U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

68–165 2012

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–57] 

THE RESERVE COMPONENTS AS AN 

OPERATIONAL FORCE: POTENTIAL 

LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CHANGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JULY 27, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

CRAIG GREENE, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, July 27, 2011, The Reserve Components as an Operational Force: 

Potential Legislative and Policy Changes .......................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 ....................................................................................... 25 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2011 

THE RESERVE COMPONENTS AS AN OPERATIONAL FORCE: 

POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CHANGES 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Callahan, RADM David, USCG, Acting Director of Reserve and Leadership, 

U.S. Coast Guard Reserves ................................................................................. 10 

Carpenter, MG Raymond W., USA, Acting Director, Army National Guard ..... 5 

Debbink, VADM Dirk J., USN, Chief of Navy Reserve ........................................ 8 

McKinley, Gen. Craig R., USAF, Chief, National Guard Bureau ........................ 3 

Moore, Maj. Gen. Darrell L., USMC, Director, Reserve Affairs Division, U.S. 

Marine Corps Reserve .......................................................................................... 9 

Stenner, Lt. Gen. Charles E., Jr., USAF, Chief, Air Force Reserve .................... 6 

Stultz, LTG Jack C., USA, Chief, Army Reserve .................................................. 7 

Wyatt, Lt. Gen. Harry M., III, USAF, Director, Air National Guard ................. 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Callahan, RADM David ................................................................................... 153 

Carpenter, MG Raymond W. ........................................................................... 49 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 30 

Debbink, VADM Dirk J. ................................................................................... 122 

McKinley, Gen. Craig R. .................................................................................. 32 

Moore, Maj. Gen. Darrell L. ............................................................................ 145 

Stenner, Lt. Gen. Charles E., Jr. .................................................................... 77 

Stultz, LTG Jack C., joint with Command Sgt. Maj. Michael D. Schultz, 

U.S. Army Reserve ........................................................................................ 84 

Wyatt, Lt. Gen. Harry M., III .......................................................................... 41 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 29 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement of David L. McGinnis, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Reserve Affairs ........................................................................................ 161 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 193 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 200 

Mr. West ............................................................................................................ 201 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 197 
(1) 

THE RESERVE COMPONENTS AS AN OPERATIONAL 

FORCE: POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY 

CHANGES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 27, 2011. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:12 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome everyone to a subcommittee meeting of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. Our topic 

today is ‘‘The Reserve Components as an Operational Force: Potential Legislative and Policy Changes.’’ 

And we truly have a distinguished panel here today. This is as 

good as I have ever seen in my service in Congress. So I thank you 

for being here. 

Today, the subcommittee will turn its attention to the important 

issue of maintaining an operational Reserve that has been deployed 

as a partner with its Active Component for the last 10 years. 

The committee believes the Reserve Component will continue to 

serve an important and vital role post Iraq and Afghanistan as the 

United States military continues to engage in conflict, partnership 

efforts, and humanitarian assistance around the globe. 

The key issue before us today is the ability to maintain access 

to the operational Reserves in a future peacetime environment 

when the military is not operating under the emergency mobilization authority. 

We will examine a Department of Defense [DOD] proposal to provide a more flexible involuntary mobilization authority and how 

the Reserve will maintain a ready and viable force. 

To help us explore these issues, we are joined today by an excellent and extraordinary panel consisting of the chief of the National 

Guard Bureau and chiefs of the Reserve Components. 

I would ask that all witnesses keep their oral opening statements 

to 3 minutes. Without objection, all written statements will be entered into the record, to include testimonies submitted for the 

record by Mr. David L. McGinnis, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. 
2 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 161.] 

Mr. WILSON. Before I turn it over to our dedicated ranking member, Mrs. Susan Davis from California, I would like to introduce 

our panel. We are honored today to have General Craig R. McKinley, U.S. Air Force, Chief, National Guard Bureau; Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, U.S. Army, Chief, Army Reserve; Vice Admiral 

Dirk Debbink, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Reserve, Lieutenant General Charles Stenner, U.S. Air Force, Chief, Air Force Reserve; 

Lieutenant General Harry Wyatt, U.S. Air Force, Director, Air National Guard; Major General Raymond Carpenter, U.S. Army, Acting Director, Army National Guard; Major General Darrell L. 

Moore, U.S. Marine Corps, Director, Reserve Affairs Division, U.S. 

Marine Corps Reserve; Rear Admiral David Callahan, U.S. Coast 

Guard, Acting Director of Reserve and Leadership, U.S. Coast 

Guard Reserves. 

I now turn to Mrs. Susan Davis for her opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I certainly look forward to hearing from our Reserve Component leadership today. I have to tell you from where we sit right 

here, it really is a very distinguished and impressive panel and we 

appreciate you all being here. 

It is very bright, actually. 

Last year, we focused our attention on what it means to be an 

operational Reserve Force and examined what policies, what laws 

and practices needed to be addressed to ensure a sustainable Reserve Force. 

Since September 11th, 2001, nearly 650,000 National Guardsmen 

and reservists have been deployed, the majority of whom have 

served in the theater of combat operations. 

Over the past 10 years, the Reserve Components have 

transitioned from a strategic Reserve to an operational one. However, as requirements for deployment begin to decline, the question 

for the Reserve Components is how they maintain their operational 

role in an era in which we will see decreasing resources. 

One of the questions that we have before the subcommittee is 

what legal authorities and policies are needed to best support the 

continued development of the Reserves as an operational Reserve 

Force while ensuring that the understanding and support from 

families, communities, and employers for continued deployment of 

Guard and Reserve personnel continues. 

Mr. Chairman, I am interested in hearing from our witnesses on 

how best we can address this question and others as we move forward in this new environment. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 30.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

General McKinley, you may begin. 
3 

STATEMENT OF GEN. CRAIG R. MCKINLEY, USAF, CHIEF, 

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

General MCKINLEY. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, 

members of the subcommittee, it is an honor and a privilege to be 

here with you today. Mr. Chairman, we welcome your leadership 

to the subcommittee and we are incredibly proud to have a former 

member of the National Guard chairing this important subcommittee. We are also proud to have your son serving in our 

ranks. Thank you. 

Today, there are 460,000 members of the Army and Air National 

Guard. Our strength is on mark and our retention is even better. 

With me today and assisting me is our director of the Air National Guard, General Wyatt, and our acting director of the Army 

National Guard, General Carpenter. And I also have our director 

of our Joint Staff Major General Randy Manner with us today. 

Over the past 10 years, the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world, the National Guard has 

been a full partner. As a member of the total force, National Guard 

successfully transformed into an operational force. 

This transformation would not have been possible without the 

significant investments this Congress made in the National Guard 

and Reserve. And we thank you all very much for that support. We 

must continue to be used as an operational force, we believe, so 

that significant investment is not squandered. 

Today, our Nation faces many threats. One of the most significant national challenges is our current fiscal situation. As the Department of Defense evolves to match emerging threats, they must 

do so with an eye towards fiscal responsibility. This includes openness and transparency in its planning for the future budget and 

force structure of the Reserve Component. 

Budget cuts and decisions must not disproportionally affect the 

Reserve Component in our new role as an operational force. The 

fiscal decisions made today will dramatically influence the Reserve 

Component of the future and ultimately the Nation’s ability to respond to future contingencies at home and abroad. 

Of particular importance to us is codifying assured access to the 

National Guard; that is why we work closely with the Army, the 

Air Force, the Secretary of Defense and the Governors of this Nation to develop a legislative proposal to change current call-up authorities for the Reserve Component. 

This proposal would ensure the Secretary of Defense can support 

combatant commanders’ needs for missions other than war. This 

authority will also allow the Department of Defense to utilize the 

National Guard’s unique capability throughout the world. 

Today, the National Guard supports many combatant commanders in theater security cooperation missions. The State Partnership Program is an example of a global influence the National 

Guard’s unique capability can provide. 

The need for partnership building missions will continue to grow 

in the future and the National Guard stands ready to provide its 

years of expertise. Although the demands for these missions will 

continue to grow, today many of the combatant commanders’ priorities are unfunded to the Department’s guidance for employment of 
4 

the force. That is why along with access, it is crucial that the operational force is fully-funded. 

Estimates for the costs of the Reserve’s operation role vary greatly, that is why it is important to begin transparent budget planning 

now. Today, the overseas contingency operation accounts fund 

much of the Reserve Component deployment, training, and family 

support. 

To ensure continued funding to support the operational force, our 

training readiness equipment and personnel cost must be included 

in the base budget. I am thankful that the Active Army has taken 

these concerns seriously and included the National Guard’s operational role in their future budget planning. 

The Department of Defense must embrace the reality of the Reserve as an operational force and the associated costs and adequately address them in future programming. 

As an operational force, it is important that the National Guard 

leadership structure reflect the crucial role our forces are playing. 

The National Guard Bureau has grown with the soldiers and airmen of the operational force and is now a joint activity and no 

longer simply a support entity. 

Our knowledge and experience in homeland security issues is 

unrivaled in the Department of Defense. And we are the only force 

that can advise the Department of Defense leadership on the crucial role National Guardsmen play at the local level. 

A top priority during my 10 years as chief is to ensure the organization of National Guard Bureau supports our new role, as that 

joint activity to the Department of Defense and fosters the development and mentorship for future general officers to serve in my current position. 

I would like to ask General Wyatt to make a brief statement, as 

well as General Carpenter, and then I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General McKinley can be found in 

the Appendix on page 32.] 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. HARRY M. WYATT III, USAF, 

DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

General WYATT. Chairman Wilson and Ranking Member Davis, 

as we gather here today, there are Air Guard men fighting in Iraq, 

Afghanistan, supporting NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] operations in Libya, providing air logistics support to the National Science Foundation in Greenland, and helping to defend U.S. 

interests on every continent around the globe. 

In addition, Air Guard men and women are protecting the skies 

over our very heads with the Air Sovereignty Alert mission, assisting civil authorities, protect life and property in the U.S. including 

helping flood and tornado recovery efforts in the Midwest. 

There are Air Guard members helping U.S. customs and border 

patrols to secure our southern borders. And so far this summer, Air 

National Guard aerial firefighting units have dropped over 350,000 

gallons of fire retardant on wildfires across the Southwest in support of the National Forest Service. 

Your Air Guard is able to do this because Congress had the wisdom to provide the funding and the authorities needed to create 
5 

and sustain an Air National Guard, a Guard that is capable of 

functioning as both an operational force augmenting the Active 

Duty Air Force’s day-to-day operations and, as a Reserve Force, 

permitting the total Air Force to rapidly expand its capability and 

capacity to meet threats to our national security. 

As we look to the future, we are working closely with United 

States Air Force leadership to ensure the Air National Guard remains ready and accessible so that your investment and faith in 

your Guard is not lost. 

To remain a viable operational component, the Air National 

Guard requires dedicated professional people, modern equipment, 

and training. People are our most valuable asset because a Guard 

airman is most difficult to replace of all the elements of our force. 

Training and experience take time and there is no shortcut or 

quick fix. We owe them the best equipment and training available 

because seamless integration into the joint war fight requires compatible equipment and practice. 

The second part of being an operational component is accessibility. U.S. Air Force must have confidence that they can obtain the 

Air Guard’s help when needed; in fact, we have answered over 75 

percent of our request for forces from our parent service with volunteerism. 

The DOD proposed changes to 12304 will help by expanding the 

Secretary of Defense’s ability to call upon the Reserve Components. 

The budget provision of 12304 is equally important since the major 

part of accessibility is having the funds, MPA [military personnel 

account] days available to use the Air National Guard. 

Again, thank you for your continued support of your Air National 

Guard, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Wyatt can be found in the 

Appendix on page 41.] 

General MCKINLEY. General Carpenter. 

STATEMENT OF MG RAYMOND W. CARPENTER, USA, ACTING 

DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

General CARPENTER. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, 

committee members, it is an honor and a privilege to be here today 

to represent the 360,000-plus soldiers in the Army National Guard. 

Of those soldiers, 37,266 are currently mobilized. More than half 

have had combat experience and the sacrifice of the soldiers, their 

families, and employers has been tremendous. 

Looking back on the past decade, the Army National Guard has 

been there from the very beginning. The New York National Guard 

was among the first on the scene at the World Trade Center on 

9/11, as was the Maryland and Virginia Guard shortly after the 

Pentagon was attacked. 

Beginning with 9/11, the response of the Army National Guard 

has continued to shoulder our responsibilities in the overseas fight 

in Afghanistan and Iraq while simultaneously responding to events 

in the homeland, including Katrina, Deep Horizon oil spill, and the 

many firsts in emergencies and disasters in 2011, devastating tornados, unprecedented floods and wildfires affecting almost half of 

the States. There is no question the Army Guard has proven its 

worth and our citizen soldiers deserve our deepest gratitude. 
6 

I would like to specifically address the issue of access to the 

Army National Guard for non-named contingencies. The Department of Defense requested a change in the statute, Section 12304, 

which would allow the Reserve Components to be involuntarily 

called with prior coordination at the service chief level as well as 

the necessary budgetary authority to support the deployment. 

The Army National Guard and the adjutant generals are staunch 

advocates of the change in statute. We think that it will allow for 

the continued critical contributions of our soldiers and units in the 

effective use of soft power, that is theater security and cooperation, 

in the hope of reducing the possibility of a mobilized military response in the future. 

We think our soldiers, equipped with their battlefield experience, 

and their civilian skills, as well as their strong desire to be used 

can make a meaningful contribution to the State and Nation, are 

the right force at the right time. Without the change in statute, 

they will be denied the opportunity. 

Finally and as you might expect, I believe the Army National 

Guard is the best value for America. Force structure and military 

power can be sustained in the Army National Guard as an operational force for a fraction of the regular cost. 

Supporting capability in the Army National Guard not only 

makes good business sense, it is a twofer. By that I mean the same 

force is available to the Governor of the State, territory, or district 

in times of emergency and disaster, as well as the President of the 

United States to meet the requirements of the Nation in a Federal 

status. 

The Army National Guard is a force forward deployed in our 

area of operation, the homeland. The same force is battle tested 

and well-equipped for the overseas fight, should the need arise, 

truly a best value for America. 

We should not rush to reduce the size, structure, or capability of 

the Army National Guard without significant analysis and thorough deliberation. 

In closing I would like to once again to acknowledge the critical 

role your committee has played in building and sustaining the best 

National Guard I have seen in my career. I look forward to your 

questions and comments. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Carpenter can be found in 

the Appendix on page 49.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. We now proceed to General 

Stenner, Air Force Reserve. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CHARLES E. STENNER, JR., USAF, 

CHIEF, AIR FORCE RESERVE 

General STENNER. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, 

committee members, and fellow service members, thank you for 

permitting me the opportunity to be with you to have this constructive conversation regarding one of the most important parts of my 

job, ensuring that over 70,000 citizen airmen making up the Air 

Force Reserve have the resources and training essential to maintaining readiness. 

My written testimony outlines our readiness, successes and challenges but briefly I would like to mention the fact that reservists 
7 

continue to play an increasing role in ongoing global operations. 

They support our Nation’s needs, providing operational capabilities 

around the world. 

As we speak, Air Force reservists are serving in every combatant 

command area of responsibility. There are approximately 8,600 Air 

Force reservists currently activated to support missions. That number includes our forces’ contribution to the Japanese relief effort 

and direct support to coalition operations in Libya, as well as others. 

Despite increasing operations tempo, aging aircraft, and increases in depot scheduled downtime we have improved fleet aircraft availability and mission capable rates. The Air Force Reserve 

is postured to do its part to meet the operational and strategic demands of our Nation’s defense but that mandate is not without its 

share of challenges. 

Our continued ability to maintain a sustainable force with sufficient operational capability is predicated on having sufficient manpower and resources. The work of this committee is key in supporting legislation that enables us to fully develop members of our 

full-time support program, both military technicians and our Active, Guard reservists. 

You also provide us with the authority to implement necessary 

force management measures and that has been and will continue 

to be vital to ensuring Air Force readiness is maintained at a high 

level. 

In a time of constrained budgets and higher costs, in-depth analysis is required to effectively prioritize our needs but we must all 

appreciate the vital role that Reserve Components play in supporting our Nation’s defense and concentrate our resources in areas 

that will give us the most return on our investment. 

Thank you for asking me here today to discuss these important 

issues affecting our airmen, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Stenner can be found in the 

Appendix on page 77.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And General Stultz, Army Reserve. 

STATEMENT OF LTG JACK C. STULTZ, USA, CHIEF, ARMY 

RESERVE 

General STULTZ. Chairman Wilson, Mrs. Davis, other committee 

members, it is a pleasure and an honor to be here today to testify 

before you and represent the 205,000-plus Army Reserve soldiers 

deployed around the world. 

Today we keep 25,000-plus soldiers on Active Duty, plus our fulltime support force of about 16,000 soldiers serving this Nation ongoing. We have been doing this since 2003. 

This morning I conducted a video teleconference [VTC] with soldiers in Afghanistan as I do frequently with soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Horn of Africa, and other places. And I can report to you 

that they said their morale is great, they are proud of what they 

are doing, they are proud of serving. And every time I conduct a 

town hall meeting or a VTC session with Reserve soldiers I get the 

same report. 
8 

Our retention rates right now are 119 percent of goal. Our recruiting rates are over 100 percent of goal. We are turning away 

individuals that want to join the Army Reserve because I do not 

have room for them. 

Right now the kids that we have coming in, and I call them kids 

because I am 59 years old, are well educated, they have got good 

civilian jobs, they are living the American Dream, and for some 

reason they raise their hand and join our force, knowing that we 

are going to tell them, that they are probably going to be called to 

go into war and risk their lives. And yet they are willing to do that. 

They tell me three things when I talk to them, ‘‘Give me some 

predictability because I have another life. Do not waste my time. 

If you are going to train me make it meaningful.’’ And third, ‘‘Use 

me, do not put me back on the shelf.’’ And that is why this access 

issue is such a key issue. 

Our soldiers that we have in our Reserve Components today are 

a national treasure. They are, as Ray said, a great return on investment for this country, but we have got to continue to use them 

in a meaningful way or otherwise we will lose them. And we cannot 

afford to lose that national treasure. 

And so, I look forward to your questions, sir, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Stultz can be found in the 

Appendix on page 84.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. We now proceed with Admiral Debbink of the Naval Reserve. 

STATEMENT OF VADM DIRK J. DEBBINK, USN, CHIEF OF NAVY 

RESERVE 

Admiral DEBBINK. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I have a great appreciation for your support 

of the 64,631 sailors in our Navy Reserve and their family members. 

With me today is also my new Force Master Chief, Force Chris 

Wheeler. He assumed his role on the 16th of June as the 14th Master Chief of the Navy Reserve Force representing the 52,000 of the 

Navy Reserve that form the backbone of our force which is our enlisted sailors. 

To testify today, the Navy Reserve sailors are operating globally. 

Approximately 30 percent of the Navy Reserve is providing support 

to Department of Defense operations including more than 4,700 Selected Reserve sailors who are either mobilized in support of overseas contingency operations or in their training heading out to 

their mobilization sites. 

While fully engaged in these operations ever since September 11, 

2001, the Navy Reserve has answered the call to assist with major 

global crisis events during the last several months including Operation Tomodachi off Japan and Operation Odyssey Dawn in the 

Mediterranean. As our motto and our sailors proudly claim, we are 

ready now, anytime, anywhere. 

Well the legislative proposal before the Congress that provides 

for assured access to our Reserve Components for future routine 

deployments signifies a fundamental shift in the use of the Reserves, recognizing both the high level of expertise resident in our 
9 

Guard and Reserve Forces, as well as the desire from today’s Reserve sailors to continue performing real and meaningful work 

within the Navy’s total force. 

In order for our sailors to do so we are ever mindful of the need 

to address the health and well-being of our sailors and their families. 

As written in the President’s report entitled ‘‘Strengthening Our 

Military Families,’’ stronger military families strengthen the fabric 

of America. 

Our fiscal year 2012 budget request includes funding for vital 

programs in support of physical, psychological, and financial wellbeing of our Navy Reserve sailors and their families. 

Active support of our employers is also a primary concern. In fact 

this month in the Navy we are, once again, focusing on the more 

than 7,000 employers of Navy Reserve sailors worldwide, honoring 

them with special events here in Washington, DC, last week, 

events at all of our Navy operational support centers in all 50 

States around the country, and directly at their places of employment as well. 

The data and the anecdotal evidence that we have gathered both 

point towards continued strong support provided that we respect 

the three-way nature of the special relationship between our sailors, the needs of the Navy, and our employers’ needs. 

It is a privilege to serve during this important and meaningful 

time in our Nation’s defense, especially as a Navy Reserve sailor. 

With your support I am confident that your Navy Reserve will be 

able to continue supporting current operations while optimizing the 

strategic value of the Navy Reserve as a relevant force valued for 

our readiness, innovation, agility, and accessibility. 

Thank you for your demonstrated support, both to the Navy and 

the Navy Reserve and the families of our sailors and I look forward 

to your questions. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Debbink can be found in the 

Appendix on page 122.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Admiral. 

And we will proceed now to General Moore with the Marine 

Corps Reserve. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. DARRELL L. MOORE, USMC, DIRECTOR, RESERVE AFFAIRS DIVISION, U.S. MARINE CORPS RESERVE 

General MOORE. Sir, thank you very much for the opportunity to 

be here today and certainly it is a real pleasure to see you all here. 

You asked a question as part of your opening statement. 

I think we are all trying to divine the future here and really figure out, you know, what this does look like post Afghanistan. 

One thing I can tell you is that the Marine Reserves and their 

families, and the employers of our Marine Reserves expect our Marine Reserves to continue to deploy. As has been previously mentioned this morning or this afternoon rather we do need—as General Stultz said we need predictability. 

The Marines tell me constantly to ‘‘put me in the game, coach.’’ 

They want to continue to do that. Last week I was in Tbilisi, Geor-
10 

gia, and Constanta, Romania. We have got about 1,000 Marine Reserves out there for 4 months or so as part of the Black Sea rotational force. 

I think that does reflect a bit of the future force there. That kind 

of theater security cooperation and partnership efforts that are important around the world. 

This afternoon besides Afghanistan we have got Marine Reserves 

in 17 countries around the world. I think that represents the future 

force. And then after we finish today, I am going to go out to Andrews and fly out to California. 

We have got 5,000 Marine Reserves in the field at Mountain 

Warfare Training Center, integrated with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade headquarters at Camp Pendleton so we have got 

an Active Duty headquarters sitting on top of the Reserve infantry 

regiment, the Reserve Marine air group and Reserve combat logistics regiment. 

That is actually the largest exercise that will be conducted, Active or Reserve, for the Marine Corps CONUS [continental United 

States] this year. So we are an integral part of the total force. We 

train together. We have common bonds. And I look forward to your 

questions. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of General Moore can be found in the 

Appendix on page 145.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. And you actually saved time. 

It is amazing. General, thank you. 

And Admiral Callahan with the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve. 

STATEMENT OF RADM DAVID CALLAHAN, USCG, ACTING DIRECTOR OF RESERVE AND LEADERSHIP, U.S. COAST GUARD 

RESERVES 

Admiral CALLAHAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson and Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished subcommittee members, 

thank you for including the Coast Guard Reserve in today’s hearing 

and for your continued support of Coast Guardsmen serving across 

our Nation and overseas. 

We are pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you 

today. And also sitting behind me is the Master Chief Petty Officer 

of the Coast Guard Reserve Force, Master Chief Mark Allen, who 

represents the 8,100 members of our Reserve Force. 

For the Coast Guard Reserve 2010 was an extraordinarily challenging year for us dominated by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 

and the largest Title 14 mobilization in the United States history. 

It involved almost a third of our Selected Reserve. 

The Deepwater Horizon event affirmed the Coast Guard’s effectiveness as America’s maritime first responder and particularly revealed the value and capacity and capability that our Coast Guard 

Reserve delivers in large-scale surge operations. 

At the peak of the Deepwater Horizon event nearly 60 percent 

of the Coast Guard’s individual responders were from our Reserve 

Component. Now this large-scale mobilization did highlight a limitation in the Secretary’s authority to order recall when demand for 

Reserve mobilization exceeds Title 14 authorized limits of—not 
11 

more than 60 days and 4 months and not more than 120 days in 

any 2-year period. 

As a stop-gap measure we were able to issue more than 600 Active Duty for Operational [Support of the] Active Component, 

ADOS, orders to reservists who requested and were supported or 

then approved for Title 10 voluntary Active Duty upon completion 

of their 60-day Title 14 orders. 

Now, although this course of action allows us to keep a sufficient 

number of Reserve personnel eligible for involuntary recall, it 

would not give us the flexibility to manage at the multiple events 

scenarios such as domestic hurricane responses that we were likely 

to face. So we are currently exploring options to address the 60-day 

Title 14 recall limitation and its effect on our readiness. 

I am also pleased to report that we have woven the Yellow Ribbon Program as part of our congressionally mandated DOD Yellow 

Ribbon Reintegration Program into our Coast Guard Reserve deployment process. There are numerous Yellow Ribbon events and 

have more scheduled for the rest of the year. 

As our reservists continue to deploy in overseas contingencies operations in other contingencies, I want to thank you and my fellow 

service Reserve Component chiefs for your continued support in the 

Yellow Ribbon program. And we look forward to more support in 

the future. 

We continue working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

Reserve Affairs and our fellow Reserve Components to execute the 

commission on National Guard and Reserve recommendations and 

have implemented the many benefits enacted into law. 

The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act authorized early 

retirement benefits for eligible reservists who serve on Active Duty 

under various sections of Title 10 and Title 32. We are actively reviewing options to ensure that Coast Guard reservists mobilized 

under Title 14 qualify for that same early retirement benefit. 

Our Reserve Force remains actively engaged in expeditionary 

and domestic missions in support of overseas contingency operations and natural disasters. And since September 2001, we have 

recalled more than 7,800 reservists under Title 10 and more than 

3,300 under Title 14. 

Mr. Chairman, our experience over the past year has clearly 

demonstrated the value of the Coast Guard Reserve in the defense 

and security of our Nation, not only in the homeland but overseas 

as well. Our Coast Guard serving in the Reserve Component proudly stand the watch and remain true to the Coast Guard’s motto, 

Semper Paratus, always ready. 

So, on behalf of the men and women of the Coast Guard, we 

thank you for your support and thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Callahan can be found in 

the Appendix on page 153.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. And at this time, we will 

begin the questions. We will abide by the 5-minute rule, which applies to me, too, and each member of the committee, and Craig 

Greene, who is our professional staff member, who will keep the 

time for us. 
12 

I would like to point out, too, how grateful I am. We have another record turnout of members of the subcommittee. They truly 

have so many different obligations and so it is a real testimony to 

their commitment to our military that they would be here today. 

As I begin, I would like to thank each of you for your service. 

And as I look at each of you, I am just so impressed, and it reminds me why I served 3 years in the Reserves, 28 years in the 

National Guard. And that is that it was the people that I had the 

privilege of serving with. The most capable, confident, patriotic persons that I have had the privilege of working with have been in the 

Reserves and the Guard. 

I want to thank you. Obviously, it had an effect on my sons. My 

youngest son was just commissioned a second lieutenant and is 

working for General Stultz. He is a combat engineer and so—he is 

at annual training right now, today. And then I was really grateful. 

Only one son is a bit off track. He is a doctor in the Navy. 

And General Moore—and I give all credit to my wife. But General Moore, you mentioned about visiting Constanta. I was on a sister city visit to Cluj-Napoca, Romania, in 1997. And my son was 

getting ready to go to the Naval Academy, and members of the city 

council there with tears in their eyes, said that one day, we dream 

of the American military and Navy appearing in Constanta with a 

relationship with Romania. 

And so, this was a country that had been under Ceausescu and 

so, how exciting to me of what success of the American military. 

You should be proud that there is the greatest spread of democracy 

and freedom today in the world because of your service. 

With my question, General McKinley, the Defense Authorization 

Act that we, the House version, provides for the creation of a vicechief for the National Guard Bureau. And it reflects a change, 

transforming your office from one which is administrative to operational. How do you feel about this? And then, is there any potential of conflict with your role with NORTHCOM [U.S. Northern 

Command]? 

General MCKINLEY. Thanks, Chairman Wilson. As you know, I 

have worked within the building for the past 21⁄2 years to seek support for the vice-chief of the National Guard Bureau. I think it is 

essential for our continued assumption of new responsibilities as a 

joint activity of the Department of Defense. 

Obviously, with some of the downsizing that former Secretary 

Gates had pushed through building, the timing was not that good. 

But I think my fellow Reserve chiefs can attest to the fact that 

having a strong deputy or vice-chief in this very critical time to 

cover the required meetings and to support the soldiers, sailors, 

airmen, marines that we all work with is vitally important. 

So I certainly look forward to the debate that occurs. We certainly can use the vice-chief of the National Guard Bureau, put 

them to good service, it also helps build our bench for future officers to assume my grade. 

Mr. WILSON. And for each of you in 3 minutes. Certainly, we will 

not be able to get all the way through, but Admiral since you are 

sitting first proceeding this way. The issue of mobilization authority, the Department of Defense has made recommendations for 

flexibility. How do you feel about this? 
13 

Admiral DEBBINK. I think it is essential in the current proposal. 

I believe we will meet the need. As we started down this path, say, 

2 years ago, it was all about accessibility to the Reserve and 

Guard. And then, in the end, I think the most important thing this 

legislation will do is provide the assurance to the Department, that 

when we are doing the planning and programming at the Reserve 

Component, the Guard Component, we will be there for them because that has been the issue that that has been, the debate on the 

other side of the river taking place, is, how do we know you are 

really going to be there for us? Unless we know you are going to 

be there, we cannot program. We cannot plan for you. We cannot 

budget for you. So this will give them that assurance. 

Mr. WILSON. And General Wyatt. 

General WYATT. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the admiral. You 

know, I mentioned earlier that the Air National Guard provides 75 

percent of the request for forces for, from the Air Force with volunteerism, but that was not meant to diminish the importance of 

this legislation, because there are different scenarios that would 

help the Air Force. I believe that it has more access with the passage of this legislation. 

So, it is important for the accessibility of all the Reserve Components. Not to be confused with the fact that we already are accessible, but this would help assure the service chiefs that they can 

reach out and touch the Guard and Reserve when they need to. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. General Stenner. 

General STENNER. I will second each of the previous speakers 

and go along the lines of it will give us the access but it will also 

allow the planners to do as they need to do, to size our force appropriately. 

After that, I think it is incumbent on us in the uniform here to 

figure out the policies that go along with that access to ensure 

there is no overuse of this particular access because that could, in 

fact, be a downside when a particular skill set is required over and 

over, we will, in fact, have a dwell issue. So, I would caution 

against that. It is up to us in the uniform to make that. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. And I am going to call the 

time on myself. General McKinley, I apologize but we proceed to 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, to all of you. 

We appreciate your service and, certainly, your leadership. 

You know, we are certainly aware that the proposed language offered out of the Department would provide broad authority to call 

up and to deploy reservists and National Guardsmen. And I want 

to ask you all if there are any factors that you think would impede 

that, would make it more difficult for that to be carried out? 

And I think the other, I guess the flipside of that, is what can 

be done to assure the reservists that they will be utilized for operational mission and not just called back to backfill, essentially, requirements as the Active Force draws down? We know that there 

are likely to be changes as we look at limiting resources in some 

way. And I would be naive to think that that is not going to hit 

the Guard and Reserve in some way. 

So I am just interested in knowing from your perspective how 

you see that issue, and it really does speak to the meaningfulness 
14 

of the role, the operational role particularly that Guard and Reserve speak of which I think does keep them engaged and certainly 

committed to continuing their service. 

General MCKINLEY. Ma’am, these last 10 years have been remarkable years in American history and for all of us who represent 

our Reserve and Guard. We have seen this great resilience created 

in a force of over a million people represented here at this table 

who do work. They strive to do the best job they can. But they are 

now the best equipped, best led, most combat seasoned force in the 

Reserve Component history. 

So, I do not see things impeding the progress that the Reserve 

Components have made over the last 10 years. But as General 

Stultz said, if we can create the environment of predictability and 

stability, if we can assure our young men and women who joined— 

predominantly, most of us since September 11, 2001—that they 

will have a meaningful job and that they will be used effectively, 

then I think we stand shoulder to shoulder with the young people 

who have dedicated themselves to this Nation. 

General STULTZ. I will just add that I think this is critical to our 

national defense, because as we eventually get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we are going to shift our focus in the four Ps 

of prepare, prevent, prevail, preserve, from prevail to prevent. 

Where can we get engaged, just like when we were talking Romania, Georgia, and places like that and the places we are engaged 

today to prevent getting into the future conflicts? And that theater 

engagement security cooperation, really they are asking for medical 

support. They are asking for engineer support. They are asking for 

logistics support. They are asking for those capabilities that between General Carpenter and I, we have the preponderance of. 

Today, between the Guards and Reserve, we have 75 percent of 

engineer capability of the Army. We have 70 percent of medical capability of the Army. We have about 70 percent of the MP [military 

police] capabilities, 70 percent of logistics capability, 85 percent of 

civil affairs capability. So it is not a matter of us backfilling the 

Army. We are the Army. 

And we are going to be the future. And so, to do the security cooperation of theater engagement this Nation is going to need to the 

future, they are going to have to use the Reserve. So we need to 

change the law so that we make it easy in that context. 

General CARPENTER. From the Army Guard perspective, a couple 

of comments. First of all, the process we have for mobilization right 

now calls for 2 years notification of sourcing. And through the National Guard Bureau and through our director in the Army Guard 

we source units against missions. So we will have 2 years to sort 

out which mission we are going to take and which unit or which 

State is going to shoulder that mission. 

We do that today. And we are very successful in the mobilization 

business. We have not had any significant problems at all as we 

have dealt with the adjutant generals in that role. 

The coordination for that is going to take place between the 

Army National Guard and the Army and with the adjutant generals. The adjutant generals are strongly in support of this access 

issue. And I am confident that they are going to figure out exactly 

the process for mobilization. 
15 

That really is where the crux of the matter is, is the soldier who 

has a job going to be allowed to leave that job to go for 60 days 

for one of these theatre security cooperation efforts? 

And I can tell you, I am an engineer officer, and I have got a 

book. And it shows a picture in 1960 of a paving project. And that 

paving project is the corps of engineers in Afghanistan in 1960. 

And think what, how things would have changed if we had been 

willing to stay in that kind of an effort over the longer period of 

time since 1960. 

And so this theatre security cooperation, if we do this right, our 

soldiers will understand the importance of that. That it is just as 

important as going down range and serving in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is a preventative measure. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I certainly appreciate that. 

And I just want to applaud very quickly. I know that I have had 

an opportunity to speak to several of you about the transition programs for our soldiers, airmen, Navy, Marine going back. And I 

think that we need to learn from some of the good work that you 

all have done. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Dr. Joe Heck. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not realize I was up 

that fast in the queue. 

First, thank you all for the service, not just to our Nation, but 

to the men and women that you represent. 

Mr. Chairman, in all full disclosure, I am still a member of the 

Active Reserve, and General Stultz is my chief. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. HECK. So I am not going to ask him any questions. I am asking everybody else—no. 

I appreciate, General Stultz, your comment of, you know, how we 

want to be used. And one of the issues that always seems to come 

up is how can we best utilize folks in their community in support 

of community-type operations from the Title 10 side, not the National Guard side, necessarily. 

And the issues that we face when trying to do that, primarily in 

funding and getting the MOU [memorandum of understanding], 

running it up the JAG [Judge Advocate General] chain and making 

sure that we can do all these things. And by the time that is done, 

the community event is over. 

So in the vein of, you know, this being a great recruiting tool 

plus it gets our folks out into the community. It keeps their skills 

sharp. It builds their confidence and unit cohesion. And ‘‘it keeps 

them off the shelf ’’ which is what we are all looking to do. 

What can we do to help streamline that process, so that if a community event comes up, for instance one of my units, they want a 

medic to stand by with an aid bag in case somebody goes down, 

that we can get that done and do that mission without having to 

take so long to get it processed? 

General STULTZ. Well, I think we have been in discussion, obviously, with some of the members of Congress of changing the policy 

on the use of Title 10 Reserves in the homeland. 

And make sure that, you know, the National Guard is always 

going to be the military first responder because the Title 32 author-
16 

ity the Governor has and being able to utilize them and the magnificent response that they give. But we have said, we have got a 

lot of capabilities also in the communities that should be made 

available for disasters or whatever type events. 

We need to change some of the laws that restrict us in doing that 

of how you can use the Title 10 Reserve in the homeland. 

And then I think, within the Department, we need to change 

some of the policies of what it takes to get approval because just 

as you have indicated, the soldiers want to do that. They are citizens of Nevada. And they want to help out in their State and they 

want to be recognized by their State. We limit them from doing 

that because of our laws and our policies. 

Dr. HECK. I appreciate that. 

General McKinley, can you give us an update on how the process 

is going with NORTHCOM doing the training of National Guard officers to be the dual-hatted commander when we move forward and 

integrate Title 10 forces under Active Guard? 

General MCKINLEY. Thank you, sir. 

It has been a great year with Admiral Sandy Winnefeld being 

out as the combatant commander of NORTHCOM in Colorado 

Springs. He walked in with a fresh idea, fresh thinking, and involved all of us actually. 

The contingency dual status commander now, we just call dual 

status command, has been embraced by the Governors of the 50 

States, the three territories, and the district. We have made significant progress in getting the unity of effort and the chains of command set so that we can utilize all the services that you see before 

you today. 

And so I am pleased to report that we are making great progress 

in that area—38 States have the dual status commander already 

trained. The rest will be in the next class in Colorado Springs. 

So we will be set to represent the Governors and the Federal 

Government so that we can utilize all the forces to save citizens’ 

lives here at home. 

Dr. HECK. All right. Thanks for that update. 

And last question, I do not know if it applies across all Reserve 

Forces or, again, it is just USAR [United States Army Reserves] 

specific. 

But, you know, the idea of providing predictability, obviously, is 

very important for somebody who has got—who is twice the citizen. 

But, what we find, sometimes, for those of us that are in TDA 

[table of distribution allowance] units that do not necessarily get 

sourced, as opposed to a TOE [table of organization and equipment] 

unit that we do become the manpower pool. And although you may 

not be in year five of your ARFORGEN [Army Force Generation] 

cycle, you are getting yanked to be a backfill person. 

What kind of prevention or preventive strategies are we putting 

in to try to keep TDA in line with that ARFORGEN 5-year cycle? 

General STULTZ. That is a great point because, as you very well 

know, for the Army Reserve, we have a huge portion of the generating force for the Army. 

The medical force, we represent 60 percent of the medical structure of the Army. 
17 

But we represent a huge force in the training base of the Army— 

the drill sergeants, the MOS [military occupational specialty] trainers, the people who do the collective training for the Army. 

And what we have recommended is we need to apply that same 

model to the forces that are in those units; one, because we owe 

that soldier predictability that he is not going to get yanked if we 

have this authority. But number two, to provide predictability to 

the Army. 

So, if I can take a—let us say, a training battalion that has got 

five companies of drill sergeants, and I can say to TRADOC [Training and Doctrine Command], every year, I will give you one of 

those companies. Then I would give them predictability how they 

can plan their training cycles. And I have given my soldiers predictability. 

So I think we have got to take our TDA force as well as our 

MTOE [modified table of organization and equipment] force and 

put them into that ARFORGEN cycle. 

Dr. HECK. All right. Again, thank you all very much for your lifetime of service to our Nation and to our men and women in uniform. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to all of you 

on the panel today for your service and for being here. 

And I want to make a particular mention of the great turnout 

today, too, as the chairman did. And I think it is actually a credit 

to the chairman and to Mrs. Davis. And they are working together 

on bipartisan basis in the subcommittee and in the larger committee. So I want to make sure that we all give them tremendous 

credit, especially the chairman. 

General McKinley, it is my understanding that the Per Diem 

Committee ruled in February that members of the National Guard, 

being put on Title 10 orders, from Title 32, should have their Basic 

Allowance for Housing [BAH] recalculated based on their home of 

record. 

And since the BAH, when they are under Title 32 orders is based 

on their permanent duty location, soldiers, airmen, and their families are often losing money because of this recalculation. I do not 

think this recalculation makes much sense to me. And that is why 

Congresswoman Bordallo and I are working together to take a hard 

look at solutions to the problem in general. 

Can you just share some of your thoughts on that issue today? 

General MCKINLEY. Well, if I could ask my colleagues who represent the proponents of the Guard Force to talk specifically to the 

Army Guard and the Air Guard piece of that. And then I am sure 

we all do. And I have a comment at the end, sir. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

General CARPENTER. Congressman, I—this first came to our attention here about 6 months ago, when the adjutant general of 

Massachusetts surfaced this issue. And it was disadvantaging his 

soldiers in Massachusetts as they mobilized and deployed. 

We went to and worked with the Army on this specific issue and 

the problem that we have got is it is a statutory issue. And so, it 
18 

is in the joint travel regulation. And so—and that is a DOD-level 

decision. 

We are now in the process of submitting through the Army a request to change that particular part of the joint travel regulation 

to allow for the change that you are advocating so that we do not 

disadvantage the soldiers. 

So it is in process now, sir. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Okay. 

General WYATT. What the current DOD instruction does as General Carpenter indicated—sets up differences between the calculations as it applies to a drill status guardsman which is based upon 

home of record. 

And an NGR [National Guard regulation], for example, that is 

based upon permanent duty stations. You have accurately outlined 

the differences. 

And I guess, maybe the reason why there was a difference is because most—a lot of the drills status guardsmen might have a 

tendency to live further away. 

But regardless, I think anything that could be done with the 

DODI [Department of Defense instruction], and we are going 

through the same thing with the Air Force that General Carpenter’s with the Army, to put consistency and eliminate the differences between the different statuses that we have in the Air National Guard would certainly be fairer to all of our members. 

And that is the objective, I believe. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

General MCKINLEY. My final comment is we are working with 

the Department Secretary McGinnis and the Chairman and the 

Secretary to try to resolve this, sir. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you very much. 

One other question, that is for the three of you also. 

And I just preface it by stating how proud I am of our Iowa National Guard. The 2,800 who are largely back now from Afghanistan. And they have done a great job over there. 

But again, the dual role that the National Guard plays to—you 

all know about the floods of Iowa in 2008. Now we have got floods 

in Western Iowa along the Missouri River. 

And just a general question, how are we going to keep the training, the equipment, everything that we need for the Guard—not to 

take away from the Reserves as well, but it is a Guard question 

specifically. How are we going to do this going forward? 

I know that is a big question. We only have a minute and 5 seconds left. But to the extent which you can answer that question, 

that would be great. 

Thank you. 

General MCKINLEY. We are in the midst, as you can imagine, of 

some serious budget talks for us with the Army and the Air Force. 

And the two directors are up to their necks in trying to make the 

case that this great force that we have created over time needs to 

have adequate resources to sustain itself. 

And for that dual mission of the State and the Federal mission, 

the Guard is trying to make the case with the services that you 

just cannot walk away from it. 

So Ray, and Bud, in 30 seconds, how are we doing? 
19 

General WYATT. Accessibility, whether it is the fight overseas or 

at home, takes proper statutory authorities, we are talking about 

that today. It also takes proper training and resourcing to make 

sure that we are trained to that level. 

But also it takes appropriate planning. And what this legislation 

does for the fight overseas helps us with that. But to be accessible 

you have to have the statutory, you have to have the people, and 

the equipment, and the training, but you also have to plan for MPA 

days to pay the folks when they come on duty. 

General CARPENTER. Mr. Congressman, not unlike General 

Stultz, we are seeing unprecedented retention rates as well as recruiting rates and that is a function of people who want to come 

and do something for their Nation and they want to be part of 

something. 

If we do not use these soldiers, if we do not meet their expectations, they will leave us just as quickly as they came to us. The 

Guard right now has more equipment, modern equipment, than we 

have ever had. We have got the battle-experienced soldiers and it 

would be a shame for us to walk away from that. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I am very proud of the readiness centers we have 

been able to build around the country as well, thanks to this committee and to the Appropriations Committee as well. 

Thanks to all of you for your great service and thank you for indulging me, Mr. Chairman, for letting me go a little longer. Thank 

you. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, Mr. Loebsack, thank you for your active involvement in the committee. 

And we next proceed to Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a big proponent of the Guard and Reserve having served in the Army, the 

Army Reserve, the Marine Corps, and the Marine Corps Reserve 

and having deployed twice in combat in the Marine Corps Reserve. 

The—my fundamental concern is this, that we are in an environment of tremendous fiscal pressures, and I think that Defense is 

going to have a target on its back in these coming debates. And I 

think Secretary of Defense—former Secretary of Defense Gates, I 

think, expressed before the Armed Services Committee on a number of occasions his concern about the trajectory of cost, the growing personnel cost relative to acquisition cost and if it is not corrected will we in fact become a hollow force over time as some of 

our NATO allies have become. 

And so I think that from my view, one of the solutions in this 

equation is the Guard and Reserve, that we know that the personnel cost are greatly reduced with the Guard and Reserve relative to Active units with the same capability, retaining that capability. 

And so it is my view that we need to look at restructuring our 

military with emphasis in the Guard and Reserve. The fact is, 

today, we do not have the kind of pure competitor—we do not want 

one—that we did during the cold war that required a very large 

standing military. 

We are not going to be doing another Iraq and Afghanistan. I 

think the former Secretary of Defense said it well with—that is— 

I think in his speech before West Point, words to the effect that if 
20 

another general came to me and said we ought to invade, pacify, 

and administer another country and I would tell him, I think, 

words to the effect he was nuts. We are not going down that road 

again. 

I think Yemen and Somalia are the template for the future. It 

is more counterterrorism, more lighter footprint, more special operations. So I just think that we need to retain this capability and 

the only way to retain this capability under the kind of fiscal pressures that we have is to—is a greater emphasis in the Guard and 

Reserve Components of the United States military. 

And I am—General McKinley, could you respond to that? 

General MCKINLEY. Thanks, Congressman Coffman. After every 

major war in the 20th century, the Guard and Reserve was put 

back on the shelf. My intuition tells me that we are going to have 

to argue very strenuously in front of our services to make the case 

that you just made. 

We are but one vote in councils that are decided mostly on Title 

10 issues. We have just started making our case on the value proposition but you said it better than I could say it for sure. We are 

here to tell you that we believe we are the answer to America’s security needs in a time of fiscal constraint. And we are willing to 

put our forces on the line, operationally, their capability, their 

equipment and their leadership to make that case in front of the 

American people. 

Mr. COFFMAN. You know, I think there are, certainly there are 

within our force structure, there is the expeditionary components 

that are necessary to retain on Active Duty but it is my position 

that we need to expand, we need to—in this restructuring, we need 

to look at expanding the Guard and Reserve as—because it is the 

only way that the United States can maintain its military capability given the fiscal pressures that we have. 

And I think that we could do that certainly without in any way 

sacrificing the national security interests of the United States. But 

if we in fact go in with making cuts that simply reduce end 

strength without doing the restructuring I have talked about, we 

will compromise our capability. And I am very concerned about 

that. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, and thank you for your military service. 

And we are grateful to have Congresswoman Madam Bordallo of 

Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank all of our witnesses, and there are a lot of stars out 

there. My first question is for General Carpenter. As you know, we 

have more guardsmen serving per capita on Guam than does any 

other State or territory in our country. 

The western Pacific, and of course, our chairman is aware of 

that, he was there when that was presented to us on Guam. The 

western Pacific has unique challenges as all of you know. And one 

of these challenges is funding for travel for soldiers to get between 

the islands within the Northern Marianas to get to their drill site. 

Now, we have repeatedly passed the authority to reimburse certain members of the National Guard for traveling expenses related 
21 

to inactive duty training, yet movement to get this going has yet 

to come. 

However, this broader authority has run into issues with the Per 

Diem Committee’s 150-mile rule. And as I understand it, there is 

a business case for waiving the 150-mile rule for Guam National 

Guardsmen and possibly other locations because travel is only permissible through expensive airfare. 

When will these policies be amended to take into consideration 

the distinctive challenges that we face on Guam? And I get the 

sense that there continues to be a disconnect between the Active 

Duty Army and Army Guard on this matter. And I want to see a 

resolution sooner than rather than later. 

General CARPENTER. Congresswoman, you brought this issue to 

our attention about almost a year ago. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is correct. 

General CARPENTER. And we raised the issue with the Army. We 

prepared the request for the exception to the authority to be able 

to provide support for people in Saipan who wanted to be part of 

the Guam National Guard for them to be able to get their commuting expenses covered between the islands. 

That is still in process. Let me take that for the record. And I 

owe you an answer, ma’am. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 193.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, general. And I will expect 

that is going to be a good answer. 

General CARPENTER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. My second question is for, well, each of the Reserve chiefs but I do not know that I have the time to hear but if 

a couple of you can answer this. Given that Reserve and Guard 

benefits and entitlements are earned based on the kind of orders 

an individual is serving and the length of time, are each of the 

services ensuring that their members know exactly what legal authority they are on orders under every time they go on Active 

Duty? And do their orders capture this important information? 

Whichever one of you—— 

General STENNER. I will start and just be brief, and also I will 

give my counterparts the time, but we do put on those orders under 

which authority they were ordered to duty. So there are specific entitlements that they can have, and that is the technical answer to 

your question. 

What type of orders the folks are asking for right now has also 

kind of evolved from we are ready to go on a volunteer status to 

over a 10-year period of time we found that that has increased 

from 80 percent or decreased from 80 percent to about 65 percent 

that do want the authorities and the protections that come with 

some of the other types of order to duty. 

So we are working through that issue as we speak with how to 

ensure that they get on the right set of orders at the right time. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

General STULTZ. I will echo what Charlie said, but the thing that 

we are really trying to focus on in the Army Reserve, one is we 

want to reduce the number of duty statuses. We have got way too 
22 

many duty statuses. It makes it too confusing and just as you 

pointed out, you have got too many differences in benefits. 

And the problem comes in, in which pot of money because that 

soldier may say, ‘‘Put me on this type of order because this is the 

benefit I need.’’ But we may have a different pot of money that 

comes from a different order. And you may have two soldiers serving in the same location on two different sets of orders with two 

different types of benefits. And that to me is not acceptable. 

So we are trying to say let us reduce the number of duty statuses 

we have down to the minimum so that when we put somebody on 

orders they are all on the same type of orders. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you and is there another—yes? 

Admiral DEBBINK. And I should offer that one of the benefits of 

the long war that we have been about for the last 10 years is refining our procedures, and in particular in our case that we have a 

Navy mobilization processing centers that we send all of our sailors 

through, because communications is one of the biggest challenges 

in making sure those sailors understand the type of orders and the 

benefits with those orders. In fact one of the problems we have is 

pushback on why do I have to go to the NMPS [Navy Mobilization 

Processing Site]. Well, this is why. In order to be informed—fully 

informed as we work through the challenges of streamlining things 

in the future. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

We now proceed to Congressman Robert Brady, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, thank you for your service to our Nation and thank the 

men and women who serve underneath you. I really have a request 

more than a question. I have a full-time staff under my staff that 

deals mainly on military issues, 90 percent of the requests that he 

gets are with medical and disability issues. 

And it pertained to, you know, expediting their issues and their 

problems. I mean it is a good morale factor that when they know 

that they are out there serving, that there are men and women out 

there serving in harm’s way, note that when they come back into 

civility, back to the civilian status, that they do have these benefits 

that are readily, you know, offered to them and do not have to call 

Congressperson, not that I do not mind taking the calls, or trying 

to help them. 

But myself and my staff people run into major red tape trying 

to get things done for disability pay or for their request for medical 

care. So I would just ask you again if you could, you know, look 

into that and, you know, make sure that our men and women that 

are in harm’s way when they do come back home that we do show 

them the proper respect by taking care of their issues that they 

have whether be a medical issue or a disability that they need that 

cannot go back to the workforce that they started out in. And it is 

a pretty important issue that we get 90 percent of the calls. So I 

thank you for that. Again, thank you for your service. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman for your time. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Brady. 
23 

And as we conclude, Mrs. Davis would like to make a comment. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to follow 

up really on the question that Mr. Coffman and, I think, others 

were raising as well, just in terms of that, the access issue. And 

I think just from our point of view, certainly from my point of view, 

is trying to understand, you know, what those costs are. Obviously, 

the mobilization, there are additional costs that are built in to that. 

But that does not necessarily mean that all the cost, you know, are 

higher. 

And I think when we can break that down transparently and 

really understand it then we can be active in trying to present that 

argument as well. Thank you all so much for, again, for your service and leadership. 

Mr. WILSON. And as we conclude, I want to thank you again for 

your service, the people who work with you, the service members, 

their military families, the veterans who make it possible for us to 

have the freedoms that we enjoy. Additionally, I want to thank you 

for the opportunity that you provide to the young people of our 

country to serve our country to truly use their talents that they 

have. 

And that is why I am very impressed, and I know that Reserve 

and Guard members want to be actively involved. And it makes the 

difference for our country. At this time, we shall be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

JULY 27, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JULY 27, 2011 

(29) 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JULY 27, 2011 

(161) 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

JULY 27, 2011 

(193) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

General CARPENTER. A resolution addressing this issue is expected to be complete 

by 1 October 2011. The ARNG has worked closely with the HQDA DCS G–1 on this 

issue since its inception. 

The Military Advisory Panel to the Per Diem Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is expected to vote in favor of changing the Joint Force Travel Regulation (JFTR) to allow for the reimbursement of Guam National Guardsmen travel 

expenses. A memo dated 6 September, 2011 was issued by the Per Diem Travel and 

Transportation Allowance Committee which allows for payment of transportation 

costs for OCONUS Inactive Duty for Training (IDT). These changes are scheduled 

to appear in JFTR change 299, dated 1 November 2011. This determination became 

effective on 6 September 2011. 

The change will reduce the JFTR IDT commuting distance from 150 miles to 50– 

75 miles for non-contiguous States and U.S. territories. The JFTR change will require that the Soldier be in a shortage MOS as per initial discussions on this matter. This change to the JFTR will be approved and signed by Mr. Retherford, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Military Personnel) prior to the end of September. It will be officially added to the JFTR within 1–2 weeks after he has signed 

and approved the change. 

Guam Army National Guard Soldiers living less than 150 miles from their duty 

station in a shortage MOS will then be allowed reimbursement for travel expenses 

related to IDT. [See page 21.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JULY 27, 2011 

(197) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. The use of an operational Reserve post current contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will certainly require an increased commitment by 

service members and their families. Some members may prefer to continue to serve 

as a traditional Selected Reserve member, one weekend a month and 2 weeks in 

the summer, and others may want to commit to a more robust mobilization schedule. How do you plan to accommodate for the different levels of commitment? 

General MCKINLEY. The ‘‘one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer’’ 

model as the sole experience of a National Guardsman is one of the distant past. 

The inherent operational duality of our Citizen Soldiers and Airmen is understood 

by the members of our force now more than ever, as more than three quarters of 

our current force entered service in a post-9/11 environment. In addition to Afghanistan and Iraq, our ongoing missions include Africa, the Balkans, America’s southwest border, and the State Partnership Program which involves more than 60 countries. Interested Army and Air National Guardsmen and women will continue to 

have multiple opportunities to volunteer for such missions. The Army and Air National Guard expend significant effort from top to bottom toward providing the tools 

for Soldiers and Airmen to balance civilian careers with their obligations to national 

security. 

These efforts are coordinated through the Army Force Generation Model 

(ARFORGEN). This model provides the predictability required for units to organize 

and plan. The predictability of this model also enables Soldiers who are looking for 

a more robust mobilization schedule to anticipate future volunteer opportunities. 

Such volunteers reduce the margin of cross-leveling in our formations, resulting in 

increased predictability. In turn, this increases the time individual Soldiers have between deployments and reduces stress on the operational Force. The Army National 

Guard’s current posture as an Operational Force, along with the ARFORGEN 

model, will allow Soldiers to serve both as traditional Guardsmen, and as full-time 

Soldiers throughout their respective military careers. The Air National Guard utilizes predictability, volunteerism, and ‘‘rainbowing’’ to aid Airmen in balancing civilian careers with their obligations to our national security. The Air Force’s Aerospace 

Expeditionary Force (AEF), implemented in 1999, helps provide predictability while 

meeting commitments to theater commanders. Volunteerism provides individual 

flexibility within the AEF system. By permitting Airmen to volunteer for mobilization under Title 10 US Code, Sec. 12301(d), an individual Airmen can tailor their 

AEF deployment commitment to match their civilian career commitments. ‘‘Rainbowing’’ is a deployment management tool that allows individuals to serve units 

other than their assigned unit, and deploy in AEF cycles other than their own. AEF, 

volunteerism, and rainbowing combined allow individual Guard Airman to optimize 

their Air Force and civilian commitments by planning and preparing for federal 

service within the matrix of their civilian careers. 

Mr. WILSON. The use of an operational Reserve post current contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will certainly require an increased commitment by 

service members and their families. Some members may prefer to continue to serve 

as a traditional Selected Reserve member, one weekend a month and 2 weeks in 

the summer, and others may want to commit to a more robust mobilization schedule. How do you plan to accommodate for the different levels of commitment? 

General WYATT. The ‘‘one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer’’ 

model as the sole experience of a National Guardsman is one of the distant past. 

The inherent operational duality of our Citizen Soldiers and Airmen is understood 

by the members of our force now more than ever, as more than three quarters of 

our current force entered service in a post-9/11 environment. In addition to Afghanistan and Iraq, our ongoing missions include Africa, the Balkans, America’s southwest border, and the State Partnership Program which involves more than 60 countries. Interested Army and Air National Guardsmen and women will continue to 

have multiple opportunities to volunteer for such missions. The Army and Air National Guard expend significant effort from top to bottom toward providing the tools 

for Soldiers and Airmen to balance civilian careers with their obligations to national 

security. 
198 

These efforts are coordinated through the Army Force Generation Model 

(ARFORGEN). This model provides the predictability required for units to organize 

and plan. The predictability of this model also enables Soldiers who are looking for 

a more robust mobilization schedule to anticipate future volunteer opportunities. 

Such volunteers reduce the margin of cross-leveling in our formations, resulting in 

increased predictability. In turn, this increases the time individual Soldiers have between deployments and reduces stress on the operational Force. The Army National 

Guard’s current posture as an Operational Force, along with the ARFORGEN 

model, will allow Soldiers to serve both as traditional Guardsmen, and as full-time 

Soldiers throughout their respective military careers. The Air National Guard utilizes predictability, volunteerism, and ‘‘rainbowing’’ to aid Airmen in balancing civilian careers with their obligations to our national security. The Air Force’s Aerospace 

Expeditionary Force (AEF), implemented in 1999, helps provide predictability while 

meeting commitments to theater commanders. Volunteerism provides individual 

flexibility within the AEF system. By permitting Airmen to volunteer for mobilization under Title 10 US Code, Sec. 12301(d), an individual Airmen can tailor their 

AEF deployment commitment to match their civilian career commitments. ‘‘Rainbowing’’ is a deployment management tool that allows individuals to serve units 

other than their assigned unit, and deploy in AEF cycles other than their own. AEF, 

volunteerism, and rainbowing combined allow individual Guard Airman to optimize 

their Air Force and civilian commitments by planning and preparing for federal 

service within the matrix of their civilian careers. 

Mr. WILSON. The use of an operational Reserve post current contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will certainly require an increased commitment by 

service members and their families. Some members may prefer to continue to serve 

as a traditional Selected Reserve member, one weekend a month and 2 weeks in 

the summer, and others may want to commit to a more robust mobilization schedule. How do you plan to accommodate for the different levels of commitment? 

General CARPENTER. The ‘‘one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer’’ 

model as the sole experience of a National Guardsman is one of the distant past. 

The inherent operational duality of our Citizen Soldiers and Airmen is understood 

by the members of our force now more than ever, as more than three quarters of 

our current force entered service in a post-9/11 environment. In addition to Afghanistan and Iraq, our ongoing missions include Africa, the Balkans, America’s southwest border, and the State Partnership Program which involves more than 60 countries. Interested Army and Air National Guardsmen and women will continue to 

have multiple opportunities to volunteer for such missions. The Army and Air National Guard expend significant effort from top to bottom toward providing the tools 

for Soldiers and Airmen to balance civilian careers with their obligations to national 

security. 

These efforts are coordinated through the Army Force Generation Model 

(ARFORGEN). This model provides the predictability required for units to organize 

and plan. The predictability of this model also enables Soldiers who are looking for 

a more robust mobilization schedule to anticipate future volunteer opportunities. 

Such volunteers reduce the margin of cross-leveling in our formations, resulting in 

increased predictability. In turn, this increases the time individual Soldiers have between deployments and reduces stress on the operational Force. The Army National 

Guard’s current posture as an Operational Force, along with the ARFORGEN 

model, will allow Soldiers to serve both as traditional Guardsmen, and as full-time 

Soldiers throughout their respective military careers. The Air National Guard utilizes predictability, volunteerism, and ‘‘rainbowing’’ to aid Airmen in balancing civilian careers with their obligations to our national security. The Air Force’s Aerospace 

Expeditionary Force (AEF), implemented in 1999, helps provide predictability while 

meeting commitments to theater commanders. Volunteerism provides individual 

flexibility within the AEF system. By permitting Airmen to volunteer for mobilization under Title 10 US Code, Sec. 12301(d), an individual Airmen can tailor their 

AEF deployment commitment to match their civilian career commitments. ‘‘Rainbowing’’ is a deployment management tool that allows individuals to serve units 

other than their assigned unit, and deploy in AEF cycles other than their own. AEF, 

volunteerism, and rainbowing combined allow individual Guard Airman to optimize 

their Air Force and civilian commitments by planning and preparing for federal 

service within the matrix of their civilian careers. 

Mr. WILSON. The use of an operational Reserve post current contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will certainly require an increased commitment by 

service members and their families. Some members may prefer to continue to serve 

as a traditional Selected Reserve member, one weekend a month and 2 weeks in 

the summer, and others may want to commit to a more robust mobilization schedule. How do you plan to accommodate for the different levels of commitment? 
199 

General STENNER. The Air Force Reserve accommodates for the different levels of 

commitment with flexible opportunities to serve. Individuals can serve either as a 

Traditional Reservist, where they live and serve in a part-time or full-time jobs as 

Air Reserve Technicians (ARTs), Active Guard Reserve (AGR), or as an Individual 

Mobilization Augmentee (IMAs) Reservists who work according to tailored schedules 

at designated locations. Since our inception in 1948, the Air Force Reserve has 

served as a key part of the nation’s defense and offers similar benefits afforded to 

those on active duty, with one major addition: the benefit of time. It has been an 

ideal option for those who have never been in the military and want to participate 

without being on full-time active duty. 

Additionally, many opportunities to serve within the Air Force Reserve are 

sourced solely through volunteers. This allows for mission accomplishment with limited impact on the employer support base. 

Mr. WILSON. The use of an operational Reserve post current contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will certainly require an increased commitment by 

service members and their families. Some members may prefer to continue to serve 

as a traditional Selected Reserve member, one weekend a month and 2 weeks in 

the summer, and others may want to commit to a more robust mobilization schedule. How do you plan to accommodate for the different levels of commitment? 

General STULTZ. Today’s Army Reserve Soldiers joined or re-enlisted after 9/11 to 

be a part of the operational force. They have an expectation for mobilizations and 

deployments. It is imperative to retain these experienced Soldiers by providing them 

with the operational employment they desire. In contrast, the Soldiers of the legacy, 

strategic reserve left service in significant numbers from 2004 to 2006. We cannot 

allow this loss of experience and institutional knowledge to happen again. Simply 

put, the Army Reserve Soldier expects to be used as an integrated member of the 

operational force, our Soldiers only ask that, in return, when asked to mobilize or 

deploy that it is done on a predictable, recurring cycle. Reverting to a Strategic Reserve would entail a similar significant loss of our most operationally experienced 

Army Reserve Soldiers. With the adoption of the ARFORGEN model, the Army Reserve will provide a more predictable cycle of missions to our Soldiers in a manner 

that satisfies their desire for national service and operational employment. Every 

five years, an Army Reserve Soldier can expect to operationally deploy or mobilize 

for periods of active duty in order to support Army missions at home or abroad. Our 

efforts to also develop and provide a Continuum of Service will allow our Soldiers 

to move more seamlessly through periods of Selected Reserve service, active duty 

service, and time spent in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) as a civilian. This 

will enable the Army Reserve Soldier, over time, to balance the needs of their careers and families with the desire to serve their country as part of the operational 

force. 

Mr. WILSON. The use of an operational Reserve post current contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will certainly require an increased commitment by 

service members and their families. Some members may prefer to continue to serve 

as a traditional Selected Reserve member, one weekend a month and 2 weeks in 

the summer, and others may want to commit to a more robust mobilization schedule. How do you plan to accommodate for the different levels of commitment? 

Admiral DEBBINK. The purpose of drill weekends and annual training periods is 

to prepare members of the Reserve Component for the eventuality of activation in 

support of National military objectives. This is the commitment into which members 

enter when they are appointed or enlisted into the Navy Reserve. The service will 

continue to provide opportunities for Sailors to contribute to the Nation’s security 

and strategic objectives, in peacetime and during war, while working to strike a 

proper balance between the needs and availability of the member with the operational imperative to shape the Force to support fleet requirements in a ‘‘Ready 

Now, Anytime, Anywhere’’ posture. 

Mr. WILSON. The use of an operational Reserve post current contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will certainly require an increased commitment by 

service members and their families. Some members may prefer to continue to serve 

as a traditional Selected Reserve member, one weekend a month and 2 weeks in 

the summer, and others may want to commit to a more robust mobilization schedule. How do you plan to accommodate for the different levels of commitment? 

General MOORE. Our members have become accustomed to and now expect to be 

activated on a periodic basis to fulfill operational requirements in accordance with 

established mob-to-dwell ratios. It is our intent to design our policy and procedures 

to appropriately review these considerations so that the needs of the individual 

member are fully considered, and well balanced with the Services’ mission requirements. The language, as proposed in the Senate-version of the FY12 NDAA, addresses the individual preferences of the member. As a Service, we must consider 
200 

the service members’ hazardous duty tours, frequency of tours, dwell time, family 

considerations, and employment considerations when determining which members 

will be ordered to active duty. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

Ms. BORDALLO. Do each of the services have an accurate costing methodology to 

ensure an accurate budget programming in the future? Recognizing the potential for 

increased costs with a higher readiness and training requirements necessary for an 

operational Reserve, how have the Services proposed to budget and plan for these 

requirements? Do you have an estimate of what it would cost in each service’s rotation cycle for the size unit you expect to mobilize routinely? 

General CARPENTER. [The information referred to was not available at the time 

of printing.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Do each of the services have an accurate costing methodology to 

ensure an accurate budget programming in the future? Recognizing the potential for 

increased costs with a higher readiness and training requirements necessary for an 

operational Reserve, how have the Services proposed to budget and plan for these 

requirements? Do you have an estimate of what it would cost in each service’s rotation cycle for the size unit you expect to mobilize routinely? 

General WYATT. [The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Do each of the services have an accurate costing methodology to 

ensure an accurate budget programming in the future? Recognizing the potential for 

increased costs with a higher readiness and training requirements necessary for an 

operational Reserve, how have the Services proposed to budget and plan for these 

requirements? Do you have an estimate of what it would cost in each service’s rotation cycle for the size unit you expect to mobilize routinely? 

General STENNER. The Air Force has accumulated almost twenty years of documented experience and costing data with its Reserve Component support of contingencies in both voluntary and mobilized status. Since the advent of the Aerospace 

Expeditionary Force construct, that contingency support cost data has been further 

refined and codified in planning, programming, and budgeting efforts. Those cost estimates have been incorporated in the active Air Force budget submissions for both 

Military Personnel and Organization & Maintenance Overseas Contingency Operations for the past several years. Future active Air Force budgeting will continue 

to request funding for required RC personnel support, and the Reserve and Guard 

will continue to request adequate funding to assure the continued mission readiness 

of assigned personnel. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Do each of the services have an accurate costing methodology to 

ensure an accurate budget programming in the future? Recognizing the potential for 

increased costs with a higher readiness and training requirements necessary for an 

operational Reserve, how have the Services proposed to budget and plan for these 

requirements? Do you have an estimate of what it would cost in each service’s rotation cycle for the size unit you expect to mobilize routinely? 

General STULTZ. The Army Reserve (AR) developed a business case to provide a 

portion of its force, during the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) cycle ‘‘Available Year,’’ as the Title 10 Reserve Component (RC) portion of the Army’s operational force. The Army Reserve Component’s readiness and training requirements 

will be tied to their deployment schedule. The Army will need to prioritize funding 

for activating Guard and Reserve units among the existing Total Force programs 

and capabilities within the baseline budget. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Do each of the services have an accurate costing methodology to 

ensure an accurate budget programming in the future? Recognizing the potential for 

increased costs with a higher readiness and training requirements necessary for an 

operational Reserve, how have the Services proposed to budget and plan for these 

requirements? Do you have an estimate of what it would cost in each service’s rotation cycle for the size unit you expect to mobilize routinely? 

Admiral DEBBINK. The Navy has an accurate costing methodology to ensure accurate budget programming. The cost for Reserve units entering a heightened operational phase to complete training, medical, and personnel readiness requirements 

will not require any modifications to current budget and planning processes. We do 

not currently have an estimate of what it would cost to implement the proposed authority to activate reserve component members for other than operational missions 

and national emergency purposes. Only upon enactment, and subsequent promulgation of Defense Department guidance on how the provision will be implemented, will 
201 

Navy be able to determine the likely construct and employment of the Force that 

will lead to proper planning and budgeting associated with implementation. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Do each of the services have an accurate costing methodology to 

ensure an accurate budget programming in the future? Recognizing the potential for 

increased costs with a higher readiness and training requirements necessary for an 

operational Reserve, how have the Services proposed to budget and plan for these 

requirements? Do you have an estimate of what it would cost in each service’s rotation cycle for the size unit you expect to mobilize routinely? 

General MOORE. Yes, the Marine Corps has an accurate costing methodology 

based on previously executed operations. Post-OCO, the Marine Corps anticipates 

the continued employment of the Reserve to fulfill Total Force operational requirements. The exact size and scope has yet to be determined and is likely to fluctuate 

based on the National Security Strategy and operational tempo. The most significant cost of employing our Reserves as an operational force comes in the form of 

manpower funding necessary for pay, allowances, and entitlements for Reservists 

when on active duty. The Marine Corps will need to prioritize funding for activating 

reserve units among the existing Total Force programs and capabilities within our 

baseline budget. We have developed a process to capture these costs and include 

these in our baseline budget requests in the future. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WEST 

Mr. WEST. The Department of Defense has proposed some modifications to the Reserve mobilization authority in Title 10, United States Code 12304 to allow for a 

more flexible access to the Reserves to participate in non-contingency operations. I 

am a little concerned that the recommend language of ‘‘any mission’’ is too broad 

of an authority and may have unintended consequences for the Reserve Component. 

I understand each service will use this authority for different types of missions, and 

this committee is supportive of maintaining a relevant operational Reserve, but can 

you address in detail why this modification is needed, and what types of missions 

do you envision your component executing with this authority? 

General MCKINLEY. The National Guard has demonstrated we are an operational 

force. As a veteran Reserve Component force, the National Guard’s Citizen-Soldiers 

possess both military and civilian skill sets—kinetic and smart powers that allow 

us to respond quickly and efficiently wide variety of theatre security cooperation 

needs, and to do so in a cost-effective, proportionate, basis. 

Currently, Section 12304 of Title 10 United States Code provides a limited Presidential Reserve Call-up to augment active forces. This includes operational missions 

and select emergency response operations, such as actual or potential Weapons of 

Mass Destruction threat and terrorist attack scenarios. The Department of Defense’s reliance on the National Guard as an Operational Force requires changes to 

that law. 

This modification will allow the National Guard to remain an operational force, 

and provide combatant commanders with the unique skills and capabilities of the 

National Guard. The modification could enable more flexible employment of National Guard forces and assets, to support and execute a variety of new and emerging missions. These may include, but are not limited to, the following areas: 

• Full Spectrum Development Units—Assist developing nations on matters of 

civic governance, agriculture, emergency management, crisis response, and internal defense. 

• Foreign Consequence Management—Assist host nations with responding to, 

managing, and mitigating the effects of events/contamination from a Chemical, 

Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear source. 

• Exercise, Exchanges, and Theater Engagement—Advise developing nations on 

improving internal defense capabilities. Provide assistance in establishing infrastructure and economic bases for regional stability. Provide mentorship and 

training, and continue to support OCONUS engagement activities. 

Mr. WEST. The Department of Defense has proposed some modifications to the Reserve mobilization authority in Title 10, United States Code 12304 to allow for a 

more flexible access to the Reserves to participate in non-contingency operations. I 

am a little concerned that the recommend language of ‘‘any mission’’ is too broad 

of an authority and may have unintended consequences for the Reserve Component. 

I understand each service will use this authority for different types of missions, and 

this committee is supportive of maintaining a relevant operational Reserve, but can 

you address in detail why this modification is needed, and what types of missions 

do you envision your component executing with this authority? 
202 

General WYATT. The National Guard has demonstrated we are an operational 

force. As a veteran Reserve Component force, the National Guard’s Citizen-Soldiers 

possess both military and civilian skill sets—kinetic and smart powers that allow 

us to respond quickly and efficiently wide variety of theatre security cooperation 

needs, and to do so in a cost-effective, proportionate, basis. 

Currently, Section 12304 of Title 10 United States Code provides a limited Presidential Reserve Call-up to augment active forces. This includes operational missions 

and select emergency response operations, such as actual or potential Weapons of 

Mass Destruction threat and terrorist attack scenarios. The Department of Defense’s reliance on the National Guard as an Operational Force requires changes to 

that law. 

This modification will allow the National Guard to remain an operational force, 

and provide combatant commanders with the unique skills and capabilities of the 

National Guard. The modification could enable more flexible employment of National Guard forces and assets, to support and execute a variety of new and emerging missions. These may include, but are not limited to, the following areas: 

• Full Spectrum Development Units—Assist developing nations on matters of 

civic governance, agriculture, emergency management, crisis response, and internal defense. • Foreign Consequence Management—Assist host nations with responding to, 

managing, and mitigating the effects of events/contamination from a Chemical, 

Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear source. • Exercise, Exchanges, and Theater Engagement—Advise developing nations on 

improving internal defense capabilities. Provide assistance in establishing infrastructure and economic bases for regional stability. Provide mentorship and 

training, and continue to support OCONUS engagement activities. 

Mr. WEST. The Department of Defense has proposed some modifications to the Reserve mobilization authority in Title 10, United States Code 12304 to allow for a 

more flexible access to the Reserves to participate in non-contingency operations. I 

am a little concerned that the recommend language of ‘‘any mission’’ is too broad 

of an authority and may have unintended consequences for the Reserve Component. 

I understand each service will use this authority for different types of missions, and 

this committee is supportive of maintaining a relevant operational Reserve, but can 

you address in detail why this modification is needed, and what types of missions 

do you envision your component executing with this authority? 

General CARPENTER. The National Guard has demonstrated we are an operational 

force. As a veteran Reserve Component force, the National Guard’s Citizen-Soldiers 

possess both military and civilian skill sets—kinetic and smart powers that allow 

us to respond quickly and efficiently wide variety of theatre security cooperation 

needs, and to do so in a cost-effective, proportionate, basis. 

Currently, Section 12304 of Title 10 United States Code provides a limited Presidential Reserve Call-up to augment active forces. This includes operational missions 

and select emergency response operations, such as actual or potential Weapons of 

Mass Destruction threat and terrorist attack scenarios. The Department of Defense’s reliance on the National Guard as an Operational Force requires changes to 

that law. 

This modification will allow the National Guard to remain an operational force, 

and provide combatant commanders with the unique skills and capabilities of the 

National Guard. The modification could enable more flexible employment of National Guard forces and assets, to support and execute a variety of new and emerging missions. These may include, but are not limited to, the following areas: 

• Full Spectrum Development Units—Assist developing nations on matters of 

civic governance, agriculture, emergency management, crisis response, and internal defense. 

• Foreign Consequence Management—Assist host nations with responding to, 

managing, and mitigating the effects of events/contamination from a Chemical, 

Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear source. 

• Exercise, Exchanges, and Theater Engagement—Advise developing nations on 

improving internal defense capabilities. Provide assistance in establishing infrastructure and economic bases for regional stability. Provide mentorship and 

training, and continue to support OCONUS engagement activities. 

Mr. WEST. The Department of Defense has proposed some modifications to the Reserve mobilization authority in Title 10, United States Code 12304 to allow for a 

more flexible access to the Reserves to participate in non-contingency operations. I 

am a little concerned that the recommend language of ‘‘any mission’’ is too broad 

of an authority and may have unintended consequences for the Reserve Component. 

I understand each service will use this authority for different types of missions, and 
203 

this committee is supportive of maintaining a relevant operational Reserve, but can 

you address in detail why this modification is needed, and what types of missions 

do you envision your component executing with this authority? 

General STENNER. The Air Force Reserve supports the Department’s efforts to 

modify 12304; however it does not intend to use the expanded authority at this 

time, should it become law. The Air Force Reserve uses a combination of volunteerism and mobilization to support its on-going missions. 

Mr. WEST. The Department of Defense has proposed some modifications to the Reserve mobilization authority in Title 10, United States Code 12304 to allow for a 

more flexible access to the Reserves to participate in non-contingency operations. I 

am a little concerned that the recommend language of ‘‘any mission’’ is too broad 

of an authority and may have unintended consequences for the Reserve Component. 

I understand each service will use this authority for different types of missions, and 

this committee is supportive of maintaining a relevant operational Reserve, but can 

you address in detail why this modification is needed, and what types of missions 

do you envision your component executing with this authority? 

General STULTZ. The Army Reserve anticipates using this authority to continue 

to conduct a variety of missions in support of theater security cooperation and building partner nation capacity, particularly once forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are removed or reduced. 

The Army is in the process of establishing a menu of Reserve Component use options for forces not deployed during the ARFORGEN available year. The menu of 

options includes Theater Security Cooperation missions, Joint Chiefs of Staff Exercises, and CONUS missions. Army Reserve missions have the added benefit of maintaining Army force readiness while reducing the burden on a fiscally constrained 

Army. Currently, the Army Reserve is participating in ‘‘Pacific Partnership’’ and 

‘‘Beyond Horizons’’ missions; Medical Readiness Exercises in Korea, Africa, Kosovo, 

Honduras, Europe, and Guatemala; Military to Military missions; and ‘‘building 

partner capacity’’ events. We believe modifications to the US Code 12304 authority 

will increase Army Reserve ability to meet these needs and participate in future requirements—all tailored to the strengths and capabilities an operational Army Reserve. Without modifications to US Code 12304, Army Reserve activities will end as 

OCO funding diminishes. 

While the language ‘‘any mission’’ may appear to be too broad, however is quite 

necessary for continued access to the Reserve Components and an enduring operational Reserve. 

Mr. WEST. The Department of Defense has proposed some modifications to the Reserve mobilization authority in Title 10, United States Code 12304 to allow for a 

more flexible access to the Reserves to participate in non-contingency operations. I 

am a little concerned that the recommend language of ‘‘any mission’’ is too broad 

of an authority and may have unintended consequences for the Reserve Component. 

I understand each service will use this authority for different types of missions, and 

this committee is supportive of maintaining a relevant operational Reserve, but can 

you address in detail why this modification is needed, and what types of missions 

do you envision your component executing with this authority? 

Admiral DEBBINK. This modification is needed to ensure timely access to Reserve 

force personnel during future periods of relative geopolitical stability. In an era of 

emerging global contingencies which may not warrant a Congressional or Presidential declaration of war or national emergency, the Department of Defense lacks 

the flexibility to access Reserve Component members to participate in total force solutions to meet rapidly evolving requirements. The authority sought by the Department of Defense provides the following benefits: 

• Enhances flexibility and efficient use of the Total Force allowing the services 

to best design its AC/RC mix to meet strategic and operational requirements; 

• Enhances Total Force capacity by allowing RC units and members to be included in long-range planning processes; 

• Provides the opportunity to enhance dwell/ITEMPO to desired levels through 

increased capacity provided by RC units and members; 

• Enhances the overall readiness of RC units with high-demand skill sets, ensuring a more robust total force response capacity for future contingency operations; 

• Provides predictability of future routine military obligations for individual Reserve members, their families and their employers; and 

• Provides a mechanism to access RC members for routine requirements assured 

of the various protections currently granted for other involuntary duty assignments. 
204 

The Navy Reserve would use this authority to augment force rotations for overseas requirements with preplanned Reserve units. 

Mr. WEST. The Department of Defense has proposed some modifications to the Reserve mobilization authority in Title 10, United States Code 12304 to allow for a 

more flexible access to the Reserves to participate in non-contingency operations. I 

am a little concerned that the recommend language of ‘‘any mission’’ is too broad 

of an authority and may have unintended consequences for the Reserve Component. 

I understand each service will use this authority for different types of missions, and 

this committee is supportive of maintaining a relevant operational Reserve, but can 

you address in detail why this modification is needed, and what types of missions 

do you envision your component executing with this authority? 

General MOORE. Our challenge is ensuring we are able to access our Reserve 

units for peacetime missions unrelated to contingency operations. Our Reserves are 

well-suited to perform missions, such as theater security cooperation, which will 

continue after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. However, to be cost-effective, we need to avoid cobbling together groups of individual volunteers. For this 

reason, we consider the legislative proposal to revise 10 USC 12304 to be critical 

to the success of an operational reserve. This new authority will allow the Marine 

Corps to provide cohesive units to satisfy Total Force non-contingency operational 

requirements while maintaining unit integrity and minimizing cross-leveling of individuals, and ensure our continued ability to employ our Reserves to fulfill combatant commanders’ operational requirements short of war or national emergency. 

Æ