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 

85–325 2014

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–61] 

THE INTERPRETATION OF H.R. 3210: 

PAY OUR MILITARY ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

OCTOBER 10, 2013 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

MICHELE PEARCE, Counsel 

VICKIE PLUNKETT, Professional Staff Member 

NICHOLAS RODMAN, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2013 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, October 10, 2013, The Interpretation of H.R. 3210: Pay Our Military Act ................................................................................................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, October 10, 2013 .................................................................................... 37 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2013 

THE INTERPRETATION OF H.R. 3210: PAY OUR MILITARY ACT 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 3 

Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative from Virginia, Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Hale, Hon. Robert F., Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), U.S. Department of Defense; Robert S. Taylor, Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense; and Hon. Jessica L. (Garfola) 

Wright, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 

U.S. Department of Defense ................................................................................ 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Wittman, Hon. Robert J. .................................................................................. 41 

[Editor’s Note: The witnesses did not provide written statements of the 

proposed testimony in advance of the hearing. The Chairman, in concurrence with the Ranking Minority Member, agreed to waive Committee Rule 13 for this hearing.] 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

H.R. 3210, the Pay Our Military Act .............................................................. 47 

Letter from Mr. McKeon to Secretary Hagel, dated October 1, 2013 .......... 50 

Letter from Mr. McKeon to Secretary Hagel, dated October 4, 2013 .......... 51 

‘‘Guidance for Implementation of Pay Our Military Act,’’ October 5, 2013, 

Secretary of Defense memorandum ............................................................. 52 

Pay and Leave During the Fiscal Year 2014 Shutdown Furlough, Department of Defense Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service ................. 56 

Payroll Calendar, 2013 ..................................................................................... 58 

Secretary Hale letter and documents responding to Mr. Wilson’s October 

4, 2013, letter to Secretary Hagel ................................................................ 59 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 73 
Page

IV 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING—Continued 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 73 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 73 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 77 

Ms. Duckworth .................................................................................................. 78 

Ms. Shea-Porter ................................................................................................ 78 
(1) 

THE INTERPRETATION OF H.R. 3210: 

PAY OUR MILITARY ACT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, Washington, DC, Thursday, October 10, 2013. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:32 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert J. Wittman 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON READINESS 

Mr. WITTMAN. I would like to call to order the House Armed 

Services Committee Subcommittee on Readiness. I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing that is focused on the implementation of the Pay Our Military Act. 

While the Department of Defense has ordered a significant number of people back to work this week, many remain furloughed and 

it is important for this committee to understand the short- and 

long-term implications for our Nation’s readiness and, most importantly, current operations in Afghanistan. 

I would like to welcome our distinguished panel today: the Honorable Robert Hale, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the 

Honorable Jessica Wright, Acting Under Secretary for Personnel 

and Readiness; and Mr. Robert Taylor, Acting General Counsel. 

This hearing is focused on the Department’s implementation guidance on the Pay Our Military Act which Secretary Hagel issued 

over the weekend and the questions regarding how decisions were 

made, who made them and why. 

While many Department of Defense [DOD] civilians and contractor personnel are back at work, others, like a number of my 

constituents in the First District, are at home struggling to pay 

their bills, manage their households and feed their families. 

These dedicated folks are worried and anxious about the very uncertain future they face, asking hard questions about how the decision was made to recall roughly 90 percent of the workforce, but 

not them. 

Secretary Hale, please, when you have a chance, shed light on 

this decisionmaking process. 

If you read the press reports, the initial DOD position was to recall all personnel to duty, which would have been consistent with 

congressional intent. The legislation states, and I quote, that, ‘‘The 

Secretary concerned determines who provides support to members 

of the Armed Forces.’’ 
2 

This language, in my view, is clear on its face and gave Secretary 

Hagel the authority he needed to recall the entire workforce. While 

common sense doesn’t always apply here in Washington, it seems 

to me that every person who works in the Department of Defense 

supports members of the armed services. 

Even if, however, you don’t share my view and there is room for 

disagreement on this point, the language provides broad latitude to 

interpret it in a manner that ensures minimal disruption of the Department’s mission, and, most importantly, continuity of operations 

at a time when our military members are engaged in operations on 

the battlefields of Afghanistan. Our All-Volunteer Force is still at 

war and their families are experiencing the harsh consequences of 

this decision each and every day. 

As we discuss how, according to press reports, lawyers at the Department of Justice interpreted the Pay Our Military Act, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are out on patrols, training Afghan soldiers and accomplishing the high-risk missions we have 

asked them to do. 

This is why every year for over 50 years the Armed Services 

Committee has worked in a bipartisan manner to get the authorization bill done. Our troops and our national security depend on 

it. This year is no different. 

Three months ago, the House passed the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act with the overwhelming support of 

Members from both parties and, yet we continue to wait for the 

Senate to take action on it. Two months ago, the House passed the 

Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Appropriations bill with overwhelming 

bipartisan support and 315 Members voting in favor. Unfortunately, that piece of legislation also has yet to be taken up by the 

Senate. 

If the Senate chose to go back to work to regular order and actually vote on bills and go to conference with the House to resolve 

differences in the legislation, as we used to do at one time, ironically enough we wouldn’t be at this hearing and Active Duty, Reservists, Guard, civilians and contractors wouldn’t be suffering 

from these self-inflicted stresses. 

However, no one is suffering more than the families who lost 

loved ones recently in Afghanistan during this unnecessary and 

preventable government shutdown. I was shocked and angered 

when I learned that five of our Nation’s heroes died in Afghanistan 

over the weekend and their families were informed that benefits 

could not be paid. 

These benefits, which fall in the category of military member pay 

and allowances authorized by the legislation, provide a small 

amount of financial support as families grieve so that during the 

most harrowing of times they can focus on what matters most. 

They allow families to travel to Dover Air Force Base to receive 

their fallen loved ones. They also ensure we bury our heroes, those 

who have paid the ultimate price, in a dignified manner that recognizes their extraordinary service and sacrifice. 

And while I applaud the organizations who have stepped in to fill 

this senseless void created by government lawyers narrowly interpreting the law, it is Secretary Hagel’s responsibility to make the 

hard policy judgment and to do the right thing. That is to find a 
3 

way to treat our families with the respect and dignity they have 

earned. 

Every leader in the military, from the squad leader to the combatant commander, is charged with the task of taking care of their 

people. It is an absolute embarrassment to this government and to 

this Nation that we are failing in our duties to those who take care 

of us and protect us every day. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and their families deserve better, and we owe them answers. 

Before we proceed, I would like to highlight that while the Readiness Subcommittee is hosting this hearing, we have invited the full 

committee to participate. And if there are any other members of 

the full committee leadership that would like to comment later, we 

will allow them so to do. 

And with that, I will now go to our ranking member, my good 

friend Madeleine Bordallo. Madeleine. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 41.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE 

FROM GUAM, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

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

want to thank you for calling this hearing. I would like to also welcome Secretary Hale, Secretary Wright and Mr. Taylor for testifying before us today. 

While we are discussing the important issues of how the Department of Defense implements H.R. 3210, I find that this is a futile 

effort. We should never, never have had to worry about this situation. If we could just vote on a clean continuing resolution [CR]. 

If we pass a clean CR, then appoint conferees to meet on a budget resolution, that would be a step in the right direction for fixing 

many of the challenges that face the Department of Defense today 

and other agencies and departments. 

I appreciate the Department of Defense has fully implemented 

H.R. 3210, and most workers are back to work at the Department. 

In a time where we remain a country at war, it is important that 

we continue to support our men and women in uniform even during 

a preventable government shutdown. 

However, we cannot continue to cherry-pick departments and 

agencies that we want to keep open. That is not the way to operate. 

Let’s solve the problem by passing a clean CR and moving into a 

conference committee on the budget resolution so that we can end 

this sequestration. 

And I would also like to add that we cannot continue to hold the 

debt ceiling hostage to unrelated matters. We are rapidly approaching the date in which the Treasury Department will exhaust its 

ability to use extraordinary measures to keep paying America’s 

bills. 

If we don’t increase the debt ceiling, the impact on our military 

will be unprecedented. It is unlikely whether payments could be 

prioritized, and I am concerned that our service members won’t be 

paid. Contracts won’t be paid. We will truly hollow out our government, and that is just plain dangerous. 
4 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have the votes to pass a clean CR. We 

have to muster the political will to pass a clean CR and clean debt 

ceiling increase. So I again thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look 

forward to our witnesses’ testimony and our question and our answer period. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. Thank you, Madeleine. I would like to 

at this time yield 3 minutes of my time to the sponsor of the Pay 

Our Military Act, Representative Mike Coffman from the great 

State of Colorado. Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time 

you have given me today to tell the American people and those 

gathered here today about H.R. 3210, the Pay Our Military Act, 

which I introduced in response to a possible shutdown of the Federal Government. 

I will discuss the intent of the bill, as well as the harmful impact 

of the Department of Defense failure to follow the spirit of the law. 

During the last few weeks of September, Congress was consumed 

with the impending shutdown of the Federal Government. 

Failure to reach an agreement on the issues would have a severe 

negative impact on the millions of Americans who either serve in 

the Armed Forces or whose work supports the military. This was 

something we needed to avoid at all cost. Less than 3 days before 

the shutdown of the Federal Government, I introduced H.R. 3210, 

the Pay Our Military Act. Specifically, the bill provides funds for 

the Department of Defense to pay members of the armed services, 

including Reserve Components who perform active service, as well 

as the civilian employees and contractors who support the military. 

My bill passed the House of Representatives by a unanimous 

vote of 423 to zero. On the day before the shutdown, the Senate 

passed this bill by unanimous consent. Hours later, the bill was 

signed into law by President Obama. 

The broad bipartisan consensus behind this bill exemplifies the 

deep respect the American people have for our military. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense took it upon itself to disregard 

the will of the American people and violate a law that had unanimous support of Congress and the signature of the Commander in 

Chief. 

Just hours after my bill was signed into law, Robert Hale, the 

Pentagon’s Comptroller, sent all Department of Defense civilian 

employees a letter stating, ‘‘Non-excepted civilians will begin a 

process of orderly shutdown. That will include acknowledging receipt of a furlough letter.’’ 

I believe the guidance issued by Comptroller Hale was based on 

a deliberate decision by the Department of Defense to misinterpret 

the Pay Our Military Act for political purposes. H.R. 3210 makes 

absolutely no mention of excepted or non-excepted personnel. 

My bill casts a wide net, a wide a net as possible to ensure that 

the Department’s civilian personnel, all of whom were necessary to 

support military operations, can report to work. On day one of the 

government shutdown, the Pentagon furloughed the vast majority 

of its civilian workforce in violation of the law. 

I would again like to thank my good friend from Virginia for 

yielding me the additional time from his own personal time to discuss this very important matter. With that, I yield back. 
5 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. And now we go to Secretary Hale. I think you are going to make an opening statement 

for the panel. Is that correct? 

Secretary HALE. I am. Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. HALE, UNDER SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ROBERT S. TAYLOR, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND HON. JESSICA L. (GARFOLA) WRIGHT, ACTING 

UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND 

READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. HALE 

Secretary HALE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member and members of the committee. Let me start by saying that we 

all wish this lapse of appropriations hadn’t happened. It is a tragedy. And DOD strongly urges the Congress to pass either an appropriation or a continuing resolution that the President can sign that 

ends the lapse for all Federal agencies. 

But we are where we are. The lapse is in effect. So my goal today 

is to explain how DOD is implementing the lapse of appropriation 

with a focus on the Pay Our Military Act [POMA] and the associated partial shutdown. And I will give you some idea also of impacts of that shutdown. 

Throughout my briefing, I will focus only on the Department of 

Defense, but I want to note that the lapse of appropriations is having far-reaching effects in most agencies of government, not just in 

DOD. Indeed, because of the legislation that you enacted, the effects in other agencies are sometimes significantly more severe. 

So let me start with the initial implementation of the lapse of appropriations. On September 25, 2013, as the date for lapse approached, the deputy secretary issued guidance for implementing a 

lapse of appropriations. The guidance provided information to the 

services and agencies for identifying excepted activities. And you 

will hear my word. I am going to use that word repeatedly, and all 

of us, throughout this discussion. 

Excepted activities under the law are those related to military 

operations and to safety of life and protection of property. Once the 

lapse occurred, we have no authority prior to POMA to do anything 

other than follow this guidance. We provided examples to the services to help in implementation. 

So what were the initial results of this implementation, again, 

before the POMA legislation when the lapse occurred on October 1? 

All Active Duty military personnel continued in their normal status 

because of the nature of their employment. They are paid unless 

they are separated from the services, and so we directed them to 

continue in normal duty status. 

Commanders and managers identified civilians who worked primarily on excepted activities. Again, activities related to military 

operations and to safety of life and property are the only things 

that qualify. And these so-called excepted civilians continued work-
6 

ing after the lapse. All others were placed on emergency no-notice 

furloughs. 

Reserves on inactive duty were allowed to drill their weekend 

drills only if the drills were in support of excepted activities, primarily preparing for deployment to Afghanistan. All other drills 

were canceled. 

So what was the effect of the lapse prior to POMA? About 

400,000 DOD civilians were placed on unpaid furloughs. They will 

be paid for furlough days only if Congress passes separate legislation, which the House has done. 

Military personnel and excepted civilians continue to work, and 

they are guaranteed to be paid eventually, but prior to POMA that 

payment would have only occurred after the end of the lapse. And 

Reserves allowed to conduct inactive duty for training, those few 

that are working on excepted activities, they are guaranteed eventual payment, but that can’t be paid until after the lapse ends. 

So that was the status before the POMA legislation. The Pay Our 

Military Act was enacted on September 30 and it greatly changed 

the picture in DOD. First, for military personnel, it provided an appropriation—it is an appropriations act—for pay and allowances for 

those on active service. 

DOD can now pay Active Duty military personnel on time and 

in full, even if—and I hope this doesn’t happen—the lapse continues beyond the October 15th pay date. And we have indeed already run that payroll, so it will be on time and in full. 

POMA also enacted an appropriation for pay and allowances of 

civilians who provide support to members of the Armed Forces, 

which permitted us to recall many civilians from furloughs. There 

were a number of steps that DOD had to take to implement POMA 

for civilians. Throughout the process, DOD worked closely with the 

Department of Justice on implementation. 

We concluded that POMA did not provide legal authority for a 

blanket recall of all DOD civilians. And I know that differs from 

what you have just heard, so let me explain why. 

First, had the Congress intended, or had the law been intended, 

to provide recall for all, it should have said, ‘‘Recall all civilians.’’ 

It did not. And perhaps more problematic, it required that the Secretary of Defense make a determination of who would be recalled, 

which our lawyers concluded clearly implied that a blanket recall 

was not supported. 

Instead, DOD was required to conduct a review to identify those 

civilians who most directly serve members of the Armed Forces. 

That review focused on the degree to which civilians aided the morale, well-being, capabilities and readiness of members of the 

Armed Forces. 

Based on this review, DOD identified several categories of civilian personnel. First, there were the excepted civilian personnel, the 

ones who are directly supporting military operations and safety of 

life and property. 

They had continued to work, even during the lapse of appropriations. They are now covered under POMA. 

Civilians providing ongoing support to members of the Armed 

Forces, they were recalled from furlough. It includes day-to-day 
7 

support, like health care providers, family support, some repair and 

maintenance, commissary workers, payroll activities. 

Then there was another category of civilians providing support 

that affected military members in the longer run, and they also 

were recalled from furlough on the grounds that their not working 

during the lapse period would have longer-term effects; that include acquisition oversight, financial management, logistics, and a 

number of others. 

Finally, a category of civilians was identified whose work is highly valuable and necessary. I want to underscore that point. But it 

provides less direct support to military members. These civilians 

were not covered by POMA, and some remain on furlough. 

These included things like CIO [Chief Information Officer] staff 

functions, public affairs, to the extent they are not performing internal communications, leg [legislative] affairs, deputy chief management officer, auditors, and related functions, and personnel providing support to non-DOD personnel, which we felt were not covered by the law. On Saturday, October 5th, Secretary Hagel, based 

on this review, issued a determination regarding civilians in 

POMA. And then we began to implement that determination as 

quickly as we could. 

More than 95 percent of our civilians who were on furlough were 

recalled. It is actually more like 98 percent. But the number is 

going to vary, so I prefer the more-than-95. And most were back 

to work by Monday, October 7th. 

Looked at another way, who isn’t covered by POMA? About—or 

slightly more than 40,000 DOD employees were not covered by 

POMA under this law. 

About 35,000 of those are DOD employees in the Army Corps of 

Engineers. Most of them are working today because they are funded with prior-year appropriations, and under the law, they can continue to work. 

Excuse me. But those prior-year funds will soon run out. And because these DOD employees in the Corps of Engineers are not covered by POMA, some of those individuals would begin to be furloughed if this lapse continues. 

And another roughly 7,000 DOD employees remain on furlough. 

These are the CIO, public affairs, leg affairs, auditors, and related 

functions. 

Let me say one more thing about POMA and our civilians, and 

that is these civilians not on—POMA will allow the civilians not on 

furlough to be paid on time and in full during non-furlough periods. 

So we will be able to—the pay date is Friday for non-furlough periods, will be on time and in full. And future paydays, if the lapse 

continues—and again, I very much hope it won’t—will be on time 

and in full for those who don’t remain on furlough. 

I want to emphasize that DOD followed the law and the guidance 

in implementing POMA. And we consulted closely with our lawyers 

and with the lawyers in the Department of Justice. 

However, this process of categorizing civilians was difficult, it 

was time-consuming, and it was hurtful to those who remain on 

furlough. And let me emphasize again that being selected to remain on furlough has nothing to do with the value of an individual’s work to national security or the DOD, and everything to do 
8 

with the way the POMA legislation was written, as interpreted by 

DOD, based on advice from the Department of Justice. 

Now, POMA not only permitted DOD to provide pay and allowances to military members, and to recall many of our civilians from 

furloughs, it also permitted the Department to provide ‘‘pay and allowances,’’ and that was its word, to contractors who support members of the Armed Forces. 

This provision of POMA was especially difficult to interpret, because almost all contracts are designed to buy goods or services. 

And almost all of them contain more than pay and allowances. 

They contain profit, overhead, materiel and supplies. 

So we are having to try to separate these out in a manner that 

is extremely difficult to do. We are still working on a determination 

of how to apply POMA to contracts using fiscal year 2014 funds. 

So over the past 14—past 10 days, we experienced a lapse of appropriations, and we implemented POMA. Where does all this 

leave the Department today? We, of course, still under a lapse of 

appropriations and partially shut down. 

POMA has substantially reduced the adverse effects. They would 

be much worse if we didn’t have that legislation. We could pay our 

military on time and in full because of POMA. Most of our civilian 

workers are back at work, and can be paid on time and in full, except those on furlough, also because of POMA. 

We have the personnel we now need to process vouchers, which 

we didn’t have prior to POMA. So for contracts with prior-year 

money, and that is most of them these days, we are going to be 

able to start paying our vendors as well. 

However, while POMA mitigated adverse effects, the lapse of appropriations is still having serious adverse effects on the Department of Defense. And let me just list some of them for you so you 

get a sense of what is happening. 

Despite our very best efforts, there are already some limited adverse effects on the war in Afghanistan, and a great concern. Afghan, and other military operations, are clearly excepted activities 

under the law, which means we can generally obligate funds and 

carry out activities. But sometimes we cannot. 

Notably, we can no longer have authority to make CERP payments, the Commander Emergency Response Program. It is cash, 

so it represents an outlay. 

We have no authority to do that under the law until we get beyond this lapse. This is a unique authority that expired after the 

appropriation bill lapsed. 

These payments are made to Afghans as compensation for deaths 

or damage, or for other events. And they are key to continuing a 

responsible drawdown in Afghanistan. 

General Dunford has expressed strong concern, but we have not 

yet identified a legal way to make these payments during a lapse 

of appropriations. We are trying our best. 

The lapse is harming the training and readiness of Reserves not 

on active duty. Weekend drills have been halted, unless in support 

of an excepted activity, such as preparing for deployment to Afghanistan. The Guard has canceled around 100,000 drills in the 

first weekend; the Reserves, around 75,000. And even for those who 

drill, we can’t pay them until the lapse ends. 
9 

The lapse is also reducing the training and readiness of Active 

Duty personnel. Services have curtailed training in later-deploying 

units. They are focusing on being sure that units near deploying 

are ready. 

I can’t give you specifics right now, because of POMA, they are 

reviewing their plans. But there will likely be some continued curtailment of training for later-deploying units. 

The lapse has forced us to waste a good deal of the public’s 

money. About 400,000 DOD civilian personnel on furlough did not 

work for 4 days. That is roughly $600 million in services that we 

lost in support of national security objectives. 

And many other actions are forcing us to waste resources. We 

had to close training schools and require people to travel home. 

Once POMA was implemented, they had to—they could return. We 

had to pay for that, too. 

We had to cancel training events, even though we had already 

incurred many of the costs. We will suffer interest penalty payments, because we are being forced to pay bills late. 

The lapse has further harmed the morale of our civilian workforce, and a great deal of concern, a great deal of concern to me. 

Recall from furlough certainly helped most of our civilians. Retroactive pay, if it is enacted, will help. 

But in recent years, we have been regularly taking actions that 

undermine civilian morale; pay freezes, the sequester furloughs— 

lest we forget, it was only a couple months ago that we furloughed 

most of our civilians, or many of them, for 6 days—and now the 

shutdown furloughs. 

In the first days of the lapse, commanders repeatedly told me 

that civilian workers were frustrated and angry. And I can’t imagine they would be any other way. 

And many say they will retire or seek other jobs. And low morale 

means low productivity at most DOD support activities. 

And another problem, during the lapse, DOD has no legal authority to pay death gratuities. We have been through this with the 

Justice Department, with the OMB General Counsel, with our own 

general counsel. It is in another section of the law, separate from 

pay and allowances. 

We just don’t have the legal authority, and I don’t think you 

want us to start going around the law. So that $100,000 in death 

gratuity payments is usually made shortly after an active duty 

death. As of yesterday, 29 military members had died on active 

duty since October 1st. 

A little more than a day ago, the Fisher House Foundation offered to pay these benefits to our fallen during lapse of appropriations. And DOD, in return, or in turn, offered to enter into a contract with the Fisher House to reimburse the foundation after the 

lapse ends. We can enter into the contract, because we view it as 

an excepted activity. We can’t disperse any money, because it is not 

a pay and allowance. And I think that is just very clear. 

So that is the arrangement we have reached with the Fisher 

House. They will begin making payments soon, and we will reimburse them as soon as the lapse ends. 
10 

Also, yesterday, the House passed legislation that would provide 

us authority to make these and other payments. And so in some 

fashion, we will do what we need to do. 

And I couldn’t agree with the committee more, and the chairman, 

and all of you more. We will ensure that survivors of our fallen will 

receive these benefits. 

Let me finish by looking just a bit ahead, because I don’t want 

to look too far ahead. I want this to end, and I hope we all do. 

POMA gave us the ability to provide pay and allowances to the 

military and most civilians. And most of our military and civilians 

are back at work. 

But we don’t have the legal authority to enter into contracts for 

supplies, for fuel, for materiel, using fiscal 2014 funds, unless those 

contracts are in direct support of an excepted activity; again, a 

military operation, safety, life and property. We are watching closely to see how this absence of authority affects future operations if 

the lapse continues. 

Moreover, even if we can enter into contracts for excepted activities, we can’t pay the vendors using fiscal 2014 funds. Again, we 

have no legal authority to do that. And we are not sure how long 

our vendors are going to accept IOUs. 

So even with POMA, my bottom line, even with POMA, DOD is 

experiencing disruption in its mission due to a lapse of appropriations. And I note again that many other Federal agencies are experiencing even greater disruption. 

The lapse is also consuming large amounts of time at all levels 

of the Department. I think it can be fairly called a colossal waste 

of time. 

We very much hope Congress will act very soon to end the lapse 

of appropriations for DOD and for all Federal agencies. Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared remarks, or my oral remarks, 

and I would be glad, joined by my colleagues, to try to answer your 

questions. 

[Editor’s Note: The witnesses did not provide written statements 

of the proposed testimony in advance of the hearing. The Chairman, in concurrence with the Ranking Minority Member, agreed to 

waive Committee Rule 13 for this hearing.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your 

perspective on things and we look forward to posing some questions 

to you and other members of the panel. 

I want to begin by going to a letter that was written by myself 

and my colleague, Mr. Connolly from Virginia, on October the 7th 

to Secretary Hagel. And, essentially, we asked Secretary Hagel 

about the status of contractors. 

As you know, contractors do a tremendously valuable job in making sure that our men and women in uniform have what they need, 

and they are a critical part of this element providing for this Nation’s defenses. 

I wanted to get from you—can you explain the criteria that you 

have to determine which contracts get paid, which ones do not? 

How do we maintain certainty for those folks that are out there 

providing these services? 

As you know, there are many small contractors that cannot sustain long-term times without being paid. How are we making sure 
11 

that that segment of the workforce is taken care of? They are critical. 

And how are we going to make sure we stay in touch with them 

about what is happening, when they will get paid, when they will 

be brought back in as far as doing that work? 

Can you provide some definition to us about how those decisions 

are made and the criteria to determine what does and what does 

not get paid as far as contracts? 

Secretary HALE. I can try to help. Let me say, overall our goal 

here is to obey the law, which I know you want us to do and we 

obviously must do. But to minimize the adverse affects on our mission wherever we can so long as we are obeying the law. 

So, what the law says is that for contractors who are working 

now based on contracts funded with money in fiscal year 2013 or 

before, they can go ahead and work as long as supervision is available and now that most of our civilians and military are back, it 

will be. 

So, they can go ahead and work. And we are allowed to pay 

them. We stopped paying them because prior to the implementation of POMA we didn’t have available to us the people we needed 

to process acceptance of the goods and services and their vouchers. 

Those people are back and for contracts with money funded fiscal 

2013 and before, I think payments will get started fairly quickly. 

Fiscal 2014 is a very different story. There, we only have the authority to enter into contracts for excepted activities and we will do 

that where we can. And even there we have no authority, and I am 

going to leave POMA aside for a moment, to pay those contracts; 

and for nonexcepted activities, we can’t enter into contracts. 

Now, POMA said we could pay the pay and allowances of contractors serving members of the Armed Forces. So, for those who 

work and enter into a contract excepted activities, if the vendor has 

an approved cost-accounting system and they can separate out pays 

and allowances, we will make every effort to pay it. 

But I think it may be limited in their ability to do it and it will 

be very difficult to carry out. I think there will be hardly any contracts in the nonexcepted area that contractors are going to be willing to engage in a contract with us only for pay and allowances. 

They can’t have any profit. They can’t have any overhead in 

those contracts. I think that will be very limited. I know that is 

confusing. It is confusing to us, too, but we are working hard to 

sort it out. 

The big thing you need to know is most of our contracts today 

are funded with 2013 and before money and we are going to get 

that money flowing again to our contractors soon, as soon as we 

have time to do the acceptance testing and process the vouchers. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Secretary Hale, you talked about the 40,000 or so 

people that have not returned. Can you give us some perspective 

on the civilians that haven’t returned, the contractors that will not 

be paid and how it relates to unit readiness? 

As you know, many of our units rely upon those DOD civilians 

and contractors to make sure they maintain that readiness, especially what is happening now with elements of activities in Afghanistan. 
12 

Also, both the retrograde from Afghanistan, the equipment that 

is coming back or the equipment that needs to be repaired. Can 

you give us an assessment about what the impact will be on unit 

readiness? 

Secretary HALE. Well, not with much precision at this point. 

Most of our civilians are back, more than 95 percent and so I think 

that the majority of that work is going to get done including the 

reset operations. Almost all of our depot workers never left because 

they are funded with working capital funds. Those under the law 

can accumulate cash and they did based on prior year fiscal 2013 

and before appropriations. So, those workers could continue until 

that cash runs out. 

And we are probably at least a week or two from that and longer 

for many of our depots. So I think that they will continue. I don’t 

see any immediate adverse effects on readiness in Afghanistan. I 

mentioned the CERP payments which are of great concern, but 

other than that. 

If this goes on, there may be some additional ones that would 

occur. There are excepted activities so we can enter into contracts. 

The question is whether vendors are going to be willing to supply 

the goods and services if we can’t give—guarantee to pay them. 

But, at the moment, I actually was in contact with General 

Dunford over the weekend and leaving aside the problems in 

CERP, he didn’t see any issues at the moment. They are going to 

get worse. 

I feel kind of like a wind-up doll. You know, I mean we are 

wound up right now and we are kind of going like this. We are 

going to start to—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Secretary HALE [continuing]. Bend over as we can no longer buy 

supplies and fuel for nonexcepted activities or because vendors 

won’t provide the goods and services. So, please, we need to end 

this lapse. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Got you. Very good. Thank you, Secretary Hale. 

I am now going to go to our ranking member, Madeline Bordallo. 

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

My first question is for Mr. Taylor. You are with the General 

Counsel’s Office, correct? 

Mr. TAYLOR. That is correct. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Did the drafting of H.R. 3210 impact how the Department interpreted and implemented the bill and, in other words, 

what challenges did the manner in which H.R. 3210 was drafted 

present to the Department in clearly understanding congressional 

intent? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, we are obligated to interpret the language as 

it is presented to us as we receive it from the Congress and there 

are clearly several issues with respect to how it was drafted that 

has caused us to interpret it in the way we have which may differ 

from the views of the author of the legislation and the views of others. 

For example, Section 2(a)(1) is the provision that authorizes us 

to pay all the members of the Armed Forces who perform active 

service. It is a blanket provision. 
13 

It clearly applies to all who are in active service and it doesn’t 

call for any choosing and any exercise of discretion of who is in and 

who is out. Everybody is in. 

So, thank you very much for that. That was very, very helpful 

and allows us to pay our military members on time and in full. 

[Section] 2(a)(2) is drafted a little bit differently. It calls—in contrast to (1), it isn’t a blanket recall. 

It calls for exercising of discretion based on what appears to be 

a criterion in the language which is ‘‘are providing support to members of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1);’’ that is members of the Armed Forces who perform active service. 

So, the challenge was to try to figure out what that means. It 

clearly calls for the exercise of discretion. What is to guide the exercise of discretion? 

Is it unbounded and complete absolute discretion in the Secretary? We don’t think so. We think the exercise of discretion has 

to aim at determining who is providing support to members of the 

Armed Forces. 

A simple example, people who are doing wonderful and important work, the civil works element of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

The work they do is very valuable to the Nation. 

But, in general, it is providing support. It is providing services 

to individuals, to communities outside the Department of Defense. 

It is hard to see how all of those employees are providing support 

to members of the Armed Forces. 

The work is important. It serves the Nation to do that work. I 

wish we could recall them. I wish we could put them fully back to 

work, but it appears, from the language, to be outside the scope. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, very much. You have answered my 

question. I am sure there were other issues as well. Am I correct? 

All right. Secretary Wright, I have a question for you. I am concerned that the Department of Defense is increasingly using military personnel to do the work of the civilian because of caps and 

constraints and furloughs and sequestrations and shutdowns. 

So, I have a concern about this approach from a readiness and 

cost perspective as well as these actions seem inconsistent with 

guidance from the Department. 

As we know, some nonessential employees are furloughed because they are performing functions that aren’t considered essential. However, is DOD circumventing the law by using military personnel for functions outside their core military operational specialties? 

Could you comment on this? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the question. Frankly, 

we support the fact that we don’t use, what is the term, borrowed 

military manpower. 

I do know that the services based upon the predicament that we 

are in without a budget have grave concern that some of these activities that they are responsible for should continue and sometimes the training of these personnel are not happening. 

And so we have, at times, we could potentially have an idle soldier or military member. The services are not yet using borrowed 

military manpower to my knowledge. They must come in and ask 
14 

to do this, to OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] Personnel 

and Readiness. 

I know that they are talking about it at this point, ma’am. But, 

right now, they are not, to my knowledge, they are not doing it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. So, your answer to that question is you 

are not using military personnel? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. To my knowledge, ma’am—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. 

Mrs. WRIGHT [continuing]. They are not using it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. And my next question—— 

Secretary HALE. May I issue a plea? Please don’t use the word 

nonessential as regards our civilians. 

The folks that are still on furlough are essential. We can’t operate without them in the longer term. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, my question—— 

Secretary HALE. It is very harmful to morale. Call them nonexempt or nonexcepted, but please don’t use that phrase—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. I—— 

Secretary HALE. It comes from the 1995 one and it cost—I can’t 

tell you how long—it was Air Force FM [financial management] in 

1995—it was years after that, I had people saying, ‘‘Well, I wasn’t 

essential.’’ So, I—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. I totally agree with you, Mr. Hale; I think it is 

the wrong word to use. And certainly they wouldn’t be on the job 

if they weren’t essential to begin with. 

My last question, Mr. Chairman, is, and this is for any witness, 

as you know, there was a concern and confusion about the treatment of members of the National Guard when the government 

shutdown began last week. 

National Guardsmen on title 10 orders and in direct support of 

the Federal mission were spared any potential furloughs. However, 

there was initial confusion about whether soldiers and airmen on 

title 32 orders were covered. 

In particular, dual status technicians were not initially included 

as essential. I raise this point because I am concerned there is a 

lack of appreciation and understanding of the importance of title 32 

to the National Guard’s role in homeland defense. 

Although the Governor retains control over the National Guard 

in that status, they can be put on those orders to support national 

contingencies. 

If Tropical Storm Karen had been more powerful, it would have 

been customary for the National Guard to be put on title 32 orders 

to support storm recovery. But under the initial guidance, I am not 

sure it would have been possible. 

So, can the Department more clearly articulate the thinking on 

this particular point? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Ma’am, if I can take that question, please. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes, surely. 

Mrs. WRIGHT. First, a little bit about my history; I was a guardsman for 35 years. So, I—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Oh, well thank you. You are certainly experienced then to answer. 

Mrs. WRIGHT. So I truly understand the viability of the Guard 

and Reserve and the need for them. The title 32 active Guard Re-
15 

serve soldiers were considered the same as a title 10 Active Component soldier and they were not furloughed, if you will. 

They were paid for; they were kept on duty. The dual status 

technician is really a government employee—a civilian government 

employee, and the term dual status means they must hold a position within the National Guard and drill as a guardsperson but 

they also remain in—they get paid as a GS—General Schedule or 

wage grade, Monday through Friday. 

And so, they are considered a civilian DOD employee. So, once 

the act was passed—well first, before the act was passed, they were 

in the same category as all the other civilian employees, and if they 

were in the excepted or exempt category, they were kept on duty. 

Once the act was passed, we passed down guidance through the 

chief of the National Guard Bureau to the Adjutants General; they 

followed the rules as written by the Secretary of Defense and about 

90 percent of those dual status and also non-dual status technicians are back to work. 

There was a request from the Governors of the hurricane 

States—when the hurricane was coming up towards Texas and 

Florida and the Gulf States—to bring on, as a special exemption, 

more dual status technicians because they were in need to protect 

the civilians of those great States, and the Secretary immediately 

granted that exemption because they were needed for duty to protect those great States. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, thank you very much, and thank you for 

your long service with the National Guard. I represent the U.S. 

Territory of Guam and we have a very strong Guard, Air Guard 

and Reservist—— 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Yes, ma’am, you do. 

Ms. BORDALLO [continuing]. Program. 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So, thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. 

We now go to Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you and the ranking member for holding this hearing, and to each of you, I want to 

thank you for being here. 

We don’t always agree on things, but I just really want to thank 

you, Secretary Hale, for your efforts and each of you for trying to 

get our men and women back to work. 

Thank the Secretary for his efforts in trying to do that. I know 

that these are trying times for you, very difficult times. 

And I know probably each one of the three of you would rather 

probably have had a root canal than have to come over here and 

deal with Members of Congress today, but it is a tribute to you 

that you are willing to do that and to talk with us. 

And regardless of how we got here, I just hope that maybe that 

will, by osmosis, travel up to our leadership and we will see the 

President and the Senate and the House all be willing to sit down 

and negotiate and talk, because I think that is important. 

Second thing is, Congressman Turner and I were talking about 

before we came and started this hearing that the one thing that is 

not being discussed a lot, in all of these discussions, is the enor-
16 

mous impact that the President’s sequestration, that ultimately 

Congress signed off and agreed to, is going to have on us if we don’t 

turn those numbers around. 

And as we are trying to change those numbers, it is somewhat 

hurtful. Because as I look at this legislation, when we look at DOD, 

many of us thought it was Armed Forces, members of the Armed 

Forces, and the people that were supporting them. 

And I think it kind of takes us back to realize that there are a 

number of people in DOD and civilians that aren’t supporting 

members of the Armed Forces. 

So, Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful for us at some point in 

time to get a complete breakdown—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES [continuing]. As to what part of these civilians and 

individuals are not supporting our Armed Forces members so that 

we can at least clarify that as we go forward in these discussions 

further. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Absolutely—— 

Mr. FORBES. And then the question that you have elaborated on 

and Secretary Hale, you indicated this, about the private yards and 

the private companies, and we have had a lot of people contact us 

about that. 

During the shutdown, are we asking our private shipyards to undertake work such as maintenance or new construction that is supposed to be funded by fiscal year 2014 dollars without being compensated at this time? 

And if so, how would you estimate the risk these yards are taking on? What do you believe will be the impact on suppliers and 

small businesses that support these efforts from what we see taking place now? 

Secretary HALE. Can I go back to your first statement? We believe strongly that all of our civilians support members; because of 

the discussion we had before about the requirement for a Secretarial determination, and the way the law was written, we felt we 

had to identify those whose support was less direct or longer term. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Secretary, if I could just stop you there. I grant 

you, we need to be more clear. Because oftentimes, we hear people 

coming over from the Department saying, ‘‘We need more discretion, we need more discretion.’’ When we try to get you that, it is 

no good deed goes unpunished. 

The second thing is—— 

Secretary HALE. Touche ́. 

Mr. FORBES. If we read this language in here, it doesn’t say ‘‘direct support.’’ It says ‘‘support.’’ And just being, you know, the 

country lawyer that I am, that means to me what it says. 

And so, it looks like somebody has added the phraseology ‘‘direct’’ 

as opposed to ‘‘support.’’ And so, we need to be a little clearer, 

maybe not give discretion, like we thought we were doing here. 

But secondly, I don’t know how much clearer we can be when we 

use the word ‘‘support’’ and somebody outside adds the word ‘‘direct.’’ 

So, maybe you could tell me how the interpretation ‘‘direct’’ was 

added in there. 
17 

Secretary HALE. Well, I think the thing that would be helpful 

would be to drop the Secretarial determination. If we have—— 

Mr. FORBES. And, listen, we will take that. I am going to argue 

that ’til the cows come home—— 

Secretary HALE [continuing]. Just say all—— 

Mr. FORBES. From now and we are not going to get—— 

Secretary HALE. Let’s hope we never do this again. Let me go to 

your private sector question. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. 

Secretary HALE. I am concerned, yes. We are asking all of our 

vendors right now with whom we are entering into contracts using 

fiscal 2014 funds to essentially take an IOU. 

You ask me when? It ends when the lapse does. We will pay 

them as soon as it ends or as soon thereafter as we can. Your judgment is better than that. I am praying for soon. 

But, yes, we are, and I don’t know how they will react. I assume 

maybe some of the larger ones will have more ability and perhaps 

willingness to stay with us. I am more concerned about some of our 

smaller vendors. 

But we are trying to watch—I didn’t answer an earlier question, 

but let me take this opportunity to answer it—our communications. 

We are trying through industry associations and other means to 

stay in contact with our vendors. 

Frank Kendall, my colleague who is the Under Secretary [of Defense] for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics is heading that effort, and to tell them what we know and what we can do under the 

law. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Secretary, thank you for that. 

And can you maybe revisit the question you posited to me a little 

bit earlier about the word ‘‘direct.’’ Where did that come from and 

who brought the word ‘‘direct’’ into—— 

Secretary HALE. Let me ask our acting general counselor. 

Mr. FORBES. Oh, I am sorry, yes, sir. I am sorry. Mr. Taylor, I 

didn’t mean to leave you out. 

Mr. TAYLOR. If I may, I am afraid ‘‘direct’’ is not in the statute 

and it is not in our implementation of the statute. So—— 

Mr. FORBES. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought somebody said 

that word—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, he did say that word—— 

Secretary HALE. I was trying to summarize. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. 

Mr. TAYLOR. He did say the word and, frankly, it reflects some 

of the course of consideration, but the ultimate judgment was the 

statute says ‘‘support’’ and that is how we should implement it; 

support, not direct support. 

So, that opened up the aperture quite a bit, and we have seen 

the results of that with about 95 percent or so of people back in. 

There are some functions that even with—understanding that the 

support need not be direct, that seem to be outside the scope of—— 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Taylor, I only got a few more seconds left, and 

I respect all three of you, but did I misunderstand? I thought that 

Secretary Hale said, just a few moments ago, that everyone at 

DOD, they believed, did support our members. 
18 

Are you saying that that might—maybe I didn’t hear that correctly or that wasn’t accurate? Or, help me with that. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, I am afraid that that was a bit of an overstatement. They support the Armed Forces, perhaps, but not necessarily 

members of the Armed Forces. So, looking at, is there a distinction—— 

Mr. FORBES. And let me just say, this is what ‘‘is’’ means, all 

these kinds of things—— 

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES. And I am going to just tell you, the American people 

don’t understand that. We don’t understand that. We thought when 

we were saying we are giving you discretion, we are doing a good 

thing. We realize we were doing a bad thing. 

But secondly, when we use the common English word ‘‘support,’’ 

we thought that is what you were going to do, and I think Secretary Hale believed the same thing and it is just unfortunate that 

a lot of people got caught in this vice because somebody started 

bringing in extraneous verbiage in there. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Forbes. 

We will now go to Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Hale, just so I am clear, for those civilian employees 

who were recalled on Tuesday of this week and who are today 

working, when October 15th arrives, my understanding of your testimony is that they will receive a paycheck. Is that correct? 

Secretary HALE. Yes. I think it is not October 15. The pay day 

is tomorrow, and then it will be 2 weeks from tomorrow for most 

of them. Yes, if they were working, POMA, we can pay them on 

time and in full. The ones who may not get paid are those that remain on furlough. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Right. I understand that. 

Secretary HALE. There it would take special legislation that you 

have passed. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Right. So—but for those who have returned on 

Tuesday who will be paid, will they be paid from October 1 through 

the end of the—— 

Secretary HALE. Okay. For the pay day Friday, it is going—for 

those who were on furlough, the answer to that is no. They will be 

paid for the 6 days that occurred prior to the lapse of appropriations, but we don’t have legal authority to pay them for the 4 days 

when they were on furlough unless that legislation is enacted. 

Then we could pay retroactively after the lapse ends. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Okay. I would appreciate it if your office could 

put that in writing. 

Secretary HALE. It is in writing. It is actually on the DFAS [Defense Finance and Accounting Services] Web site now, and I don’t 

know where else. Is it on your Web site, too? Yes, it is at least on 

the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Web site, an explanation for each—a number of categories. 

Mr. COURTNEY. All right. I appreciate that. When you itemize 

sort of, you know, the gaps that, you know, the bill and POMA still 

leave within the Department of Defense, again, you talked about 

Afghanistan, CERPs, other issues. In my conversations with folks, 
19 

some of whom have returned this week, what I am hearing is that 

consumables are also not being paid for right now. 

And so for example, I talked to one of those dual status technicians this morning from Lebanon, Connecticut, Tim Broder, who is 

a helicopter mechanic at the TASMG [Theater Aviation 

Sustainment Maintenance Group] facility in Niantic, Connecticut. 

He said they don’t have any fuel to fly the helicopters that they 

are repairing. So they are at work. They are repairing, but because 

the fuel consumable account isn’t provided for, which obviously this 

bill and POMA can’t touch because it is a totally separate item, 

that consumable is not provided for. 

In addition, I also spoke to some folks at the Coast Guard Academy in New London who, again, a number of their staff returned 

on Tuesday, but I was told that consumables such as toilet paper 

and coffee filters are also now close to being depleted. 

I mean, I never thought going to Congress I would ever ask a 

question about this, but I mean the fact of the matter is that this 

really shows we are just running around with a garden hose here 

in terms of trying to sort of run the Department. 

We need a comprehensive bill that funds the entire government 

so that we are not again just sort of constantly seeing something 

else pop up that is not provided for. And again, for the record, H.R. 

372, which is the clean CR that cleared the Senate and the President has said he has signed, will be available for Members to sign 

a discharge petition starting on Saturday morning. 

Again, seven times in the last 30 years the discharge petition 

process has been used to bring a bill up for consideration. We have 

an opportunity on our side of the table here today to bring this to 

an end and get a comprehensive measure through that will fund 

all of the government and make sure that everything from coffee 

filters to helicopter fuel is going to be funded and that everybody 

can go back to work. 

I mean, and that is really what—again, despite your best efforts 

to interpret POMA, again, issues like consumables are still left out 

as we sit here this morning. Isn’t that correct? 

Secretary HALE. Yes. Absolutely. We need this lapse to end because, as you just said, we can’t enter into contracts for fuel or supplies unless it is an excepted activity. And even then, we can’t pay 

the vendors and it will become increasingly a problem. And it probably already is to a limited extent, but it is going to get significantly worse. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. We will now go to Mr. 

Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being 

here today. Although I have to tell you, I—it may be a root canal 

for you, but additionally, I don’t feel like you should have to be 

here. I am very grateful that I had the privilege of serving as an 

Army National Guard JAG [Judge Advocate General] officer for 28 

years. 

And we had to come up with tough decisions, but we always 

made the decisions in the interest of our military members, our 

military service members, our family members. We made determinations in the interest of achieving the mission of protecting the 
20 

American people. And I am very, very concerned that what I see 

is politicization. 

In fact, it was indicated that in addition to working with attorneys of the Pentagon, the attorneys of the Justice Department were 

contacted. To me, the Justice Department is truly totally politicized. It is a political arm promoting the policies of the President 

of the United States. It is not unbiased. 

Additionally, I understand that OPM, Office of Personnel Management, attorneys, Office of Management and Budget attorneys 

may have been contacted. Again, these are political appointees, 

largely, who are making political decisions. And the decisions to me 

are wrong. What they are doing is trying to create pain for the 

American people. 

And I just—I just find it outrageous, and in particular the denial of the death benefit, $100,000, to American heroes who are making 

it possible we can even be here today, to deny the $10,500 burial 

benefit for persons who have served our country. 

And then the reports yesterday were I think outrageous. And 

that is that the family members of the grieving deceased who were 

returned to Dover were denied the travel benefits. But at the same 

time, the Secretary of Defense had his benefits. I just think this 

should be addressed. 

And that is why—and hey, the law is clear. It says ‘‘Pay Our 

Military Act.’’ It is quite short and it is very clear. It says to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces. It is 

right here. It is hardly more than a page. The Pay Our Military 

Act, that is it. And that is what should have been done. 

In fact, last Friday I sent a letter to Secretary Hagel: 

‘‘As you are well aware, the Pay Our Military Act, H.R. 3210, 

was signed into law and provides an appropriation for the pay and 

allowances of members of our Armed Forces, our defense civilians 

and contractors, who sacrifice so much for the defense of our country. 

‘‘I know that you have made the legal review of the legislation 

a top priority, but I am very concerned that further delays may interrupt essential pays and allowances. For example, it has come to 

my attention [that] the Department of Defense is not currently 

paying several critical allowances earned by members of the Armed 

Forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice. These include the 

Death Gratuity, which is payable to a designated beneficiary, in a 

lump sum of $100,000, for a death on active duty or inactive duty 

training and Burial Benefits which provide up to $10,500 to survivors to cover expenses related to the burial of service members. 

It cannot in good conscience be denied, these benefits to survivors 

of deceased members.’’ 

These you will find—they are a summary of pay and allowances 

I ask taken from November 2011, seventh edition of the military 

background papers published by the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness. 

And Mr. Hale, could you provide me—and I have asked this—a 

summary of which of the pay and allowances on that list will not 

be paid and the rationale for not payment? If there are other pays 

and allowances which are not on the attached list, if you could 

identify them for your response, I would like to know. 
21 

Secretary HALE. We will provide that. Let me tell you, until Monday we had about 10 percent of our staff and they were by law only 

allowed to work on excepted activities. So we are working on your 

letter. 

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

page 73.] 

Secretary HALE. Let me correct some facts though. We are paying the travel for all of those people. We did it through various 

means, used the government purchase card, in some cases legal use 

of gifts. All of them got their travel taken care of. Burial benefits 

were taken care of. And in the manner I described or through law, 

one of the ways we will pay those death gratuities. 

We have that set. We will either do it through the Fisher Foundation and reimburse them or through the law if that is enacted— 

passed by the Senate and enacted. So we are going to take care of 

those people. We feel just as strongly as you, Mr. Wilson, and they 

will be taken care of. 

Mr. WILSON. But it proves my point. There should have not been 

a delay. There should have not been a denial. And we should—— 

Secretary HALE. There shouldn’t have been a lapse. That is what 

we shouldn’t have had. 

Mr. WILSON. We should be showing respect to our service members and military families. I yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. We will now go to Mr. 

Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all of you for 

being here today. Appreciate what you are attempting to do during 

this lapse. I couldn’t agree more. The lapse shouldn’t have happened in the first place. 

I am talking to folks in Iowa in my congressional district. And 

if they hear any of this—if they hear this hearing on—or watch it 

on C–SPAN over the weekend, I think they are going to just sort 

of throw up their arms the way they are now and wonder when the 

hell this is going to get over. 

And that is up to us here on this panel to figure that out, along 

with the President of the United States. And they are telling me 

that they are sick and tired of all the grandstanding going on here 

in Washington, DC. They just want us to work together and get 

this thing done. And I think that is the sentiment probably out 

there of the vast majority of the Americans. 

And certainly you folks want to see it. I appreciate, Mr. Hale, 

what you are saying about the lapse. You know, it should never 

happen. There is no question about that. But now here we are. So 

I think a lot of legitimate questions are being asked today, and I 

appreciate my colleagues asking those questions. 

I just have a couple I would like to address—couple of topics I 

would like to address. The first one is has guidance been given to 

the adjutants general and the Governors regarding how POMA affects the status of Federal-State cooperative agreements and the 

State workforces that support them? 

Because as you know, the cooperative agreements that I am talking about here, they are very important for the National Guard, for 

providing facilities management, range and training land manage-
22 

ment, family support, and other functions that support the National Guard in preparing for Federal missions. 

So many of these functions are performed by State employees, as 

many of you know—as all of you on the panel know. And the current status of those State employees appears to remain clear as 

well. So is there guidance at this point that has been issued? And 

if not, when will it be issued? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Sir, General Frank Grass has conference calls with 

the adjutants general twice a day where he puts out guidance that 

comes through the Department. You are right. Every State has an 

MCA, or a Master Cooperative Agreement. Every State’s Master 

Cooperative Agreement is different based upon their individual 

State. 

Employees that work there are funded at times 25 percent from 

the State, 75 percent from the Federal Government. The facilities, 

the different armories—now we call them readiness centers—are 

also funded. Some of them are funded with that 25/75 percent balance. Some are funded 100 percent Federal. 

But that Master Cooperative Agreement is so very important. 

And as you know, our State budgets aren’t as robust as they used 

to be years ago. 

And so what we are seeing now, is because these employees can 

certainly work, but the Federal Government can only give the State 

an IOU, because we cannot provide the funding. We can only obligate the funds, but we can’t pay them hard, cold cash, if you will, 

that the States can’t pick up that balance and pay them. 

So at times, there will be furloughed employees throughout individual States that add those very important jobs and responsibilities to the National Guard for readiness, and for training, and for 

family support. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. Okay, I appreciate that. And we will 

stay on top of that. Either of you want to mention anything? Okay, 

thanks. 

I got a question about the working capital fund facilities. You 

know, those folks that are being funded out of the working capital 

fund essentially were largely able to avoid furloughs, to date at 

least. 

Is there a concern at the moment that the working capital fund 

accounts will run low, or that entities funded through these accounts be required to cease operations, especially because of diminished orders that might be caused by reduced operations that have 

resulted from the shutdown? In other words, effects that were unintended that were unforeseen? 

Secretary HALE. Well, they did—most of them continued working, because under the law, they were being paid by appropriations 

in fiscal 2013, made in fiscal 2013 and before. So they went into 

that cash, and they are being paid with that. We think we are at 

least a couple weeks out for all of our working capital funds, before 

we run out of cash. And longer, for some of them. 

If we get that far and run out of cash—and I certainly hope we 

don’t, but if we do—then we will have to identify those workers in 

the working capital funds who were excepted, or who qualify under 

POMA. And they could continue working. 
23 

I think most of them, maybe all of them, would qualify under 

POMA. And therefore, they would continue working. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I had a number of personal concerns expressed by 

folks at the Joint Manufacturing—— 

Secretary HALE. I don’t blame them. 

Mr. LOEBSACK [continuing]. Technology Center that are short on 

money—— 

Secretary HALE. Let me go back to a point that has been made 

several times. We might be able to keep the people, but we are not 

going to have authority, unless it is an excepted activity, to buy 

parts and supplies for them. And therefore, I think their work 

would certainly be degraded in its effectiveness, perhaps significantly. 

And even if it is an excepted activity, again, we have said before, 

we can’t tell the vendors when they are going to get paid. And I 

don’t think any of us know exactly how long they will stay with us. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Thank you, 

Mr. Chair. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Loebsack. We will now go to Mr. 

Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. Mr. Hale, I do appreciate the difficulty 

of trying to thread through the weaving process that we are currently in as a result of failure of the President to negotiate, failure 

of the Senate to pass appropriation bills, and the failure of a dialogue to go forward. 

I opposed the President’s sequestration. It resulted in 12,000 people being furloughed in my community. I am opposed to the shutdown, which has resulted in 8,700 people being furloughed from my 

community. 

But Mr. Hale, I want to walk you through some of the timing for 

this. The Pay Our Military Act, passed by the House, passed by the 

Senate, signed by the President, you indicated in your testimony 

was effective September 30th. 

You also say that the people who were furloughed were furloughed because of a lapse of appropriations. As you know, the 

lapse of appropriations for the rest of the government occurred on 

October 1st. Pay Our Military Act was effected September 30th. 

So of the people who were covered under Pay Our Military Act, 

and based upon the DOD’s interpretation, Mr. Hale, based upon 

the DOD’s interpretation, as we now know from that interpretation, the fact that they are back to work, we know who those people 

are. They are knowable as to who DOD says fall under Pay Our 

Military Act. 

I believe our version and view is broader. But there is some difficulty with the language as I understand. But we know who these 

people are who are back to work. 

If they were covered by appropriations that occurred on September 30th, and they were furloughed for the week, they were not 

furloughed as a result of a lapse of appropriations. I mean, the 

President signed this bill. But yet, the President furloughed them 

anyway, and the Department of Defense furloughed them anyway. 

So I am very concerned by the language of use of, ‘‘They were 

furloughed by the lapse of appropriations.’’ 
24 

Mr. Hale, you did say that the Pay Our Military Act was effective September 30th, prior to the lapse of appropriations, did you 

not? 

My second concern, Mr. Taylor, is the issue that you have on the 

interpretation I have, Secretary’s interpretation of the Pay Our 

Military Act. And we are all very concerned about it. 

They have inserted the word ‘‘active’’ service. Mr. Hale, I appreciate—you had said that it would have been a lot simpler if we had 

not given the Secretary authority, it certainly would have been a 

lot simpler if we had said ‘‘all.’’ 

But nonetheless, the Secretary’s determination inserts words 

that are not in this. I have the bill in front of me, the Pay Our 

Military Act. And it says, ‘‘allowances to members of Armed 

Forces,’’ as defined in a section. It has got a definitional section, 

which I understand goes to the issue of Army, Navies, Marines, 

like. 

Mr. Taylor, why did they insert the word ‘‘active’’? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Sir, if you refer back to paragraph 1—— 

Mr. TURNER. I have it in front of me. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. ‘‘—to provide pay and allowances to members 

of the Armed Forces as defined in Section 101(a)(4), including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during such 

period.’’ 

Mr. TURNER. Is that where you get the word ‘‘active’’? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. 

Mr. TURNER. Okay. Well, you know, Mr. Taylor, I think we all 

understand that a word that says ‘‘including’’ means that a larger 

subset of the prior sentence is what it is taking from. 

It doesn’t say, ‘‘limited to.’’ It says, ‘‘including.’’ 

You don’t use the word ‘‘including’’ unless there is a broader category that you are taking it from. So Mr. Hale, I appreciate, you 

told us all of the difficulty of—that the Secretary had to certify 

something, and so he thought he should take a subset less. But 

don’t you agree that he could have taken a broader version of this, 

especially since Mr. Taylor just agreed the language is inconclusive? 

Secretary HALE. I will quote the Secretary, that he was acting on 

advice of the Department of Justice. And he made that statement 

in his remarks—— 

Mr. TURNER [continuing]. And that is what I based part of my 

question on—— 

Secretary HALE [continuing]. And we also accepted the Department of Justice’s opinion. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Hale, just a second. That is what I was actually 

getting to. I appreciate that was your answer. 

Who in the administration was in touch concerning the interpretation of this language? 

Secretary HALE. I mean, we are not going to get—— 

Mr. TURNER. I mean, I do want you to get into it, because this 

is the hearing, and we are on interpretation. I would like to know 

who—not agencies—who told the Secretary that he was to interpret 

this more narrowly than Mr. Taylor and I just discussed, is obviously broader? 
25 

Secretary HALE. The Department of Justice was the person, or 

the organization. And we are not going to discuss the internal discussions—— 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Hale, this is Congress. We have the ability to 

ask you the question of who. And you can’t just say some nameless 

faceless bureaucrat, you know, made the determination of the interpretation of our law. You were in touch with people. Who was 

it? 

Secretary HALE. I am not going to discuss the internal discussions with the Secretary of Defense, or of the Attorney General. 

Mr. TURNER. Well, I am very concerned also, Mr. Chairman, 

about the fact that the Secretary’s communication also indicates 

that there could be additional furloughs. And I am concerned as to 

who may be at the table in determining whether additional furloughs occur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Secretary, if you could, if 

you could finish those questions of Mr. Turner for the record. I 

know that would be very, very helpful. 

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

page 73.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. We will now go to Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

being here. I have got to say that sitting here has been infuriating, 

frankly, not because of what you are saying, but I think, you know, 

it really brings up the notions for many of the questions that my 

colleagues have had, particularly on the other side of the aisle, that 

they didn’t have the answers before some of the decisions to go 

ahead and shut down the government were made. And I think that 

is too bad. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Hale, and perhaps this is to Mr. Taylor, as 

well, there are a number of times that it is appropriate for Members of Congress that are writing legislation to consult, to ask, to 

collaborate a little bit about what the intent here is. And in this 

case, was that done? 

Secretary HALE. I am not aware of any, but I can’t know that for 

sure. I don’t believe there was any with my office. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I am not aware of any either. But you are right, it 

is a frequent practice to have consultation and clarification. And it 

is very helpful to have that interchange. 

Mrs. DAVIS. So in this case, one could surmise, then, there was 

no interest in being helpful, in terms of what you eventually had 

to do. That is discouraging, because this is something that is very 

important. 

Is there anything also that you think we are likely to see that 

is similar to the bill that we passed yesterday that would come up 

that we might not be aware of? Is there anything that—any area 

that—— 

Secretary HALE. To the one on benefits for fallen? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 

Secretary HALE. We haven’t had a chance to go through that 

thoroughly, frankly. So I think I would like to answer that for the 

record. 

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

page 73.] 
26 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay, thank you. I want to turn then to medical care 

that our members of the military, and also civilians, might be facing. Now, in terms of Active Duty, I am assuming that, because 

they are being paid, their benefits were being paid as well, and 

maybe as well for families. 

Secretary HALE. Yes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. But for those who have been furloughed, how will 

those health care premiums be paid? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Thank you, ma’am, for the question. They will continue the health care premiums. Frankly, I will have to take it for 

the record of exactly how they will be paid. But I do know that 

those civilian employees that are furloughed will continue their 

health care benefits during the period of time that they are furloughed. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And their contribution will be coming as well? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Their contribution will—we will work that—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Personal and the government? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Correct. Their government contribution will come 

as if we discontinued the lapse, and we start, you know, paying the 

furloughed individuals. And then when the employee gets back, 

they will in turn give to the government their contribution. 

So I need to—I can get back to you on the very specifics, and 

take it for the record. 

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

page 73.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Obviously, that would cause some anxiety, I 

think, on the part of many of the men and women. 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Yes, ma’am, but I think the key is that they do, 

right now, have medical benefits. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Now, what about the medical care contracts, the 

managed care contractors as well, because many of these contractors, I understand, are paying some of the medical bills and they 

are not being reimbursed, so at some point, I suspect they expect 

that they are going to be paid, but many of the contractors are already holding perhaps, I think about $100 million in due bills. So, 

what is the DOD doing to make sure that they don’t stop paying 

the medical bills? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. So, ma’am, right now with the managed care contractors, we have been in touch with all of them. We have money, 

about $300 million I want to say, that we can continue to pay them 

for about a week. That is why it is critically important that we 

really do end the lapse. 

After that, we have been, as I said, we have been in contact with 

them because the thing that we don’t want to have happen is for 

that contractor to be in touch with their provider, and an individual, a family member, or a retiree to go to that provider and be 

told that they can’t be seen. 

So we are working diligently with a public affairs campaign to 

stop that. But frankly, if they can’t assume the bills that they are 

incurring, you know, they are in need of the money. And that is 

why to discontinue the lapse is critically important to the health 

and well-being of these members. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is obviously a lot more complicated than people thought. 
27 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. Thanks, Mrs. Davis. Just to let the committee members know, subcommittee members know, the Senate 

just passed by unanimous consent the death benefits bill that the 

House sent to them yesterday, so it is on its way to the President’s 

desk, so we are on the way, at least partially, to getting it, a portion of what we have been talking about today done. And now we 

will go to Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding 

this hearing. Secretary Hale, on September 30th, the President 

signed into law H.R. 3210, the Pay Our Military Act. This act provided full funding to pay all of our military, all of our defense civilian employees and designated contractors. The intent of this law 

was crystal clear. Pay our military and their civilian counterparts 

and keep them at work. And yet, the Department of Defense kept 

these defense civilians from working for a week. 

I am pleased that 90 percent of DOD civilians were eventually 

called back, but I think it should have been 100 percent, and it 

should not have taken so long. Why did this take a week? Who 

made this decision? Was it the Pentagon? Was it the Department 

of Justice? Was it the White House? Who made the decision that 

took so long? 

Secretary HALE. The law required a Secretarial determination, 

and we had to go through a process of determining compliance with 

the law, and that is what required the time, so that is the reason. 

We did it just as quickly as we could, but we also had to do it in 

a way that we could defend legally. Bob, do you want to add to 

that? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay, I am not really getting an answer. What I 

am wondering, among other things, is was it a political decision? 

Secretary HALE. No. 

Mr. LAMBORN [continuing]. As opposed to a legal decision? 

Secretary HALE. It was a legal decision. I mean, the law says the 

Secretary will make a determination and in order to comply with 

the law, we needed a process that led to that determination, and 

that is the process that went on during those days. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Here is why I am questioning. A few blocks from 

here on the National Mall, we have World War II veterans who 

come here on honor flight, they are barricaded out of the memorial 

that they had paid for. We see immigration activists permitted to 

have a rally on the National Mall. I think it is outrageous that our 

veterans were not allowed. Some of them—I met one man in a 

wheelchair, 97 years old, and he fought at Guadalcanal. He wasn’t 

allowed, had we not moved the barricades, he was not allowed into 

the World War II Memorial. 

It is blatant gamesmanship, and that is why I have to ask the 

question. Was this decision political as opposed to legal? 

Secretary HALE. And I am giving the answer. It was not political. 

We were required to do a determination, and we felt we had to go 

through a process to support that determination, and it wasn’t very 

easy because of the difficulty of determining who should stay off 

furlough. And incidentally, it was more like—it is more than 95 

percent back. I mean, we got most of them back, so—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. You are right—— 

Secretary HALE. That is the reason. No, it was not political. 
28 

Mr. LAMBORN. You are right. Ninety-five percent of the total population, 90 percent of the—— 

Secretary HALE. More, actually. 

Mr. LAMBORN [continuing]. Of the civilian side, yes, okay. 

Secretary HALE. We have about 7,000 DOD paid civilians remaining on furlough as of today, out of around 750,000, so, now 

that number is going to change some as—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay, so that was my next question. Changing 

the subject to those seven or so thousand. Will some of them be 

brought back, and if so, how soon? 

Secretary HALE. At the moment, we don’t have any plans to 

bring them back, but we are evaluating constantly. What I really 

hope is that we bring them all back, because this lapse of appropriation ends. That is the way to fix this, but at the moment, unless some circumstances change, we don’t have plans to bring them 

back until the lapse ends. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you, very much. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn, I go to Mr. Enyart. 

Mr. ENYART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hale, you know, 

Secretary Wright and I served together as two-stars, and I know 

that she and I had to make some tough decisions in those positions. 

Probably, a whole lot like some of the tough decisions that you 

have had to make. I appreciate that. Having had to make tough decisions, I know what it is like. 

Now you know, some of the questioning that I have heard sounds 

to me a whole lot like that old law school joke, the question you 

ask on cross-examination: ‘‘Well, Mr. Hale, when did you stop beating your wife?’’ 

Well, you know, Mr. Hale, it is obvious to me that there is a conspiracy between the Secretary of the Defense and the Attorney 

General to make it as painful as possible on the civilian employees 

of the Department of Defense, and isn’t it true, Mr. Hale, that you 

were involved in that conspiracy? 

Secretary HALE. Is this the ‘‘stop beating your wife’’ question? 

Mr. ENYART. Yes, it is, Mr. Hale. 

Secretary HALE. I think I will pass. 

Mr. ENYART. Thank you. Well, Mr. Hale, is there a conspiracy to 

make it as painful as possible on the American public? 

Secretary HALE. No. I think if you read Secretary Hagel’s statement, you will see we value all of our civilians. This is one of the 

more painful acts, maybe worse than sequestration when we had 

to furlough people then that I have gone through. 

But we read the law to say there had to be a Secretarial determination and we went through a process and we would have preferred not to, but we felt that was what the law required, and we 

did it. 

Mr. ENYART. Mr. Hale, would you tell me please, what the Department of Defense has to do when the appropriations authority 

for that Department lapses? 

Secretary HALE. We, at that point, only have authority under exceptions in the law, essentially for safety of life and property, 

which are interpreted to mean the excepted activities I have discussed before, military operations, police, fire, that kind of thing. 
29 

Now POMA did change that. It is an appropriation, so for pay 

and allowances of military and pay and allowances of civilians as 

determined by the Secretary, and contractors as determined by the 

Secretary, we do have some additional authority beyond what I just 

said. But had we not had POMA, we would have only been able to 

do excepted activities, and we wouldn’t have been able to pay in 

time and on full. 

Mr. ENYART. Now Mr. Hale, can you tell me please, if Congress— 

Congress—Republicans and Democrats, if Congress does not lift 

the debt ceiling, will our uniform military personnel receive their 

paychecks on November 1st? 

Secretary HALE. Yes, they will, because of the Pay Our Military 

Act. 

Mr. ENYART. November 15th? 

Secretary HALE. October 15th, they will, on time and in full. 

Mr. ENYART. No, no, November 15th. 

Mr. TAYLOR. This is after the debt ceiling. 

Secretary HALE. Oh, I am sorry. After the debt ceiling. 

Mr. ENYART. After the debt ceiling. 

Secretary HALE. Well the debt ceiling, which I think is October 

17th, so as Secretary Lew has said, is a very different kind of situation. Let’s leave aside, if we have a continuing resolution or appropriation, we will all be back to work, the debt ceiling for the Department of Defense would mean some late payments, progressively later, potentially, depending on what decisions are made 

about who to pay and when. So it is possible that there could be 

a delay in that pay date, and the ones that occurred after a debt 

ceiling. 

I might add that the consequences for the Nation as a whole are 

potentially much more far-reaching in terms of default, but I think 

that is beyond what I should be talking about. 

Mr. ENYART. So what you are telling me then, sir, is that once 

the full faith and credit of the United States of America is 

breached, there may well be payments not made to soldiers, soldiers in combat zones. There may not be defense contractors paid. 

We are not going to be able to buy the gas to fly the planes, is that 

what you are telling me, potentially? 

Secretary HALE. They wouldn’t be—potentially, they wouldn’t be 

on time. They could be delayed. Yes, all of that is possible. 

Mr. ENYART. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Enyart. We will now go to Mr. 

Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Just one clarification in regards to the last question. Who makes, and maybe this is outside your purview, but who 

makes the determination of the dollars that are coming into the 

treasury, if that were to occur, worst case scenario, on October 

17th? Who makes the determination as to who gets paid? 

Secretary HALE. I think that is out of my purview. 

Mr. NUGENT. I would suggest to you, though, that it is the President. So if, and I have three sons that currently serve, so if there 

was a decision to be made, I would suggest to you that it would 

be the President. 

I would also suggest that, you know, this body passed an appropriations act quite awhile ago, and had the Senate, correct me if 
30 

I am wrong, had the Senate passed an appropriations act, gone to 

conference if we couldn’t agree with the language, the President 

could have signed it, this would be a moot point, we wouldn’t even 

be talking about it. Am I correct? 

Secretary HALE. Yes. I mean, assuming that whatever was 

signed provided—— 

Mr. NUGENT. Well, I mean, that is an appropriations act, so I 

would suggest to you that it would fund something within DOD. 

And, not lastly, but the Federal Cooperative Agreement for Employees, and I know each State is different, but in the State of Florida, you know, 78 firefighters that, up in the Jacksonville area, 

that would protect those crews when they refuel an airplane, because they have fuel, they are not included. 

And so my question is, why not? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Sir, they are not included in the Master Cooperative Agreement, is that your question? 

Mr. NUGENT. Right. Well, they are included in that agreement, 

but they are not getting paid. And they support a direct function 

of the Department of Defense in regards to things that are classified that I can’t talk about, but they directly affect that. 

Mrs. WRIGHT. But they are classified as State employees of the 

State of Florida, I believe. 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay. 

Mrs. WRIGHT. And so based upon that, they don’t fall in the categories that were delineated in our Pay Our Military Act. 

And I would have to read the Master Cooperative Agreement for 

Florida. But I would assume, like every other State, there was a 

formula that they are paid somewhat by the State, and somewhat 

by the Federal Government. 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay. If you would get back to me on that. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. NUGENT. You had made a statement earlier, though, as related to the dual certified technicians. And I want to make sure 

that I was clear on that. 

You indicated that those dual certified technicians were not furloughed initially, during the time that the storm was out in the 

Gulf of Mexico, even after the September 30th reauthorization, at 

least from the standpoint of the Pay Our Troops. Was I correct in 

your interpretation that you said that those technicians were not 

furloughed? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. No. Sir, I think what I said for the dual status 

technicians is that they were considered, they are civilian employees. They were furloughed. 

If they were in the categories of safety of life, or health, they 

were in the excepted category, and not furloughed. 

Mr. NUGENT. Would you—I understand, I hear there is safety 

and health. So dual certified technicians that certify and keep our 

helicopters flying in a State like Florida, which is obviously very 

important, particularly when you have a weather system out in the 

Gulf of Mexico. They were furloughed. 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. And the decision—I am sorry, go ahead. 

Mr. NUGENT. I am sorry. They were furloughed, am I not correct? 
31 

Mrs. WRIGHT. I would have to go back and look to see if the adjutant general made the determination to furlough them. But at the 

beginning, we followed the rules of safety of life, and health. 

And so if the adjutant general felt that they were in those categories as a DOD civilian employee, as a dual status technician, 

then they would be in the excepted category. 

Mr. NUGENT. Are you saying the adjutant general of Florida? Or 

whom are you referring to? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. If we are discussing the State of Florida—— 

Mr. NUGENT. So the adjutant general of Florida would make the 

determination that the continued safety of flight crews on helicopters and that, they would have made a determination of furlough? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Sir, I don’t know what Buddy Titshaw did. I would 

have to go back and talk to General Titshaw to find out whether 

or not, during the beginning of this—— 

Mr. NUGENT. Well, who would he have gotten direction from in 

regards to doing that? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. He would have gotten direction from the Department of Defense through the chief of the National Guard Bureau, 

who holds conference calls with the adjutants general twice a day. 

Mr. NUGENT. So that would have come from DC [District of Columbia], though, correct? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. It would have come from the Department of Defense, sir. But we would not have told him exactly who to pick. We 

would have told him the rules, and allowed at his discretion. 

Now, I will tell you that when POMA was passed, the rules 

broadened, and the majority of the dual status technicians are back 

to work, should they fall into—— 

Mr. NUGENT. Well, I know they are now. But they were not on 

the 30th or October 1st, or October 3rd. They didn’t come back 

until October 7th. And with that, I yield. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nugent. We will now go to Ms. 

Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just have 

a couple of questions, first with Secretary Wright. What impact 

have you seen on military and civilian personnel, recruiting and retention, as a result of this shutdown? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Ma’am, frankly, it is a little too early to tell exactly what the impact is. But I will tell you that is a very important part of my portfolio as the acting personnel and readiness. 

And we are monitoring that with the services on a daily basis. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. You know, before I go to my last 

question, I just want to mention, I was reading her biography, and 

Mrs. Wright—or Secretary Wright—is a retired major general in 

the National Guard. You have an exemplary career—commanding 

general at the Pennsylvania National Guard, and the first woman, 

female helicopter pilot in the entire Guard. So what a wonderful 

background you have, Secretary. 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. My last question is for Secretary Hale. How will 

the Department implement back pay once it is provided by law? 
32 

Will it be in a lump sum, or will it be spread out to avoid tax consequences to the individual employer? 

Secretary HALE. You know, I think I will have to give you the 

details for the record. It says retroactive, the law, as it was passed 

by the House states, ‘‘retroactive pay as soon as possible,’’ and 

therefore, I think we would do it in a lump sum. 

But it will be certainly during this taxable year. So I don’t know 

the exact time of payment will affect taxes. But let me take the detail. We haven’t gotten to that one yet. 

I mean, we are in triage mode, frankly. We are trying to get day 

to day, and survive this madness. So we haven’t focused yet on that 

act. For one thing, it is not passed yet. So potentially, I suppose, 

could be changed. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. And once 

you have a little information, I would appreciate receiving it. And 

I want to thank all three witnesses for their testimonies today. It 

has been difficult. But you have done a good job. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. I would urge Secretary 

Hale, if there is a question about that, to certainly consult with 

Congress. I think you will probably get some direct feedback on 

that. 

Secretary HALE. Well, again, the words in the law the House 

passed seem pretty clear, ‘‘retroactive as soon as possible.’’ So I 

think we would pay it as soon as possible. But it may take us a 

while. We have twisted our civilian personnel system like a pretzel, 

and then tried to straighten it out again. 

And I think this payday is going to be with only a small number 

of errors, and that is a great testimony to a lot of work, hard work 

by people. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Absolutely. 

Secretary HALE. We will have to figure out how to do the retroactive pay, assuming it passes. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Going down the list, 

Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hale, I think as 

Under Secretary for the Department of Defense, you have really 

compromised your responsibilities. 

And I think you have a tremendous conflict of interest. And the 

conflict of interest is this, that you really, I think, subordinated 

your responsibilities, I think, to achieve a political objective. 

And the political objective was to inflict as much harm as you 

possibly could in your own Department. And when you said earlier, 

I mean, I saw the message you sent to your employees. 

At 11:55 they received it, an e-mail from you on the 30th of September, hours after the President had signed the bill, saying that 

you were going into a shutdown for all civilians, and that you were 

basically going on prior law, and ignoring the current law that just 

overrode that whole process. 

And here you said, in testimony earlier, that it is very difficult 

to determine what level of support, because it says in the bill, it 

says in the bill, ‘‘whom the Secretary’’—‘‘the Secretary concerned 

determines, or providing support to members of the Armed Forces 

described in paragraph, subparagraph one.’’ 
33 

It doesn’t say you have to categorize them as greater support or 

lesser support. That is not in the law. 

And let me tell you historically how things work between the 

Congress of the United States and the executive branch, and that 

is when the intent is clear, and the intent was clear. In fact, I 

talked to your deputy on the phone the following day after I got 

that e-mail, where you weren’t following the law, and had a conversation with him. 

And he said, ‘‘Well, we are really not sure. We have got to talk 

with attorneys,’’ and things like that. And he said, ‘‘Yes,’’ you know, 

‘‘you were clear on the House floor.’’ 

And in fact, there were three speakers that spoke on the House 

floor, and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate as to what 

the intent was. ‘‘But we still want to go through these attorneys.’’ 

Historically, when the executive branch follows the intent of Congress, there is no conflict. Who was going to complain that you 

were laying off civilian employees? Nobody was in the Congress because that was not our intent. 

And you went out of your way at every possible turn to make 

this as ugly as possible, to inflict as much pain as possible on this 

Department. And I just think it is absolutely extraordinary. 

And even we have a legal opinion from Congressional Research 

Service. And it clearly states that, yes, you could have paid the 

death benefit based on existing—based on even law prior to POMA. 

And yet, you chose to do an interpretation to just maximize 

pain—just maximize pain. And I think not only do you have a conflict of interest, by subordinating your professionalism to that of a 

political agenda, but I think you have also compromised the national security of this country by creating such a disruption by trying to achieve that objective. 

And I just think it is absolutely extraordinary what you tried to 

do. And I think it is just such an embarrassment to this country. 

And, yes, there is gridlock. I am embarrassed about that, too. 

But you have compounded the problem by your conduct in how 

you have misinterpreted, intentionally, this law. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Secretary HALE. I would like the chance to respond. I resent your 

remarks, and let the record show that. I acted on the advice of attorneys, and our best reading of a loosely-worded law. Did our best. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could—— 

Secretary HALE. And it was not—let me finish, please. It was not 

a political judgment. We were trying to do what we thought the 

law said, that is, a determination was required. And as I said, I 

resent your remarks. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Coffman, your time is expired. If you have a 

question, we can take it for the record. Mr. Cook. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know it has been a long hearing. I have got a couple of comments, and then questions. And 

when this all happened, you know, this thing that, you know, it is 

never going to happen, or what have you, I am sorry, it is like this 

de ́ja` vu all over again, because it happened to me many years ago. 

And the impact on the military is just horrendous. So the one 

clarifying bill I thought was a great step in the first direction. I 
34 

tried to craft a second bill, which addressed some of the concerns 

about the Reserves, the inactive duty, those gaps. 

And of course, it is not appropriation bill, so the chances for that 

are dubious at best. I would hope that we kind of learn from this 

a little bit, and that we have clear parameters of exactly what happens. 

And, God, I hope I am wrong, if we ever go through this again, 

as to what is covered, what is not covered, so we don’t have to have 

the legalese. I am not a lawyer, I never want to be. I am just a 

dumb Marine who was an infantryman that is worried about the 

troops. 

And my bill—everybody has got a bill, I guess—3210, it is not 

an appropriations bill. It is a readiness bill to correct some of those 

problems, because I think you are absolutely right about some of 

the comments where, you know, when you start saying some civilians are not needed or what, we are getting away from that. 

What we tried to do with the total force picture, and when we 

start saying non-essential personnel, I agree with you 100 percent 

on that. 

When I was sworn, when I retired, we always used to have Civilian Recognition Day, because they were so much a part of everything that is going into this complex, large DOD force. And it includes Afghanistan. 

And the reason I ran my bill was not to make a political statement or anything like that, or embarrass DOD or anything else. It 

is to address readiness. 

When the Secretaries come in here and they say, ‘‘We have a 

problem,’’ I am hearing, ‘‘C–4, not combat-ready.’’ 

And now it is going to be compounded after being compounded 

by the sequester. You know, I am not going to moan and groan, 

and attack you guys and gals. You know, I am just going to say 

I am always looking for solutions so we don’t go through this drill 

again. 

I am running out of time. But I did want to see whether the— 

part of the fix that I had talked to the Guard and Reserve, they 

said the original fix didn’t go far enough. And some of the adjutants generals were concerned about that, you know, that gray area 

during—from drill, to drill, to drill in my bill. 

Mrs. Wright, do you have any comment on that? Whether you 

think—I don’t know if you had a chance to see this bill that I have. 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Sir, unfortunately, I have not had a chance to see 

your—— 

Mr. COOK. Oh, it is great reading. It is a fantastic bill. You have 

heard that before, right? 

Mrs. WRIGHT. But I will tell you that the Guard and Reserve was 

not in the POMA, and particularly—and only for the inactive duty 

for training, when they weren’t training for a current or soon-tobe-deployed. And that will affect their readiness. It will affect their 

morale. 

Mr. COOK. I don’t mean to cut you off. But that is the point I 

am trying to make. You know, the Reserves has been probably used 

more than—50 years ago, they weren’t used like this. 

I mean, some of the Active Duty troops are doing rotations. But 

some of these Reserve units, it is unbelievable. 
35 

And by saying—I don’t think a lot of people understand the total 

force concept, in terms of it is not just the military, it is not just 

the civilian component, it is the contractors—a lot of these civilian 

billets used to be done by the military. 

They have been—the militaries, they have been civilianized. But 

they are still essential. They are still important. 

So I think we have got to be very, very careful next time we do 

that. That is one of the attempts to get it forward. You know, I 

know it has been a long day. And everybody’s tempers are short, 

and everything else. 

I am coming at it from a standpoint that at least on my watch, 

I cannot accept a DOD or a military that is not combat-ready. And 

I will do everything in my power to make sure we are ready to go 

to war if we have to. 

And right now, unfortunately, we are still at war with 60,000 

troops. And we have got to take care of our troops that are there. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Secretary Hale, I wanted to 

get just one clarification. We had talked about the death gratuities. 

Can you tell me that for the families of the wounded that go to 

visit their loved ones in the hospital, will they continue to receive— 

it is not a reimbursement, I understand. It is a debit card. Will 

they continue to receive that in order to visit their loved ones at 

the hospital? 

Secretary HALE. May I ask Mrs. Wright to answer? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Mrs. WRIGHT. Sir, we met with the services last night. And everything is continuing as if this lapse was not in place. They are 

receiving, there are specific rules to who can travel when. 

Whatever was happening before is happening exactly the same 

now. They are going to see their wounded, should they fall in that 

particular category. And they are getting everything that they are 

required to get to see their wounded. 

We consider that critically important, to take care of not only the 

wounded, but to take care of the family member. And it is proven 

that wounded heal faster when their family members are there. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Absolutely. Well, that is great to hear that there 

is no change prior to the place we are now. 

Before we adjourn, I wanted to take a moment to say thank you 

to two of our professional staff members who are leaving the committee this week. 

They are fantastic folks: Roger Zakheim, who served as general 

counsel and deputy staff director. Roger has done a fantastic job. 

We will miss him, and we wish him well. Paul Lewis, who served 

as minority counsel most recently, but also as general counsel during previous terms. Paul has done a wonderful job here. And we 

are going to miss Paul. 

And I have had opportunity to travel and work with both of these 

gentlemen. You won’t find anybody finer up on Capitol Hill. As you 

know, they are both widely respected across the defense industry, 

in both branches of government, for their in-depth knowledge of the 

budget, and public policy, and legal issues facing the defense industry, and also, the issues that we face here as part of the House 

Armed Services Committee. 
36 

While they couldn’t be here today, we want to applaud their service to our men and women in uniform, and wish them Godspeed 

as they start off in their new careers. 

Secretary HALE. May I add to that? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Please do. 

Secretary HALE. I served a long time with Roger’s father, Dov 

Zakheim, and got to know Roger well here. I knew Paul as well, 

I am sure. But I want to thank Roger, too. It was a pleasure working with him. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. TAYLOR. And sir, as a lawyer, I have worked with both Paul 

and Roger, and they are outstanding individuals. And we are delighted in the Department of Defense to have Paul coming back to 

us. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Both of them are extraordinary individuals. And 

I know that they will continue to serve with distinction in their 

next step in their career. So we wish them all well. 

And there is nothing else to come before the Subcommittee on 

Readiness of the House Armed Services Committee. We are hereby 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

OCTOBER 10, 2013 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

OCTOBER 10, 2013 

(41) 

Statement of the Honorable Robert Wittman 

Chairman, Readiness Subcommittee 

"The Interpretation ofH.R. 3210: Pay Our Military Act" 

October 10, 2013 

Welcome to today's hearing focused on the implementation of the "Pay Our 

Military Act." While the Department of Defense has ordered a significant number 

of people back to work this week, many remain furloughed and it's important for 

this committee to understand the short and long-term implications for our nation's 

readiness and, most importantly, current operations in Afghanistan. 

I'd like to welcome to our distinguished panel: 

The Honorable Robert Hale 

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); 

The Honorable Jessica Wright 

Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; and 

Mr. Robert S. Taylor 

Acting General Counsel. 

This hearing is focused on the Department's implementation guidance on the 

"Pay Our Military Act" which Secretary Hagel issued over the weekend and the 

questions regarding how decisions were made, who made them, and why. While 

many Department of Defense civilians and contractor personnel are back at work, 

others like a number of my constituents in the First District, are at home struggling 

to pay their bills, manage their households and feed their families. These dedicated 

folks are worried and anxious about the very uncertain future they face, asking 

hard questions about how the decision was made to recall roughly 90% of the 

workforce but not them. 

Secretary Hale, please shed light on the decision making process. If you 

read the press reports, the initial DOD position was to recall all personnel to duty, 

which would have been consistent with congressional intent. The legislation 
42 

states, and I quote: that "the Secretary concerned determines" who provides 

"support to members of the Armed Forces." The language, in my view, is clear on 

its face and gave Secretary Hagel the authority he needed to recall the entire 

workforce. While common sense doesn't always apply here in Washington, it 

seems to me that every person who works in the Department of Defense supports 

"members of the armed forces." 

Even if, however, you don't share my view and there's room for 

disagreement on this point, the language provides broad latitude to interpret it in a 

manner that ensures minimal disruption to the Department's mission and, most 

importantly, continuity of operations at a time when our military members are 

engaged in operations on the battlefields of Afghanistan. Our all-volunteer force is 

still at war and their families are experiencing the harsh consequences ofthis 

decision each and every day. 

As we discuss how, according to press reports, lawyers at the Department of 

Justice interpreted the "Pay our Military Act" - our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 

marines are out on patrols, training Afghan soldiers, and accomplishing the high 

risk missions we've asked them to do. This is why every year for over 50 years the 

Armed Services Committee has worked in a bi-partisan manner to get the 

authorization bill done. Our troops and our national security depend on it. This 

year is no different - 3 months ago the House passed the FY14 National Defense 

Authorization Act with the overwhelming support of members from both parties. 

And yet we continue to wait for the Senate to take action on it. Two months ago, 

the House passed the FY14 Defense Appropriations bill, with overwhelming 

bipartisan support and 315 members voting in favor. Unfortunately that piece of 

legislation also has yet to be taken up by the Senate. If the Senate chose to go back 

to regular order and actually vote on bills and go to conference with the House to 

resolve differences in the legislation - as we used to do at one time - ironically 

enough, we wouldn't be at this hearing and active duty, reserve, civilians, and 

contractors wouldn't be suffering from this self-inflicted stress. 

However, no one is suffering more than the families who lost loved ones 

recently in Afghanistan, during this unnecessary and preventable government 

shutdown. I was shocked and angered when I learned that five of our nation's 

heroes died in Afghanistan over the weekend and their families informed that 

benefits couldn't be paid. These benefits, which fall in the category of military 
43 

member "pay and allowances" authorized by the legislation, provide a small 

amount of financial support as families grieve so that during the most harrowing of 

times they can focus on what matters most. They allow families to travel to Dover 

AFB to receive their fallen loved ones. They also ensure we bury our heroes, those 

who have paid the ultimate price, in a dignified manner that recognizes their 

extraordinary service and sacrifice. 

While I applaud the organizations that have stepped in to fill the senseless 

void created by government lawyers narrowly interpreting the law, it is Secretary 

Hagel's responsibility to make the hard policy judgment and to do the right thingfind a way to treat our families with the respect due they've earned. Every leader 

in the military from the squad leader to the combatant commander is charged with 

the task of "taking care of his people." It is an absolute embarrassment to this 

government and this Nation that we are failing in our duties to those who take care 

of us and protect us every day. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and their 

families deserve better and we owe them answers. 

Before we proceed, I'd like to highlight that while the Readiness 

Subcommittee is hosting this hearing, we've invited the full committee to 

participate and I'd like to invite Chairman McKeon to make opening remarks. 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

OCTOBER 10, 2013 

(47) 

113TH CONGRESS H R 3210 1ST SESSION • • 

IN 'l'HE SENATE OJ:<' 'l'HE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEiVIBER 30, 2013 

Received 

AN ACT 

Making continuing appropriations for military pay in the 

event of a Government shutdown. 

II 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
48 

2 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the "Pay Our Military Act". 

3 SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF 

4 THE ARMED FORCES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL-'rhcre are hereby appropriatcd for 

6 fiscal ycar 2014, out of any money in thc Treasury not 

7 otherwise appropriated, for any period during which in8 terim or full-year appropriations for fiscal year 2014 are 

9 not in effect10 (1) such sums as are necessary to provide pay 

11 and allowanccs to members of the Armed Forces (as 

12 defincd in section 101(a)( 4) of title 10, Unitcd 

13 States Code), including reserve components thereof, 

14 who perform active service during such period; 

15 (2) such sums as are nccessary to provide pay 

16 and allowances to the civilian personnel of the De17 partment of Defense (and the Department of Home18 land Security in the case of the Coast Guard) whom 

19 the Secretary concerned determines are providing 

20 support to mcmbers of the Armed Forces describcd 

21 in paragraph (1); and 

22 (3) such sums as are neeessary to provide pay 

23 and allowances to contractors of the Department of 

24 Defense (and the Department of Homeland Security 

25 in the casc of the Coast Guard) whom the Secretary 

26 concerned determines are providing support to me111-

HR 3210 RDB 
49 

3 

1 bers of the Armed Porces described m paragraph 

2 (1). 

3 (b) SECRETARY CONCERl'>'ED DEJ<'INED.-In this sec4 tion, the term "Secretary concerned" means5 (1) the Secretary of Defense with respect to 

6 matters concerning the Dcpartment of Defense; and 

7 (2) the Secrctary of Homeland Security with re8 spect to matters concerning the Coast Guard. 

9 SEC. 3. TERMINATION. 

10 Appropriations and funds made available and author11 ity granted pursuant to this Act shall be available until 

12 whichever of the following first occurs: (1) the enactment 

13 into law of an appropriation (including a continuing ap14 propriation) for any purpose for which amounts are made 

15 available in section 2; (2) the enactment into law of the 

16 applicable regular or continuing appropriations resolution 

17 or other Act without any appropriation for such purpose; 

18 or (3) January 1, 2015. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 29 

(legislative day September 28), 2013. 

Attest: 

HR 3210 RDS 

KAREN 1,. HAAS, 

Clerk. 
50 

October 1,2013 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

I look forward to an update on the AdrninistTatioll's ;nt,'rm'e'oHnn 

would with me that this is no time to llse 

pawn. 

Chairman 
51 

The Honorable Chuck Hagel 

Secretary of Defense 

1000 Defense Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20301-1000 

Deat Secretary Hagel: 

October 4, 2013 

In my letter to you earlier this week, I expressed my deep concern about the negative impacts on 

military readiness associated with the significant furlough of the defense eivilian workforce, and I 

encouraged you to use the broad authority the Congress has provided in RR. 3210, the Pay Our Military 

Aet, to ensure that civilian personnel snpporting our Armed Forces are allowed to perform their mission. 

While r fully recognize that you have made a legal review of the law a top priority, I continue to hear of 

urgent and critical problems that could be mitigated were ILK 3210 to be implemented consistent with 

congressional intent. 

A variety nf individuals and companies in the defense industrial base have reached out (0 both 

you and members of Congress, alerting llS to the fact that continued furlough of the workforce of the 

Detlmsc Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) will 

slow delivery of critical items needed to support our troops in Afghanistan and around the world, will 

summarily halt many defense mannfacturing production lines, and will have long-ternl, costly 

consequences for the taxpayers and the health of our defense industrial base. 

I strongly urge you, once again, to use the flexibility you have been provided by tbis Congress to 

immediately allow personnel at DCMA and DCAA to retmn to their jobs in order (0 minimize 

disruption of the production of military hardware being supplied (0 our Armed Forces. 

Chairman 

HPM:jbs 
52 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS 

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CIIIEFS OF STAFF 

UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE 

DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICER 

COMMANDERS OF THE COMBATANT COMMANDS 

CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE 

OCT 5 2013 

GENERAL COG'NSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EV ALUA TION 

DIRECTOR, COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION 

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 

DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

DIRECTOR, NET ASSESSMENT 

DIRECTORS OF TilE DEFENSE AGENCIES 

DIRECTORS OF THE DOD FIELD ACTIVITIES 

SUBJECT: Guidance for Implementation of Pay Our Military Act 

Appropriations provided under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2013 (P.L. 113-6) expired at midnight on Monday, September 30, 2013. Hours before that occurred, 

the Congress passed and the President signed the Pay Our Military Act. That Act provides 

appropriations for specified purposes while interim or full-year appropriations for fiscal year 2014 

are not in effect, as is currently the case. 

First, the Act appropriated such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to 

members of the Armed Forces, "including reserve components thereof, who perform active service 

during such period [.J." This provision provides the Department with the funds necessary to pay our 

military members (including Reserve Component members) on active duty or full-time National 

Guard duty under Title 32, U.S. Code. 

Second, the Act appropriated such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowauces to 

contractors of DoD who the Secretary determines are providing support to members of the Armed 

Forces in active service. The Department's lawyers are analyzing what authority is provided by this 

provision. 

Third, the Act appropriated such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to the 

civilian personnel of the Department of Defense "whom the Secretary ... determines are providing 
53 

support to members of the Armed Forces" performing active service during such period. The term 

"pay and allowances" includes annual leave and sick leave. 

This Memorandum provides instructions for identifying those civilian personnel within the 

Department who "are providing support to members of the Armed Forces" within the meaning of the 

Act. The responsibility for determining which employees fall within the scope of this statute resides 

with the Military Department Secretaries and Heads of other DoD Components, who may delegate 

this authority in writing. This guidance must be used in identifying these employees. The guidance 

does not identify every activity performed by DoD's large civilian workforce, but rather it provides 

overarching direction and general principles for making these determinations. It should be applied 

prudently, and in a manner that promotes consistency across the Department. 

The Department of Defense consulted closely with the Department of Justice, which 

expressed its view that the law does not permit a blanket recall of all civilians. Under our current 

reading of the law, the standard of "support to members of the Armed Forces" requires a focus on 

those employees whose responsibilities contribute to the morale, well-being, capabilities, and 

readiness of covered military members during the lapse of appropriations. I have determined that 

this standard includes all those who are performing activities deemed "excepted" pursuant to the 

"CONTINGENCY PLAN GUIDANCE FOR CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL OPERATIONS 

IN THE ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE APPROPRIATIONS, SEPTEMBER 2013" because these 

support activities are felt directly by covered members of the Armed Forces. I want to make it clear 

that every DoD employee makes an essential contribution to the Department's ability to carry out its 

mission of defending the Nation. However, under this Act, we must determine who provides support 

to the members of the Armed Forces in active service, in a way that respects Congress's specific 

appropriation. 

There are two distinct categories of civilian employees who fall within the scope of this 

statutory provision, in addition to those performing excepted activities. The first category includes 

those employees whose responsibilities provide support to service members performing active 

service and their families on an ongoing basis. The second category consists of those employees 

whose responsibilities contribute to sustaining capabilities and Force Readiness and which, if 

interrupted by the lapse in appropriations, will impact service members' ability to conduct assigned 

missions in the future. To fall within this second category, there must be a causal connection 

between the failure to perform the activity during the duration of an appropriations lapse and a 

negative impact on military members in the future. In other words, if the activity is not performed 

over the duration of an appropriations lapse, would it be possible to identify a negative impact that 

will be felt by military members at some time in the future? In undertaking this analysis, it should 

be assumed that regular appropriations will be restored within the near term. 

Examples of activities that provide support to service members on an ongoing basis are: 

i) Health Care Activities and Providers; 

ii) SAPRO, Behavioral Health, and Suicide Prevention Programs; 

iii) Transition Assistance Programs for Military Members in active service; 

iv) Family Support Programs and Activities; 

2 
54 

v) Activities related to the repair and maintenance of weapons systems and platforms at 

the Operational and Intermediate level; 

vi) Training Activities associated with military readiness; 

vii) Supply Chain Management activities in support of near term Force Readiness; 

viii) Human Resource Activities associated with organizing, equipping, manning and 

training functions; 

ix) Installation Support and Facilities maintenance; 

x) Commissary operations; 

xi) Payroll activities; 

xii) The provision of guidance or advice to military members when such guidance or 

advice is necessary for the military members to execute their functions (e.g, legal advice); and 

xiii) Necessary support for all activities listed above, including legal, human resources, 

engineering, and administrative support. 

Examples of activities that contribute to capabilities and sustaining force readiness and that, 

if interrupted, would affect service members' ability to conduct assigned missions in the future 

include: 

i) Acquisition Program oversight and management (including inspections and 

acceptance), financial management, contract, logistics, and engineering activities, which 

support long term readiness; 

ii) Activities related to the repair and maintenance of weapons systems and platforms at 

the Depot level; 

iii) Supply chain management activities in support of long-term force readiness; 

iv) Intelligence functions; 

v) Information Technology functions; and 

vi) Necessary support for all activities listed above determined to be within the scope of 

the Act, including legal, human resources, engineering, and administrative support. 

Employees performing these activities are within the scope of the Act only if a delay in the 

performance of these activities over the duration of a lapse in appropriations would have a negative 

impact on members of the Armed Forces in the future. Delays in the availability of new or repaired 

equipment would be one such impact. 

Those employees of the Department who do not fall within the scope of the Act (unless they 

have been determined to be "excepted" and unless engaged in activities that support service 

members) include: 

i) CIO functions; 

ii) DCMO functions, at the OSD and Component level; 

iii) Legislative Affairs and Public Affairs functions not previously excepted or required 

in support of internal communications to members of the Armed Forces in active service; 

iv) Auditor and related functions, not previously excepted, and DFAS functions that 

otherwise would not be determined to be "excepted" upon exhaustion of its working capital 

fund budgetary resources, and not required to process payrolls; 
55 

v) Work done in support of non-DoD activities and Agencies (except the U.S. Coast 

Guard); and 

vi) Civil works functions of the Department of Army. 

As I stated above, all DoD employees perform work that is critical to the long-term strength 

of our Armed Forces, and our Nation. I fervently hope that the time will be short until I can recall 

all employees of the Department of Defense back to the vital work that they do helping to defend 

this Nation and secure our future. I will continue to explore all possibilities to this end. Those 

falling outside the scope of the Act include men and women who have devoted their lives to service 

ofthis country, and whose work on our behalf and on behalf of the Nation is enormously valuable 

and critical to the maintenance of our military superiority over the long term. 

The Act provides appropriations for personnel; it does not provide appropriations for 

equipment, supplies, materiel, and all the other things that the Department needs to keep operating 

efficiently. While the Act permits the Department to bring many of its civilian employees back to 

work, and to pay them, if the lapse of appropriations continues, many of these workers will cease to 

be able to do their jobs. Critical parts, or supplies, will run out, and there will be limited authority 

for the Department to purchase more. If there comes a time that workers are unable to do their worl 

I will be forced once again to send them home. 

Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller: 

will take the lead in overseeing the implementation of this guidance, assisted by other offices as 

necessary. Thank you all for your strong leadership at a very difficult time. The President, the 

country and I are all grateful for and depend on your leadership, courage, and commitment to our 

troops, their families and our country. 

cc: 

Director of National Intelligence 

4 
56 

HR Operations Directorate 

REFERENCE GUIDE 

Pay and Leave During the Fiscal Year 2014 Shutdown Furlough 

Pay and leave provisions for Department of Defense civilian employees during the Fiscal Year 

2014 shutdown furlough will vary by individual, from those originally exempt or excepted, those 

recalled under the provisions of the Pay Our Military Act (POMA), and those remaining on 

furlough. 

Exempt from Furlough: 

Department of Defense (DoD) employees who are exempt from the shutdown furlough (e.g., 

Non-appropriated Fund employees) will receive their regular pay and allowances since they are 

not affected by the lapse in appropriations. Exempt employees may also take annnal and sick 

leave during the furlough period; nOlIDal Federal holiday rules apply for Columbus Day. 

Excepted from Furlough: 

DoD employees originally subject to, but excepted fi'om, the shutdown furlough will receive 

their regular pay and allowances on time via the authority and appropriation in the "Pay Our 

Military Act" (POMA). These employees will receive a normal paycheck for the pay period that 

includes October 1-5. These employees may now also take annual and sick leave; normal Federal 

holiday rules apply for Columbus Day. 

Employees Recalled under POMA: 

DoD employees furloughed on October 1,2013, then recalled to work based on the POMA, 

eflective October 6,2013, will receive their regular pay and allowances through September 30, 

as they were affected by the lapse in appropriation and were furloughed fl'om October 1-5. 

Employees will receive a partial paycheck for the pay period that includes October 1-5. They 

will receive their regular pay and allowances for subsequent pay periods via the authority and 

appropriation in POMA. Until and unless Congress passes legislation to restore their pay and 

allowances for October 1-5, AND there is a 2014 appropriation for the Department, these 

employees will not receive payor allowances for the days upon which they were fhrloughed. 

These employees will be paid for the time they spent conducting orderly shutdown activities on 

October I, but they will not receive that pay until there is a 20 14 appropriation for the 

Department by which they may be paid. Employees recalled under POMA may take annual and 

sick leave; normal Federal holiday rules apply for Columbus Day. 
57 

HR Operations Directorate 

Employees Recalled under POMA (continued): 

Furlough affects leave accrual. Most employees already have taken six tilrlough days (48 hours); 

when they reach a total of 10 furlough days or 80 hours (on/about 4 October), they will lose the 

sick and annual leave they would have earned for the pay period. Once an employee reaches 80 

hours of non-pay time during a calendar year, no leave is accrued during the pay period that 

threshold is reached. A new 80-hour threshold begins the following pay period, and employees 

will again lose leave in each pay period in which the employee reaches 80 hours in a non-pay 

status. If Congress restores pay to furloughed employees, any lost leave will also be restored. 

Furloughed Employees: 

Employees furloughed on October I, 2013, and not recalled to work, will receive their regular 

pay and allowances for the hours worked through September 30, 2013. These employees will 

receive a partial paycheck for the pay period that includes October 1-5. They will remain in a 

non-pay, non-duty status until recalled to duty; ifthey are in a non-pay and non-duty status on 

the days before and after Columbus Day, they will not receive pay for the holiday. Congress 

must pass legislation to restore their pay and allowances for all days spent in a furlough status 

before any such employee may be placed in a "pay status." If such legislation is passed, these 

employees will be paid for the time they spent conducting orderly shutdown activities on 

October I, but they will not receive that pay until there is a 2014 appropriation for the 

Department by which they may be paid; they will receive pay for the Columbus Day holiday at 

that time. 

Furlough affects leave accrual. Most employees already have taken six furlough days (48 hours); 

when they reach a total of 10 furlough days or 80 hours (on/about 4 October), they will lose the 

sick and annual leave they would have earned for the pay period. Once an employee reaches 80 

hours of non-pay time during a calendar year, no leave is accrued during the pay period that 

threshold is reached. A new 80-hour threshold begins the following pay period and employees 

will again lose leave in each pay period in which the employee reaches 80 hours in a non-pay 

status. If Congress restores pay to ji.irloughed employees, any lost leave will also be restored. 

As of October 8, 2013 
58 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

pp< S 

? 3 1,~ 

22 4 2; 

April 

pp< S MTWT 

2 

9 7 ~ 

1j 1~ 

10 ~} ~1 2,~ 

~,~ ~,? ~2 

July 

PP. S 

15 

7 

16 1"~ 

17 ~~ 

pp< S 

22 ~ 

1,i' 

23 ~9 

February 

pp< S MT WT 

~ 

5 ~p 

11 

6 24 27 28 

May 

F S pp< S M TWT 

11 ~ 7 

t? 1;1 

12 t~ ~: 

~,? ~~ 

August 

pp< S M TWT 

17 

4 

18 11 

24 ~ 

1.9 

"17 

- OTR 

FS 

/c1\ 2 \E../33 

F S 

F S 

March 

June 

pp<SMTWTFS 

15 ~g 

pp< S 

19 1 

20 ~ 

1:; 21 22 

~,~ ~,9 

December 
59 

The Honorable Joe Wilson 

Chalnnan 

Military Personnel Subcommittee 

Committee on Anned Services 

U.s. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chainnan: 

I am responding on behalf of Secretary Hagel to your letter dated October 4, 2013, 

regarding pay and allowances for members of the Anned Forces in light of enactment ofthe Pay 

Our Military Act. 

The summary of pays and allowances attached to your letter is a genetallist of items 

comprising the compensation and benefits provided to members of the Anned Forces and their 

dependents. It thus includes mote than "pay and allowances" for members of the Anned Forces. 

For example, it lists benefits such as non-mandatory participation in Servicemembers' Group 

Life Insurance; gratuities, such as the Death Gratuity; and items paid by other Federal agencies, 

such as Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. 

To fully address your request, the Departroent has prepared a list with all of the items you 

provided and also included other items currently constituting "pay and allowances" for members 

of the Anned Forces under titles 10 and 37, United States Code. Those items are set forth in the 

enclosed table, which also reflects the Departroent's analysis as to the extent to which each item 

would have been payable, if at all, under the Pay Our Military Act. 

In conducting this analysis, the Department consulted with the Departroent of Justice and 

the Office of Management and Budget, and applied the express tenns of the statute. With respect 

to military personnel, the statute appropriated such sums as were necessary "to provide pay and 

allowances to members of the Anned Forces (as defined in section 101(a)(4) oftitle 10 United 

States Code), including Reserve Components thereot~ who perfonn active service during such 

The Department first identified those items that constitute "pay and allowances" for the 

which are generally set out in titles 10 and 37, United States Code. Next, the 

Departroent detennined which pay and allowances were payable "to" members of the Anned 

Forces, in order to meet the statute's tenns. Finally, the Departroent applied the language 

limiting such payments to only those Servicemembers who performed "active service" during the 

period when interim or full-year appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 were not in effect. The tenn 

"active service" is defIned in both titles 10 and 37, United States Code, and it excludes inactive 

duty. 
60 

2 

The Department or Defense appreciates the financial relief a[Torded to most of our 

Servieemembers by the Pay Our Military Act. llowcver, it is unfortunate that the Act was 

drafted in a manner that precluded the Department from fully compensating all members of the 

Anned Forces and the survivors of our fallen warriors during the lapse in appropriations, and that 

the Department was not a[Torded an opportunity to review the Act and recommend revisions 

before it was introduced. 

We are appreciative that the Congress passed, and the President signed, the Department 

of Defcnse Survivor Benefits Continuing Appropriations Resolution. 2014 (Public Law 113-44) 

on October 10, 2013. so that the Department could pay deatb gratuities and provide 

reimbursement for certain death-related expenses to survivors of om fallen warriors. The 

Department began making payments to the designated beneficiaries under the authority of the 

new statute on October 11,2013. 

While we are grateful for the current continuing resolution, we lIrge the Congress to 

provide regular appropriations for fiscal Year 2014 so that the Department can fully execute its 

mission without undue interruptions or constraints. Furthermore. we remain hopeful that the 

Congress will pass a balanced deficit reduction plan that the President can sign and that ends 

sequestration. 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc; 

The llonorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

Sincerely, 

Robcli F. Hale 
61 

Summary of Military Pays, Allowances, and Other Monetary Benefits 

U.S.C U.S.c. Pay Pay MilitaryPa)' 

Title Title Section(s) Active Inactive Allonance or Allowance 

Service Duty UnderPOMA 

Acceleration subject duty pay 37 30 I ta)(6) X X y' 

37 307a X Y 

pay 37 30lb X Y 

Aviation career incentive pay 37 30Ia X X y' 

A \VACS flight pay 37 301(a)(13) X X y' 

Basic allowance for housing (BAH) 37 403 X Y 

Basic allowanct' for subsistence 37 402 Y 

Basic pay 37 204 X Y 

Career i.ea duty 37 305a X Y 

Career sea pay premium 37 305a(c) X Y 

Chemica! munitions exposure pay 37 301 (a)(IO) X X y' 

Clothing: bask replacement allowance 37 418 X y' 

Combat pay (a!so known as hostile fire payor imminent 37 310 X y' danger pay) 

Combat-related rehabilitation pay 37 328 X y' 

CONUS COLA 37 403b X Y 

Critical skills rdention bonus 37 323/355 X Y 

Dangerous organisms exposure pay 37 301(a)(9) X X y' 

Deathgratuit) 10 1475 NPA 

Dt'celeration subject duty pay 37 30 I (a)(6) X X y' 

Demolition duty pay 37 301(a)(4) X X y' 

37 X Y 

37 X Y 

37 X Y 

• Accession bonus 37 X Y 

37 3011 X Y 

37 30le X Y 

38 1310-1318 NPA 

10 1401 N 

\)islocation and departure al!ov,rance 37 477 and 475a X y' 

Diving duty pay 37 304 X X y' 

scientific career continuation pay 37 315 X Y 

37 309 X Y 

Enlistment referral bonus 10 3252,'1030 X X EXP 

Experimental stress duty pays 37 301(,)(7) X X y' 

Family separation allowance 37 X Y 

37 X y 

night deck duty pay 37 301{a)(8) X X y' 

Flight pay (aviation career continuation pay) 37 30lb X y 

Flight pay (aviation career incentive pay) 37 301a X X y' 

Flight pay (A WACS l1ight pay) 37 301(a)(13) X X y' 

Flight pay (crew member) 37 301(a){l) X X y' 

Flight pay {non-crew member) 37 301(a)(2) X X y' 

Foreign language proficiency bonus 37 316 X X y' 

Glider duty pay 37 301(a) X exp 

HALO parachute duty pay 37 30J(a)(3) X X y' 

37 305 X Y 

37 301{a)(13) X X y' 

37 436 X EXP 

High pressure chamber duty pay 37 30 1 (a)(5) X X y' 

Hostile fire pay (also known as combat pay Of imminent 37 310 X Y 

37 206 X N 

Lepros) duty pay 37 301 (a) X EXP 

Low pressure chamber duty pay 37 301(a)(5) X X y' 

Medical oJl1cers special pays 37 

Enclosure 

lof4 
62 

U.S.C U.S.C. I'ay Pay Military Ilay 

Title Title Section(s) Active Inactive Allo",ance or Allowance 

Service Dnty UnderPOMA 

37 X Y 

37 X Y 

37 X Y 

37 X Y 

37 X Y 

37 30~k X Y 

37 326 X X y' 

pay 37 302c X Y 

37 3!2b X Y 

Nuclear career annual incentive bonus 37 312c X Y 

37 312 X Y 

37 312a/308 X Y 

37 

37 302d X Y 

37 302e X Y 

pay for board~certified nurses with post~ 37 302c(d) X Y baccalaureate degrees who are health-care providers 

• Critical skills accession bonu:> tor persons enrolled in 

senior reserve officers' training corps obtaining: nUff>ing 10 2!30a X N 

degrees 

Operational submersible dUly pa) 37 30lc X X y' 

37 

37 X Y 

37 X Y 

37 40S/475 X Y 

37 314 X Y 

Parachute dut) pay 37 301(a)(3) X X y' 

Pay and allowance continuation 37 X y' 

Personal exposure pay (toxic pesticides, etc.) 37 30 1 (a)(9) X X y' 

Personal money allowance 37 413/414 X Y 

Pharmacists retention special pay 37 302i X Y 

37 

37 302c X Y 

37 X Y 

• Accession bonus 37 X Y 

37 X Y 

10 1401 N 

37 308 X Y 

10 l!74 X Y 

38 1970 NPA 

Disability severance pay 10 1212 X y' 

37 307 X Y 

37 414(b) X y 

10 14S0(m) NPA 

37 30lc X X Y 

10 1447 NPA 

Thermal experiment subject pay 37 301(a)(7) X X y' 

Toxic fuels and propellants exposure pay 37 301(a)(10) X X yl 

37 301(a)(9) X X yl 

37 X Y 

Traumatic 38 J980A NPA 

Veterinarians special pay 37 303(a) X Y 

Enclosure 

2of4 
63 

U.S.C U.S.C. I'ay Pay Military Ilay 

Title Title Section(s) Active Inactive Allo",ance or Allowance 

Service Dnty UnderPOMA 

Items not on the Incoming list Allowance fbr Civilian Clothing for discharged members 10 1047 X y' 

Bonus 1'01' reenlistment. enlistment or voluntary extension of 

enlistment in elements or the Ready Reserve other than the 37 30Sh X N 

Selected Reserve 

Cadet/Midshipman Pay 37 203 X Y 

Career Enlisted Flyer Pay 37 320 X X y' 

37 354 X Y 

for Involuntarily Mobilized 37 910 X Y 

Consecutive Oversea::. Tour (COT) Leave Travel 37 481b X yl&~ 

Convalescent Leave Travel 37 ,181a X 

Dependent Student Travel 37 489-490 X y l&2 

Dependent Travel if Member Dead, Injured. J11 or Absent 37 484 X y' 

Designated Imlividuals Visit Wounded Member 37 481h X yl&~ 

Designated High~Priority Unit Pay 37 308d X y' 

Emergency Leave Travel (for member or dependent from PDS) 37 481d X yl&l 

Emergency Leave Travel (for member fi·om and to TDY 37 481e X yl&2 

location) 

Enlistment Bonus (Ready Reserve) 37 30Rg X y' 

Enlistment Bonus (Selected Reserve) 37 308e X y' 

Escort of Dependent Unable to Travel Alone 10 1036 X y' 

EYacuation Allowances 37 475a X yl&2 

family Members Travel Inciden! to Repatriation of Members 37 481j X yl&2 

Active Duty) 37 316a X N 

Funded Environmental & Morale I ,eave Travel 37 481c X 

Funded Rest & Recuperation Leave Travel 37 481c X yl&2 

Funeral Honors DUlY (lnactive Out)) 37 206 X N 

Funeralllonors Duty (Inactive Duty) 37 495 X N 

funeral Honors Duty (Inactive Duty) 10 12503 X 

Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP) 10 2121 & 2127 X y' 

Health Professions Scholarship Program Aecession Bonus 10 2128 X N 

Health Profes::.ions Stipend Program tor Reserve Service 10 16201 X N 

Incapacitation Pay 37 204(g) X y' 

Inclusion of Accrued Leave in Settlement of Unpaid Pay and 37 501 X X y' Allowances on Behalf of Deeea.'>ed 

Judge Advocate Continuation Pay 37 321 X Y 

Local Travel 37 478 X yl&2 

Non-Medical Attendant (NMA) for Seriously Wounded 37 481k X yl&2 

Memher 

OCONUS Dependent Medical Care Travel 10 1040 X yl&2 

OEF SGLl Premium AllowanciO 437 X Y 

Partial Dislocation Allowance 37 477(~ X Y 

Payment lor Unused Accrued Leave 37 501 X Y 

Payments to Missing Persons 37 552 X X y' 

pes Household Goods (IIHG) Shipment 37 476 X X yl&~ 

pes Travel & Transportation Alkmances ~ Dependents 37 476 X X yliU 

PCS Travel & Transportation Allowances ~ !v1cmber 37 474 X X yl&2 

POV Shipment 10 2634 X yl&Y 

Prior Service Enlistment Bonus (Selected Reserve) 37 308i X y' 

37 433 X N 

Allowance 37 433a X N 

Recruiter Parking Expense~ 37 48li X yl&2 

Enclosure 

30f4 
64 

U.S.C U.S.C. I'ay Pay Military Ilay 

Title Title Section(s) Active Inactive Allo",ance or Allowance 

Service Dnty UnderPOMA 

Recruiting Expense Reimbursement 37 488 X y 1&2 

Reenlistment Bonus (Selected Reserve) 37 308b X y' 

RO'I C Cadet-Midshipman Subsistence Allowance (Not on 37 209 X N Active Duty) 

Select Reserve Officer Accession and Affiliation Bonus 37 308j X y' 

Settlement ofUnpnid Pa) and Allowances on Behalfof 10 2771 X X y' Deceased Members 

Special Compensation for Assistance \vith Activities of Daily 37 439 X y' Living (SCAADL) 

Special duty assignment pay (Guard and Reserve) 307(d) X y' 

Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in 37 302g X y' 

37 305b X X y' 

37 318 X Y 

37 402a X Y 

37 319 X Y 

37 403(1) X N 

femporary Duty (TDY) 37 474 X y 1&2 

10 1293 note N 

37 475 X Y 

37 474a X Y 

37 479 X X 

Travel & Transportation to Attend Funerals, Digniticd Transfer 37 48Jf X N of Remains, or Unit Memorial Services 

Trave! to Specialty Care over 100 l'vfilcs 10 1074i X y l&2 

Voluntary Separation Pay 10 1I75a X Y 

Visit, Board, Search and Seizure Duty Pay 37 301(0)(11) X X y' 

37 403(c) X Y 

37 301(a)(12) X X y' 

Phannacy OITieer Accession nonus 37 302j X Y 

College First Program 10 511 X y' 

Electronic Based Distributed Learning Pay for Inactive Duty 37 206(d)(2) X N 

Increa5e in Basic Pay 01'25"/0 f()j' enlisted members of the naval 

service held beyond expiration of enlistment on a vessel in 10 5540 X Y 

intelligence Agency 37 491 X Y 

NOTES, 

Y"Only payments to members allowable under POMA(a)(J). Whel\~ an a1\O\vance could be provided by means of'the Government contracting for a 

service. payments to such contractor were governed by subsection (a)(3) of POMA. 

NPA - Not a "pa) and allowance". and thus not payable under POMA (but may be payable under other authorit)). 

rxp - 'J'he authority is expired/repea!ed/suspended. 

4of4 

Enclosure 
65 

The Honorable Chuck Hagel 

Secretary of Defense 

1000 Defense Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20301-1000 

Dear Secretary Hagel: 

COMMITfEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

m.~. ~OU!.iC of !\cpwlcutatibc$ 

~a~bin!Iton, :1llQl; 20515-6035 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

October 4, 2013 

ROllfRTLSIMMONS,II,SfAFfDiAECTOR 

As you are well aware, the Pay Our Military Act, H.R. 3210, was signed into law and provides an 

appropriation for the pay and allowances of members of our Armed Forces, our defense civilians and 

contractors, who sacrifice so much in the defense of our country. 

I know you have made the legal review of the legislation a top priority, but I am very concerned that 

further delays may interrupt essential pays and allowances. For example, it has come to my attention that the 

Department of Defense is not currently paying several critical allowances earned by members of the Armed 

Forces that have made the ultimate sacrifice. These include, the Death Gratuity, which is payable to a 

designated beneficiary, in a lump sum of$1 00,000, for a death on active duty or inactive duty training and 

Burial Benefits which provide up to $10,500 to survivors to cover expenses related to the burial of the service 

member. We cannot in good conscience deny these benefits to the survivors of deceased members. 

Attached you will find a summary of pays and allowances taken from the November 2011, Seventh 

Edition of the Military Background Papers published by the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness. I request that you provide me a summary of which of the pays and allowances on that list that will 

not be paid and the rationale for non-payment. If there are other pays and allowances not on the attached list, I 

ask that you identify them in your response with an explanation of whether they will be paid or not. 

I look forward to your update on pays and allowances no later than Thursday, October 10' 2013. 

AGW:dg 

Sincerely, 

Joe 

3~W~ Wilson 

Chairman 

Military Personnel Subcommittee 

08D011875-13 
66 

Pays and Alhnvances Summary 

Title Compensation Range JnitialDat. Last Change 

Accelemtion subject duty pay $150 per month 1955 1998 

Assignment incentive pay Up to $3,000 monthly; varies by service 200] 2008 

and assignment. 

Aviation career continuation pay Up to $25,000 per year if officer agrees 1980 2004 

to remain on active duty to complete 14 

years of commissioned service 

Aviation career incentive pay $125 to $840 per month 1974 1999 

AWACS flight pay $150 to $350 per month 1981 1997 

Basic allowance for housing (BAH) Formula provided in 37 USC §403(b) 1878 2009 

Basic allowance for subsistence Formulas provided in 37 USC §402 1808 20091 

Basic pay $1,294.50 to $14,750.10 pe, month 1790 2009 

Career sea duty Maximum $750 per month 1835 2001 

Career sea pay premium Up to $350 per month 1980 2001 

Chemical munitions exposure pay $150 per month 1981 1998 

Clothing basic replacement $266.40 to $460.80 per year; varies by 1949 2009 

allowance service and gender 

Combat pay (also known as hostile Permanent increase for imminent 1952 2005 

fire pay or imminent danger pay) danger special pay to $225 and family 

separation allownnce to $250 

Combat-related rehabilitation pay Replaced by pay and allowance 2006 2008 

continuation 

CONUS COLA Varies with duty station and location of 1995 2009 

dependents 

Critical skills retention bonus Maximum total 0[$200,000 ($100,000 2001 2006 

for reserves on active duty) 

Dangerous organisms exposure pay $150 per month 1981 1998 

Death gratnity $100,000 1908 2006 

Deceleration subject duty pay $150 per month 1955 1998 

Demolition duty pay $150 per month 1949 1998 

Dental officers special pays 1967 2008 

• Variable special pay $3,000 to $12,000 per year 1985 1998 

• Additional special pay S10,OOO to $15,000 per year 1985 ·2008 

• Board-certification pay $2,500 to $6,000 per year 1985 1997 

• A ccession bonus Up to $150,000 1997 2007 

• Critical skills accession bonus Up to $400,000 2007 2007 

• Retention bonus (multiyear) Up to $50,000 per year 1998 2003 

Dependency and indemnity $967 to $2,211 per month for surviving 1956 2003 

compensation spouse plus additional amounts for 

dependent children 

Disability retired pay Up to 75% ofb .. ic pay at time of 1861 2008 

retirement for disability 

Dislocation and departore 2 Y, month~' BAH 1955 2009 

allowance 

Diving duty pay Up 10 $240 (officers) and $340 (enlisted 1886 2000 

members) per month 

Engineering and scientific career Up to $3,000 per year for each year of 1981 1986 

continuation pay an extension agreement 

Enlistment bonus Up to $40,000 1791 2006 

Enlistment referral bonus Up to $2,000 2006 2008 

Experimental stress duty pays $150 per month 1955 ]998 

Family separation allowance FSA I: I month's BAH (without 1963 2009 

dependents rale) 

FSA 11: $250 per month 1953 2005 

-vii-
67 

Pays and Allowances Summary 

Title Compensation Range Initial Dat. Last Change 

Flight deck duty pay $150 per month 1965 1998 

Flight pay (aviation career Up to $25,000 per year if officer agrees 1980 2004 

continuation pay) to remain on active duty to complete 14 

years of commissioned service 

Flight pay (aviation career $125 to $840 per month 1974 1999 

incentive pay) 

Flight pay (AWACS flight pay) $150 to $350 per month 1981 1997 

Flight pay (crew member) $J 50 to $250 per month 1913 1999 

Flight pay (non-crew member) $ I 50 per month 1934 1998 

Foreign language proficiency pay Up to $12,000 per year 1986 2009 

Glider duty pay Authority terminated 1984 1944 1984 

HALO parachute duty pay $225 per month 1985 1998 

Hardship duty pay Up to $1,500 per month 1900 2008 

Hazardous duty incentive pay for $15010 $350 per month J981 1997 

air weapons controller crew 

members (AWACS flight pay) 

High-deployment allowance $1,000 per month 2000 2004 

High pressure cliamber duty pay $ I 50 per month 1983 1998 

Hostile fire pay (also known as $225 per monlh 1952 2005 

combat payor imminent danger 

pay) 

Jnactive-duty training pay 1/30'" ofa month's basic pay perunil 1916 1996 

training 

Leprosy duty pay A uthority terminated 1984 1949 1984 

Low pressure chamber duty pay $150 per month 1983 1998 

Medical officers special pays 1947 2008 

• Variable special pay $1,200 to $J2,OOO per year 1947 1990 

• Additional speciaJ pay $15,000 per year 1947 1990 

• Board-certification pay $2,500 to $6,000 per year 1947 1990 

• Incentive special pay Up to $75,000 per year 1947 2008 

• Retention bonus (multiyear) Up to $75,000 for each year of a 4-year 1989 2008 

active-duty commitment 

• Critical skills accession bonus Up to $400,000 2005 2007 

MOS conversion bonus Maximum lump sum not to exceed 2004 2009 

$4,000 ($2,000 for reserves) 

Nonphysician health-care providers Up to $5,000 per year 1991 1996 

special pay 

Nuclear career accession bonus Up to $30,000 per year 1976 2007 

Nuclear career annual incentive $14,000 to $22,000 per year 1976 2006 

bonus 

Nuclear officer continuation pay Up to $30,000 per year 1969 2009 

NUclear-trained and -qualified Uplo $15,000 for a reenlistment 1972 1972 

enlisted mem bers 

Nurses special pays 1989 2006 

• Accession bonus for registered One-time payment up to $30,000 1989 2005 

nurses 

• Incentive special pay for certified Up to $50,000 per year 1989 2003 

registered nurse anesthetists and 

nUrses serving in other critical 

nursing specialties 

-viii-
68 

Pays and Allowances Summary 

Title Compensation Range Initial Date Last Change 

• Special pay for board-certified Up to S5,OOO per year 1996 1996 

nUrses with post-baccalaureate 

degrees who are health-care 

providers 

• Critical skills accession bonus for Up to $5,000 2006 2006 

persons enrolled in senior reserve 

officers' training corps obtaining 

nursing degrees 

Operational submersible duty pay $75 to $835 per month 1960 2003 

Optometrists special pay 1971 2003 

• Regular special pay $100 per month 1971 1980 

• Retention special pay Up to SI5,OOO per year 1991 2003 

Overseas cost ofliving adjustment Varies by country 1942 2009 

Overseas duty extension pay Up to $80 per month, annual bonus not 1980 1998 

to exceed $2,000 

Parachule duty pay $150 per month ($225 HALO) 1941 1998 

Pay and allowance continuation All pay and allowances received at time 2008 2008 

of hospitalization for wound, injury, or 

illness sustained in a hostile-fire eyent 

for up to 12 months 

Personal exposure pay (toxic SI50 per month 1981 1998 

pesticides, etc.) 

Personal money allowance Up to $500 to $4,000 per year for 1922 2001 

officers ($2,000 enlisted) 

Pharmacists retention special pay Up to S15,000 per year 2001 2003 

Psycbologists special pays 1987 2009 

• Special pay Up to S5,OOO per year 1987 1990 

• Retention bonus (incentive) Up to $25,000 per year 1987 2009 

• Critical skills accession bonus for Up to $400,000 2009 2009 

licensed psychologists 

Responsibility pay $50 to $150 per month 1958 1992 

Retired and retainer pay Currently 50% to 75% of basic payor 1861 2000 

(nondisability) monthly retired pay base 

Selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) Up to $90,000 1795 2006 

Separation pay (non disability) 10% of pro duct of years ofaclive 1800 1994 

service and 12 times terminal monthly 

basic pay 

SGLI (Servicemembers' Group Up to S400,000 for survivors 1917 2005 

Life Insurance (SGLJ) 

Severance pay (disability) Up to 2 years' basic pay at time of 1949 1994 

separation 

Special duty assignment pay Up to $600 per montb 1958 2001 

(formerly, proficiency pay) 

Special position allowance for $400 to $5,200 per year 1946 1946 

certain Navy personnel 

Special survivor indemnity Up to $3) 0 per month 2009 2009 

allowance 

Submarine duty incentive pay $75 to $835 per month 1901 2003 

Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) Up to 55% orretired orretainerpay 1953 2009 

Thermal experiment subject pay $150 per month 1957 1998 

-ix-
69 

Title 

Toxic fuels and propellants 

exposure pay 

Toxic pesticides exposure pay 

Transfer between armed forces 

(incentive bonus) 

Traumatic injury coverage (under 

SOLI) 

Veterinarians special pay 

Pays and Allowances Summary 

Compensation Range 

$150 per month 

$150 per month 

Up to $10,000 

$25,000 to $100,000 

SIOO per month 

Initial Date 

1981 

1981 

2006 

2005 

1953 

I The fonnula for officers was established in 1998. that for enlisted members in 200 I. 

-xLast Chunge 

1998 

1998 

2007 

2005 

1980 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

OCTOBER 10, 2013 

(73) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Secretary HALE. [The information can be found in the Appendix beginning on 

page 59.] [See page 21.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Secretary HALE. The interpretation of the Pay Our Military Act language was 

made collaboratively within the Department of Justice. That opinion was communicated to the Secretary of Defense and the Department acted upon it accordingly.

[See page 25.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

Secretary HALE. The Department has reviewed the DOD Survivor Benefits Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (P.L. 113–44) and believes it provides the 

necessary appropriations to pay the death gratuities and related benefits for survivors of deceased military service members during this lapse in normal or continuing appropriations. [See page 25.] 

Ms. WRIGHT. Both government and employee contributions for health care stop 

during furlough. 

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) tracks the government contributions owed, and when funds become available, those contributions are paid to 

the health carrier. 

The employee’s contributions are also tracked by DFAS. When the employee returns to a pay status, collection of the owed premiums are made through salary offsets, which may not exceed more than 15 percent of an employee’s disposable pay. 

In situations where the debt owed is for 4 pay periods or less, or $50.00 or less, 

the payroll office may notify the employee by placing a remark on the Leave and 

Earnings Statement (LES). When the debt extends beyond 4 pay periods, the employee must be provided a written notice of indebtedness and an opportunity to review and arrange to repay the debt. The DFAS debt repayment process is found in 

the DOD Financial Management Regulation (FMR), Volume 8, Chapter 8. [See 

page 26.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

OCTOBER 10, 2013 

(77) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

Ms. BORDALLO. As you mentioned, in implementing POMA it is particularly challenging to separate out pay and allowances for contractors from their profit, overhead, material and supplies. Nearly three years ago the Congress directed the Department to use the Army’s Contract Manpower Reporting Application to collect direct labor hours and associated costs from all contractors providing services to the 

Department. This is statutorily required on an annual basis. It is clear that the 

challenge you face in implementing this provision of POMA would not exist if the 

Department were compliant with these requirements. What has been the delay and 

what is the current status of compliance? When does the Department anticipate 

having this system in place? 

Secretary HALE. The Department has made significant progress over the past two 

years implementing the Army’s Contract Manpower Reporting Application to collect 

direct labor hours and associated costs from contactors. Each of the Military Services and the Defense-wide community has implemented the Enterprise-wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA). Beginning in November 2012, 

all new contracts, and modifications to existing contracts for services have language 

requiring reporting of all contractor labor hours to the ECMRA. The first reporting 

period based on the November 2012 guidance was originally scheduled to end October 31, 2013, but was extended to December 31, 2013, to accommodate delays associated with the Government shutdown. 

As we move forward, we are taking action to consolidate each individual Component version of ECMRA into a single Department-wide ECMRA with a single program manager. The benefits of a single system include the ability to more efficiently 

consolidate data for the Department, provide consistent reporting support from a 

single program office and help desk, and reduce the data entry for the contractor 

community. In addition, performance measures have been developed to ensure that 

by FY 2018 95% of the Department’s purchases for services are reporting direct 

labor hours and associated costs in ECMRA. This data will be used to prepare the 

Inventory of Contracts for Services and inform the programming and budget process. 

Ms. BORDALLO. You mentioned in your opening remarks that in recent years there 

have been regular actions taken that undermine civilian morale. With the exception 

of the pay freeze, these are all choices the Department is guilty of making. The Department unilaterally implemented and has maintained a cap on its civilian workforce since 2010, despite repeated concerns from the Congress that this cap violates 

multiple statutory provisions. The Department took the unilateral action to release 

term and temp civilians and implement an across the board hiring freeze this past 

February in response to the sequester. The Department made the choice to furlough 

its civilian workforce this summer. And the Department’s FY14 budget had projected reductions in the civilian workforce of nearly 5%. That said, what specific actions have you taken, consistent with 10 USC 2330a, to review and reduce contract 

support services, in many areas continue to grow despite budgetary pressures? 

Secretary HALE. Many of the actions the Department was forced to take in FY 

2013 were directly as a result of sequestration. We were forced to reduce $20 billion 

in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts that pay our civilian workers. 

In addition, because our wartime budget was also subject to sequestration, we were 

forced to realign funding from our base operations to provide our troops at war with 

every resource they needed. Taken together, these factors led to a shortfall in our 

O&M accounts of more than $30 billion. 

The Department had to take action to reduce O&M costs. These actions were not 

limited to the actions we took to reduce civilian labor costs, we also took action to 

reduce travel costs by curtailing participation in international events, conferences 

and support to non-DOD special events. Many of the DOD Components also took 

action to reduce the scope of support for those contract support services that were 

scheduled to be renewed after the sequester took effect. All of these actions were 

taken to prevent further degradation to readiness. 

The Department remains committed to managing the total force. Section 955 of 

the FY 2013 NDAA requires the Department to manage reductions to the civilian 

workforce and contractor workforce in accordance with the reductions to the military 

workforce. As we build our FY 2015 budget, we will ensure all elements of the total 

force are considered for reduction in accordance with the force structure reductions 

and Defense priorities. 
78 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Comptroller Hale, at a House Armed Services Committee hearing last month, General Odierno echoed the acknowledgement you made before the 

Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in June that contractors cost significantly more than civilian employees. According to the transcript, you told Senate 

Defense Appropriators that this was particularly true for functions performed over 

a long term. With defense dollars so precious, what steps is the Department taking 

to substitute cheaper civilian employees for contractors for functions performed over 

a long term? Based on what you said—that contractors are significantly more expensive in such instances—there would obviously be great savings. If steps aren’t being 

taken, why? Is it necessary for the Congress to pass new law? 

Secretary HALE. There are already many laws, that direct the Department in how 

it manages the total force of military, civilians and contracts for services. Specifically, section 808 of the FY 2012 NDAA and section 955 of the FY 2014 NDAA limit 

what the Department can spend on contracts for services. Compliance with the requirements of section 808 and section 955 are part of the OSD budget review process. 

In addition to the actions we take during the programming and budgeting process 

to limit the amount of funding allocated to contractor services, the Department continues to review each year what the Department actually spent on contractor services as part of the process that develops the annual Inventory of Contracts for Services. We have made significant strides over the past two years to improve our visibility of the labor hours associated our contracts for services. Each of the Military 

Services and the Defense-wide community has implemented the Enterprise-wide 

Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA). Beginning in November 

2012, all new contracts for services have language requiring reporting of all contractor labor hours and associated costs to the ECMRA. The first reporting period 

based on the November 2012 guidance was originally scheduled to end October 31, 

2013, but was extended to December 31, 2013 to accommodate delays associated 

with the Government shutdown. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. DUCKWORTH 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I have heard recent concerns that the non-medical attendant 

pay (NMA) that is given to the caregivers of the newly injured at Walter Reed may 

be suspended. I am disturbed by the thought that our caregivers—mothers, fathers, 

spouses, daughters, sons staying up with and helping our Wounded Warriors recover—will NOT have this critical funding to be able to pay their bills back home. 

In addition, I’ve heard that Special Compensation for Assistance with Activities of 

Daily Living (SCAADL) for Wounded Warriors that are discharged may also be suspended. 

This is yet another example of why we need to open our government back up and 

why a piecemeal approach to fund our government is not working. However, I do 

not want our service members, much less those that are recovering for the wounds 

they so honorably incurred serving and protecting us, to suffer because we cannot 

pass a clean Continuing Resolution. 

In Secretary Hagel’s memo dated 5 October 2013, he stated that civilian personnel, who provide support to service members in health care activities and providers, as well as family support programs and activities, would be included in H.R. 

3210 and thus, be paid. Yet rumors are circulating in the wards of Walter Reed. 

Secretary Hale, could you please clarify whether or not H.R. 3210 will cover payout 

of the NMA and SCAADL benefits our Wounded Warriors need? 

Secretary HALE. Based on a review of the Pay Our Military Act (P.L. 113–39), the 

Department of Defense determined that both the travel and transportation allowances for non-medical attendants authorized by 37 U.S.C. 481k and the Special 

Compensation for Assistance with Activities of Daily Living authorized by 37 U.S.C. 

439 were payable under the Act to members who performed active service during 

the lapse period. Unfortunately, the Act did not provide appropriations for payment 

of SCAADL to individuals who had been discharged and were, therefore, no longer 

on active service. 

Æ