corps are not as far along. As a
matter of fact, as I have discussed this with them they have
not yet identified funds they would use to sponsor such a
program. They have indicated interest, but they have not yet
identified any funds.
Senator Cleland. In the famous words of Senator Nelson, I
will continue to ask the question.
Mr. Abell. I am confident of that, sir.
Senator Cleland. Mr. Stewart, you pointed out spousal
employment, that in a married force the happiness of the spouse
is important. You know the old adage, if mama ain't happy,
ain't nobody happy. In order to keep mama happy or the spouse
happy, part of that is gainful employment.
One of the things I was thinking about in terms of the
transferability of the GI Bill was also the ability of the
spouse to go to school and therefore be qualified for better
employment. Did you come across anything in your studies to
indicate either a desire or some need for improvement by the
Pentagon in this regard, to provide some of those kinds of
encouragements for spouses to be happy?
Mr. Stewart. The spousal employment program is a big issue.
The DOD has had a formal program since 1985, but more attention
has been paid recently to the program. There are still a lot of
unemployed spouses, as I mentioned, who are seeking work. But
the Department has a number of initiatives underway. For
example, they are working with the Department of Labor to deal
with a number of the State issues for relicensing and
recertification when spouses move from one State to another,
and they have to requalify again. That initiative is underway.
The Department of Defense has several initiatives underway
where they are partnering with private sector firms like
Marriott and CVS to provide employment for military spouses.
So the Department has a number of initiatives that should
help to allay some of the concerns of the spouses.
Senator Cleland. Mr. Stewart, I have often thought that
maybe the biggest single change in the military since I served
in the Vietnam War era 35 years ago was not so much that the
military became a volunteer service, but that it became a
married force. The volunteer part it seems can be a plus. It
can be looked at as part of an elite unit. I know the Army is
going to the black beret. Every soldier out there wears a black
beret now. In many ways the military is now used very actively
and very aggressively. One might say in special operations
every operation is different. It is an elite unit that we put
out there, the best and the brightest.
The volunteer part can be dealt with somewhat. The married
force part seems to me a very deep and abiding challenge. On
the retention end, we always knew that education was a powerful
part of recruitment and it still is. The advertising campaigns
for recruiting and the massive investment in recruiters, all
that is well and good.
The problem it seems to me, though, is that we are not just
looking for warm bodies. We are looking for talented, skilled
people to fight smart wars with smart weapons. The smarter the
individual, the better we like them, because they are more
trained and talented and so forth.
In many ways we are going after the same people that
corporate America, universities, and other high tech endeavors
are going after. Also, not just in recruiting, but in
retention--it seems to me that something happens after the 4,
5, 6-year mark, that if you were not married when you came in
the odds are, after 6, 7, 8, 9 years, you are going to be
married. That then begins to take over and drive the retention
decision.
I was out in Japan and an admiral mentioned to me at one of
the naval bases there that the decision to remain in the Navy
is made at the dinner table. This whole complex of issues,
including education, health care, education for the youngsters,
both K through 12 and on to college later, all of a sudden
becomes a complex of issues generally called quality of life
that drives that retention decision, and it is a family
decision.
The happiness of the spouse is one of the reasons I tried
to move the educational piece to a more family-oriented asset,
and that is one of the reasons we commissioned you to look at
the series of benefits out there.
Is it your conclusion that we still have work to do in
being alert to the needs of family members, particularly in
terms of being sensitive to their retention needs?
Mr. Stewart. The DOD has done a remarkable job in
addressing the needs of the family. Numerous family-friendly
benefits have been implemented and there are plans to expand
existing ones. Two of the three we identified--spousal
employment and expanding the capacity for child care--those are
issues that the DOD is aware of and is working on.
The maternity-paternity leave program is an issue that I am
not sure that the DOD is addressing. If you look at who is
getting higher education, it is more and more women. More women
go to college than men. If we are talking about recruiting
high-tech, highly skilled people, you have to look at
recruiting more women. The DOD does not project the number of
women that will be coming into the force 3 years from now, 5
years from now, 10 years from now.
We think that some attention needs to be paid to that and
then look at your benefits to see what combination of benefits
you need to have to attract and retain female servicemembers,
given that they are going to become mothers, et cetera.
The study we did several years ago was very interesting.
Over 2,000 women left active duty service before completing
that initial enlistment period that they signed up for,
anywhere from a 2- to 6-year contract, 4 years being typical.
When they leave before that 4-year commitment is up, that costs
the taxpayer. The cost of recruiting has soared and the cost of
training continues to go up.
When we did our report back in 1998, the cost to attract
and train just through the first 6 months was $35,000 per
recruit. I am sure it is up from that now. That is a heavy
investment to make in an individual to have them leave after 7
or 8 months of being in the force. That is an issue that we
think DOD really needs to pay some attention to.
But in general, Mr. Chairman, the benefits are outstanding.
They exceed what you will find in the private sector. We do
think that the servicemembers are not aware of all that they
are getting and that DOD needs to go on a real campaign to make
the members aware of just what they are getting and how that
compares to the private sector.
Senator Cleland. Ring the bell, as Senator Nelson has put
it.
It seems to me that we have to be outstanding. We are in a
volunteer world here, and we are trying to retain a family. It
does seem to me that the benefits have to be pretty outstanding
because the stresses on that family are unbelievable. It is not
like being married to a corporate executive. When you are an
Apache helicopter pilot out at Fort Stewart, Georgia, you are
gone all the time. If it is not Kuwait, it is Bosnia. If it is
not Bosnia, it is Afghanistan. If it is not Afghanistan, it is
South Korea. You are gone all the time, and the stresses and
strains on the family are very serious.
That is why all of us are searching for a way to make the
military itself more family-friendly.
Moving on that point, the commissary benefit is one of the
most prized benefits for servicemembers. It does seem to me
that it fits right in with the family-friendly approach that we
need to take. The commissary benefit feeds that family, and it
is looked upon as a benefit, and you have it charted here as a
benefit.
I will say it is one of the benefits out there that, based
on anecdotal evidence, people really know that they have. They
see it, feel it, taste it. They know they have it, they
appreciate it, and they do not want anything to happen to it.
Mr. Abell, this brings me to my next point: I understand
that the administration's budget proposes significant cuts in
appropriated funds support for commissaries, and this will
result in personnel cuts of over 2,500 positions. I understand
that commissary store managers and employees and commissary
patrons are very concerned that these reductions will mean cuts
in store hours, poorly stocked shelves, and longer checkout
lines, and that seems to fly in the face of everything we are
trying to do here.
At a time when we are calling up the Reserves, building up
our military, deploying forces overseas, and leaving their
families behind in increasing numbers, why is the Department
cutting the commissary system with no real knowledge of the
impact these personnel and funding cuts will have on the
quality of the benefit?
Mr. Abell. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the various letters
and media reports in that regard. I do not accept those as
totally accurate. With numbers, they can be shredded a variety
of ways. What I will tell you is that we have listened to the
patrons, we have talked to the commissary agency, and I have
met with and listened to the various industry representatives.
I am trying to discover where ground truth is in there.
There are some cuts that the DeCA director, the Director of
Commissary Agency, has recommended and implemented within his
budget. The Department in its budget submission this year
funded the full amount that the director requested. But he did
recommend some personnel cuts.
His take is that those are based on a template that was
tested and will not result in a diminution of the benefit or
service at the store. I do understand that there are contrary
views to that. We have some folks going to look for us. What I
will tell you is the patron surveys available today do not show
a dissatisfaction.
I am not naive. I understand that sometimes you do not hear
about the results of a cut until after the cut has been in
effect for a while. We are aware of that.
The DeCA director will change this summer. My first charge
to the new director will be to go out and make sure that he or
she agrees with the cuts of the current director and to make
sure, one, that there is no diminishment of the benefit and,
two, that service does not suffer.
Having said all of that, we are going to squeeze the
inefficiency, the bureaucracy, and the layers out of DeCA as
tightly as we can to make sure that the subsidy to the
commissary benefit is not any more than it has to be to
maintain the current benefit, about 30 percent savings.
Senator Cleland. I realize the position that you are in,
but I will tell you, we are asking our military to do almost
incredibly impossible things. We have young men and women
getting shot at and killed by the week. We are dipping in the
Guard and Reserves. Our Army Chief of Staff said he is 40,000
people short. On this committee and in Congress we may have to
extend the basic level of the ceiling of DOD authorization. We
may have to extend the end strength. We need more people to
fulfill these commitments around the world.
I just think it is the wrong time to begin cutting back on
the commissary system which is a perceived benefit, especially
by the spouses of our young men and women out there.
On another issue, recent press reports state that our
medical treatment facilities in Europe do not have enough
vaccine for routine scheduled childhood vaccinations of the
sons and daughters of our servicemembers assigned to European
commands. Is that true?
Mr. Abell. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of that. I will
find out and get back to you.
Senator Cleland. We would appreciate that very much.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Abell. There is a nationwide shortage of five vaccines
(Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DtaP); Tetanus-Diphtheria (Td);
Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR); Varicella; and Pneumococcal
Conjugate). DOD is following the guidelines from the Center for Disease
Control (CDC). The services are aware of the shortages and the CDC
guidelines. This information has been transmitted to each MTF. Our
policy is to track the children who need the vaccines and, once vaccine
becomes available in that area, the parents are notified and the
vaccines administered.
The recent (April 4) European Stars and Stripes article noted the
shortages in Europe. The article stated that the Air Force was
following the guidelines but that the Army was not notifying families
when vaccine became available. The article reported that the Army had
put the burden on the parents to check back to see if vaccine was
available. The article was wrong and the correct Army procedures were
reported in a subsequent European Stars and Stripes article (April 7).
We are pushing lots of the shortage vaccines that we can procure
through the medical logistics system to vaccinate as many of our
children as possible. We will get all of them eventually, but the
burden to notify parents of the availability of vaccine is a MTF and
command responsibility.
Senator Cleland. Mr. Stewart, not to beat this too badly,
but your report documents the increased importance of spousal
employment to military families. Do you have any suggestions
yourself as to what you would do to enhance the chances for
spousal employment in the Department?
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman, the DOD has a number of
initiatives underway. I think that we will have to let those
play out, and if they work the way that they are planned that
should do a lot to relieve that situation. Again, part of the
problem is frequent relocations. The spouses do not have a
chance to build up tenure at a particular job, and so they make
a little less than most folks because they move around a little
bit more.
If the spouse is a teacher or in a medical profession where
they have to be licensed and they move from one State to
another, then they have to get relicensed and recertified all
over again. Those obviously are barriers to employment.
But the Department of Defense recently partnered with the
Department of Labor to see what can be done about situations
like that from State to State. I think this is a situation that
the Department has begun to devote some attention to recently,
and we just need to see that play out. I think that is going to
make the situation better.
Senator Cleland. I thank you.
Mr. Abell, in our conference report for last year we
required the Secretary of Defense to examine existing
Department of Defense and other Federal, State, and non-
governmental programs to improve the employability of military
spouses and help those spouses gain access to financial and
other assistance. The Secretary was supposed to report the
results of this examination by the end of March. Do you happen
to know the status of this examination at all?
Mr. Abell. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I am embarrassed to
tell you that the report is not ready. As I checked yesterday,
the best estimate I could get was that it probably would not be
available to you until November, and I apologize for that.
Senator Cleland. We look forward to that report.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. If there are no further questions, the
first panel is adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
We will take a 10-minute break and then hear from our second
panel.
Mr. Abell. Thank you, sir. [Recess.]
Senator Cleland. I would like to welcome the members of our
second panel, who are here to represent our beneficiaries. Your
views are tremendously important to us. We would like to
welcome Mr. Joseph Barnes of the Fleet Reserve Association to
address pay and allowances issues; Ms. Joyce Raezer of the
National Military Family Association, to address family issues
and readiness; Mr. James Lokovic of the Air Force Sergeants
Association, to address retired pay and survivor issues; Mr.
Michael Cline of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard
of the United States, to discuss Guard and Reserve issues; and
Dr. Sue Schwartz of the Retired Officers Association, to
address health care issues.
We received your prepared statements, and they will be
included in the record. I would like to give each of you an
opportunity to issue your opening statement. Why do we not
start with Mr. Barnes.
STATEMENT OF MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JOSEPH L. BARNES, USN
(RETIRED), DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS, FLEET RESERVE
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the Military Coalition's views on key
personnel and compensation issues. I also extend the
coalition's gratitude for the significant pay and allowance
enhancements enacted last year. These improvements convey a
powerful positive message to all uniformed services personnel.
I will discuss several personnel issues, followed by my
colleagues who will address other coalition concerns.
The Military Coalition again recommends increasing service
end strengths. During a House Armed Services Committee hearing
last summer, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld stated that we have
a 30 percent smaller force doing 165 percent more missions. The
services need adequate personnel to sustain the war on
terrorism and current operational commitments.
With regard to pay, the coalition urges the restoration of
full pay comparability on the quickest possible schedule and to
change the permanent law to eliminate annual pay caps.
Servicemembers deserve annual raises at least equal to private
sector wage growth. The coalition strongly supports the
targeted plan being developed by DOD and additional funding
earmarked for these increases.
The coalition also urges the subcommittee to front-load as
much of the remaining BAH upgrade as possible in 2003 and to
authorize adjustments in grade-based housing standards.
The coalition is concerned about the Department of
Defense's interest in privatizing the commissary benefit and
its continuing pressure to reduce DeCA's budget. The coalition
restates its strong commitment to maintaining the commissary
benefit as an integral part of the total military compensation
package and its continuing opposition to privatizing the
benefit. The intangible and highly valued aspect of this
benefit is not quantifiable solely in monetary terms.
DeCA's multiyear transformation plan includes an ambitious
time line for achieving labor cost reductions. The agency's
2003 budget is effectively reduced by $137 million to repay the
services for funds borrowed as part of the surcharge fund
revitalization, with the remaining reductions to be achieved
via major staff cuts and store closures. I would note also
that, in reference to the discussions by the first panel, many
spouses and family members are employed in our commissaries.
The coalition believes these reductions will negatively
affect customer service and the objective of maintaining the
benefit at the current level. Industry reps and some of our
members are voicing concerns about reduced operating hours,
longer checkout lines, less stock on the store shelves, and
fewer store employees to do significantly more work.
Finally, I would draw your attention to additional issues
in the Fleet Reserve Association's statement. The first is
extending the dislocation allowance to members retiring or
transferring to inactive duty to assist with the expenses
associated with their final change of station move. The second
is a proposal to allow retention of the full final month's
retired pay by surviving spouses of military retirees at the
time of death.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to present our views.
Joyce Raezer will now discuss PCS reform and other family
issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnes follows:]
Prepared Statement by Master Chief Joe Barnes, USN, (Ret.)
introduction
Mr. Chairman: The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is grateful to
have been invited to present its priority personnel issues for fiscal
year 2003. On behalf of the association's President and Board of
Directors, I extend their appreciation for this opportunity while at
the same time, thanking you and the members and staff of the
subcommittee for the outstanding successes gained over the years for
the men and women serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. FRA
salutes each of you for a job well done.
The FRA is the oldest and largest association in the United States
representing enlisted men and women of the sea services whether on
active duty, in the Reserves, or retired. Established in 1924, FRA's
primary mission is to act as the premier ``watchdog'' organization for
maintaining and improving quality of life for sea service personnel. In
the past 5 years, for example, FRA led the way in a campaign to amend
the military's ``REDUX'' retirement system for the better and provided
a pay study referenced by Congress in the adoption of pay reform for
mid-grade enlisted personnel in 2001, and subsequently by Congress in
2002 with regard to further revising the pay for all noncommissioned
and petty officers in grades E-5 thru E-9.
In 1996 FRA sought recognition for the arduous duties performed by
junior enlisted personnel serving aboard the Nation's naval vessels.
Sea pay was recommended by the association only to have the proposal
turned down by the Navy. Last year, Congress gave the Navy the
authority to manage its sea pay program. The amounts paid to career
personnel were increased and junior enlisted sailors again became
eligible for sea duty pay.
There are other issues and programs advocated by FRA over the past
few years that are now a reality. TRICARE for Life and expanded
pharmacy benefits for older military retirees are major benefit
enhancements strongly advocated by FRA and other member organizations
of The Military Coalition. (The association appreciates the great work
and strong support of these programs by this subcommittee and its
outstanding staff.)
FRA is the leading enlisted association in the coalition and has
the distinction of holding two of the six elected offices in the
coalition President of the Coalition Corporation, and the
Administrator. Additionally, three of nine coalition committees are co-
chaired by members of the association's legislative staff including
Personnel/Compensation/Commissaries, Health Care, and Taxes/Social
Security/Medicare Committees.
end strengths
In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee
the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, avowed that the Armed Forces will
defeat terrorism ``no matter how long it takes or where it takes us.''
Missing from the statement was the promise to succeed ``no matter how
many uniformed servicemembers are needed to do the job.''
Since 1995, when it was obvious that the downsizing of strengths in
the Armed Forces was causing increased operational and personnel
tempos, FRA has annually requested increases in military manpower.
Operational levels involving uniformed members of the Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard have escalated significantly
over the past decade to a point where the United States does not have
adequate numbers of military personnel to fully accommodate the many
commitments ordered by the Department of Defense and area commanders in
chief.
Today, those engagements have accelerated to meet anti-terrorism
campaigns directed by the Bush administration, including Transportation
(Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration), and other
governmental agencies involved in homeland defense measures. Over
70,000 National Guard and reservists are now serving in some active
duty capacity, while increased numbers of active duty servicemembers
are assigned duties in and near Afghanistan and in other foreign
locations on land and sea.
A February 5, 2002, news item in USA Today reported the Army has
told the Pentagon it needs 20,000 to 40,000 additional troops in fiscal
year 2003, the Air Force 8,000 to 10,000, and the Navy and Marine Corps
an additional 3,000 each. However, the Secretary of Defense isn't
favorable to the increase in manpower. FRA, on the other hand, must
support the military services. Before September 11 some defense
officials, both civilian and military, complained that uniformed
personnel were doing more with less, were over deployed, overworked,
and stretched thin--this during a peace-time environment. Now that the
United States has ordered troops into Afghanistan and surrounding
areas, military personnel are stretched much more. Nevertheless, the
troops are serving magnificently. The question is: How much longer?
Recently a military-oriented news source headlined two items
dealing with deployments: ``Atlantic Fleet chief warns of higher
operations pace'' and ``On watch for the holidays: Amphib group leaves
early.'' Both attested to increased operational and personnel tempos.
It's for certain that since the admiral's warning, operational tempos
have not subsided and the military services need additional uniformed
manpower.
Recommendation: Congress should take heed of the need for greater
strength authorizations and funding to ease both operational and
personnel tempos now imposed upon a force not sufficient in numbers to
continue the current demands for manning operational commitments.
Although Congress did allow a small increase in the strengths of the
Navy and Air Force, the numbers fell short of their needs. The Army and
Marine Corps received no increase in manpower for fiscal year 2003, but
they too are seeking increased numbers. FRA recommends Congress give
greater credence to the needs of the individual services that have a
greater knowledge of their manpower requirements. It may be worthwhile
to subscribe to the following warning appearing in a Navy Times
editorial of December 10, 2001, `Don't overextend military:' Time and
again, America's Armed Forces have shown they'll do what it takes to
serve their country. But history offers a warning: Work them too hard,
keep them away from home too long, overlook their welfare and
eventually they will walk.
basic pay
FRA is ecstatic with the 106th and 107th Congresses for providing
pay reform for mid-career enlisted personnel in the Armed Forces as of
July 1, 2001, and again on January 1, 2002, for this group as well as
senior enlisted members in pay grades E-8 and E-9. FRA is particularly
pleased that its 1999 study on mid-career noncommissioned and petty
officers pay played a significant part in opening the path to pay
reform for enlisted personnel in pay grades E-5 and above.
It is the association's understanding that the Bush administration
is seeking an additional $300 million in fiscal year 2003 to execute
further pay reform for mid-career enlisted personnel and to target
raises for some critical commissioned officer grades. FRA welcomes the
President's effort to further reduce the 7.6 percent gap that now
exists between comparable civilian wages and military pay. Most
important is Congress' commitment to increase military pay each year by
one-half percent more than the average wage hike in the civilian sector
to close the pay gap by the year 2006.
FRA salutes Congress for its resolution to provide comparable pay
for the Nation's Armed Forces personnel. This is something that should
have been authorized years ago when the gap was closed by two double
digit pay increases in 1981 and 1982. In its adoption of the Uniformed
Services Pay Act of 1981, Congress made it clear it was trying to
restore in current dollars the relative relationship of military
compensation to pay in the private sector ``that existed in 1972 when
Congress adopted the all-volunteer force.''
Congress also highlighted a requirement for further action. It
declared that `substantial' improvements in pay rates ``are necessary
in fiscal year 1982'' to provide necessary incentives for a career of
military service. Additionally, the Senate found fault with the then-
current mechanism determining comparability indices used for proposing
annual increases in military pay, and suggested that a better mechanism
be developed within the next year. Needless to say, budget constraints
since then and until recently prevented any improvement in developing
legislation addressing the pay gap.
FRA further endorses pay reform for warrant officers but not as a
comparison of their pay with that of the senior enlisted pay grades.
When an enlisted member has an opportunity to accept a voluntary
movement to a warrant officer grade, he or she continues to have the
choice of remaining in the enlisted ranks with an expectation of
subsequently reaching the most senior enlisted grade of E-9. If the
choice is to leave the enlisted ranks and join the warrant grades, then
FRA believes there is no basis to compare a warrant grade to that of a
senior noncommissioned or petty officer. Enlisted personnel can be
assigned to a warrant or commissioned officers' billets, while
remaining at their enlisted grade. Warrant officers may be assigned to
a commissioned officers' billet, but not that of an enlisted person.
So, if there is to be a comparison, reasonably it should be between
warrant officer grades and commissioned officer pay tables.
Granted, FRA in its 1999 pay study did compare mid-career enlisted
grades with mid-grade commissioned officers' pay cells. The reason FRA
employed this contrast (as noted in the study) was attributed to a
defense official's use of enlisted promotions and pay cells as partial
justification to increase the pay of mid-level commissioned officers.
However, FRA employed greater emphasis on comparisons between the
enlisted grades before and after the advent of the all-volunteer force
to make a case for mid-career enlisted pay reform.
Recommendation: That Congress holds fast to its commitment to
closing the military pay gap by 2006 through the use of higher-than-
civilian-pay increases to military basic pay. However, in order not to
allow military pay to again fall behind that in the civilian community,
Congress needs to act before 2006 to repeal the law that authorizes
capping annual military pay increases below that of civilian wages.
Additionally, FRA recommends that future pay increases for the Armed
Forces be based on the value of each pay grade within its own category;
enlisted, warrant officers, and commissioned officers. Any comparison
between categories should be based on the performance value of the
grades reviewed. For example: If senior NCOs and petty officers have a
greater value to the military than warrant or commissioned officers of
certain pay grades, then the basic rate of pay for the senior enlisted
should be of a greater premium. The opposite would also apply.
dislocation allowance
Throughout a military career, servicemembers endure a number of
permanent changes of station (PCS). Most often the moves require
additional expenses for household relocations. Such expenses may
include, but are not limited to, loss of rent deposits, abandonment or
forced sale of items that must be replaced, added wear and tear on
household goods in transit, disconnecting and connecting telephone
service and other utilities, and the purchase of some furniture
replacements for the new home.
To help defray these additional costs, Congress in 1955 adopted the
payment of a special allowance termed ``dislocation allowance'' to
recognize that duty station changes and resultant household relocations
reflect personnel management decisions of the Armed Forces and are not
subject to the control of individual members. In 1989, Congress
increased the allowance from 1 month's basic allowance for quarters
(BAQ) to 2 months.
Odd as it may appear, servicemembers retiring from the Armed Forces
are not eligible for dislocation allowances, yet many are subject to
the same additional expenses as their active duty counterparts. In
August 2000, the Marine Corps Sergeants Major Symposium recommended the
payment of dislocation allowances to retiring members who, in the
opinion of the Sergeants Major, bear the same financial consequences on
relocating as their active duty counterparts. Both reflect management
decisions.
Enlisted personnel, numbering two-thirds of the Armed Forces, upon
effecting retirement know they will experience a dramatic reduction in
pay beginning the first month of retirement. They will lose housing and
subsistence allowances, family separation allowances, death gratuity,
and a number of other payments and allowances earned while on active
duty. Their retirement pay will average slightly more than one-third of
their active duty compensation.
Often they must seek employment knowing not what opportunities
exist in the civilian world, where those opportunities are located,
what the pay will be, or what will be their spouses' employment
possibilities. Sometimes their prospective employers offer less wages
to military retirees knowing that they are in receipt of retired pay,
and falsely believe the retirees don't need the same salary as
civilians applying for the same position. Additionally, the military
retiree will have to meet financial demands for mortgages (or rentals),
insurance, taxes, utilities, food, etc., on a smaller income that
averages less than $1,000.00 monthly. [DOD Statistical Report on the
Military Retirement System, fiscal year 2000, notes that enlisted
military retirees in grades E-5 thru E-7 number 74 percent of the total
of enlisted personnel on DOD's retirement rolls with an average monthly
retirement check of $965.]
Recommendation: That Congress amend 37 USC, 407, to authorize the
payment of dislocation allowances to members of the Armed Forces
retiring or transferring to an inactive duty status such as the Fleet
Reserve or Fleet Marine Reserve who perform a ``final change of
station'' move.
termination of retired pay on date of retiree's death
FRA believes it is insensitive for the Federal Government to
continue recovering the balance of the retired pay of a member of the
Armed Forces whose death occurs on any date in the final month of the
retiree's life. Current regulations require the military's finance
center to terminate payment of retired pay upon notification of the
retiree's demise. Further, to recoup outstanding retired pay checks or
direct deposit payments including any check or deposit paid for the
month in which the retiree dies.
Eventually, the finance center will pay the eligible survivor for
each day the retiree was alive during the month of demise. Meanwhile,
the eligible survivor will experience a considerable drop in income.
The retiree, unlike his or her active duty counterpart, will receive no
death gratuity and, in the case of many of the older enlisted retirees,
will not have adequate insurance to provide a financial cushion for
their surviving spouses. Although the SGLI program was initiated in
1965, it covered the retiree only up to 120 days after the effective
date of retirement. Retirees were then authorized to purchase an
individual policy of permanent insurance in an amount equal to the SGLI
coverage from any participating company in the program.
The problem is one of finances. When the servicemember retires, his
or her income decreases by two-thirds. As noted above, the average
retiree is an enlisted member in grades E-5 thru E-7 (74 percent of
total enlisted retirees in fiscal year 2000) whose monthly fiscal year
2000 retired pay averaged only $965. It was much less in the earlier
years. Simply stated, the majority of retirees with families could ill
afford to convert their SGLI policies. Others believed that the
military would pay a death gratuity to the family when the member
passed away in retirement.
Recommendation: Retirement and its related activities is a most
agonizing if not an arduous experience for many military retirees and
families transitioning to an unfamiliar civilian lifestyle. For the
average enlisted member, finances can be a continuing concern. Upon his
or her demise, in consideration of the member's service to the Nation
and the trauma surrounding the member's death, the surviving spouse
should be authorized to retain the final retired paycheck/deposit
covering any month in which the member was alive for at least 24 hours.
sea and submarine pay
Congress is to be lauded for authorizing the Navy to determine the
pay its personnel will receive for sea and submarine duty. The Navy has
taken steps to enhance its career sea pay program and to include junior
personnel assigned to ships afloat. It has diverted other personnel
funds totalling $150 million to finance the new pay rates. Submarine
pay is another matter. The rates have not been changed for 13 years. In
that time, the purchasing power of submarine pay has deteriorated
significantly. There is no money in the Navy's fiscal year 2002 budget
to increase the rates to reflect the arduous duty required of a
submariner.
The requirements in the performance of the duties related to both
assignments can be mundane and repetitive, along with unusually
excessive work hours. Today's operational commitments and shortages of
manpower place even heavier burdens on personnel deployed on naval
ships and submarines. They are deserving of higher rates for their
outstanding effectiveness in discharging their mission to provide the
United States with the world's most efficient and powerful naval force.
Recommendation: Congress is urged to consider the sea and submarine
duty programs as an imperative part of the Nation's vital defenses.
Both programs should be funded independently. FRA requests of Congress
the necessary appropriations to cover the costs of the new rates for
the two pays as established by the U.S. Navy.
concurrent receipt
The Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
includes a provision addressing the concurrent receipt of both military
non-disability retired pay and any VA compensation for service-
connected disabilities without a reduction in one or the other payment.
Currently, the receipt of VA compensation causes a like reduction to a
retired servicemember's military retired pay. This leads to the belief
that retired servicemembers, earning retired pay as a result of 20
years or more of service, are forced to pay for their own disablement.
The fiscal year 2002 NDAA authorizes concurrent receipt but only if
the administration seeks that authorization and includes the request
for funding in the Federal budget. Such action is not expected and is
not contained in the President's fiscal year 2003 budget. Although FRA
is not privy to the administration's reason not to ask Congress to
adopt and fund concurrent receipt, some Government officials reference
a 1993 Congressional Research Service report that cites a number of
programs (i.e. social security, unemployment compensation, black lung
disease) that have offsets or limits in concurrent receipts. However,
the report states emphatically that: ``. . . veterans' disability
compensation is always payable fully and concurrently with income or
benefits from nonmilitary sources because concern about preserving work
incentives for disabled veterans and the long-standing policy that
disabled veterans who are able to work in the private economy after
separation from military service should not be penalized.'' (Emphasis
added.)
The report further noted that its review listed 25 pairs of
programs that in a broad sense might be relevant to policies pertaining
to military retired pay and veterans' compensation. ``However,'' the
report warns, ``many of the program pairs are not similar enough to the
veterans' situation to be instructive.'' (Emphasis added.)
FRA also reminds Congress that its actions relative to tax changes
to the military's disability retirement system forced many retired
servicemembers to seek redress from the Veterans Administration, later
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Before 1975 all military
disability pay was tax exempt. A perception of abuse to the system,
mostly in the more senior Armed Forces grades, caused Congress to amend
the Internal Revenue Code.
The Tax Reform Act of 1976 forced the Department of Defense (DOD)
to change the rules so that only a percentage of the member's
disability retired pay attributable to combat-related injuries would be
tax-exempt. Subsequently, many retiring servicemembers petitioned the
VA for relief for service-connected injuries. (Example: A senior
enlisted servicemember with 30 years active service, a veteran of three
major conflicts, received a ``0'' disability upon retirement. The VA
awarded him 60 percent, all exempt from taxation, but to receive the VA
compensation, he forfeited an equal amount in the receipt of military
non-disability retired pay.)
Servicemembers, whether in uniform or retired, are considered
Federal employees, subject not only to Title 10, U.S. Code, but Title
5, U.S. Code, the latter that governs the conduct and performance of
Government employees. Both active and retired Federal civilian
employees eligible for veterans' compensation may also receive full
benefits of Federal civil service pay or Federal civil service
retirement payments, including disability retirement with no offsets,
reductions, or limits.
Recommendation: FRA encourages Congress to take the helm and fully
authorize and fund concurrent receipt of military non-disabled
retirement pay and veterans' compensation program as currently offered
to other retired Federal employees--including those receiving benefits
under the Federal Government's disability program. It is a
constitutional requirement that Congress take the initiative in matters
dealing with the uniformed services as well as Federal employees. For
Congress to pass the issue to the administration is nothing more than a
deceptive ploy to avoid responsibility. Congress must remember that
U.S. servicemembers not only had a major hand in the creation of this
Nation, but have contributed more than any group to the military and
economic power of the United States for more than 200 years. Those who
have served in the Armed Forces for 20 years or more certainly deserve
the opportunity to have equity with their counterparts in the Federal
service.
uniformed services former spouses protection act (usfspa)
The USFSPA was enacted nearly 20 years ago, the result of
congressional chicanery that denied the opposition an opportunity to
express its position in open public hearings. With one exception, only
private and public entities favoring the proposal were permitted to
testify before the Senate Manpower and Personnel Subcommittee. Since
then, Congress has made 23 amendments to the act, 18 benefitting former
spouses. All but 2 of the 23 amendments were adopted without public
hearings, discussions, or debate. In the nearly 20 years since the
USFSPA was adopted, opponents of the act or many of its existing
inequitable provisions have had but one or two opportunities to voice
their concern to a congressional panel. The last hearing, in 1999, was
conducted by the House Veterans Affairs Committee and not before the
Armed Services panel having oversight authority for amending the
USFSPA.
FRA believes strongly that Congress once again is avoiding its
responsibility to the men and women who serve or have served in the
Armed Forces of the United States. For nearly 200 years, Congress
controlled the pay and allowances of active, Reserve, and retired
military personnel. The States had no say as to how Federal payments
would be regulated, even when the recipient retired from military
service. In fact, the Federal courts ruled that in retirement the
member was still in the military service and was `in all respects still
performing service.' This led to the term, ``reduced pay for reduced
but continuing service.'' In short, military retired (or retainer) pay
is not a pension or an annuity. Through the media and other public
forums, members of Congress, reporters, and outside advocates for the
enactment of a former spouses protection act, used the term ``pension''
to describe military retired pay. Today, the word has nearly replaced
its true nomenclature.
One of the major problems with the USFSPA is its few provisions
protecting the rights of the servicemember. They are unenforceable by
the Department of Justice or DOD. If a State court violates the right
of the servicemember under the provisions of USFSPA, the Solicitor
General will make no move to reverse the error. Why? Because the act
fails to have the enforceable language required for Justice or Defense
to react. The only recourse is for the servicemember to appeal to the
court, which in many cases gives that court jurisdiction over the
member that it didn't have when the original ruling violated the act.
Another infraction is committed by some State courts awarding a
percentage of veterans' compensation to ex-spouses; a clear violation
of U.S. law. Yet, the Federal Government does nothing to stop this
transgression.
A recent DOD review of the USFSPA was more politically-flavored and
less concerned with what effect the act may have on the servicemembers'
morale and readiness. One of the stipulations attached by the military
to the adoption of the act was it ``should not interfere with the
ability of the Armed Forces to recruit and retain qualified
personnel.'' (Emphasis added.) However, it appears DOD is skeptical of
possible negative results from the USFSPA for it fails to publicize the
provisions of the act to its uniformed members. Why? Could it be such
action may cause retention problems? FRA believes that if the services
should inform their members of the possibility of losing 50 percent or
more of their retirement pay should they divorce regardless of the
number of years of marriage retention could suffer.
Recommendation: Congress needs to take a hard look at the USFSPA
with a sense of purpose to amend the language therein so that the
Federal Government is required to protect its servicemembers against
State courts that ignore provisions of the act. More so, a few of the
other provisions weigh heavily in favor of former spouses. For example,
when a divorce is granted and the former spouse is awarded a percentage
of the servicemember's retired pay it should be based on the member's
pay grade at the time of the divorce and not at a higher grade that may
be held upon retirement. The former spouse has nothing to do to assist
or enhance the member's advancements subsequent to the divorce,
therefore, the former spouse should not be entitled to a percentage of
the retirement pay earned as a result of service after the decree is
awarded. Additionally, Congress should review other provisions
considered inequitable or inconsistent with former spouses laws
affecting other Federal employees with an eye toward amending the act.
spousal employment
Recently the Armed Forces have become concerned with the plight of
military spouses who lose employment when their servicemember husbands
or wives are transferred to new locations. Studies have concluded that
many military families suffer significant financial setbacks when
spouses must leave employment to accompany their military sponsor on
permanent changes of station (PCS). Some losses are substantial. Worse,
yet, is the lack of equal or even minimal employment opportunities at
new duty stations.
Currently, the services are launching new programs to assist
spouses in finding full or temporary employment to include counseling
and training. Other initiatives will help spouses find `portable'
employment in companies with customer-service jobs that can be done at
remote locations.
Recommendation: Today's military societal environment requires the
services to consider the whole family. It is no longer adequate to
focus only on the morale and financial well-being of the member, but
his or her family, too. Spousal employment is a major stepping stone to
retention of the servicemember who is a valuable participant in the
defense of this Nation. FRA salutes Congress for the provisions it
adopted in the fiscal year 2002 NDAA to provide military spouses with
financial and other assistance in job training and education. The
Association urges Congress to continue its support of the military's
effort to effect a viable spousal employment program and to appropriate
sufficient funds to assure the program's future success.
survivor benefit plan
FRA believes the Federal Government continues to renege on its
commitment to members of the uniformed services who opt to participate
in the military's Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). First, the plan was to
be patterned after the Civil Service/Federal Employees Retirement
Systems. Second, the cost of the program would be shared; 40 percent by
the Government and 60 percent by participating military retirees. Both
of these themes appear numerous times in congressional hearings on SBP
before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
House and Senate Hearings in the 94th, 95th, 96th, and 99th
Congress note that the military's SBP should ``conform identically to
the formula'' or ``function in an identical fashion'' to the civil
service plan. During a September 1976 hearing conducted by the House
Armed Services Committee, a Department of Defense General Counsel
letter of July 26, 1976, was inserted for the record. The letter read
that if Congress failed to make certain corrections to the military's
SBP as it had authorized for the civil service plan, it would
``constitute an unwarranted inequity that has extremely adverse impact
on the morale of retirees and those nearing retirement.''
The 40-60 share between the Government and the participating
military retiree is also a topic of many congressional hearings. One
such hearing is reported in Senate Hearing No. 99-298 of June 20, 1985
that lists five different references to the intent of the plan to share
the cost at the above percentage figures. Spokesmen for the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Department of Defense referred to
the cost-sharing as follows:
(CBO). Under current law, members retiring today will bear
about 62 percent of the cost of the Survivor Benefit Plan;
roughly consistent with the 60 percent goal for cost-sharing.
(DOD) The legislative history of the SPB shows an intent that
the Government contribute approximately 40 percent of the
benefits.
There has been some reluctance by congressional sources to accept
the fact that the military's Survivor Benefit Plan was designed to
emulate the civil service plan or that the participating servicemember
was to incur but 60 percent of the program's costs. It's obvious these
sources are ignoring the wishes of earlier Congresses to provide an
attractive program that would be both equitable and reasonable.
Equity has gone the way of all good intentions. Military SBP
participants have seen their share of the plan's cost rise above the 70
percent factor (approximately 73 percent overall, 79 percent for those
enrolled since the 1970s.) The rise in the plan's cost-sharing for
military retirees was predicted as early as 1980 (Senate Report No. 96-
748, p. 7) and again in 1996 (Military Compensation Background Papers,
Fifth Edition, Sep. 1996, p. 691). In fact, DOD, in the Senate Report
referenced immediately above, warned that if certain changes were not
made to the Plan, ``the officer portion of the cost sharing will
escalate to 76 percent, while enlisted members share 125 percent of the
costs.'' Nearly 10 years earlier, in the September 1, 1976, House
hearing referenced above, a DOD General Counsel letter of August 30,
1976, was inserted for the record. It stated that over time,
``inflation will cause the cost of the SBP participant to become
increasingly out of balance with the cost to his or her counterpart
participating in the comparable plan for Federal civil servants.''
Meanwhile, the civil service and Federal employees' plans remain at
participating costs of 50 percent and 58 percent, respectively.
There is yet another cost-sharing inequity that exists in the
military SBP. Participants in the plan pay premiums over a much longer
period than their counterparts in the civil service/Federal employees'
plans. This gives the Federal retiree a far more advantageous benefit-
to-premium ratio.
FRA is in agreement with Retired Air Force Colonel Mike Lazorchak
who wrote in Navy Times, January 15, 2001, ``(E)ach year Congress fails
to pass more meaningful SBP rates, military retirees are forced to give
the Government an ever-increasing interest-free loan in return for
their benefits. Admittedly, an increase in the Government subsidy will
require Congress to increase the annual contribution to the Military
Retirement Trust Fund, most of this increase is merely a repayment of
the interest-free loans that military retirees have been required to
give the Government for decades.''
Recommendation: The high cost of participating in the military's
Survivor Benefit Plan is contrary to the intent of Congress to pattern
it after the Civil Service/Federal Employees survivor plans. To
accomplish this goal, Congress is urged to amend the military's
Survivor Benefit Program to repeal the minimum post-62 SBP annuity over
a period of 10 years. [35 percent to 40 percent in October 2002, to 45
percent in October 2005, and 55 percent no later than October 2011.]
Additionally, to further amend the year 2008 to 2003, at which time the
military retiree who has paid premiums for 30 years and is at least 70
years of age, will be a paid-up participant.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, in closing, allow me to again express the sincere
appreciation of the association's membership for all that you and the
distinguished subcommittee and staff have done for our Nation's
military personnel over these many years.
Senator Cleland. Ms. Raezer.
STATEMENT OF JOYCE W. RAEZER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION, INC.
Ms. Raezer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to present the Military Coalition's (TMC) views on issues
affecting military families. I will focus today on three
important quality of life issues facing military families this
year: relocation, spouse employment, and family support.
We thank Congress for authorizing needed improvements in
servicemembers' permanent change of station (PCS)
reimbursements. These increases implemented over the next 2
years will ease the financial burden faced by military families
every time they move. Unfortunately, however, just as word was
getting out about these improvements some families began
hearing from their services that because of the cuts in PCS
funding approved by Congress in the Defense Appropriations Act,
they might not be able to move this summer.
TMC understands the concerns of Members of Congress who
want the services to reduce the number of PCS moves. Military
spouses have unpacked enough boxes, quit enough jobs because of
a move, enrolled our children in enough different schools to
know that families should not move just for the sake of moving.
But we believe that an appropriate baseline must be established
for all the different types of military moves and reduction
targets set from that baseline before substantial cuts are
made.
We also note that the GAO did not include the DOD
relocation package as a benefit. This is no surprise to some
family members who do not see DOD relocation services as a
benefit, but actually a hardship.
We urge this subcommittee to continue to press DOD for
improvements in the actual move process, and we hope that
reports due Congress on the recently terminated pilot program
will provide guidance for improvements for all moves and not
just for another round of pilots. Poor quality of service for
many PCS moves is a major source of dissatisfaction with
military life for family members. Dealing with the consequences
of this poor quality often forces the servicemember's attention
away from the mission.
Another area where we are concerned about pilots rather
than substantial improvement is in the area of spouse
employment. The services have tried a lot of different pilots.
What the GAO spoke of this morning as the need for a better
focus is what we hear from family members as well. We are
encouraged by DOD's efforts to work with the Department of
Labor on some of the State issues affecting military spouses in
licensure--in-State tuition is another one that comes up a lot
in the education arena--but are very concerned to hear that DOD
does not anticipate getting that report to you until November,
because we would hope that report would lead to some quality
initiatives a lot sooner for military spouse employment and the
November time frame bothers us.
We also thank Congress for its focus last year on key
issues that promote the readiness of the family and thus the
readiness of the force, including this direction to improve
spouse employment, family support services, child and youth
programs, and personal financial education for both
servicemembers and spouses. As our military juggles the
existing deployments and missions with the war on terrorism and
homeland defense, the military family and community feel the
strain, as you have noted today.
The coalition believes family readiness must have resources
commensurate with its importance to mission readiness. We urge
Congress to ensure that families of all members of the total
force have access to training, information, and support needed
to ensure family readiness.
The total force concept highlighted among the services has
not yet reached the family support arena. Our Guard and Reserve
families tell us they need better education about benefits such
as health care. Sometimes they need education and assistance in
dealing with changed financial circumstances. They tell us that
their State and unit family program coordinators are stretched
too thin to provide all the assistance needed by geographically
dispersed families. They also tell us they need the same kind
of access to child care as their active duty peers, who can use
installation child development centers and family care
providers.
Programs to ensure the readiness of these families will
have to be structured differently than for full-time active
duty families living on military installations. Actually,
Congress noted this last year in report language for section
652 directing DOD to provide more family support. We always
have to remember that we are not just talking Guard and Reserve
families here. Over half of our active duty families live off
the installation.
Because the services do not have the manpower to provide
family support everywhere and fight a war, the DOD and the
services must involve local civilian community resources and
make better use of technology to provide information and
referrals, as well as actual services needed by these isolated
families.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you again for your advocacy for pay
and benefit improvements necessary to retain the quality of
force that now protects our homeland and wages war against
terror. We ask you to remember that in time of war mission
readiness is tied to servicemember readiness, which is tied to
family readiness. Military members and their families look to
you for continued support for the compensation and benefit
packages that enhance their readiness and quality of life.
Please do not let them down.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Ms. Raezer.
Mr. Lokovic.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT JAMES E. LOKOVIC, USAF
(RETIRED), DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND DIRECTOR, MILITARY AND
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lokovic. Mr. Chairman, my comments will briefly reflect
the coalition views on retiree and survivor issues. In light of
some of the comments you heard from the first panel, we need to
understand that the rules for budgeting and so forth for these
concerns are different and not just to make the decisions based
on ``do they directly aid recruiting and retention'' except in
the long-term view.
We also have to add questions: Do they fairly reflect
promises that were made? Do they recognize the sacrifice that
is made by the military member? Does the Government keep the
faith? Certainly if we talk about recruiting and retention we
are talking about a long-term view in terms of retiree and
survivor issues.
First, as a coalition we maintain that the time has come to
stop taking away the military retired pay from those who have
also suffered a disability as a result of their service. The
coalition's top priority this year is achieving authorization
and funding to allow such members to concurrently receive both
military retired pay and veterans disability compensation.
The VA adjudges disability levels because of the pain,
suffering, potential loss of income, and certainly the reduced
capacity for quality of life, and the VA fulfills its
obligations in that regard. In clear contrast, military retired
pay is for longevity of honorable service. Unfortunately, the
law as it currently stands reduces the retiree's earned
retirement pay on a dollar-for-dollar basis for each disability
dollar the Veterans Administration provides these career
servicemembers. In effect, the retirees are forced to subsidize
their own disability checks.
Co-sponsorship of legislation in both Houses confirmed
support. Eighty one percent of the Members of this Senate agree
that this unfairness should be ended. Similarly, 89 percent of
the Members of the House as of this morning also concur that a
remedy is warranted now. We urge this committee to take
significant action on concurrent receipt legislation this year.
With regard to survivor issues, we thank the committee for
last year's authority to extend survivor benefit plan coverage
to the survivors of all military personnel who die while on
active duty, but we ask that more be done. The coalition
supports repeal of the age 62 survivor benefit plan annuity
reduction. We endorse the phaseout of the age 62 reduction or
offset as supported by S.145 as a fiscally responsible way to
get this done.
This change would finally help restore the 40 percent
Government-SBP cost share intended by Congress. The DOD actuary
acknowledges that the Government's share has now fallen below
27 percent, meaning that the beneficiary's obligation has
increased from the intended fair share of 60 percent to over 73
percent. Repealing the age 62 offset would also improve parity
with SBP coverage provided the Federal civilians, whose
survivors experience no reduction in their benefit at age 62.
Finally, sir, your action toward repealing the age 62
offset would keep faith with older retirees and spouses, many
of whom were not told of the age 62 annuity drop when they
signed up for the program back in the early 1980s.
The coalition also recommends accelerating the 30-year
paid-up SBP provision that will take place in 2008 under
current law. The delayed effective date to 2008 severely
disadvantages older participants, who paid substantially higher
premiums from 1972 until the premium formula was reduced in
1991. Additionally, many older retirees will complete 30 years
of payment well before 2008. We are hearing from them already.
Many more simply will not survive until 2008.
These servicemembers deserve some earlier relief and we ask
your support of making this paid-up aspect of the SBP program
effective October 1, 2003.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my portion of the verbal
statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lokovic follows:]
Prepared Statement by CMSGT James E. Lokovic, USAF (Ret.)
Mr. Chairman and distinguished committee members, on behalf of the
135,000 members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, thank you for
this opportunity to offer our views on the military personnel programs
that affect those serving our Nation. AFSA represents active duty,
Guard, Reserve, retired, and veteran enlisted Air Force members and
their families. Your continuing efforts toward improving their quality-
of-life benefits have made a real difference in the lives of those who
devote their lives to service. Higher-than-mandated-by-law military pay
raises sent a powerful message to servicemembers. Further targeting of
pay toward enlisted members recognizes the imbalance of the current
military payroll system. We hope you will provide further progress in
this regard. Continued improvements in health care for all
beneficiaries and, especially, the implementation of the TRICARE Senior
Pharmacy program and TRICARE for Life for Medicare-eligibles were
landmark achievements of this Congress. Another area of significance
was the increase of PCS reimbursement for the lowest-ranking military
members. Those we represent have asked that we pass on their gratitude.
Your continued attention to the ever-expanding role of the Reserve
component was important; we hope that effort increases--particularly
toward lowering the Reserve component retirement age from 60 to 55 to
give them parity with all other Federal retirees. In this hearing, I
wish to discuss several items that the enlisted men and women serving
our Nation consider very important. While there are other areas of
importance to the members of this association, issues such a health
care, military construction and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)
and family support programs will be covered elsewhere. I will divide
this testimony into these issue areas: Air Reserve Component Benefits;
Montgomery GI Bill Reform; Military Compensation and Benefits;
Retirement Issues; and Survivor Programs.
air reserve component benefits
Reserve Retirement: Today over 81,000 Air Reserve
Component (Reserve and Guard) members have been mobilized in support of
Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle, efforts that clearly could
not succeed without their invaluable contribution. Yet, these members
are the only Federal retirees who must wait until age 60 to collect
retired pay. We have been told that Reserve retirement was originally
set at 60 because Federal civilian retirement was the same.
Unfortunately, when Federal civilian retirement changed to at age 55,
military Reserve component retirement did not do the same. It is bad
enough that Guard and Reserve members who ``voluntarily'' subject
themselves to unlimited liability cannot begin retirement once they
have satisfied the requisite number of ``good years.'' What is worse is
that they must often wait well over a decade after military service
before they can collect retirement. For years, this has been a thorn in
the side of Guard and Reserve members--from the troops to the
commanders; all say that this is the right thing to do. As we visit
units, members repeatedly ask if anyone is taking action to lower the
Reserve retirement age. It is time to correct this gross inequity. How?
Lower the earliest Reserve retirement age from 60 to 55. One side issue
of the retirement at age 60, which is avoided by DOD is that the
current system stagnates the force by stifling career advancement and,
therefore, affects force readiness. Because the Reserve component
primarily promotes by vacancy, those who are over 55 but not yet 60
occupy slots that could otherwise provide upward mobility for others.
Additionally, many reservists continue serving past age 55 only to
accumulate a few more points to factor into their retirement pay
equation (which is significantly lower that active duty military
retired pay). Our members tell us that most do this strictly because
they are not permitted to collect retired pay prior to age 60. It is
clear the Department of Defense's opposition to this is based on its
fiscal ``priorities,'' with DOD reticence focusing on the increased
one-time compensation required to revert to the lower retirement age.
AFSA believes that the time has now come to provide fairness and equity
for Reserve component members. The vast majority of those aged 55-plus
tell us that they continue to serve after 55 only because they cannot
retire earlier. So long as they cannot retire, they will continue to
serve to accumulate additional points toward retirement. Also, remember
that Guard and Reserve promotion is primarily by vacancy. Therefore,
forcing potentially important manning positions to be manned by those
biding their time until they can retire prevents promotion and the
possibility of filling those jobs with younger (but very experienced)
personnel. It is clearly time to correct this inequitable, nonsensical
Reserve retirement system. We would subscribe to the argument supported
by many that Reserve component members should be able to begin
retirement once they have satisfied retirement criteria. Absent that
change, reducing the earliest retirement age from 60 to 55 is a step in
the right direction that would, at least, achieve some consistency with
other Federal retirement programs. We ask this committee to make it
happen, to lower the earliest Reserve retirement age from 60 to 55.
Also, please take action to increase retired pay for enlisted Reserve
component personnel decorated for extraordinary heroism; this would
fairly recognize their singular service and maintain equity with those
serving on active duty that are similarly decorated.
Air Reserve Technician Retirement: For those who serve as
Air Reserve Technicians (ARTs: military members and, at the same time,
Federal civil servants), we tend to view their retirement from the
point of view that is most-beneficial to the government. It is time
that we stop treating these unique Reserve component members
inequitably. We urge this committee to make ARTs eligible for an
unreduced retirement at age 50 with 20 years of service, or at any age
with 25 years of service, if involuntarily separated.
Reserve Retirement Point Cap: The level of Reserve
retirement compensation varies from individual to individual depending
on the number of duty points accumulated over the requisite number of
``good years'' required to qualify for retirement. There is a
limitation (a ``cap'') on the number of points creditable toward
requirement each year that the member accumulates through inactive duty
training (IDT). The current cap limits the number of IDT points
creditable each year toward retirement to 90. With today's high
operations tempo, it is inevitable that the vast majority of members
will fairly consistently exceed 90 IDT points in a given year. It is
simply unfair that the cap prevents counting all points earned. We urge
this committee to eliminate the cap on IDT points creditable toward
retirement.
Family Support Focus: With the callups as part of
Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle, the families of Reserve
component members are clearly stressed and in need of your help. We
urge full funding and support for family support programs that can help
these family members. This included full access to benefits available
to active duty members. Obviously, being called up and having to
``temporarily'' set aside one's normal civilian job and place in the
community is traumatic. The family members of reservists must also make
incredible lifestyle adjustments. We urge close scrutiny of available
programs and provide funding and access to take care of these members
of the military family.
Selective Reserve Montgomery GI Bill: As committee members
know, this program falls under title 10 rather than title 38. As such,
it is important that this committee take action to enhance this
important benefit and to correct inequities in the program. The
Montgomery GI Bill for active members has dramatically increased in
value due to the work of recent Congresses. The SR-MGIB, however, has
not followed suit. We urge that you work to increase the value of the
SR-MGIB and program parallel, equivalent increases in the value of this
Reserve component-unique program. Further, we believe that this move
toward equitable growth could best be achieved if this committee enact
legislation to transfer the SR-MGIB authority from title 10 to title
38. We ask you to do so. Another inequity is while the active duty MGIB
``10-year benefit loss clock'' starts at the end of military service;
the SR-MGIB ``10-year benefit loss clock'' starts at the time of
enrollment. This is clearly inequitable and needs to be corrected. We
ask that this committee take action to change the start of the SR-MGIB
benefit loss clock to ``at the end of military service.''
TDY/PCS Compensation: A unique requirement for Guard and
Reserve members is how they are compensated when they are sent to
lengthy schools. Remember, an active duty member who attends a long
school is usually sent in permanent change of station (PCS) status.
When that happens, the member generally transfers his/her family and
household effects and establishes a new home. Reserve component
members, on the other hand, still maintain their home where their
family lives. While long schools result in a different set of benefits
(PCS) than those schools of shorter duration (temporary duty, or TDY
benefits), this methodology has an impact on Air Reserve component
members different than that on active duty. We ask that you examine the
following: (1) Provide Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) Type 1 for all
Air Reserve component (ARC) members who are sent TDY to school for less
than 139 days; and (2) Allow ARC component headquarters commanders to
waive the requirement for PCS moves to schools that are 20 weeks or
longer.
Employer Support: More and more those who employ Guard and
Reserve members make incredible sacrifices. While those who are called
up are protected by law (their jobs and seniority are protected), it is
increasingly difficult to expect civilian employers to readily employ
those who are also guardsmen or reservists. It is time to provide tax
credits to employers who employ members of the Guard and Reserve and to
self-employed Air Reserve component members.
General Compensation Issues: It is time to pay guardsmen
and reservists equitably for special pays such as flight pay and
hazardous duty pay. These pays are specifically to compensate military
members for increased risk. Yet, a clear inequity is consciously
administered by DOD when it comes to equal pay for equal risk. Active
duty members who qualify for any of these special pays at any time
during a month earn an entire month's pay. A Reserve component member
can serve the same period of time or more and receive less
compensations because a 1/30 formula per day is applied. AFSA contends
that it is time to eliminate unfair benefit ratios and compensate
Reserve component members fairly. Another area that we urge this
committee to address is the need for reservists to expend out-of-
pocket, personal expenses to serve. Simply put, it costs members to
serve their nation because they are not fully reimbursed. We urge you
to restore full tax-deductibility of non-reimbursable expenses related
to military training and service. Also, especially in light of the
current war on terrorism, we need to take all measures to compensate
for financial losses caused by long-term deployments in support of
contingencies.
Reserve Leave: While the fiscal year 2002 provided a
method whereby significant amounts of leave accumulated during the
current War on Terrorism call-up, we need to do more. Basically
speaking, Reserve component members can only take leave when they are
on duty. In peacetime conditions with weekend drill each month and an
annual 2-week encampment, it is very difficult to take leave. A basic
rule is in effect that causes members to lose any leave they accumulate
over 60 days. Because of the difficulty to take leave, our members ask
that they be allowed to sell leave balances that they accumulate that
exceed 60 days. In effect, this would eliminate the benefit loss caused
by the very nature of Reserve duty.
Reserve Commissary Benefit. It is time to give Guard and
Reserve members and their families year-round commissary access. There
is simply no justification to continue denying them this well-earned
benefit. It also defies reason to continue paying millions of dollars
each year to administer a ``Commissary Privilege Card'' system, simply
to keep these servicemembers out of our military commissaries but 24
visits per year. We urge you to immediately provide Guard and Reserve
members year-round commissary benefits. This benefit will not cost
money--it will save money and generate more business for the commissary
system.
montgomery gi bill reform
While the basic Montgomery GI Bill program falls under the Veterans
Affairs umbrella, its implementation and mandated practices fall within
the purview of this committee. The issues mentioned below are of
particular importance to the enlisted men and women who serve our
Nation. The two educational programs being addressed are the Veterans
Education Assistance Program (VEAP) and the Montgomery GI Bill which
followed the VEAP program and is the military's current educational
benefit program. These are the specific actions in the order of
priority that we would like this committee to pursue on behalf of the
enlisted men and women serving this nation.
Provide an MGIB Open Enrollment Opportunity for those who
turned down VEAP or the MGIB at their single enrollment opportunity.
The greatest need cited by our members is to provide a second chance
for those who turned down their initial opportunity to enroll in either
the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) or the Montgomery GI
Bill. Many turned down the VEAP program because it was a relatively
insufficient, two-for-one matching program (the member contributed up
to $2,700 and the Government matched up to $5,400); also, many VEAP-era
people were counseled not to enroll in VEAP since a ``better''
educational benefit program was on the horizon. Many thousands more
have turned down the MGIB enrollment opportunity over the years
primarily because it is offered as a one-time, irrevocable decision at
Basic Military Training (when their pay is at its lowest). This is a
time, of course, when giving up $100 per month for the first 12 months
of one's military career is financially impossible for many. We have
been told that 1,500 to 1,800 in the Air Force alone turn down the MGIB
each year.
The overall impact, then, is that over a quarter-of-a-million of
those serving have no educational benefit, and many individuals
retiring now have no transitional educational benefit. The Defense
Manpower Data Center recently provided the following information:
VEAP-Era Non-enrollees: Number of members currently on
active duty who entered the service during the Veterans Educational
Assistance Program (VEAP) era who declined VEAP benefits: 116,369 (Air
Force: 39,464; Navy: 37,434; Army: 27,964; Marines: 6,783; Coast Guard:
3,857; Public Health: 825; and NOAA: 42).
MGIB-Era Non-enrollees: Number of members currently on
active duty who entered the service during the Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) era who declined MGIB benefits: 150,952 (Air Force: 50,151;
Army: 42,524; Navy: 32,681; Marines: 16,650; Coast Guard: 6,773; Public
Health: 2,113; NOAA: 60).
We respectfully urge that Congress establish a limited-period
opportunity for any currently serving military member to enroll in the
Montgomery GI Bill. We would hope the cost would be $1,200 or $2,700
(the cost during the most recent VEAP-MGIB enrollment opportunity).
However, we would estimate that a cost moderately higher than that
would even be welcome considering the current value of the benefit and
the opportunities that such congressional action would provide for
those transitioning from the military to civilian status.
Clearly, the Montgomery GI Bill was an improvement over VEAP, but
it was still a relatively insufficient program not enough to pay for
the full cost of classes, and it didn't (and still doesn't) include an
inflationary adjustment mechanism. In recent times, however, Congress
has done great work in increasing the value of the MGIB to the point
that (by 2004), it will cover more than three-quarters of the average
costs of books, tuition, and fees at the average college or university
for a commuter student. That actual cost is estimated to be between
$1,100 and $1,400 at this time. By 2004, the cost-of-education figures
will no doubt adjust upward somewhat due to increased costs of
education. While AFSA urges a full transition to a WW II-type GI Bill
that pays the full cost of books, tuition, and fees at any college or
university, the point in this case is that this much-more-lucrative
benefit was not in existence when many turned down either VEAP or MGIB.
Please work to allow those who turned down either VEAP or MGIB a chance
to correct that earlier decision.
Allow military members to enroll in the MGIB later during
their careers than at Basic Military Training: The one-time opportunity
at Basic Training is a problem as explained above. We recommend
allowing members to enroll later. Perhaps, allow them to enroll at any
time during their first enlistment. Or (if there must be an enrollment
fee) charge them $1,200 if they enroll any time in their first 4 years
of service; $1,500 between the fourth and tenth years of service;
$1,800 between 10 and 15 years of service; and $2,000 between the 15th
and 20th year of service. Those numbers are only an example to show how
the enrollment cost could be scaled to reflect enrollment entry point.
We urge you to work to either waive the enrollment fee, or to offer
enrollment later in careers (when members are better able to
financially handle enrollment). While Rep. Jones' H.R. 2020 provision
to spread out the $1,200 enrollment fee over the first 2 years of
service is an improvement, a later enrollment opportunity would be
fairer and more beneficial: under the 24-month payment plan, the Basic
Trainee enrollee would still be faced with this financial decision
under the pressure of Basic Training when they are making the least.
Allowing them a later enrollment decision makes more sense,
financially, for the member.
Extend or eliminate the MGIB 10-year ``benefit-loss
clock.'' Once an MGIB enrollee separates or retires, he/she has 10
years to use their benefit or they lose any unused portion. The early
years of a military career are pretty much consumed with initial entry
and skill-level training, mastering the job, certifying, etc.
Similarly, transitioning to civilian life includes a time of
retraining, readjusting and certification. For many, using their earned
educational benefit (for which they paid $1,200), must be delayed a few
years. However, the clock is ticking as the benefit gets ready to be
taken away. We urge that the 10-year clock be increased to 15 or 20
years, or that the ``benefit-loss'' provision be repealed. In a very
real sense, if the benefit has been earned through military service,
and the Federal mechanism that tracks the program is not earmarked to
go away, we don't believe it would be a problem to extend or eliminate
the 10-year benefit loss clock.
Guard and Reserve members enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill--
Selected Reserve. This is a 10-year program under title 10. The benefit
loss clock for this program begins upon enrollment. In this case,
similar to the active duty program, we urge that you extend the use of
the program, or delay the start of the 10-year benefit loss clock to
the end of military service, to achieve ``equity'' with the active duty
program.
Offer ``Portability'' of MGIB Benefits to Family Members.
While we appreciate the very positive intent of the ``portability''
feature signed into law in the Fiscal Year 2002 NDAA that offered
``portability'' of benefits for those in ``critical skills,'' we urge
that this benefit feature be extended to all MGIB enrollees. The
overwhelming feedback we get from our members is that offering this to
critical skills will have very little impact on promoting recruiting
and retention of those actually serving in ``critical skills.''
Portability, however, would be an important career incentive for the
vast majority of military members. For enlisted members, in particular,
it could mean the ability to offer a good college educational
opportunity to their children. If we are wise, we could also make it a
good retention tool across the board. Perhaps offer the option to
transfer (at least a portion of) the benefit to family members once the
individual has served 12 to 15 years. This would make the option
available in time to help send your kids to college, and it would serve
as an incentive to stay in the service. Once you have them 12 to 15
years, you will have most of them at least 20 years. Please work to
afford the ``portability'' option across the board to military
enrollees (enlisted ones in particular).
military compensation/benefits
Military pay needs to be further increased above the current
formula mandated by law, i.e., Employment Cost Index plus one-half
percent. This is necessary to close the growing gap between military
pay and equivalent civilian occupations. A great effort should also be
made to make the enlisted pay scales more realistic to reflect the
increasing responsibility of enlisted members, and the clear imbalance
between enlisted and commissioned military pay and compensation
relative to the overall military responsibilities. We also urge
continued emphasis on eliminating out-of-pocket housing costs for
military members. You have made great progress toward this end, and we
hope you will continue in that effort.
Housing Allowances Formula: Military members are paid an
allowance for housing. The amount varies strictly as a function of
increasingly higher housing allowances as rank increases. For example,
the allowance level is significantly higher for commissioned officers
than for enlisted members. The amount of housing allowance a member
gets is based on a square-footage, dwelling type standard factoring in
housing costs for the locality of the housing. Among enlisted
(noncommissioned) members, the only rank that is based on a stand-alone
dwelling is the very highest grade (E-9); all others are based on
townhouses an apartments. Unfortunately, the entire system is not
realistic in terms of how people live and decide on where they will
reside. Historically, the lower the rank a member hold, the greater is
their out-of-pocket housing expenses. The reason for this is simple.
Enlisted members, who already make significantly lower compensation,
want no less for their families to live near good schools and in good,
safe neighborhoods. In order to achieve that (since their pay and
housing allowances are so much lower), these members must expend
significantly more out of pocket. We urge a study of the entire system
of housing allowance to provide more equity for those who hold lower
ranks. At the least, we urge an increase in the amount of housing
allowance paid to enlisted members. In the implementation of the DOD
plan to eliminate average out-of pocket expenses by 2005, we urge that
the subcommittee ``front load'' as much as much of the remaining BAH
upgrade as is possible for fiscal year 2003.
Expand CONUS COLA: Another important change would be to
increase continental U.S. cost-of-living adjustment (CONUS COLA) to
more localities. Several high-cost areas across the country do not
receive CONUS COLA. The Washington, DC area (for which designated
housing allowances are clearly inadequate according to our members),
for example, does not receive this allowance. We urge this committee to
provide CONUS COLA to more areas where the increase is warranted.
Further Permanent Change of Station (PCS) Funding
Enhancement: Our members greatly appreciate the changes this
subcommittee made in the fiscal year 2002 NDAA. Reimbursement of member
expenses, increases in weight allowances for the lowest-ranking airmen,
increases in the Temporary Lodging Expense, advance payment of POV
storage expenses, and the shipment of one POV within CONUS are all
authorities that recognize the financial burden placed on military
families as they are moved at the pleasure of the Government. We would
encourage further upgrades in reimbursement of PCS costs.
Commissary Benefit Protection/Oversight: We urge close
scrutiny of this benefit. Reports from the field are that recent ``belt
tightening'' on the part of the Defense Commissary Agency is already
being belt by the beneficiaries as lines have clearly been getting
longer and longer. We urge full commissary funding and ask for your
firm oversight to prevent any reduction in services to commissary
patrons
retirement issues
Concurrent Receipt/Retired Pay Restoration: While it is
important that military retirees continue to receive their cost-of-
living adjustments on time, we have a situation today where many
military retirees are denied their retirement pay because they have a
VA-adjudged disability rating. We note that both the House and Senate
Budget Committees have included fiscal year 2003 funding to provide
full concurrent receipt of retired pay and VA disability compensation
for those with a VA disability rating of 60 percent or higher (to be
phased in over the next 5 years). We also note that there are members
in this body who are calling for full concurrent receipt for all,
regardless of VA rating level. We ask you to authorize and fund the
full restoration of military retired pay for those who also receive VA
disability compensation. As many of you have noted, these members
earned their military pay by their honorable and faithful service for a
significant portion of their lifetimes. The disability compensation is
for a very different reason and is fully justified--their period of
service took a toll on their bodies and/or minds. We owe them both.
They held up their part of the bargain; our Government must do the
same.
Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA)
Reform: The members of this association strongly urge the subcommittee
to conduct hearings on needed USFSPA changes, both to gather all inputs
needed for appropriate corrective legislation and to guard against
inadvertently exacerbating current inequities via well-intended,
piecemeal legislative action initiated outside of this subcommittee.
Our members have clearly communicated that this anachronistic statute
specifically targeted at military members is not needed. While we would
favor full repeal of the act; fairness would dictate that at a minimum,
the ``windfall provision'' of the act be amended. This provision bases
the portion of retirement that is given to a former spouse on the
member's final military grade, and not that which the member held at
the time of the divorce. We would also favor termination of the portion
of the military retired pay (which is earned in a very unique,
dangerous way compared to the retirements of many other citizens) if
the former spouse remarries.
survivor programs
Our members greatly appreciate the provision in the fiscal year
2002 NDAA extending Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) eligibility to members
killed on active duty, regardless of years of service. This action
corrected a long-standing inequity. But more still needs to be done.
Reduce or Eliminate the Age-62 SBP Reduction: Before age
62, SBP survivors receive an annuity equal to 55 percent of the
retiree's SBP-covered retirement pay. At age 62, however, the annuity
is reduced to a lower percentage, down to a floor of 35 percent. For
many older retirees, the amount of the reduction is related to the
amount of the survivor's Social Security benefit that is potentially
attributable to the retiree's military service. For member who attained
retirement eligibility after 1985, the post-62 benefit is a flat 35
percent of covered retired pay. Although this age-62 reduction was part
of the initial SBP statute, large number of members who retired in the
1970s (or who retired earlier but enrolled in the initial SBP open
season) were not informed of the reduction at the time they enrolled.
As such, many still are very bitter about what they view as the
Government changing the rules on them in the middle of the game. Thus,
thousands of retirees signed up for the program in the belief that they
were ensuring their spouses would receive 55 percent of their retired
pay for life. They are further ``stunned'' to find out that the
survivor reduction attributed to the retiree's Social Security-covered
military earning applies even to widows whose Social Security benefit
is based on their own work history. To add further to the need for
changes in this program, the DOD actuary has confirmed that the 40-
percent government subsidy for the SBP program, which has been cited
for more than two decades as an enticement for retirees to elect SBP
coverage, has declined to less than 27 percent. Clearly, this benefit
has become more beneficial and less costly for the Government, and more
costly and less beneficial for the retirees and survivors the program
was created to protect. We urge you to step in and correct some of
these inequities. The paid-up SBP initiative enacted in 1998 will ease
this disparity somewhat for members retiring after 1978, but the
subsidy will still fall far short of the promised 40 percent and now
comes too late for many older retirees. In other words, members who
enrolled in SBP when it first became available in 1972 (and who have
already been charged higher premiums than subsequent retirees) will
have to continue paying premiums for up to 36 years to secure paid-up
coverage. Unfortunately, the 1998 paid-up provision does not become
effective until 2008. That is simply too late for many enrolled in the
program; we urge that you accelerate the paid up provision to October
2003 at the latest.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to highlight a few
areas that reflect the interests of our members. We truly appreciate
the continuing efforts of this subcommittee on behalf of those who
serve. We explain to them that the reason you solicit the views of
associations such as this one is that you are extremely interested in
knowing how your decisions directly affect military beneficiaries. We
will continue to let them know your hard work on their behalf. As
always, the Air Force Sergeants Association is ready to work with you
on matters of mutual concern.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Mr. Lokovic.
Mr. Cline.
STATEMENT OF MASTER SERGEANT MICHAEL P. CLINE, USA (RETIRED),
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENLISTED ASSOCIATION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD
OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Cline. Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me present
the views of the Military Coalition's Guard and Reserve
Committee.
Support of active duty operations: over the past 12 years
and especially since the tragic events of September 11, the
roles and missions of the National Guard and Reserve have
increased tenfold. The effects of the total force policy is in
full play, except those issues concerning benefits for Reserve
component members. National Guard and Reserve members have
answered the call to arms and are doing so in a very patriotic
manner.
Mr. Chairman, I have to express that I am deeply concerned
at some of the comments that were made by the first panel. The
total force policy was created to avoid the pitfalls of
Vietnam. When the Guard and Reserve are called to war, Mr.
Chairman, America goes to war. We are the next door neighbor,
we are the firefighter, we are the truck drivers--we are
America.
The only complaints that we hear from our members, Mr.
Chairman, is if you call us up, let us know how long you are
going to use us. Do not call us for 30 days at a time and
continue to renew us. We hear that same complaint from our
employers. They can deal with the idea that if you are going to
call us for a year, they can make exceptions and work around
that. But when you constantly are calling people up for 30
days, it creates a problem.
However, one significant problem has arisen concerning the
members of the National Guard serving on title 32 status in our
Nation's airports, at the nuclear power plants, and on our
bridges. These men and women do not have the protection of the
Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA). Senator Paul
Wellstone introduced S.1680, which would have given SSCRA
protection to National Guard members on title 32 active duty at
the request of the President. The language was rolled into last
year's defense appropriations bill, but fell out in conference.
Similar legislation has been introduced in the House this year.
Members of the National Guard who are currently deployed at
airports, bridges, tunnels, and nuclear power facilities in
title 32 status are on Federal orders and are receiving active
duty pay, benefit, and Federal retirement points.
Montgomery GI Bill: the Military Coalition would like the
committee to consider extending the period of eligibility of
the Montgomery GI Bill 1606 benefits from 10 years to at least
as long as a member is active in the National Guard or Reserve.
Eligibility for this benefit is automatic upon incurring a 6-
year Reserve service obligation and completing initial active
duty training. Extending the MGIB would expand its value as not
only a recruiting incentive, but also a retention incentive.
Chairman Cleland, you introduced and sponsored legislation
last year, S.937, to extend the MGIB benefits to members of the
National Guard and Reserve to 5 years after separation from the
Selected Reserve. There is also legislation in the Senate,
S.1517, to change the period from its current 10 years to 20
years. These two initiatives alone would cost an additional 5
to $7 million a year. At a time when we have approximately 18
percent attrition rate just in the Army National Guard, we have
over 59,500 people separating from the service every year at a
cost of approximately $70,000 for training these individuals,
that would be a considerable cost savings to the taxpayers.
OMB has acknowledged that extending the benefit would have
a greater effect on retention within the Guard and Reserve, and
they have sent over an initiative to extend that privilege an
additional 4 years, which would cost, as OMB has scored, $1
million a year. By extending the MGIB benefit, retention would
improve. Now more than ever, it is important to keep trained
National Guard and Reserve members in the selected Reserve.
The Military Coalition recommends that the Reserve MGIB
benefit, title 10, chapter 1606, be transferred to title 38 so
that increases to the basic benefit can be easily made by the
VA. Currently, any time a change is made to the chapter 30
program a respective change in the chapter 1606 program does
not happen because DOD and VA do not coordinate enhancements to
the basic MGIB program.
Health care for members of the National Guard and Reserve:
the Military Coalition urges making the TRICARE medical
programs available for members of the National Guard and
Reserve components and their families on a cost-sharing basis
in order to ensure medical readiness and provide continuity of
coverage. Last year Senator Leahy along with Senators Daschle
and DeWine and nine other Senators co-sponsored legislation
that would require DOD to study methods to provide coverage.
This report is due out in May of this year.
Also, Mr. Chairman, you have made comments about the
commissary. Currently Guard and Reserve people are limited to
24 commissary visits a year. We believe it is time to do away
with this unnecessary commissary card that is costing DOD
anywhere from $2.5 million to $17 million a year. Our Guard and
Reserve people have earned this benefit, and we believe that
money could be better used elsewhere.
Now Dr. Schwartz will address health care issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cline follows:]
Prepared Statement by Michael P. Cline
Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services
Personnel Subcommittee, I am honored to have this opportunity to
present the views of the enlisted men and women of the National Guard
of the United States. Our members are very confident that you will,
through your diligent and conscientious efforts, give serious
consideration to the needs of today's citizen soldiers. The men and
women who willingly enlisted to serve their communities and their
country are truly the finest ever.
The National Guard has been called upon more than at any time in
history to provide peacetime and combat-ready support for contingencies
around the world. The Army and Air National Guard has represented a
stable force and has acted as a storehouse for skilled professional
personnel as well as an effective structure to retain skilled personnel
departing the active services. The Army and Air National Guard need to
assure its members that it can recognize them for the important
contributions that they make to the national security and defense of
our country.
On September 11, 2001, the American people were introduced to a new
situation that will become a fact of life in the 20th century.
Terrorism is a relatively new concept to many Americans. It was
something we saw as affecting countries across the great divide of the
Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It was a foreign concept to many of us,
and something we had to worry about only if we were traveling overseas
to certain countries and at certain times. Terrorism is no longer
foreign. It has been brought home to America and will remain a constant
threat, one that will remain in the backs of our minds and keep us
looking over our shoulders as we go about the routine of our daily
lives. We all must now keep in mind that the threat of a nuclear,
biological, or chemical attack upon our Nation is imminent. The role of
the National Guard in homeland defense and security is now at the
forefront of issues facing the administration and Congress. What we
decide at this juncture will set into motion the course that our
country will take and the future of our children. We understand the
magnitude of the decisions facing our leaders, and know that they are
not being taken lightly or in haste. The men and women of the Army and
Air National Guard thank you for giving us the opportunity to voice
some of our issues.
immediate annuity retirement system for members of the national guard
and reserve components
The first issue EANGUS would like to see addressed is that of an
immediate annuity retirement system for members of the National Guard
and Reserve components with 20 years of service. This immediate
retirement annuity upon attainment of 20 years of service would provide
a significant recruiting and retention incentive. Currently, when a
National Guard member or reservist retires, he/she must wait until they
become 60 years of age to draw their retirement. When this age
requirement was established, the Nation did not use the National Guard
and Reserve components as much as we do now. The Guard participates in
real world contingencies on a regular and frequent basis and maintains
the same readiness standards as their active duty counterparts. After
20 years of dedicated service in uniform, a disparity exists between
the traditional Guard members and their Active component counterparts.
We applaud Congressman Saxton's introduction of H.R. 3831 to reduce the
retirement age from 60 to 55. We believe that this is a big step in
bringing about equity in the Total Force, along with the increase in
retirement points that this committee has approved. The retirement
program for the Reserve components has gone unchanged since 1948;
however, we believe it is time to eliminate the current point limit and
allow members to receive credit for all points earned.
extension of the period of eligibility of mgib 1606 benefit
Extend the period of eligibility of the Montgomery GI Bill 1606
benefit from 10 years to for as long as the member is active in the
National Guard or Reserve components. Eligibility for chapter 1606 of
the Montgomery GI Bill is automatic upon incurring a 6-year Reserve
service obligation, earning a high school diploma or its equivalency,
and completing initial active duty training. A part-time student could
take up to 10 years to finish an undergraduate degree due to
interruptions for changes in work, family, Guard assignments, or other
situations. Eligibility for chapter 1606 MGIB benefits to members of
the Selected Reserve should be extended for as long as they remain
members in good standing of a Selected Reserve unit. This would expand
the value of the MGIB from not only a recruiting incentive, but also as
a retention incentive. Last year Congressmen Buyer and Taylor
introduced HR1962 that would have extended the MGIB benefit to members
of the National Guard and Reserves for as long as they remain members
of the Selected Reserve. This would have cost $5 million per year. Last
year, Charles Cragin, former Acting Under-Secretary of Defense for
Reserve Affairs sent a letter to the Co-chairs of the House Armed
Service Committee addressing this issue. In his letter, Mr. Cragin
acknowledged that extending the benefit to 14 years would have a great
effect on retention within the Guard and Reserves and cost $1 million
annually. Several years ago, an informal study was done on the number
of members of the Guard and Reserves leaving the service. The study
revealed that men and women with 8 to 15 years of service leave the
Army and Air National Guard at the rate of about 57,000 over a 3-year
period. The National Guard has invested time and money into training
these men and women and the loss of well-trained soldiers and airmen at
such an alarming rate should be considered unacceptable. With very
little to offer these men and women, other than a small retirement they
cannot begin collecting until age 60, there is not much else to entice
them into reenlisting and remaining members of the Selected Reserves.
EANGUS believes that by offering these men and women the opportunity to
use their MGIB benefit for as long as they remain within the Guard and
Reserves, we would be able to retain rather than lose these members.
Now more than ever, it is important to keep trained National Guard
members and reservists within the Reserve components.
change sscra (title 50) to include members of the national guard called
to active duty under title 32 at the request of the president & revise
sscra to increase rent protection, add protections for vehicle leases
and college students called to active duty
While it is not the jurisdiction of this committee, we are trying
to raise the awareness among all of Congress and focus their attention
to the issue of the Soldier and Sailor Civil Relief Act (SSCRA). The
men and women of the National Guard have been contributing to the
defense of the homeland since the events of September 11 unfolded. They
have been on duty at the Nation's airports, nuclear power plants, water
treatment facilities, national parks, the Nation's capitol, and will
assume border patrol duties shortly. They are deployed under two
Federal titles as well as State active duty. The difference between the
two Federal titles and State active duty poses a problem with
compensation and protections that these members of the National Guard
who are deployed receive. If fortunate enough to be called to active
duty under Federal title 10, these men and women will receive all
Federal pay and benefits including medical coverage under TRICARE, job
protection under the Federal Uniformed Services Employment Reemployment
Rights Act, and protections under the Federal Soldier and Sailors Civil
Relief Act. The members of the National Guard deployed under Federal
title 32 receive some Federal benefits such as pay, but do not receive
protection under the Federal Soldier and Sailors Civil Relief Act
(Title 50).
Another problem with the SSCRA would be that it does not offer
protection for vehicle leases. If a servicemember has a vehicle loan,
he has options to free him from the debt, minimize his losses, and
eliminate the financial obligation. Under a lease agreement, military
members are committed to the lease term and must pay extensive
financial penalties to get out of the lease, frequently more than the
cost of the lease payments would have been!
Since the SSCRA has not been updated since 1991, EANGUS would like
for Congress to revisit the amount of financial protection covered for
rent or mortgage protection. In 10 years, the cost of living has gone
up considerably, and the $1,200 of rent protection would not come close
to what a two-bedroom apartment can cost in the DC Metro area, where
rent on a two bedroom can exceed $2,000 per month. In Los Angeles, CA,
a two bedroom unit costs on average around $1,700 per month. The same
applies to New York City.
EANGUS would also like to see revisions to the SSCRA to cover
college students called to active duty so that if their education
becomes interrupted due to a mobilization, they would be able to go
back in good standing without penalty in regard to either grading or
tuition for classes already paid for but not completed due to the
mobilization. Most colleges already cover members of the Guard and
Reserve if called to active duty before a semester or quarter is
completed; however, there are a few that do not.
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
is seeking the support of Congress to amend the Soldiers and Sailors
Civil Relief Act of 1940 (SSCRA) to include members of the National
Guard called to active duty under title 32 at the request of the
President as well as raising the amount of rent protection, and adding
provisions to cover vehicle leases and students who are attending
colleges and universities or any other accredited educational program.
commissary card & national guard and reserve component and gray area
retirees commissary benefit
While considering parity in benefits in regards to the active duty
and Reserve components, the issue we would like to bring to the
attention of the Personnel Subcommittee would be that of the pink
commissary card. National Guard and Reserve members are currently
authorized only 24 commissary visits per year. Not only are the visits
limited for members of the National Guard and Reserve components, they
are tracked by a cumbersome and costly access card that must be re-
issued each year by Reserve component commands. Millions of dollars per
year could be saved by not having to print and mail commissary cards to
Guard and Reserve members and gray area retirees. Equal access to
commissary stores, in parity with their active duty counterparts, is a
benefit that recognizes the increased responsibility of the Reserve
Forces for homeland defense and worldwide deployments.
other important personnel issues of eangus
National Cemeteries are intended for those who have
served their country in the defense of this Nation. Many
reservists are eligible for burial in these cemeteries based on
their service after mobilization. Service in the Reserves is as
important, as much a hardship, and potentially as dangerous as
service in the Active-Duty Forces. Statutory authority should
be given to implement and allow consideration of reservists as
equal to active duty personnel regarding burial rights in
National Cemeteries.
National Cemeteries allow for dependents' burial, but
make no provision for single soldiers to allow parents to be
buried with them. EANGUS believes that the parents of a single
soldier/airman, with surviving spouse or dependant child,
should be able to be buried.
Military technicians are actually traditional Guard
personnel, and are paid as traditional Guard personnel.
Currently, technicians are not eligible for reenlistment bonus
incentives. EANGUS believes that military technicians should
receive bonuses based on the same criteria as other traditional
guard personnel.
The National Guard comprises a significant percentage
of the total Armed Forces of the United States. The men and
women of the National Guard deploy worldwide for humanitarian
and national security reasons. Certain retired men and women of
the National Guard with 20 or more years of creditable service
are qualified for Federal military retirement benefits, but
have never served on active duty, and therefore were not issued
a DD Form 214. These men and women without a DD 214 are not
considered ``veterans'' by the Department of Veterans Affairs
and are denied significant benefits they have earned and
deserve. EANGUS believes that the retired men and women of the
National Guard described above should be considered veterans
for the purpose of establishing eligibility for benefits
provided by and through the Department of Veterans Affairs,
including but not limited to, health care services and medical
treatment at Veterans Affairs hospitals and similar facilities.
Space Available Travel access needs to be broadened
for National Guard and Reserve members. Implementation of this
proposal would not require an increase in the number of
aircraft available therefore cost is minimal or revenue
neutral. All services, and both enlisted members and officers,
would benefit from worldwide availability. Increasing access to
Space-A Travel would provide a greater efficiency per flying
hour with more seats filled as well as contributing to an
important and vital component of the total force and an
integral part of our national security. The future of our
military is dependent on the contributions and existence of our
young airmen and soldiers. The National Guard's force strength
is challenged and there needs to be an additional incentive to
join the National Guard.
EANGUS believes there should be a first time
enlistment bonus for a term of 6 years for all soldiers and
airmen from any Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) or Air
Force Skill Code (AFSC). We also urge Congress of the United
States to fund reenlistment bonuses for airmen and soldiers
completing their initial enlistment obligation and committing
to an additional term of 6 years, in any MOS or AFSC.
Currently, in order to receive a commission, an
individual must be able to complete 20 years of active
commissioned service before reaching age 55. This means that
he/she must be commissioned prior to their 35th birthday. In
order to retire, a member must have 20 years of creditable
service upon reaching age 60. A more reasonable upper limit for
a commissioning age would be 40. This initiative provides an
incentive for the enlisted force pursuing an education, and
EANGUS believes that the maximum commissioning age should be
increased to 40.
To qualify for Reserve retired pay, a member must be
credited with 20 satisfactory years of service, with the last 8
qualifying years in a Reserve component. The National Defense
Authorization Act in Fiscal Year 1995, to only require the last
6 years to be in a Reserve component, amended this. This
restriction made sense back in the 1950s when the Reserve
components wanted to ensure Reserve members had time vested in
the Reserve components to be eligible for a retirement. But
today, with movement between the active and the Reserve
components, and the emphasis on Total Force, it is an
impediment to active duty members who would like to join a
Reserve component. EANGUS believes that this requirement should
be eliminated by the elimination of 10 USC 12371(A)(3).
The aircrew flight incentive pay for all Army and Air
Selected Guard and Reserve members is based on a 1/30 of a
month's pay for each day the duty is performed. All active duty
and Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) aircrew members are eligible
for the full month's entitlement regardless of how many days
they perform the duty. The training requirements for the Active
component and Guard and Reserve members are the same. EANGUS
urges Congress to enact legislation to equalize the Flight
Incentive entitlement for all aviators of the U.S. military
forces.
Section 101(22) of title 37 states that inactive duty
for training does not include work or study in connection with
a correspondence course of a uniformed service. In addition,
section 206 of title 37 states, ``this section does not
authorize compensation for work or study performed by a member
of a Reserve component in connection with correspondence
courses of the Armed Forces.'' The code was affirmed in a July
6, 2000, memo to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Reserve Affairs in which the DOD General Counsel
indicated that ``Congress apparently intended to limit
compensation to training and instruction appropriately
undertaken in settings normally thought of as constituting
`drills' or active duty training.'' EANGUS believes that all
computer-based distributed learning that is required by a unit
and scheduled as an additional training assembly for a certain
date and time that provides for interaction and monitoring
between an instructor and unit personnel, regardless of where
unit personnel access the DL training, should be compensated
without legal objection. The dramatic shift in training
technologies and philosophies over the previous 10 years
warrants a change. EANGUS urges DOD and Congress to incorporate
appropriate language in title 37 to allow compensation for all
Reserve component personnel taking any means of unit-required
distributed learning training and for all unit-required
distance learning.
The Department of Defense operates child development
centers in military installations to provide certified
childcare for active duty and civilian personnel provides
funding to defray at least 50 percent of the operating costs.
Traditional Guard members, AGRs and Military Technicians in the
National Guard have the same need for reasonably priced,
certified childcare. The current military child care system
requires non-appropriated fund accounting systems and
competitive service employees, neither of which are available
in the National Guard. The National Guard is capable of
operating child development centers using State or contractor
employees through the existing Master Cooperative Agreements
between the Federal Government and the States and territories.
EANGUS strongly urges DOD, the Department of the Army, the
Department of the Air Force and National Guard Bureau to
support and authorize military child development centers in the
National Guard. EANGUS also urges Congress to enact legislation
to provide funding for these centers.
Military pay still significantly trails years of
accumulative inflation. Prior to last year, pay raises were .5
percent below the consumer price index. The National Guard is
in competition for personnel who can choose to work overtime at
their civilian jobs or get drill pay. Many States are under
strength. Increased pay is an incentive to recruit and retain
personnel. The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of
the United States urges Congress to enact legislation
authorizing a ``catch-up'' pay raise.
Current military pay regulations do not recognize
service beyond 26 years of service. National Guard and Reserve
military personnel tend to serve for 10-20 years longer than
their active duty counterparts, who draw their retirement check
between age 37 and 42 (on average). The seventh quadrennial
review of military compensation recommended a pay step at 28
years of service is implemented. EANGUS strongly urges Congress
to support legislation authorizing pay raises recognizing 28
years of military service.
There is an active discrimination practice against
single members without dependents in the Reserve components.
Single members are not afforded the same BAH allowance as
married members when on active duty. DOD Financial Management
Regulation, Volume 7A, chapter 26, paragraph 260203 allows a
Reserve component member without dependents who is called or
ordered to active duty on or after 5 December 1991, in support
of a contingency operation (other than a member who is
authorized transportation of household goods as a part of the
call or order to duty), to be entitled to BAH at the ``without
dependent rate.'' The member is unable to occupy his/her
primary residence because of the call or order to active duty.
The single member, while performing active duty for the
Government, still has the requirement to have some kind of
housing, whether by ownership or by renting. EANGUS urges the
Department of Defense and Congress of the United States to
support extension of this provision to authorize BAH payment
for any active duty performed by single members.
The Selected Reserve Incentive Programs do not enjoy
permanent statutory authority. These programs are effective
tools to obtain and retain National Guard and Reserve component
members. The temporary nature of the Selected Reserve Incentive
Programs reduces their effectiveness as retention tools because
Reserve component members are unsure of program funding in
future years. EANGUS requests that Congress make the Selected
Reserve Incentive Programs permanent.
In 1997, the Defense Authorization Act increased from
60 to 75 the number of retirement points a Guard or Reserve
member can earn in a year. Legislation passed last year to
increase it further to 90. Most reservists earned at least 63
points each year, losing 3 of them in the years prior to 1997.
The Reserve components have maintained an accounting of all
points earned. EANGUS urges Congress to amend section 12733(3)
of title 10 to make the increase in retirement points
retroactive and eliminate the ceiling on points that can be
earned per year.
The Chief of Staff of the Army has initiated a program
to reduce the percentage of non-commissioned officers (NCOs) to
a level at or below 47 percent of the total enlisted strength
of the Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard. This change
would jeopardize the readiness of the Total Army. These force
reductions cause instability within the force and have
significant adverse affects on recruiting and retention. EANGUS
urges Congress of the United States to support maintaining the
current structure in the Non-Commissioned Officer corps in the
Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.
The active duty military is dependant upon the National Guard in
order to sustain readiness to meet the demands of the current national
military strategy. It is a fact that 52 percent of combat support is
found within the Reserve components. This ``total force'' structure has
taken more than 20 years to achieve, and cannot be undone in a short
period of time. Add to the worldwide contingency operations the new
homeland defense mission, and it becomes very clear that the National
Guard will be called upon to contribute to this Nation's defense more
than ever before.
During the period of the 1990s this country saw unprecedented
growth and financial opportunity. The wall that separated East and West
Germany came down and with its demise came the end of the Cold War, and
with that end came a force draw down of America's military. Optimism
was plentiful and seemed to grow with the closing of each military
installation. Defense spending was cut and, therefore, new equipment to
replace aging and increasingly unreliable equipment slowed and the
resources stretched beyond the limits of reasonable life expectancy as
the drawdown continued. We didn't invest in our Nation's defense for 10
years, and then came the events of September 11, 2001. According to our
President, there are two inescapable truths about terrorism in the 21st
century: first--America's vulnerability to terrorism will persist long
after we bring justice to those responsible for the events of September
11, and second--the technological ability to launch destructive attacks
against civilian populations and critical infrastructure spreads to
more and more organizations and individuals with each passing year.
This trend is an unavoidable byproduct of the technological,
educational, economic, and social progress that creates jobs, wealth,
and a good quality of life. Keeping all of this in mind, EANGUS
believes that it is not only time to invest in the Nation's military
defenses, but also in the people who choose to serve their country. We
must make sure that the men and women the American people will come to
depend upon even more in the near future for their protection and
security must themselves feel secure in the knowledge that their
families will not become homeless because they couldn't pay the
mortgage or the rent, or that financial ruin will follow them because
of their unselfish and patriotic decision to serve their country and
their people.
Senator Cleland. Dr. Schwartz.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN SCHWARTZ, D.B.A., DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS/HEALTH AFFAIRS, THE RETIRED OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION
Dr. Schwartz. Good morning. Chairman Cleland and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, once again, the
Military Coalition appreciates the opportunity to present our
views on the defense health care program for your
consideration.
First, we want to reiterate our gratitude for the landmark
health care initiatives implemented last year, especially for
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries and active duty families. The
TRICARE Senior pharmacy program is winning rave reviews and
TRICARE For Life (TFL) is maturing as intended with the
resolution of some initial startup issues.
The coalition appreciates that last year your efforts
resulted in full funding of the Defense Health Program for the
first time in many years. We believe that full funding is
essential to sustain this program, so critical to the welfare
of the uniformed services community.
However, one lingering concern the coalition has is for
TRICARE For Life eligibles under the age of 65, whom the
Defense Department is still excluding from electronics claims
processing with Medicare. As a result, these disabled
beneficiaries are unable to use many Medicare providers and are
stuck with filing paper TRICARE claims in addition to their
Medicare claims. We hope the subcommittee will help encourage
DOD to provide equal treatment for all Medicare eligibles as
intended by law.
The coalition also urges the subcommittee's aggressive
action on several issues affecting younger beneficiaries.
Despite the numerous initiatives this subcommittee has
promoted, our members in many areas still have difficulty in
finding providers who are willing to accept TRICARE patients.
These providers complain of low and slow payments, as well as
burdensome administrative requirements.
A major problem is that TRICARE fees are tied to Medicare
rates. Medicare reimbursement has been declining despite rising
provider costs. As more providers are refusing to take new
Medicare patients or dropping out of the program, they are also
becoming more reluctant to be TRICARE providers. While it is
reported that provider participation in TRICARE is at its
highest levels, the question that needs to be answered is: Are
you taking any new patients? Generally the answer is no.
The coalition urges the subcommittee to consider additional
steps to improving provider participation. Specifically, we
hope you will encourage DOD to more aggressively use existing
authority to raise TRICARE reimbursements as necessary to
attract providers, to further reduce TRICARE administrative
requirements, and to take additional steps to rapidly expand
electronic claims processing.
The coalition also urges the subcommittee to consider
further actions to increase the consistency of the TRICARE
benefit across all eligible populations. One example is the
coordination of TRICARE payments with other insurance. Under
TRICARE For Life, TFL acts as a true supplement to Medicare and
pays whatever Medicare does not. But for other types of
insurance, TRICARE will pay nothing if the other insurance pays
as much as TRICARE would.
Until several years ago TRICARE paid the other insurance's
copayment, but a DOD policy change eliminated that practice.
What this does is it unfairly shifts costs to beneficiaries who
happen to have other insurance and effectively denies them any
TRICARE benefit. We urge the subcommittee to restore TRICARE as
a true second payer to other health insurance and reinstate the
same coordination of benefits methodology that is afforded to
TFL beneficiaries.
For active duty beneficiaries, the coalition is grateful
for the subcommittee's authorization of TRICARE Prime Remote
for families assigned where TRICARE Prime is not available.
However, the wording of the law has yielded some unintended
adverse consequences. The law specifies that family members are
eligible only if they reside with the servicemember in a
TRICARE Prime Remote zip code. Ironically, this means that an
eligible family member will lose the benefit if the
servicemember is subsequently assigned to an unaccompanied
remote assignment and the family is unable to follow.
Similarly, activated reservists are often sent to in-
process at one point, then deployed to another. Again, this
denies Prime Remote eligibility to their families.
The coalition urges the subcommittee to amend TRICARE Prime
Remote eligibility rules to cover family members who are unable
to reside with a servicemember.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
we thank you for your strong continuing efforts to meet the
health care needs of the entire uniformed services community. I
look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of the Military Coalition follows:]
Prepared Statement by the Military Coalition (TMC)
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. On
behalf of The Military Coalition, a consortium of nationally prominent
uniformed services and veterans organizations, we are grateful to the
subcommittee for this opportunity to express our views concerning
issues affecting the uniformed services community. This testimony
provides the collective views of the following military and veterans
organizations, which represent approximately 5.5 million current and
former members of the seven uniformed services, plus their families and
survivors.
Air Force Association
Air Force Sergeants Association
Air Force Women Officers Associated
Army Aviation Association of America
Association of Military Surgeons of the United States
Association of the United States Army
Chief Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer Association,
U.S. Coast Guard
Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public
Health Service, Inc.
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
United States
Fleet Reserve Association
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America
Marine Corps League
Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association
Military Chaplains Association of the United States of
America
Military Order of the Purple Heart
National Guard Association of the United States
National Military Family Association
National Order of Battlefield Commissions
Naval Enlisted Reserve Association
Naval Reserve Association
Navy League of the United States
Non Commissioned Officers Association
Reserve Officers Association
The Retired Enlisted Association
The Retired Officers Association
The Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces
United Armed Forces Association
United States Army Warrant Officers Association
United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers
Association
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Veterans' Widows International Network
The Military Coalition, Inc. does not receive any grants or
contracts from the Federal Government.
active force issues
Personnel Strengths and Operations Tempo. The Military Coalition
strongly recommends restoration of service end strengths consistent
with long-term sustainment of current deployments and fulfillment of
national military strategy. The Coalition supports application of
recruiting resources/voluntary recall policies as necessary to meet
this requirement. The Coalition urges the subcommittee to consider all
possible manpower options to ease operational stresses on active,
Reserve, and National Guard personnel.
Pay Raise Comparability and Pay Table Reform. The Coalition urges
the subcommittee to restore full pay comparability on the quickest
possible schedule, and to change the permanent law to eliminate annual
pay caps as the statutory default. The Military Coalition believes all
members need and deserve annual raises at least equal to private sector
wage growth. To the extent targeted raises are needed, the Department
of Defense needs to identify the ultimate ``objective pay table''
toward which the targeted raises are moving. Specific objectives for
inter-grade relationships must be established, publicized, and
understood, or members will perceive repeated differential raises as
unfair.
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). The Military Coalition urges the
subcommittee to ``front-load'' as much of the remaining BAH upgrade as
possible in fiscal year 2003, and to direct adjustments in grade-based
housing standards to more adequately cover members' current out-of-
pocket housing expenses.
Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS). The Military Coalition urges
the subcommittee to repeal the statutory provision limiting BAS
eligibility to 12 percent of single members residing in government
quarters. As a long-term goal, the Coalition supports extending full
BAS eligibility to all single career enlisted members, beginning with
the grade of E-6 and extending eligibility to lower grades as budgetary
constraints allow.
Permanent Change of Station (PCS). The Military Coalition urges
continued upgrades of permanent change-of-station reimbursement
allowances in fiscal year 2003 to recognize that the Government, not
the servicemember, should be responsible for paying the cost of doing
the Government's business.
Family Readiness and Support. The Military Coalition urges improved
education and outreach programs and increased childcare availability to
ensure a family readiness level and a support structure that meets the
requirements of increased force deployments for active, National Guard,
and Reserve members.
Commissaries. The Military Coalition opposes privatization of
commissaries and strongly supports full funding of the benefit to
sustain the current level of service for all commissary patrons.
national guard and reserve issues
Support of Active Duty Operations. The Military Coalition urges
continued attention to ensuring an appropriate match between National
Guard and Reserve Force strengths and missions. The Coalition further
urges an evaluation of the Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act
(SSCRA) for adequacy in today's environment, particularly as it applies
to National Guard members activated by State governors under title 32,
at the request of the President, in support of homeland defense
missions.
Health Care for Members of the National Guard and Reserve. The
Military Coalition urges making the TRICARE medical program available
for members of the National Guard Reserve component and their families
on a cost-sharing basis in order to ensure medical readiness and
provide continuity of coverage to members of the Selected Reserve.
Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Improvements. The
Military Coalition recommends that the Reserve MGIB authority be
transferred to title 38 so that increases to the basic benefit can be
more easily made, proportionally, in the Reserve program. The Coalition
also supports extending the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill benefits usage
period an additional 5 years after separation from the National Guard
or Reserve.
Tax issues. The Military Coalition urges restoration of full tax-
deductibility of non-reimbursable expenses related to military
training. The Military Coalition urges authorization of tax credits for
employers of National Guard and Reserve employees.
Retirement Credit for All Earned Drill Points. The Military
Coalition recommends lifting the 90-point cap on the number of Inactive
Duty Training (IDT) points earned in a year that may be credited for
National Guard and Reserve retirement purposes.
Unlimited Commissary Access. The Military Coalition recommends
doing away with the 24-visit access cards and extending unrestricted
commissary access to members of the National Guard and Selected
Reserve.
retirement issues
Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired Pay and Veterans Disability
Compensation. The Military Coalition urges subcommittee leaders and
members to voice their support of concurrent receipt to House and
Senate leaders most strongly, to ensure authority and funding for
substantive concurrent receipt relief in fiscal year 2003.
Former Spouse Issues. The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee
to conduct hearings on needed USFSPA changes, both to gather all inputs
needed for appropriate corrective legislation and to guard against
inadvertently exacerbating current inequities via well-intended,
piecemeal legislative action initiated outside the subcommittee.
Involuntary Separation Pay. The Military Coalition urges
reinstatement of involuntary separation pay eligibility for officers
twice deferred from promotion who decline continuation to 20 years.
survivor program issues
Age-62 SBP Offset. The Military Coalition strongly recommends
elimination of the age-62 Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity
reduction. To the extent that immediate implementation may be
constrained by fiscal limitations, the Coalition urges enactment of a
phased annuity increase as envisioned in S. 145 and H.R. 548.
30-Year Paid-Up SBP. The Military Coalition recommends accelerating
the implementation date for the 30-year paid-up SBP initiative to
October 1, 2003.
health care issues
Provide Adequate Funding for the Defense Health Budget
The Military Coalition strongly recommends the subcommittee
continue its watchfulness to insure full funding of the Defense Health
Program, to include military medical readiness, TRICARE, and the DOD
peacetime health care mission
Legislative Adjustments to TFL
Claims Processing for Under-65 Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to change the law to specify
that all Medicare-eligible uniformed services beneficiaries, regardless
of age or status (active duty dependents or retired beneficiaries),
shall be entitled to the same TFL benefits, claims processing
treatment, and benefits information notification currently afforded to
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries over age 65.
Requirement for Prior Authorization for TFL Inpatient Mental Health
Hospitalization. The Coalition urges the subcommittee to eliminate the
requirement for prior authorization for inpatient mental health
services for TFL beneficiaries when Medicare is the primary payer.
Medicare Part B Penalty. The Military Coalition recommends that
individuals who attained age 65 prior to October 1, 2001, who would
otherwise be subject to a Medicare Part B penalty, should have the
option to decline enrollment in Medicare Part B, with TRICARE assuming
first-payer responsibilities, as applicable, for such beneficiaries.
The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee to eliminate the
requirement to enroll in Medicare Part B for otherwise-eligible TFL
beneficiaries who reside in foreign countries where Medicare benefits
cannot be used.
Dual-Eligible DOD-VA Beneficiaries. The Coalition urges the
subcommittee to remain vigilant in its efforts to ensure that military
retirees also eligible for VA care should not be forced to make an
election between VA and DOD health care.
improvements in tricare
The Military Coalition most strongly urges the subcommittee to
ensure aggressive action to implement existing authorities to raise
reimbursements where necessary to attract adequate provider
participation, to reduce administrative requirements for providers, and
to take additional steps as necessary to ensure rapid implementation of
electronic claims processing.
Coordination of Benefits and the 115 Percent Billing Limit Under
TRICARE Standard. The Military Coalition strongly recommends that the
subcommittee direct DOD to eliminate the 115 percent billing limit when
TRICARE Standard is second payer to other health insurance and to
reinstate the ``coordination of benefits'' methodology.
TRICARE Prime Improvements. The Military Coalition urges the
subcommittee to expand TRICARE Prime Remote coverage to include active
duty servicemembers' family members, who are unable to reside with the
servicemember, and to instruct DOD to identify and counsel active duty,
Reserve, and Guard families in this situation. The Military Coalition
recommends that subcommittee authorize extension of TRICARE Prime
Remote coverage to retirees and their family members and survivors at
the same locations where it is established for active duty families.
Requirements for Nonavailability Statements under TRICARE Standard.
The Military Coalition strongly recommends that all requirements for
Nonavailability Statements be removed from the TRICARE Standard option
and that all waivers be eliminated, effective upon enactment.
TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan. The Coalition requests that the
Government provide a subsidy for retiree dental benefits and provide an
OCONUS retiree dental benefit.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico CONUS Designation. In light of the
large number of retiree beneficiaries residing in Puerto Rico and the
importance of the Commonwealth as a source for recruitment and an
initiative for retention, The Coalition urges the subcommittee to
support inclusion of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the CONUS for
TRICARE purposes.
Tax Relief for Uniformed Services Beneficiaries. The Coalition
urges the subcommittee to support H.R. 2125 to provide uniformed
services beneficiaries a tax exemption for premiums paid for TRICARE
Prime enrollment fees and Standard supplements.
Codify Requirement to Continue TRICARE Prime in BRAC Areas. The
Coalition urges the subcommittee to amend title 10 to require
continuation of TRICARE Prime coverage for all uniformed services
beneficiaries in BRAC areas.
Custodial Care. The Military Coalition recommends Congress provide
continued oversight to assure that medically necessary care will be
provided to all Custodial Care beneficiaries; that Congress direct a
study to determine the impact of the new legislation upon all
beneficiary classes and that Beneficiary Advisory Groups' inputs be
sought in the development of implementing regulations.
Health Care Coverage for Reserve Component Members and Their
Families. The Military Coalition urges the earliest possible action to
ensure an adequate health coverage ``safety net'' for National Guard
and Reserve members and families.
FEHBP-65 Demonstration. The Military Coalition urges the
subcommittee to work with its Government Reform Committee counterparts
to authorize remaining FEHBP-65 demonstration enrollees to convert to
regular FEHBP coverage.
personnel issues
Mr. Chairman, the Military Coalition (TMC) thanks you and the
entire subcommittee for your consistent support of members of the
uniformed services. We are most grateful to the leadership and members
of this subcommittee for their strong support leading to last year's
significant improvements in military pay, housing allowances, and
permanent change of station allowance enhancements. These and the many
other important provisions of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense
Authorization Act will pay strong retention and readiness dividends in
the years ahead.
But as much as Congress accomplished last year, very significant
inequities and readiness challenges remain to be addressed.
In particular, the uniformed services still find themselves facing
significant personnel recruiting, retention and readiness challenges,
with ever-smaller numbers of servicemembers being asked to make
progressively greater sacrifices in terms of their workload, their
compensation and benefits package, and their families. The subcommittee
has made great strides toward restoring pay comparability, increasing
allowances, and more. But additional steps are needed, regarding both
compensation and force structure for active and Reserve forces.
Significant inequities also persist for retirees and survivors,
whose past service preserved the freedoms we enjoy today. Congress made
significant strides in restoring lifetime health coverage for this
population, but the disabled members and survivor communities both
experience unfair reductions in their retired pay and survivor
annuities. Correcting those problems remains a major Coalition
priority.
In testimony today, the Military Coalition offers its collective
recommendations on what needs to be done to address these important
issues and sustain long-term personnel readiness.
active force issues
Since the end of the Cold War, the size of the force and real
defense spending have been cut more than a third. But national leaders
also have pursued an increasingly active role for America's forces in
guarding the peace in a still-dangerous world--even more so since last
September--so that today's servicemembers are being deployed many times
more often than those of the mid-1980s.
Past years' budget-driven reductions have taken an unfortunate toll
in the services' ability to retain highly skilled military personnel.
Despite the notable and commendable improvements made during the last 2
years in military compensation and health care programs, retention
remains a significant challenge, especially in technical specialties.
From the servicemembers' standpoint, the increased personnel tempo
necessary to meet continued and sustained training and operational
requirements has meant having to work progressively longer and harder
every year. ``Time away from home'' has become a real focal point in
the retention equation. Servicemembers have endured years of longer
duty days, increased family separations, difficulties in accessing
affordable, quality health care, curtailed (until recently) pay and
allowance increases, deteriorating military housing, less opportunity
to use education benefits, and more out-of-pocket expenses with each
military relocation.
The war on terrorism has only heightened already burdensome mission
requirements, and operating--and personnel--tempos continue to
increase. Members' patriotic dedication will help uphold the increased
workload in the short term, and a temporarily depressed economy also
may deter some losses. But the longer-term outlook is problematic.
Experienced (and predominantly married) officers, NCOs, and petty
officers are under pressure to make long-term career decisions against
a backdrop of a strong market demand for their skills and services even
through the recent economic downturn. In today's environment, more and
more servicemembers and their families debate among themselves whether
the rewards of a service career are sufficient to offset the attendant
sacrifices inherent in uniformed service. They see their peers
succeeding in the civilian world and a rebounding economy with a more
stable career and family life, often including an enhanced compensation
package and far less demanding working conditions. Too often, our
excellent soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are opting for
civilian career choices.
On the recruiting front, one only needs to watch prime-time
television to see powerful marketing efforts on the part of the
services. But this strong marketing must be backed up by an ability to
retain these talented men and women. This is especially true as the
services become more and more reliant on technically trained personnel.
To the subcommittee's credit, you saw the current retention crisis
coming before most, and you made significant efforts to forestall it.
We know you do not intend to rest on your well-deserved laurels and
that you have a continuing agenda in place to address these very
important problems. But we also know that there will be stiff
competition for proposed defense budget increases. The truth remains
that the finest weapon systems in the world are of little use if the
services don't have enough high quality, well-trained people to
operate, maintain, and support them.
The subcommittee's key challenge will be to ease servicemembers'
debilitating workload stress and rebuild the trust that has been
strained by years of disproportional sacrifice. Meeting this challenge
will require a substantial commitment of resources on several fronts.
Personnel Strengths and Operations Tempo. The Coalition has been
dismayed at low force levels and the very modest service requests for
additional end strength increases resulting in high operational tempo
levels.
The force is unduly stressed due to insufficient numbers of
personnel to support the war on terrorism and associated operational
requirements, resulting in a negative impact on the quality of life for
uniformed services personnel. Recent statements by the administration
and military leaders warn of a long-term mission against terrorism,
meaning more servicemembers deployed to Central Asia and other foreign
countries around the world. The services do not have sufficient numbers
to sustain the war on terrorism, deployments, training exercises, and
other commitments, resulting in the recall of significant numbers of
Guard and Reserve personnel. Service leaders have tried to alleviate
the situation by reorganizing deployable units, authorizing ``family
down time'' following redeployment, or other laudable initiatives, but
such things do little to eliminate long-term workload or training
backlogs.
The real problem is twofold. First, there are simply too few
servicemembers to do all the work that needs to be done. Second,
because too many career personnel are opting out of the military,
relatively junior members must assume jobs previously done by much more
experienced personnel. The result is that today's force is not only
much smaller than the robust force we had during Operation Desert
Shield/Storm, but much less experienced, as well.
The Coalition strongly believes that earlier force reductions went
too far and that the size of the force should be increased,
commensurate with missions assigned. The force was already overstrained
to meet its deployment requirements, even before taking on new
requirements arising from the war on terrorism. The grinding operations
tempo has become a major quality of life issue that won't go away, and
it will not be fixed by ``down time'' or expressions of understanding
and encouragement. Deferral of meaningful action to address this
problem cannot continue without risking serious long-term consequences.
Real relief is needed now. With no evidence of declining missions, this
can only be achieved by increasing the size of the force.
This is the most difficult piece of the readiness pie, and one of
the most important. Pay and allowance raises are essential to reduce
other significant career dissatisfiers, but they can't fix fatigue and
rising family separations.
Some argue that it will do little good to increase end strengths,
since the services are already experiencing difficulty meeting current
recruiting goals. The Coalition believes strongly that this severe
problem can and must be addressed as an urgent national priority, with
commensurate increases in recruiting budgets.
Others point to high reenlistment rates in deployed units as
evidence that high operations tempo actually improves morale. But much
of the reenlistment rate anomaly is attributable to tax incentives that
encourage members to accelerate or defer reenlistment to ensure this
occurs in a combat zone, so that any reenlistment bonus will be tax-
free. Over the long run, smaller but more heavily deployed forces will
experience family-driven retention declines.
Action is needed now to prevent a downward spiral of recruiting,
retention, and readiness. Failing to do so will only deepen stress-
related retention shortfalls and make future recruiting challenges even
worse.
The Military Coalition strongly recommends restoration of service
end strengths consistent with long-term sustainment of current
deployments and fulfillment of national military strategy. The
Coalition supports application of recruiting resources/voluntary recall
policies as necessary to meet this requirement. The Coalition urges the
subcommittee to consider all possible manpower options to ease
operational stresses on active, Reserve, and Guard personnel.
Pay Raise Comparability. The Military Coalition is extremely
appreciative of the subcommittee's leadership during the last 3 years
in reversing the routine practice of capping servicemembers' annual pay
raises below the average American's. In servicemembers' eyes, all of
those previous pay raise caps provided regular negative feedback about
the relative value the Nation placed on retaining their services.
Your determination to begin making up for those past shortfalls has
offered much-needed acknowledgment that the commitment between
servicemembers and their Nation cannot be a one-way street. The January
2002 pay raise, the largest in 20 years, and the increased allowances
you approved in the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act provided
more appropriate financial recognition for career and high-performing
servicemembers. But the Coalition urges the subcommittee not to
consider its work on pay matters complete.
Military and veterans associations know only too well the
tremendous leadership effort required to reverse long-standing trends
and win allocation of additional resources for programs that have been
long-constrained. As significant and laudable as those efforts have
been, it must be acknowledged that the annual increases approved so far
will make up only about half of the cumulative pay raise sacrifices
imposed on servicemembers over the previous two decades. The last time
a large pay comparability gap coincided with a retention crisis (in the
late 1970s), the gap was eliminated via double-digit raises in both
1981 and 1982.
It is worth noting that the remaining 7.6 percent pay raise
comparability gap--reduced substantially from 13.5 percent in 1999,
thanks to this subcommittee's impressive leadership--is still larger
than the worst gap of the late 1970s (7.3 percent).
The President's Budget proposes an average 4.8 percent raise for
fiscal year 2003, which would shrink the gap another 1.2 percentage
points. Even at that rate, it would take another 6 years to restore
full comparability. But current law would only reduce the gap by one-
half percentage point per year through 2006--and then once again begin
capping military raises below private sector wage growth (see chart
below).
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to restore full pay
comparability on the quickest possible schedule and to change the
permanent law to eliminate annual pay caps as the statutory default.
Pay Table Reform. The subcommittee also has worked to address some
shortcomings within the basic pay table by authorizing special
``targeted'' adjustments for specific grade and longevity combinations
in recent years. The Coalition has supported these raises to recognize
the education and technical expertise of certain career officers and
enlisted members. More may need to be done in this area to address
concerns such as pay compression between warrant officer pay and senior
enlisted pay. However, the Coalition is concerned about potential
perceptions of creating annual ``haves'' and ``have nots'' among
members in different grades.
The Military Coalition believes all members need and deserve annual
raises at least equal to private sector wage growth. To the extent
targeted raises are needed, the Department of Defense needs to identify
the ultimate ``objective pay table'' toward which the targeted raises
are moving. Specific objectives for inter-grade relationships must be
established, publicized, and understood, or members will perceive
repeated differential raises as unfair.
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). The Military Coalition is most
grateful to the subcommittee for acting in 1999 to reduce out-of-pocket
housing expenses for servicemembers. Responding to the subcommittee's
leadership on this issue, DOD proposed plans to reduce out of pocket
expenses to 11.3 percent in 2002 and reduce the median out-of-pocket
expense to zero by fiscal year 2005. Through the leadership and support
of this subcommittee, these commitments have been put into law. This
aggressive action to better realign BAH rates with actual housing costs
is having a real impact and providing immediate relief to many
servicemembers and families who were strapped in meeting rising
housing/utility costs.
We applaud the subcommittee's action, but we ask that more be done.
Housing and utility costs continue to rise, and we are years away from
closing the existing pay comparability gap. Members residing off base
face higher housing expenses along with significant transportation
costs. Relief is especially important for junior enlisted personnel who
live off base and do not qualify for other supplemental assistance.
In a related issue, TMC supports revised housing standards that are
more realistic and appropriate for each pay grade. As an example,
enlisted members are not authorized to receive BAH for a 3-bedroom
single-family detached house until achieving the rank of E-9.
The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee to ``front-load'' as
much of the remaining BAH upgrade as possible in fiscal year 2003, and
to direct adjustments in grade-based housing standards to more
adequately cover members' current out-of-pocket housing expenses.
Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS). The Coalition is grateful to
the subcommittee for establishing a food-cost-based standard for BAS
and ending the one percent cap on BAS increases. But more needs to be
done to permit single career enlisted members more individual
responsibility in their personal living arrangements. In this regard,
the Coalition believes it is inconsistent to demand significant
supervisory, leadership and management responsibilities of
noncommissioned and petty officers, but dictate to them where they must
eat their meals.
The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee to repeal the
statutory provision limiting BAS eligibility to 12 percent of single
members residing in Government quarters. As a long-term goal, the
Coalition supports extending full BAS eligibility to all single career
enlisted members, beginning with the grade of E-6 and extending
eligibility to lower grades as budgetary constraints allow.
Permanent Change of Station (PCS). The Military Coalition is most
appreciative of the significant increases in the Temporary Lodging
Expense (TLE) allowance authorized for fiscal year 2002 and the
authority to raise PCS per diem expenses to match those for Federal
civilian employees in fiscal year 2003. These are very significant
steps to upgrade allowances that had been unchanged in over 15 years.
Even with these much-needed changes, however, servicemembers continue
to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in complying with Government-
directed relocation orders.
For example, PCS mileage rates have not been adjusted since 1985.
The current rates range from 15 to 20 cents per mile--significantly
lower than the temporary duty mileage rate of 36.5 cents per mile for
military members and Federal civilians. Members are authorized time off
for housing-hunting trips in advance of a PCS relocation, but must make
any such trips at personal expense, without any government
reimbursement such as Federal civilians receive. Further, Federal and
State cooperation to provide unemployment benefits is required to
provide unemployment compensation equity to military spouses forced to
leave jobs due to PCS orders. The Coalition also believes continuation
of and adequate funding for the Relocation Assistance Program is
essential.
We are sensitive to the subcommittee's efforts to reduce the
frequency of PCS moves. But we cannot avoid requiring members to make
regular relocations, with all the attendant disruptions of childrens'
schooling, spousal career sacrifices, etc. The Coalition believes
strongly that the Nation that requires them to incur these disruptions,
should not be requiring them to bear the attendant high expenses out of
their own pockets.
The Military Coalition urges continued upgrades of permanent
change-of-station reimbursement allowances in fiscal year 2003 to
recognize that the government, not the servicemember, should be
responsible for paying the cost of doing the government's business.
Family Readiness and Support. The family continues to be a key
consideration in the readiness equation for each servicemember. The
maintenance of family readiness and support programs is part of the
cost of performing the military mission. We must ensure that families
have the opportunity to develop the financial and readiness skills
needed to cope with deployment situations. It is important to meet the
childcare needs of the military community including National Guard and
Reserve members. Overall family support programs must meet the needs of
National Guard and Reserve members being called to active duty in ever
increasing numbers.
The Military Coalition urges improved education and outreach
programs and increased childcare availability to ensure a family
readiness level and a support structure that meets the requirements of
increased force deployments for active, National Guard and Reserve
members.
Commissaries. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget reduces
Defense Commissary Agency funding by $137 million and eliminates over
2,600 positions from stores and headquarters staff by September 30,
2003. While DeCA indicates there will be no loss in service to the
customer, the Coalition is concerned that the size and scope of the
reductions may negatively impact quality and service to customers,
including additional store closings, reduced hours, longer cashier
lines and reduced stock on store shelves. This would have a
significantly adverse impact on the benefit, which is widely recognized
as a valuable part of the servicemember's compensation package and a
cornerstone of quality of life benefits. As it has in the past, The
Military Coalition opposes any efforts to privatize commissaries and
strongly supports full funding of the benefit in fiscal year 2003 and
beyond.
The Military Coalition opposes privatization of commissaries and
strongly supports full funding of the benefit to sustain the current
level of service for all commissary patrons.
national guard and reserve issues
The Military Coalition applauds the longstanding efforts of this
subcommittee to address the needs of our Nation's National Guard and
Reserve Forces, to facilitate the Total Force concept as an operational
reality, and to ensure that National Guard and Reserve members receive
appropriate recognition as full members of the Armed Forces readiness
team.
Support of Active Duty Operations. National Guard and Reserve
members and units shoulder ever-greater day-to-day operational
workloads. Along with Active-Duty Forces, they increasingly have come
to face many of the same challenges as their active counterparts.
Compounding the problem for National Guard and Reserve personnel,
their increasing support of day-to-day active duty operations also has
placed greater strains on the employers of these members. Employer
support was always strong when National Guard and Reserve members were
seen as a force that would be mobilized only in the event of a major
national emergency. That support has become less and less certain as
National Guard and Reserve members have taken longer and more frequent
leaves of absence from their civilian jobs. In the last few months, the
requirements of the war on terrorism led to the activation of over
76,000 National Guard and Reserve members for homeland defense and
overseas deployments.
The Coalition understands and fully supports the Total Force Policy
and the prominent role of the National Guard and Reserve Forces under
this policy. Still, the Coalition is concerned that ever-rising
operational employment of National Guard and Reserve Forces is having
the practical effect of blurring the distinctions between the missions
of the active and National Guard/Reserve Forces. National Guard and
Reserve members could eventually face resistance with employers and
increased financial burdens when activated which would negatively
impact their ability to perform assigned missions and reduce their
propensity to remain in Reserve service.
The Military Coalition urges continued attention to ensuring an
appropriate match between National Guard and Reserve Force strengths
and missions. The Coalition further urges an evaluation of the
Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) for adequacy in today's
environment, particularly as it applies to National Guard members
activated by State governors under title 32, at the request of the
President, in support of homeland defense missions.
Health Care for Members of the National Guard and Reserve. Health
insurance coverage for National Guard and Reserve members varies
widely. Some have coverage through private employers, others through
the Federal Government, and still others have no coverage at all. The
latter group includes an unknown number of junior enlisted members,
many of whom are seasonal workers or students.
For Reserve families fortunate enough to have health insurance
coverage through their private employers, employers can remove their
insurance subsidies and force reservists to pay full premium
themselves, plus a 2 percent administrative fee. Although TRICARE
``kicks in'' 30 days after activation, many National Guard and Reserve
families are left to figure out how to utilize their health care
benefits while their sponsor is deployed. Offering TRICARE benefits to
members of the National Guard and Reserve as an option for health care
insurance reduces these problems by ensuring continuity of coverage for
servicemembers and their families.
The precedent has already been set for Reserve insurance coverage
under the TRICARE family dental insurance program. Reserve sponsors pay
family dental premiums until activation. On activation, premiums cease
and the family is enrolled in the active TRICARE dental insurance
program.
More recently, DOD signaled acknowledgment of the problem of
``continuity of care'' for activated National Guard and Reserve
servicemembers by agreeing to cover the cost of Federal Employee Health
Benefit program insurance premiums during periods of extended
activation. TMC applauds the efforts of Congress to expand this benefit
to other Federal agencies and by charging the Comptroller General to
study this issue and report on cost effective options for providing
health care benefits for members of the Selected Reserve.
The Military Coalition urges making the TRICARE medical program
available for members of the National Guard and Reserve component and
their families on a cost-sharing basis in order to ensure medical
readiness and provide continuity of coverage to members of the Selected
Reserve
Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Improvements.
Individuals who first become members of the National Guard or Reserve
are eligible for the Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB-SR). The
MGIB-SR is authorized under title 10, whereas the basic MGIB program is
governed by title 38 (Veterans Benefits). As a result, when increases
to the MGIB program are made under title 38, proportional adjustments
are often overlooked in the title 10 MGIB-SR program. For example,
basic benefits for full-time students under the MGIB will increase 46
percent over the next 2 years, but no corresponding proportional
increase was funded for the Reserve program. [On January 1, the MGIB
(title 38) benefit for full-time students rose from $762 a month to
$800. A second increase, to $900 a month, is set for October 1 of this
year and will be followed by a third increase, to $985, in October
2003.] In addition, the MGIB-SR is paid out of the National Guard and
Reserve personnel appropriations, and the Reserve chiefs are forced to
absorb any MGIB-SR increases out of these accounts. The Coalition
believes that total force equity requires automatic proportional
adjustments to the MGIB-SR. One way to facilitate this objective is to
transfer the MGIB-SR program to title 38.
A second MGIB-SR concern is the usage period. In today's high-
OPTEMPO National Guard and Reserve environment, these servicemembers
find it difficult to juggle employment and school commitments with
family and military responsibilities. A part-time student-National
Guard or Reserve member could easily take all of the 10 years currently
authorized for MGIB benefits to complete an undergraduate degree. As a
result, National Guard and Reserve members are often forced to either
attend school during their first enlistment or risk the loss of their
benefits, even if they subsequently serve a full career in a National
Guard or Reserve unit. Last year, the Department of Defense recognized
the need to increase the usage period and supported an initiative to
extend the period for National Guard and Reserve usage by 4 years. The
Military Coalition believes that the solution is to extend eligibility
for MGIB-SR benefits to 5 years after separation from the National
Guard or Reserve. This benefit could be extended to those who remain in
the National Guard or Reserve for a specified period of time and would
have the added benefit of creating a retention incentive for National
Guard and Reserve members.
The Military Coalition recommends that the Reserve MGIB authority
be transferred to title 38 so that increases to the basic benefit can
be more easily made, proportionally, in the Reserve program. The
Coalition also supports extending the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill
benefits usage period an additional 5 years after separation from the
National Guard or Reserve.
Tax issues. The Coalition understands that tax matters fall under
the purview of a different committee. But there are unique issues
affecting members of National Guard and Reserve Forces, and we hope
that members of the subcommittee will seek the support of the Ways and
Means Committee in addressing them.
Guardsmen and reservists are being asked to train more to enhance
their readiness to support contingency missions, and are incurring
considerable un-reimbursed expenses for such training-related items as
travel, overnight lodging, meals, and uniforms. Prior to the 1986 tax
code revision, these expenses were fully deductible; under current law,
they are only deductible to the extent they exceed two percent of
adjusted gross income. In a case where the member and spouse, combined,
earn $40,000, the member must absorb the first $800 per year of his or
her Reserve-related expenses. A member and spouse earning $30,000 each
must absorb $1,200 per year. This is a significant financial penalty
for members seeking to serve their country, and needs to be corrected.
National Guard and Reserve members should not be required to subsidize
their own military training.
The Military Coalition urges restoration of full tax-deductibility
of non-reimbursable expenses related to military training.
With today's increasing operations tempo, the support of National
Guard and Reserve members' employers is more essential than ever. Yet
more frequent absence of National Guard and Reserve employees for
training or operations is undermining that support, as mentioned above.
The subcommittee's help is needed to foster additional incentives for
employers to help offset their costs associated with their employees'
military activities.
The Military Coalition urges authorization of tax credits for
employers of National Guard and Reserve employees.
Retirement Credit for All Earned Drill Points. The role of the
National Guard and Reserve has changed significantly under the Total
Force Policy, especially during the post-Cold War era. Congress
responded to the need for increased readiness by allowing guardsmen and
reservists to credit for retirement more of their earned inactive duty
training (IDT). During most of the Cold War period, the maximum number
of IDT points that could be credited was 50 per year. The cap has since
been raised on three occasions to 60, 75 and most recently, 90 points.
(Section 652 of the fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization
Act, P.L. 106-398). The Coalition is most appreciative of Congress'
approval of the increase. However, the fundamental question is why
National Guard and Reserve members are not permitted to credit for
retirement all the training that they've earned in a given year. The
typical member of the National Guard and Reserve consistently earns IDT
points above the new 90-point maximum creditable toward retirement.
Placing a ceiling on the amount of training that may be credited for
retirement serves as a disincentive to professional development and
takes unfair advantage of those National Guard and Reserve member
commitments to the readiness mission.
The Military Coalition recommends lifting the 90-point cap on the
number of Inactive Duty Training (IDT) points earned in a year that may
be credited for National Guard and Reserve retirement purposes.
Unlimited Commissary Access. National Guard and Reserve members are
authorized 24 commissary visits per year. Visits are tracked by a
cumbersome and costly access card that must be reissued each year by
Reserve component commands. The process of issuing, checking, and
accounting for these separate cards contradicts DOD's policy of a
``seamless, integrated total force'' symbolized by the issuance of
green ID cards to all members of the Selected Reserve. Because only 35-
40 percent of National Guard and Reserve members live close enough to
commissary stores to be able to use them conveniently, there is little
chance of excessive use by National Guard and Reserve members. In fact,
the 24-visit limit is tantamount to full privileges for the vast
majority of National Guard and Reserve personnel. Thus, the sole
effects of the 24-visit limit are to treat National Guard and Reserve
members as second-class citizens and to place unnecessary, expensive
and time-consuming documentation requirements on National Guard and
Reserve units. Equal access to commissary stores by the National Guard
and Reserve is an imperative that recognizes the increased
responsibility of National Guard and Reserve Forces for the National
security.
The Military Coalition recommends doing away with the 24-visit
access cards and extending unrestricted commissary access to members of
the National Guard and Selected Reserve.
retirement issues
The Military Coalition is grateful to the subcommittee for its
historical support of maintaining a strong military retirement system
to help offset the extraordinary demands and sacrifices inherent in a
career of uniformed service.
Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired Pay and VA Disability
Compensation. The Coalition was most disappointed that agreement could
not be reached by last year's Conference Committee to provide
unconditional concurrent receipt in the fiscal year 2002 Defense
Authorization Act. The Coalition appreciates the Armed Services
Committees' difficulties in addressing this area without Budget
Resolution headroom or full leadership agreement. We also appreciate
the statement of moral support for concurrent receipt that the
subcommittee did manage to insert in that Act. The subcommittee's
acknowledgement of the significant inequity the current law imposes on
disabled military retirees is very important to us. Similarly, the
act's provision of modest adjustments to the Special Compensation for
Certain Severely Disabled Retirees took at least an additional step to
expand the population eligible for at least some small easing of the
onerous disability offset penalty.
But the Coalition strongly believes the time has come to turn this
support into action, and to exert all possible effort to provide budget
headroom for this initiative in the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution.
The Military Coalition has long held that military retired pay and
veterans disability compensation are paid for different purposes, and
one should not offset the other. Specifically, retired pay is earned
compensation for completing a career of arduous uniformed service,
while veterans disability compensation is paid for pain and suffering
and loss of future earnings' potential caused by a service-connected
disability.
Previous attempts to fix this inequity have all been met with the
same response-the cost is too large. But the cost to men and women in
uniform who have been injured while serving this Nation is far greater.
No one disabled in the course of serving his or her country should have
to forfeit an earned retirement--for years of faithful and dedicated
service-in order to receive VA disability compensation for the wounds,
injuries, or illnesses incurred in such service.
Congress recently affirmed a similar principle in repealing the
outdated statutory provision that, before October 1, 1999, required
partial forfeiture of military retired pay by retired servicemembers
who accepted post-service employment as Federal civilians. The same
rationale applies to disabled servicemembers. That is, both categories
of retirees deserve to receive the full retired pay they earned by
virtue of their career of military service. Just as they should not be
required to forfeit that retired pay based on their subsequent civilian
employment, they should not have to pay a retired pay penalty because
their service in uniform caused them long term disability. Compensation
for the latter condition must be provided in addition to their earned
retired pay, not in place of it.
Rep. Michael Bilirakis' H.R. 303 and Sen. Harry Reid's S. 170 would
correct the unfair and outdated retired pay/disability compensation
offset, and these bills enjoy cosponsorship of 86 percent of the House
and 76 percent of the Senate, respectively.
The Coalition believes strongly that that level of cosponsorship
support is inconsistent with continued inaction, and that there needs
to be a greater correlation between what Congress says and what it
does. The remaining disabled warriors of the Greatest Generation and
Korea have earned and deserve better treatment, and Congress needs to
provide substantive relief as a matter of urgency before any more of
their number fade into history.
Last year, Congress opted to leave the issue to the Executive
Branch. The sad reality is that administrations of any party have been
consistently reluctant to seek the budget resources to solve expensive
personnel equity problems. Military members have had to look to
Congress to do the right thing, and more often than not, Congress has
done so.
With other options exhausted, it is finally time for Congress to
take real action to address the grossly unfair financial penalties
visited for so long on those who already have suffered most for their
country--military retirees disabled as a result of their service.
The Military Coalition urges subcommittee leaders and members to
voice their support of concurrent receipt to House and Senate leaders
most strongly, to ensure authority and funding for substantive
concurrent receipt relief in fiscal year 2003.
Former Spouse Issues. The Military Coalition is concerned that many
inequities persist in the application of the Uniformed Services Former
Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA). The Coalition appreciates the
sensitivity and complexity of this issue and the need for the
subcommittee to hear all relevant inputs. Several times in recent
years, Congress has enacted piecemeal changes to the law prior to
hearing testimony on the full range of inequities. The Coalition
believes strongly that such piecemeal changes should be suspended until
the subcommittee has heard all relevant inputs and can strike a balance
between the needs and rights of the various affected parties. Although
the intent of the USFSPA was to assist former spouses in obtaining a
fair share of their military spouses' retired pay, the law is ambiguous
and weakly written. This has resulted in State courts awarding
judgments that ignore the provisions of the USFSPA intended to protect
the veteran.
Delivery of the recent DOD report to Congress on USFSPA now clears
the road for congressional consideration of possible improvements to
the law.
The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee to conduct hearings
on needed USFSPA changes, both to gather all inputs needed for
appropriate subsequent legislation and to guard against inadvertently
exacerbating current inequities via well-intended, piecemeal
legislative action initiated outside the subcommittee.
Involuntary Separation Pay. A law change enacted in 2000 denies
separation pay to officers twice deferred for promotion who decline
continuation to 20 years of service.
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to reconsider. This
legislation is particularly unfair to officers deferred a second time
for promotion to O-4 (at approximately 13 years of service), who can
find themselves coerced into an untenable choice between serving an
additional 7 years without advancement opportunities or separating
after more than a decade of service without any separation pay.
Previously, officers could decline such an offer and still receive
separation pay, in recognition of the inconsistency between deeming an
officer noncompetitive for advancement in the military and
simultaneously create financial barriers to allowing the officer to
pursue civilian career opportunities.
The Coalition believes such an insensitive practice can only
encourage officers to leave service early rather than risk investing 13
years of service and be treated so unfairly if deemed noncompetitive.
Perceptions of this unfairness have led to varied applications in
different services, which only heightens the inequity.
The Military Coalition urges reinstatement of involuntary
separation pay eligibility for officers twice deferred from promotion
who decline continuation to 20 years.
survivor program issues
The Coalition thanks the subcommittee for the provision in the
Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization Act that extended Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) eligibility to members killed on active duty,
regardless of years of service. This action went a long way toward
addressing a long-standing survivor benefits disparity.
But more serious SBP inequities remain to be addressed. The
Coalition hopes that this year the subcommittee will be able to support
some increase in the minimum SBP annuity for survivor's age 62 and
older, in addition to a more equitable paid-up SBP implementation
schedule for pre-1978 SBP enrollees.
Age 62 SBP Reduction. Since SBP was first enacted in 1972, retirees
and survivors have inundated DOD, Congress and military associations
with letters decrying the reduction in survivors' SBP annuities that
occurs when the survivor attains age 62. The amount of the reduction
varies by the circumstances in each case. Before age 62, SBP survivors
receive an annuity equal to 55 percent of the retiree's SBP covered
retired pay. At age 62, the annuity is reduced to a lower percentage,
down to a floor of 35 percent of covered retired pay. For many older
retirees, the amount of the reduction is related to the amount of the
survivor's Social Security benefit that is potentially attributable to
the retiree's military service. For members who attained retirement
eligibility after 1985, the post62 benefit is a flat 35 percent of
covered retired pay.
Although this age 62 reduction was part of the initial SBP statute,
large numbers of members who retired in the 1970s (or who retired
earlier but enrolled in the initial SBP open season) were not informed
of it at the time they enrolled. This is because the initial
informational materials used by DOD and the services to describe the
program made no mention of the age 62 offset. Thus, thousands of
retirees signed up for the program in the belief that they were
ensuring their spouses would receive 55 percent of their retired pay
for life. Many retirees who are elderly and in failing health, with few
other insurance alternatives available at a reasonable cost, are
understandably very bitter about what they consider the Government's
``bait and switch'' tactics.
They and their spouses are also stunned to learn that the survivor
reduction attributed to the retiree's Social Security-covered military
earnings applies even to widows whose Social Security benefit is based
on their own work history.
To add to these grievances, the DOD Actuary has confirmed that the
40-percent Government subsidy for the SBP program--which has been cited
for more than two decades as an inducement for retirees to elect SBP
coverage--has declined to less than 27 percent. The statute assumed
that retiree premiums would cover 60 percent of expected long-term SBP
costs based on the actuary's assumptions about future inflation rates,
interest rates, and mortality rates. However, actual experience has
proven these assumptions were too conservative, so that retiree
premiums now cover 73 percent of expected SBP benefit costs. In effect,
retirees are being charged too much for the long-promised benefit.
The paid-up SBP initiative enacted in 1998 will ease this disparity
modestly for members retiring after 1978, but the subsidy will still
fall far short of the promised 40 percent and comes too late for many
older retirees.
In addition, a significant inequity exists from the military
retiree's standpoint in that the survivor benefit plan coverage
provided for Federal civilian employees provides both a higher post-62
benefit and a higher Government subsidy, as indicated in the chart
below.
FEDERAL CIVILIAN VS. MILITARY SBP ANNUITY AND SUBSIDY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSRS \1\ FERS \2\ Military
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-62 percent of Ret. Pay......... 55 50 35
Gov't Subsidy....................... 50 42 27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Civil Service Retirement System
\2\ Federal Employees Retirement System
Some might argue that Federal civilians warrant higher benefits and
subsidies on the basis of their extended careers, but that is false
reasoning. Military members, except for disabled members, must serve at
least 20 years to qualify for retirement and often serve much longer.
While many Federal civilian employees do, in fact, serve even longer
periods, this is not necessary to qualify for retirement and survivor
coverage, as many nondisabled Federal civilians qualify for retirement
after serving considerably less than 20 years--and can do so with as
little as 5 years' service, depending on age.
More importantly, because they retire at younger ages than Federal
civilians, retired servicemembers pay premiums for a far longer period.
The combination of greater premium payments and lower age-62 benefits
leave military retirees with a far less advantageous premium-to-benefit
ratio--and therefore a far lower Federal survivor benefit subsidy--than
their retired Federal civilian counterparts.
The Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Act included a ``Sense
of Congress'' provision specifying that legislation should be enacted
to increase the SBP age-62 annuity to ``reduce (and eventually
eliminate)'' the different levels of annuities for survivors age 62 and
older vs. those for younger survivors. But that statement of support
remains to be translated into substantive relief.
The Military Coalition strongly supports legislation sponsored by
Sen. Thurmond and Rep. Miller (S. 145 and H.R. 548, respectively) that,
if enacted, would eliminate the disparity in a three-stage process--
raising the minimum SBP annuity to 40 percent of SBP-covered retired
pay immediately; to 45 percent on October 1, 2004; and to 55 percent on
October 1, 2011.
We appreciate only too well the cost and other challenges
associated with such mandatory spending initiatives, and believe this
incremental approach offers a reasonable balance between the need to
restore equity and the need for fiscal discipline. Despite a shrinking
Federal surplus, action is needed now to correct this long-standing
inequity.
The Military Coalition strongly recommends elimination of the age-
62 Survivor Benefit Plan annuity reduction. To the extent that
immediate implementation may be constrained by fiscal limitations, the
Coalition urges enactment of a phased annuity increase as envisioned in
S. 145 and H.R. 548.
30-Year Paid-Up SBP. Congress approved a provision in the Fiscal
Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act authorizing retired members who had
attained age 70 and paid SBP premiums for at least 30 years to enter
``paid-up SBP'' status, whereby they would stop paying any further
premiums while retaining full SBP coverage for their survivors in the
event of their death. Because of cost considerations, however, the
effective date of the provision was delayed until October 1, 2008.
As a practical matter, this means that any SBP enrollee who retired
on or after October 1, 1978 will enjoy the full benefit of the 30-year
paid-up SBP provision. However, members who enrolled in SBP when it
first became available in 1972 (and who have already been charged
higher premiums than subsequent retirees) will have to continue paying
premiums for up to 36 years to secure paid-up coverage.
The Military Coalition is very concerned about the delayed
effective date, because the paid-up SBP proposal was initially
conceived as a way to acknowledge the particular circumstances of those
who have paid SBP premiums from the beginning. Many of these members
entered the program when it was far less advantageous and when premiums
represented a significantly higher percentage of retired pay. In this
regard, SBP premiums were reduced substantially in 1990, so these older
members paid the higher premiums for up to 18 years. The Coalition
believes strongly that their many years of higher payments warrant at
least equal treatment under the paid-up SBP option, rather than
imposing an additional 6-year waiting period upon them.
The Military Coalition recommends accelerating the implementation
date for the 30-year paid-up SBP initiative to October 1, 2003.
health care issues
The Military Coalition (TMC) is most deeply appreciative of the
subcommittee's exceptional efforts over the last 2 years to honor
government health care commitments to uniformed services beneficiaries,
particularly for Medicare-eligibles and active duty members and
families. The long and impressive list of accomplishments is well worth
enumerating once more:
Authorization of TRICARE For Life (TFL) and the
TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program (TSRx) for Medicare-eligibles;
Establishment of the Military Medicare-eligible
Retiree Health Care Fund to guarantee funding for older
beneficiaries' care through military facilities, TFL or TSRx,
beginning Oct. 1, 2002;
Reduction of the TRICARE Catastrophic Cap on retired
beneficiaries' out-of-pocket expenses from $7,500 to $3,000 per
year per family;
Elimination of TRICARE Prime copayments for active
duty family members;
Expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for active duty
families assigned where Prime is not available;
Full funding of the Defense Health Program in fiscal
year 2002, for the first time in many years;
Upgrade of the custodial care program, especially for
active duty families; and
Statutory protection of retired veterans' rights to
access earned care from both Department of Defense and
Department of Veterans Affairs health programs.
These and other subcommittee-sponsored enhancements are saving
military beneficiaries thousands of dollars a year and represent the
greatest military health care advancements in a generation.
The Coalition also thankfully recognizes the subcommittee's
continuing efforts to facilitate improvements in TRICARE claims
processing, portability, and access.
However, much remains to be done to fully implement this host of
laudable initiatives, to address certain chronic program shortcomings,
and to address remaining initiatives that will be essential to
providing a more equitable and consistent health for all categories of
TRICARE beneficiaries, regardless of age or geography.
The Coalition looks forward to continuing its productive and
cooperative efforts with the subcommittee's members and staff in
pursuit of this common objective.
provide adequate funding for the defense health budget
A top Coalition priority for fiscal year 2003 is to work with
Congress and DOD to ensure continued full funding of the Defense Health
Budget to meet readiness needs and deliver needed care, through both
the military direct care system and managed care support contracts, for
ALL uniformed services beneficiaries, regardless of age, status, or
location. An adequately funded health care benefit is as critical to
the retention of qualified uniformed services personnel and to
readiness as are pay and other benefits. The subcommittee's continuing
conscientious scrutiny of the adequacy of annual budget proposals will
be essential to avoid a return to the chronic underfunding situations
that previously led to execution shortfalls, shortchanging of the
direct care system, inadequate equipment capitalization, failure to
invest in infrastructure, and substitution of annual emergency
supplemental funding requests for candid and conscientious budget
planning.
In years past, part of the funding problem was attributable to the
lack of a clearly defined benefit. With the introduction of TFL, the
benefit is more clearly defined and funding requirements should be
better understood.
The Military Coalition strongly recommends the subcommittee
continue its watchfulness to ensure full funding of the Defense Health
Program, to include military medical readiness, TRICARE, and the DOD
peacetime health care mission.
tricare for life implementation
The Coalition is pleased to report that, thanks to this
subcommittee's focus on beneficiaries, TMC representatives continue to
be actively engaged in two OSD-sponsored TFL action groups. The TFL
Steering Level Panel is comprised of military association CEOs, the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, members of the
ASD(HA) staff and members of the TRICARE Management Activity. The
Steering Panel meets quarterly to address major policy decisions,
consistent with the latitude provided by existing statutes. The TFL
Working Group has representation from the same organizations and meets
bi-weekly, or as necessary, to coordinate details of implementation
plans, identify problem solutions, and refer issues to the steering
panel as needed. From our vantage point, the Defense Department
continues to be committed to implement TFL consistent with
Congressional intent and is working vigorously toward that end.
The Coalition is concerned that several TFL implementation
``glitches'' have arisen since October 1 that have posed frustrating
delays or erroneous claims rejections for significant numbers of
TRICARE beneficiaries. The TFL Working Group has provided a much-needed
forum to exchange DOD and beneficiary perspectives and identify
corrective actions. Although many of these remain to be fully resolved,
we believe the Department is making a sincere and energetic effort to
do so. The Coalition will continue to work closely with DOD to monitor
the automated claims processing to expedite payments and eliminate
beneficiary claim-filing requirements.
While in the process of developing TFL implementation plans and how
TFL will interact with Medicare under various scenarios, the Coalition
has identified certain statutory limitations and inconsistencies that
we believe need adjustment to promote an equitable benefit for all
beneficiaries, regardless of where they reside.
In addition, the Coalition plans to remain vigilant in its efforts
to identify gaps in coverage between Medicare and TRICARE benefits to
make TRICARE for Life the true ``wrap around coverage'' as intended by
Congress. It's extremely important that beneficiaries are confident
they will no longer require Medicare supplemental insurance policies
and are willing to rely wholly on TFL. Unintentional gaps in coverage
will result in financial hardships for beneficiaries, and undermine
confidence in the program. The Coalition is particularly concerned that
DOD appears not to have budgeted the necessary funds to adequately
inform beneficiaries and providers about the dramatically upgraded TFL
and TSRx benefits. In most cases, informing beneficiaries was left to
the four regional managed care support contractors (MCSCs). The result
was a great disparity in the quantity and quality of notice members
received about these extraordinarily important benefit changes. In many
cases, the MCSCs put limited resources into mailings and beneficiary
briefings because they had not budgeted for such things, and received
little, if any, extra funding from DOD for this purpose.
In many cases, beneficiaries' best sources of information were
magazines and other TFL- or TSRx-specific publications published by
beneficiary associations. Unfortunately, many beneficiaries did not
have access to the association publications and thus were inadequately
informed.
The Coalition recommends the subcommittee establish safeguards to
ensure adequate funding is provided for beneficiary education whenever
significant changes occur in military health or pharmacy programs.
Legislative Adjustments to TFL
Claims Processing for Under-65 Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries.
When TFL was enacted last year, the Coalition believes Congress
intended that ALL Medicare-eligible beneficiaries should receive the
same benefit and the same claims-processing treatment. Unfortunately,
this has not turned out to be the case as DOD has interpreted and
implemented the TFL statute.
First, the Coalition is very concerned about continuing claims
processing limitations for the under-65 Medicare-eligible population.
These TFL beneficiaries--who are eligible for Medicare due to 100-
percent disability--so far have been left out of the electronic claims
processing that is the standard for TFL beneficiaries over 65.
Eligibility for automated claims is essential to make TFL work
smoothly, since it opens up TRICARE access to any Medicare-
participating provider. In this regard, Medicare providers incur no
extra paperwork with TFL patients, because Medicare automatically
processes the claims to TFL. But younger disabled beneficiaries and
their providers are still saddled with filing individual paper claims
with TRICARE for each episode of care (which entails much slower
processing and payment), so many providers are unwilling to treat them
or require payment upfront at the time of service. The Department of
Defense has indicated its intent to include under-65 retired Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries in the electronic claim system at some point in
2002, but has not committed to making this happen by any specific date.
Unfortunately, another group of Medicare-eligibles is even more
severely disenfranchised from TFL participation--under-65 Medicare-
eligible dependents of active duty family members. These beneficiaries
are not only barred from the automated claims process, but they also
endure a much more restricted benefit.
Congress specified that TFL is to perform as a second-payer to
Medicare on a ``benefits plus benefits'' basis. That is, TRICARE pays
whatever Medicare will not for any service covered by Medicare and
TRICARE. But the language of the TFL law applies only to retired
beneficiaries and their dependents, and to eligible survivors and
certain former spouses. As presently written, the TFL law does not
address Medicare-eligible active duty family members. For the latter
case, the Department of Defense operates TFL as second-payer to any
other insurance--including Medicare--on a ``benefits less benefits''
basis. Under this methodology, TRICARE payment calculation involves a
complex comparison of Medicare vs. TRICARE allowables and payments, and
the beneficiary is subject to TRICARE Standard deductibles (TFL
beneficiaries are not). The confusing methodology often leads to
payment problems and is extremely hard for patients and providers to
understand (indeed, even TRICARE managers have difficulty explaining
it). Thus, TRICARE is of considerably more limited value to Medicare-
eligible active duty family members.
The Coalition believes this situation is extremely unfair and
imposes an undue burden on beneficiaries, many of whom are the most in
need of care and often endure financial hardship because of their
disability.
Further, all disabled beneficiaries under 65 do not receive any
formal communication from DOD about how their TRICARE benefits change
upon becoming eligible for Medicare Part B. The Coalition, through the
TFL working group and senior level panel, has continued to urge DOD to
take a more proactive stance in aggressively educating this group about
the benefits changes associated with attainment of Medicare
eligibility.
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to change the law to specify
that all Medicare-eligible uniformed services beneficiaries, regardless
of age or status (active duty dependents or retired beneficiaries),
shall be entitled to the same TFL benefits, claims processing
treatment, and benefits information notification currently afforded to
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries over age 65.
Requirement for Prior Authorization for TFL Inpatient Mental Health
Hospitalization. Despite TFL's role as second payer to Medicare, one
holdover from DOD's overly zealous prior authorization requirements is
the requirement for prior authorization for inpatient mental health
services for TFL beneficiaries. The Coalition strongly disagrees with
placing this additional administrative burden upon TFL beneficiaries
when TFL is second-payer to Medicare. When Medicare authorizes
inpatient mental health hospitalization, TRICARE authorization also
should be automatic, just as it is for other Medicare-covered services.
The current preauthorization requirement not only burdens
beneficiaries, but also causes unnecessary paperwork and increased
administrative costs with little or no demonstrated impact on
effectiveness or improved outcomes.
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to eliminate the requirement
for prior authorization for inpatient mental health services for TFL
beneficiaries when Medicare is the primary payer.
Medicare Part B Penalty. Currently, about 6 percent of the
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries residing in the United States would be
subject to a Medicare Part B late enrollment penalty if they desire to
participate in TFL. The penalty, which increases by 10 percent per
year, is particularly onerous for more senior retirees (principally the
veterans of World War I and World War II), lower grade retirees, and
survivors. Under these rules, a 75-year old would have to pay double
Part B premiums for life. An 85-year old would incur triple Part B
premiums for life. Although we would prefer to see this penalty waived,
TMC recognizes that jurisdiction over any aspect of the Medicare
program is outside the scope of the Armed Services Committees.
TMC proposes an alternative, under the jurisdiction of the
subcommittee, which parallels the treatment of Medicare Part B for
participants in TSRx. Specifically, beneficiaries who attained age 65
prior to April 1, 2001, are not required to enroll in Medicare Part B
to participate in the TSRx program. Those who become 65 after that date
must enroll in Part B to be eligible for TSRx. TMC believes similar
ground rules should be extended to TFL. Beneficiaries who became 65
before October 1, 2001, should be provided the option of having TRICARE
as primary payer (without requiring enrollment in Part B) for services
normally covered by Medicare Part B. Under this proposal, such
beneficiaries would be subject to applicable TRICARE deductibles and
copayments for such services. (The individuals in question are entitled
to Medicare Part A).
The Military Coalition recommends that individuals who attained age
65 prior to October 1, 2001, who would otherwise be subject to a
Medicare Part B penalty, should have the option to decline enrollment
in Medicare Part B, with TRICARE assuming first-payer responsibilities,
as applicable, for such beneficiaries.
Beneficiaries Residing Overseas. Under TFL, approximately 11,000
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, who reside in foreign countries, are
required to participate in Medicare Part B, even though Medicare does
not function overseas. This is a particularly onerous burden for
elderly retirees who have resided outside of the United States for
years and, for obvious reasons, did not enroll in the non-existent
Medicare program at 65. For example, an 80-year old retiree overseas
would have to pay 250 percent of the normal Part B premium for the rest
of his life to gain TFL coverage--even though Medicare would not pay a
cent for his care. The Coalition believes this situation is highly
inequitable.
Overseas beneficiaries have been actively discouraged by the Health
Care Financing Administration--now known as the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS)--from enrolling in Part B. Specifically, HCFA/
CMS letters to overseas retirees have advised, ``Therefore, unless you
believe that you may be returning to the United States in the near
future either to live or to receive medical care, it is probably not to
your advantage to enroll in medical insurance at this time.'' The
Coalition believes members who were counseled by the government not to
enroll in Part B because they live overseas where Medicare does not
apply should not be compelled to enroll in Part B years later. It is
particularly unfair to deny elderly military beneficiaries the belated
TFL benefit they earned by extended arduous service unless they agree
to pay an artificially inflated fee for a Medicare benefit they can
never use.
The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee to eliminate the
requirement to enroll in Medicare Part B for otherwise-eligible TFL
beneficiaries who reside in foreign countries where Medicare benefits
cannot be used.
Other TFL Considerations
TRICARE Plus. The Coalition is pleased with DOD's decision to offer
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries the opportunity to enroll in a primary
care program at selected military treatment facilities (MTFs) where
capacity exists. The Coalition appreciates that DOD will guarantee
primary care access for Plus enrollees on the same basis as other
enrolled TRICARE Prime beneficiaries.
TRICARE Senior Prime enrollees were ``grandfathered'' into the Plus
program. In addition, TRICARE Prime beneficiaries under age 65 are
permitted to ``age into'' Plus when they become Medicare-eligible.
Other Medicare-eligibles who have been enrolled or empanelled in a
health program at a MTF enjoyed a higher enrollment priority than those
with no such prior relationship.
The Coalition is well aware of the finite capacity and resource
limitations of the MHS and supports a DOD policy that balances TRICARE
Plus enrollees' needs with the readiness mission and the primary care
access needs for active duty and retiree beneficiaries.
Dual-Eligible DOD-VA Beneficiaries
The Coalition is very grateful to the subcommittee for the fiscal
year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provision that
prohibits the Secretary of Defense from forcing beneficiaries who are
also eligible for Veterans Administration (VA) medical care DOD
beneficiaries to choose between DOD and VA care. The Coalition is
disappointed that the administration continues to support this ``forced
choice'' initiative. It is the Coalition's view that this policy
change, if ever implemented, would constitute a serious breach of
faith.
The VA health system delivers specialized care and services for
members with significant disabilities (e.g., prosthetics and treatment
of spinal injuries) that are difficult if not impossible to duplicate
in military facilities. But their needs for such specialized care for
service-connected disabilities should not be turned to their
disadvantage--either to compel them to get all their care from the VA,
or to deny them specialized VA care if they choose routine care for
themselves and their families through TRICARE.
We acknowledge that a critical, but not insurmountable, challenge
for Congress, DOD, and VA will be to implement a suitable policy
framework under which these beneficiaries will be able to access the
health care they have earned. Retired veterans with VA-rated
disabilities (68 percent of enrolled retired veterans are in Priority
Groups 1-3), or with other factors codified in law (Priority Groups 3-
6), are entitled to VA health care and, as a matter of principle,
should not be required to choose between VA health care and TFL. These
service-connected disabled veterans have earned the right to military
health care in return for their careers of service in uniform. They
also have earned access to specialized VA care for the (often severe)
disabilities that their service has imposed on them.
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to remain vigilant in its
efforts to ensure that military retirees also eligible for VA care
should not be forced to make an election between VA and DOD health
care.
improvements in tricare
The Coalition is pleased that the fiscal year 2001 NDAA made an
effort to address the lack of physician participation in TRICARE by
requiring:
DOD to designate specific rates for reimbursement for
services in certain localities where access to health care
services would be severely impaired; and
Prepare reports analyzing the utility of increased
reimbursements to ensure the availability of network providers,
and to determine the extent to which physicians are choosing
not to participate in contracts to provide health care in rural
areas.
However, beneficiaries in certain geographies continue to report a
lack of provider participation in TRICARE networks or as participating
providers for Standard, thus limiting in access and choice. Despite
many initiatives to improve the program, we continue to hear complaints
from providers of low and slow payments, as well as burdensome
administrative requirements and hassles. These problems must be
addressed by increasing reimbursement, streamlining claims processing
requirements with greater reliance on electronic claims technology and
eliminating unnecessary TRICARE reporting requirements. Only by
decreasing the administrative burden placed on providers and building a
simplified and reliable claims system that pays in a timely way can
Congress and DOD hope to establish TRICARE as an attractive program to
providers and a dependable benefit for beneficiaries.
A key problem is that, since 1991, TRICARE fees have been tied to
Medicare reimbursement rates that have been in continual decline. While
Congress has previously given the authority to the Secretary of Defense
to increase reimbursements and mandated improvements in TRICARE
business practices, only some of these improvements have been
implemented. To date, the Secretary of Defense has made only very
limited use of his existing authority to increase participation by
raising reimbursement levels. The test demonstration of a Web-based
automated claims system, required by the section 723 of the fiscal year
2001 NDAA to begin October 1, 2001, has not been activated. Because of
the slow pace of change and reluctance to use existing authorities,
there has been little increase in provider participation.
Large numbers of beneficiaries continue to report that prospective
providers:
Tell them they will not accept TRICARE reimbursement
or TRICARE patients; or
Require payment in advance because they refuse to
accept the TRICARE Maximum Allowable Charge (TMAC) as an
appropriate reimbursement rate and/or are unwilling to accept
TRICARE's cumbersome administrative requirements and slow
payments.
Once providers have left the system, promises of increased
efficiencies have done little to encourage them to return. Lessons
learned from TFL implementation demonstrate the effectiveness of
electronic claims processing.
An additional administrative improvement under the TFL program
deemed all Medicare providers as TRICARE authorized providers--
eliminating the unnecessary cost and inconvenience of additional
credentialing.
TFL has dramatically improved access to care for Medicare-eligibles
by streamlining administrative procedures, processing claims
electronically, making the system simple for providers, and paying
claims on time.
But TRICARE remains a morass of paper claims, bureaucratic
layering, and low and slow payments that has stubbornly resisted the
kinds of upgrades that are essential to make TRICARE an attractive and
reliable program for providers and beneficiaries.
Having implemented dramatic improvements in health coverage for
Medicare-eligibles over 65 and active duty dependents, it is essential
for the subcommittee to apply similar aggressive action to make TRICARE
similarly responsive to the needs of under-65 beneficiaries.
The Military Coalition most strongly urges the subcommittee to
ensure aggressive action to implement existing authorities to raise
reimbursements where necessary to attract adequate provider
participation, to reduce administrative requirements for providers, and
to take additional steps as necessary to ensure rapid implementation of
electronic claims processing.
tricare prime improvements
The Coalition is grateful for the fiscal year 2001 NDAA provision
authorizing TRICARE Prime Remote coverage for families of
servicemembers assigned to areas where there is no TRICARE Prime
option. However, this program has a shortcoming in that it requires
that the family member must reside with the servicemember. This
requirement may be reasonable when the family has a choice of
accompanying the member, but this is not always the case. It can prove
particularly troublesome for family members whose sponsor has Permanent
Change of Station (PCS) orders that are ``unaccompanied.'' In such
circumstances, there can be many good reasons why the family finds
itself living in an area without Prime access while awaiting the end of
the unaccompanied tour.
Further, families of deployed guardsman and reservists called to
active duty for over 179 days are eligible for the Prime Remote
benefit, but in most circumstance the servicemember is sent far from
their residence, and the family remains behind. Other circumstances
where families are separated include families who may return to their
home of record during deployment and college students residing away
from home. These families are unfairly burdened by having to pay much
higher copayments for care than their counterparts fortunate enough to
have an opportunity to reside with the sponsor.
The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee to expand TRICARE
Prime Remote coverage to include active duty servicemembers family
members who are unable to reside with the servicemember, and to
instruct DOD to identify and counsel active duty, Reserve, and Guard
families in this situation.
The fiscal year 2001 NDAA represented landmark legislation in
reducing out-of-pocket TRICARE expenses for active duty beneficiaries
and Medicare-eligible retirees. However, the great strides made to
improve benefits for these groups also tends to highlight the continued
shortcomings of the TRICARE system for retirees under 65. Many of these
beneficiaries live in areas not serviced by Prime, thus relying on the
more expensive and cumbersome Standard benefit. Many, especially those
who live in rural or metropolitan areas that are medically underserved,
have great difficulty in locating TRICARE participating providers. This
presents a dilemma for members who have no choice but to rely on
providers who can charge higher prices and demand their fees ``up
front'' at the time of service. Obviously, this places an undue
financial burden upon these deserving beneficiaries.
In the light of the enhancements recently provided to the over-65
retirees (TFL) and active duty beneficiaries, extra steps are needed to
provide a more consistent benefit to the under-65 retirees whose needs
are not being met by TRICARE Standard.
The Military Coalition recommends that subcommittee authorize
extension of TRICARE Prime Remote coverage to retirees and their family
members and survivors at the same locations where it is established for
active duty families.
Codify Requirement to Continue TRICARE Prime in BRAC areas
In addition to our concerns about current benefits, the Coalition
is apprehensive about the future benefits of military beneficiaries as
DOD begins another round of base closures. Many beneficiaries
deliberately retire in localities in close proximity to military bases,
specifically to have access to military health care and other
facilities.
Currently, under current TRICARE Managed Care Support Contracts,
the Contractors are required to provide the Prime benefit in Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) areas. But these contracts can be
renegotiated, and the contracting parties may not always agree on the
desirability of maintaining this provision.
The Coalition believes continuity of the TRICARE Prime program in
base closure areas is important to keeping health care commitments to
retirees, their families and survivors and would prefer to see the
current contract provision codified in law.
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to amend title 10 to require
continuation of TRICARE Prime coverage for all uniformed services
beneficiaries in BRAC areas.
Fully Implement Portability and Reciprocity
Section 735 of the fiscal year 2001 NDAA required DOD to develop a
plan, due March 15, 2001, for improved portability and reciprocity of
benefits for all enrollees under the TRICARE program throughout all
regions. DOD has issued a memorandum stating that DOD policy requires
full portability and reciprocity.
However, because of contract complications, the delayed
implementation of the National Enrollment Database (NED) and other
unspecified reasons, this policy has yet to be fully implemented in all
existing TRICARE regions. Enrollees are still experiencing a disruption
in enrollment when they move between regions and are still not able to
receive services from another TRICARE Region without multiple phone
calls and much aggravation.
The lack of reciprocity presents particular difficulties for
TRICARE beneficiaries living in ``border'' areas where two TRICARE
regions intersect. In some of the more rural areas, the closest
provider or pharmacy may actually be located in another TRICARE region,
and yet due to the lack of reciprocity, these beneficiaries cannot use
these providers or pharmacies without great difficulty. This problem
suffers especially by comparison with TFL, as TFL beneficiaries have
full portability and reciprocity of both pharmacy and medical surgical
benefits. Meanwhile, active duty and under-65 retired beneficiaries
remain tied to the region where they reside. Under-65 beneficiaries who
obtain prescriptions outside of their region actually must pay for
their medications ``up front'' and apply to TRICARE for reimbursement.
It is unfathomable that, despite years of focus on the need for
portability and reciprocity, and the obvious disruptions and financial
problems imposed on beneficiaries in the interim, this same problem
persists year after year. Something is seriously wrong when our
government requires nationwide mobility of military families, but has
such little sense of urgency about making sure their health benefits
can follow them.
The Military Coalition strongly urges the subcommittee to direct
DOD to expend the resources it needs to facilitate immediate
implementation of portability and reciprocity to minimize the
disruption in TRICARE services for beneficiaries.
Coordination of Benefits and the 115 percent Billing Limit Under
TRICARE Standard
In 1995, DOD unilaterally and arbitrarily changed its policy on the
115 percent billing limit in cases of third party insurance. The new
policy shifted from a ``coordination of benefits'' methodology (the
standard for FEHBP and other quality health insurance programs in the
private sector) to a ``benefits-less-benefits'' approach, which
unfairly transferred significant costs to servicemembers, their
families and survivors. Under the TFL program, as second payer to
Medicare, TRICARE pays beneficiary out of pocket expenses, called
``benefits plus benefits''. However, when Standard beneficiaries have
other health insurance (OHI), TRICARE as second payer seldom pays out-
of-pocket expenses, ``called benefits, less benefits.''
Although providers may charge any amount for a particular service,
TRICARE only recognizes amounts up to 115 percent of the TRICARE
``allowable charge'' for a given procedure. Under DOD's previous, pre-
1995 policy, any third party insurer would pay first, and then TRICARE
(formerly CHAMPUS) would pay any balance up to what it would have paid
as first payer (75 percent of the allowable charge for retirees; 80
percent for active duty dependents).
Under its post-1995 policy, TRICARE will not pay any reimbursement
at all if the beneficiary's other health insurance (OHI) pays an amount
equal to or higher than the 115 percent billing limit. (Example: a
physician bills $500 for a procedure with a TRICARE-allowable charge of
$300, and the OHI pays $400. Previously, TRICARE would have paid the
additional $100 because that is less than the $300 TRICARE would have
paid if there were no other insurance. Under DOD's new rules, TRICARE
pays nothing, since the other insurance paid more than 115 percent of
the TRICARE-allowable charge.) In many cases, the beneficiary is stuck
with the additional $100 in out-of-pocket costs.
DOD's shift in policy unfairly penalizes beneficiaries with other
health insurance plans by making them pay out of pocket for what
TRICARE previously covered. In other words, beneficiaries entitled to
TRICARE may forfeit their entire TRICARE benefit because of private
sector employment or some other factor that provides them private
health insurance. In practice, despite statutory intent, these
individuals have no TRICARE benefit.
The Military Coalition strongly recommends that the subcommittee
direct DOD to eliminate the 115 percent billing limit when TRICARE
Standard is second payer to other health insurance and to reinstate the
``coordination of benefits'' methodology.
TNEX--TRICARE Next Generation of Contracts
Last fall, DOD began development and discussions about the next
round of managed care support contract procurements. The Coalition
agrees that this is a critically important step, both for the
Department and for beneficiaries. In this regard, we believe it will be
important for representatives of beneficiary advocate groups to have
direct and early input to that process. The Coalition believes strongly
that TFL implementation has proceeded as well as it has only because of
beneficiary organizations' collaboration, and that a DOD partnership
with beneficiaries is essential to achieve mutual goals in enhancing
health care programs and delivery.
As the future contracts are procured, accountability is the
Coalition's ultimate concern. If the current contracts are to be
modified, to whom can the beneficiary go for the ``one-stop shopping''
that is currently in place? Where will the beneficiary go for support?
Who will ultimately be responsible for coordinating quality and
efficacy issues among DOD policymakers and contractors, and how will
this be accomplished?
The Coalition is anxious to ensure that a stable program (while not
without its difficulties) is not radically changed without clear
evidence that outcomes of the effort will be an improvement and that
the current level of service is not compromised. Transitions to new
contractors, even when the contract design has not dramatically changed
(as is proposed), has historically been tumultuous to all stakeholders,
most importantly, the beneficiaries. The Coalition will be looking to
determine what systems will be put in place, or are being contemplated,
that will make the transitions to new contracts as seamless as possible
to the beneficiary.
The Coalition recommends that the subcommittee provide oversight to
the development of the next generation of TRICARE contracts and ensure
that Beneficiary Advisory Groups' inputs be sought early in the
contract redesign process.
TNEX Pharmacy Issues
The discrepancy between Medicare-eligibles and other beneficiaries
in the administration of the pharmacy program causes a great deal of
problems and confusion for beneficiary families. Under TFL, the program
is administered along Medicare boundaries, which comprise whole states.
The TRICARE program for under-65 beneficiaries is subject to the
arbitrary TRICARE regional boundaries. For example, a beneficiary
couple residing in Northern VA faces a bewildering task finding help
with pharmacy billing or other problems if one family member is over 65
and the other is not. For TRICARE purposes, the spouse under 65 would
be subject to Sierra's pharmacy network, because Northern Virginia is
in TRICARE's Northeast Region. But the spouse over 65 can use both the
Sierra network (Northeast) and the Humana network pharmacy (consistent
with Medicare's ``whole state'' administration, all of Virginia's
military Medicare-eligibles are managed under the auspices of Humana's
Mid-Atlantic Region contract). Should the under-65 spouse attempt to
get their medication filled at the over-65 spouse's Humana pharmacy in
Northern VA, it may prove to be a not in Sierra's network--subjecting
the beneficiaries to the higher out of network pharmacy costs. Trying
to keep this myriad of ``who participates in which region/State''
straight is an unnecessary burden for beneficiaries.
This issue could be simply solved by changing the administration of
the pharmacy contract to remove regional barriers from pharmacies and
make the pharmacy network nation-wide. This would permit under-65
beneficiaries the same portability as over-65 Medicare-eligible
beneficiaries and solve the aforementioned portability and reciprocity
issues, at least for pharmacy coverage.
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to authorize DOD to modify the
pharmacy contract to remove arbitrary barriers and make network
pharmacy access universal for all beneficiaries.
Another organizational issue concerns inequities in the
administration of the pharmacy program. Currently, the TRICARE Managed
Care Support Contractors are given great leeway in administering the
program's prior authorization rules. Because four different contractors
now administer the program, it is possible for one beneficiary to be
granted access to a specific medication that is denied to a beneficiary
with the same clinical findings who happens to live in a different
region.
In many cases, members receiving a medication without problems in
one area have had the same medication denied after moving to another
region. The Coalition believes that it is critical that the program be
administered in a equitable manner.
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to require the Department of
Defense to develop a plan to provide for uniform administration of the
pharmacy benefit nationwide.
Uniform Formulary Implementation
The Coalition is committed to work with DOD and Congress to develop
and maintain a comprehensive uniform pharmacy benefit for all
beneficiaries mandated by Section 701 of the fiscal year 2000 NDAA and
will the monitor activities of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee.
The Coalition is hopeful for a robust formulary with a broad variety of
medications in each therapeutic class based on clinical outcomes that
fairly and fully captures the entire spectrum of pharmaceutical needs
of the millions of uniformed services beneficiaries.
The Coalition is grateful to this subcommittee for the role it
played in mandating a Beneficiary Advisory Panel to comment on the
formulary. Several Coalition members are members of the Beneficiary
Advisory Panel and are eager to provide input on the program. The
Coalition is aware that there will be limitations to access some
medications; our efforts will be directed to ensuring that prior
authorization requirements for obtaining non-formulary drugs and
procedures for appealing decisions are communicated clearly to
beneficiaries and administered equitably.
The Coalition continues to believe DOD must do a better job of
informing beneficiaries about the scope of the benefit (source
documents), and program guidelines (to include prior authorization
requirements, generic substitution policy, limitations on number of
medications dispensed, and a listing of the formulary). The Coalition
is pleased that some of this information has finally been posted on the
web for the retail pharmacy benefit. However, we remain concerned that
many beneficiaries don't have access to the Internet, and this
information is not available through any other written source. As DOD
approaches the uniform formulary implementation, it will be critical to
make this information readily available to beneficiaries and providers.
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to ensure a clinically based
robust uniform formulary is developed and adequate communication is
provided to beneficiaries about program benefits, pre-authorization
requirements, appeals, and other key information.
Requirements for Nonavailability Statements under TRICARE Standard
The Coalition is grateful for the provision in the fiscal year 2002
NDAA that waives the requirement for a beneficiary to obtain a
Nonavailability Statement (NAS) or preauthorization from an MTF in
order to receive treatment from a civilian provider and appreciates
that the time line for implementation of this provision has been moved
up from the fiscal year 2001 NDAA plan. However, except for maternity
care, there are also several provisions for waivers that further
diminish the practical effects of the intended relief from NAS and
provide a great deal leeway for the reinstatement of NAS at the
Secretary's discretion. The requirement would be waived if:
The Secretary demonstrates that significant costs
would be avoided by performing specific procedures at MTFs;
The Secretary determines that a specific procedure
must be provided at the affected MTF to ensure the proficiency
levels of the practitioners at the facility; or
The lack of an NAS would significantly interfere with
TRICARE contract administration.
The Coalition is disappointed that except for maternity care, the
waiver of the TRICARE Standard NAS requirement has become a ``road
paved with good intentions,'' but little more.
The rationale for a complete waiver of NAS requirements is
compelling. By choosing to remain in Standard, beneficiaries are
voluntarily accepting higher copayments and deductibles in return for
the freedom to choose their own providers. The Coalition appreciates
that the intent of the NAS system, when CHAMPUS was an evolving
program, was to maximize the use of MTFs. However, when TRICARE was
created, it offered beneficiaries a choice in how to exercise their
health care benefit.
The Coalition is pleased to note that the TRICARE Reserve Family
Demonstration Project (TRFDP) provides for increased access to health
care for family members of activated reservists and guardsmen--
including a total waiver of NAS requirement for ALL inpatient services.
While this group of beneficiaries is most worthy of a robust health
care benefit and deserves to maintain established relationships with
their health care providers, the Coalition believes this benefit should
be extended to all uniformed services beneficiaries--active duty and
retired--as well.
DOD must honor the decision made by beneficiaries and not insist
that they ``jump through administrative hoops'' to exercise this
choice, particularly since most care in MTFs and clinics is being given
on a first priority basis to Prime enrollees anyway. More importantly,
this capricious policy frequently denies TRICARE Standard
beneficiaries, who have chosen the more expensive fee-for-service
option, one of the most important principles of quality health care,
continuity of care by a provider of their choice.
The Military Coalition strongly recommends that all requirements
for Nonavailability Statements be removed from the TRICARE Standard
option and that all waivers be eliminated, effective upon enactment.
TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan
The Coalition is grateful for the subcommittee's leadership role in
authorizing the TRICARE Retiree Dental Plan (TRDP). While the program
is clearly successful, participation could be greatly enhanced with two
adjustments.
Unlike the TRICARE Active Duty Dental Plan, there is no Government
cost-share for the premiums. This is a significant dissatisfier for
retired beneficiaries. The Coalition believes dental care is integral
to a beneficiary's overall health status. Dental disease left untreated
can lead to more serious health consequences and should not be excluded
from a comprehensive medical care program. As we move toward making the
health care benefit uniform, this is an important feature that should
be made more consistent across all categories of beneficiaries.
Another problem with the TRDP is that it is only available within
the continental United States (CONUS). The Coalition requests that the
subcommittee extend the TRDP to uniformed services beneficiaries
residing overseas.
The Coalition requests that the Government provide a subsidy for
retiree dental benefits and provide an OCONUS retiree dental benefit.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico CONUS Designation
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is included in the TRICARE Overseas
Program, which means TRICARE Prime is available only to active duty
servicemembers and their families. Retirees living in Puerto Rico are
excluded from this benefit. Under OCONUS regulations, the more
expensive TRICARE Standard is the only available option for retired
military personnel, their families and survivors. DOD has very limited
direct care facilities, a limited benefit structure, and a severely
limited contract provider network to serve this growing population.
In addition, the TRICARE network pharmacies in Puerto Rico only
serve the active duty population. The retiree population does not have
access to network pharmacies, so they must rely on the National Mail
Order Pharmacy (NMOP) or pay the higher cost of using non-network
pharmacies. Because Medicare is provided as a benefit in Puerto Rico,
TFL beneficiaries can participate in the program, but they still are
subject to the serious pharmacy limitations.
In light of the large number of retiree beneficiaries residing in
Puerto Rico and the importance of the Commonwealth as a source for
recruitment and an initiative for retention, The Coalition urges the
subcommittee to support inclusion of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
with the CONUS for TRICARE purposes
Tax Relief for Uniformed Services Beneficiaries
To meet their health care requirements, many uniformed services
beneficiaries pay premiums for a variety of health insurance, such as
TRICARE supplements, the active duty dental plan or TRICARE Retiree
Dental Plan (TRDP), long-term care insurance, or TRICARE Prime
enrollment fees. For most beneficiaries, these premiums and enrollment
fees are not tax-deductible because their health care expenses do not
exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross taxable income, as required
by the IRS.
This creates a significant inequity with private sector and some
Government workers, many of whom already enjoy tax exemptions for
health and dental premiums through employer-sponsored health benefits
plans. A precedent for this benefit was set for other Federal employees
by a 2000 presidential directive allowing Federal civilian employees to
pay premiums for their Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
(FEHBP) coverage with pre-tax dollars.
The Coalition supports H.R. 2125, introduced in the first session
of the 107th Congress, that would amend the tax law to let Federal
civilian retirees and active duty and retired military members pay
health insurance premiums on a pre-tax basis. H.R. 2125 would extend
the same privilege to all active and retired servicemembers and Federal
civilians that is now enjoyed by current Federal workers. The Coalition
hopes that the subcommittee will lend its support to this legislation
and help ensure equal treatment for all military and Federal personnel.
The Coalition strongly supports a first dollar tax exemption or
credit for premiums paid for health, dental, or long-term care
insurance products, as well as for TRICARE Prime enrollment fees.
The Coalition urges the subcommittee to support H.R. 2125 to
provide uniformed services beneficiaries a tax exemption for premiums
paid for TRICARE Prime enrollment fees and Standard supplements.
Custodial Care
Once again, the Coalition thanks the subcommittee for including
provisions in the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 Defense
Authorization Acts a definition of Custodial Care that meets industry
standards to provide medically necessary care. While the requirement
still has not been fully implemented across all TRICARE Regions, it is
slowly being put into place. Without Congress' intervention, DOD would
have maintained its ``unique'' definition of medically necessary care
for beneficiaries considered as custodial patients. The result would
have meant cost shifting to Medicaid, loss of medically necessary care
for the most vulnerable of the DOD beneficiary population, or both.
The Coalition remains committed to following closely the new
program mandated by P.L. 107-107 and we urge continued oversight by
Congress to monitor implementation and its impact on all classes of
beneficiaries.
The Military Coalition recommends Congress provide continued
oversight to assure that medically necessary care will be provided to
all Custodial Care beneficiaries; that Congress direct a study to
determine the impact of the new legislation upon all beneficiary
classes and that Beneficiary Advisory Groups' inputs be sought in the
development of implementing regulations.
Health Care Coverage for Reserve Component Members and Their Families
Continuity of health care coverage is increasingly important to
Guard and Reserve servicemembers and families activated in support of
counter-terror or other operations. Health insurance coverage varies
widely for members of the Guard and Reserve: some have coverage through
private employers, others through the Federal Government, and still
others have no coverage.
For Reserve families fortunate enough to have employer-based health
insurance, coverage can be dropped during an extended activation.
Although TRICARE ``kicks in'' at 30 days activation, many Guard and
Reserve families would prefer continued access to their own health
insurance providers. Being dropped from private sector coverage as a
consequence of extended activation adversely affects family morale and
``readiness'' and discourages some from reenlisting.
Positive steps were taken in 2001 to address this issue, and TMC is
appreciative of the leadership shown by DOD and Congress in this
regard. First, DOD signaled there was indeed a problem by changing the
department's policy for its reservist employees: DOD now pays employee
premiums under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program for
reservist-employees activated for extended periods. Then, the
subcommittee endorsed a change in law subsequently included in the
fiscal year 2002 NDAA that authorizes other Federal agencies to pay the
FEHBP premiums for their employees called up for more than 30 days. But
these welcome new protections only potentially affect about 10 percent
of the approximately 880,000 members of the Selected Reserve.
Another provision included in the NDAA extends post-activation
TRICARE coverage for Guard and Reserve servicemembers being released
after an extended period of active duty. This is certainly encouraging
progress, but TMC believes more needs to be done to assist Guard and
Reserve servicemembers who are being called upon to support the two-
front war on terrorism.
The following initiatives would further expand the health care
safety net for the Guard and Reserve:
Establish TRICARE ``wraparound'' coverage as an option
for reservists on a cost-share basis in ``peacetime'' and
further expand TRICARE ``COBRA'' coverage for up to 1 year
after deactivation;
Amend the TRICARE Prime Remote for Family Members law
to allow reservist family members not residing with their
mobilized sponsors to participate in TPRFM.
The Military Coalition urges the earliest possible action to ensure
an adequate health coverage ``safety net'' for National Guard and
Reserve members and families.
fehbp-65 demonstration
By way of background for new subcommittee members, the Coalition
wishes to update the subcommittee about the provision in the Fiscal
Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act that directed the Defense
Department to allow up to 66,000 Medicare-eligible uniformed service
beneficiaries to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program
(FEHBP-65) at 6 to 10 sites around the country. The FEHBP-65
demonstration was programmed to run from January 1, 2000, through
December 31, 2002.
During the first enrollment period, about 2,500 beneficiaries
enrolled, and at the Coalition's request, this subcommittee supported
an effort to expand the demonstration to two additional sites with
beneficiary populations of 25,000 or more. During the second open
enrollment period (November 2000), enrollments tripled from the year
before and more than 7,500 Medicare-eligible service beneficiaries
enrolled in FEHBP-65.
As we anticipated, many of those beneficiaries have rethought their
FEHBP enrollment since enactment of TRICARE For Life. As of January
2002, 4,508 beneficiaries remain enrolled for this calendar year. Of
those, 2,861 are residents of Puerto Rico, where access to pharmacy and
other TRICARE programs are limited for retirees. The other 1,647
beneficiaries are experiencing circumstances under which continuing to
pay thousands of dollars per year in FEHBP premiums is preferable to
alternative TRICARE options. Based on member comments, we suspect many
participants have encountered difficulty finding a TRICARE-
participating provider.
The Coalition is concerned about disrupting continuity of health
care for the remaining FEHBP-65 beneficiaries when the FEHBP-65
demonstration concludes at the end of 2002. We believe the remaining
enrollees are those who will have difficulty securing access to
military health coverage if their eligibility for FEHBP participation
is discontinued.
Considering TRICARE For Life (TFL) costs that will be foregone, the
cost to the Government of continuing their eligibility is very modest,
while yielding very positive continuity of care benefits for the
beneficiaries affected.
The Coalition understands that maintaining a separate demonstration
program for such a small population could pose a considerable
administrative challenge. But discussions with the Office of Personnel
Management and other interested parties has led us to believe that
there would be no objection from the Federal civilian community to
allowing this small number of remaining enrollees to convert their
current participation to the normal FEHBP plan, as if they were retired
Federal civilian employees. The Coalition believes this option offers a
reasonable option to end the FEHBP-65 demonstration and still preserve
essential continuity of care for this small group that is so obviously
concerned about the availability of other coverage options.
The Military Coalition urges the subcommittee to work with its
Government Reform Committee counterparts to authorize remaining FEHBP-
65 demonstration enrollees to convert to regular FEHBP coverage.
conclusion
The Military Coalition would like to reiterate its profound
gratitude for the extraordinary progress this subcommittee has made in
seeking to restore health care equity for all uniformed services
beneficiaries, particularly those who are Medicare-eligible. The
subcommittee's efforts to authorize the implementation of TFL and TSRx
are giant steps toward honoring the lifetime health care commitment.
With minor refinements, TFL should provide a comprehensive and
equitable health care benefit for all Medicare-eligible beneficiaries
But much work remains to be done with the TRICARE program. More
urgent effort is essential, both by Congress and DOD, to enable TRICARE
to attract and retain quality health care providers; to ensure prompt
upgrade of the claims processing system; to reduce or eliminate
preauthorization and NAS requirements; and to deliver a more uniform
health care benefit across all ages and geographic areas.
closing statement
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present the Coalition's
views on these critically important topics. We look forward to
addressing further details of these and other issues with you and the
subcommittee staff.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Dr. Schwartz. You all
have done a very fine presentation today of the issues facing
the committee and our military families out there.
Mr. Barnes, thanks for mentioning the commissary issue. We
would like to have you all elaborate on it a little bit. It
does seem to me that, with the tremendous tasks that our
military is called upon to perform around the world and the
strain and stress on our families, that this is not the time to
cut back on our commissary system, especially since it is
perceived as a benefit, and categorized as a benefit by the
GAO. It is a very tangible one which families, especially the
spouses who we are trying to make a little happier out there,
engage in certainly weekly.
I just wondered if you had any further comment on that.
Mr. Barnes. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments before
the first panel about the importance of this benefit. As you
mentioned, the commissary is consistently ranked as one of the
top benefits, if not the top one or two benefits, for the
family and military communities. The concerns are based on the
personnel reductions as we understand are under way during the
current fiscal year and will continue into fiscal year 2003. We
anticipate the further along we go the more we are going to
hear from our members, who are the commissaries.
We are hearing anecdotal comments about long lines and
reduced checkers. I also heard mention this morning of a trial
run on how a store is going to operate with reduced staffing. I
heard this while we were in line outside the hearing room.
We would stress the importance of the benefit. We do
acknowledge the significant management improvements and
increased savings that General Courter and the staff at DeCA
have implemented in recent years. We track this very closely.
Joyce Raezer and myself both sit on the DeCA Patron Council and
we are watching this very closely, and we appreciate your
strong support of the benefit.
Senator Cleland. Thank you. Keep an eye on that for us,
please. This is something that I think is really important,
especially to our military families.
Thanks for mentioning the end strength challenge. I really
do not see how we are going to keep our commitments out there,
particularly pursuing the war on terrorism and going wherever
Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cadre carry us in hot
pursuit, and expanding the war in Indonesia, the Philippines,
Yemen, and so forth. I do not see how in the world we are going
to continue to expand our commitments with the current end
strength.
The Chief of Staff of the Army testified before our
committee that he needed 40,000 more people. Now, that is not
3,000. That is 40,000 more people. That is what, three or four
divisions? I do not know.
The Chief of Staff of the Navy testified that he needed
8,000 people. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force testified
that he needed 1,200 more pilots. The American military is
terrific, but if you do not have the people you cannot do the
job, and we are stressing our people out there big time, as you
all well know, and that takes its toll on the families and
retention and all the things we want.
So thanks for mentioning that as one of the issues we have
to tackle.
Ms. Raezer, better information to families, that is a great
thing. In the terms of the total force concept, it is
interesting. You put it in an interesting way, the family is
part of the total force. You put that beautifully.
May I say, your emphasis on child care is a painfully
obvious one for our working families.
Mr. Lokovic, concurrent receipt is something that I guess I
have dealt with for 35 years now myself, having been wounded in
1968 as a young Army captain and in effect having to choose
between military retirement and VA compensation. It is a
terrible choice to have to make for the some 3 million disabled
American veterans out there, many of whom are military
retirees. They have to make a choice, but they did not have too
much of a choice when they were wounded.
I am on that legislation, and I hope we can do something
good with it.
Mr. Cline, Dr. Schwartz, any further comments on anything
you have on your mind, particularly on this commissary issue?
That seems to be one that is really hot and boiling and one we
need to get right on top of.
Mr. Cline. The one thing I would like to say, Mr. Chairman,
is that in our own organization, we would like to see the
commissary card done away with. It is a burdensome thing for
the full-time administrator at the unit. He spends an enormous
amount of time every year, actually almost a week of work,
giving these cards out to the people, and we believe that money
could be used elsewhere for other programs like the Montgomery
GI Bill. To relegate our Guard and Reserve people who are
answering the call to second-rate status is bothersome.
Senator Cleland. Thanks.
Dr. Schwartz.
Dr. Schwartz. I know my boss is in the room, but as soon as
this hearing is over I am running over to the commissary to do
some shopping. This is a very important benefit to me. I am an
active duty spouse and I try to get to the commissary as much
as I can. It is definite cost savings to us, and we really
appreciate how the commissary has improved the service. In the
national capital area, as an active duty spouse I can run in,
run out. The shelves are stocked, the staff is doing a great
job, and we really appreciate your support for this very
important benefit.
Senator Cleland. We all have psychological reasons for
going in the military and psychological benefits for having
served. But there is nothing like something that reminds you
that the country cares, that you can see and touch and feel and
experience. For me, going to a commissary is not so much the
money I save, but it is just the fact that there is something
there that shows that the country still cares.
Dr. Schwartz. Well, Mr. Chairman, I like the money savings,
but I agree with you.
Senator Cleland. Right. I do not have a spouse, and maybe
that is the reason I do not worry about it.
But the point is, for many families they do need the
monetary savings, but for me it is just a message there, a
psychological message that I receive: The country still cares,
the country still thinks about me, and they have not forgotten
me. For me personally, it is a very important part of our whole
way that we take care of our own.
Anyone else have a comment? Yes, ma'am, Ms. Raezer.
Ms. Raezer. I would like to emphasize that as well. That
feeling that somebody is watching out for us is especially
important for those folks overseas.
Senator Cleland. Yes.
Ms. Raezer. That is one of our big concerns about the whole
staff cutback, how that is going to affect the service to the
most remote of some of our families, for whom this is home, and
it is a sign that the country still cares in a very tangible
way.
We have applauded DeCA's outreach efforts to young
families, the families who were not using the benefit, to our
Guard and Reserve families, to bring them in and make them
aware of this benefit. The generation who came in without
knowledge of the commissary and really did not understand what
this benefit was now, thanks to the efforts of the store
directors in their local communities, understand the savings
and are using it. DeCA is providing nutrition information, menu
preparation help, making the stores more attractive for people
to go in and grab a quick lunch on the base, which is very
important now. With all the heightened security, it is a lot
harder to get on and off base.
We really do applaud those efforts. When we look at some of
these cutbacks, we are worried that that outreach might go away
and that our beneficiaries might not be able to have that
robust benefit anymore, and for the overseas folks the touch of
home. That is one of the things that scares us about some of
the privatization talks as well--who is going to watch those
folks in Incirlik, Turkey, and Misawa, Japan, and those real
far-away areas?
Senator Cleland. I look at the support for the troops, let
us put it that way generically, as a command responsibility. I
feel like I am in the chain of command and that as a citizen,
as a Senator, I have responsibility for the troops,
particularly in this office here, and that support for the
troops is a command responsibility and that the further they
are away from the flagpole the more that we have to work hard
to make sure that they know we support them. In fact, the
further away that family is from home, the more valuable that
touch of home, those products of home, mean.
Money saved is important, absolutely. But just the fact
that it is there and we are working hard to make sure that it
is available to you as a family, I think that is powerful. I
think the reverse is true. To begin cutting back on something
like that, given the entire Pentagon budget of a billion a day,
is a little bit short sighted, it seems to me.
So you can count on me as chairman of this subcommittee to
oppose privatization and support the commissary system in every
way, because I think it is one of the best investments we can
make to shore up our families that are under tremendous stress
out there as they serve our country, as they literally defend
our Nation and our way of life.
Thank you all very much for coming. I want to thank our
staff here for their patience this year in putting together
these hearings.
The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson
1. Senator Ben Nelson. Secretary Abell, I would like to thank you
for your very comprehensive and informative written testimony. Both you
and Mr. Stewart from the GAO mentioned a concern that I have heard from
Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, as well as many other military
installations across the country--a lack of child care centers. The
number of military families continues to rise, and due to the remote
locations of many of our bases it is difficult for military families to
find adequate and accredited child care. I believe child care centers
are inexpensive to operate and go a long way towards increasing
retention. As our servicemembers are older and have larger families now
more than in the past, it is important that we become more family
friendly. What are we doing to meet this increasing demand and does
this budget support the need for child care centers?
Mr. Abell. The Department is committed to increasing the
availability of quality, affordable child care for the Total Force. The
Department and the military services continue to work closely together
to meet the child care need through a balanced mix of child development
centers, school-age care programs and Family Child Care (FCC) homes.
While center construction and operation is not necessarily inexpensive,
DOD operates programs in the most efficient manner to ensure care is
affordable to the military customer.
Currently, there are over 800 child development centers throughout
DOD. The projected need for center construction was outlined in a
report to Congress last year. The proposal is to increase the number of
center spaces by 25,000, in conjunction with increasing the number of
FCC spaces and other viable expansion options. The construction program
for fiscal year 2003 included only two child development centers. We
have resolved to increase management oversight to ensure that the
military services maintain a focus on their commitment to expand child
care spaces.
2. Senator Ben Nelson. Secretary Abell, as authorized in 1996, the
Department of Defense is executing the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative. The initiative was intended to improve the quality of life
for military families living on base. However, since the servicemember
must now pay his or her housing allowance to a private firm, the
housing allowance is considered income. The unintended consequence has
resulted in the disqualification of many military children from the
National School Lunch Program. Some school districts like Bellevue
Public Schools in Nebraska are heavily impacted by this procedure. Do
you know of a solution to this problem other than legislation that
would exempt their housing allowance as income in determining the
eligibility of a student living in private on base housing for the
National School Lunch Program?
Mr. Abell. Students qualify for free or reduced price meals based
on family income. Even though they do not have housing or utility
costs, families may qualify when they live in base housing and do not
receive a housing allowance. Similar families may not qualify when they
live in off-base housing because the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
is considered as par of their take-home pay. This has been the case for
many years. When a military housing area is privatized, BAH is added to
the income of all the occupants--even though they turn it over to their
privatized housing provider. These families do not have additional
housing or utility costs. One consequence is that the local school
district receives reduced funding to support instructional programs and
food service programs in those cases where funding is based on the
number of students in the National School Lunch Program.
The value of improved quality, size and numbers of Government
quarters as a result of privatizing military housing combined with the
recent and planned military pay raises, which will exceed inflation,
will offset the potential loss of school lunch eligibility for some
families.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
3. Senator Allard. Secretary Abell, first thank you for returning
here. It is good to hear your wisdom again. Second, I want to ask you
about the TRICARE Next Generation (T-NEX) contracts. I have continued
to hear mostly good things from my constituents regarding their TRICARE
benefits, but lately I have begun to hear some concerns from service
providers. Memorial Hospital, in the Colorado Springs area is among the
largest service providers in the western region. The Colorado Springs
area itself has the third highest concentration of military retirees in
the country, and the volume at Memorial reflects this. But TRICARE
reimbursement rates are the same for a procedure regardless of the
setting in which it is performed, which sometimes puts hospitals at a
disadvantage to clinics and outpatient facilities. In a large volume
hospital this becomes cost prohibitive. Are there plans to address this
in the next round of contracts, or sooner?
Mr. Abell. The Department is also concerned over the impact of our
reimbursement system on network providers, especially in areas such as
Colorado Springs with its high military presence. The congressional
mandate to follow Medicare guidelines has driven a negative trend in
some ambulatory procedure reimbursement levels.
More specifically, TRICARE formerly paid ``billed charges'' for
outpatient hospital services. However, like Medicare, we now require
use of Health Care Procedure Code System (HCPCS) codes (rather than
revenue codes) for some services. Those services are paid at the
CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charges (CMAC) associated with those codes,
and CMAC rates are now the same as Medicare rates. TriWest, the Managed
Care Support Contractor for the Central Region, confirms that this
change in payment methodology has resulted in lower payments to
Memorial for outpatient services, although the hospital has partially
recouped the difference by renegotiating its discount rates for
services to TRICARE beneficiaries.
While the Department is still in the process of finalizing the
requirements under T-NEX, the Department does plan to align TRICARE
more closely with the Medicare Ambulatory Reimbursement System,
including eventual implementation of Medicare's prospective payment
system for outpatient hospital services.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
4. Senator Collins. Secretary Abell and Mr. Stewart, dependent
education is a significant quality of life issue that faces our
military today. The Department of Defense Dependent Schools (DODDS)
system offers a quality educational experience to the children of our
military personnel--as evidenced by students' achievement levels and
high test scores. In order to maintain this valuable benefit and
quality education we must actively recruit, retain, and adequately
compensate the DODDS educators. Please describe what actions are being
taken to recruit, retain, and ensure adequate compensation for these
educators who dedicate their services in often remote and high cost-of-
living areas?
Mr. Abell. The Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act,
Senate Report 107-62, asked that the General Accounting Office (GAO)
study the adequacy of teachers' compensation. The Department of
Defense Dependent Schools have cooperated with the GAO. To ensure that
Department of Defense Dependent Schools recruit and retain high quality
educators, we have developed and implemented a number of strategies.
Locally available qualified teachers, often military spouses, are given
hiring priority. To increase work force diversity, recruitment efforts
are targeted at Historically Black and Hispanic Association colleges
and universities. Colleges and universities with nationally recognized
or disinguished teacher educator programs are also a target for
recruitment efforts.
We have increased the number of student teaching agreements between
Department of Defense Dependent Schools and colleges and universities.
Working with the Office of Personnel Management, we have obtained the
authority to pay recruitment and relocation bonuses and retention
allowances to DODDS educators. We are developing guidance to implement
the authority to use Student Loan Repayment as a recruitment and
retention incentive. Finally, DODDS conducted a Teacher Transfer
Program designed to foster movement into and out of hard-to-fill duty
locations.
Mr. Stewart. We currently have work underway in this area The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law
107-107) requires GAO to report on the adequacy of compensation for
teachers in DOD's overseas schools for recruitment and retention. We
have met with staff of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees
to discuss the scope and timing of this study, and agreed to provide a
report by the end of the calendar year. Key questions are: (1) To what
extent do Department of Defense Dependent Schools (DODDS) experience
difficulties recruiting teachers? (2) To what extent do DODDS
experience difficulties retaining teachers? and (3) How are DODDS
teachers compensated, and what, if any revisions should be made to the
system?
5. Senator Collins. Secretary Abell and Mr. Stewart, the Nation has
come to depend more and more upon our Reserve Forces and National Guard
to defend our freedom. Proof of this is the fact that as of April 10,
83,264 total Reserve and Guardsmen have mobilized for active duty to
support current military operations. These forces are serving a
critical role in support of Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Noble
Eagle and homeland security efforts to fight the global war against
terrorism. These brave men and women are serving side-by-side with our
Active-Duty Forces. As such, it is my belief that our Reservists should
be provided quality of life benefits that will ensure that we retain
and recruit these valuable men and women. Specifically, recent
initiatives in Congress have led to a significant increase in
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits for our active duty servicemembers;
however, the Selected Reserve (SR) benefits have not seen a
proportional increase to their title 10 benefits. This could be a great
recruiting and retention tool in light of increased operations and
reliance on this SR force. Please comment on the current SR MGIB
educational benefits compared to the Active-Duty Forces, and further
describe how this military benefit will support retaining and
recruiting our Reserve Forces.
Mr. Abell. The Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve (MGIB-
SR) education benefit program is a non-contributory program that
provides educational assistance to Reserve component members who
enlist, reenlist, or agree to serve in the Selected Reserve for 6
years. Each Reserve component is required to deposit an amount into the
Educational Benefits Trust Fund to cover the cost of this program for
their eligible servicemembers. In contrast, the active duty program
requires the servicemember to contribute $1,200 in the first year of
service if the member wishes to participate in the program. Active
component members must complete 2 years of active duty to establish
eligibility and if they use their Montgomery GI Bill while on active
duty they receive benefits up to the authorized amount. Unlike previous
GI Bill programs and the Montgomery GI Bill for active duty
servicemembers, the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve program
provides for receipt of benefits before the qualifying military service
is completed. As such, this unique characteristic of the Montgomery GI
Bill-Selected Reserve program makes it a very attractive and important
recruiting tool.
The retention of quality servicemembers beyond their service
obligation enhances readiness, reduces training costs, reduces
recruiting requirements, and promotes I unit cohesion. Since
eligibility for benefits is contingent upon the Guard or Reserve member
continuing to serve in the Selected Reserve, it also functions very
effectively as a retention tool with participants retaining eligibility
for up to 10 years if they continue to serve in the Selected Reserve.
For full-time students the benefits are currently paid at the rate
of $272 per month for up to 36 months of education. This differs from
the active component program that requires completion of their military
service prior to the start of the 10-year delimiting period. The
current full-time rate payment for the active duty Montgomery GI Bill
benefits is $800 per month.
During fiscal year 2002 there were 431,692 Selected Reservists
eligible for Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve with 154,190
participating in the program.
In December 2001, in conjunction with the Reserve components and
the Board of Actuaries, the Department analyzed the potential for
increasing Montgomery GI Bill--Selected Reserve benefits. The review
indicated that, although desired, an increase proportionate to the
Active component in the monthly benefits for this program is not
feasible at this time based on resource constraints.
Similar to the active duty enhanced educational benefit, an
enhanced educational benefit was enactecl in 1996 (section 1076 of
Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 450, February 10, 1996). This is commonly
called the MGIB-SR ``Kicker'' and is paid in addition to the basic
educational benefit. The kicker pays up to $350 per month for members
of the Selected Reserve who agree to serve in a skill or specialty that
has been designated as critically short. This additional benefit has
assisted the Reserve components in meeting their recruiting and
retention needs within critical skills and units. The Active component
``kicker'' allows for up to a maximum of $950 per month to meet skill
and specialty requirements.
We recognize the tremendous contributions made by the Reserve
component members to defend our freedom as they were designed to do,
side-by-side with the active duty counter parts in times of national
emergencies, such as Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom.
Furthermore, we support annual increases in the Montgomery GI Bill-
Selected Reserve educational assistance program. However, these
increases must be uniform and in concert with the Reserve components'
ability to resource them. At this time, an increase proportional to the
active duty program increases would be costly and current usage rates
do not support such an increase.
A side-by-side comparison of the basic and kicker benefits
available under the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve and Montgomery
GI Bill programs is attached.
Mr. Stewart. In our testimony, we focused on benefits for active
duty members and did not review benefits for members of the Reserves.
We will be pursuing Reserve benefit issues pursuant to a mandate in
House Report 107-436 on the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003. The report requires GAO to review Reserve
compensation, benefit, and personnel support programs and to report our
findings and recommendations to Congress by March 31, 2003.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]