U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

50–088 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–12] 

RECRUITING, RETENTION AND END 

STRENGTH OVERVIEW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 3, 2009 
(II) 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MICHAEL HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member 

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

ROSELLEN KIM, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2009 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009, Recruiting, Retention and End Strength Overview ... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 .......................................................................................... 49 

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009 

RECRUITING, RETENTION AND END STRENGTH OVERVIEW 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee ............................................................................. 1 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking Member, 

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

WITNESSES 

Bergman, Lt. Gen. John W., USMCR, Commander, Marine Forces Reserve ..... 27 

Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower 

and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps ................................... 7 

Debbink, Vice Adm. Dirk J., USNR, Chief, Navy Reserve ................................... 26 

Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III, USN, Chief of Naval Personnel, Deputy 

Chief of Naval Operations, Total Force .............................................................. 6 

Gilroy, Dr. Curtis, Director, Accessions Policy, Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Personnel and Readiness ............................................................ 4 

May, Rear Adm. Daniel R., USCG, Chief, Coast Guard Reserve Forces ............ 29 

Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III, USAF, Deputy Chief Staff, Manpower 

and Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force ................................................... 8 

Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1, Headquarters, U.S. Army ............................................................................................. 5 

Stenner, Lt. Gen. Charles E., Jr., AFR, Chief, U.S. Air Force Reserve .............. 28 

Stultz, Lt. Gen. Jack C., USAR, Chief, U.S. Army Reserve and Commanding 

General, U.S. Army Reserve Command ............................................................. 25 

Vaughn, Lt. Gen. Clyde A., ARNG, Director, Army National Guard .................. 24 

Wyatt, Lt. Gen. Harry M., III, ANG, Director, Air National Guard ................... 28 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bergman, Lt. Gen. John W. ............................................................................. 165 

Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S. ........................................................................... 101 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 53 

Debbink, Vice Adm. Dirk J. ............................................................................. 146 

Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III ................................................................... 80 

Gilroy, Dr. Curtis .............................................................................................. 57 

May, Rear Adm. Daniel R. ............................................................................... 196 

Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III ..................................................................... 110 
Page

IV 

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued 

Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D. .......................................................................... 68 

Stenner, Lt. Gen. Charles E., Jr. .................................................................... 178 

Stultz, Lt. Gen. Jack C. .................................................................................... 134 

Vaughn, Lt. Gen. Clyde A. ............................................................................... 122 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 56 

Wyatt, Lt. Gen. Harry M., III .......................................................................... 172 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Jones ........................................................................................................... 205 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 209 

Mr. Loebsack ..................................................................................................... 213 

Mr. Murphy ....................................................................................................... 212 
(1) 

RECRUITING, RETENTION AND END STRENGTH 

OVERVIEW 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 3, 2009. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mrs. DAVIS. The meeting will come to order. 

Today, the subcommittee will turn its attention to the important 

issue of end strength within the active and reserve components of 

our armed forces and the personnel programs that are the building 

blocks of those forces’ recruiting and retention. 

During the fiscal year 2005 through 2007, the recruiting environment had been difficult. That is something that we are all familiar 

with. Relatively low unemployment, a protracted war on terrorism, 

and increased interest in college attendance all contributed to a reduced propensity for youth to serve and a reluctance for influencers 

to recommend military careers. Recruiting and retention programs 

were under great stress, and the services resorted to increased 

spending to keep the volunteer force on track. Many of those funding increases were supported with wartime supplemental appropriations; and the uncertainty of supplemental funds to support 

critical programs, such as recruiting and retention, had been a concern of the subcommittee. 

During fiscal year 2008, a new environment began to take shape 

as housing markets and financial institutions began to crumble and 

the national economy slipped into recession. The unemployment 

rate grew 7.6 percent in January; and payroll employment has declined by 3.6 million since December, 2007. This new economic reality—and I must say this is not something that we are happy 

about, but it has had an upside in many ways, and we will be talking about that. This new economic reality has been shaping the attitudes of young recruit candidates and service members and their 

families about enlisting and reenlisting in the military in the same 

way that continues to shape the attitudes of millions of Americans 

about employment and job security. 

The effect on recruiting and retention has been remarkable. Recruit quality programs that had been of such great concern to this 

subcommittee just a few short months ago have virtually evapo-
2 

rated. With only a few exceptions—and there are some—goals are 

being achieved, end strengths are growing, and forces are being reshaped to meet the demands of this global war. During the hearing 

today, we hope to learn more from our active and reserve leaders 

about what needs to be done to create the most effective and efficient forces possible. 

Unfortunately, this bright picture has a dark side that cannot be 

escaped. Budget managers will now begin to stalk these programs 

for savings and, rightly so. Because, as recruitment and retention 

become easier, one must assume it can be done more cost effectively. The question before us today is how all the goals, growth, 

and reshaping will be achieved with far less funding than what has 

been available up to this point. 

We have two excellent panels to help us explore these issues. I 

am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to discuss our reserve forces in greater detail during the second panel when we will 

hear testimony from our reserve component chiefs. 

I would request that all witnesses keep their oral opening to 

three minutes as much as you can. We know that is difficult. You 

have a lot to say. There is a lot of history here. But if you can keep 

it to that, it will help us out. 

Without objection, all written statements will be entered into the 

record. 

I now want to turn to the ranking chair, Mr. Wilson, for any 

opening comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 53.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

SOUTH CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis. 

We have two excellent witness panels today, and I really can’t 

wait for the American people to see each of you. I have been so impressed in meeting with you individually; and, as I look out, I’m 

just in awe of the professionals who are here today who provide extraordinary opportunities for the young people of our country to 

serve. Your efforts have directly contributed to the extraordinary 

success of the active and reserve components in not only sustaining 

the All-Volunteer Force during a highly stressful time but, also, in 

the case of the Army and Marine Corps and Army National Guard, 

in substantially accelerating the growth of the force. I want to 

thank each of our witnesses for their efforts. 

With regard to growth, the Army and Marine Corps sought 

strengths of 547,400 and 202,000 respectively to be achieved in 

2011 or beyond. Amazingly, they will achieve those strengths before the end of the year. The Army National Guard has already exceeded its 2013 strength goal of 358,000. This accelerated growth 

reflects the effects of the final budget submitted by President Bush 

and the subsequent fine work by our witnesses today. 

I represent Fort Jackson for Army training, and I’m grateful to 

represent Parris Island for Marine training, so I have seen it firsthand. And I do know firsthand of the rewarding experience of mili-
3 

tary service, having served 31 years in the Army Reserve and 

Army National Guard. 

I am grateful I have four sons who know of the fulfillment of 

military service. My oldest is a national guard veteran of Iraq. My 

second is an active duty member of the Navy, who I visited a year 

ago today in his service in Iraq. My third is a national guard signal 

officer currently in training at Fort Jackson. And my youngest is 

Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) at Clemson University; and, in December, he joined the national guard simultaneous 

drill program. And I, of course, want to give credit to my wife for 

inspiring them to serve. 

Your recruiting and retention efforts are providing wonderful, 

life-long opportunities for the young people of America. The challenge for President Obama’s 2009 supplemental funding proposal 

and for the 2010 budget request is to sustain that accelerated 

growth in the Army, Marine Corps, and Army National Guard. 

Moreover, I understand that both the Navy and the Air Force will 

seek to increase strength in 2010 and beyond. I look forward to the 

details of the President’s budget request next month to see if that 

additional Navy and Air Force growth is provided. 

I firmly believe that our military needs to be larger to address 

the full range of missions we have levied upon it and the threats 

we face, and to ensure that this stress on the force and the families 

who support it is minimized. Any calls now to reduce military manpower to fund modernization would be shortsighted. Both the Air 

Force and Navy have reached that conclusion. I would hope that 

Congress will, too. 

The keys to sustaining increasing military manpower are recruiting, retention, and control of unplanned attrition. Our two panels 

today can help us to understand the challenges in each of those 

areas. So I want to join you, Madam Chairwoman, in welcoming 

our witnesses; and I look forward to their testimony. 

Additionally, last year, I was very grateful, with the chairwoman, 

to visit the recruiting and retention school at Fort Jackson, South 

Carolina; and we saw firsthand, again, the extraordinary personnel 

who are working to provide opportunity for the young people of our 

country. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 56.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

I would like to introduce our first panel: Dr. Curtis Gilroy, who 

is the Director of the Accessions Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; General Michael 

Rochelle, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1, Headquarters, U.S. Army; 

Vice Admiral Mark E. Ferguson, Chief of Naval Personnel, Deputy 

Chief of Navy Operations, Total Force; Lieutenant General Ronald 

Coleman, Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps; and Lieutenant General Richard 

Newton, Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. 

Thank you all for being here, and we look forward to your comments. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Doctor Gilroy. 
4 

STATEMENT OF DR. CURTIS GILROY, DIRECTOR, ACCESSIONS 

POLICY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS 

Dr. GILROY. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, distinguished members of the subcommittee and staff, thank you for inviting us to discuss our recruiting and retention programs with you 

today. I’m delighted to report to you that the state of recruiting 

and retention for our active duty force, as we are one-third of the 

way through fiscal year 2009, is a success. 

Let me make three points in the limited time that I have. 

Point number one, the services have done a remarkable job in recruiting a quality force in an environment that has been characterized by most as the most challenging since the advent of the AllVolunteer Force in 1973. I know this because I have studied this, 

I have written about the volunteer force, and I have helped manage 

the volunteer force for 30 years. 

As the economy continues to dip and unemployment rises, recruiting should be somewhat less difficult. We know this. But the 

economy is not the only driver of our retention and our recruitment 

programs. We have other significant challenges that are facing us 

today, and let me just talk briefly about those. 

Influencers of youth, for example—Madam Chairwoman, you 

mentioned that just a moment ago—are much less likely to recommend military service to young people today than they did two, 

three, four years ago—parents, teachers, coaches, guidance counselors. And we know that propensity among youth themselves is 

much less than it is today—than it was two, three, four years ago. 

We also know that we have a declining pool of eligible and qualified young people in America today who want to serve, owing mostly to health and physical fitness issues and education problems. 

We have a crisis in this country, don’t we? We have an obesity 

problem amongst our youth, and we have an education crisis as 

well. Seventy to 75 percent of young people today have a high 

school diploma, a bona fide high school diploma. That is a sad state 

of affairs. 

So when we add all of the qualifiers we find that only 25 percent 

of our young people today age 17 to 24 are qualified for military 

service. Not a good situation. 

We have an ongoing Global War on Terror and the associated operations tempo; and, lastly, we have the need to maintain end 

strength for the Army and the Marine Corps at relatively high levels. These are our challenges, despite the fact that unemployment 

is rising and the economy is slacking. 

Point number two, to the extent that there will be pressure for 

budgetary realignment and budget cuts, if you will, and these will 

be directed to our recruiting and retention programs, I ask that we 

move cautiously and deliberately when we consider these. Historically, when the economy weakens and recruiting and retention became less challenging, these programs have been ripe for cuts. Recall the crisis in the late 1970s, as a result of significant and I 

should say careless cuts during those times. Recall the problems in 

the mid-1980s for the same reason. And recall the issues in the late 

1990s when all four services missed their recruiting goals in either 

1998 or 1999 for the very same reason. 
5 

These lessons from the past showed us that it is easy and quick 

to cut budgets during times when recruiting and retention are successful, but we also learned from those lessons of the past how difficult and how time consuming and how expensive it is when we 

need to ramp up, when recruiting and retention failed, as a result 

of those budget cuts. 

If we do not pay attention to the history lessons, we are doomed 

to repeat these sins of the past. And that is why we are working 

together, the services and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), 

to review our recruiting and retention programs to ensure funding 

adequacy without excess. 

Finally, in conclusion, the success of our voluntary military during good times and during challenging times results directly from 

this subcommittee’s continued support for which we are very, very 

grateful. We have recently celebrated 35 years, our 35th anniversary of our volunteer military; and we thank you for your significant role in the success over those years. 

We stand by to answer any questions that you may have. Thank 

you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gilroy can be found in the Appendix on page 57.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. General Rochelle. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. MICHAEL D. ROCHELLE, USA, 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, G–1, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY 

General ROCHELLE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 

Member Wilson, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Good 

morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear today and thank you for 

your wonderful and continued support. 

The past few years have been a significant era in the history of 

our Nation’s Army as we have faced the multiple challenges to 

keep the Army vibrant, balanced, and successful, while able to defend our country against some of the most persistent and wideranging threats in our Nation’s history. Our success in those endeavors has been due in large part to the support of the Congress 

and the support the Congress has given us through the many programs that have been instituted since the Nation went to war in 

2001. 

First and foremost, you have given us the means to recruit and 

retain an agile Army. As a result, for the past two years we have 

met or exceeded our recruiting and retention goals for the total 

Army. You have supported initiatives that have allowed us to 

transform our force into one Army that consistently uses the talents of our active, reserve, and national guard soldiers as well as 

our civilian team members. 

We could not have succeeded without your support. You have 

given us the means to improve the quality of life for our soldiers 

and their families, and soldiers are remaining in the Army because 

they see it as a higher calling of service and a great place to raise 

a family. You have given us the means to care for our wounded soldiers; and, paraphrasing the prophetic words of George Wash-
6 

ington, one of the strongest indicators of a healthy force is the way 

the Nation cares for its wounded. 

Our Wounded Warrior programs have proven to our soldiers and 

their families that this Nation will not forget their sacrifices, nor 

will they be forgotten. This support has helped us sustain the 

health of an Army that has endured the longest period of combat 

and conflict in our Nation’s history. The Army continues to face 

challenges, but it is our intent to stay in front of those challenges, 

anticipating them and developing strategies and programs that will 

keep America’s Army strong. 

The eligible population to serve in our armed forces has declined 

over the past decade, and we must continue to work hard to attract 

and retain the very best. The challenging environments that our 

soldiers serve in require more targeted recruitment, and we must 

remain ever vigilant that our force is manned to meet the various 

crises that continue to develop around the globe. We must also deal 

with such issues as—such painful issues, I might add, as suicides 

over the past few months. I’m confident, however, that the operational and institutional agility of this Army—that this Army has 

developed over the past eight years, with it we will meet the challenges that will come our way. 

In closing, your leadership and your support have been unwavering. I have appreciated the discussions we have had over the years 

concerning the health of the Army, and I look forward to your questions today. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

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

Appendix on page 68.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Admiral Ferguson. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. MARK E. FERGUSON III, USN, 

CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL 

OPERATIONS, TOTAL FORCE 

Admiral FERGUSON. Chairwoman Davis, Representative Wilson 

and distinguished members of the House Armed Services Committee, it is a pleasure to review with you today the Navy’s recruiting and retention efforts as well as our end strength projections for 

this year. 

We remain a global Navy, with over 40 percent of our forces 

under way or deployed. We have increased our operational availability through the fleet response plan and are engaging in new 

mission areas in support of the joint force. We continue to play a 

key role in support of joint operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 

across the globe by providing approximately 14,000 sailors as individual augmentees. With this high operational tempo, we remain 

vigilant concerning stress on our sailors and their families. We ensure that sailors have adequate opportunity to rest and spend time 

at home between deployments and provide them a comprehensive 

continuum of care. 

The tone of the force is positive. Sailors and their families continue to express satisfaction with the morale and leadership at 

their commands, their health care, benefits, and compensation. 
7 

Over the past year, we have been successful in recruiting highquality sailors. In 2008, we achieved our enlisted and officer goals 

across both the active and reserve components, while exceeding Department of Defense (DOD) quality standards in all recruit categories. For the first time in five years, we achieved overall active 

and reserve medical officer recruiting goals. 

Beginning in 2008 and continuing into this year, the comprehensive benefits provided by the Congress for our service members, 

combined with the current economic conditions, have resulted in an 

increased retention and lower attrition across the force. To ensure 

the long-term health of the force, we are transitioning from a posture of reducing end strength to one we term ‘‘stabilizing the force.’’ 

To meet global demands and minimize stress on the force, the Secretary of the Navy used his end strength waiver authority for 2008 

and 2009. We project to finish 2009 within two percent above our 

statutory end strength limit. 

Our stabilization efforts have been directed at sustaining a highquality force able to respond to new mission areas within our fiscal 

authorities. We are guided by the following principles: one, continue to attract and recruit our Nation’s best and brightest; retain 

the best sailors; target incentives to retain those with critical skills; 

balance the force in terms of seniority, experience, and skills 

matched to projected requirements; safeguard the careers of our 

top performers; and provide the fleet and joint force stable and predictable manning. 

On behalf of all the men and women in uniform who sacrifice 

daily and their families, I want to extend my sincere appreciation 

to you and the members of the committee for their unwavering 

support for our Navy. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Ferguson can be found in 

the Appendix on page 80.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. General Coleman. 

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

General COLEMAN. Chairwoman Davis, Congressman Wilson, distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to appear 

before you today along with Lieutenant General Jack Bergman, 

Commander of the Marine Forces Reserves. 

I would like to make a few key points, first with regard to our 

end strength growth. The Marine Corps achieved unprecedented 

success in fiscal year 2008, growing by over 12,000 marines. We 

have since surpassed the 200,000 mark and fully expect to reach 

our goal of 202,000 during fiscal year 2009, two years ahead of 

schedule. We owe this historic success in large part to our recruiters, who met all succession goals in fiscal year 2008, while maintaining the highest quality standards. Thank you for your continued support of our enlistment incentives which make these 

achievements possible. 

Active component retention has also been successful. We 

achieved an unprecedented 36 percent retention rate among our 
8 

first-time marines, exceeding our 31 percent in fiscal year 2007 

which in itself was an historic high. 

We thank you for your support of our selective reenlistment 

bonus (SRB) program. It is the foundation of our retention efforts. 

We will continue to require a robust level of SRB funding to increase retention in targeted and specialized Military Occupational 

Specialties (MOS) so we maintain a vital Marine Corps leadership 

and experience. 

While we did miss our reserve authorized end strength by approximately 2,000, this was due in large part to the focus we placed 

on return and reserve personnel to the active force. As we close in 

on our 202,000 plan, we will now refocus our efforts on increasing 

our reserve end strength. 

Lastly, I want to personally thank you for your staff’s recent visit 

to our Wounded Warrior Regiment West Battalion. I know our Nation’s wounded warriors are a top priority for you; and I can assure 

you that they are for the Marine Corps, too. 

With our 202,000 end strength success in the near horizon, I 

want to thank you and other Members of Congress for your support 

and partnership. The increased funding and flexibility authorizations that you provided are central to the strength that your Marine Corps enjoys today. We will continue to rely on them as we 

grow and maintain 202,000 and we work to shape the Marine 

Corps for the 21st century so we will always remain the most ready 

when the Nation is least ready. 

I look forward to your questions. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

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

Appendix on page 101.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. General Newton. 

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

General NEWTON. Madam chairwoman, Ranking Member Wilson 

and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

discuss our efforts to ensure we attract, recruit, develop, and retain 

a high-quality and diverse fighting force for the world’s most respected Air Force. 

Today, airmen are fully engaged in joint operations across the 

globe and stand prepared for rapid response to asymmetric threat 

as well as unconventional conflicts. Our priorities are clear: reinvigorating the Air Force nuclear enterprise; partnering with the 

joint and coalition team to win today’s fight; developing and caring 

for airmen and their families; modernizing our air and space inventories, organizations, and training; and recapturing acquisition excellence. These priorities will shape the strategic landscape that 

currently provide significant challenge to our organization’s systems, concepts, and our doctrine. 

Regardless, today’s airmen are doing amazing things for the joint 

war fighting team. Our aim is to improve capability by tapping into 

all available sources so we do not lose the war for America’s talent. 

As such, the Air Force has made diversity a strategic imperative 
9 

to ensure we remain prevalent as the greatest combat-ready Air 

Force in the world. 

As we prepare for an uncertain future, we are transforming the 

force to ensure we are the right size and shape to meet emerging 

global threats with joint and battle-trained airmen. For fiscal year 

2008, our active duty officer corps met or exceeded all aggregate retention goals, while overall active duty enlisted retention rates finished below annual goals. 

Whereas retention is strong within our officer corps, a few pockets of concern exist among control and recovery, health professionals and contracting. 

The Air Force continues to develop both the accession and retention incentives to ensure the right mix of health professionals. Additionally, our most critical war-fighting skills require special focus 

on enlisted retention due to demands on the high operations tempo 

placed on airmen who perform duties such as para rescue, command and control, tactical air control party, and explosive ordnance 

disposal. Just as important, we are committed to taking care of 

families and our wounded warriors as an essential piece of retaining an effective force. 

In conclusion, our airmen are doing amazing things to meet the 

needs of the joint war fighter. They execute the Air Force mission 

and keep the Air Force on a vector for success against potential future threats in that uncertain world of ours. The Air Force must 

safeguard our ability to see anything on the face of the Earth, 

range it, observe it or hold it at risk, supply, rescue, support or, 

in cases, destroy it, all the while assessing the effects and exercise 

global command and control of all those activities. 

Rising to the challenges of the 21st century is not a choice. It is 

a responsibility to bequeath a dominant Air Force to America’s 

joint team that will follow us in service to the Nation. We appreciate your unfailing support to the men, women and families of our 

Air Force, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

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

Appendix on page 110.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. We certainly appreciate all the leadership that you 

have all brought, and I want to just let you know you have been 

so good about keeping within those time frames. At the end of our 

discussion, I want to invite you to share with us any additional 

thoughts that you have that might not have been covered as we entertain a number of questions from the members. Thank you for 

that. 

One of the things that we are obviously very concerned about is, 

as you work within the budgets right now, are you being asked to 

operate recruiting and retention below the levels of 2008 and even 

below the levels perhaps of the first few months of fiscal year 2009? 

Are you being stalked, as we said earlier? And how comfortable are 

you with that? Do you think that we are in a position so that you 

are able to reduce those budgets? And, more importantly, whether 

or not you feel that the emergency supplementals will be required 

to help you out as we go along here? Where are you? Are you feeling that this is going to be something that is actually going to cut 

into your ability to do your jobs properly? 
10 

Dr. Gilroy, do you want to start? General Rochelle. 

General ROCHELLE. That is a fairly wide-ranging question, 

Madam Chair. Let me respond to it in this way. 

First of all, the wisdom and the advice given by this subcommittee, and I would also mention the appropriations committee 

as well, to migrate recruiting and retention completely into the 

base a few years back was wise counsel. We are on track to do that 

in fiscal 2010. Having said that—completely, I should say, across 

all components in fiscal 2010. Having said that, we have not significantly begun to throttle back yet, but we obviously will have to 

in terms of meeting end strength. That will not be constrained. 

That will not be a direct result of budgetary impacts in the Army. 

Mrs. DAVIS. General Coleman. 

General COLEMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ma’am, I believe that as we reach—we, the Marine Corps, reach 

our 202,000, which was a far-reaching goal, and to be able to reach 

it two years ahead of time, is a direct reflection on Congress’ willingness and ability to provide us the incentives that we need. I 

think as we get closer and as we reach the 202,000, the big part 

of the assignment then is to shape the force the way we really actually need it to be. So I foresee that supplementals will certainly 

go away. 

I would, as a manpower person in the Marine Corps, in order to 

get those military occupational specialties that we need to reenlist, 

such as your linguists and your explosive ordnance personnel, we 

will need help. We will need continued help. But I think we fail you 

if we don’t admit that, as we reach our goal, we would be able to 

throttle back somewhat, ma’am. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Admiral Ferguson, do you want to comment? 

Admiral FERGUSON. The Navy takes a very tailored and strategic 

approach to both enlistment bonuses, retention bonuses. We look 

by skill set, by rating and specialty; and we have already taken actions, beginning in last September and again last month, to reduce 

or eliminate, for example, some selective reenlistment bonuses 

where we see individuals reenlisting at greater than required levels. 

So we feel very comfortable with the amount of support we have 

in the budget, but I want to assure you we have an ongoing practice of assessing and evaluating those levels and adjusting them in 

response to what we see happening in the force. 

General NEWTON. Madam Chairwoman, for the United States Air 

Force, we are very much focused on, obviously, our people and our 

people programs. So, as I’m sure the other services do, we do not 

separate, for instance, recruiting and retention and so forth. It is 

very much for, as you well know, we are on a glide path to reduce 

our end strength down to 316,600 on active duty rolls, where now 

our proposed budget now have us around 330,000 active duty. So 

part of the challenge is to recruit to, not to a 316,000 number, but 

now to a 330,000 number, as well as retaining our men and women 

across the force. 

Generally, for recruiting, we feel very confident we are going to 

meet our recruiting goals. We also feel confident we will meet our 

retention goals through fiscal year 2009. But it is not just going 

after that end strength of 330,000. It is focused on again how we 
11 

shape the force for doing specific tasks at hand not based on a legacy force of several years ago but, as we look forward, how do we 

shape that force to do what the joint warfighter requires. So we 

have set our priorities focused not only on across the force but 

some specifics and having clear insight into the data of who we 

need to maintain an active force. 

Dr. GILROY. So, in sum, Madam Chair, the Department is indeed 

committed to eliminating the requirement for supplemental funding for recruiting. There will be a transition period required to do 

this, but the commitment is clearly there to make recruiting budgets and funding out of the base. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And you have authorities within your budget in 

terms of those areas where you feel that you can ramp up bonuses 

and there is no problem with that, is that correct? 

Admiral FERGUSON. We have the flexibility we need. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

General Rochelle, the Army is to be commended for very likely 

achieving its accelerated manpower growth by the end of the year. 

Also, I have been very impressed by the significant resources for 

the Wounded Warrior program. I have had the opportunity to see 

the facilities, the dedicated personnel, particularly at Walter Reed 

at Bethesda, at Montcrief Hospital at Fort Jackson. It is wonderful 

to see the attention given to our heroes. 

But with the objective of 547,400, what is the status of providing 

for deploying units and maintaining proper personnel for such crucial programs as the Wounded Warrior program? 

General ROCHELLE. Thank you for your question, Ranking Member Wilson. 

We are absolutely committed to our wounded warriors. As I said 

in my oral statement and as you certainly may have already found 

in my written statement, that is a commitment that is immutable. 

Our Fragmentation Order Number Four, which was recently 

staffed, will move us closer to being able to take our wounded warriors from our reserve components as well as our active components 

and move them closer to family member or to home, thus reducing 

the strain on the facilities and the infrastructure of which you 

spoke but, at the same time, providing a better environment for the 

soldier in which to heal. 

Today, our wounded warrior population is down from a high of 

roughly 12,000 active, guard and reserve to 9,000 and declining 

even further both as we ramp up and continue to provide the best 

medical care we can and the best medical care on the planet to our 

wounded warriors. 

With respect to readiness, we will continue to ensure through active retention, which I spoke in my oral statements, as well as recruiting to provide our deployers with the qualified soldiers, the 

best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led to serve on our front lines. 

Mr. WILSON. Additionally, General Coleman, the success of the 

Army, the success of the Marine Corps in achieving the end 

strength of 202,000—and nothing is more inspiring than going to 

Fort Jackson or to Parris Island to see the young people grad-
12 

uating, to see the families and the success, but is 202,000 sufficient 

for the threats that our country faces in the future? 

General COLEMAN. Yes, sir, we believe that as when General 

Conway, the Commandant, came on board what he wanted to do 

was right size the Marine Corps. And we felt that 202,000 was the 

right-size, the right number to right-size the Marine Corps to allow 

us to do the things that we aren’t able to do right now as we fight 

the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. As we get to that number, we feel 

that 202,000 is, in fact, the correct number to allow us to fight and 

train for the next fight. 

Mr. WILSON. And, for both of you, I would like to commend you 

on what is being done for families. With the highest percentage 

ever of married troops, families are truly given a priority in housing, on schools, day care. Thank you for what you have done. 

For Admiral Ferguson and General Newton, the Navy and the 

Air Force end strength, there has been a decline over the years 

prior to 2008 but now there is an increase in end strength; and the 

question would be, should the end strength, should manpower be 

increased, or should there be more emphasis on modernization? 

And if each of you could answer that. 

Admiral FERGUSON. Representative Wilson, the challenge that all 

the services face and the Navy in particular is we have to balance 

the capitalization and replacement of equipment with operations 

and maintenance costs and depot maintenance, as well as repairs 

to existing facilities as well as the people accounts. And so when 

we looked at our end strength about six, eight months ago, we assessed that, due to the increased demands that were placed on us 

for the joint force for enablers, we decided to flatten out our descent and to stabilize; and we assessed that approximately 329,000 

or so in the foreseeable future will provide us that adequate support where we can meet the joint force requirements and the operational force. 

General NEWTON. Also, in the United States Air Force, it is a 

balanced approach. As we put forth in our proposed end strength 

of 330,000, the issue is not so much the end strength—that is important enough—but also how are we going to shape that force and 

to compel that force to do what in support of the joint war fighter. 

We have put our priorities in terms of providing intelligence and 

surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities as we reinvigorate the 

nuclear enterprise towards irregular warfare, towards bringing 

back some more of our maintenance, particularly on our flight lines 

and so forth. And so, as we look towards this end strength, it is 

also how are we going to shape that force again over not only for 

the current fight but for future fights as well. And so it is indeed 

a balanced approach. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you all. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today, for your testimony, 

for answering the questions, and for your terrific service to our Nation. 
13 

I want to explore for my brief time here the issue of access of 

recruiters to colleges and to high schools. I have a couple of comments and then a question. 

The laws are different a little bit regarding college and high 

school, so my first question would be, what is your perception—and 

it can be any of you. We have sort of limited time. Maybe Dr. 

Gilroy or perhaps General Coleman or General Rochelle could address it. How is access to the colleges working out today? Is it restricting our ability particularly to recruit highly qualified individuals for the officer corps, for example? 

And then a more pressing concern is access to students in high 

school. As you know, there is some debate here in Congress and 

there are some proposals out there that would restrict access of recruiters to information; and recruiters would only be provided student information when parents give their written consent. So the 

point is, there are proposals out there; there are some different 

views. I would be interested in knowing what your perception is of 

how it is working now as far as access and what changes in the 

law such as I have just suggested what that might do. 

And I will yield to whoever would like to answer that question. 

Dr. GILROY. Congressman Kline, I will begin and then yield to 

my colleagues as they choose. 

With regard to the college declinement first, as governed by the 

Solomon Amendment, clearly, there have been some cases in which 

access has been hindered to some extent or made more difficult 

than we would like. But typically what happens is that through 

diplomatic discussions between the services and OSD and the university or college, those differences seem to be eventually straightened out. So we are pleased about that. There is a mechanism in 

place which governs the discussions between the university leadership and the services and OSD. 

As you know, the Solomon Amendment provides for the violators 

of that law or amendment to become ineligible to receive Federal 

funds. We have two universities that fit that category today. They 

have not in the past received Federal funds, so it probably doesn’t 

matter a whole lot to them. But, nonetheless, we enforce the law 

when it is appropriate to do so. 

With respect to access to high schools, again, we have a mechanism in place under the Hutchinson Amendment; and we have protection under the No Child Left Behind Act which provides us access. 

Now, all high schools, 22,000 of them roughly in number, are 

technically in compliance with that. But some go to lengths to limit 

access. Some teachers and guidance counselors will hand out optout forms to students and request them to fill them out before leaving class, for example. Or some will encourage anti-military groups 

to set up booths alongside recruiters. These, as I should categorize, 

are annoyances, to be sure, but typically we can work with the 

schools, the school districts, the superintendents and even the 

school board sometimes to iron out some of these differences. 

We think that the current law opt-out is very, very important to 

maintain. We will be very much opposed to any change which 

would yield to the so-called opt in arrangement. So that is particularly important to us. 
14 

Mr. KLINE. I’m about to run out of time here. Any of the rest of 

you have anything differ or modification to that? The concern 

would be in the opt-in is that you might lose access to a great 

many students and really have an adverse impact on recruiters. Is 

that the widely held view there? You can nod or—— 

General COLEMAN. Yes. 

General ROCHELLE. That is certainly my impression, sir, yes. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all of 

you for your service. 

I just have a question about dwell time; and I would like to get 

your thoughts on that, all of you, but in particular if I could begin 

with General Coleman and General Rochelle. 

Obviously, over the course of the past several years, that has 

been a very important issue, a lot of thoughts, a lot of ideas, some 

legislation proposed to increase dwell time because of the, obviously, the concern for retention of service members who are on 

multiple deployments. Generals Coleman and Rochelle, could you 

speak to that issue and what you see perhaps coming down the 

pike as far as any increased dwell time for active members, not to 

mention our reserve and guard as well? 

General COLEMAN. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question, sir. 

Sir, speaking for the Marine Corps, the dwell time is not yet 

where we would like it to be. That was part of the Commandant’s 

call to increase the size of the Marine Corps so we could in fact 

right-size and do the dwell so that we could have a one to two for 

every month in the fight, another month home. We are not there 

yet, sir. We are getting closer. As we grow to 202,000, we believe 

by the end of this year, we will have increased our numbers by 

three battalions’ worth of infantry battalions, which would certainly make a difference. 

But the point to remember is that when we in what we believe 

in July get to 202,000, some number of those Marines are at Parris 

Island. It takes about a year from the time a recruit gets to Parris 

Island to the time he or she gets to the fight. So relief is on the 

way, but we are not there yet, sir. 

General ROCHELLE. Representative Loebsack, let me first of all 

say I would not see the need for legislation with respect to dwell 

time which was embedded in your question. The Chief of Staff of 

Army and the Secretary of the Army are committed to balancing 

the Army, restoring balance to the Army no later than 2011. 

What does balance mean? What it means basically is two years 

dwell for every year deployed for the active component, four years 

dwell for every year deployed for our reserve components. We are 

committed to that. 

Fundamental to achieving that is the growth of the Army, and 

I mean that in two sense—in two different terms. The first, of 

course, is the growth of the end strength, which has been spoken 

of already. But the other is the growth in capability and units able 

to answer the mail and the call for our Nation. 
15 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Admiral Ferguson and General Newton, could 

you speak to that issue, too? 

Admiral FERGUSON. For the Navy, the average dwell time in the 

units is an excess of two to one; and we very closely monitor those 

units that are under stress. For example, we have some squadrons 

of EA6B aircraft that are approaching one to one, but in no cases 

do we exceed one to one without the Chief of Naval Operation’s 

(CNO) specific approval. And we also monitor the time in home 

port. So we feel we have very good control of the issue. 

General NEWTON. The Air Force would echo that. We are on 

much of an expeditionary footing in terms of being able to provide, 

again, airmen to whatever the joint fight may require. So it may 

be on an individual basis, a joint expeditionary tasking but also to 

the unit. But at this time we are not—we don’t—are either involved with nor do we foresee a challenge or issues with dwell 

time. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Madam Chairman; and, to the panel, 

thank you very much for being here today. Thank you for your 

service. 

And, Dr. Gilroy, my question does, I think, impact on recruiting, 

especially. What are the number of military with Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder (PTSD)? 

Dr. GILROY. I’m sorry, sir? 

Mr. JONES. What is the number of our troops—primarily, I guess, 

Marine Corps and Army—that have been verified by a doctor, 

whether it be Army or Navy, that have a mental issue called 

PTSD? 

Dr. GILROY. I don’t have those numbers with me, and I would 

like to take that back for the record to respond in full and accurate. 

Thank you. 

Mr. JONES. That is fair. 

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

page 205.] 

Mr. JONES. Again, the reason I’m bringing it up is because I do 

think it impacts on recruiting. The number that I have received is 

42,000. That came from the Department of Defense. 

I think—and I want to bring this up before the committee as well 

as the panel—we have got some real serious issues with the policy 

that relates to those coming back from Afghanistan or Iraq that 

have been designated with the mental challenge known as PTSD. 

And mainly my colleagues, I’m sure, as I have, have been made 

aware of young men who are going into the military—and I actually read this letter on the floor of the House recently; I did not 

use the name of the mother or the young Marine—but going into 

the Marine Corps at 18, good student, Eagle Scout, grandfather 

was a Marine and fought in Vietnam. The kid had been to Iraq and 

Afghanistan a total of three times in both countries. Comes back, 

develops a problem of alcohol abuse. A Navy doctor—I have the report—recommends that he have counseling. Somewhere along the 

line the ball was dropped. 
16 

And, actually, General Rochelle, working with a young lady from 

my district down in Georgia who is in the Army, a very similar situation. 

I think that somewhere along the way—and I’m not sure that, 

Dr. Gilroy, it is your responsibility, but somewhere along the way, 

the military has got to come together on this issue of PTSD. Because Joe Stiglitz, who wrote the book The Three Trillion Dollar 

War, has already said that the tsunami that is coming—— 

And I do think this does impact on recruiting, quite frankly. Because if this mom is writing a Congressman—the only reason I’m 

involved is because he is stationed out in Camp Lejeune. But if this 

word gets out that the military wants you, but once you cannot do 

your job because of a mental wound then they don’t need you, we 

have got to deal with this. 

And, again, I’m not sure this is your area of responsibility. But 

this is a problem that I think is going to impact at some point in 

time if we continue to build up in Afghanistan. And I’m not discussing that policy today, but if we do and we still have somewhat 

of a presence for the next 19 months or 24 months in Afghanistan, 

there is still going to be fighting. We are going to see more and 

more of these people—these young people coming back that have 

some type of mental challenge and some type of PTSD. 

And I hope that you will and this fine panel sitting here today 

will say that we need to review our policies. Because there is no 

reason to say to someone that has PTSD, we are going to discharge 

you for dishonorable discharge or misconduct and therefore you 

lose your benefits. And that is not helping society. 

Dr. GILROY. You are absolutely right, Congressman Jones. That 

is a serious issue and one that I know my colleagues at the table 

have dealt with specifically. We take this extremely seriously. 

There is just no question about it. 

The impact that you imply on recruiting is clearly there, too. Because these young men and women who return as veterans, having 

served in theater, become ambassadors for us when they return to 

the community. So it is extremely important that we make sure 

that they are receiving all of the benefits to which they are entitled. So I will take that back with me with all earnestness and 

with the greatest amount of seriousness. 

Thank you. 

Mr. JONES. Madam Chairman, I will end on this. But, Dr. Gilroy, 

I really would like to have a discussion with you at some point in 

the future. Maybe you could get this situation to the right people 

and say we don’t need to wait any longer on this. Because it is 

going to grow, and it is going to expand, and it is going to create 

more problems for this country but also recruiting. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

I want to return to the issue I think that you have touched on 

a little bit, the fact that we have been able to reach our numbers 

in terms of end strength and early, but the second part of that is 

really to have the dollars available to do the training. I would like 

you to speak to that and whether you feel that there is adequate 

capacity there to do that. Are there slots available in training 

schools? We know that in some cases reserves do not have the abil-
17 

ity to also participate in those training arenas. So I would like you 

to—where are the problems here that we are encountering and how 

concerned ought we to be about that? 

General ROCHELLE. Madam Chair, you have actually addressed 

or asked two or three questions in that single one, the first being 

resourcing. There is always tension between investment accounts, 

modernization, if you will, people and then, of course, operational 

tempo; and the Army balances that within its authorized hot line 

in order to do, as I said before, deploy the best-trained, the bestequipped and the best-led forces our Nation can deploy. That is our 

mantra, and we will do that. 

Your question also addresses reserve component; and I simply 

would like to point out that at the beginning of 2009 the backlog 

for Army National Guard—I will mention Army National Guard; 

the Army Reserve does not have an appreciable backlog—was 

28,900 soldiers who had yet to enter training, to become a full-up 

round, as we would say. The Army added 8,300 seats to the Army 

National Guard’s allocation of training seats, ostensibly reducing 

that backlog by the end of 2009 to no greater than 9,600. So it is 

a total force of approach we are taking. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Where do you anticipate, though, the problems? Because part of the difficulty is still that there is stop loss, is still an 

issue within the Army. 

General ROCHELLE. Stop loss is still an issue for the Army, and 

we are actively engaged—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Could you quantify that for us a little bit better in 

terms of those numbers and how that interfaces with the issue we 

are talking about? 

General ROCHELLE. Seven thousand stop loss today in the active 

component—bear with me one second—7,000 in the active Army, 

1,400 in the Army Reserve, and 4,400 in the Army National Guard. 

And we are committed and we are actively working at at the senior 

levels of the Army to work our way out of stop loss. 

In the past, what I have been asked by this committee and others is, General Rochelle, is 547,400 enough? And my answer has 

always been, let us get there, and then we will see. Because we 

don’t know what demand will look like. Well, as Representative 

Wilson mentioned in his opening statement, we are there. What remains the unknown today is the demand. 

Mrs. DAVIS. When can you anticipate that you think we will have 

fewer troops who are needed to fill in essentially some of those 

slots? Can you project that for us a little bit? 

General ROCHELLE. I am not sure I understand your question, 

please. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Do you have your own time line in when you would 

like to see us having far fewer troops that are part of stop loss, 

that are in units that are being pulled out essentially that are leveling and filling in those units? When—is there a time that we can 

anticipate that? Or where should we be? What would be the anticipated numbers even after we are able to have the end strength and 

the training following through in the kinds of numbers that we 

would like to see? 

General ROCHELLE. Relative to the demand I would submit that 

we are doing a near miraculous job of keeping stop loss to the low 
18 

level that it is. Now any number of stop loss is an egregious number. But we are really—given the demand that is on the Army 

today, we are doing in my estimation, my humble estimation, a remarkable job of keeping it to the minimum number possible. 

To your specific question, going forward it depends upon the demand. And I can only say that since my time as the Army G–1 

every estimate of declining demand has proven false. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. I just thank all of you for your hard work in providing opportunity for the young people of our country, and I look 

forward to the next panel which are Reserve units. 

But thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would just like to draw the obvious connection between my 

question and my good friend Walter Jones—Congressman Jones’ 

question. Clearly, there seems to me to be an intimate link between 

dwell time and the lack thereof and issues of PTSD and strain on 

the family; and you are all very aware of that, obviously. And you 

know I’m really appreciative of the fact that Congressman Jones 

asked the question he did after I asked. We didn’t coordinate it, but 

I’m really glad that he did. That we all have I think very similar 

concerns on this panel. 

I have another question but more controversial, perhaps. The end 

strength levels that we are talking about, the goals that we are 

talking about, were established prior to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) agreement in Iraq, if I remember correctly. Prior to 

what appears now to be a serious drawdown of our troops in Iraq— 

again, fully aware that there will be other conflicts that we are 

going to ramp up some in all likelihood in Afghanistan, although 

that still remains to be seen just how much because the administration is conducting a strategic review of the situation there—do 

any of you foresee any modifications of the kinds of end strength 

numbers that we are now assuming we are going to need in the 

coming few years or so based on any potential strategic review of 

the situation around the world? Or are you just sort of assuming 

that we are going to continue to work along the lines that you are 

now working? 

Any thoughts on that from any of you. 

General COLEMAN. Sir, for the Marine Corps, I believe that the 

202,000 is about right. When General Conway came in, his desire, 

as I said before, to right-size the force, was to ensure that we had 

the one to two dwell. But since this long war, the Marine Corps as 

a service has been able to fight the war and train for the war. But 

we have not done jungle training. We have not done cold weather 

training. We have not done fire exercises. We have only had the 

number of folks to fight, to come home, refit and go back. 

The 202,000 is to give us three mirror-image MEFs, marine expeditionary forces, so that we can do jungle training and cold weather 

training and do the things that we haven’t done. So, until we know 

what is next, I would say that, yes, the 202,000, we believe, 

202,000 is correct; and I would be surprised if we went higher or 
19 

requested higher or lower in the three- to five-year term, sir. That 

is just General Coleman, though. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. General Rochelle. 

General ROCHELLE. Sir, you are asking a strategic risk question; 

and my first response to it would be I’m optimistic that the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) will take that into account 

and then, of course, make recommendations with respect to service 

sizes for all of us that are prudent. 

You are also asking a question in more tactical sense as you say 

deliberations; and my answer would be, except for ongoing discussions on the subject of stop loss and how the Army might come out 

of stop loss, no, there is nothing beyond 547,400. 

Admiral FERGUSON. For the Navy, we continuously review our 

end strength in terms of the requirements; and it is an issue of balancing fleet manning of the ships and the support personnel needed to operate the force, combined with our contribution to joint 

enablers. And so we, within that calculation, assume a level of risk, 

as General Rochelle referred to, that we assess in those manning 

levels and that the nature of our demand is support personnel in 

theater. We see that demand continuing, and so we feel comfortable with the levels that we proposed for the foreseeable future. 

General NEWTON. From an Air Force standpoint, much like as 

Admiral Ferguson just mentioned, it is a balanced approach. Again, 

you cannot predict the future; and certainly the enemy gets a vote 

in that regard. But as we look across our end strength, as I mentioned, our proposed end strength from 330,000 from an active duty 

sense, we in the United States Air Force also take a total force end 

strength as well in terms of being in very synchronized and integrated with our active duty, our Guard and our Reserve. 

That said, again, what you need the United States Air Force to 

be engaged with is, sure, in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and 

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) particularly on irregular warfare but also across a spectrum of conflict as well. So we are again 

focused on that balanced approach to how we not only look at our 

end strength but again how we shape that force inside those end 

strength numbers. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thanks to all of you. 

Dr. GILROY. In summation, General Rochelle mentioned the 

forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review, and we await that document, clearly, under the new Administration which will indicate to 

us the planning that it has for contingencies. And it will provide 

alternative scenarios, so that we go with what we know right now 

as the current planning and await that document. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

General Rochelle, I believe your answer to Madam Chairman 

Davis about the stop loss, would you repeat the numbers? I think 

you said 7,000. I was a little bit late in listening to your response 

of 1,400, I believe you said, reserve, and 4,400 national guard. Is 

that right? 

General ROCHELLE. Those are the correct numbers, sir. 

Mr. JONES. I will never forget going to Walter Reed years ago 

with Representative Gene Taylor, I believe. And a kid from Florida 
20 

was in the hospital, and he was very, very—he was a sergeant in 

the Army. And as we got ready to leave, we talked to him, we 

thanked him. And he had his fiancee sitting at the end of the bed, 

and he asked us about stop loss. He said, who has this authority? 

Is it the Congress, or is it the Department of Defense? And one of 

us said, well, the Department of Defense has this authority. Then 

he pulled the sheets down, and both legs had been blown off. He 

was in the sixth week or seventh week of being stop lossed. 

It has always bothered me, and I don’t know why I didn’t think 

of it but I thank the chairwoman for doing it. How is that soldier 

notified that he is going to be extended? How does that process 

work? Are they told two months out, three months out? Is it an orderly process? Or are they told within three weeks: We have decided that you are not going to be going home? How does that mechanically work? 

General ROCHELLE. Stop loss goes into effect for a unit that has 

been alerted to deploy, whether it is a guard unit or reserve unit 

or an active component unit, in effect, 90 days prior to the latest 

arrival date for the unit. 

Now, that doesn’t mean that on that date every soldier in that, 

take a brigade combat team, is effectively stop lossed. What it 

means is that as that brigade deploys or as that unit deploys, the 

members of that unit who arrive at their expiration term of service 

throughout the 12-month or 15-month deployment will effectively 

go into the condition we refer to as stop loss. 

You posed the question in the point of the authority. And the authority is inherent and clearly stated in the enlistment contract 

that it is the authority of the Federal Government, of the national 

command authority to employ stop loss. 

Mr. JONES. General, this might not be fair. But this has become 

a very, very—it has become a national issue of great concern to 

many people. And I realize contracts, and maybe the majority of 

people that read the contracts, they read them. I haven’t read as 

many insurance policies as I should and I sign the dotted line. But 

that is my problem, not anybody else’s. 

But I guess the point I am trying to get to is that maybe the 

Congress and maybe most of my colleagues wouldn’t agree. But 

maybe we ought to have some law or something that says that if 

the DOD is going to have the authority, that they would have to 

come to an Armed Services Committee and say that our situation 

with our ranks are so desperate that we are going to have to institute the policy of stop loss. I think that would give more confidence 

to the American people than an Administration—I am not being 

critical of the previous, and the new one hasn’t been in but six 

weeks so I can’t be too critical anyway. But the fact is that when 

this policy went in place a few years ago, it was almost like the 

soldier and I guess the Marine as well, but the soldier primarily 

was somewhat caught off guard. Yes, it is in the contract, but the 

contract, they either forgot it or they didn’t read it. 

I think on that kind of issue, that if America is going to send 

their kids to die and be wounded, that the Congress ought to be 

more involved. And I am not saying that the Congress, but if the 

DOD Secretary came in here and said to an Armed Services Committee, listen, we are in dire situation. We have got to put a stop 
21 

loss program in place, I think the Congress would give that authority. But the way that this had worked in this war in Iraq especially, I think truthfully it really caught a lot of families way off 

guard. 

And I don’t expect you to make a decision whether Congress 

should be involved or not, but I think that Congress itself ought 

to look into this and really discuss what is our role, what is the 

role of the Department of Defense. Because what it is is a draft, 

anyway, or it is an extension of somebody’s service. And maybe 

they should have known it, but many times they forgot it or didn’t 

know. 

I yield back. Do you want to answer? 

General ROCHELLE. Well, sir, I would like to comment, if I may. 

First of all, I would like to reiterate that we are committed, as 

soon as demand permits, to get the Army out of stop loss. 

From a personal perspective, I would like you to know that just 

a few short years ago, to the point of recruiting and impacts on recruiting, indirect impacts, just a few short years ago I had the 

privilege of leading the Army’s recruiting force for almost four 

years, starting roughly 100 days after September 11th. I can tell 

you that every time the Army reemployed, tightened, or tinkered 

with—that is a technical term—stop loss, I felt it in recruiting. We 

don’t like it. We would be off it today if the demand permitted so. 

It simply doesn’t. And it is a technical provision of the enlistment 

contract that applies to all of us. We all signed the same enlistment 

contract, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Army Reserve and Army National Guard. 

To our soldiers, I would say—and I am always cognizant that 

they too are watching these hearings and these proceedings—we 

will get off stop loss as quickly as we possibly can. We are committed to that. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. GILROY. Congressman Jones, let me add something from the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense perspective, and to support General Rochelle in his views about ending stop loss as soon as practically possible. 

Secretary Gates has gone on record as being committed to ending 

stop loss as well; and of course he has been in serious discussion 

with the Army leadership, including General Rochelle, within the 

last two weeks on specific proposed dates for both the active Army, 

the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard, about when it 

would be practically reasonable to expect the elimination of stop 

loss. There is great commitment within the DOD leadership as well 

as the Army to end this, and we are very cognizant of the political 

ramifications to this policy as well, of course, as the military ramifications for keeping it. 

The Secretary is also committed to the payment, given new authorities, for the payment to those who are engaged in stop loss. 

So there is a lot of discussion ongoing at the present time, and 

I expect within several weeks we will have some official notification 

of the Department’s plans for stop loss. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. You can tell there is great concern on 

the committee on that issue. 
22 

I know that we have our next panel and we want to move to 

that. But before I do that quickly, and I also said that I would give 

you a chance to make sure that you leave us with a message or 

thought, a concern, as we wrap up. As we will be looking forward 

to fiscal year 2010 budget, we know that it does not today, as I understand it, represent the enhanced .5 pay for the military above 

the Employment Cost Index (ECI). And I wonder whether you 

have, how do you see that? Do you think that that is going to be 

a concern in terms of recruiting? Would you like us to know about 

that issue? 

Dr. GILROY. I think that the 2.9 percent pay raise, which is 

equivalent to the Employment Cost Index as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is appropriate and fair for this fiscal year. 

We would not as a Department ask for the ECI plus one-half. The 

reason being is not for budgetary purposes, but simply because the 

2.9 percent keeps us at the 70th percentile of civilian earnings, 

which in the ninth quadrennial review of military compensation established as the reasonable and appropriate earnings profile for 

military members commensurate with the earnings profile of civilians with the appropriate education and experience. So we are 

happy with the 2.9 percent. We would not think it necessary to go 

anything above that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. It is a departure from where we have been, and so 

I think that will get everybody’s attention. 

Dr. GILROY. I understand that. 

General ROCHELLE. I will respond to your secondary question, 

which is impact on recruiting. I would predict none. 

General COLEMAN. I would echo that, ma’am. 

Admiral FERGUSON. I would assess minimal to no impact on recruiting. 

General NEWTON. Agree. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. The other issue, and I know we have 

talked about it before, is just your ability to recruit within medical 

professionals. And is that taken care of through bonuses that you 

are able to offer? And do you believe that there are other issues 

that would impact that? And I am curious, but I think I don’t want 

to ask you now because we want to move on, is what solutions you 

have where in fact that opportunity for recruiting medical professionals is a very difficult one given the situation today. Anything 

we should know about, quickly? 

General ROCHELLE. I would like to give you a very quick response. There is a critical shortage of medical professionals across 

our Nation. I am reminded of our book, Will the Last Physician 

Please Turn Out the Light? The authorities given the Army, the 

services, I should say. The authorities given the services to use innovative approaches, especially those innovative approaches that 

allow us to offer things that are a little bit exotic to medical professionals is very, very critical. And I would simply add that those expire at the end of 2009. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. And I know throughout the services that 

is an issue. Is there anything that you wanted to add quickly to 

the testimony this morning that we will want to know more about? 

General COLEMAN. Yes, ma’am. I would, if that is okay. 
23 

Ma’am, the Commandant’s greatest challenge is to fight and win 

the war, and his second priority is to take care of his families. And 

I would like to personally thank you and the other Members of 

Congress for what you have done to ensure that we are able to take 

care of our families. And it has been absolutely phenomenal the 

way that the response has come in to taking care of our families. 

And secondly, on a personal note, last year you and Congressman 

Kline spoke to me about casualty reporting. And I think the Marine Corps has it fixed. And I think, on behalf of the families, 

thank you for jabbing your finger in my chest. 

General ROCHELLE. I would not like to miss this opportunity on 

behalf of the 1.1 million men and women who served in the United 

States Army and their families to thank this committee for its 

magnificent support. 

Dr. GILROY. I, too, share the General’s view of thanking this committee for unfaltering support over the years from both sides of the 

aisle. It is absolutely critical that we have that support, and you 

have never, ever let us down. 

As a closing thought, however, let me end where I began. To the 

extent that there are pressures for budgetary cuts in the light of 

our recruiting and retention success, our recent success, let us go 

about them judicially, carefully, slowly, and base them on empirical 

evidence. Thank you for your support. 

Admiral FERGUSON. I would also like to echo the support from 

the Navy for the committee and the Congress. I personally am in 

awe of the performance of our sailors around the globe. They are 

the finest Navy that I have seen in my career in 30 years. 

We must continue to make investments in the critical skills that 

we require in a very high-tech and demanding Navy, such as a nuclear power, such as in medical and dental, as you mentioned, our 

SEALs and special operators that are at the tip of this spear in this 

war we are engaged in. And we will continue to do that and ask 

for your support in that. 

In the upcoming budget, as you mentioned, we will take a balanced approach in looking at our investment accounts, our readiness and maintenance, as well as personnel. 

And then, lastly, you will hear my counterpart Dirk Debbink in 

the next panel. But we are driving to a seamless total force in the 

Navy, and we could not achieve a lot of the missions we do without 

our reserve component. And I would just like to thank them for all 

they do for the Navy. 

General NEWTON. In closing, thank you also on behalf of the 

United States Air Force. Our topic today has been recruiting and 

retention and end strength and so forth, and this is I believe what 

you have heard from my colleagues here is it is a balanced approach. It is a balanced approach that is clearly integrated not only 

from the services, but speaking for the United States Air Force integrated it is a total force approach as well. 

As we make those contributions to the joint fight, we have got 

to be balanced in our approach to not only today’s fight in our contributions to the joint and the coalition warfare, but also how we 

prepare for the future. Those unknowns out there really I think behooves all of us in this room to make sure that we focus on that 

joint contribution. 
24 

The last point is, it is not just our men and women in uniform 

and our civilians, but our family members as well. That balanced 

approach, you will see from the United States Air Force, and I am 

sure speaking for my colleagues here, it is a balance. I am challenged by that, not only focusing on those who volunteered to serve 

their country, but their loved ones, their family members are serving alongside, and we need to pay the same amount of attention 

and put the same priorities in their service as well. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I want to thank you all, particularly 

your focus on families. We will have a hearing on family support 

as well. We will have some families that we want to be here and 

testify. We know that there are some remarkable programs around 

the country where people have really taken on the delivery of services to families in a way that I think values them greatly, and we 

want to look at some of those programs as well. But thank you so 

much. We appreciate your work and certainly the extraordinary 

service of the men and women of our country. Thank you very 

much. And we look forward to the next panel. 

I want to invite our panel to please take your seats. We are delighted to have you with us. Thank you very much for being here. 

I want to introduce our next panel. And you might have—if you 

were listening in, I think we did a good job of keeping within three 

to four minutes at the extent, and that is very helpful to us. If you 

can continue that, it would be great. And we will go back and ask 

you at the end if there is anything that you—a message that you 

really want to leave us with. We are not looking for thanks, actually. What we are looking for is just to be sure that we have an 

opportunity to focus on an issue that perhaps didn’t come up in the 

course of discussion. 

I want to introduce now Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn, Director of Army National Guard; Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, 

the Chief of the U.S. Army Reserve and Commanding General for 

the U.S. Army Reserve Command; Vice Admiral Dirk J. Debbink, 

the Chief of Navy Reserve; Lieutenant General John Bergman, 

Commander of Marine Forces Reserve; Lieutenant General Harry 

Wyatt, Director, Air National Guard; Lieutenant General Charles 

E. Stenner, Jr., Chief, U.S. Air Force Reserve; and Rear Admiral 

Daniel May, Chief, Coast Guard Reserve Forces. Thank you all for 

being here. 

Please proceed, General Vaughn. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CLYDE A. VAUGHN, ARNG, 

DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

General VAUGHN. Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Mike Rochelle, my 

buddy, just talked about the 1.1 million members of this great 

Army. I want to introduce one person. Behind me is the Outstanding Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) of the Year for the entire 

1.1 million soldier Army, and it is a National Guardsman from the 

State of Montana, Staff Sergeant Michael Noyce Merino. 

Mrs. DAVIS. General, I just heard that perhaps you are going to 

be leaving in about 60 days. Is that correct? 

General VAUGHN. I hope so, if I get the right support from everyone. 
25 

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we wish you well. We thank you for your tremendous service. 

General VAUGHN. It has been a privilege to serve as the Director, 

and it has really been an honor to come over here and testify. I assure you that we talk to all the youngsters about what a great 

privilege it is to sit here and take these questions from you and to 

help shape this force. 

Along that same vein today, we find ourselves at 367,000 soldiers 

in the Army National Guard, significantly over strength, a far cry 

from the 2005 years that we all remember when we were 20,000 

soldiers under strength. And you all had so much to do with that. 

The pieces that I would talk to today as we go forward is the fact 

that we are going to continue to reshape our Guard in terms of capability as we bring our end strength down to the authorized numbers. We are on track to try to do that. This is a new era for us. 

We have never been in this position with this kind of strength. 

This is the strongest Army Guard we have ever had. We have 

never found ourselves over strengthed like this, and we are in the 

position that we can actually, at the same time trying to get to authorized levels, grow the readiness of our force, and we are going 

to take that challenge on. So thank you very much. 

I will shorten the rest of it, and I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

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

Appendix on page 122.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. General Stultz, please. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JACK C. STULTZ, USAR, CHIEF, U.S. 

ARMY RESERVE AND COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY 

RESERVE COMMAND 

General STULTZ. Madam Chairman, Congressman Wilson, and 

others, thank you for the opportunity to come and speak to you 

today. I am honored to represent over 202,000 Army Reserve soldiers. And just as my friend Clyde Vaughn has said, I echo the 

comments that he has made; the growth in our force has been tremendous. 

When I took over as Chief of the Army Reserve back in 2006, we 

were at about 186,000. Today, we are over 202,000. That is a 

growth of 16,000 in a little under three years. So, a tremendous 

success in our recruiting and retention, which is a byproduct of the 

support we have gotten from Congress, the incentives we have been 

able to pay our soldiers to recruit and retain them. But, more importantly, it is 16,000 growth of the right type of soldiers. It is the 

quality of the force that I am in awe of today in the Army Reserve, 

great men and women who leave their jobs, leave families, and volunteer to go and risk their lives. 

And just as most recently when I was visiting soldiers over 

Christmas in Iraq and talking to a young E–4 from Maryland, I 

asked him what he does back home, and he says, ‘‘I am finishing 

my degree.’’ And I said, ‘‘What are you majoring in?’’ And he said, 

‘‘I am getting a doctorate in physics.’’ That is what we have got out 

there. It is the right 16,000 that we have grown, and we are well 

on our way to meeting our end strength of 205,000, 206,000 by the 

end of this fiscal year. 
26 

So I am proud to represent those soldiers, and look forward to 

your questions. 

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

Appendix on page 134.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Admiral Debbink. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. DIRK J. DEBBINK, USNR, CHIEF, 

NAVY RESERVE 

Admiral DEBBINK. This is my first appearance before Congress, 

and I want to begin by thanking you for your fantastic support for 

the 67,000 Navy Reservists and, importantly, their families that I 

represent. 

There would be three things I would like to try to communicate 

with you today, and first and foremost in my written testimony I 

go into quite some length as to what we are doing today for our 

Navy and by extension our Nation. 

As I testify this morning, Navy Reserve SEALs are operating in 

every corner of the world. And you see our sailors in the news, but 

you don’t see the moniker ‘‘reserve’’ down at the bottom because, 

as Admiral Ferguson testified just previous to this, we are a fully 

integrated force and utilize a total force concept of operations. 

From helping to certify our strike groups as they deploy from 

home base to our Navy SEALs that are literally integrated with 

the teams in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the 

world, we are making significant contributions across the full spectrum of naval and joint operations. We are also linked closely with 

our active component and the civilians that make up our Navy, and 

we are constituting a total force to execute our maritime strategy 

and national tasking. 

The second thing I want to tell you about is just the outstanding 

sailors who are doing our work of our Navy Reserve, and provide 

a quick assessment on our recruiting, retention, and end strength. 

The Navy Reserve has seen end strength fall nearly 25 percent 

since 2003. We are executing end strength right now of just under 

67,000 by the end of this fiscal year. 

Improved retention, lower attrition, and successful recruiting has 

left us in the position of enacting force shaping measures in order 

to maintain specific skill sets and the experience that satisfy our 

total force demand. 

Central to our manpower strategy is the establishment of a true 

continuum of service culture. We believe this will offer our sailors 

the opportunity to be truly a sailor for life no matter what life 

brings at you, that they will be able to flow back and forth between 

the active component and the Reserve Component, satisfying their 

personal needs, their family needs, while at the same time allowing 

us to make sure we maintain the proper skill sets in our own total 

Navy force. 

Finally, a bridge quick from what we are doing and who is doing 

it to what I believe is the real value proposition of our Navy Reserve. We are proud of what we bring to the fight today. We are 

also acutely aware that we have a long-term commitment to the 

Navy and our Nation, and we are trying to demonstrate daily the 

incredible return on investment that the Navy Reserve represents. 

We have proven ourselves to be a ready, responsive, and adaptive 
27 

operational force while maintaining the strategic depth. This is an 

important and I believe a very meaningful time for us all to be 

serving in our Nation’s defense and especially as a Reservist. 

I thank you for your continued support, demonstrated commitment to our Navy Reserve and Navy, and I look forward to your 

questions. Thank you very much. 

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

Appendix on page 146.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. General Bergman. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JOHN W. BERGMAN, USMCR, 

COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE 

General BERGMAN. Good morning, Chairwoman Davis, Congressman Wilson, distinguished members of the panel, the committee. 

Thank you, thank you on behalf of the roughly 100,000 Marines, 

Marine Forces Reserve, their families and, equally important, their 

employers across the country. 

The fact of the matter is for the last two years the Marine Corps 

Reserve has not made their end strength numbers. I would like to 

put three footnotes on that statement, if you will allow me to. 

First, as you heard General Coleman say, in the effort to build 

the active component Marine Corps to 202,000, we have participated in that as the Marine Corps Reserve. Roughly about 1,950 

Reserve Marines have reaffiliated with the active component. That 

is footnote number one. 

Number two, during the past three years we have cadred approximately six units of 4th Marine Aircraft Wing to support the 

aviation transition plan to the V–22 Joint Strike Fighter Yankee 

and Zulu Cobras, both with people and airframes. That equated to 

about 600 still uninvested billets that will be invested within the 

next 12 to 18 months; in other words, 600 more folks in the units. 

And, third, I think you would all agree there is nothing more 

adaptable than the marine in the fight. And that is true today. 

What lags sometimes is the policies that support that marine in 

the fight. 

The operational reserve is now a reality. About 80-plus percent 

of the Marine Corps Reserve paychecks are an operational reserve. 

We are now just beginning to catch up, as General Coleman referred to, focusing on Marine Corps end strength issues with the 

policy that will allow us to man, equip, train, and, more importantly, fund. 

I have a copy of this fourth generation model slide I would like 

to leave all of you with at the end of this, because this talks about, 

most importantly, the five-year dwell time that will allow us to 

manage our force, train our force, and be predictable for those marines, their families, and employers, over a six-year cycle. I look 

forward to your questions. 

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

Appendix on page 165.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. General Wyatt. 
28 

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

DIRECTOR, AIR GUARD 

General WYATT. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, staff, it is my honor 

and a privilege to testify on behalf of the 106,700 members of the 

Air National Guard. Actually, our strength right now is approaching 109,000. We have had a very good recruiting year, thanks to 

the support of Congress, the American people, and the United 

States Air Force. 106,700 is our authorized strength, the airmen 

deployed forward in support of our United States Air Force and our 

combatant commanders, but also deployed forward in the 50 states, 

territories, and the District of Columbia as we support our governors and the President. 

It is an honor and privilege to be here today and talk about some 

people that I am extremely proud of, members of the Air National 

Guard, and look forward to your questions. Thank you for this 

privilege. 

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

Appendix on page 172.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. General Stenner. 

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

CHIEF, U.S. AIR FORCE RESERVE 

General STENNER. Madam Chairman, Congressman Wilson, and 

committee members, fellow service members, thank you very much 

for the opportunity to be here to address you on these important 

matters of recruiting, retention, and end strength. 

Before I say my remarks, I would like to take the opportunity to 

introduce you to Chief Master Sergeant Troy Macintosh right here, 

who is with me today. Chief Macintosh serves as the Air Force Reserve Command Chief, and helps me keep track of the issues regarding the welfare, readiness, morale, and progress of the command’s outstanding airmen. Thanks for being here today, Chief. 

Members of this committee, I am indeed honored to be here 

today to advocate for the interests of our more than 67,000 citizen 

airmen. Our airmen have been continuously deployed and globally 

engaged in combat missions for over 18 straight years. They are 

not only responding to the asymmetric threats we currently face, 

but stand ready to respond to conventional threats as they arise. 

By any measure, our airmen are performing admirably. 

The Air Force Reserve is a repository of experience and expertise 

for the Air Force. We are a mission ready force, training to the 

same standards, and maintain the same currencies as those of the 

regular Air Force. And we are a cost effective force, comprising 

nearly 14 percent of the total Air Force authorized end strength for 

only 5.3 percent of the military personnel budget, or roughly 3.5 reserve airmen to one regular airman. 

Our priorities are clear, and they fall within the Air Force priorities overall. We must provide an operational combat ready force 

while maintaining a strategic reserve. We must preserve the viability of the triad of relationships Reservists must sustain with their 

families, the Air Force Reserve, and their employers. We must 

broaden total force initiatives, and we must modernize our equip-
29 

ment and facilities. Each of these priorities is vital to preserving 

our value and sustaining our forces. 

As we prepare for the future, we will continue to transform our 

force to meet the requirements of the Air Force and the joint 

warfighter. Over time, we have evolved into an operational reserve, 

but we must not lose sight of the fact that we, along with our Air 

National Guard brothers and sisters, provide a strategic capability 

as well, and must be available in times of national emergency. 

For us to serve as both a strategic reserve and provide operational forces for current and increasing requirements, it is critical 

that we find the right balance between the two and have sufficient 

manpower and resources to support those requirements. Just as 

important as having the right manpower and resources, we must 

ensure that the right people with the right skills at the right time 

to meet Air Force needs are available. We are evolving our force 

mix to ease the strain on our stressed career fields and to grow into 

emerging mission areas, including the nuclear enterprise, cyber 

space, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, unmanned aerial 

systems, and space, to name a few. Opportunities still exist to become more efficient and effective, and we will work as a total force 

to determine the right balance and mix of regular guard and reserve in these new mission areas. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of this committee for the authorization and legislation to provide our readiness and combat capability. We appreciate your unfailing support 

to the men and women of the Air Force Reserve, and I look forward 

to working with each of you in the future on the challenges facing 

the Air Force Reserve, the Air Force, and the Nation. 

I stand by for any questions you may have. 

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

Appendix on page 178.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Admiral May. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. DANIEL R. MAY, USCG, CHIEF, 

COAST GUARD RESERVE FORCES 

Admiral MAY. Good morning, Chairwoman Davis, Congressman 

Wilson, and distinguished members of the House Armed Services 

Committee. It is truly a pleasure to have this opportunity to appear 

before you today to discuss the Coast Guard Reserve, its contribution to our national defense and homeland security, and the issues 

that face the men and women of our Coast Guard Reserve. 

I would like to thank the committee for tackling the tough military personnel issues, and congratulate you on the legislation that 

you have done to improve the lives of all of our members. I would 

also like to thank the reserve component master chiefs, reserve 

component sergeant majors, and reserve component chief master 

sergeants that are all with us here today. 

As you know, the Coast Guard is one of our five Armed Forces 

of the United States, and has a long and distinguished history of 

service at home as well as abroad. 

Because of its mix of military and civil law enforcement authorities, the Coast Guard is uniquely positioned to serve as the lead 

federal agency for maritime homeland security while also acting as 

a supporting agency to the Department of Defense. In fact, over 80 
30 

percent of our 8,100 Selected Reserve force is directly assigned to 

Coast Guard shore units, where reservists hone their skills through 

classroom instruction and on-the-job training side by side with 

their active duty counterparts. The remainder of our Selected Reserve force is dedicated primarily to supporting our defense operations. 

The integration of our active and reserve components enable us 

to respond quickly when and where operational reserve forces are 

needed, aided in part by the authority that is vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security under title 14 of the U.S. Code. Under 

title 14, the Secretary may recall reservists for up to 30 days at a 

time for domestic contingencies, including natural and manmade 

disasters and terrorist attacks. This unique authority helped facilitate a rapid Coast Guard response during Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita. 

As one of the Armed Forces, the Coast Guard also plays a significant role in the homeland security and in our national defense. Reserve components serve as an absolute force multiplier for our entire force. 

After the tragic events of September 11, and in the wake of our 

largest mobilization of our Coast Guard Reserve since World War 

II, nearly 50 percent of our force, we have examined all of our systems, including recruiting, training, mobilizing, and demobilizing 

our reserves. 

We also undertook a recent comprehensive review of our Coast 

Guard Reserve that resulted in a policy statement that embodies 

the three core strategic functions of our Coast Guard Reserve; that 

being maritime homeland security, domestic and expeditionary 

support to national defense, and domestic or manmade natural disaster response and recovery. 

This policy statement provides a clear focus for our Coast Guard 

Reserve, and will ensure that we continue to have a well trained, 

ready force, with the right people, the right skills, and the right 

places to aid our Coast Guard force for any contingency. 

The Coast Guard is our Nation’s premier maritime law enforcement agency with broad multi-faceted jurisdictional authority. It is 

on behalf of our men and women of the Coast Guard that I thank 

you for your continued support of the Coast Guard and the Coast 

Guard Reserve. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral May can be found in the Appendix on page 196.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Thank you again to all of you. 

I want to begin with the question that I asked the earlier panel; 

whether or not you believe that the budget managers will be looking very suspiciously perhaps at the budgets for recruiting and retention; and whether or not you are going to be able to do the work 

that needs to be done with lower budget levels. Could you talk 

about that, and whether you think that in the end you might need 

to lean on emergency supplementals as well to allow you to do the 

work that is at hand? Can you manage with those lower? I really 

want to know, really, how in fact you are being approached to deal 

with this issue. 
31 

General VAUGHN. Chairwoman, we were not successful over the 

last couple years of getting everything we needed into the base. I 

know in the first set of testimony you heard that. We are not crying about it, because we work awfully close within the Army, and 

they have helped us on this. 

Our view is that if we participate together with the Army solutions, we think, if we can get help out of this particular supplemental, then we can lower our bonuses probably. We will have to 

lower them in order to hit the authorized marks that we have got 

out there in front of us. But we think it is going to be substantial. 

But we can’t do it alone. We can’t do it without any help. And we 

have a promise from the Army to help us with this particular situation. 

General STULTZ. I would just say that we in the Army Reserve 

during the past year have migrated a lot of our recruiting and retention incentives into our base. Still, we had to do some 

workarounds for additional funds as required. And I would be very 

cautious. As people look at the economy and say, well, you don’t 

need all the incentives because the economy is in poor shape, I am 

not sure an individual loses their job goes and joins the reserve 

component as a part-time job. They probably go and look for the 

active service for a full-time job. And, in fact, I am concerned that 

it could end up having soldiers in the Reserve who lose their civilian job go on active duty and could actually be an attrition factor 

for us. 

I think what we have got to do in the Army Reserve, as we approach our end strength, this year my focus is really going to be 

on shaping the force and using those incentives that we have got 

to get the right capabilities. 

You mentioned earlier to the other panel about medical recruiting. We have a large medical force in the Army Reserve. We supply 

a lot of the medical capability for the Armed Forces. Those are critical shortages for us, also. So we need to reallocate some of the incentives we have got, not reduce them but reallocate, to attract for 

medical capabilities in our service. 

Military policemen. Civil affairs capabilities that call on people 

that are city managers or utility directors or things like that that 

they can use those same skill sets for us in nation building. 

So what I am trying to carry the message of, we have got to 

maintain the incentives we have got; and within the Army Reserve 

let me reshape them to get the capabilities this Nation needs. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Let me just follow up quickly. And others might 

want to respond. Do you have the flexibility to do that? And are 

there some new ideas to really tap those individuals that you spoke 

about? 

General STULTZ. Yes, ma’am. Within the Army policy in a lot of 

cases we can in some cases realign. Obviously we do critical skill 

retention bonuses, and we target certain skill sets with our enlistment bonuses. As we get enough of certain capabilities, we lower 

the bonuses there and increase bonuses in other areas. So we do 

have some flexibility. 

However, I will give you a couple things that we are doing in the 

Army Reserve. 
32 

Obviously, we have got the employer partnership program we 

started where we are talking to America’s industry, for instance, 

the medical industry of America, and say what are your shortages? 

And where they are short medical technologists, respiratory, Emergency Response (ER), surgical techs, x-ray techs, we are helping fill 

their needs by recruiting soldiers, training them, and giving them 

a civilian job. So we are putting capability back into America. It 

is a unique spin on instead of going to America’s business and asking for their help to give us soldiers, I am saying: Let me give you 

employees. 

But the other thing I am doing, I am working with some medical 

universities to say give me scholarships basically so I can go and 

recruit individuals to be doctors or nurses or whatever, and I will 

give you adjunct faculty. Because I have got a lot of wonderful docs 

in the Army Reserve who are pretty well known throughout the 

Nation and the world that a lot of these universities would love to 

have as adjunct faculty. So, if you will give me some spots in your 

medical school, in turn I will give you some adjunct faculty. We are 

getting ready to sign an agreement with Pacific University in the 

Northwest, and we have just signed one with the University of 

North Carolina for the nursing school. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Let me just go ahead and let the rest 

of you respond, if you could, quickly to that. 

General STENNER. Madam Chairwoman, I can very quickly. As 

an Air Force Reserve, we ended last year at the lowest point we 

will be at as a result of the base realignment and closures and the 

Program Budget Decision (PBD) 720 reductions. 

Right now, we are at the foundation and the floor and growing, 

and we are going to grow based on a lot of non-prior service folks 

that we are not necessarily used to getting. We have likely all 

counted on that prior service talent coming to us. So it is not the 

recruiting dollars that we will be able to get the folks; it is the second order effect that I am more concerned about, and that is the 

subsequent training to get the folks to that level of capability we 

need them to. So we can get them on board. Now, we need to train 

them. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. We will try and deal with that in another question. 

General Bergman. 

General BERGMAN. Very briefly, going back to my comment about 

transitioning from the operational—to the operational from the 

strategic reserve. As the manpower planning and policies which allocate the bonus money, which we have right now, catch up to 

where we need it in the operational reserve, we will be okay. It is 

a matter of refocusing that effort within the Marine Corps. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Anybody else? 

Admiral DEBBINK. In the Navy, we believe our funding is adequate. In fact, we are constantly readjusting our selective reenlistment bonuses as well as other incentives we have to target the fit 

that we are looking for. As you know, we are coming down from 

just over 67,000 to 66,000. So we have some luxury there perhaps. 

But even more importantly, the long-range view that we have is we 

have about 40,000 sailors who leave the active component every 

year, and we estimate about 17,000 of those would be eligible to 
33 

join the Navy Reserve or transition to the Navy Reserve. And we 

need about 9,000 a year. So our real goal is to target those prior 

service sailors that are serving now today and bring them into our 

reserve component and thereby become even more efficient with 

our funding for recruiting and retention. 

General WYATT. Madam Chairwoman, on behalf of the Air 

Guard, our recruiting and retention as far as the baseline has, in 

my opinion, has not been what it should have been in years past. 

But we are taking steps to remedy that. We are moving some monies out of the supplement into the baseline budget. But we face the 

same temptations I think that all of the individuals at this table 

face, and that is the threat of the economy and the effect that it 

will have on those recruiting and retention budgets. 

We also recognize that the Air Force is growing from 316 to 330. 

The Air Force Reserve perhaps will be growing back to levels that 

it enjoyed prior to some base realignment and closure actions. The 

demand for the capability is there, and as a member of the total 

force, United States Air Force, we need to be poised and ready to 

accept those missions as they come our way. Right now, if you 

looked at the missions that we have on behalf of the United States 

Air Force and our authorizations, we already need 2,228 positions 

just to do the missions that we are currently doing for the United 

States Air Force. As the Air Force grows, we are poised to grow 

with them. So now is not the time, in my opinion, to cut the recruiting and retention budgets. But we do need to get more focused 

on getting the right airmen in the right place. We need to focus on 

prior service. We are doing that by increasing the number of our 

end service recruiters on active duty Air Force bases with the help 

and with the consent not only of the United States Air Force but 

with the States that are allowing their recruiters to be used in 

such a fashion. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Admiral May, do you want to comment? 

Admiral MAY. Madam Chairwoman, we don’t expect a lot of 

changes for the Coast Guard. We do our recruiting in our kind of 

one-stop shop operations all over the country where recruiters do 

active duty and reserve at the same time. So when someone walks 

in the door, they will talk to them. It may be that the active duty 

component will not work for them; however, the reserve will. 

So we don’t anticipate a lot of changes there. We have been very 

fortunate that we have had strong interest in the Coast Guard, especially both active duty and reserve. We don’t have that many bonuses. The ones that we do are for our expeditionary forces, our 

port security units. We have had very good response and strength 

in support for filling those out, and we don’t anticipate any changes 

here in the coming year in our ability to still force those. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And General 

Vaughn, I want to wish you well on your upcoming retirement. I 

want to thank you for your service. What a time to depart, with 

extraordinary success in recruiting, retention, end strength. I am 

so happy for you. I am so happy for your recruiters. As a guard veteran, a guard parent, I particularly appreciate your success, and I 

believe a lot of it relates to working with families. And so getting 
34 

families involved has had a remarkable success. I know that our 

Adjutant General, Stan Spears, and his wife, Dot, have been so encouraging of families. It should also be noted that for the first time 

in 10 years that DOD quality standards for new recruits has exceeded all levels. So thank you. What a way to leave office. And so, 

congratulations. 

In fact, the Army National Guard at 367,000 members exceeds 

the force level of 2013, which was to be 358,200. What should be 

the strength size? Do you believe that 358,200? Or should it be 

higher? 

General VAUGHN. Congressman, thank you. Thank you for the 

comments, first of all. I think that, and given your experience you 

will know that we are in a position for the first time to shape our 

force in a way that hasn’t been done in 50 years. We are all about 

readiness, we are all about trying to cut down on the amount of 

cross leveling, which really messes families up and everything that 

falls out after that. 

We had several things to overcome. End strength, the force structure end strength deviation. As you heard my buddy Mike Rochelle 

talk about, we needed more training seats so that we can get the 

training pipeline down. But you know as well as I do, one of the 

real bad issues we have is that we swear youngsters in at day one, 

and many times these youngsters encumber that slot for maybe as 

much as a year before they go to training. So we are going to institute something that the Army has done for many years, which is 

a delayed entry program. We will take youngsters that are at 12, 

11, 10, 9, 8 months, all the way out, and we will not swear them 

in on day one. So this is one of the levers, and what we are trying 

to do is force up the number of soldiers that are basically in our 

formations. 

Now, once we have done that, then we need to approach the next 

piece, which is the over strength of the Trainees, Transients, 

Holdees, and Students (TTHS) account, just like mother Army in 

order to grow the great readiness. And then the debate will be, 

what does the strength or the authorized strength of the Guard 

really need to be? We have pegged that to 371,000, with an additional 12,500 in what we call a Recruit Sustainment Program 

(RSP). 

But, again, we have work to do over the next year to two years 

to figure that out. And then I predict that mother Army and whoever succeeds me will come back and they will have that discussion 

with you, because that is the basis for operationalizing the Guard, 

in my view. And that is 100 percent trained soldiers in your formations, and not folks that aren’t ready to go when you call them to 

go. And we have been in that model, and we are just now to that 

point, after four years of working at this we are just now at the 

point to push that over the goal line. 

So I appreciate the question. 

And I would like to say that we would like to have another 

12,500. I would like to have done that on my watch. It is not time 

for that. We have one more thing that we need to do before we 

come back, and there is two ways to do it: You either grow the end 

strength, or you take down some force structure. And that will be 

a good debate for all of us to have. 
35 

So thank you very much. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, and I have never been prouder of the Army 

National Guard and know of their capabilities. And General Stultz, 

congratulations to you on your building the end strength of the 

Army Reserve. I also want to commend you with your civil affairs 

units. They have never been more important, working to build local 

governance in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have seen it firsthand. A 

challenge, though, for you is the lack of captains and majors. How 

is that being addressed? 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir. The challenge we have got, as you mentioned, as we are approaching our 206,000 end strength, we are 

still short almost 10,000 captains and majors in our force. Part of 

that is because the active Army has placed a lot of incentives to 

retain captains and majors that normally would have left active 

duty, as well as in the ROTC programs they are assessing most of 

the lieutenants coming out of ROTC onto their active duty roles. 

So we are just not getting the flow that we used to. 

We are addressing that in a number of ways. One is that we are 

instituting now a three-year ROTC scholarship. We are pushing 

the Army to go to a four-year ROTC scholarship. There is some argument, does that require legislation or policy? We will get to the 

root of it and we will figure it out. But we want to be able to offer 

an individual that wants a civilian career but also wants to serve 

their Nation the same four-year scholarship that the active Army 

offers them. So we are pushing for more authority there. 

Secondly, we are working aggressively to approach the Army, as 

Dirk mentioned, the continuum of service where we want to talk 

to officers and NCOs that are thinking about leaving active service 

6, 9, or 12 months before their Expiration Term of Service (ETS), 

to talk to them about transitioning, not getting out but 

transitioning into the reserve components, and use our employer 

program to transition them into a civilian career where they can 

use those skills they developed in the active Army civilian life with 

a company that is very supportive of the reserves. 

Those two things are very critical to us. Because we talk about 

direct commissioning, but every time I direct commission an officer 

out of my ranks I lose an NCO. So that is not the answer. I think 

the answer is also in respect to the civil affairs community, and 

what we are exploring is we direct commission a lot of medical professionals, doctors, a lot of them over 50 years of age who want to 

join our force and serve their Nation. What we need to do is go 

after those other skill sets that our civil affairs forces needs, things 

like bankers, things like city managers, people that are out there 

that have tremendous civilian skills, and be able to direct commission them as a major or a captain and bring them into the uniformed services. We are working that very hard right now with the 

Army to get that authority, and the Army G–1, General Rochelle, 

who was here earlier, is working with us on that. 

Mr. WILSON. And if there are any congressional initiatives, I look 

forward to working with my colleagues on that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for your years of service and for being 

here today. And General Vaughn, let me say it has been a great 
36 

pleasure working with you these years, and we wish you great success as you move forward. 

Mr. KLINE. If your successor is as successful as you have been, 

then the Army Guard is in great shape for some time to come. So 

thank you very much. 

I couldn’t help but notice when the first panel was here that my 

friend here, Joe Wilson, was bragging about how he is personally 

responsible for the end strength of several services, and I want to 

thank him and his offspring for doing that. I can’t compete with 

that. And unfortunately or fortunately, it depends on which panel 

I am talking to, my son and my nieces are all in the active component of the Army. So now my challenge will be to get my niece, 

who is an Army nurse, when she completes her act of service, to 

move into the Army Reserve. But I, like Mr. Wilson, am very proud 

of the contributions of my son and my family to the Armed Forces. 

They are happy to serve, which is sometimes not understood by 

many people in America. 

My son and my nieces are happy to serve. They are proud to 

serve, and I think that is true of the vast majority of the men and 

women in uniform today. And that is evidenced by our retention 

numbers, which are quite frankly very, very impressive, and I am 

sure that I and others have marveled sometimes that the largest 

reenlistment occasions occur in places like Baghdad. These terrific 

young men and women want to serve. They are serving, and they 

are serving well. 

I have been interested in the discussion in both panels. We have 

talked about issues with dwell time and operational tempo and personnel tempo and bonuses and pay and all of those things, questions that the Chair has asked and other members. I am going to 

throw just a broad question out there. It is a softball or a hard ball 

depending upon how you look at it. 

When you look at the challenges coming up this year and next 

year particularly, 2009, 2010, perhaps in 2011, what is it—in view 

of recruiting and retention only, what is it that is your biggest concern or what you would, your biggest wish that you could impart 

to us of what it is you need to see happen or what it is that you 

are desperately afraid might happen that is going to adversely impact? And I just ask everyone. This is one of those lightning 

rounds. You have about 20 seconds here. 

General STENNER. I will start, Congressman Kline. I think that 

for the United States Air Force as we in fact attempt to grow in 

new mission areas, the biggest issue we are going to have is getting 

the right balance of the active and reserve components in all of 

those mission sets so we can be that strategic reserve, that we can 

leverage to do the operational capability so that we provide on a 

daily basis and in the Air Force construct of the AEF, the Air Expeditionary Force, that we provide that on a rotational basis and so 

we can do that in a sustainable manner, and if we can do that with 

predictability, then we can sustain that for quite some time. Whatever we can do to drive predictability into the dwell, drive predictability into the length of tour, provide predictability for the family 

and for the employer, we will be able to tell our folks and the expectation control that comes with that will allow us to sustain that 

operational capability that we are all providing on a daily basis. 
37 

General BERGMAN. Sir, no question, predictability is the number 

one driver for the reservists because they are planning a parallel 

life that they—we all have families. It doesn’t make any difference 

whether you are active or reserve, but the reservist has that employer. So for them to balance that civilian career, predictability is 

number one. Recruiting and retention are continuous. A good unit, 

a good command is always focusing on that. Equipping is sequential. If you are in year one of dwell time, just getting back from a 

year of deployment, you don’t necessarily need the equipment at 

that point in that dwell time that you will need in year three, four, 

or five. So we just need to make sure that there is a consistency, 

again, in the planning of the predictability of the dwell time. 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir, my fear, the Army Reserve is the enabling force for the combat force. We are the combat support, service 

support. As we decrease force structure, our forces in Iraq, we don’t 

see the same level of decrease in the enablers. So they still have 

to have the doctors. They still have to have the logisticians, they 

still have to have the military policemen. At the same time when 

you see increases in, let’s say, Afghanistan, first thing they ask for 

is the enablers to get in there first to set the theater before they 

bring in the combat force. So that is my concern. 

And what I would agree with Jack here is we have got to get predictability, but it is like Mike Rochelle said, the appetite that is out 

there just does not go down. And so my soldiers when I get out to 

visit with them, they are proud of what they are doing but they are 

saying what are you doing for me? Are you going to do anything 

about the retirement age? Are you going to do anything about medical care? Are you going to do anything about any of those things? 

Because you are asking more of me. But I don’t see in return you 

giving back as much. 

So that is what I am focused on. 

General VAUGHN. Sir, just as a comment, this thing about great 

pride in the force is exactly right. In our communities it just runs 

over. And it goes back to the predictability thing that we took off 

so hard after, and part of that is making sure our formations are 

completely full so we are not cross leveling and next thing you 

know somebody doesn’t have the predictability. They think they are 

not going and here they come. And so that is why we have attacked 

seriously with the great change in our organization that we have 

got going and why we are attacking this delayed entry program in 

TTHS thing is next. In order to get there I just hope we don’t, you 

know, let the air completely out of the tires on recruiting and retention. 

Now we all know that we are going to take this down some and 

we will all feel for where that is at. But to attract today’s great soldiers and families, you know, there is a value proposition that still 

has to be there. And at some point in time if we let it all the way 

out, and I am not saying we got to keep our bonuses all the way 

up and I am not saying that we need the same amount of advertising, but there are some things you have got to do to keep it up 

there in the face of America. And so I would just ask that you 

watch that very closely. 

Thanks. 
38 

Admiral DEBBINK. I think you are right on that our sailors are 

terrifically proud to be able to serve today, and I think the most 

important thing we need to continue to do is to give them what I 

call real and meaningful work to do every day when they are employed by the Navy. And that also goes right to the mobilizations 

that we make sure we are completely and fully validating every billet and that we send them to a job they are trained and qualified 

to do such that when they come home or they call home and their 

spouse or family asks them, how are things going, they say great. 

It couldn’t be better and thank you for allowing me to serve. 

And that leads me into the other piece, and that is to make sure 

we keep supporting our families. I know all of us at the table here 

have that joint commitment to each other that we would support 

any service members’ family any time, anywhere they need it. 

And those are the two most important pieces I offer, sir. 

General WYATT. Congressman Kline, on behalf of the Air National Guard I share the sentiments of General Stenner, Air Force 

Reserve. Everything he said is right on target with predictability. 

My concern is that we need to continue focusing on the real 

strength of all of our services, and that is our people. We have created an environment that is composed of not just salary, but bonuses, medical benefits, how we approach sexual assault, PTSD, 

Wounded Warrior, Yellow Ribbon reintegration programs, and we 

have created an environment that they like and that they are willing to deploy in record numbers and stay with us in record numbers. I think we need to be cognizant that when we change any one 

of those elements we change the entire environment. And I think 

we need to be cognizant of that. 

And let me close by just saying that not only do we need to continue to focus on airmen, soldiers, sailors, Marines but we also 

need to continue focusing on their families and in the case of the 

guard and the reserve especially the employers. We can never forget the employer piece. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. Admiral. 

Admiral MAY. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to comment. I 

would say that our best recommendation is that we don’t cut any 

existing programs and we support the budgets that we have in 

place. One of the unique things that the Coast Guard enjoys is a 

strong propensity from our active duty members to move over from 

the active duty component to the reserve program, and they do that 

for a number of reasons. And as General Stultz pointed out, we invest heavily in our people. The Coast Guard, when young men and 

women come into our service, we invest in their education. We invest in their training. We treat them as if they are going to be a 

lifelong member of our organization. And many are. But we also 

have the ability for those folks to move from the active duty over 

to the reserve component, medical, all those sort of services that 

you all have supported and made available for our young men and 

women and their families. All enter in those decisions that they 

make as who their employer is going to be. 

So I would say we need to continue up on those benefits and 

those services for our young men and women that serve in our military. 

Thank you. 
39 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair, for 

your indulgence. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate the question. And we are always trying to identify what it is that, number one, keeps you up 

at night and that we need to try and resolve with you. 

You mention predictability, several of you did, and there are 

some elements of that I know that we can’t control. But of those 

that we can, what do you find to be the biggest obstacle to try and 

impress upon people we need to get right? You may have addressed 

this, but of those elements what is it you know certain things and 

yet maybe those are issues that we have a difficult time identifying, and particularly I think, General Vaughn, as you are exiting 

as well, are there some things that you know to be true that you 

just want to go out on the top of rooftops and let people know 

about? 

General VAUGHN. Well, Madam Chairwoman, on predictability, 

and I think you can tell from the other answers, you know, the 

things that keep me up and going on this is exactly what I have 

said, and I am not going to come off of it. We have been on a strategic plan for four years to get this right. We entered into this with 

the greatest bunch of soldiers that you could possibly have. But we 

were a 75 percent force. Even at 100 percent or 90 percent we only 

had 75 percent soldiers in our formations. And so taking the strategic moves along with this subcommittee that gave us the tools to 

do that has been an enormous thing. And the predictability thing, 

and I talked about a second ago, in order to get our system, our 

flawed system, correct, we are asking for a huge culture change 

from the Army National Guard and you know across the whole 54 

that is a big deal. We tell the 54 you are—you know, the 50 States, 

the three Territories and D.C.—the 54 is the weakest thing we 

have, you know getting everybody together, but when you get them 

all organized on the objective it is the strongest thing we have. And 

we are organized on whipping this delayed entry program and then 

going for the TTHS, which will give predictability within means to 

those formations, and whatever the Nation asks us to do, and that 

is the job of everybody up here, to be ready you know when the Nation or the state says I need this formation then we have got to 

give it to them. And I am telling you we are so much better but 

we still not quite there yet. And so we are going to get this predictability thing done right within bounds. I wish it was 5 years back, 

I wish it was 4 years back, I wish it was 3 years back, but I don’t 

want the thing that says 25 percent of those soldiers that are really 

going in that formation and they don’t know it yet because they are 

going to be cross leveled in there. And that is what we have to fix. 

That is a family problem. I saw it years ago. We would come home 

and have these great formations that would come back, Congressman Kline. And we would hit 80 percent of them, and 80 percent 

of the families would be there. But there would be onesies and 

twosies getting on buses going some place back to their families 

and they weren’t getting the welcome home ceremonies, and they 

weren’t part of the family readiness groups either that took place 

during that time. 
40 

So we have owed it to our families and soldiers to fix those 

things and you have helped us fix those things. And we are close 

to it and we just want to stay on track. 

General STENNER. Madam Chairwoman, if I could, predictability 

is one to one, is one to five dwell but I would dearly love to not 

have to tell anybody that it is predictable at one to one. There are 

stress career fields, there are low density high demand career 

fields, there are places that we need to add additional capability, 

whether for the Air Force be in a unit program or for the Air Force 

Reserve individual mobilization augmentees, where we can make it 

predictable at the level that we need them or would like them to 

participate as opposed to a continuous participation. To get to that 

point, we need to look at those additional assets that we might 

need for the future to go to those particular areas where we can 

serve the capability the best. If we don’t, we end up offsetting within the current portfolio, which again will add the risk to others and 

continue in the stressed and low density high demand arenas. 

So the additional resources required to fix those would be one of 

the things that I would be after, first of all, to get the predictability 

to the place we want it, a one to five, one to four, one to three 

dwell, somewhere in there. 

Admiral DEBBINK. And I would offer that right now with the 

Navy Reserve we have about 27,000 sailors that are mobilizable, 

that they are ready and they are outside of their dwell and that 

sounds great, but what happens is you get into the one eaches, the 

particular communities that, say for example intel and other areas 

where we know where our red lines are, and provide that we don’t 

push our sailors past those red lines, the one to five, and if we do 

then we give them the added benefits which are in the law and if 

we need to push them even further that we look at making sure 

we are compensating them for it, they will continue to come to the 

fight for us. 

General WYATT. Madam Chairwoman, on behalf of the Air National Guard I think the thing that keeps me awake at night is trying to assess and answer the question, are my airmen properly 

trained? Are they properly equipped? And are they properly led? 

And I think the answer to that is yes, I know it is with the help 

of the United States Air Force and the Air Force Reserve, the total 

joint force, especially as we focus on the overseas fight. My concern 

though is that the fight we cannot lose is the fight here in the 

homeland. And I think a recognition from a guard perspective that 

we are a dual mission force, that we have not only the fight overseas to be concerned with but the fight here at home in support of 

our governors is one that I hope we don’t lose focus on because I 

have got to answer that question for my airmen in both fights, not 

just one. 

Admiral MAY. Madam Chairwoman, our biggest concern is our 

capacity. That is the only thing that is really limiting us. It is our 

great challenge every day in our business, where we spread ourselves. As Admiral Allen, our Commandant, often likes to say, business is good but the Coast Guard needs to grow, and that is both 

our active duty and our reserve component together. If you look at 

our 41,000 active duty and our about 8,000 reserve, that is a total 

force of less than 50,000. To give that a little perspective, that is 
41 

about the size of the New York City Police Department, only our 

jurisdiction is worldwide. 

So that is our biggest concern we have for the future. And I think 

through our long history of service to the American people, the 

unique capabilities that the Coast Guard brings not only to national defense but also to our homeland security, we are a great investment for the American public. 

So I would say if there is an opportunity that the Coast Guard 

would be a great investment for the American people. 

Mrs. DAVIS. May I just follow up for a second, Admiral? Your request authorization, is that, do you see that as being actually quite 

different from where you really anticipate and expect to be at that 

10,000 level? 

Admiral MAY. Ten thousand is where we hope to be. We have 

had obviously budget challenges in getting there. We continue to 

be on that track to get to 10,000. We certainly would like to get 

there, as I said. We hope to grow the active duty. The reserve 

needs to grow right along with that. And each year we look for opportunities to do that, and we will continue to do so. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. And Admiral Debbink, thank you for 

being here today, your first appearance. I wanted to commend your 

personnel. I had the opportunity to see the Seabees in Fallujah, 

and they were helping build the infrastructure, a civil society, and 

so the Navy Reserve, sand sailors, have really made a difference 

and I want to commend you. 

Also, Admiral May, I am happy to be here with you to have the 

Coast Guard involved. I grew up in the neighborhood of the Coast 

Guard base at Charleston, South Carolina. I was always impressed 

by the professionalism of the young people I saw serving. And I 

represent now the communities of Beaufort and Hilton Head Island. And so it is really reassuring to know of your capabilities and 

professionalism of the Guard. It is something that people need to 

know. Indeed the Coast Guard Reserve is unique. And also you 

need to point out that it is nonredundant compared to the other 

DOD reserve components. Can you go through that? 

Admiral MAY. Yes, sir. Thank you for asking and thank you for 

your comments on our Coast Guard folks in South Carolina, and 

especially Charleston. Coast Guard Reserve is unique in that we 

certainly are very similar to the other reserve components in that 

we are a surge capability, we are an additional force for active duty 

component. We are there for all aspects of title 10. What makes the 

Coast Guard reserve a little bit unique is that we also can be involuntarily recalled under title 14. That is a statute that the Secretary of Homeland Security enjoys where he can recall reservists 

in support of a national emergency of any nature. That is what we 

have used to respond to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and that provides an extra level of opportunity for members of the Coast Guard 

Reserve to respond in support of the country for whatever the need 

may be. 

Mr. WILSON. And during Katrina, what was the level of search 

and rescue that—it was a record, wasn’t it, that the Coast Guard 

performed? 
42 

Admiral MAY. Yes, sir, 33,000 individuals saved, which was a 

record for the Coast Guard. On an average year it is about one seventh. So that is about 7 years worth of rescue within that short period of time. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, the American people need to know the extraordinary success. 

General Wyatt, I am really grateful to have visited the joint air 

base, the McEntire joint air base, and the esprit de corps, the pride 

of persons, serving in the Swamp Fox Squadron there is phenomenal. In fact two weeks ago, I visited Iwo Jima, which is now 

a Japanese air base. And when I entered, there was a picture of 

the Swamp Fox Squadron on the wall as you come in to the right, 

and it is the only picture. And it was signed by D ‘‘Dog’’ Pennington 

and the others of the squadron and it made me very proud that our 

Air National Guard is renowned around the world. 

Also I want to congratulate you that for the first time since 2002 

the end strength has been achieved by the Air National Guard. But 

a concern that was expressed in your message to us was the lack 

of a personnel strategic plan linking recruiting and retention programs to an organizational strategic plan. 

Can you explain why a lack of a strategic personal plan, that this 

needs to be addressed? 

General WYATT. Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. The situation in the past 

has been that in my opinion the Air National Guard was reactionary in a lot of the recruiting and retention efforts that we had. 

We were reacting to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), we 

were reacting to certain downsizings, we were reacting to events 

that prevented us from being a look forward force. We have taken 

steps over the last couple of years initiating what we called strategic planning system. 

It is a field driven process primarily worked by the assistant adjutants general in each of the 54 jurisdictions with subject matter 

expert advice from my staff to formulate a plan that meshes extremely well with what the United States Air Force sees in emerging missions. And the objective is to take our recruiting and retention plan and link it up with the vision that we have as an organization now in concert with the United States Air Force so that we 

can more effectively leverage the dollars that we do have in recruiting and retention. Instead of just going for end strength, we will 

now target different job skills, different skill sets, different civilian 

acquired skills that make the Air National Guard strong. We can 

do that while we look forward to emerging missions and instead of 

being a reactionary force, being a proactive force. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Kline, do you have any questions? 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was thinking about the 

officer balance issue, General Stultz, that you were talking about 

and there was sort of competition moving back and forth between 

the active components and the reserves. And the Marine Corps has 

done this very differently for a long time. There aren’t any lieutenants in the Marine Corps Reserve. Maybe there is one. I don’t go, 

but fundamentally they go, in the Marine Corps the officers go in 

the active component and then move into the reserves and they are 
43 

either very senior lieutenants or captains. So the whole force structure or the officer structure is a little bit different. 

I am not suggesting that the Army adopt that model, but I am 

suggesting that we explore every opportunity as we are trying to 

get the leadership that we need into the Army Reserve and any 

other component. We need to be open to perhaps a little bit different way of thinking about it. And again I am not suggesting 

this, this is not a matter of record here, I am not suggesting the 

Army adopt this, but I would encourage all of you to look at nontraditional ways of adjusting the force. I know that the Army National Guard, for example, in Minnesota aggressively, years ago, 

went to high schools to recruit, some would argue in competition 

with, using General Vaughn’s words, Mother Army, but it has paid 

some dividends, where Army National Guard in some other states 

relied on prior service. 

And so again I have a personal preference for one model or the 

other, but the importance that I would just offer to you, and I am 

not going to ask a question because I went way over my limit last 

time, but just offer to you that we really ought to be looking across 

services and across components for the best practice and be willing 

to move out of the traditional realm. 

And I will just throw that out there, and again thank you for 

your marvelous service and for the unbelievable service of the reserve component in ways that we never dreamed of ten years ago. 

Truly remarkable. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Kline. You know one of the issues 

that you have all touched on I think in numerous ways is in many 

ways that the reserve competes with the active duty and vice 

versa. There is a real tension there. Do you also see that there is 

a great deal of duplication and is there some way that we need to 

get a handle on that? What would you like to do? 

General STULTZ. Yes, ma’am. I will speak, and I think I will 

speak for my buddy here Clyde. You are exactly right. One, to your 

point, sir, we have to break down this competition. We have to say, 

listen, in this day and age individuals flow back and forth. They 

change jobs every four or five years. That is the model that this 

generation grew up on. So this idea of recruiting a soldier for life, 

he is probably not going to stay on active duty for life. He may flow 

into the reserve, try civilian life for a while, he may flow back into 

the active force after a while. We need to make that transparent, 

make that continuum of service work. Right now the continuum of 

service from my perspective is a one-way street. They wanted to go 

to the active side, but making it easy to flow into the reserve is not 

because of just trying to hold on to them. But recruiting, the other 

panel, the question came up about the high schools, our soldiers 

are already in the high schools. We recruit them when they are 

juniors in high school. And both the Army Reserve and the Guard 

had started the program, the Guard started it first, I will give 

them full credit, GRAP, Guard Recruiter Assistance Program. We 

replicated it on the Army Reserve side, Army Recruiter Reserve Assistance Program (ARRAP). This past year we got 5,000 soldiers 

out of that. That is why our end strength is growing the way it is. 

And it is kids in high school recruiting. 
44 

Now there was concern just recently because of a high suicide 

rate among a recruiting unit down in Texas. And the question 

comes back why, you know, what are you doing? You are bringing 

a soldier back that has been on two or three deployments, and now 

you are putting him into recruiting command and you send him out 

to some remote area to recruit where he has no support base or 

whatever. Our soldiers are already there. So what Clyde and I have 

told them is, ‘‘look, let us do the recruiting for the active Army 

using our soldiers,’’ I can take a soldier and say ‘‘do you want to 

go on active duty for a couple of years in your hometown and recruit for the Army? Stay in your reserve unit while you are there, 

drill with them on your monthly drills and everything, but do recruiting the other time and free up the active Army to take these 

NCOs and everything and put them back in their force.’’ 

Those are the kinds of things we need to look at where we are 

duplicating—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Is that idea resonating? 

General STULTZ. We are going to do a pilot test. General Ben 

Freakley with Accessions Command and I have agreed along with 

the Guard to do some pilot tests for hometown recruiting, using 

guard and reserve soldiers instead of active duty soldiers to recruit 

for the Army because who knows better that community than our 

soldiers who live there. 

Admiral DEBBINK. And your question goes right to constant dialogue we have in the Navy. Let me give you two examples, one is 

our logistics community, our Fixed Air wing squadron (VR), which 

is almost 100 percent reserve, and the active component said we 

need you to fly the C–40s and fly the C–130s for us, and that is 

a conversation we had with them and that is where the capability 

resides. And in contrast perhaps to Congressman Wilson’s point, 

our Seabees, our fighting Seabees, which I will have the opportunity next week, I am going over to theater myself, I am very 

eager to follow your trip as well, sir, and congratulate them on 

their great support. They make up a part of our NECC, our Navy 

Expeditionary Combat Command, headquartered down in Norfolk 

which is right now today 51 percent reserve and 49 percent active, 

and they are doing some great work down there, some analytics to 

say is that the right mix or not, and is it the right mix for today 

when we are in the middle of these two fights, or what is the right 

mix for three or four years from now? 

So it is a very important question for us to get at, and we are 

working hard to answer that question. 

Mrs. DAVIS. One of the other issues that comes up as well is retirement pay and whether or not moving towards a retirement pay 

where reserve officers are able to pick that up much earlier than 

their 60s, than 60, which we are trying to pick off a few months 

here and there, is that something that you feel actually is a positive? Does it give you more officers? Or does it also add another 

element of competition that perhaps maybe from the active personnel would suggest that that is not the right direction to go? 

General BERGMAN. If I could address that, Madam Chairwoman, 

our goal, and I think I would speak for the folks at this table, is 

to increase the length of the careers of fine, qualified, serving enlisted and officer, whether they be soldiers, sailors, marine, guards-
45 

men, coast guardsmen, whatever, the pay and the retirement systems that they buy into should be recognizable to this generation 

of millennials, that says as I go through my life I am going to have 

my personal finance bag that I can add to and it is set up in such 

a way that those who are serving very well should reap the benefits, if you will, of that system. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Any comments on that? 

General STENNER. Can I jump in for just a second? Back to your 

original question as far as the seams or the apparent competition 

between active and reserve, when you look at it from a lens of what 

we are calling in the Air Force the association, where we have the 

similar, the same equipment, the same mission set, and we combine the active component with either a guard or reserve or vice 

versa, what you have got at a single installation, at a single unit, 

is both flavors of active and reserve, which gives you the—if you 

can get somebody on board, you put them in a place there is no 

competition, it is additive to the capability that is there. It is very 

fiscally efficient, very much an efficient way to deliver that capability, and when you hire somebody you have got them and they 

see each side of the house. 

Now I also think that the retirement piece is a very big incentive 

right now for not only those who we are bringing on, but for those 

who are currently in and are looking at alternatives that will allow 

them to bridge that time from the time they leave the service until 

they have to feed the family with the retirement check. And that 

is helpful, keeping them in, retention wise as well as recruiting. 

Mrs. DAVIS. General Wyatt. 

General WYATT. I think your question, Madam Chairman, was in 

the context of retirement benefits. And I think what my airmen are 

telling me is that because of what they are being asked to do now 

as opposed to what they were asked to do 20 years ago, they are 

not necessarily looking for equal, but they are looking for equitable, 

which means fair. And I think we have taken some steps recently 

to move in that direction. I am not sure we are totally there yet. 

And I think when the airmen have the feeling that the retirement 

system is equitable, then we will be able to compete with maybe 

a full-time retirement that might not be equal but at least it will 

be fair and equitable. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and General 

Stultz, I am glad you brought up about the GRAP program. I have 

two sons who are participating in that program, and these young 

people have credibility with their peers and colleagues and they are 

able to explain about the training opportunities, the educational 

opportunities, the leadership opportunities. One can tell firsthand 

of a year serving in Iraq. Another has served in Egypt, an extraordinary opportunity for this young fellow. 

Also, I am very interested in and we have legislation pending relative to the age of retirement. And would you see that by reducing 

the retirement age from 60 to more conforming to with the active 

forces, would this help in terms of retention and in particular be 

a benefit that spouses would appreciate? 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir. I look at the retirement age being exactly that, a retention tool, and it gets to what Jack Bergman was 
46 

just saying, being able to retain those quality individuals that we 

want to keep. Because the challenge we have got in the reserve, if 

you have gotten 20 good years of service but you are not going to 

draw your retirement until 60, and there is no incentives, reenlistment bonuses or anything else beyond 20 years, so what is the incentive to stay? 

And as I have related a story, I was talking to a young sergeant 

who actually was an Army National Guard sergeant, when I came 

back from Iraq, and I asked him what he was going to do and he 

said I am going to get out and I said why and he said the Army 

doesn’t want me. And I said that can’t be true. I said, sir, you are 

an NCO, you are an 88 Mike (truck driver), a critical skill, a combat veteran. He said, but, sir, I have 22 years in and there is no 

incentive for me to stay, and, to Congressman Wilson’s point, he 

said I have to go home and face my wife. And if I tell her I am 

reenlisting, she is going to say what are they going to give you, and 

when I say nothing, she is going to say, you are going to say you 

are volunteering to go back. 

So there has to be some connectivity to say, hey, there is a reason to stay once you have earned the eligible retirement because 

we are going to give you something. And I think lowering the retirement age for staying beyond 20 in some kind of formula would 

provide that incentive, not just for the individual soldier but also 

the family, to say, yes, we are going to be able to do things earlier 

in life because you are staying and you are standing at risk of another deployment but there is a reason. 

Mr. WILSON. I am really encouraged, and I look forward to working with Chairwoman Davis. There are different formulas out 

there, the flat 55, the proposal of one year for every two over 20, 

which I think would be so helpful with spouses, by using retirement points as a formula, and of course adjusting, as General 

Wyatt has urged, that we provide for retroactivity and equity for 

persons deployed to September the 11th, 2001, as opposed to what 

we finally got a breakthrough last year. 

And, again, thank you all for what you do for the young people 

of our country. 

General STULTZ. Yes, sir. As I travel around Iraq, Afghanistan 

and the Horn of Africa, whatever, and talk at town hall meetings, 

the number one question they ask me is what are we going to do 

about retirement. It is on the minds of our soldiers. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I think it is on everyone’s mind right now, sir. I appreciate that. I had mentioned earlier that as we wrap up, you 

have something that you just really wanted to be certain to say 

today that you didn’t have an opportunity to, please take that opportunity right now and then we are going to wrap up. 

Anybody have anything? You don’t have to. I just want to be sure 

you have that opportunity. 

General STENNER. Madam Chairwoman, very quickly, we are 

looking at challenging times today, we are looking at new mission 

sets for tomorrow, we are looking at growing in the appropriate 

mission sets to do what we need to do in unmanned aerial systems, 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), and that Air 

Force, three component Air Force, that stays proportional with 

every one of those mission sets is going to need an increase one 
47 

way or another in all three. The Reserve is a very cost effective and 

efficient way to sustain that strategic reserve and leverage that to 

the operational force that we are today. So I am ready, willing and 

able to take this Air Force Reserve to the future. 

Thank you very much for your help. 

General BERGMAN. Madam Chairwoman, the Marine Corps is 

never going to let you down, whether it be active or reserve. Thank 

you for the continued support of the entire committee and the Congress. 

General STULTZ. Just briefly, thanks obviously for all that you 

are doing for us and your support. You asked what keeps me 

awake at night? It is worrying about those soldiers who are out 

there that need our help, they have come back, they have demobilized, they are back in their civilian life and then they discover or 

we discover they have problems. And we have got to take care of 

those soldiers and we have got to make it easy, that when we identify a soldier that has PTSD or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) or 

something else that we can get them into the medical treatment 

system they need without the bureaucracy that is out there right 

now. That keeps me awake at night. But thanks for your support. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. We will be having some hearings on 

that. 

General VAUGHN. Madam Chairwoman, same thing. Thank you 

for your support. I agree with Jack. The youngsters are coming 

back and are facing the dilemmas ahead with jobs and families and 

what not. I think it keeps us all awake at night. Thank you. 

Admiral DEBBINK. Chairwoman Davis, I just want echo that too, 

that the Yellow Ribbon reintegration programs and our support for 

our wounded, ill and injured sailors and all of our service members, 

and your support helping fund those programs is extremely important to us. 

And the other comment I would have back to the retirement benefits, and I believe we are working on this, but to look at that gray 

area, whenever someone retires, whether it is 55 or 60, to cover or 

allow them to take TRICARE Reserve Select through that period 

even at full cost, which is some $700 a month, but that allows them 

the continuity of care so that once they go on TRICARE if they are 

injured or there is a problem that occurs while on active duty and 

they are no longer eligible to move back to their reserve health 

care, they have TRICARE that can take them through the retirement age, Ma’am. 

And other than that, thank you for your support. 

General WYATT. Chairwoman Davis, on behalf of the Air National Guard, thank you for the honor and privilege of testifying before you and Ranking Member Wilson and members of the subcommittee. I am thankful we have a constitutional provision that 

is displayed there in the panel below your name that sets the rules 

of the game, if you will. I am comforted by that fact. And I trust 

that Congress will do its job. We will do our job. And I thank you 

for your support. 

Admiral MAY. Chairwoman Davis, I have two thank yous. First, 

thank you and the committee for all that you do for our men and 

women of our military services. And we could not do the things 
48 

that we do without your support and the help that you have provided to them. 

And secondly, thank you for having the Coast Guard here today 

as part of this hearing. Even though we are in the Department of 

Homeland Security, nearly all of the provisions and the regulations 

and policies that affect military members affect the Coast Guard as 

well as our other services. So by having us here today you have reiterated your recognition of that. And I thank you dearly for that. 

It has been an honor and a pleasure to represent the Coast Guard 

here today. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you for 

your service, and we look forward to working with you as we have 

a number of issues that come before us. Thanks so much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 3, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 3, 2009 

(53) 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 3, 2009 

(205) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES 

Dr. GILROY. 42,600 Servicemembers have been clinically diagnosed with Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder following a deployment to Operation Enduring Freedom/ 

Operation Iraqi Freedom between October 1, 2001 and December 31, 2008. [See 

page 15.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 3, 2009 

(209) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

Mrs. DAVIS. There has been a suggestion that the reserve components have the 

capability to begin basic training programs and allow newly accessed service members the opportunity to delay attendance at active duty schools when class slots are 

not available. This would allow active duty training schools to design abbreviated 

courses for such members and reduce waiting times and student loads at the active 

duty schools. All Panel Members, is there an opportunity to save time and resources 

for training of new accessions by developing a hybrid training program to begin 

basic training within the reserve units and have the active component schools complete the training using an abbreviated schedule? 

Dr. GILROY. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 

does not have visibility into the Services training syllabus. And since the Reserve 

Components determine student availability, we defer to the Services on this question. 

General ROCHELLE. The Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the 

Army National Guard (ARNG) are developing a pilot program for evaluating a split 

base training program between ARNG units under the Recruit Sustainment Program (RSP) and an active Army Training Center. The objective of the RSP is to retain and engage new recruits by providing preparatory military training prior to attending Basic Combat Training (BCT). The intent of the Pilot program is to leverage 

the basic combat skills received from the RSP in order to shorten the duration of 

basic training. This program involves only the ARNG and not the Army Reserve. 

TRADOC and the ARNG are looking at the feasibility of this program through a 

cost benefit analysis. 

Admiral FERGUSON. Navy approaches training for the Total Force by providing 

the same training to both Active and Reserve enlisted Sailors. This produces Sailors 

that are trained alongside one another in common accession and skill training programs so they may be fully integrated into the Navy whether sent to a first active 

duty assignment or placed in drill status within the reserve component. This approach enables these fully trained Reservists to be qualified to immediately fill billets within their Reserve units and have completed sufficient active duty service for 

deployment eligibility. Development of a hybrid training program would be a step 

backward and likely increase costs related to conducting support for additional 

training tracks. Navy used a similar approach before 2006 when non-prior service 

Reserve recruits were sent to a shortened basic training course, then completed skill 

training with their Reserve units. However, Navy found that higher attrition resulted among these new Reserve Sailors due primarily to dissatisfaction with the 

lengthy time required to fully qualify in their rating. Costs associated with support 

for today’s integrated Active/Reserve training approach are an investment in our 

young enlisted Sailors and are viewed as critical to Total Force mission success. 

General COLEMAN. The Marine Corps does not believe that time or resources can 

be saved by implementing hybrid training programs for our Reserve component 

members. The Marine Corps has long maintained a single standard for basic training and follow-on school training. Deviating from this standard by having Reserve 

members undergo modified curricula will, ultimately, detract from our Total Force 

competency and require the expenditure of additional time and resources ensuring 

our Reserve members are of the same professional caliber as our regular component 

members. 

General NEWTON. The Air Force Reserve (AFR) and Air National Guard (ANG) 

both have a program where the potential applicant signs a split-training agreement 

prior to enlistment. Once enlisted, the member will attend Basic Military Training 

on his/her chosen departure date. If the AFR or ANG cannot secure a technical 

training school for the member while at Basic Military Training, the member will 

return to home unit until a technical training school can be secured. However, if 

the AFR or ANG can secure a technical training school then the member will go 

directly from Basic Military Training to technical training school if at all possible 

without returning to their home unit. 

There is no opportunity to shorten courses specifically for reserve components. 

The AFR, Active Duty Air Force and Air National Guard are a Total Force and train 
210 

to the same level of readiness. All members must attend and complete required 

training in order to be fully successful in their career field, and most importantly 

to be mission ready at all times. 

Mrs. DAVIS. The initial budget submission just received suggests that the pay 

raise proposed for fiscal year 2010 will not be the enhanced raise with the .5 percent 

above the Employment Cost Index that the Congress has adopted over the past 10 

years. All Panel Members, the Subcommittee understands that you do not believe 

the absence of the enhanced pay raise will have an effect on recruiting. Do you also 

believe that the absence of the enhanced pay raise will also not have an effect on 

retention? 

Dr. GILROY. The Department believes that the absence of an additional 0.5 percent pay raise in FY 2010 will not impact retention. FY 2009 retention has been 

strong in the active force, with all Services having met or exceeded their overall retention missions. We anticipate continued strong retention for the foreseeable future. All Services continue to closely monitor and manage retention bonus programs 

and continue targeting vital skill areas. These retention bonus programs provide a 

far more effective and economically focused tool for managing and influencing retention than small additional increases in basic pay. 

General ROCHELLE. We do not anticipate any impact on retention due to the current FY10 budget (which was published May 11, 2009) now including the .5 percent 

raise. However, based on the economy we do not see a significant adverse impact 

on retention if the additional pay raise of .5 percent were not included. 

Admiral FERGUSON. The current economic state has contributed to historic retention rates at all levels of seniority, and our current projected loss rate of 4.4 percent 

is the lowest in the past ten years. Because Navy is a counter-cyclical employer, the 

recruiter corps has enjoyed a significant increase in both quality and quantity of applicants in the past six months, when compared with previous years. Similarly, a 

generally greater interest in service has allowed for overall reductions in retention 

pays, although we still require them to target certain hard-to-fill critical skill specialties. 

Additionally, DoD, with Congressional support, has made significant strides in the 

last decade to close the previously existing pay gap between Sailors and their peers 

in the private sector. A recent Congressional Budget Office report estimates that 

DoD Regular Military Compensation for enlisted personnel is comparable with the 

70th percentile of earnings for civilian men of similar ages, education, and experience. An April 2008 Defense Manpower Data Center survey reports that 62 percent 

of Navy personnel are in a comfortable financial position, second highest among the 

Services. It appears that regular military compensation combined with strong job 

security and the comprehensive non-monetary benefits package associated with military service have allowed Sailors to weather the recent economic downturn at least 

as well as, if not better than, the comparable public at large. 

Historically, the enhanced pay raise has been used to combat broad, sweeping 

shortfalls in retention numbers across the Service. At this time, we assess that the 

absence of the enhanced pay raise will not significantly affect either retention or recruiting. 

General COLEMAN. Yes. The Marine Corps does not believe the absence of the enhanced pay raise will have a negative effect on retention. Eligible Marines are expected to reenlist at required rates during FY10. 

General NEWTON. While it is difficult to delineate the exact effect any specific 

compensation measure has on the overall retention of our Airmen, we do not anticipate this action having a detrimental effect on retention. Overall, in the aggregate, 

AF retention has been trending upward in 2009 and we expect this trend to continue. That said we still have some critical warfighting, emerging mission areas, 

and stressed specialties (low manning, retention, or extremely high operational demand) which do require increased attention to retain. We’re continuing to address 

these needs largely through the use of retention bonuses. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Fiscal year 2008 is the second consecutive year that the Marine Corps 

Reserve has failed to achieve its end strength and the shortfall has doubled from 

1,043 during fiscal year 2007 to 2,077 during fiscal year 2008. The Navy Reserve 

has sustained a 23 percent reduction in end strength since 2003, the largest reduction of any component. 

Admiral Debbink and General Bergman, both the Navy Reserve and the Marine 

Corps Reserve would seem to have taken a back seat to active duty requirements 

in recent years. This treatment would seem to be inconsistent with your statements 

which outline the important contributions to wartime missions made by your respective reserve components. What is your strategic perspective regarding the future 

role of your components in support of your active duty counterparts and how do you 
211 

reconcile that perspective with the decisions that deliberately targeted the end 

strength of your component in recent years? 

Admiral DEBBINK. The Selected Reserve (SELRES) remains the Navy’s primary 

source of immediate mobilization manpower and Operational Support, and is therefore an integral element of the Total Force. With over 5,100 Reservists presently 

mobilized and over 55,000 Reserve activations since 9/11, the Reserve Component 

(RC) continues to fill critical roles in the Navy’s Total Force missions. 

Since 2004, the Navy Reserve has experienced reductions and alignments in end 

strength, most of which were realized between FY04 and FY06. The majority of 

these reductions were a result of an extensive Zero Based Review of Navy Reserve 

capabilities as part of Active Reserve Integration efforts conducted by U.S. Fleet 

Forces Command. Through this process, the Navy was able to validate Reserve 

manpower and equipment requirements and determine the ability of the Navy Reserve to deliver the required capabilities. 

More recently, the Navy established a working group to develop initiatives for institutionalizing the Operational Reserve, which completed a Reserve Capabilities 

Review (RCR) in December 2008 that successfully defined and assessed reserve capabilities as being strategic, operational or both, based on historic, current and 

planned employment. Using a concept that supports both the strategic and operational employment of the Reserves, the RCR documented and confirmed how the 

existing Reserve force structure is meeting current Navy operational and strategic 

demands and provided a baseline for future force structure refinement. 

While the Navy Reserve has progressed towards completing a planned 24.1% end 

strength reduction from 2003 levels, it should be noted that the Active Component 

has also experienced significant manpower cuts during that same time. The Active 

Component has shed almost 50,000 billets, or 14.1% of FY03 manpower totals, closing in on a planned 15.8% total end strength reduction by the end of the FYDP. 

Both the Active and Reserve Component reductions were planned and consistent 

with Active Reserve Integration and Total Force initiatives to support the Fleet and 

Combatant Commanders. As a total force, the Navy is beginning to approach a 

steady-state in which the Reserve Force will remain a true force multiplier while 

enhancing the Navy’s war fighting wholeness. 

As we look forward, the RC will continue to provide strategic depth, ready to 

surge forward anytime and anywhere, and will deliver operational capabilities to 

our Navy and Marine Corps team from peace to war. In addition, as emergent requirements develop, the Navy is poised to leverage the current, relevant, and adaptable skills the RC brings to the fight. This synergy ensures flexible, responsive, and 

agile capabilities ready to serve now, across a wide spectrum of operations and enhances the Navy Total Force. 

As the Navy continues to respond to today’s dynamic environment, both active 

and reserve manpower requirements will be continually reevaluated for war fighting 

unity and effectiveness. The size of each component of the Navy’s Total Force (Active Duty, Full-Time Support, SELRES, Civilian, and Contractor) will change to 

meet the evolving requirements and capabilities throughout the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution process. 

General BERGMAN. The decisions that deliberately targeted our Reserve component in recent years were in keeping with our strategic perspective regarding the 

role of the Reserves. In our effort to build the active Marine Corps to 202,000 we 

deliberately sought out our Reserve members in keeping with our Reserve mission 

to augment and reinforce the regular component. Our Reservists responded in 

strength with 1,755 Marines returning or awaiting return to active duty in Fiscal 

Years 2007 and 2008. There are approximately 191 pending return in 2009. This 

has been a great contribution to the Marine Corps achieving our desired end 

strength ahead of schedule. Additionally, we shifted some of our recruiting focus 

from the Reserves to further support the active force build up. Despite these facts, 

we were still able to meet all of our mission requirements in support of wartime 

operations. Given our current state, we have now refocused our efforts by increasing 

our Non-Prior Service Reserve recruiting mission, doubling our Reserve incentives 

budget and expanding the eligibility to receive those incentives to help us recover 

our authorized strength of 39,600. We believe this strength will allow us to continue 

making important contributions to wartime missions while achieving the 1:5 deploy 

to dwell goal established by the Secretary of Defense. 

Mrs. DAVIS. The Army National Guard is reporting to have 367,000 

servicemembers assigned to the Selected Reserve. General Vaughn, given your ability to recruit and retain at higher levels, the Army National Guard would seem to 

be in reach of implementing a trainees, transients, holdees, and students (TTHS) 

account which would potentially eliminate the need to cross level qualified manpower to meet the deployment requirements of a unit. Ultimately, what end 
212 

strength would be required by the Army National Guard to support a TTHS account? 

General VAUGHN. An end strength of approximately 371,000 would support a 

TTHS account. This increased end strength would allow for a trained and ready 

force of 358,200 and a TTHS account of 12,500 Soldiers. Having a higher end 

strength would create a more cohesive and ready force, the need for cross-leveling 

is minimized and recruits still awaiting training or in the training pipeline are not 

counted against our actual trained end strength. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MURPHY 

Mr. MURPHY. The Air Force has applied internal budget reductions or budget 

shifting through Program Budget Decision 720 (PBD 720), that directly affect base 

operating structures (BOS) through the elimination of fire protection positions. Does 

the AF feel that these fire protection reductions will affect the Air Force’s ability 

to adequately respond and mitigate a catastrophic event that could occur at an Air 

Force facility? 

General NEWTON. The Air Force does believe that we have sufficient AF firefighter authorizations to provide the required emergency response capability consistent with AF and DoD policy guidance. Without question, the Air Force has adequate and appropriate resources to respond and mitigate any emergency event that 

is likely to occur at an Air Force installation. 

Air Force conducted a comprehensive assessment of our fire fighting operations 

based on five years of emergency response data and found our people and facilities 

are much safer today because of the continual building improvements, with emphasis on fire prevention and early intervention at fires. 

The success of fire fighting operations relies on timely rapid intervention to prevent large fires from developing rather than relying on large numbers of firefighters 

to arrive after a large fire has already developed. 

Mr. MURPHY. A CONOPs which the Air Force has distributed demonstrates that 

the Air Force intends to rely heavily on outside municipal resources for assistance 

in fire protection, rescue and emergency medical service responsibilities for Air 

Force facilities as part of the base operating structure reductions. Does the AF have 

an inherent responsibility to provide adequate emergency service response capability for the protection of Air Force assets and personnel? Should that responsibility 

be levied on municipalities and States? 

General NEWTON. The revised Air Force Fire Emergency Services (FES) CONOPS 

does not rely on increased support from municipal resources to protect our facilities 

and personnel. In fact, the Air Force continues to provide more mutual aid support 

to local communities than we receive by a factor of nearly 6 to 1. 

In developing our FES CONOPS, we conducted a comprehensive review and riskbased analysis of our fire departments based on emergency response data. Our analysis revealed the Air Force possessed the capability to respond to multiple events 

simultaneously and that the likelihood of such an occurrence was extremely low. 

This posture exceeded DoD requirements, affording us the opportunity to reduce 

firefighter manning while deliberately managing risk. 

During our evaluations, we looked at the support provided through mutual aid by 

local communities and concluded that municipal fire departments do not meet DoD 

requirements. Most municipal departments do not have the capability to support the 

aircraft fire protection mission. They don’t have the proper equipment, are not 

trained to perform aircrew/passenger rescue, and can’t meet DoD response times. By 

comparison, to support our flying mission the Air Force provides an extremely robust firefighter capability, both in equipment and personnel. On a per capita basis, 

the Air Force postures four times the number of firefighters than the average municipality. 

The Air Force has always included mutual aid from local municipalities in our 

planning and continues to do so, as is the normal practice of municipal fire departments throughout the United States. In most cases however, the aid we receive is 

not in the form of initial response. For large fires, municipal departments provide 

additional support services such as additional agent delivery, water resupply, and 

additional breathing air cylinders. 

Air Force Medical Groups are responsible to provide Emergency Medical Response 

for base assets and population, as appropriate, to support local mission requirements. Depending on various local factors, the Medical Groups utilize either AF 

Medical personnel (blue suiters or civilian employees), contract personnel, AF fire 

department EMTs and/or off-base mutual aid agreements to meet emergency med-
213 

ical response needs. At 13 AF bases, the Air Force Medical Service spent a total 

of $3.486M for contract ambulance services. 

Mr. MURPHY. Reductions, regarding fire and emergency services appear to directly 

affect the Air Force’s capability to affect an aircraft rescue or mitigate an aircraft 

incident. A review of the CONOPs shows that the AF will reduce staffing on aircraft 

firefighting vehicles from three (3) personnel to two (2). This appears to conflict with 

DoD requirements (DoD instruction DoD 6055.6) which establishes that such vehicles will be staffed with three (3) personnel. Does the Air Force intend to violate 

DoD Policy regarding these reductions? 

General NEWTON. Air Force Fire Emergency Services (FES) concluded sufficient 

AF firefighter staffing authorizations exist to provide the required emergency response capability is not in conflict with DoD requirements and does not violate DoD 

policy. 

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6055.06 prescribes staffing requirements but does not establish the number of people assigned to individual vehicles 

that respond together as a Company. In accordance with paragraph E2.12 a company is defined as a group of members: (1) under the direct supervision of an officer; 

(2) trained and equipped to perform assigned tasks; (3) usually organized and identified as ARFF, engine companies, ladder companies, rescue companies, squad companies, or multifunctional companies; and (4) operating with one piece of fire apparatus, except where multiple apparatus are assigned that are dispatched and arrive 

together, continuously operate together, and are managed by a single company officer. 

Our practice of staffing and dispatching aircraft firefighting vehicles insures that 

they are dispatched together and operate together under a single fire officer. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOEBSACK 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Lieutenant General Vaughn, you stated in your written testimony 

that: ‘‘Since we are currently above our authorized end strength, and we don’t have 

the resources to keep our strength at this level, we are taking measures to scale 

back our strength within our legal limit by the end of FY 2009. Some of these measures include significant reduction to the enlistment and reenlistment bonuses that 

we are offering to the Soldiers.’’ (Vaughn Testimony, page 3) 

Is your intention to scale back the Guard’s end strength based solely on available 

resources or have you considered operational requirements as well? Will the reduction still allow the Army National Guard to meet its operational requirements while 

also reducing the use of cross-leveling and mitigating stress on the force? If your 

resources were increased and authorization for increased end strength was provided, 

would you prefer to maintain and/or increase your end strength levels? What would 

be the benefits of such an increase? 

General VAUGHN. The decision to scale back rests solely on the authorized funding 

for 358,200 Soldiers. Operational requirements should not be affected by a reduction 

in end strength. 

The Army National Guard will meet its operational requirements. The reduction 

in end strength coupled with the termination of the current Stop Loss Policy may 

create further stress on the force and affect unit cohesion. Without a Stop Loss Policy Soldiers nearing the end of their enlistments or eligible for retirement will have 

to voluntarily extend before deploying. 

If both resources and authorization are increased it would be preferable to increase our end strength to 371,000. The benefits of the increase would be a relief 

on our strained ranks and create a more ready force by having a trained standing 

force and minimize cross-leveling. Ultimately this increase in end strength would increase personnel readiness and deployability of our formations. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. The FY 2009 National Defense Authorization Act authorized the 

largest increase in Army National Guard full-time manning in 22 years. Please describe the benefits of full-time staffing to the Army National Guard. 

General VAUGHN. Full time support (FTS) Soldiers serve as a nucleus for the 54 

States and Territories and at the National Guard Bureau. The primary function is 

to provide support to the ARNG force ensuring the Citizen Soldiers are ready to perform the state and federal missions when called upon. FTS Soldiers are responsible 

for assisting in the organization, administration, recruitment, instruction, training, 

maintenance, and supply support to the ARNG, the Armed Forces on active duty, 

members of foreign military forces, Department of Defense and civilian employees. 

FTS Soldiers facilitate the ARNG’s ability to perform several critical functions including: the transition from a Strategic Reserve to an Operational Force; unit 

modularity; growing assigned strength to 358,200. FTS personnel also coordinate 
214 

training, mobilizing and deploying approximately 55,000 Soldiers annually in support of contingency operations. Full-time manning is the largest contributor to Army 

National Guard unit readiness. 

Æ