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 

73–431 2012

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–105] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARING 

ON

MILITARY PERSONNEL BUDGET OVERVIEW—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

MICHAEL HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2012 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012, Military Personnel Budget Overview—Office 

of the Secretary of Defense Perspective ............................................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 ................................................................................... 19 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

MILITARY PERSONNEL BUDGET OVERVIEW—OFFICE OF THE 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

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

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

WITNESSES 

Rooney, Dr. Jo Ann, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness; accompanied by Dr. Jonathan Woodson, Assistant Secretary 

of Defense (Health Affairs) and Director of TRICARE Management Activity; 

Virginia S. Penrod, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy); and Pasquale (Pat) M. Tamburrino, Jr., Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy) ............................................... 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 25 

Rooney, Dr. Jo Ann .......................................................................................... 27 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 23 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[The information is retained in the subcommittee files and can be viewed 

upon request.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 75 

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

Mr. Jones ........................................................................................................... 74 

Mr. Loebsack ..................................................................................................... 87 

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

(1) 

MILITARY PERSONNEL BUDGET OVERVIEW—OFFICE OF 

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Tuesday, February 28, 2012. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:32 p.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. The hearing will come to order. Like to welcome everyone to the Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing relative to 

the testimony of the perspective of the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense on the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget regarding military personnel matters. 

Let me be very clear, personally: If it were up to me the defense 

budget would not be reduced. The Department of Defense [DOD] 

would not be tasked to find the $259 billion in reduction over the 

next 5 years. And the services would not be operating under the 

threat of a devastating sequestration process next year. 

America is at war today with increasing threats around the 

world, and yet this budget proposes cuts that break faith with military, military families, and veterans. And in particular, I have just 

gotten back from Pakistan and last week it was heartbreaking to 

be there at a time when there was a bombing at a bus station— 

14 people killed, including 2 children—and then the next day 5 policemen in an attack on a police station, and then today there was 

the stopping of a bus and 16 people were selected, taken off the 

bus, and executed right in front of the other persons. And so there 

is such conflict around the world, and I am just so proud of our 

military trying to stop those types of attacks from being here. 

Additionally, these cuts, I think, give a false encouragement to 

our enemies, who are obsessed with death. Having said that, the 

budget challenge that we are discussing today is the reality and we 

must now confront it. 

Certainly no one expected personnel programs to escape close 

scrutiny. However, contrary to the public statements to the Department of Defense that military personnel programs and benefits 

have been protected under this budget proposal, the totality of the 

personnel-related cuts are proportionate to the cuts taken in any 

other budget category. 
2 

Major reductions to the Active Duty end strength of 100,000 will 

reduce spending but also exact a human cost on our military families. The loss of the skills and experience within the All-Volunteer 

Force will directly diminish our combat capability when it is very 

likely we will continue to be engaged in conflict in Afghanistan and 

other locations around the world by enemies who dream of a long 

war. 

This committee will endeavor, within the fiscal constraints of an 

austere budget, to legislatively protect the annual end strength targets to maintain a responsible drawdown. For those who remain on 

Active Duty the budget projects reduced pay raises in future years, 

precisely when economic conditions may present the All-Volunteer 

Force with the challenge of a robust job market. 

The budget also recommends that the Congress eliminate itself 

from the debate about reforming military retirement and entrust 

that to a base realignment and closure-like commission. Removing 

Congress from the reform process, I believe, is wrong-headed when 

the Department of Defense leaders have not recommended a retirement reform solution they believe will successfully support the AllVolunteer Force. The people’s Congress must be accountable and 

not defer to unelected appointees. 

Finally, the most disturbing budget proposals are the increases 

in health care premiums, and the increases are up to 345 percent. 

Not only will we question those increases today, but we will also 

address them during a subcommittee hearing on military health 

care next month. 

I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses from the Office of the Secretary of Defense: Dr. Jo Ann Rooney, the Acting 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Dr. Jonathan Woodson, the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, 

and Director of TRICARE Management Activity; Ms. Virginia S. 

Penrod, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Military Personnel 

Policy; and Mr. Pasquale ‘‘Pat’’ M. Tamburrino, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy. 

And Mrs. Davis, we are very fortunate to have as ranking member, Congresswoman Susan Davis, of California. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 23.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Dr. Rooney, welcome. And we certainly appreciate your 

being here, along with Dr. Woodson, Ms. Penrod, and Mr. 

Tamburrino, Jr. Thank you very much. 

Hope I said that right—Tamburrino? Okay. 

The subcommittee members appreciate your views on the fiscal 

year 2013 budget request for military personnel and we look forward to hearing how the proposed budget will impact our military 

personnel and their families. 

While I think it is probably safe to say that the budget reductions have not severely impacted the military personnel accounts, 

they were not immune and they affect each and every person who 
3 

is serving today. My colleagues and I would like to understand 

which personnel and family programs will be impacted and to what 

extent. 

We know the Department is undergoing an effort to eliminate redundant and duplicative programs and ensure that the programs 

that do remain are effective, but how are those decisions being 

made? What measures will the services and the Department use in 

making a determination of a program’s effectiveness? Who will decide the priority of one program over another? 

And in this time of reduced defense spending we need to ensure 

we are making well-informed decisions and have an understanding 

of what these proposed cuts will have on the recruitment and retention of our Armed Forces as well as the impact to their families. 

We have seen over the past several years the services making a 

good-faith effort to move funding for quality of life programs into 

the base budget. 

I am concerned, however, that the recent budget would move the 

additional end strength for the Army and Marine Corps into the 

Overseas Contingency Operations [OCO] account. If additional end 

strength for the forces are being moved into the OCO, will we begin 

to see other areas, such as quality of life and support for wounded 

warriors that may not be an enduring requirement, also included 

in the Overseas Contingency Operations fund? And if that is the 

case, then what message does that send to our men and women in 

uniform and their families? 

These are the types of questions and concerns that the subcommittee will need to address. As the demand for these programs 

and services remain constant, or in some cases rises as the force 

returns home while the budget continues to decline, we are going 

to face very difficult choices. So we must remember that it is our 

men and women in uniform that makes our military the best in the 

world and we must proceed with caution. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 25.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mrs. Davis. 

And we will proceed to testimony, and we will be hearing—for 

the benefit of the subcommittee members, you should be aware 

that Dr. Rooney will make a statement and then we will proceed 

straight to questions. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JO ANN ROONEY, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. JONATHAN WOODSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (HEALTH AFFAIRS) AND DIRECTOR OF 

TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY; VIRGINIA S. PENROD, 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (MILITARY 

PERSONNEL POLICY); AND PASQUALE (PAT) M. TAMBURRINO, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY) 

Dr. ROONEY. Thank you. 

Chairman Wilson, Congresswoman Davis, and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss personnel and readiness programs in 
4 

support of the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2013. 

Thank you for your support of our Active and Reserve military 

members, their families, and our government’s civilians who have 

done everything we ask of them and more. 

As you have heard from Secretary Panetta, our fiscal year 2013 

budget request was the product of an intensive review of our defense strategy after a decade of war and substantial growth in our 

budgets. Today I will describe how we can sustain the All-Volunteer Force for generations to come—a force that has a proven 

record of unprecedented success in operations around the world. 

Accomplishing this will require the Department to make hard 

choices regarding competing priorities for limited funding. 

Resourcing the reset of the force while maintaining readiness 

will undoubtedly be one of the most challenging issues of our time. 

As the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness my priorities focus on: total force readiness, improving the 

military health system, and total force support. 

After 10 years of intensive operations our forces are among the 

most capable in our Nation’s history. Our Active and Reserve service members and defense civilians are well prepared to execute current operations and respond to emergent needs. They are experienced and proficient in a wide range of real-world operations, including operations not traditionally within the Department’s scope 

of responsibility. 

As we end today’s wars and adjust to new and changing missions 

we find ourselves naturally transitioning back toward a broader 

range of security missions. Although this transition is occurring in 

the midst of an unfavorable and unavoidable fiscal pressure, we 

have committed to maintaining a ready, capable, All-Volunteer 

Force. 

The performance of our military medical system in a time of war 

continues to set new standards. The Department strives to provide 

the best health care in the world to our service members but the 

current cost growth of the military health system is unsustainable. 

We are pursuing a balanced, four-prong approach for improving 

the health of our population and the financial stability of the system to ensure we can continue to provide this benefit in the future. 

The four legs of the stool, none of which can be considered in isolation, include moving from a system of health care to one of health, 

continuing to improve our internal efficiencies, implementing provider payment reform, and rebalancing cost-sharing. 

My third focus area is total force support. One of the four overarching principles of the defense strategy is to preserve the quality 

of the All-Volunteer Force and not break faith with our men and 

women in uniform or their families. 

Despite difficult economic circumstances requiring budget reductions across all levels of government, the Department remains committed to providing service members and military families with 

support programs and resources, empowering them to address the 

unique challenges of military life. Ensuring the needs of military 

families and service members are met contributes to the overall 

well-being of the total force. This includes access to mental health 

care; providing for the educational needs of service members’ chil-
5 

dren; support of morale, welfare, and relief programs; and maintaining the benefits at defense commissaries. 

Secretary Panetta has directed that family programs continue to 

be a priority for the Department and it remains my priority as 

well. 

Putting together this year’s budget request in a balanced package was a difficult undertaking. However, it was driven by the 

strategy and developed by our uniformed and civilian leadership 

working closely together. 

As a result of that process I believe we have the right mix of programs and policies in place to shape the force we need. We will reduce the rate of growth of manpower costs, including reductions in 

the growth of compensation and health care costs. But as we take 

those steps we will continue to keep faith with those who serve. 

During the past decade the men and women who comprise the 

All-Volunteer Force have shown versatility, adaptability, and commitment, enduring the constant stress and strain of fighting two 

overlapping conflicts. They have also endured prolonged and repeated deployments. They have made innumerable sacrifices. Some 

have been wounded and others have lost their lives. 

As the Department reduces the size of the force we will do so in 

a way that respects and honors the service of each and every one. 

I look forward to continuing to work with you, Chairman Wilson, 

Congresswoman Davis, and distinguished members of this subcommittee, to support the men and women in our Nation’s armed 

services. 

As you heard, accompanying me today are several senior members of my staff. I would like to introduce Dr. Jonathan Woodson, 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; Ms. V. Penrod, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy; and Mr. Pat Tamburrino, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy that also includes total force 

management. All of us before you today look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Rooney can be found in the Appendix on page 27.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. And what we will do is we 

will proceed to each member of the subcommittee having 5 minutes 

to ask questions, and we have a person above reproach, Mr. Craig 

Greene, who is going to be keeping up with this. 

And I will go first. 

First of all, Dr. Rooney, I am really concerned, sincerely, that 

there seems to be a disproportionate reduction in effort for the military which doesn’t show up in other agencies. Are you aware of, as 

you indicate a reduction in manpower cost for the military, are 

there any—is there any other agency in government or any other 

Department that is having a reduction in manpower cost? 

Dr. ROONEY. Sir, as you indicated we are taking about 10 percent 

of our projected budget cuts in things dealing with people and compensation but I am not aware of how that is impacting other Departments across the government. 
6 

Mr. WILSON. And that just really concerns me, that there are reductions in spending but it is disproportionate to the military, 

again, in a time of war, as I have expressed. 

Additionally, what new initiatives is the Department pursuing to 

enhance the transition of service members and their families to civilian life as those families prepare to separate from the military? 

Dr. ROONEY. There are several. Most probably are aware of the 

Yellow Ribbon Program, which really focuses on our Guard and Reserve members, and that particular focus is enabling them to transition much more effectively into their communities and with employers throughout the area. That continues to have great support 

and it also continues to have great results. 

We also have been working with our colleagues in the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], Department of Labor, and Department of Education to look holistically at the transition of our service members. We are currently in the process, having completed 

step one of that report and now working on the implementation of 

what that will look like—so from when a service member comes 

into the service until that point when they make the ultimate transition, that that is a continuum and prepares them for life outside. 

And there are a number of other programs committed to education both for our service members as well as their spouses that 

we believe will positively impact that transition. 

Mr. WILSON. And I appreciate you indicating a holistic approach, 

because the Department of Labor, VA, DOD, I am just really hopeful that people working together can address the challenges. In my 

home state we have unemployment over 9 percent—many communities almost 20 percent. And so this needs to be addressed. 

Additionally, I have already expressed concern about the health 

care insurance premium costs—TRICARE Prime. The fiscal year 

[FY] 2013 increase is 30 to 78 percent but over 5 years can be between 94 to 345 percent. 

And now I found out today from the Washington Free Beacon 

that the different insurance cost increases for the military do not 

apply to civilian defense employees. Why would there be a difference between the military and civilian defense employees? 

Dr. ROONEY. Sir, I will take the first part of that and then I will 

ask my colleague, Dr. Woodson. 

First of all, the civilians are not part of our TRICARE system— 

the civilian government employees. So we are proposing those increases in the TRICARE system, which impacts—the particular increases—those that are retired, of working age, as well as those 

that are over 65. So they are two very, very different systems, first 

off, so we are just focusing in this particular case on those costs 

with a program that is administered within the Department of Defense. So that would be this particular one. 

And I will ask Dr. Woodson to comment on those specific increases you mentioned. 

Secretary WOODSON. One of the major reasons I think, as Dr. 

Rooney has already pointed out, is that the management of the 

TRICARE insurance program and set of activities is within our set 

of responsibilities and authorities, but also, as it stands now, those 

receiving other Federal health benefits currently pay a much high-
7 

er cost share. But most importantly, they are not within our authorities. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, the percent, again—345 percent—really is a 

great concern to me. 

Finally, last year Governor John Baldacci, of Maine, was hired 

for a yearlong study of military health care, and his requirement 

was to provide recommendations for reforming the health care system. Additionally, has he made a report? Was that report included 

in the defense health program budget reforms? 

Dr. ROONEY. Sir, if I can speak to—actually, my understanding— 

and of course, Dr. Baldacci came before I joined the Department so 

I am having to look at history a bit here—but my understanding 

was he had a fairly broad scope in his memorandum of understanding [MOU], which was it had to involve health care but it 

could impact everything from readiness to continuum of care and 

a number of initiatives in between. What I can speak to is since 

November, when I have been in this position, Dr. Baldacci has been 

working in two particular areas, which is total force fitness, along 

with the joint staff, which is a readiness issue with us and involves 

health of the force; and then also he has been one of the key members I have had doing site visits for our disability evaluation system as we try to improve our timeliness on that. 

Any reports he has given to this point have been oral to me, so 

I am not sure if there will be a finalized written report. And before 

that the only thing I saw from him were trip reports or meeting 

reports, so—— 

Mr. WILSON. But not an annual report? 

Dr. ROONEY. No, sir. Nothing that I have seen. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Rooney, I wonder if we could focus for a minute on the issue 

of tuition assistance programs, because that has certainly come to 

my attention and I am sure to many others, as well. One out of 

five dollars—actually, that really refers to the Military Spouse Career Advancement Account—goes to for-profit schools. But the Senate Health Committee found that half of all tuition assistance dollars are going to for-profit schools, many of which have very poor 

student outcomes. We know that these schools are aggressively targeting and recruiting service members for their military benefits. 

So, given the tough budget environment that we are facing as 

well as the concerns about the sustainability of the tuition assistance programs, I am just wondering what we are doing about that 

and whether you feel that, in fact, some of the concerns that Military Officers Association of America [MOAA] has raised, Student 

Veterans of America have raised, what are we doing to really ensure that our service members have access to a high-quality education that protects them from aggressive recruiting on bases and 

military-related Web sites? 

Dr. ROONEY. Thank you. As you know, not only to me, education 

is extremely important, given my background that I brought into 

the Department. But throughout the Department we see education 

as a way for our service members and their families to reach their 

greatest potential. 
8 

And you are right. The concern is that we need to be in a position where we balance allowing our service members to have the 

greatest choice among academic institutions—to be able to study 

what they want where they want—and that often means flexibility 

in terms of the delivery models that are given. 

But at the same time we share your concern to make sure that 

while we don’t want to inhibit the members’ choices that we need 

to make sure we’re holding all schools accountable for quality delivery, being able to put together plans of education so that service 

members know how they are going to get from point A to the point 

where they are graduating with a degree or a certificate, whatever 

they are studying, and then to hold the institutions accountable 

and do such things as require them to look at the experience of our 

service members or even our spouses and see if there are ways that 

possibly that can count towards credit. 

So along that line, what we are currently working on is developing a memorandum of understanding to be signed by institutions 

that want to participate in our tuition programs. And that memo 

was expected to be put in place by the end of December, and because of some of the concerns you raised that we also heard from 

a number of the organizations we actually extended that deadline 

out so we could continue to meet with them and address the concerns. 

But the idea is not to pick particular schools or limit access but 

make sure that we are saying, ‘‘If you want to participate you will 

need to do these things.’’ And the deadline to have that MOU 

signed now is March 31st, at which point we feel that those schools 

that are willing to be held accountable and that we can have a 

basis for service members to compare what type of institution, that 

we will have that in place at that time. And that should go very 

far in addressing the kind of concerns that you raised. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And I am sure you are aware, Dr. Rooney, that some 

of our underperforming schools seem to have no problem signing on 

to that but many of our schools with very strong reputations, including the University of California, I believe, had problems because of the transferability of credits and experience. Do you think 

that as you are working—and I guess the memorandum is due the 

end of this month—that you will have resolved that issue? 

Dr. ROONEY. I believe we definitely will. There have been a lot 

of conversations and direct work with the institutions as well as organizations such as American Council on Education [ACE] that actually represent a number of institutions on how can we best look 

at this. And our goal is not to mandate that institutions take experiential credits or give credit for experiential learning, but that in 

fact, there is a mechanism in place where they can actually look 

to see if that is possible. I think that was one sticking point that— 

you know, is it required or do we really want them to have a mechanism in place? 

And the other one was the transferability of credits. And what 

we are trying to do is work with the schools to say, you know, for 

instance, if you are taking English in a community college and you 

are transferring to a 4-year institution, how can we try to see some 

basis so our service members can understand transferability and, 

where possible, do it. So I think it was a case of just not forcing 
9 

the institutions to mandate transferability but really create a 

transparency in process so our service members know and, frankly, 

so that we can advise them better as they are going through that 

process. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. We might come back to that. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And we have Congressman Mike Coffman, of Colorado. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for your—I would like to say your service to 

the country, but some of you haven’t served in uniform, which is 

surprising. But thank you for your service to the administration 

and, I suppose, to the country. 

A 2007 Government Accountability Office [GAO] report estimated 

the Reserve Component members’ cost to be only 15 percent of the 

Active Duty Components. And yet, when we look at this budget it 

seems to have a uniform sort of across-the-board reduction of both 

the Active and the Reserve Components, as well. And it would 

seem to me that what we ought to be doing is taking a look at this 

1.4 million right now uniformed military personnel on Active Duty 

and saying, ‘‘What functions could be provided for in the Guard 

and Reserve?’’ So instead of reducing the size of the Guard and Reserve we ought to be expanding the size of the Guard and Reserve 

and maintaining it so that we don’t have to reduce our capability 

and compromise our national security, as it seems that this budget 

by the administration does. 

Can somebody tell me the rationale for the fact that we didn’t 

go down this path? I mean, Israel, as a nation, is in a perpetual 

war footing and their backbone of their military is the Guard and 

Reserve. So why didn’t we—Dr. Rooney, why didn’t we go down 

this path? 

Dr. ROONEY. Sir, I believe if we look, in fact, we were and are 

balancing our use of the Active Component with the Guard and Reserve. We acknowledge that much of the capability, and in fact, 

many of the areas of the capability are within the Guard and Reserve. So as not to hollow out the force it is critical that we have 

a balance between the two, and in all of the discussions of the force 

reduction I can tell you that the Reserve Component was well represented in that same room with the discussions. 

So I think again, it is a case of balance. And if you are looking 

at the particular numbers, different components of the service are 

actually drawing down their Active versus their Reserve differently. And I can get you those specific numbers in terms of that 

balance between the two, but I don’t think the intention is at all 

to diminish the use of our Guard and Reserve in any of the components. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Well it does. And that is unfortunate because this 

is a plan that clearly cuts down the capability of the United States 

military needlessly because we are cutting into acquisition to sustain an Active Duty larger than it needs to be—an Active Duty 

Force larger than it needs to be. But obviously we differ in our experience, I having served in both the Army and the Marine Corps. 
10 

Let me go back to another issue, and that is the size of the civilian workforce at DOD. Can you tell me what the—is it—what is 

the size of it today? Is it 68,000? What is it? 

Dr. ROONEY. Hang on. I can actually give you, Pat? 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. The size of the workforce that comes from the 

appropriated funds, approximately 730,000 people; the size of the 

workforce that comes out of non-appropriated funds, like Morale, 

Welfare, and Recreation [MWR]—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Oh, I was way off. 

Mr. TAMBURRINO [continuing]. Approximately 250,000 people. So 

in round numbers the size of the workforce total is about a million. 

Mr. COFFMAN. About a million. So we have got—so on Active 

Duty we have got 1.4 million uniformed personnel right now—— 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. Sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN [continuing]. And we have—what is the—and we 

have over a million in the civilian workforce? 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. Slightly under a million. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Wow. Slightly under a million. Okay. Just trying 

to think in my mind how many casualties are produced by somebody sitting behind a desk. 

Now, so we are going to do an end strength reduction on our Active Duty Force. So tell me what the end strength reduction looks 

like for our civilian DOD workforce. 

Dr. ROONEY. At this point the projected is that it will go down 

by about 7,000. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Wow. Okay. Let me get this straight here. This is 

great. 

So what we are doing is—what is the number that we are reducing our—our uniformed military by right now? 100,000 is what we 

are reducing our uniformed military by and we are reducing our civilian workforce by 7,000? Is that right? Is my math wrong? 

Dr. ROONEY. Sir, I believe you have just included the Active; you 

didn’t consider the Active, Guard, and Reserve, too—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. No, I am just talking about Active. Because our 

DOD civilian workforce isn’t part-time; they are full-time employees. Am I correct in that? 

Dr. ROONEY. The number we gave you was full-time equivalents, 

yes. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay, so let’s do the—tell me what the math is 

here. So what is our Active Duty end strength reduction is how 

much? 

Dr. ROONEY. 123,900. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And our civilian workforce reduction is how much? 

Dr. ROONEY. Current going forward 7,000, and that doesn’t include any previous reductions that have been taken over the past 

several years. 

Mr. COFFMAN. You know, I would like those numbers—specific 

numbers back to us. And you referenced that some were done before. Let’s look at those, too—if you could give me those numbers, 

too, that were done in the past. I find this stunning. 

[The information referred to is retained in the subcommittee files 

and can be viewed upon request.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Coffman. 

And we proceed now to Congressman Allen West, of Florida. 
11 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking Member. 

And thanks to the panel for being here today. 

And as I talked to you earlier, Dr. Woodson, I am just a simple 

old paratrooper, you know? Life is easy for us: red light means you 

don’t jump, green light means you do jump. 

So when I sit and look at this I recall a great statement by a famous Army general by the name of Cavasos, who said, ‘‘Quantity 

has a quality all its own.’’ So my first question is this: I hear about 

how we sat down and we developed strategy. 

When I was a commander we had a simple thing. Whenever we 

had a mission we did what was called a troop-to-task analysis. Did 

we really sit down and do a sincere troop-to-task analysis for our 

uniformed military services as we look across every single geographic area of responsibility [AOR] based upon the threat assessment for the next 10 to 15 years so that we can have the right capacity and capability to meet those threats? 

The reason why I say this, after World War II we gutted our 

military and then came Korea. We continue to try to make the 

military bill-payer for our fiscal irresponsibility up here in Washington, DC. 

You know, we are not talking about units; we are talking about 

real people, some of those people still my friends, some of them 

even my relatives. So I would like to know that we really and 

truthfully do a troop-to-task analysis by geographic AOR that 

looked at the threat assessment, the capacity and capability that 

will be necessary for the next 10 to 15 years. 

Dr. ROONEY. Sir, ultimately what we were having to do is comply 

with the Budget Control Act. So we had a budget number that we 

needed to fit our responses into. And I will tell you that as the 

numbers in terms of what our troop drawdown is—the goal of all 

of us in the Department is to make sure we do not hollow out the 

force; so as we are drawing down we pay attention to exactly the 

details you have indicated. 

Mr. WEST. So based upon your answer, you know, we continue 

to hear everyone come up and say, ‘‘This is all based on strategy. 

It was not based on budget and numbers first.’’ What you are telling me it was based upon the budget and numbers first; it was not 

based upon a troop-to-task analysis of the volatile situation in 

which we find ourselves all across the world projecting out for the 

next 10 to 15 years. 

Dr. ROONEY. No. In fact, it was the strategy, and then within the 

strategy then we had to tailor our budget to fit in that strategy but 

we did have the constraint of what the numbers on that budget 

were to meet that strategy. 

Mr. WEST. This is my concern, going along with the ranking 

member: We already have men and women doing five and six combat tours of duty, and the unintended consequences of that—divorces are up, suicides are up, drug problems are up. If we are 

making this force smaller and these requirements continue to get 

bigger, what is going to happen with all of these second and third 

order things that are going to continue to occur, especially for our 

families? We taking that into consideration? 

Dr. ROONEY. Sir, I believe we acknowledge the challenges that 

you indicated and acknowledge that there is a special stress on our 
12 

military families and what the rotation and the deployments have 

done to the families. It is one of the reasons, also, that the Secretary mandated that we did not take any significant cuts or, in 

many cases, no cuts at all to family programs and instead tasked 

to make sure that those programs we are delivering address those 

kinds of issues that you indicated on there and that we wouldn’t 

take a reduction in those particular support programs. 

Mr. WEST. Last question: You know, I am a 22-year veteran. Has 

anyone—because everyone keeps talking about the rising costs of 

retirees—have we looked at the adult population of the United 

States of America—18 to whatever—and how many out of that population are military retirees? Can anyone give me that percentage? 

Dr. ROONEY. Percentage or total number? Sir, and you are talking—— 

Mr. WEST. Either one. 

Dr. ROONEY [continuing]. How many are in the military retirement system at this point? 

Mr. WEST. Absolutely. When you look at comparison to the population of the United States from 18 to—to whatever—adults. 

Ms. PENROD. Currently there are 1.47 million retirees. 

Mr. WEST. Okay, so 1.47 million, and let’s say out of an overall 

population—let’s be kind—300 million? What is that percentage? 

You know, somebody that didn’t go to the University of Tennessee, 

can you do that real quick? 

Dr. ROONEY. Not even 3 percent. 

Mr. WEST. My point is this—— 

Dr. ROONEY. 0.3 percent. 

Mr. WEST. My point is this: I read down here that we say the 

primary criticism of military retirement over the last 25 years has 

been the escalating cost of the program. You are talking about a 

small percentage of Americans that were willing to give their entire lives to make sure we stay free and protected this democracy. 

I don’t think we should be going after those people when they constitute such a small percentage of our society. 

So with that being said, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman West. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott, of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Ms. Rooney, I just—you said it was three-tenths of 1 percent. Is that what you said—the last number that you gave? 

Dr. ROONEY. I believe based on the numbers the congressman 

did, but my math might be off today so my apologies if it was. 

Mr. SCOTT. No, that is pretty close to what I thought. And just 

going back to the other numbers that you said, there will be 

123,900 reduction in our uniformed troops—total reduction in 

troop—and only 7,000 in non-uniformed personnel? 

Dr. ROONEY. For fiscal year 2013. 

Mr. SCOTT. Of the total number of employees, uniformed and 

non-uniformed, how many uniformed personnel do we have right 

now? 

Dr. ROONEY. If you count Guard and Reserve, approximately 2.2 

million. 

Mr. SCOTT. 2.2 million. And how many non-uniformed do we 

have? 
13 

Dr. ROONEY. Just under a million. 

Mr. SCOTT. Just under a million. If we did it on a—on an equal 

ratio then you would have—if you reduced 123,000 from the uniformed you would be looking at somewhere in the range of a 

50,000-person reduction in the civilian force. Is that correct? 

Dr. ROONEY. Let me make sure I clarify: That number that I 

gave you for the reduction in the military was over the FYDP [five 

year defense plan], and the civilian was just for the 1 year, which 

is the only thing we have for the budget right now. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And so if you did it on an equivalent basis 

what do you think it would be? 

Dr. ROONEY. Your total number is about right if, in fact, that was 

over the FYDP. 

Mr. SCOTT. So I guess my question is if we are going to have so 

many—if we are going to have that much reduction in troop force 

why wouldn’t you have a corresponding reduction in the bureaucracy? 

Dr. ROONEY. Sir, as we view—and I mentioned and used the 

term ‘‘total force’’ several times, so what we are doing as a Department is looking at across, which includes our contractors, our uniformed military, and our civilians, and at any point in time looking 

and saying, ‘‘What are these various people doing and do we have 

the right people in the right jobs?’’ So I don’t think I can sit here 

and say to you that there is any specific number in terms of the 

civilians. At this point we are looking at the appropriate mix and 

seeing and viewing this in a total force, so it is not looking at one 

particular component. 

Mr. SCOTT. But ma’am, the reduction to the soldier is 17.7 times 

what it is to the bureaucratic machine that is over there. 

Dr. ROONEY. I appreciate your comments, but I would say to you 

that the services themselves, who understand what their requirements are and what they need for end strength, are driving our 

number in terms of what that military number is. 

Mr. SCOTT. And ma’am, without the soldiers we don’t need all of 

the other bureaucrats, quite honestly. But I guess my question, getting back to this—with all of the challenges that we have going on 

in America right now with regard to the economy, the proposal for 

the TRICARE Prime increase—are you aware of any other increase 

that is as draconian as the TRICARE Prime rate increases that are 

being proposed by this administration? 

Dr. ROONEY. To comment generally, and I will ask Dr. Woodson 

to step in—part of when you look at this increase it is appropriate 

to go back to roughly 1996 and see that for most of the time up 

till the current—about a year ago—there have been no increases, 

and that is very different than what we have seen in terms of even 

health care costs as well as what has happened to most people in 

terms of their health care premiums. The other piece is that 60 

percent of our health care comes from the private sector, so as private sector health care costs are increasing we are actually seeing 

those same increases going. 

So I think that the reason, you are seeing first-time costs that 

have not risen since 1996. But I will ask my colleague, Dr. Woodson, to also comment specifically—— 
14 

Mr. SCOTT. Ma’am, I am almost out of time. But with all due respect, the general belief from the administration seems to be that 

health care should be free for everybody other than the people in 

the military, and if you are in the military then they are going to 

get a five-fold increase over the next 5 years if we allow this to 

happen. Congress made it very clear—chairman—the chairman of 

this committee—we suggested that there could be increases but 

that those increases should not exceed what the increase in pay or 

retirement benefits was. We were very clear. 

And that leads me to the next question of why do you believe 

that it should—that it should be handled in a BRAC-like manner— 

that the changes in the benefits should be handled in a BRAC-like 

manner? 

Dr. ROONEY. You are specifically referring to the retirement, sir, 

correct? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, ma’am. 

Dr. ROONEY. Okay. We feel at this point we are internally working on looking at retirement and saying if, in fact, balancing recruitment and retention, are there other potential systems? But we 

understand the difficulty in terms of making any changes to this. 

So having an independent group and commission, as is proposed by 

the President, be able to look at the alternatives and a number of 

the possible alternatives that we as a Department might put forward and be able to look at that independently, and again, not 

work with all of you but continue to work with Congress on this, 

that we felt the BRAC-like commission would actually get us to a 

good result. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Scott. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Joe Heck, of Nevada. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for having to 

step out, but I kept one ear tuned to the television while I was in 

the other room. 

You know, I certainly appreciate what you all are trying to accomplish. I think we all do. We understand we are in a very difficult situation with a very constrained fiscal environment trying to 

manage what we are going to do with one of the largest drivers of 

our national budget. 

And, of course, my biggest issue and my biggest concern has always been with the Reserves. And, you know, I—Lieutenant General Stultz comes in here quite a bit and talks about recruiting a 

soldier for life and giving them the opportunity to move between 

Active Duty, Reserve, you know, training participation unit [TPU], 

into the Individual Ready Reserve [IRR], and based Active Guard 

and Reserve [AGR] tour—whatever is necessary to keep them engaged and keep them part of the military establishment. 

And I see now that we are going to, you know, cut upwards of 

about 80,000 from the Army Active Duty Force over time. But we 

are capping the Army Reserve where it is now at 205. And actually, I think we are still over strength. We still have somewhere to 

go until we get to 205. 

But then there is—so I just question, how are we going to keep 

that soldier for life? We are going to tell them, ‘‘You are leaving,’’ 

through attrition, or whatever method, but we don’t have a spot for 
15 

them in the Reserves now if we are going to stay capped at 205, 

or we are already over our cap at 205. 

You know, we have built an incredible capability in our Reserves. 

We truly have become an operational force over the last 10 years 

and a lot of that has been based on OCO money, which is going 

away, not to mention baseline money—but OCO money that is 

going away. 

And so we see this requirement that we are going to put an everincreasing emphasis on utilization of the Reserves, which is what 

General Odierno mentioned when he was before the full committee 

not long ago on how he was going to mitigate risk, and I wonder 

how we are going to maintain that capability as we lose the funding source which has built it, which is OCO, and not, then, keeping 

folks separating from the Active Component and have the opportunity to go in—go into the Reserve Force. 

I looked at these two, you know, involuntary separation examples, and I hope they are just examples because, you know, they 

are based on an E5, E6 and O3, O4, which in my mind are the very 

folks we should be trying to keep at those grade levels, and we 

should be trying to shed, you know, O5s and O6s before we get rid 

of O3s and O4s. So I just wonder, how are you going to balance 

that issue of, we are cutting up to 80,000 Army Active Duty troops 

and we have got no place to put them even though the Reserves 

are saying we need to recruit a soldier for life? 

Dr. ROONEY. Sir, I will start that and then I will turn it over to 

Ms. Penrod. 

Our role, and one that we take very seriously, is working very 

closely with each of the services so that we can have exactly the 

conversation you are indicating, which is, what is that balance? 

What tools do we need to make sure that we are maintaining capabilities, that we have identified and will continue to identify as either current or emerging types of requirements, and how do we 

best use that tool? And it is, frankly, the force shaping. 

Because you are right: We are constrained by the numbers, we 

are constrained by our budget resources, and we are having to 

make sure we continue to support that All-Volunteer Force and 

make sure that it is ready and adaptable and all the challenges 

that we have to it. So our role, clearly—and I will ask Ms. Penrod 

to comment on the types of tools and the directive that we have actually sent out to the forces saying we will work with you but we 

need to look first at voluntary separations, and then how do we use 

these tools forward? So I will ask her to comment a little bit more 

about that. 

Ms. PENROD. Yes. We have been working with the services. We 

have had meetings with the Army staff, Navy, Air Force, Marine 

Corps, but you can understand, they are—those are draft plans. 

They intend to brief you when they come over to testify. 

But one thing we are emphasizing—again, as Dr. Rooney said, 

are voluntary over involuntary measures. We want to thank the 

Congress for the tools that you provided last year in the National 

Defense Authorization Act extending the voluntary separation pay. 

We also understand, you know, there is normal attrition in the 

Guard and Reserve. The services do plan as much as possible to 

help transition the Active Duty Force into the Guard and Reserve. 
16 

But again, I don’t have the specifics for the plans, but we are 

working with the services and trying to help them shape their force 

and using all the tools so that the—they have the skill sets that 

they need, they have the grade structure that they need, and that 

they do not go after recessions like they did in the mid-1990s. 

Dr. HECK. And I appreciate that. And I know you are keeping 

these things in mind, but I just want to emphasize the fact that 

a lot of the high-demand, low-density units that are currently being 

utilized are located in the Guard and the Reserve, and if we are 

going to draw down Active Duty and we don’t have a place to put 

them in the Reserve, I feel that we are ultimately going to impair 

our ability to be fully capable, trained, and ready to go to war. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Heck. 

And we proceed now to Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, of Missouri. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had several constituents in so I haven’t been able to be here earlier, so I don’t have 

any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. And does anyone have any proceeding or further 

question? 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One thing I would like to ask, and this is always a difficult 

thing—I am not asking for specifics so much, but we are talking 

about TRICARE, we are talking about pharmacy copays—difficult 

issues, I think, for people to address. But one of the things that we 

haven’t talked about is what if we don’t do that? Then, you know, 

what is it that has to pick up that difference in trying to maintain 

what we have, which we would all agree is very beneficial and we 

feel that it is, you know, critically important to our families? At the 

same time we are having to find cuts in other areas. 

So I wonder, Dr. Woodson, what does that look like if, in fact, 

we don’t address it in this way? 

Secretary WOODSON. Yes. Thank you very much for that question. 

Given the constraints of the Budget Control Act, if no adjustments are made in TRICARE fees and we don’t achieve what is a 

$12-plus billion savings over the FYDP, additional force structure 

cuts will need to be made. And so, you know, the optic that I think 

everyone needs to understand in these very difficult times—and, 

you know, I am sitting here listening to your questions and I understand what you are saying, Congressman Heck, and Congressman West. You know, we have talked offline about some of these 

issues. 

And so the real issue is the constraint of the Budget Control Act 

mandates that we have to look across the broad spectrum of sort 

of programs and activities. I think the Secretary made an incredible effort to limit the impact on personnel and benefits like 

TRICARE—90 percent of the savings comes from other areas. 

But we need it to be considered at the table, and so the issue and 

the short answer to your question is that without the adjustment 

in fees there, force structure impacts will be felt. We are now 10 

percent of the base DOD budget; if we continue to inflate at what 
17 

has really been a moderated rate of about 5.3 percent and the top 

line of the DOD budget comes down we become an increasingly 

greater percentage of the Department of Defense budget and then 

we really impact training, manning, and equipping the force. 

So I think the key to remember—issue to remember is that the 

line leadership was at the table with the civilian leadership, that 

the proportion of cuts in programs was driven by the strategy with 

input from the commanders at all levels—the combatant command 

[COCOM] commanders—understanding what capabilities they 

needed to preserve, as the Secretary has said. We are going to be 

a smaller but more agile force that leverages technology to be formidable wherever we go. 

But also, getting our fiscal house in order is in the national security best interest, as well. And so I think, you know, the issue is 

that without additional TRICARE adjustments force structure will 

be impacted. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I think sometimes just trying to remember, I think, for a lot of my colleagues who don’t go back, necessarily, to 2001, is the rise that we had in terms of defense spending. We obviously needed to do that, but I think that—I know my 

colleague asked the question, do we have any other increases 

across the board—the reality is there—if you compare that to other 

accounts that rose during that period there are very few that even 

come close. And so obviously there are some changes that are being 

suggested. 

I think we all just are pretty possessive of the personnel accounts 

and want to be sure that those are reasonable and that it makes 

sense. 

Very quickly if you could, I think the issue of military retirement 

has come up, and I know the BRAC-like commission has been suggested. The question really is, is that an area that we need to be 

changing now? I mean, is that something that really is going to 

make a difference in this budget or are there other changes that 

are occurring that make a whole lot more sense right now? And 

how strongly do you feel that their retirement issues should be addressed? 

Dr. ROONEY. Actually, the retirement—there is nothing in the 

fiscal year 2013 budget that accounts for any change in retirement. 

So that isn’t a budget holder even in there. 

We are looking at retirement—believe we should look at retirement as part of overall compensation. And it is the opportunity for 

us to look and say, does the current system work for what we feel 

is the force of the future? So there isn’t a preconceived notion that, 

you know, there is a particular proposal out there that is better 

than anything else. In fact, that is why we are taking the time, 

looking and saying, ‘‘If you change this what does that do to recruitment and retention?’’ So this is more of a do we have the right 

tools in terms of overall compensation, and this is the time to be 

able to look at that as opposed to it being something necessarily 

driven by a budget. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

And thank you all for being here. I would like a follow-up, if I 

could be provided in regard to Governor Baldacci—the costs of cre-
18 

ating his position, the pay for his—himself as an individual, administrative costs, travel costs, support personnel with pay, administrative and travel costs. If you all could provide that to me I would 

appreciate it. 

[The information referred to is retained in the subcommittee files 

and can be viewed upon request.] 

Mr. WILSON. And again, thank you for being here today. 

And the subcommittee shall be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

(23) 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

(73) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. What specific efforts are being made to address suicide and suicide 

prevention in the National Guard and Reserves? Is there an opportunity for local 

entities such as universities and hospitals to partner with local Guard units to combat the problem? Where are the biggest gaps right now in suicide prevention outreach? 

Dr. ROONEY. There are several efforts underway to address suicide amongst the 

National Guard and Reserves. First, the Services utilize Suicide Prevention Program Mangers (SPPM) to oversee and inform suicide prevention efforts. The Directors of Psychological Health (DPH) operate to assess and refer those needing behavioral health services. The SPPMs and the DPHs work closely together to ensure 

goals of the suicide prevention program are supported by the proper amount of behavioral health resources in a specific location. The Vets4Warriors Peer Support 

Helpline is available 24/7 to all of the Reserve Components and their families. It 

offers access to well trained veteran-peer supporters who have access to behavioral 

health clinicians and community referral networks. Reserve Component Service and 

family members can call, text, or chat online with the Veterans Crisis Line, and 

Military OneSource. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 (section 533) requires the 

Secretary of Defense develop suicide prevention information and resources in a cooperative effort with other entities. DOD is accomplishing this goal with a focus on 

the Reserve Components through its membership on the National Action Alliance, 

which is creating a National Suicide Prevention Strategy. A particular focus for this 

group is Partners In Care, which under the auspices of the Veteran/Military Working Group has developed a pilot in 5 states to involve the faith based organizations 

in supporting local Reserve Component units by training chaplains. Once the pilot 

is complete and best practices identified, plans are underway by DOD to expand to 

all interested states and territories. Also through the National Action Alliance, DOD 

has networked with organizations interested in reaching Reserve Component members who are enrolled in higher education. 

Reserve Affairs has instituted a Suicide Prevention and Resilience Resource Inventory project to identify best practices, gaps, redundancies, and unmet needs 

among the Reserve Components. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

Mrs. DAVIS. The FY12 National Defense Authorization Act requires the Services 

to treat graduates from non-traditional secondary schools that meet State graduation requirements in the same manner as they treat graduates of secondary schools 

for the purposes of recruitment and enlistment. As a non-traditional secondary education program that provide mentorship and education focus, the National Guard 

Youth ChalleNGe program has been successful in increasing the high school diploma or GED attainment of its participants by 29%. Under the change in law, will 

the Department now recognize graduates from the Challenge program as Tier 1 

graduates? If not, why? 

Dr. ROONEY. The answer to this question will vary state by state. The National 

Guard Youth ChalleNGe program offers many benefits to youth—and key among 

those benefits for participants is the opportunity for a second chance to earn a high 

school diploma or a GED Certificate. The law addresses equal treatment for individuals, ‘‘Covered Graduates,’’ who receive a diploma from a legally operating secondary school or otherwise completes a program of secondary education in compliance with the education laws of the State in which the person resides. If a State 

official attests that a ChalleNGe participant is a ‘‘Covered Graduate,’’ then that individual will be given Tier 1 enlistment priority. 
74 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES 

Mr. JONES. I very much appreciate your forthright testimony that I was told you 

recently gave before the Military Personnel Subcommittee. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend. I have great sympathy for the budget constraints with which our 

Country finds itself and certainly with those constraints in the DOD budget. That 

being said, I am very concerned about the proposed changes in cost sharing in the 

TRICARE pharmacy program. 

I strongly believe that TRICARE beneficiaries should not be discouraged from 

using their local community pharmacy, but should be given a fair choice. TRICARE 

beneficiaries strongly prefer local, community pharmacies, despite strong incentives 

that already encourage the use of mail order. Rather than denying patient choice, 

I believe the department should implement many of the best practices in use in the 

private sector to manage prescription drug costs, such as increasing generic utilization and improving medication adherence. Other than driving beneficiaries to use 

mail order, can you tell me what steps the department is taking to control prescription drug costs? 

Additionally, I would like to see the cost data that the DOD uses that shows that 

mail ordering drugs is more cost effective than purchasing them from a drug store? 

Thank you very much for your consideration and your outstanding service to our 

Nation. 

Secretary WOODSON. We agree that TRICARE beneficiaries should have a choice 

on where their prescriptions are filled. Beneficiaries continue to have the option of 

filling prescriptions at a military treatment facility (MTF) pharmacy, a retail network pharmacy, through TRICARE Pharmacy Home Delivery or a non-network retail pharmacy. 

Over the last several years, Department of Defense (DOD) has made significant 

efforts to control rising pharmacy benefit costs. The strategies and efforts pursued 

have been drawn from private sector best business practices, national trends, Congressional mandates, professional consultants, and independent studies. Each effort 

has had an effect in controlling the rise in pharmacy costs. 

The TRICARE pharmacy benefit, by regulation and consistent with industry practice, has a long standing mandatory generic use policy. The DOD requires that prescriptions be filled with generic medications when generics are available. When a 

generic equivalent exists, the brand name drug is only dispensed if the prescribing 

physician provides clinical justification for use of the brand name drug and approval 

is granted. Approximately 71% of prescriptions for DOD beneficiaries are filled with 

generics. The remainder prescriptions either have no generic equivalent or have documented clinical justifications. 

Many programs and policies surrounding formulary management within 

TRICARE closely mirror what commercial plans do to manage drug benefits. For example, we have active utilization management programs to encourage the use of 

cost effective drug therapy through the tiered formulary. Other formulary tools common with commercial practices are step-therapy, mandatory generic use, and prior 

authorizations. In addition, the Federal Ceiling Price (FCP) refunds collected for 

brand name prescriptions filled through network retail pharmacies are successful in 

further lowering drug costs. Substantial additional cost avoidance, over and above 

the FCP refunds, is obtained by DOD as a result of the ongoing negotiations with 

the pharmaceutical industry for additional voluntary refunds in return for preferential placement of their products on the TRICARE Uniform Formulary. The recent copay changes have also added to our negotiation leverage with the pharmaceutical manufacturers. 

A broad range of Medication Therapy Management (MTM) services are already 

provided by DOD. MTM is a component of the Patient Centered Medical Home 

(PCMH) model which is being implemented throughout the MTFs. The PCMH 

model enables clinical pharmacists to contribute to the healthcare team through 

services focused on medication management in improving patient clinical outcomes 

while lowering total healthcare costs. In addition, the TRICARE managed care contractors provide disease management services and case management services where 

TRICARE determines it to be necessary to achieve cost savings along with desired 

outcomes. 

Based on DOD analysis of maintenance medications, which comprised 19.9M prescriptions filled during 4QFY11 at all three points of service (MTF, Retail, and 

Mail), the data show that the mail order and MTF venues to be more cost effective 

points of service. The results showed the mean cost per 90-day supply of a market 

basket of maintenance medications was 19% lower through either the mail order 

program or military pharmacies, compared to the retail pharmacy network. 
75 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

Ms. BORDALLO. Of the slightly less than 1 million DOD civilians, how many have 

volunteered to go into harm’s way since 2001 and deployed in support our men and 

women in theater; how many DOD civilians are currently overseas in theater or 

other forward deployed areas; of the slightly less than 1 million DOD civilians, how 

many ‘‘sit behind a desk’’?; and how many DOD civilians fatalities have occurred 

as a result of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom? How many wounded? 

Dr. ROONEY. Since 2001 approximately 52,000 Department of Defense (DOD) civilian employees have volunteered for deployments in the Central Command area of 

responsibility (CENTCOM AOR) to provide support to our men and women in theater. Currently there are approximately 4,500 civilians deployed in the CENTCOM 

AOR to support on-going operations. 

The DOD currently employs approximately 750,000 appropriated fund employees 

and approximately 130,000 non-appropriated fund employees in diverse occupations 

ranging from doctors and nurses to fire fighters, electricians and mechanics to budget analysts, contracting specialists, and attorneys. The Department does not maintain the number of primarily sedentary occupations in any database. 

During Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom there have been 14 

DOD civilian fatalities. Twelve of those fatalities occurred in Iraq (11 appropriated 

fund employees, 1 non-appropriated fund employee) and two fatalities occurred in 

Afghanistan (2 appropriated fund employees). The Department does not track the 

manner in which non fatal injuries occur. 

Ms. BORDALLO. You mentioned civilian reductions of 7,000 across DOD yet the Air 

Force reports that they have nearly 16,000 civilians they are reducing, and that’s 

just the Air Force. How do you reconcile these figures? Do you believe that reductions in the civilian workforce should mirror and be proportionate to those in the 

uniformed workforce? How about contractor support to the warfighter? Should reductions in area be proportionate, based on work and deliverables, to other reductions in the Total Force? 

Dr. ROONEY. DOD-wide the aggregate reduction in civilians reflected in the fiscal 

year 2013 budget is approximately 7,000. However, in the Air Force’s case, the reductions they are implementing total approximately 16,500 from the service’s fiscal 

year 2011 baseline as a result of efficiencies directed in the fiscal year 2012 budget. 

To achieve this reduction of approximately 9%, the Air Force conducted a strategic 

evaluation of their civilian workforce to realign civilian resources from lower priority 

functions to higher priority mission areas, such as nuclear, intelligence, and cyber. 

Overall, reductions in the Total Force are correlated to workload and mission 

prioritization, as well as force structure and overseas posture changes. The fiscal 

year 2013 budget request reflects our best judgment today and represents a carefully coordinated approach based on the Department’s strategy and policy that balances operational needs and fiscal reality. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Why would Congress consider any potential changes to recruiting 

and retention incentives such as military retirement and health care or reductions 

to essential training accounts when Defense can’t identify the cost of what you pay 

for in contracted services? So what are you doing to reduce contracted services and 

work requirements instead of just reducing dollars? If you are only reducing dollars 

then you are likely setting up conditions to default to contractors in light of the current civilian personnel constraints. 

Dr. ROONEY. The Department takes very seriously its commitments to the All-Volunteer Force, and any proposed reforms to benefits would be well-reasoned and 

would be designed to ‘‘keep faith’’ with those who are serving, and have served. Additionally, any proposed reductions to training accounts are based on proposed 

changes to the Department’s strategy, overseas posture and commitments, and force 

structure. The Department is very committed to increasing visibility and accounting 

of contracted services, and reducing spending in areas that are not directly linked 

to the strategy, priorities, and force structure of the Department. To that end, in 

November 2011, the Department submitted to the Congressional defense committees 

a comprehensive plan that delineated both short- and long-term actions related to 

the statutorily required inventory and review of contracts for services. As we implement this plan, we will be able to better understand what we spend on contracted 

services and the true level of effort associated with those services. Having comprehensive information on contracted services that can be translated to units of 

measure that are comparable to the other elements of our workforce (military and 

civilian) is critical to making improved value and planning judgments. 

Ms. BORDALLO. In November 2011, you co-signed a comprehensive plan to document contractor FTE and comply with requirements set forth in title 10 for the inventory of contracts for services. How are those efforts progressing? 
76 

Dr. ROONEY. The plan submitted in November 2011 included both short- and longterm actions. As delineated in that plan, the Department issued guidance on December 29, 2011 directing the preparation of the fiscal year 2011 inventory of contracts 

for services. That guidance was a significant step forward in meeting the requirements of title 10, as it broadened the scope of responsibility to all Components of 

the Department that rely on contracted support, and delineated the requirements 

for reviewing contracted services in accordance with the statutory requirements. 

Based on this guidance, we are working with all DOD organizations towards completion of a more accurate and comprehensive data set to be submitted this summer. 

Additionally, together with the staff of the Department’s Deputy Chief Management Officer, we are working towards implementing the Army’s ‘‘Contractor Manpower Reporting Application’’ across the entire DOD-enterprise in order to leverage 

established processes, lessons learned, and best practices to comply with the law in 

the most cost effective and efficient manner. 

Long-term actions delineated in the November 2011 plan were contingent on approval of an emergency waiver to the Paperwork Reduction Act, which the Department submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in December 2011. As of 

mid-March, the Department has not received the emergency waiver and is unable 

to address efforts beyond the short-term until a waiver is granted. 

Ms. BORDALLO. The Department requested emergency relief from the Paperwork 

Reduction Act in order to move forward, after four plus years of non-compliance, 

with the Inventory of Contracts for Services. However, OMB has failed to act on 

that request. What is the impact to the Department’s progress, and the fiscal implications, of not getting the emergency filing approved? 

Dr. ROONEY. As of early April, the Department has not received the emergency 

waiver to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) as requested from OMB in December 

2011 and is proceeding with the full PRA filing process that will take an additional 

2–3 months. While the Department continues to press forward and will submit the 

annual Inventory of Contracts for Services (ICS) in June as required by statute, this 

submission will include contractor full time equivalents (CFTE) calculated from obligated dollar amounts and an Army factor derived from data reported by their contractors, as opposed to on actual direct labor hours as required by statute. Without 

the emergency waiver to the PRA as requested, the Department is delayed by at 

least one more year to demonstrably improve the ICS, and at least two years from 

full compliance with the fiscal year 2011 NDAA changes to section 2330a of title 

10 requiring that CFTE be calculated based on direct labor hours and other data 

collected from private sector providers. 

Until the PRA waiver is granted, the Department cannot take steps to modify 

statements of work to collect the required data. Most DOD Components had planned 

to begin modifying statements of work this fiscal year. As a result of the delay, contracts will likely not begin being modified until fiscal year 2013, resulting in a delay 

until fiscal year 2014 of the first real data collection. 

While the fiscal implications are challenging to quantify, they do exist and are related to Components’ ability to improve planning for increasingly scarce resources. 

Delays in collecting direct labor hours prevent the Department from getting an accurate accounting of the level of effort for contracted services, which would facilitate 

assessing those services using a common unit of measure, full-time equivalents. 

Without this level of fidelity, making value-based decisions and trade-offs by distinguishing between direct labor hours supporting the mission and indirect costs, overhead, and other costs is adversely impacted. For example, the Army, which has had 

the necessary PRA waiver in place for over 5 years, has found that approximately 

half of all Army contract dollars in the base budget go to non-labor costs, such as 

overhead and profit, rather than direct execution of mission and workload. Such increased fidelity has enabled the Army to more appropriately realign limited resources to its more pressing priorities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Secretary Panetta has stated that the Department is looking at 

reductions in contracted services as part of the $60B in savings. Of the $60 billion, 

how much exactly is associated with civilian personnel and how much is service support contractors—do you believe this is an appropriate ratio give then ballooning 

growth over the past 10 years in contracted services? 

Dr. ROONEY. Of the $60 billion, approximately $13.2 billion (22%) is attributed to 

better contracting practices and reduced spending on contracted services. As governance plans for these acquisition initiatives are fine-tuned, adjustments to these savings may occur. The total reduction associated with the civilian workforce is approximately $11.2 billion. Most of this ($10.4 billion or 92%) is attributable to the 

adjustment to the civilian workforce pay raise from 2.3 percent to 0.5 percent. The 

FY 2013 budget reflects a balanced workforce that decreases spending on military 

personnel, civilian full-time equivalents, and spending for contract services. It re-
77 

flects our best judgment today and represents a carefully coordinated approach 

based on the Department’s strategy and policy that balances operational needs and 

fiscal reality. The Department remains committed to meeting its statutory obligations to annually review missions, functions, and workforce composition, including 

reliance on contracted services, and to ensure the workforce is appropriately balanced and aligned to our most critical priorities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Secretary Panetta has stated that the Department needs to reduce 

the large numbers of contractors. Personnel & Readiness is charged with overseeing 

and implementing the Department’s workforce mix and in-sourcing policies—do you 

support in-sourcing as one way to reduce reliance on contractors? 

Dr. ROONEY. Yes, in-sourcing is one of many tools available to managers to shape 

the workforce, including reducing inappropriate or excessive reliance on contracted 

services. I support in-sourcing of contracted services in order to: ensure inherently 

government, closely associated, or critical work is performed by government civilians 

or military; maintain management control and oversight of key functions and workload in support of our warfighter; and deliver services in the most cost efficient 

manner possible. 

Ms. BORDALLO. If the Department is holding to FY10 civilian levels and in fact, 

the FY13 budget further reduces the civilian workforce, how can DOD organizations 

in-source if it is more cost effective? What recourse, in a particular year of execution, does a manager or Commander have if he wishes to in-source a contract in 

order to achieve fiscal savings? 

Dr. ROONEY. The Department remains committed to its statutory obligations 

under title 10 to annually review contracted services and ensure that they are being 

performed in the most cost effective manner possible. Where appropriate, DOD organizations may immediately in-source by absorbing work into existing government 

positions by refining duties or requirements; establishing new positions to perform 

contracted services by eliminating or shifting equivalent existing manpower resources (personnel) from lower priority activities; or on a case-by-case basis, requesting an exception to their existing civilian levels. To ensure increasingly constrained 

resources are allocated appropriately and with consideration for organizational mission priorities, the Department is currently assessing the process by which the civilian workforce is administered in the year of execution in order to increase management flexibilities at the mission level. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What if the work is found to be inherently governmental or otherwise should be performed by civilians, instead of contractors? What flexibility is 

there to immediately convert that work to civilian performance without having to 

ask permission to add civilians or reduce staffing in other equally important missions? 

Dr. ROONEY. The Department remains committed to its statutory obligations 

under title 10 to annually review contracted services and ensure appropriate performance of functions that are inherently governmental, closely associated, or otherwise exempted from private sector performance (to mitigate risk, ensure continuity 

of operations, build internal capability, meet and maintain readiness requirements, 

etc). Contracted services that meet the necessary criteria should be immediately divested, if of low priority, or in-sourced to government performance. Where appropriate, DOD organizations may immediately in-source by absorbing work into existing government positions by refining duties or requirements; establishing new positions to perform contracted services by eliminating or shifting equivalent existing 

manpower resources (personnel) from lower priority activities; or on a case-by-case 

basis, requesting an exception to their civilian levels. To ensure increasingly constrained resources are allocated appropriately and with consideration for organizational mission priorities, the Department is currently assessing the process by which 

the civilian workforce is administered in order to increase management flexibilities 

at the mission level. 

Ms. BORDALLO. How does the DOD’s budget request reconcile with legislative language set forth in Division A, Section 8012 of Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2012 (P.L. 112–74) which states that ‘‘. . . during fiscal year 2012, the civilian personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on the basis of any endstrength, and the management of such personnel during that fiscal year shall not 

be subject to any constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength)’’, and more 

specifically, that the fiscal year 2013 budget request be prepared and submitted to 

the Congress as if this provision were effective with regard to fiscal year 2013? 

Dr. ROONEY. The DOD budget request complies with Section 8012 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–74). Defense civilian personnel are not 

managed on the basis of end-strength. The Defense budget is managed based on executive and legislative guidance, strategic plans, resource levels, workload, and mission requirements. As required by the Congress, the DOD documents the civilian 
78 

personnel levels supported in the budget request in the OP–8 exhibit. The OP–8 reflects the specific funding for civilian personnel, as well as the number of full-time 

equivalents (FTEs) and end-strength. 

Ms. BORDALLO. President Obama has made reducing reliance on contractors and 

rebalancing the workforce a major management initiative of his Administration. 

Does the Department’s FY13 budget request and reductions in the civilian workforce 

reflect an opinion that the Department has achieved an appropriately balanced 

workforce? 

Dr. ROONEY. The Department’s ‘‘sourcing’’ of functions and work among military, 

civilian, and contracted services must be consistent with workload requirements, 

funding availability, readiness and management needs. The FY 2013 budget request, and associated civilian workforce reductions, reflects our best judgment today 

and represents a carefully coordinated approach based on the Department’s strategy 

and policy that balances operational needs and fiscal reality. 

Ms. BORDALLO. In FY10, the Department added 17,000 new positions as a result 

of in-sourcing contracted services. Can you tell us what that number was in 

FY2011? And to what extent will in-sourcing continue? 

Dr. ROONEY. In fiscal year 2011, DOD organizations reported that they established nearly 11,000 civilian positions as a result of in-sourcing contracted services. 

The Department remains committed to meeting its statutory obligations to annually 

inventory and review contracted services and identifying those that are no longer 

required or are inappropriately aligned to the private sector. In-sourcing remains a 

very effective and critical tool for the Department to rebalance its workforce, realign 

inherently governmental and other critical work to government performance from 

contract support, and, in many instances, to generate resource efficiencies. 

Ms. BORDALLO. We’ve heard a lot about decreases and reductions in contracted 

services, yet when we look at the figures and talk to the field, what is evident is 

that reductions in contracts are very narrowly defined and limited to only a miniscule subset of what the Department actually purchases in terms of services. Why 

has the Department chosen to levy across the board reductions to only military E/ 

S and civilian personnel without considering wholesale reductions to more expensive 

contractors? 

Dr. ROONEY. The fiscal year 2013 budget reflects a balanced workforce that decreases spending on military end-strength, civilian personnel, and spending for contract services. It reflects our best judgment today and represents a carefully coordinated approach based on the Department’s strategy and policy that balances operational needs and fiscal reality. Proposed reductions in military end-strength are not 

across the board but are linked to declines in our current overseas commitments; 

revised strategy, posture and operational planning; and changes to our force structure. Similarly, the proposed reductions in civilian personnel and contracted services 

are predominantly associated with ongoing organizational assessments and mission/ 

function prioritization in an effort to reduce administrative workload. Contracted 

services are a key enabler of the war-fighter and a source of overall infrastructure 

operations, and in many instances provide cost effective support. The Department 

remains committed to meeting its statutory obligations to annually review services 

provided by contract, ensuring that they are aligned to our most pressing priorities 

and continue to be the most cost effective means of delivering such support. As part 

of such reviews, some services may be identified for in-sourcing because they can 

be more cost effectively delivered by government personnel, while some services may 

be determined to be no longer required or of low priority and, as such, be eliminated 

or reduced in scope. In other instances, continued contracted support may be the 

most appropriate and cost effective source of delivering services. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What assurances can you give me that as wide-spread civilian reductions are occurring across the military departments work is not shifting illegally 

to contract performance? 

Dr. ROONEY. Reductions in the civilian workforce are correlated to workload and 

mission prioritization. The Department is committed to ensuring that workload associated with civilian reductions does not shift to contract but is eliminated or realigned to other civilians. On December 1, 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to the Department reiterating the statutory prohibition on conversion of work to contracts. This guidance directed vigilance 

in preventing the inappropriate conversion of work to contract performance, particularly as the Department adapted to declining budgets. Specifically, managers and 

Commanders were reminded of their obligations to preclude such illegal shifting of 

work as they implemented the results of organizational assessments, continued to 

assess missions and functions in terms of priority, and revisited both their civilian 

and military force structures. Through the use of our on-going communications with 
79 

national labor leadership, the Department has been able to look into allegations of 

improper workload shifts and, if justified, take corrective actions. 

In addition, the DOD has established an internal, multi-level governance process 

for monitoring implementation of all efficiencies, to include those resulting in civilian workforce reductions. Any issue, such as illegal shifting of work, can be addressed via this governance process for adjudication. If circumstances warrant, an 

exception request to increase the civilian workforce to meet workload requirements 

can be made. 

Long-term, as the Department makes improvements to its Inventory of Contracts 

for Services, as required by title 10, we will have increased visibility and accountability into such contracts. Specifically, improvements currently underway will enable the Department to more accurately identify contracted level of effort based on 

direct labor hours and associated data. This increased fidelity into contracted services will serve as another critical tool for the Department to monitor and preclude 

possible workload realignment. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What processes are in place to ensure the workload associated 

with reductions being made in the civilian workforce is in fact ceasing, as opposed 

to being absorbed by other labor sources such as contractors or military personnel? 

Dr. ROONEY. Reductions in the civilian workforce are correlated to workload and 

mission prioritization. The Department is committed to ensuring that workload associated with civilian reductions does not shift to other sectors of the Total Force, 

such as military or contract performance. 

To that end, on December 1, 2011, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness issued guidance to the Department reiterating the statutory prohibition on conversion of work to contracts. This guidance directed vigilance in preventing the inappropriate conversion of work to contract performance, particularly 

as the Department adapted to declining budgets and operating in a constrained fiscal environment. Specifically, managers and Commanders were reminded of their 

obligations to preclude such illegal shifting of work as they implemented the results 

of organizational assessments, continued to assess missions and functions in terms 

of priority, and revisited both their civilian and military force structures. 

Additionally, on March, 2, 2012, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness issued guidance to the Department regarding the use of ‘‘borrowed’’ or 

‘‘repurposed’’ military manpower. This guidance is intended to ensure that amidst 

declining operational tempos for our military personnel and, as civilian reductions 

associated with efficiencies are implemented, military personnel are not inappropriately utilized, particularly in a manner that may degrade unit readiness. 

Through the use of our on-going communications with national labor leadership, 

the Department has been able to look into allegations of improper workload shifts 

resulting from civilian workforce reductions and, if justified, take corrective actions. 

In addition, the DOD has established an internal, multi-level governance process for 

monitoring implementation of all efficiencies, to include those resulting in civilian 

workforce reductions. Any issue, such as inappropriate shifting of work, can be addressed via this governance process for adjudication. If circumstances warrant, an 

exception request to increase the civilian workforce to meet workload requirements 

can be made. 

Ms. BORDALLO. There was a lot of discussion last year about the ‘‘exceptions’’ to 

the FY10 civilian levels Secretary Gates’ mandated. What role does Personnel & 

Readiness have in the exceptions process and is it consistent with statutory requirements set forth for Personnel & Readiness in title 10? 

Dr. ROONEY. Personnel and Readiness is a key contributor to the process of reviewing and making recommendations to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for approving growth in the civilian workforce. Requests for civilian growth must be 

based, in part, on the workforce mix criteria policy issued by Personnel & Readiness. This workforce mix criteria, founded in statutory and regulatory considerations, drives the ‘‘sourcing’’ determination of work between military, civilian, and 

contracted services and is a key factor that justifies civilian growth across the Department. Such determinations must be consistent with workload requirements, 

funding availability, readiness and management needs, as well as applicable laws 

and statute. Personnel & Readiness works together with other elements of the Secretary’s and Department’s leadership team to deliver a balanced, flexible, responsive 

workforce that: is the appropriate mix of military, civilian, and contracted support; 

mitigates risk, ensures continuity of operations, and promotes organic knowledge 

base; and ensures mission requirements are met most cost effectively and efficiently. 

Where necessary to deliver that workforce, exceptions to current authorized civilian 

levels are considered and, if appropriate, granted. 

Ms. BORDALLO. To what extent have the existing data sets available to Department planners, specifically the Department’s annual inventory of inherently govern-
80 

mental and commercial activities, contributed to the functional streamlining, organizational realignments, workforce shaping decisions, and civilian personnel reductions reflected in last year’s efficiencies initiative and continued in this year’s budget? 

Dr. ROONEY. The efficiencies initiatives begun under Secretary Gates, and continued in this year’s budget, were implemented based on guidance to conduct organizational assessments and mission/function prioritization. This guidance required DOD 

Components to: baseline their organizations; assess and prioritize missions; eliminate duplication; ensure workload distribution; and submit recommendations for organization restructuring and reallocation of manpower, including workforce reductions. 

While the guidance did not specifically require DOD Components use their annual 

inventory of inherently governmental and commercial activities, it is one of many 

data sets and workload quantification sources that DOD Components had available 

as they conducted their assessments. The inventory provides DOD Components with 

visibility into their respective workforce and organizations based on functional 

descriptors, manpower mix criteria, location of services, and specific units and assignment of billets. The extent to which individual DOD Components relied on their 

respective inventories of inherently governmental and commercial activities to inform their efficiencies and personnel reductions would vary based on the processes 

they undertook and other available data sources. 

Ms. BORDALLO. In achieving the right mix for the Total Force, how does the Department use the annual inventory of inherently governmental and commercial activities, and associated manpower mix determinations, to identify the civilian workforce reductions reflected in the past two budgets? 

Dr. ROONEY. The civilian workforce reductions reflected in the past two budgets 

demonstrate the Department’s commitment to challenge workload requirements and 

more appropriately size its workforce to meet our most pressing and critical priorities. The reductions also ensure an appropriate Total Force mix while considering 

changes in our overseas commitments and our force structure. The annual inventory 

of inherently governmental and commercial activities is one of many data sets and 

workload quantification sources that DOD components had available as they shape 

their workforces, develop their budget proposals, and identify proposed reductions. 

The inventory provides DOD components with visibility into their respective 

workforces and organizations based on functional descriptors, manpower mix criteria, location of services, and specific units and assignment of billets. 

Ms. BORDALLO. As civilian personnel reductions are being executed across the Department, is the workload and functions associated with those being tracked as 

eliminated or divested through the annual inventory of functions? 

Dr. ROONEY. The Department is tracking Component efficiency initiatives implementation using the Defense Enterprise Performance Management System 

(DEPMS). This includes monitoring compliance with the direction to maintain, with 

certain exceptions, civilian full-time equivalent authorizations at fiscal year 2010 

levels and any attendant civilian personnel reductions. In addition, the Department’s guidance for the annual inventory of inherently governmental and commercial functions, issued 24 October 2011, required DOD Components to identify and 

provide rationale for all major changes, to both civilian and military workload, ‘‘to 

include identification of any difference resulting from the implementation of organizational efficiencies and budgetary reductions as a result of the Department’s efforts 

to streamline business operations, reduce redundancies and/or overhead functions, 

and maximize shared services.’’ DOD Components are required to submit their data 

sets for DOD review beginning in April 2012. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What is the status of DOD’s insourcing effort? How many positions were added to the in-house workforce in FY10 and in FY11? For each year, 

how many of the positions were added in order to save money for taxpayers and 

how many in order to better serve our warfighters? 

Dr. ROONEY. The Department continues to execute its statutory requirement to 

review contracted services and identify those that should be in-sourced to government performance. In-sourcing remains a very effective and critical tool for the Department to rebalance its workforce, realign inherently governmental and other critical work to government performance (from contract support), and, in many instances, to generate resource efficiencies. 

In FY10, the Department added nearly 17,000 new government positions as a result of in-sourcing. Of those nearly 17,000 positions, 9% were established because 

the contracted service was found to be inherently governmental, 41% were because 

the work was determined to be exempted from private sector performance (to mitigate risk, ensure continuity of operations, build internal capability, meet and maintain readiness requirements, etc.), and 50% were based solely on cost savings. 
81 

In FY11, the Department added nearly 11,000 new government positions as a result of in-sourcing. Of these, 6% were because the work was inherently governmental, 13% was because the work was exempted, and 81% were based solely on 

cost savings. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Is DOD’s official position that, ‘‘Insourcing has been, and continues to be, a very effective tool for the Department to rebalance the workforce, 

realign inherently governmental and other critical work to government performance 

(from contract support), and in many instances to generate resource efficiencies’’? 

Dr. ROONEY. Yes, and the Department remains committed to using the process 

of in-sourcing as an integral part of its Total Force management strategy to deliver 

a balanced, flexible, responsive workforce that is the appropriate mix of military, civilian, and contracted support while mitigating risk, ensuring continuity of operations, promoting organic knowledge base, and ensuring mission requirements are 

met most cost effectively and efficiently. 

Ms. BORDALLO. A recent GAO report (12–319) seems to provide some much need 

context to a remark made by former Secretary Gates on insourcing: ‘‘In August 

2010, the Secretary of Defense stated that he was not satisfied with the department’s progress in reducing over-reliance on contractors. Representatives of (Personnel & Readiness) and (the Comptroller) told us that although DOD avoided $900 

million in costs for contracted support services in fiscal year 2010 due to the budget 

decision to reduce funds associated with insourcing, total spending across all categories of service contracts increased in fiscal year 2010 by about $4.1 billion’’. Is 

it correct to say that rather than deprecate insourcing during his press conference, 

Secretary Gates was actually lamenting that insourcing, despite savings of almost 

$1 billion in FY10, could not offset the ever-escalating costs of service contractors. 

Dr. ROONEY. I cannot speculate on the message or spirit of Secretary Gates’ remarks. However, in-sourcing was not intended to offset cost of service contracts, but 

rather is one process by which the Department can rebalance its workforce, realign 

inherently governmental and other critical work to government performance (from 

contract support), and in certain instances, generate resource efficiencies. Data from 

across the Department indicates that on a case-by-case basis, reductions in operating costs or fiscal efficiencies are gained through in-sourcing certain types of services or functions. As noted by the GAO, these savings are generally not visible at 

an aggregate level but rather materialize in the form of resource realignment at the 

field/command level to other priorities or requirements. Certain commercial functions can be more cost effectively delivered by the government and are appropriate 

for in-sourcing, while in other instances, a cost analysis may demonstrate that continued contract performance is appropriate. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Should DOD be denied cost savings from insourcing where work 

is being performed by small business contractors, even if in-house performance 

would result in savings to taxpayers? 

Dr. ROONEY. No, if in-sourcing services provided by small business can generate 

savings for the Department, then consistent with title 10 obligations and our fiduciary responsibilities to the taxpayer, such services should be considered for potential in-sourcing. The Department values the contributions made by small businesses 

in support of our mission, and we are committed to meeting our small business 

goals. Furthermore, we follow the requirement set forth in Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letter 11–01, Performance of Inherently Governmental and Critical 

Functions, to place a lower priority on reviewing work performed by small businesses when the work is not inherently governmental and where continued contract 

performance does not put the agency at risk of losing control of its mission or operations. However, the Department is committed to ensuring its workload is met in 

the most cost effective and efficient manner possible and, in some instances, which 

may result in the in-sourcing of services performed by small businesses. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Do small business contractors currently perform functions that are 

inherently governmental, closely associated with inherently governmental function, 

or critical? Why should DOD not be denied the capacity to insource such functions? 

Dr. ROONEY. Consistent with statute, federal policy, DOD guidance, and federal 

acquisition regulations, the Department has processes and safeguards in place to 

preclude the contracting of functions that are inherently governmental or otherwise 

exempted from private sector performance (to mitigate risk, ensure continuity of operations, build internal capability, meet and maintain readiness requirements, etc). 

Functions that are determined to be closely associated with inherently governmental 

or critical in nature may, under certain circumstances, be contracted for provided 

there are sufficient management and contract oversight mechanisms in place to ensure the agency is not at risk of losing control of its mission or operations. In instances where inherently governmental functions, or functions otherwise exempt 

from private sector performance, are found to be performed under contract, that 
82 

work must be immediately divested or in-sourced to government performance, regardless of whether that work is performed by a large or small business. To the 

maximum extent practical, as dictated by title 10 requirements, the Department is 

reducing the level of contracted support performing closely associated with inherently governmental or critical workload. This may include workload performed by 

small businesses; but a lower priority is placed on such work where continued contract performance does not put the agency at risk of losing control of its mission 

or operations. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Is there evidence to indicate or suggest that DOD’s insourcing is 

having a disproportionately adverse impact on small business contractors? Is there 

anything in the insourcing law or the DOD regulation carrying out that law that 

would single out, target, or disproportionately adversely impact small business contractors? 

Dr. ROONEY. No, there is currently no data that would indicate a disproportionate 

impact on small businesses as a result of in-sourcing. In fact, as reported by DOD 

Components, of the nearly 17,000 government positions established as a result of 

in-sourcing in fiscal year 2010, less than 1,000 (approx. 6%) were the result of insourcing a contracted service where the prime contractor was a small business. The 

Department values the contributions made by small businesses in support of our 

mission, and we are committed to meeting our small business goals. There is nothing in current law, regulation or DOD policy that targets small businesses for insourcing. In fact, the Department follows the requirement set forth in Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letter 11–01, Performance of Inherently Governmental and 

Critical Functions, to place a lower priority on reviewing work performed by small 

businesses when the work is not inherently governmental and where continued contract performance does not put the agency at risk of losing control of its mission 

or operations. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What precautions does DOD take to ensure that insourcing does 

not have a disproportionate impact on small business contractors? Is it necessary 

for an advocate for small business contractors or even a ‘‘breakout procurement center representative’’ to participate in any session or planning process and reviewing 

any documents related to insourcing from a small business contractor in order to 

prevent a disproportionately adverse impact on small business contractors from 

DOD’s insourcing? Are any other interest groups in sourcing and procurement represented in DOD’s decision-making process? For example, do advocates for or representatives of federal employees participate in sourcing and procurement decisions 

that might adversely affect federal employees? 

Dr. ROONEY. The Department values the contributions made by small businesses 

in support of our mission, and we are committed to meeting our small business 

goals. Consistent with requirements set forth in Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letter 11–01, Performance of Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions, 

DOD Components place a lower priority on reviewing work performed by small businesses when the work is not inherently governmental and where continued contract 

performance does not put the agency at risk of losing control of its mission or operations. However, the Department remains committed to its statutory obligations 

under title 10 to annually inventory and review contracted services, including those 

delivered by small businesses. In doing so, the Department ensures appropriate performance of functions that are inherently governmental, closely associated, or otherwise exempted from private sector performance (to mitigate risk, ensure continuity 

of operations, build internal capability, meet and maintain readiness requirements, 

etc). Where necessary and appropriate, contracted services may be in-sourced to government performance. This is a process that requires inputs and collaboration 

among many different stakeholders, including the financial management/budget, 

manpower, personnel, and procurement/acquisition (including small business advocacy as appropriate) communities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Would Section 302 of H.R. 3893 allow contractors to litigate agencies’ determinations that certain functions should be insourced for performance reasons, e.g., that the functions are inherently governmental, ‘‘closely associated’’, or 

critical, i.e., are too important or sensitive to be performed by contractors? Would 

there be any precedents for substituting a court’s opinion for that of the executive 

branch in such instances? What are the department’s views of such a change? On 

average, how much longer would decisions whether to insource, whether for cost or 

performance reasons, take if Section 302 became law? Do federal employees have 

legal standing to challenge agencies’ outsourcing decisions in federal court? Do federal employees have any legal standing to challenge agencies’ insourcing decisions 

in federal court? Would H.R. 3893 provide federal employees and small business 

contractors with the same legal standing in the insourcing context? 
83 

Dr. ROONEY. Whether section 302 of HR 3893, if enacted into law, would allow 

contractors to litigate agency determinations as described is a matter of judicial interpretation of both legal standing and executive agency discretion. The Department 

cannot speculate on the judicial branch’s potential interpretation of section 302. As 

a matter of policy, executive level federal agencies have historically had broad discretion in determining their own requirements and how these requirements will be 

met, whether with government employees or by contracting for the work. In exercising this discretion, the agency must make any such decisions in accordance with 

agency guidelines, applicable statutes, and federal regulations. If an agency fails to 

abide by its own guidelines or the law, then parties with standing could potentially 

litigate the actions. Even in instances where the agency has followed its own guidelines and the law, contractors could still seek to litigate the agency’s determination. 

Presumably, contractors with legal standing could be given an opportunity to challenge a broad range of issues that have historically been based on executive policy 

and discretion. This could potentially include in-sourcing decisions that must be subjective in nature based on a variety of circumstances and an exercise of discretion, 

such as determinations of inherently governmental, closely associated, or critical. 

Designations of specific functions as inherently governmental in judicial decisions 

would have the force of law, at least within the jurisdictions where the decisions 

are precedent and for so long as the decisions are not overturned. However, to date, 

the Department has no knowledge of any court overturning an agency’s in-sourcing 

decision, and the cases that have been brought have not progressed beyond preliminary questions like which court has jurisdiction to provide relief for improper insourcing decisions and whether the plaintiff has standing to bring the challenge. Absent interagency coordination and clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as required by OMB Circular A–19, the Department may not comment 

on the proposed legislation at this time. 

The Department cannot predict the effect section 302 may have, if it were enacted, on the time it takes to in-source a contracted service. Given standing, a contractor could foreseeably pursue a number of courses of actions, including recourse 

to GAO, federal circuit court, and court of federal claims. Depending on a number 

of factors that fall under the jurisdictional purview of those forums, times to resolve 

and adjudicate could vary from weeks to years, factoring in appeals and filings with 

higher forums. 

Under section 3551 of title 31, United States Code, federal employees have limited 

standing to file a protest with the GAO related to outsourcing decisions as part of 

a public-private competition conducted under OMB Circular A–76. Representatives 

of federal employees may also have standing with the United States Court of Federal Claims under section 1491 of title 28, United States Code. In both these instances, the standing afforded federal employee representatives is related to publicprivate competition conducted under OMB Circular A–76 and in accordance with 

section 2461 of title 10, United States Code. Such public-private competitions are 

expressly prohibited for the purposes of in-sourcing determinations per section 2463 

of title 10, United States Code. 

Under Article III of the Constitution, plaintiffs have standing if (1) they allege an 

injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, instead of conjectural or hypothetical (injury-in-fact); (2) the alleged injury is sufficiently traceable 

to the defendant’s challenged action (causal connection); and (3) the requested relief 

will likely redress the alleged injury (redressability). In addition to having the burden of showing Article III standing, under the Administrative Procedure Act plaintiffs must also demonstrate prudential standing by establishing that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests protected by the statute in question. 

Historically, the zone-of-interests test has generally led to the dismissal of federal 

employee suits challenging outsourcing decisions. If the federal employees can show 

that they are within the zone of interests protected by the statute in question that 

governs an in-sourcing decision, they may be held to have standing to sue. 

While H.R. 3893 does not appear to provide federal employees and small business 

contractors with the same legal standing in the in-sourcing context, the Department 

cannot speculate on the judicial branch’s potential interpretation should this bill, or 

portions thereof, be enacted into law. 

Ms. BORDALLO. H.R. 3893 would prevent insourcing from occurring until, among 

other things, has published for comment its insourcing policy. Has DOD published 

its outsourcing policy for comment? 

Dr. ROONEY. DOD’s outsourcing of new or expanding work to the private sector 

is governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and Defense supplement, and applicable statutory requirements. The Department’s current policies regarding insourcing of existing work, as well as competitive sourcing of such work, are all publicly available. The decision to use a sector (public or private) to perform work must 
84 

be made in accordance with governing statutes and is a matter of executive branch 

policy. Lessons learned and best practices, including those from both internal and 

external stakeholders, are regularly reviewed and considered as policies and procedures are implemented and refined. 

Ms. BORDALLO. H.R. 3893 would prevent insourcing from occurring until, among 

other things, all decisions are reviewed by advocates for or representatives of small 

business contractors. Are DOD’s outsourcing decisions reviewed by advocates for or 

representatives of federal employees? 

Dr. ROONEY. No, decisions to purchase services from the private sector are not 

subjected to review by advocates or representatives of federal employees. In certain 

instances where existing government work is competed via a public-private competition under Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 and the determination 

is to procure work from the private sector, the designated government official (or 

their representative) may challenge aspects of the solicitation and evaluation process, but those rights are not exclusive to the government and do not differ from 

those of a private sector entity in the same process. 

Ms. BORDALLO. As a result of Section 938 of the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act, all DOD contractors were given two new protections in the insourcing 

process: 1) a requirement that federal employees be marginally more efficient than 

contractors in order for functions to be insourced for cost reasons; 2) special notification when functions are being considered for insourcing for cost reasons. Do either 

or both of these requirements apply when DOD is thinking of switching from a 

small business contractor to a large contractor or when a large DOD contractor is 

thinking of taking work back from a small business subcontractor? 

Dr. ROONEY. No, the requirements pertaining to conversion differential or timely 

notification included in section 938 are specific to the governing statute for insourcing contracted services, section 2463 of United States Code title 10. They do 

not apply to shifts in workload between two or more private sector firms, either 

large or small. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Of the slightly less than 1 million DOD civilians, how many have 

volunteered to go into harm’s way since 2001 and deployed in support our men and 

women in theater; how many DOD civilians are currently overseas in theater or 

other forward deployed areas; of the slightly less than 1 million DOD civilians, how 

many ‘‘sit behind a desk’’?; and how many DOD civilians fatalities have occurred 

as a result of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom? How many wounded? 

Secretary WOODSON. Since 2001 approximately 52,000 Department of Defense 

(DOD) civilian employees have volunteered for deployments in the Central Command area of responsibility (CENTCOM AOR) to provide support to our men and 

women in theater. Currently there are approximately 4,500 civilians deployed in the 

CENTCOM AOR to support on-going operations. 

The DOD currently employs approximately 750,000 appropriated fund employees 

and approximately 130,000 non-appropriated fund employees in diverse occupations 

ranging from doctors and nurses to fire fighters, electricians and mechanics to budget analysts, contracting specialists, and attorneys. The Department does not maintain the number of primarily sedentary occupations in any database. 

During Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom there have been 14 

DOD civilian fatalities. Twelve of those fatalities occurred in Iraq (11 appropriated 

fund employees, 1 non-appropriated fund employee) and two fatalities occurred in 

Afghanistan (2 appropriated fund employees). The Department does not track the 

manner in which non fatal injuries occur. 

Ms. BORDALLO. You mentioned civilian reductions of 7,000 across DOD yet the Air 

Force reports that they have nearly 16,000 civilians they are reducing, and that’s 

just the Air Force. How do you reconcile these figures? Do you believe that reductions in the civilian workforce should mirror and be proportionate to those in the 

uniformed workforce? How about contractor support to the warfighter? Should reductions in area be proportionate, based on work and deliverables, to other reductions in the Total Force? 

Secretary WOODSON. DOD-wide the aggregate reduction in civilians reflected in 

the fiscal year 2013 budget is approximately 7,000. However, in the Air Force’s case, 

the reductions they are implementing total approximately 16,500 from the service’s 

fiscal year 2011 baseline as a result of efficiencies directed in the fiscal year 2012 

budget. To achieve this reduction of approximately 9%, the Air Force conducted a 

strategic evaluation of their civilian workforce to realign civilian resources from 

lower priority functions to higher priority mission areas, such as nuclear, intelligence, and cyber. Overall, reductions in the Total Force are correlated to workload 

and mission prioritization, as well as force structure and overseas posture changes. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects our best judgment today and represents 
85 

a carefully coordinated approach based on the Department’s strategy and policy that 

balances operational needs and fiscal reality. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Why would Congress consider any potential changes to recruiting 

and retention incentives such as military retirement and health care or reductions 

to essential training accounts when Defense can’t identify the cost of what you pay 

for in contracted services? So what are you doing to reduce contracted services and 

work requirements instead of just reducing dollars? If you are only reducing dollars 

then you are likely setting up conditions to default to contractors in light of the current civilian personnel constraints. 

Secretary WOODSON. The Department takes very seriously its commitments to the 

All-Volunteer Force, and any proposed reforms to benefits would be well-reasoned 

and would be designed to ‘‘keep faith’’ with those who are serving, and have served. 

Additionally, any proposed reductions to training accounts are based on proposed 

changes to the Department’s strategy, overseas posture and commitments, and force 

structure. The Department is very committed to increasing visibility and accounting 

of contracted services, and reducing spending in areas that are not directly linked 

to the strategy, priorities, and force structure of the Department. To that end, in 

November 2011, the Department submitted to the Congressional defense committees 

a comprehensive plan that delineated both short- and long-term actions related to 

the statutorily required inventory and review of contracts for services. As we implement this plan, we will be able to better understand what we spend on contracted 

services and the true level of effort associated with those services. Having comprehensive information on contracted services that can be translated to units of 

measure that are comparable to the other elements of our workforce (military and 

civilian) is critical to making improved value and planning judgments. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Of the slightly less than 1 million DOD civilians, how many have 

volunteered to go into harm’s way since 2001 and deployed in support our men and 

women in theater; how many DOD civilians are currently overseas in theater or 

other forward deployed areas; of the slightly less than 1 million DOD civilians, how 

many ‘‘sit behind a desk’’?; and how many DOD civilians fatalities have occurred 

as a result of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom? How many wounded? 

Ms. PENROD. Since 2001 approximately 52,000 Department of Defense (DOD) civilian employees have volunteered for deployments in the Central Command area 

of responsibility (CENTCOM AOR) to provide support to our men and women in 

theater. Currently there are approximately 4,500 civilians deployed in the 

CENTCOM AOR to support on-going operations. 

The DOD currently employs approximately 750,000 appropriated fund employees 

and approximately 130,000 non-appropriated fund employees in diverse occupations 

ranging from doctors and nurses to fire fighters, electricians and mechanics to budget analysts, contracting specialists, and attorneys. The Department does not maintain the number of primarily sedentary occupations in any database. 

During Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom there have been 14 

DOD civilian fatalities. Twelve of those fatalities occurred in Iraq (11 appropriated 

fund employees, 1 non-appropriated fund employee) and two fatalities occurred in 

Afghanistan (2 appropriated fund employees). The Department does not track the 

manner in which non fatal injuries occur. 

Ms. BORDALLO. You mentioned civilian reductions of 7,000 across DOD yet the Air 

Force reports that they have nearly 16,000 civilians they are reducing, and that’s 

just the Air Force. How do you reconcile these figures? Do you believe that reductions in the civilian workforce should mirror and be proportionate to those in the 

uniformed workforce? How about contractor support to the warfighter? Should reductions in area be proportionate, based on work and deliverables, to other reductions in the Total Force? 

Ms. PENROD. DOD-wide the aggregate reduction in civilians reflected in the fiscal 

year 2013 budget is approximately 7,000. However, in the Air Force’s case, the reductions they are implementing total approximately 16,500 from the service’s fiscal 

year 2011 baseline as a result of efficiencies directed in the fiscal year 2012 budget. 

To achieve this reduction of approximately 9%, the Air Force conducted a strategic 

evaluation of their civilian workforce to realign civilian resources from lower priority 

functions to higher priority mission areas, such as nuclear, intelligence, and cyber. 

Overall, reductions in the Total Force are correlated to workload and mission 

prioritization, as well as force structure and overseas posture changes. The fiscal 

year 2013 budget request reflects our best judgment today and represents a carefully coordinated approach based on the Department’s strategy and policy that balances operational needs and fiscal reality. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Why would Congress consider any potential changes to recruiting 

and retention incentives such as military retirement and health care or reductions 

to essential training accounts when Defense can’t identify the cost of what you pay 
86 

for in contracted services? So what are you doing to reduce contracted services and 

work requirements instead of just reducing dollars? If you are only reducing dollars 

then you are likely setting up conditions to default to contractors in light of the current civilian personnel constraints. 

Ms. PENROD. The Department takes very seriously its commitments to the AllVolunteer Force, and any proposed reforms to benefits would be well-reasoned and 

would be designed to ‘‘keep faith’’ with those who are serving, and have served. Additionally, any proposed reductions to training accounts are based on proposed 

changes to the Department’s strategy, overseas posture and commitments, and force 

structure. The Department is very committed to increasing visibility and accounting 

of contracted services, and reducing spending in areas that are not directly linked 

to the strategy, priorities, and force structure of the Department. To that end, in 

November 2011, the Department submitted to the Congressional defense committees 

a comprehensive plan that delineated both short- and long-term actions related to 

the statutorily required inventory and review of contracts for services. As we implement this plan, we will be able to better understand what we spend on contracted 

services and the true level of effort associated with those services. Having comprehensive information on contracted services that can be translated to units of 

measure that are comparable to the other elements of our workforce (military and 

civilian) is critical to making improved value and planning judgments. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Of the slightly less than 1 million DOD civilians, how many have 

volunteered to go into harm’s way since 2001 and deployed in support our men and 

women in theater; how many DOD civilians are currently overseas in theater or 

other forward deployed areas; of the slightly less than 1 million DOD civilians, how 

many ‘‘sit behind a desk’’?; and how many DOD civilians fatalities have occurred 

as a result of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom? How many wounded? 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. Since 2001 approximately 52,000 Department of Defense (DOD) 

civilian employees have volunteered for deployments in the Central Command area 

of responsibility (CENTCOM AOR) to provide support to our men and women in 

theater. Currently there are approximately 4,500 civilians deployed in the 

CENTCOM AOR to support on-going operations. 

The DOD currently employs approximately 750,000 appropriated fund employees 

and approximately 130,000 non-appropriated fund employees in diverse occupations 

ranging from doctors and nurses to fire fighters, electricians and mechanics to budget analysts, contracting specialists, and attorneys. The Department does not maintain the number of primarily sedentary occupations in any database. 

During Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom there have been 14 

DOD civilian fatalities. Twelve of those fatalities occurred in Iraq (11 appropriated 

fund employees, 1 non-appropriated fund employee) and two fatalities occurred in 

Afghanistan (2 appropriated fund employees). The Department does not track the 

manner in which non fatal injuries occur. 

Ms. BORDALLO. You mentioned civilian reductions of 7,000 across DOD yet the Air 

Force reports that they have nearly 16,000 civilians they are reducing, and that’s 

just the Air Force. How do you reconcile these figures? Do you believe that reductions in the civilian workforce should mirror and be proportionate to those in the 

uniformed workforce? How about contractor support to the warfighter? Should reductions in area be proportionate, based on work and deliverables, to other reductions in the Total Force? 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. DOD-wide the aggregate reduction in civilians reflected in the 

fiscal year 2013 budget is approximately 7,000. However, in the Air Force’s case, 

the reductions they are implementing total approximately 16,500 from the service’s 

fiscal year 2011 baseline as a result of efficiencies directed in the fiscal year 2012 

budget. To achieve this reduction of approximately 9%, the Air Force conducted a 

strategic evaluation of their civilian workforce to realign civilian resources from 

lower priority functions to higher priority mission areas, such as nuclear, intelligence, and cyber. Overall, reductions in the Total Force are correlated to workload 

and mission prioritization, as well as force structure and overseas posture changes. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects our best judgment today and represents 

a carefully coordinated approach based on the Department’s strategy and policy that 

balances operational needs and fiscal reality. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Why would Congress consider any potential changes to recruiting 

and retention incentives such as military retirement and health care or reductions 

to essential training accounts when Defense can’t identify the cost of what you pay 

for in contracted services? So what are you doing to reduce contracted services and 

work requirements instead of just reducing dollars? If you are only reducing dollars 

then you are likely setting up conditions to default to contractors in light of the current civilian personnel constraints. 
87 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. The Department takes very seriously its commitments to the 

All-Volunteer Force, and any proposed reforms to benefits would be well-reasoned 

and would be designed to ‘‘keep faith’’ with those who are serving, and have served. 

Additionally, any proposed reductions to training accounts are based on proposed 

changes to the Department’s strategy, overseas posture and commitments, and force 

structure. The Department is very committed to increasing visibility and accounting 

of contracted services, and reducing spending in areas that are not directly linked 

to the strategy, priorities, and force structure of the Department. To that end, in 

November 2011, the Department submitted to the Congressional defense committees 

a comprehensive plan that delineated both short- and long-term actions related to 

the statutorily required inventory and review of contracts for services. As we implement this plan, we will be able to better understand what we spend on contracted 

services and the true level of effort associated with those services. Having comprehensive information on contracted services that can be translated to units of 

measure that are comparable to the other elements of our workforce (military and 

civilian) is critical to making improved value and planning judgments. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOEBSACK 

Mr. LOEBSACK. In the light of the reduction in end strength outlined in this budget request and the defense strategy released earlier this year, what policies are 

being reviewed to ease transition between the active, reserve, and civilian components? Do you believe that easing the transition between the components will help 

to build in the reversibility outlined in the new defense strategy by ensuring that 

our highly trained and experienced force can be accessed quickly if a contingency 

arises? What, if any, legislative authority would you require to enact policies to ease 

the transition between the active and reserve components? 

Dr. ROONEY. The Department of Defense will structure and pace reductions in the 

Nation’s forces in such a way that they can surge, regenerate, and mobilize capabilities needed for any contingency and focus on building upon the Department’s ability 

as an organization and the personnel within those organizations to be adaptive. The 

Department will ensure a strong foundational force that is designed to adapt to 

emergent mission requirements by maintaining readiness standards sufficient for 

meeting current operational needs and surging to meet planned deployment, determining those capabilities that require a long lead time to produce and are uniquely 

associated with critical operational requirements while preserving these capabilities 

in sufficient numbers to achieve operational goals and applying organizational constructs and training strategies that will increase deployment options and training 

effectiveness. 

Within the active force the Department will make it faster and easier to generate 

or regenerate capabilities by etermining those skills and capabilities that could be 

drawn down; preserving key lessons, strategies, and processes learned; determining 

and preserving key enablers to surging or regenerating these capabilities. 

Within Reserve Affairs, as part of the work on the Commission on National Guard 

and Reserve (CNGR), and the ongoing work of the Comprehensive Review of the Reserve Components, we have partnered with the Services to examine law and policy 

as it pertains to transition between the active and reserve components. The objective is seamless, facilitated, and unbiased movement between components, and conveyance of benefits and entitlements as appropriate. This work is ongoing. As specific requirements necessitate, we have also advocated the Reserve Component as 

a ready, cost effective force of choice where appropriate in execution of the new Defense strategy. 

Lastly the Department will coordinate Service efforts to achieve these policy goals. 

We will continue to work with the Services to facilitate Service Member movement 

within and between Active, Reserve, and Civilian statuses to increase Total Joint 

Force Readiness. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Taking into account co-payments and dispensing fees, what is the 

cost to the Department of generic medications dispensed by retail pharmacies compared to the cost of generic medications dispensed by the TRICARE Mail Order Program? 

Secretary WOODSON. Including patient co-payments and dispensing fees, the average cost of a 30 day equivalent prescription for generic medication dispensed by retail pharmacies was $21.06 during 1st Quarter FY12. In comparison, the average 

cost of generic medication dispensed by the TRICARE Mail Order Program was 

$13.92 during 1st Quarter FY12. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. In the light of the reduction in end strength outlined in this budget request and the defense strategy released earlier this year, what policies are 
88 

being reviewed to ease transition between the active, reserve, and civilian components? Do you believe that easing the transition between the components will help 

to build in the reversibility outlined in the new defense strategy by ensuring that 

our highly trained and experienced force can be accessed quickly if a contingency 

arises? What, if any, legislative authority would you require to enact policies to ease 

the transition between the active and reserve components? 

Ms. PENROD. The Department of Defense will structure and pace reductions in the 

Nation’s forces in such a way that they can surge, regenerate, and mobilize capabilities needed for any contingency and focus on building upon the Department’s ability 

as an organization and the personnel within those organizations to be adaptive. The 

Department will ensure a strong foundational force that is designed to adapt to 

emergent mission requirements by maintaining readiness standards sufficient for 

meeting current operational needs and surging to meet planned deployment, determining those capabilities that require a long lead time to produce and are uniquely 

associated with critical operational requirements while preserving these capabilities 

in sufficient numbers to achieve operational goals and applying organizational constructs and training strategies that will increase deployment options and training 

effectiveness. 

Within the active force the Department will make it faster and easier to generate 

or regenerate capabilities by etermining those skills and capabilities that could be 

drawn down; preserving key lessons, strategies, and processes learned; determining 

and preserving key enablers to surging or regenerating these capabilities. 

Within Reserve Affairs, as part of the work on the Commission on National Guard 

and Reserve (CNGR), and the ongoing work of the Comprehensive Review of the Reserve Components, we have partnered with the Services to examine law and policy 

as it pertains to transition between the active and reserve components. The objective is seamless, facilitated, and unbiased movement between components, and conveyance of benefits and entitlements as appropriate. This work is ongoing. As specific requirements necessitate, we have also advocated the Reserve Component as 

a ready, cost effective force of choice where appropriate in execution of the new Defense strategy. 

Lastly the Department will coordinate Service efforts to achieve these policy goals. 

We will continue to work with the Services to facilitate Service Member movement 

within and between Active, Reserve, and Civilian statuses to increase Total Joint 

Force Readiness. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. In the light of the reduction in end strength outlined in this budget request and the defense strategy released earlier this year, what policies are 

being reviewed to ease transition between the active, reserve, and civilian components? Do you believe that easing the transition between the components will help 

to build in the reversibility outlined in the new defense strategy by ensuring that 

our highly trained and experienced force can be accessed quickly if a contingency 

arises? What, if any, legislative authority would you require to enact policies to ease 

the transition between the active and reserve components? 

Mr. TAMBURRINO. The Department of Defense will structure and pace reductions 

in the Nation’s forces in such a way that they can surge, regenerate, and mobilize 

capabilities needed for any contingency and focus on building upon the Department’s ability as an organization and the personnel within those organizations to 

be adaptive. The Department will ensure a strong foundational force that is designed to adapt to emergent mission requirements by maintaining readiness standards sufficient for meeting current operational needs and surging to meet planned 

deployment, determining those capabilities that require a long lead time to produce 

and are uniquely associated with critical operational requirements while preserving 

these capabilities in sufficient numbers to achieve operational goals and applying 

organizational constructs and training strategies that will increase deployment options and training effectiveness. 

Within the active force the Department will make it faster and easier to generate 

or regenerate capabilities by etermining those skills and capabilities that could be 

drawn down; preserving key lessons, strategies, and processes learned; determining 

and preserving key enablers to surging or regenerating these capabilities. 

Within Reserve Affairs, as part of the work on the Commission on National Guard 

and Reserve (CNGR), and the ongoing work of the Comprehensive Review of the Reserve Components, we have partnered with the Services to examine law and policy 

as it pertains to transition between the active and reserve components. The objective is seamless, facilitated, and unbiased movement between components, and conveyance of benefits and entitlements as appropriate. This work is ongoing. As specific requirements necessitate, we have also advocated the Reserve Component as 

a ready, cost effective force of choice where appropriate in execution of the new Defense strategy. 
89 

Lastly the Department will coordinate Service efforts to achieve these policy goals. 

We will continue to work with the Services to facilitate Service Member movement 

within and between Active, Reserve, and Civilian statuses to increase Total Joint 

Force Readiness. 

Æ