U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i 

80–186 2013

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–16] 

IMPACT OF THE CONTINUING 

RESOLUTION, SEQUESTRATION, 

AND DECLINING OPERATIONS 

AND MAINTENANCE BUDGETS 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL AND 

FAMILY RELATED PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 13, 2013 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

CRAIG GREENE, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

COLIN BOSSE, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2013 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, March 13, 2013, Impact of the Continuing Resolution, Sequestration, and Declining Operations and Maintenance Budgets on Military Personnel and Family Related Programs ................................................................ 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, March 13, 2013 ................................................................................... 23 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013 

IMPACT OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION, SEQUESTRATION, AND 

DECLINING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGETS ON MILITARY PERSONNEL AND FAMILY RELATED PROGRAMS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

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

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

WITNESSES 

Bromberg, LTG Howard B., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1, U.S. Army ........ 6 

Jones, Lt Gen Darrell D., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and 

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

Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower 

and Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps ............................................................ 8 

Van Buskirk, VADM Scott R., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education, U.S. Navy ................................... 7 

Woodson, Dr. Jonathan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs ...... 4 

Wright, Hon. Jessica L., Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness ....................................................................................................... 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bromberg, LTG Howard B. .............................................................................. 59 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 29 

Jones, Lt Gen Darrell D. .................................................................................. 93 

Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr. ........................................................................ 84 

Van Buskirk, VADM Scott R. .......................................................................... 73 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 27 

Wright, Hon. Jessica L., joint with Dr. Jonathan Woodson .......................... 30 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 109 
Page

IV 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING—Continued 

Mr. Jones ........................................................................................................... 109 

Mr. Scott ............................................................................................................ 110 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Shea-Porter ................................................................................................ 113 
(1) 

IMPACT OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION, SEQUESTRATION, AND DECLINING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGETS ON MILITARY PERSONNEL AND 

FAMILY RELATED PROGRAMS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 13, 2013. 

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

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, the hearing will come to 

order. The subcommittee today will, once again, focus on the challenges of maintaining an All-Volunteer Force in a budget-constrained environment by looking at the impacts on military personnel and family related programs. 

These programs such as morale, welfare and recreation, 

childcare, military exchanges, commissaries and family services, 

which include Department of Defense, DOD schools, are vital to 

maintaining the readiness of the military. 

Since most of these programs are staffed by civilians, the furloughing of military civilian personnel has a huge impact on these 

programs to include our medical treatment facilities. 

Although the Department and the Services have made commitments to minimize the impact a continuing resolution and sequestration will have on these programs, especially those impacting 

wounded warriors and families, there will be reductions and it will 

affect the daily lives of our service members and their families to 

include retirees. 

The committee will hear from the witnesses on how the continuing resolution and sequestration and declining operations and 

maintenance accounts will impact the military personnel and family programs, which have been crucial for maintaining an All-Volunteer Force of extraordinary people during the more than 10 

years of war. 

Although the House has passed a defense appropriations bill for 

the remainder of fiscal year 2013, the Senate has yet to do so and 

the threat of a yearlong CR [continuing resolution] is still there. 

It is a challenge for the Services to manage these programs without a timely budget and, unfortunately, CRs have become the 

norm. I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses. 
2 

The Honorable Jessica L. Wright, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and I do want to note also a 35- 

year veteran of the Army National Guard of Pennsylvania and a 

retired major general. Wow, what a background. So we appreciate 

your service. 

It is wonderful to have Dr. Jonathan Woodson back, Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. We have Lieutenant General Howard B. Bromberg, Deputy Chief of Staff (G–1), Department 

of the Army. 

We have Vice Admiral Scott R. Van Buskirk, the Deputy Chief 

of Naval Operations, Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education, Department of the Navy. 

Lieutenant General Robert E. Milstead, Jr., the Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, United States Marine 

Corps; and Lieutenant General Darrell D. Jones, Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, Department of the Air 

Force. 

Ms. Davis, did you have any opening comments? 

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

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome to all of you for being here. Thank you, again, for 

joining in with us this morning and also for your service. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, this is the second hearing that we 

are having on the impact the Budget Control Act and the additional impact sequestration and uncertainty surrounding the remaining fiscal year 2013 budget is having specifically on military 

personnel and family related programs. 

As I noted at our first hearing, the Budget Control Act has already had an impact on the Services, particularly the Army and 

the Marine Corps. 

The impact of sequestration has just added another challenging 

dimension for the Services and, in particular, the many personnel 

and family programs including potentially the military medical programs and services. 

On March 1st, sequestration became a reality for this country 

and the significant effects are just now slowly being seen in Federal programs across the country. 

The Department of Defense is not exempted from its effects and 

although military personnel accounts are not subject to sequestration in fiscal year 2013, these accounts are not protected over the 

remaining 9 years nor are the myriad of family and service programs that support our Armed Forces exempt from the impact of 

sequestration. 

These significant reductions will only be compounded when the 

continuing resolution under which our Government, including the 

Department of Defense, are operating under ends and that is at the 

conclusion of this month. 
3 

The full committee has a held a number of hearings on the impact of the Budget Control Act, sequestration, and the continuing 

resolution, but none of the hearings, including our subcommittee, 

has focused on potential solutions to this dilemma. 

Unfortunately, the only people who have the ability to resolve 

this issue is Congress. We must find common ground and be willing to compromise for the long-term stability of our Nation. 

Today, we will be able to hear the unfortunate impacts that this 

lack of compromise is having on our Armed Forces and their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee and in the House to develop a rational, a commonsense approach to resolving these challenges. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, we look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

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

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

Secretary Wright, we will begin with your testimony. As a reminder, please keep your statements to 3 minutes. We have your 

written statements for the record. And, again, thank you all for 

being here today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JESSICA L. WRIGHT, ACTING UNDER 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, distinguished members of the committee, we thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

the immediate and long-term impacts of sequestration as mandated 

by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the potential ongoing continuing resolution for fiscal year 2013 on the Department of Defense military personnel and family programs and total readiness. 

We testified before this subcommittee on February 27th about 

the negative impacts to our military personnel and force structure. 

And, today, we are here to provide specifics on the wide range of 

military and civilian program impacts. 

This includes recruiting, training, medical and support programs 

that sustain our All-Volunteer Force and that are relied on every 

day by service members and their families. 

On 1 March, the President ordered the Joint Committee sequestration as required by law affecting immediate reduction of the 

budget authority of approximately $41 billion across our Department. 

And there is a potential additional $6 billion across the Department. Combined, this would be $46 billion in 2013 for a total of 9 

percent of the total budget to be implemented in the last 7 months. 

In order not to break faith with our service members, the President used his authority to exempt the military personnel accounts 

from sequestration. 

Although I wholeheartedly agree with this decision, the results 

are larger decrements on other defense accounts and, most notably, 

the O&M [Operations & Maintenance] accounts to compensate for 

this. 
4 

While we are going to protect our warfighters’ military pay, we 

cannot do this without the cost of readiness for our force. The backbone of this great military institution is our people. 

Active, National Guard, and Reserve service members as well as 

the civilians who serve throughout the country and the world are 

the Department’s greatest assets. 

However, due to the O&M cuts in our military, personnel will receive reduced training leading to diminishing readiness and ultimately diminishing morale. 

Even as we seek to protect our family programs where feasible 

service members and family support programs will be impacted 

across the board because of funding decrements and that will affect 

the quality of life. 

Our career civilian workforce has not seen a pay raise in several 

years and they are likely to be subject to 22 days of furlough beginning late April through September. 

This equates to a 20-percent reduction in their pay and significant impacts to their families and the economic impact to the communities which they live. 

We are currently reviewing the priority of family programs and 

how to minimize the impact and the effects of sequestration to our 

service members and families. 

Although the purpose of sequestration is to evenly cut all programs, we will seek to preserve these services as much as practicable. We have to make hard trade-off decisions to lessen these 

impacts and determine how to absorb these impacts. 

We understand the Department of Defense must do its part in 

addressing the Nation’s budget cuts and we must do it in a responsible and judicious manner. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today 

and I look forward to your questions. I now turn to Dr. Woodson 

who will provide a statement on the Defense health program. 

[The joint prepared statement of Ms. Wright and Dr. Woodson 

can be found in the Appendix on page 30.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Dr. Woodson. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JONATHAN WOODSON, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS 

Dr. WOODSON. Good morning. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the immediate and long-term impacts of 

sequestration on the Department of Defense’s military health system and our medical mission. 

The President, the Secretary of Defense, and now the Under Secretary, Ms. Wright, have outlined, in stark terms, both the shortand long-term negative effects that sequestration will have our national security, our military readiness and the public servants in 

our Department who serve so selflessly and deserve better. 

Before I discuss the specific consequences for military medicine 

under sequestration, I want to highlight that we cannot and will 

not compromise care. 

First, our commitment to quality of care is sacrosanct. We will 

not allow quality to suffer or place any patient at risk, period. The 
5 

Department will also ensure that care provided to our wounded 

warriors is maintained. 

Our continued focus on their medical treatment and rehabilitation will continue. It is our goal to make sure that the wounded 

warriors, from their perspective, they shall see no difference in care 

they receive before, during, or after sequestration. 

And we will sustain our close collaboration with our other Federal and private partners, specifically the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

Finally, to the greatest extent possible, we will sustain our access 

to our military hospitals and clinics for service members, their families, retirees and their families. 

But sustaining patient care functions during sequestration comes 

at a cost. The Department will reduce funding from a wide range 

of other essential investments. This could produce significant negative long-term effects on the military health system. 

By directing all resources to the provision of patient care under 

sequestration, we will have less funding to address military medical facility maintenance and the needed restoration and modernization projects. This will negatively affect the health care environment and potentially drive substantial bills for facility maintenance in the future. 

While we will continue to fund projects that directly affect patient safety or that affect emergent care, we could see a degradation in the aesthetic quality and functionality of our medical facilities. 

This can impact the morale of both medical staff and patients 

and can degrade the patient’s experience of health care within our 

military health system. 

Many of our facilities are older and require substantial upkeep. 

To delay these medical facility projects only exacerbates the problem and, ultimately, the medical staff and, more concerning, the 

patients suffer the consequences. This is not a sustainable strategy. 

In order to continue our health care operations, we will reduce 

our investment in equipment. This means our equipment will be 

used longer and require more maintenance. 

Research and development will also be affected and to minimize 

the impact on care, we will be taking monies from the research and 

development programs to fund the delivery of care. 

Forty percent of our military medical centers are staffed by civilians and as a result of the furlough program access may be impacted. 

While we understand the Department of Defense must do its 

part in addressing the Nation’s budget concerns, however, we have 

a responsibility to do this smartly and judiciously. The path forward with sequestration is neither. 

We hope that Congress will take the required action to avert the 

sequestration and its full impact. I thank you for the opportunity 

to speak with you today on these matters and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Dr. Woodson and Ms. Wright 

can be found in the Appendix on page 30.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Dr. Woodson. 

General Bromberg. 
6 

STATEMENT OF LTG HOWARD B. BROMBERG, USA, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF STAFF, G–1, U.S. ARMY 

General BROMBERG. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, 

distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of America’s Army. The 

magnitude of today’s fiscal uncertainty will have grave consequences on our soldiers, civilians, and families. 

If nothing is done to mitigate the effects of operations under the 

continuing resolution, shortfalls in our overseas contingency operations, and the enactment of sequestration, the Army will be forced 

to make potentially dramatic cuts to military personnel and family 

programs funded by the Operational Maintenance Account. 

The shortfall in OMA [Operational Maintenance Account] in the 

last 7 months of fiscal year 2013 will impact on our ability to continue to recruit high-quality soldiers vital to the all-volunteer 

Army. 

Sequestration will cause high risk to our effort in fiscal year 

2013 to recruit the future soldier entry pool and may result in mission failure into fiscal year 2014. 

Much of the Army’s officer corps is commissioned through and 

initially trained at the United States Military Academy and 

through ROTC [Reserve Officers’ Training Corps] programs at colleges and universities across the country. Sequestration will adversely impact scholarships and training and subsequent commissioning of lieutenants. 

Under sequestration, there will be a significant impact on professional military education that officers and non-commissioned officers need to advance their career. 

Loss of training, as you know, is not recoverable and leads to untrained soldiers and units, a negative impact to near-term readiness and also a loss of confidence in the stability of the Army that 

it provides could damage recruiting and retention for many years 

to come. 

Family programs provide a comprehensive network of resources 

that allow soldiers, civilians, family members, and retirees to successfully navigate their way through Army life and deployments. 

We will focus on delivering programs that provide the most benefit to our Army family; however, we anticipate many programs 

will be impacted such as child abuse preventions; intervention programs and other family advocacy programs; support to families 

with children with special needs; resiliency training that assists 

soldiers and families in building stronger relationships; post recreation centers; bowling alleys; libraries and such. 

Sequestration is not in the best interest of our country, our soldiers, or our national security. Our current fiscal uncertainty has 

already resulted in the cancellation of training, through reduction 

of services to Army families, and reductions in the civilian workforce. 

I ask for your support to find viable solutions to economic hurdles that face our Army. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 

Davis, and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Bromberg can be found in 

the Appendix on page 59.] 
7 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, General. And we proceed to Admiral 

Van Buskirk. 

STATEMENT OF VADM SCOTT R. VAN BUSKIRK, USN, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, MANPOWER, PERSONNEL, 

TRAINING, AND EDUCATION, U.S. NAVY 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 

Davis, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

The confluence of sequestration and the continuing resolution is 

causing reduced levels of operations, canceled maintenance and 

training and constraining investment in future capability and capacity. 

The situation has caused adjustments in deployment schedules 

resulting in uncertainty and disruption in the lives of our Navy 

families. 

Additionally, the furlough of the nearly 186,000 civilians and the 

attendant 20-percent pay reduction will significantly affect them 

and their families. 

The absence of this highly skilled workforce impacts our ability 

to sustain critical family support programs and operate our educational institutions and learning centers. The hiring freeze and 

the release of over 650 temporary workers aggravates the situation. 

As we go forward to the maximum extent possible, we will minimize impacts on family and sailor readiness programs. 

We will remain determined to avoid adverse impacts in the programs that address sexual assault prevention, alcohol awareness 

and deglamorization, drug detection and abuse prevention, Navy 

Safe Harbor wounded warriors support, suicide prevention and resiliency, casualty assistance and funeral support and child care. 

However, reductions to Navy recruiting, marketing and advertising have already reduced capacity to build awareness and generate leads. We also expect to reduce summer training for U.S. 

Naval Academy midshipmen and cancel science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, camps. 

We expect similar impacts at the War College and postgraduate 

school, each of which plays a critical role in developing our sailors 

and supporting our mission including joint education, research and 

war gaming. 

We are currently reassessing our tuition assistance program to 

ensure we can continue to meet current educational obligations and 

fulfill the educational goals of every sailor who desires to enroll. 

Our hiring freeze has brought to a virtual standstill our highly 

successful efforts to provide jobs for veterans, severely hampering 

our ability to recruit a quality and skilled workforce. 

Sustaining discretionary cap reductions through 2021 would fundamentally change the Navy as currently organized, trained, and 

equipped, and drive further reductions in strength and implementations of force management tools that break faith with our All-Volunteer Force. 

As such, we rescue enactment of the fiscal year 2013 defense appropriations bill as soon as possible and we ask for greater flexibility to reprogram funds between accounts so we that can allocate 

reductions in a manner that protects our sailors and their families 
8 

while sustaining current operations pursuant to defense strategic 

guidance and national defense strategy. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Van Buskirk can be found 

in the Appendix on page 73.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Admiral. 

And General Milstead. 

STATEMENT OF LTGEN ROBERT E. MILSTEAD, JR., USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS 

General MILSTEAD. Good morning. Chairman Wilson, Ranking 

Member Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it 

is my privilege to appear before you today. 

I have previously submitted my written statement for the record 

and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

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

Appendix on page 84.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, General. 

General Jones. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN DARRELL D. JONES, USAF, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, U.S. AIR 

FORCE 

General JONES. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis and 

distinguished members of the committee, it is my honor to once 

again appear before you today representing the 690,000 total force 

airmen serving this great Nation around the world. 

Two weeks ago, I expressed the growing angst our force is experiencing over the uncertainty of sequestration. Now, we find ourselves in uncharted territory. 

Their concerns continue to grow as the short- and long-term effects of sequestration become a reality. The Air Force is committed 

to our role of training and equipping the highest quality airmen for 

our combatant commanders. 

This commitment requires a continuous and focused investment 

to recruit, train, support, and retain a world-class All-Volunteer 

Force. Unfortunately, sequestration frustrates these efforts which, 

ultimately, undermine the readiness and responsiveness our Nation expects of our fighting forces. 

Specifically, sequestration will have an immediate and long-lasting impact on recruiting and accession efforts. We are particularly 

concerned about the impact furloughs will have on the military entrance processing center’s support to accessions. 

Further, we many not be able to fully fund vital developmental 

programs for our airmen as we have in the past. 

As an example, on Monday evening, the Secretary of the Air 

Force, after the discussions with OSD [Office of the Secretary of 

Defense] and the other Services, came to the difficult decision to 

suspend military tuition assistance for the remainder of fiscal year 

2013. 

This action, along with other potential limitations in our developmental opportunities, will impact our ability to harness the full po-
9 

tential of our airmen as they continue to operate in increasingly 

complex threat environments. 

Although we intend to guard airmen and family support programs as much as possible, they, too, ultimately will realize the effects of sequestration. 

This may force us to make hard decisions to determine what support services we can afford to provide under sequestration versus 

the programs our airmen deserve. All of us before you today have 

served during lean times. Those of us serving during those periods 

recall the frustration we felt with the lack of resources needed to 

build and sustain a world-class military. 

The result was an Air Force with degraded readiness levels and 

waning morale which led to growing recruiting and retention problems. We realize the fiscal challenges we face are real and require 

all of us to take action. 

However, sequestration dictates arbitrary impacts on military 

readiness. We urge Congress to take appropriate action and find an 

alternate solution. 

Our airmen, officers, enlisted, and civilians remain dedicated to 

this Nation. They are the same dedicated and innovative hardworking professionals I have witnessed since the day I joined the 

Air Force. 

However, I am concerned we are sending them the wrong signal 

as they are the ones burdened with the threat of furloughs, decreased training opportunities, and reduction in support programs. 

I know you share my concerns and I appreciate your concern for 

our airmen and look forward to answering your questions. 

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

Appendix on page 93.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, General. 

And thank all of you for being here today. And I particularly appreciate the very positive comments by Ranking Member Susan 

Davis and that we will, in every way, I look forward to working 

with her, to work with you to address the very serious challenges 

that each of you face. 

And we have worked together in the past and I am just confident 

that this subcommittee will continue to be available to you. 

As we proceed, I have said so many times, because I have seen 

it with my family, I know what military service meant to my dad, 

to my sons, to me. Military service is opportunity for people to 

achieve their highest ability, a fulfilling life. 

And, indeed, General, to have world-class personnel make a difference protecting American families but also opportunity for fulfillment. And I just truly am grateful for your service. 

We will be on a 5-minute question and I have already gone 

through my first minute and we have someone, Craig Greene, who 

is very proficient at maintaining time. So this is good. 

As we face the issues, General Bromberg, General Milstead, the 

impact of sequestration on accessions, the impact of reducing marketing and advertising budgets, how do you see this affecting our 

ability to recruit, indeed, world class personnel? 

General BROMBERG. Yes, sir. First, our first challenge will be on 

training our newest crop of recruiters. Given where we see ourselves right now with sequestration and the budget affecting the 
10 

Operational Maintenance Account for travel and TDY [Temporary 

Duty], we will have about 900 less recruiters that we will be able 

to put in the field. 

We won’t send untrained recruiters to the field obviously, but we 

will just have to with fewer recruiters and that reduces your ability 

to penetrate the markets we need to penetrate across America. 

The second place is the military entrance processing stations. 

Given the furlough situation, we estimate that we are going to 

have to close those centers down about 1 day a week, about a 20- 

percent reduction given the furloughing. 

What that means across the Services, the Army’s the executive 

agent, it means it will affect all the Services when we close it 

down. We are going through the analysis right now, but it could 

affect up to 10–14,000 less recruits being processed across the Services at this point there. 

And the third thing I would point out, as you mentioned, sir, is 

the advertising. As we lose that advertising capability over the 

year and the ability to penetrate into those markets, it not only affects this year, but what I am concerned about is that future pool 

that you get, what we call the delayed entry pool or the future soldier pool. 

Those are the soldiers we get this year that go on to help us 

build for force for next year. 

I think those are the three biggest impacts to accession. It is a 

long-term effect here of not putting recruiters in the field, slowing 

down the processing stations, and also the marketing. Thank you 

for the question, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

And General Milstead. 

General MILSTEAD. Yes, sir. We are already at a lean amount 

this year. We are about $80 million for our advertising. We couldn’t 

get it any better. Next year, we hope to get back up to 90, but that 

is above and beyond sequestration. 

So we are challenged with a reduced advertising budget. What 

this equates to is lead generation and lead generation equates to 

the numbers of contracts and the numbers of contracts equates to 

the number of people that you can put those yellow footprints— 

their feet on the yellow footprints. 

And as the Army has just mentioned, you know, I echo everything that they say. Our recruiters are already working hard. They 

are working in excess of 60 hours a week already and this is just 

going to put an additional burden on them. 

I would, very quickly, like to use the analogy of an iceberg because advertising is more than just what you see on TV. Like an 

iceberg, the majority of it is below the water line, what is not seen. 

And is the mail-outs, it is the call center, it is the Web sites, it is 

all that sort of support that goes into getting young men and 

women to become interested, lead generations and to join the Marine Corps. 

And I guess the last thing I would want to echo is the MEPS 

[Military Entrance Processing Station], those processing centers. 

We are already seeing that they are going to come off on a Friday. 

So, now, we are losing one-fifth of the day. We are not going to get 
11 

Saturdays anymore. And so this is going to be a significant challenge for us. 

Mr. WILSON. And, again, thank both of you. I have the privilege 

of representing Fort Jackson. I have represented Parris Island so 

I have seen firsthand the opportunities provided for young people. 

I have actually stood on the yellow footprints—footsteps where 

young marines as they have the privilege of their first formation, 

that is where they stand. 

And so I want to thank you both for what you are doing. However we can help on that. 

And, Dr. Woodson, you indicated that military health care will 

be maintained for our personnel to the highest of standards and I 

appreciate that commitment and I know that must be reassuring 

to our military service members and families. 

I am concerned though that Secretary Hale has suggested that, 

as of August, the Department may not be able to pay physicians 

who provide services to retirees under TRICARE [defense health 

care program]. 

Can you tell us if that is accurate and what other impacts of sequestration that the—on health care services for TRICARE beneficiaries? 

Dr. WOODSON. Thank you very much for that question. As you 

know, under sequestration and the mandatory reductions in budget, the defense health program gets assessed about a $3.2 billion 

reduction, with about half of that coming out of the private-sectorcare account. Without flexibility to do reprogramming, we would in 

fact see a shortfall as based upon prior years’ experience in paying 

those accounts. 

What we clearly need to do as part of the strategy to ensure continuity of payment is to have, number one, flexibility in moving 

money around. We would like sequestration to be detriggered. That 

is clearly the most important thing. 

But we need flexibility. If we don’t get flexibility, then we could 

see a shortfall. And then that has second- and third-order consequences. It could slow the paying of claims. 

Now, one of the things that TRICARE can be most proud of, and 

why we have good network support from private-sector physicians, 

is that we pay on time. We don’t want to erode that trust and do 

irreparable damage to our networks that would take years to repair. So we need to have flexibility moving money around in order 

to prevent shortfalls. We are carefully looking at utilization rates, 

because that will also influence how much money is available to 

pay claims. If by some chance we have a marked rise in utilization, 

of course, that represents more money that is needed to pay in the 

private sector. 

Right now, our inflation rate is at a reasonable amount of about 

3 percent to 4 percent. And so if we get flexibility in terms of moving money around, we will probably be able to meet the claims 

need. But that is clearly a risk going forward. 

Mr. WILSON. And you believe you would be able to pay after August with flexibility? 

Dr. WOODSON. With flexibility in moving substantial money out 

of other investment accounts, we probably can meet that requirement if everything else remains the same. 
12 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. And Congresswoman Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. And thank you again for being here. I 

wonder if you could take us to the decisionmaking table, if you 

would, and talk a little bit more about the family-related programs, 

the impact from sequestration on the immediate, and then going 

out over the next several years. 

And I wonder if you could share with us that decisionmaking 

based on the merit of programs. Do you have information that 

would suggest that, you know, we have been going with these programs for a while, we haven’t seen a real impact? We maybe, you 

know, want to change the way we approach this particular family 

program, or something else? Do you have some data that you are 

using? And on what basis are you making those decisions? 

I think the other question is about reprogramming. So given the 

ability, the authority to reprogram, where you see programs that 

are working well, where do you go for some of that reprogramming? 

Secretary Wright, would you care to start? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, ma’am. Mr. Chuck Miland is the deputy in our 

family program network. And he is embarking upon a 120-day review of all the programs within the family system, because, you are 

right, there are programs that have met the metrics and produce 

great results. 

And then there are programs that maybe cost a lot of money, but 

haven’t met specific metrics. I can’t tell you which ones those are 

presently, because we are doing the review. But we recognize the 

need that after 10 years of protracted war, and the development of 

multiple programs that support our families, that some are excellent, and some may not produce the results that we need. 

So when that 120-day review is done, then we will be able to give 

you a better understanding of where we need to shift our efforts, 

and maybe do away with some, or combine some to give the bigger 

bang for our buck to our members of our families. 

Mrs. DAVIS. When did that 120 days start? How long have you 

been looking at that? 

Ms. WRIGHT. I think we have about 2 more months to go. But 

may I get back to you on the exact date? Because I don’t have it 

off the top of my head. 

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

page 109.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Does that mean—just to follow up, does that mean 

that we really haven’t been evaluating programs all along? 

Ms. WRIGHT. No. I think that we have been evaluating programs. 

But I think this is where we take the OSD broadband perspective 

of the programs, and look at all of them. 

And we are doing them through the Family Readiness Council 

that we have established, where services are represented, family 

members are represented, NGOs [Non-Governmental Organization] 

are represented. So this is not just an exclusive OSD look. We are 

very inclusive to how we are doing this—this 100-day review. 

Ms. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else want to respond in 

terms of how you see that, your decisionmaking table? 

General BROMBERG. Yes, ma’am. I would like to—from the 

Army’s perspective, first of all, just the furloughing piece to put in 

perspective, that is how most of these services deliver through civil-
13 

ian employees down at the installations, the post-camps and stations, whether it be a weekend training for families, or whether it 

be prevention through spouse abuse, domestic violence, or those 

types of things. So there is going to be an immediate impact just 

in the overall amount of service we can deliver. 

As far as assessing the programs, we are also doing that as we 

speak. We have just announced our Ready and Resilient campaign 

plan. The Secretary of the Army did that earlier this week. And 

one of the purposes of that program is to put all our programs together, start comparing and contrasting. 

Because in some cases we have anecdotal data, some places we 

have hard analysis, and some places we don’t have any analysis. 

So we know that there is some complementary programs, but there 

is also some that are probably redundant as well. 

And so we are going to go through that during the first phase 

of the campaign plan, is to lay all those programs out. Example, 

we know Strong Bonds, which works on family relationships during 

deployments and other stressors, is very, very popular. It is also 

very important. And it has reduced domestic violence, as well as 

it has reduced divorce rates and some other things. 

But we haven’t done the hard analysis with Strong Bonds, is the 

best example. So we will be partnering with OSD as we go through 

this. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. Yes, ma’am. I would like to just add one 

point, and that is one of the great things about my job—and I am 

sure it is the same with my colleagues—is that we get to go out 

and engage, and meet our sailors, and whole town halls, and allhands calls, and hear from them about their concerns. 

And what is interesting is what I don’t hear about often. And 

what I don’t hear about right now is our quality-of-life programs, 

and our family-and-sailor-support programs. 

I think that is indicative of our strong investment that we have 

made in these programs throughout the years. Ten years ago, 15 

years ago, I think that would have been a different case. So I think 

that is really critically important, that those have been meaningful 

programs, and we have invested wisely in our sailors and their 

families. 

That said, most recently, though, as I have gone out to meet and 

conduct town halls, it is the biggest question out there is, are those 

services going to remain? What is going to be the impact on the 

families? What is going to be an impact on the services? What 

hours of operation? 

So I think in terms of metrics, that is something that we should 

think about in terms of so often what we don’t hear about in terms 

of how well the programs are working. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mrs. Davis. And we now proceed to Mr. Jones of North Carolina. 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very 

much. And to each one at the panel, thank you for your service and 

your commitment to young men and women in uniform. 

I sit here in amazement to think about the problems that you 

have. And here we are having Mr. Karzai trying to injure our new 
14 

Secretary of Defense. We are spending roughly $6 billion to $8 billion a month in Afghanistan. It is a failed policy. 

We in Congress will certainly be debating sequestration, and 

where we are going to make the cuts or not, keep putting pressure 

on you to provide our men and women in uniform, their families, 

adequate programs. And yet, I doubt if Mr. Karzai’s worried a bit 

about his budget. 

I come from Eastern North Carolina, the home of Camp Lejeune. 

I did a radio show this morning at 8 o’clock. And this issue came 

up, the sequestration. And I talked about being here today to listen 

to you and my colleagues, and just how ridiculous it is that our 

men and women in uniform who are our heroes, as you are, who 

deserve so much, and here we are hearing you worried to death 

about, can you provide the quality they have earned. And yet, 

Karzai is over that. I do not understand why the Congress does not 

say ‘‘cut the money off.’’ Let’s spend the money here in America. 

Let’s rebuild our military. Let’s rebuild our equipment. Let’s give 

them what they were promised. 

And I hope as we move forward on this—this year, with this sequestration, and how we are going to balance the budget, that 

there will be enough members of Congress in both parties to start 

cutting the funding in Afghanistan, and have that funding come 

back here to America, and help you take care of our men and 

women in uniform. 

It is going to take the American people to put pressure on us. Because obviously, you are in uniform. You cannot do it. You are with 

the Administration. You cannot do it. 

But the American people need to understand that the problems 

you are facing today, there are no problems for the government of 

Afghanistan. They are going to get their money. 

And when John Sopko, the Inspector General for Reconstruction, 

testified recently, spoke at some group meeting, and he said we are 

spending $235 million a day in Afghanistan, very little accountability. And I hear you today worried to death about your people, 

our people, our heroes. It doesn’t make any sense. 

That brings me to a point, Dr. Woodson, and thank you, sir, for 

being in my office many times to talk about issues. I do appreciate 

that. The book written—excuse me—by Joe Stiglitz called The 

Three Trillion Dollar War [The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True 

Cost of the Iraq Conflict], co-authored by Linda Bilmes, professor 

at Harvard, this book was written 6 years ago. And they were talking about the wounded, both physically and mentally, coming back 

from Afghanistan. 

They didn’t even factor in—excuse me, Iraq. They didn’t even factor in Afghanistan. And they are talking about $3 trillion. If you 

factor in Afghanistan, I have been told that the book title would 

be closer to $5 trillion. 

With this sequestration coming forward, my biggest concern is 

those who are sitting in the barracks, some in the wounded warrior 

barracks, who have severe mental problems, obviously when they 

leave the military, you would have nothing to do with them. That 

is usually the V.A. [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs], I understand that. 
15 

But do you have a concern that as this moves forward—and it 

is not going to be fixed overnight. It is not going to be fixed overnight,that we are going to run into a problem in a couple or 3 years 

with those who are still in the military that have PTSD [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder] or TBI [Traumatic Brain Injury]. Can we 

take care of them? 

Dr. WOODSON. Thank you very much for that question and the 

example. About 52 percent of our behavioral health specialists are 

civilian. And if sequestration goes forward with its full impact, I do 

have concerns that over the long term, how we sustain our robust 

capability to provide mental-health care to the force, and by extension, to family members or retirees that we serve, for a couple of 

different reasons. One, most immediately, is the impact of furloughs that these civilians will be impacted. But also, as we discuss 

these very thorny issues relative to sequestration, remember our 

workforce is looking at what we are doing. 

And many of these talented individuals have options. They have 

options to seek employment elsewhere. They have been committed 

to wounded warriors and the military of the United States in these 

challenging times. But they have options. 

And I worry about sustaining the workforce, particularly the 

most talented individuals who can go elsewhere. So it is about the 

impression we leave in our commitment to them, and recruiting 

and retaining individuals to support the Nation’s military. So I am 

concerned. 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Mr. Jones. And we proceed to Ms. 

Tsongas of Massachusetts. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you all for being here, and for your testimony. You certainly are living through very challenging times. And 

I come from a district in which we have a tradition, a 

multigenerational tradition of service. 

I am always so proud of those who serve on our behalf. And I 

appreciate all that you are trying to do as you assess the impact 

of sequestration on the services that we provide for those who are 

serving. 

I have a follow-up question, really, to Mr. Jones’. Several months 

ago, I had the opportunity to visit Walter Reed. And I have to say 

I was so impressed with the quality of care I witnessed. 

Clearly, a significant amount of progress has been made since 

the unfortunate out-stories we heard, and the national outrage that 

emerged a few years ago, which came in response to those reports 

of dilapidation and unacceptable standards of care for our recovering wounded warriors. 

But one of the things which impressed me the most at Walter 

Reed in this most recent visit was just the care provided to amputees. The facility provides state-of-the-art prostheses. 

I have never seen anything like it; lightweight and tailored for 

any number of different applications, enabling our recovering heroes to live as normal a life as possible under unimaginable circumstances. 

And it was pointed out to me during this visit that these devices 

are the state of the art. They are the product of robust research 

and development, which as we know, takes tremendous financial 
16 

investments to make, and in all likelihood, more advanced than 

anything, funded through the V.A. 

So my impact—my concern then is what the impact would be of 

sequestration have on future medical R&D [Research and Development], whether it is continuing around those who have suffered 

and sustained such horrific physical losses, but also, as Mr. Jones 

talked about, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, again, the issue of suicide and suicide prevention, the product of long service in our Services, just how you see your capacity to continue to make the kinds 

of investments that help these wounded warriors go forward with 

their lives? 

Dr. WOODSON. Again, thank you very much for that question and 

that comment, though. As you have indicated, the military health 

system has much to be proud of in terms of its history of research, 

particularly in those areas that affect military personnel and the 

combat-wounded. 

You know, it is very important to recognize that the military 

health system, with all of its collaborators, have achieved the lowest disease in non-battle-injury rates every in recorded warfare, 

and the highest survivability rates in any recorded warfare. So 

there is much to be proud of. 

But that is threatened by sequestration. Because in order to pay 

the bills for immediate delivery of care, as indicated earlier, we are 

going to have to shift those funds from our investments in research 

to the provision of care. That is going to slow or stop many of these 

research projects. 

Now, our strategy does prioritize wounded warrior research. But 

the cuts will be deep and steep, and delay progress. So, you know, 

we have already mentioned the impact of furloughs. 

Many of our researchers are part of the civilian community as 

well. We have collaborators in the civilian sector. And the grants 

will be slowed. So this is a real serious issue that has potential 

long-term negative consequences. And that is why this process, this 

budgeting process, is so illogical. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Does anybody else want to comment on what their 

concerns are? 

General MILSTEAD. Our wounded warrior regiment has 62 GS 

[General Schedule] employees. So they will be susceptible to 22 

days of furlough. We are also about 80 percent of our wounded 

warrior, we use mobilized marines, reservists. So and that—I have 

to pay them. That comes out of my small sliver of discretionary 

money. 

The Marine Corps, as of yesterday, we have had 13,362 marines 

have, you know, are wearing a Purple Heart, and have been 

wounded, anything from a single bullet wound to, you know, bilateral amputation. We are going to take care of them. 

But besides them, you know, 44 percent of our wounded warrior 

regiment are noncombat. It is the young lance corporal as she pulls 

out of a stoplight, she gets T-boned by a drunk driver. We are 

going to take care of her. It is the master sergeant that has cancer 

that we are working with. 

So this is going to be around for a while. And as Dr. Woodson 

said, we are concerned that there is going to be some challenges 

in maintaining the care. But to the maximum extent possible, we 
17 

are going to take care of our wounded, ill, and injured. And we will 

do so at the expense of lesser-priority programs. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. I think I have run out of time. But I 

think you have made very real, the impact of sequestration, acrossthe-board cuts. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Tsongas. And we proceed now to Mr. Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, I 

am sorry that I had to step out for a second. 

I want to talk to you, General Jones, specifically about the 116th 

Air Control Wing, and the JSTARS [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System]. They are at Robins Air Force Base, which is 

the heart of my district. As you know, that platform flies continuously. I don’t think they have stopped in 20 years, that there hasn’t 

been a day without one of those planes in the air. 

The impact of the furloughs on the entire workforce is a concern 

to us. But specifically to the JSTARS, it is Active Duty and National Guard. It has a tremendous number of dual status technicians. It is a crucial ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] platform that we have to have in multiple regions of the 

country. 

And so my question is, is the Air Force looking at ways to mitigate the impact on these types of furloughs that are mission-critical? And do you have sufficient flexibility to exempt certain personnel in those mission-critical areas? 

General JONES. Sir, thank you for that question. We all appreciate the importance of the JSTARS, and its companion aircraft, 

AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System], is around the 

world. I have a personal commitment. My son has an air-battle 

manager that rides in the back of the AWACS. So I know exactly 

what you are talking about. 

We would be unable to completely mitigate the effects of the 22- 

day furlough on these units, because to do that, we would need 

something in the order of 144,000 man-days. And historically, the 

Air Force has had about 5,000 man-days in the normal course, not 

counting OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] funds. 

So we wouldn’t be able to totally mandate—exempt them from 

the effects of sequestration. However, we do have a program in 

place that allows the Guard and the Reserve and the Active Duty 

to come forward and ask for exceptions to the program. We have 

done that. And the Guard and the Reserves have been able to use 

that to ask for exceptions. 

When I say ‘‘exceptions,’’ I don’t mean a total exemption from the 

effects of the furlough, but maybe a lessening of the impact for 

their most mission-critical units, and their most mission-critical activities. 

So there will be some mitigation of the impact. But it is related 

mostly to the mission, not to the impact on the individual. Although, everyone will feel the pain. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, General. And I will tell you, I voted 

against the sequester. I say it every time I get the opportunity. I 

think it is bad policy. I think that there is room in the DOD for 

savings. I think the procurement process can certainly be improved. 
18 

It is somewhat beyond me how much we spend, for example, $10 

million for the development of the sniper rifle, when quite honestly, 

think we could have gone to Fort Benning at the sniper competition 

and simply asked those men and women that were shooting in it, 

what they would like to have, and could have saved a lot of money. 

But I appreciate your concern about this issue. And I am extremely concerned about the fact that the sequester is going to affect mission-critical operations while we are engaged in so many 

conflicts throughout the world. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for time to ask that question. Ladies 

and gentlemen, I appreciate you being here. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And because of the extraordinary issues that you are raising, I know several of us have follow-up questions. 

I, in particular, again, Dr. Woodson, I share with Ms. Tsongas 

my visits to medical facilities. It really is world-class. And the 

wounded warriors, I want to thank all of you for working with our 

young people to truly get them back on track and leading fulfilling 

lives. 

In regard to moving funds around, there have been excess funds 

in the private-sector-care account, Dr. Woodson, the last 3 years. 

Could some of that money be used to ameliorate the $3.2 billion reduction? 

Dr. WOODSON. Thank you. As you know, we have put in place a 

number of management controls to try and reduce the rise in the 

cost of care. And many of these management strategies have paid 

off. And as a result, last year, because of pharmacy rebates and a 

number of other initiatives, we had additional funds. 

We have already factored in these management strategies in 

looking at the availability of funds for the private-sector care. And 

even factoring them in, we realized that we would come up short. 

And that is the reason we will need to reprogram money in order 

to pay all the private-sector-care bills. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, whatever we can do on the reprogramming, 

please let us know. And again, I want to commend you on the excess funds, is not necessarily negative. It is that you are being very 

responsible. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I wanted to just turn for a minute to 

the—to suspension of tuition assistance. I know the Marine Corps, 

Army, and the Air Force, could you share with us how important 

is that, the number—maybe not the actual number, but how many 

service members are really counting on this tuition assistance? 

And if in fact that is suspended, what other options do they 

have? And how impactful is that really in terms of the integrity of 

the Service itself in trying to provide that as really a kind of promise, I think, that we have made to our service personnel? 

General MILSTEAD. Well, the Marine Corps, we have $47 million 

in it this year. To date, as of the beginning of this month, we had 

obligated $28 million. So we spent $28 million. So that is 5 months. 

So we have got 5 months into the year, and we have already spent 

over half of the money. 

Again, you know, we have our Category A programs. We had 

those mission-essential programs for the families. We have all 
19 

talked about them here. We have talked about health care for our 

wounded warriors, sexual assault prevention, suicide prevention, 

combat-operational stress, family readiness, all these key programs. 

We are going to have to rob Peter, if you will, to pay Paul. You 

know, once a marine has got 3 years of service, he rates 100 percent of his post-9/11 GI Bill. We—it is just a matter of priorities. 

And if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. 

And so we have made the decision to truncate the program, and 

to take that money, and to use it to shore up a Category A program, and help us maintain our high-priority programs. 

General BROMBERG. Ma’am, in the Army, our budget is about 

$383 million for tuition assistance. And that goes for Active Duty 

soldiers, as well as National Guard, United States Army Reserve 

soldiers. It also helps pay for nonscholarship ROTC cadets, to help 

them offset the cost of tuition. 

Similar to the Marine Corps, we have spent over half already. So 

we felt we had to turn it off at this point. Right now, we are actually out of money in that program, and to look at reprioritization 

across the force. 

The soldiers do have opportunities for GI Bill, particularly soldiers who have been in over 3 years. So that is another option for 

them. And also, they have other options they can look at through 

in Reserves and National Guard through State and local programs 

that are separate funds by the States. 

It is just a sheer matter of prioritization. It has been a very good 

program for many, many years. But for us, $383 million, is that the 

right amount? We are going to go back and relook at the program. 

Should we—how do we prioritize it? 

I think we can probably take at least $115 million in savings in 

this program, and still turn some back on, but probably not to the 

same extent that we have it today. But the soldiers have come— 

become very reliant on the program. And it is a big culture change 

for us. But in these times, it is—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Are we able to provide the kind of information to 

them, where there are some other options out there, at least to 

work with some of our counterparts? 

General BROMBERG. Particularly for the Reserves soldiers, yes, 

ma’am. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. That would be helpful. Just quickly on the reprogramming, and talking about the medical situation, there is not 

one service member who should come back and not have all the 

services that are there. 

But I am wondering, as we see fewer really egregious injuries 

coming back, are the numbers going down to the point that some 

of the services that are available and are particularly high level of 

care could be shifted to another area? Or are all of those personnel 

being used today, even though those numbers fortunately are 

down, are down from certainly the height of the war? 

Dr. WOODSON. Yes. That is a great question. And so we have 

looked at that. And, you know, one of the signature or two of the 

signature issues coming out of the current decade of war have been 

mental-health issues and TBI issues, which are not solved by sort 
20 

of short-term care, and require a more enduring set of services to 

really address the complicated issues. 

So specifically to your question, yes, we have seen a reduction in 

casualties coming back. But we haven’t seen a reduction in the 

need for mental health and behavioral health services. 

We are staffed to certainly deliver all of the medical care that individuals need. But over time, the effects of sequestration will 

erode those, and make those inadequate for—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. I guess part of the concern is we may have more 

medical specialists, but fewer behavioral specialists. 

Secretary WOODSON. Well, that is exactly the point. If you look 

at the increases in medical personnel, far and away, the increases 

have been in behavioral health, that behavioral health component. 

So we haven’t expanded necessarily, let’s say, the number of 

trauma surgeons, or the number of urologists, et cetera. But we 

have expanded dramatically the number of behavioral-health specialists, recognizing these issues are going to be persistent for some 

time. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Mrs. Davis. And we proceed to Mr. 

Jones. 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And 

General Bromberg and General Jones, I think in relationship to 

what Mrs. Davis was saying, I got a call this past weekend from 

a grandmother in my district wanting to know why her son in the 

United States Army, I think he has been in about a year—that he 

and a buddy went to a local community college, and they were encouraged to take a course or something. I don’t know the details, 

I really don’t. 

But anyway, her concern was what she shared with me, was 

after they went to the community college, and they signed up for 

classes, they were then told by the Army that they could not continue. I guess what I am trying to ask is, as we move forward and 

I don’t expect you to have that today. 

But if the Services could, if you got this information, based on 

sequestration, the number of young men and women in the 

branches that are being told they cannot continue, if there is any 

way to get that kind of information, I think the committee, at least 

I would, maybe Mrs. Davis as well, and the Chairman and other 

members would like to kind of see it. You know, seeing helps some 

of us, maybe not all, understand. 

And if there are going to be these numbers, and if the sequestration continues, which apparently it is going to for a period of time, 

if we could see, just get an idea or a trend of young men and 

women who are applying to take some additional courses that have 

been told we cannot fund it any longer, if that is possible, I would 

appreciate it if we could get some numbers on that as we move forward, not today, but as we move forward. 

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

page 109.] 

General JONES. Congressman Jones, when we made the decision 

last night, I think it speaks to the fact that how urgent sequestration and the impacts are for us. 
21 

We made that decision which impacted 115,000 airmen which 

were signed up for tuition assistance. They were taking 277,000 

courses at 1,200 universities across the Nation. And so that was a 

real impact at that moment. 

Now, we did not shut off the program for anybody who is in the 

program now. They could continue that course they were in. If we 

had said the course was funded, we certainly met that obligation 

and funded that course. But it is the next course that they would 

try to sign up for. 

And we only suspended it for this fiscal year. And we are going 

to reevaluate it for fiscal year 2014 to decide how much we can 

offer. We feel like we are going to do everything we can to offer a 

program in fiscal year 2014. But realistically, we are going to have 

to adjust the parameters of the program to lessen the budgetary 

impact on our Air Force. 

General BROMBERG. Yes, sir. Same here. When we made the decision to suspend it for the rest of the year, it was for those that 

had not enrolled yet. And there has been some confusion—I have 

gotten some feedback as soldiers tried to run down to colleges and 

universities, and sign up right away, but they weren’t actually enrolled yet through the official site. That was one disconnect. 

But I can tell you, in the last couple days, we announced it, and 

tried to get everybody at least 72 hours’ notice, we were burning 

through $500,000 an hour. And so we quickly—actually, we did 

overspend. And we will take care of that internally. 

But that was the kind of activity there was, and how popular of 

a program it is. So we did shut it off at that point. And we will 

be very happy to come back and brief or provide in great detail. We 

have over 200,000 soldiers across all three components enrolled on 

a daily basis in tuition assistance. 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. I would appreciate that. Thank 

you both. 

Mr. WILSON. And yes, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Just very briefly, General Bromberg, you said that 

your cost of the tuition was $383 million a year, is before the cut? 

General BROMBERG. Yes, sir. That is what we programmed as we 

budgeted $383 million for fiscal year 2013. 

Mr. SCOTT. And how much is your cut? 

General BROMBERG. Right now, we stopped at a little over $200 

million of what we spent so far. I can get you the exact numbers 

where we ended up on—— 

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

page 110.] 

Mr. SCOTT. $183 million, somewhere around $180 million. General Milstead, you said yours was $47 million, and you stopped it 

at $28 million? 

General MILSTEAD. That is correct, sir. $47.5 million is what we 

budgeted in the fiscal year 2013 line. And when we truncated the 

program, we obligated $28 million. 

Mr. SCOTT. So about a $20 million cut? 

General MILSTEAD. About, yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Admiral, what would your numbers be on that? 
22 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. This year, we are targeted to spend about $84 million for that. That gets tuition assistance for all people who 

are eligible, who desire to pursue tuition assistance. So $84 million. As of this point, we are about a little over about $40 million have 

been spent. We have not suspended tuition assistance in the Navy 

at this point. And for us, it is about 45,000 people who participate 

in a year. 

Currently, we have about 27,000 participating. So if we were to 

suspend it, it would immediately affect 20,000 people who have 

planned, based upon their deployment schedules, based upon their 

lives and their families, to pursue it. So it would be affecting them 

if we were to suspend the program. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. General Jones. 

General JONES. Sir, we had spent about $196 million in fiscal year 2012. And fiscal year 2013, we thought it would be $198 million. But with the truncation, it is going to be less than that. I will 

have to get you that exact number. I don’t have that in front of me. 

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

page 110.] 

Mr. SCOTT. General Milstead, I think you summed it up with 

what I think is a frustration that every American is feeling right 

now as we watch the impact of the sequester. We are cutting mission-critical things. We are cutting things like tuition for our men 

and women that are serving. 

You said that when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. 

And the reason we are in this situation we are fiscally, is because 

over the last several years, we have not been able to figure out 

what the priorities of the budget should be. You are talking about somewhere just above $200 million in 

what is going to be taken out of this program, that is going to have 

a tremendous impact on men and women that are out there serving. $183 million from the Army, $20 million from the Marines. Obviously there will be an impact from the Air Force as well. 

That is approximately a tenth of what we spend on free cell 

phones in this country a year. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is 

the problem. The men and women that are out there fighting for 

this country are paying a price, because Congress has refused to 

get rid of things that we never should have been paying for in the 

first place. 

With that, I yield my time back to the chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. And I want to 

thank, again, all of you for being here and the extraordinary challenges and issues you are facing. And I know that we have faith 

in you, that you will make every effort for our service members, 

military families, and retirees. 

If there is no further comment, we shall be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 13, 2013 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 13, 2013 

(27) 

Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson 

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

Hearing on 

Impact of the Continuing Resolution, Sequestration, 

and Declining Operations and Maintenance Budgets 

on Military Personnel and Family Related Programs 

March 13, 2013 

The Subcommittee today will once again focus on the challenges 

of maintaining an All-Volunteer Force in a budget-constrained environment by looking at the impacts on military personnel and 

family related programs. 

These programs, such as Morale, Welfare and Recreation; Child 

Care; Military Exchanges; Commissaries; and Family Services 

which include DOD Schools, are vital to maintaining the readiness 

of the military. Since most of these programs are staffed by civilians, the furloughing of military civilian personnel has a huge impact on these programs, to include our medical treatment facilities. 

Although the Department and the Services have made commitments to minimize the impact a continuing resolution and sequestration will have on these programs, especially those impacting 

wounded warriors and families, there will be reductions and it will 

affect the daily lives of our service members and their families, to 

include retirees. 

The committee will hear from the witnesses on how the continuing resolution, sequestration, and declining operations and 

maintenance accounts will impact the military personnel and family programs, which have been crucial for maintaining an All-Volunteer Force during more than 10 years of war. Although the 

House has passed a Defense Appropriations bill for the remainder 

of fiscal year 2013, the Senate has yet to do so and the threat of 

a yearlong CR is still there. It is a challenge for the Services to 

manage these programs without a timely budget, and unfortunately CRs have become a norm. 

I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses: 

• The Honorable Jessica L. Wright, Acting Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 

• Dr. Jonathan Woodson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs; 

• Lieutenant General Howard B. Bromberg, Deputy Chief of 

Staff, G–1, Department of the Army; 
28 

• Vice Admiral Scott R. Van Buskirk, Deputy Chief of Naval 

Operations, Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Education, 

Department of the Navy; • Lieutenant General Robert E. Milstead, Jr., Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, United States Marine Corps; and • Lieutenant General Darrell D. Jones, Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Manpower, Personnel and Services, Department of the 

Air Force. 
29 

Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis 

Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel 

Hearing on 

Impact of the Continuing Resolution, Sequestration, 

and Declining Operations and Maintenance Budgets 

on Military Personnel and Family Related Programs 

March 13, 2013 

Mr. Chairman, this is the second hearing that we are having on 

the impact the Budget Control Act, and the additional impact sequestration and uncertainty surrounding the remaining fiscal year 

2013 budget is having specifically on military personnel and family 

related programs. 

As I stated at our first hearing, the Budget Control Act has already had an impact on the Services, particularly the Army and 

the Marine Corps. The impact of sequestration has just added another challenging dimension for the Services, and in particular, the 

many personnel and family programs, including potentially the 

military medical programs and services. 

On March 1st, sequestration became a reality for this country, 

and the significant effects are just now slowly being seen in Federal programs across the country. The Department of Defense is 

not exempted from its effects and although military personnel accounts are not subject to sequestration in fiscal year 2013, these accounts are not protected over the remaining 9 years nor are the 

myriad of family and service programs that support our Armed 

Forces exempt from the impact of sequestration. 

These significant reductions will only be compounded when the 

continuing resolution under which our Government, including the 

Department of Defense, are operating under ends at the end of this 

month. The full committee has held a number of hearings on the 

impact of the Budget Control Act, sequestration, and the continuing resolution, but none of the hearings including our subcommittee hearing has focused on potential solutions to this dilemma. Unfortunately, the only people who have the ability to resolve this issue is Congress. We must find common ground and be 

willing to compromise for the long-term stability of our Nation. 

Today, we will hear the unfortunate impacts that this lack of compromise is having on our Armed Forces and their families. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee 

and in the House to develop a rational, commonsense approach to 

resolving these challenges. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 13, 2013 

(109) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES 

General BROMBERG. With the passing of H.R. 933, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013, each of the Services is fully funding tuition assistance programs through Fiscal Year 13, up to $250 a semester hour and with a 

$4,500 annual cap. 

The Military Services’ tuition assistance program enables service members the opportunity to achieve their academic goals, contributes to their professional development, and facilitates transition from the Armed Forces. 

Each Service is responsible for funding and administering its tuition assistance 

program in accordance with the law and the Department of Defense tuition assistance policy. [See page 20.] 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. Navy has been steadfast in its commitment to sustain the 

Tuition Assistance (TA) program. The Chief of Naval Operations has assured Sailors 

that TA will ‘‘remain intact and available’’; therefore, Sailors should not expect to 

be told they cannot continue. While fiscal pressures will necessitate continued scrutiny of all investments, we are committed to our original fiscal year plans to meet 

Sailor education requirements. 

Additionally, we continue to invest in related programs that ensure the success 

of each Sailor who benefits from these funds. Our course completion rate is well 

over 90 percent, which we attribute in part to the exceptional support our Sailors 

receive from trained Navy education counselors. Each Sailor, working with a qualified counselor, must develop an appropriate educational plan, which the counselor 

must approve before TA funding can be approved and classes begin. Counselors ensure that Sailors are prepared for academic requirements associated with each Sailor’s approved plan and help them streamline an attainable degree completion 

process. [See page 20.] 

General MILSTEAD. The Marine Corps is not able to determine if any marines attempted to enroll in courses but were subsequently impacted by the cancellation of 

the Tuition Assistance (TA) program between March 4, 2013 to April 8, 2013. 

The Department of Navy announced the immediate cessation of Marine Corps enrollments in the TA program and the Marine Corps immediately ceased new enrollments on 4 March 2013. As of 8 April 2013, TA funding has been restored and new 

enrollments are being accepted as announced in the Marine Administrative Messages (MARADMIN) 203/13 Voluntary Education Services and Tuition Assistance. 

The TA program cannot be retroactively applied. Marines who had requested TA 

prior to 4 March were not denied funds. [See page 20.] 

General JONES. Congressman Jones, our best estimate to determine how many 

Airmen might be affected by this decision moving forward is based on our fiscal year 

2012 data. During the timeframe from 12 March 2012 through 30 September 2012, 

76,144 Airmen used Military Tuition Assistance. Since suspending our program 11 

March 2013, we estimate a similar number of Airmen will be affected through the 

end of fiscal year 2013 should the program remain suspended to the end of the fiscal 

year. [See page 20.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

Ms. WRIGHT. The Common Services Task Force held its first meeting on February 

6, 2013, and is currently expected to complete its work in 120 days. As background, 

in November 2012, my office established this Task Force to review the total cost and 

methods of providing common services for military member and family support programs Department of Defense-wide. These programs include NAF procurement and 

accounting, lodging, fitness and family program management to, to name a few. The 

objectives of the Task Force are the following: 

Æ Maintain the Department of Defense’s strategy and commitment to the wellbeing of military members and their families, delivering the same or better 

levels of programs and services 
110 

Æ Improve effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in the delivery of programs 

within the purview of the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Military Community and Family Policy, along with their related overhead 

and headquarters functions 

Æ Drive down both the appropriated fund and the nonappropriated fund (NAF) 

unit cost of providing programs and services to military members and their 

families 

Æ Through shared services or similar models for common support, enable greater economies of scale than the individual military departments can achieve 

independently 

Æ Retain a portion of the initial savings to cover transition costs and offset program shortfalls 

[See page 12.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT 

General BROMBERG. With the passing of H.R. 933, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013, each of the Services is fully funding tuition assistance programs through Fiscal Year 13, up to $250 a semester hour and with a 

$4,500 annual cap. 

The Military Services’ tuition assistance program enables service members the opportunity to achieve their academic goals, contributes to their professional development, and facilitates transition from the Armed Forces. 

Each Service is responsible for funding and administering its tuition assistance 

program in accordance with the law and the Department of Defense tuition assistance policy. [See page 21.] 

General JONES. As of 11 March 2013 when the decision was made to suspend 

Military Tuition Assistance, the Air Force had expended approximately $109M for 

the program. [See page 22.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 13, 2013 

(113) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. In your testimony, you note that while the Services’ Yellow 

Ribbon Reintegration Program funding is protected under Overseas Contingency 

Operations, the OSD’s Yellow Ribbon Program office will likely be impacted by sequestration and the CR and that this ‘‘will reduce our ability to support events for 

deploying/reintegrating service members and their families.’’ Our New Hampshire 

National Guard has an outstanding Yellow Ribbon program that helps post-9/11 

service members and their families address issues before, during, and after deployment. These programs need to be robustly funded. Can you talk about the specific 

impact of sequestration and the CR on our Nation’s Yellow Ribbon programs? 

Ms. WRIGHT. [The information was not available at the time of printing.] 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. How will Professional Military Education at the military academies or other defense educational institutions be impacted by sequestration cuts 

and furloughs? Many professors are civilians. Our cadets and midshipmen at the 

academies, and military officers at the other institutions, need to receive instruction 

to complete their degree requirements. It matters greatly if they are less well 

trained and educated because of these cuts. Are you extending the academic year? 

Will there be furloughs of the civilian professors? If so, how will you manage with 

the loss of 20% of teaching time per civilian professor? What other impacts will 

there be to Professional Military Education at the academies and other defense educational institutions? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Unfortunately, the reality of the budget situation precludes excluding significant core programs from reduction, despite the negative impact on the development and sustainment of the All-Volunteer Force. Nearly all education and 

training programs are affected and degraded to some degree. Potential civilian furloughs will reduce faculty available for teaching classes and staff that support the 

academic mission of the PME schools. In some cases, military faculty may have to 

fill the void developed by the loss of furlough days of teaching time per civilian professor, leaving minimal time for curriculum development. 

The Service Academies are similarly affected with broad cuts affecting many programs. They have implemented plans to assign military personnel from other duties 

at the Academies to cover academic training, but will not extend the academic year. 

The sequestration and the current CR will limit faculty research and professional 

opportunities negatively impacting PME faculty. Civilian faculty members, like their 

Service Academy colleagues, are expected to conduct scholarly research and remain 

engaged with their scholarly communities. Limiting faculty development may also 

adversely affect the relevancy and currency of PME curricula. The inability to do 

research and faculty development may lead to faculty losses as those individuals 

may seek better opportunities in the civilian academic world. 

Finally, limited funding will impact a variety of programs focused on ensuring a 

diverse learning environment. An example is the Visiting Professors program, which 

contributes to accreditation. An uncertain budget environment precludes adequate 

planning and creates the perception of instability and could make the Academies a 

less attractive option for the highest quality candidates. Additionally, summer and 

military training opportunities will be curtailed along with outreach and recruiting 

efforts negatively impacting current and future classes of cadets and midshipmen 

candidates. Facility and infrastructure projects necessary to provide an effective 

educational environment will also need to be deferred. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. In your testimony, you note that while the Services’ Yellow 

Ribbon Reintegration Program funding is protected under Overseas Contingency 

Operations, the OSD’s Yellow Ribbon Program office will likely be impacted by sequestration and the CR and that this ‘‘will reduce our ability to support events for 

deploying/reintegrating service members and their families.’’ Our New Hampshire 

National Guard has an outstanding Yellow Ribbon program that helps post-9/11 

service members and their families address issues before, during, and after deployment. These programs need to be robustly funded. Can you talk about the specific 

impact of sequestration and the CR on our Nation’s Yellow Ribbon programs? 

Dr. WOODSON. The OSD Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP) Office provides services and resources to the Reserve Components designed to take advantage 
114 

of the economy of scale and the benefit of standardization. These services and resources are funded through the OSD YRRP base budget and will be impacted by 

sequestration in the following ways (percentages are based on current projected 

budget cuts): 

• Awareness of and access to the Hero2Hired (H2H) program to assist unemployed service members will be diminished. Specific impacts are decreased 

use of the H2H Mobile Job Store and kiosks at YRRP and other events; loss 

of a new H2H mobile application; and a reduced number of events for Employment Initiative Program outreach. 

• OSD YRRP’s Cadre of Speakers contract, which provides trained, vetted instructors and briefers for the Services’ YRRP events, will be decreased currently the cadre support 30 events per month this will be reduced to 20 

events per month. 

• Funding for the OSD YRRP fulfillment contract will be cut by 39%; this contract provides standardized event materials and handouts for the Services, including hand-held scanners that provide accountability at YRRP events. 

• OSD YRRP’s ability to create and implement in-depth surveys of program effectiveness, as well as the creation of standardized training curriculum, will 

be reduced by half and this will delay the implementation of the YRRP overall program effectiveness evaluation. 

• The field staffing contract funded through OSD YRRP will be reduced from 

12 months to 10 months. Field staff provides assistance to Service event planners and resource providers throughout the Nation. 

• No funding (100% reduction) will be available for advertising, market research and studies to support increased awareness of YRRP and the resources 

it offers to service members and their families. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. General Bromberg, in your testimony, you talk about the sequestration’s impact on Transition Assistance, and indicate that the sequestration 

cuts to the ‘‘Department of Labor, which assists the Department of Veterans Affairs 

and DOD with providing mandated transition assistance services, could impact compliance with VOW [Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) to Hire Heroes Act of 

2011].’’ Please tell me specifically what program cuts you envision and how they 

could harm our soldiers as they transition to civilian life. 

General BROMBERG. I cannot address the specifics of what cuts Department of 

Labor (DOL) is considering. I can say that any reduction in the frequency of the 

3-day DOL Employment Workshop or a reduction in the number of DOL counselors 

would directly impact delivery of services. Reduced frequency of classes or lack of 

counselors would create a backlog of Soldiers required to complete transition services. This backlog could have the potential for Soldiers to separate before they meet 

Career Readiness Standards and be VOW Act compliant. Additionally, the VOW Act 

increased the mandatory components of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) 

that Soldiers must attend. We increased the throughput which has increased demand for follow-on classes and training. We are expected to reduce Department of 

the Army Civilian TAP staff hours by 20% due to furloughs. 

Warrior Transition Unit Soldiers, who often face expedited separation procedures, 

will find it even more difficult to find seating in TAP classes. These Warrior Transition Unit Soldiers will face an even higher risk of unemployment and other consequences faced by those in the high-risk populations. Lack of government employees due to furlough could require 1-day-a-week closure of TAP training facilities, decreasing frequency of the 3-day DOL Employment Workshop, Veterans Administration Benefits Briefing, and other TAP classes. Follow-on classes that teach interview 

skills, resume writing skills, salary negotiation, and dress for success would have 

to be curtailed in order to meet the basic tenets of the VOW Act. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I am concerned when you mention that sequestration cuts 

could impact compliance with the law. With respect to military personnel in particular, can you describe other instances in which the Army may not be able to comply with the law due to sequestration cuts? 

General BROMBERG. I cannot address the specifics of what cuts Department of 

Labor (DOL) is considering. I can say that any reduction in the frequency of the 

3-day DOL Employment Workshop or a reduction in the number of DOL counselors 

would directly impact delivery of services. Reduced frequency of classes or lack of 

counselors would create a backlog of Soldiers required to complete transition services. This backlog could have the potential for Soldiers to separate before they meet 

Career Readiness Standards and be VOW Act compliant. Additionally, the VOW Act 

increased the mandatory components of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) 

that Soldiers must attend. We increased the throughput which has increased de-
115 

mand for follow-on classes and training. We are expected to reduce Department of 

the Army Civilian TAP staff hours by 20% due to furloughs. 

Warrior Transition Unit Soldiers, who often face expedited separation procedures, 

will find it even more difficult to find seating in TAP classes. These Warrior Transition Unit Soldiers will face an even higher risk of unemployment and other consequences faced by those in the high-risk populations. Lack of government employees due to furlough could require 1-day-a-week closure of TAP training facilities, decreasing frequency of the 3-day DOL Employment Workshop, Veterans Administration Benefits Briefing, and other TAP classes. Follow-on classes that teach interview 

skills, resume writing skills, salary negotiation, and dress for success would have 

to be curtailed in order to meet the basic tenets of the VOW Act. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. How will Professional Military Education at the military academies or other defense educational institutions be impacted by sequestration cuts 

and furloughs? Many professors are civilians. Our cadets and midshipmen at the 

academies, and military officers at the other institutions, need to receive instruction 

to complete their degree requirements. It matters greatly if they are less well 

trained and educated because of these cuts. Are you extending the academic year? 

Will there be furloughs of the civilian professors? If so, how will you manage with 

the loss of 20% of teaching time per civilian professor? What other impacts will 

there be to Professional Military Education at the academies and other defense educational institutions? 

General BROMBERG. There is no intent to extend the Academic Years for 2012– 

2013 or 2013–2014 at this time. The current furlough plan for the Military Academy 

allows flexibility for civilian professors to take their furlough days in the summer 

months after the end of the current academic year and before the start of the new 

academic year; however, many will elect to follow a 2-day-per-pay-period furlough 

to minimize financial impacts. 

The impact of furloughing civilian instructors as well as academic support staff 

will lead to reduced cadet contact hours, loss of instruction or condensed instruction, 

limited classroom preparation time, degraded new instructor training, changes in 

cadet schedules, reduced dedicated laboratory support for scientific labs and reduced 

weekday hours of operation for the library, closing the facility on Saturdays with 

limited hours on Sunday. 

Furloughs may disrupt work to ongoing accreditation preparation and development of self-assessment reports for the Accreditation Board for Engineering and 

Technology (ABET) and the Middle States Commission for Higher Education 

(MSCHE) with scheduled assessments in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 respectively. 

These accrediting bodies could cite the Academy deficient in the lack of predictable 

funding and inconsistent faculty work schedules related to furloughs. 

Furlough requirements may reduce the number of civilian instructors available to 

teach summer term academic programs. This may divert available military instructors from supporting cadet summer training (Cadet Field Training, Cadet Basic 

Training and Cadet Leader Development Training) missions requiring additional 

Army task force support. Sequestration and furlough will also impact military training courses which support the Army accessions mission and readiness. Current 

Academy funding is insufficient to send the Graduating Class of 2013 to initial military training Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) within the first 6 months following graduation. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. How will Professional Military Education at the military academies or other defense educational institutions be impacted by sequestration cuts 

and furloughs? Many professors are civilians. Our cadets and midshipmen at the 

academies, and military officers at the other institutions, need to receive instruction 

to complete their degree requirements. It matters greatly if they are less well 

trained and educated because of these cuts. Are you extending the academic year? 

Will there be furloughs of the civilian professors? If so, how will you manage with 

the loss of 20% of teaching time per civilian professor? What other impacts will 

there be to Professional Military Education at the academies and other defense educational institutions? 

Admiral VAN BUSKIRK. Navy and its educational institutions are evaluating possible impacts to academic programs resulting from sequestration, to include furlough of civilian professors along with most other civilian personnel employed within 

the Department of Navy. There are currently no plans to change the current academic year for the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) or other defense educational institutions. If a furlough is implemented, it would not take place until after the current 

academic year is complete, though it would impact the academic year commencing 

August 2013. Mitigation efforts are currently under review. 
116 

In addition to furloughs, the USNA may reduce summer training to include fleet 

experiences with submarine, aviation, surface warfare and Marine Corps communities; and seamanship and navigation training aligned with a reduction in USNA 

Yard Patrol craft operations and maintenance. The USNA has already canceled language, regional and cultural exposure for midshipmen during the spring semester 

and reduced opportunities during the summer training periods. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. How will Professional Military Education at the military academies or other defense educational institutions be impacted by sequestration cuts 

and furloughs? Many professors are civilians. Our cadets and midshipmen at the 

academies, and military officers at the other institutions, need to receive instruction 

to complete their degree requirements. It matters greatly if they are less well 

trained and educated because of these cuts. Are you extending the academic year? 

Will there be furloughs of the civilian professors? If so, how will you manage with 

the loss of 20% of teaching time per civilian professor? What other impacts will 

there be to Professional Military Education at the academies and other defense educational institutions? 

General MILSTEAD. At the Marine Corps University, the most immediate impact 

will be the cancellation or reduction in the courses as follows: 

• Reduction of Senior Enlisted PME student throughput 

• Reduction of Senior Leader Development Program 

• Senior Planner Course reduced from two to one per year 

• Elimination of the Reserve Officers Course 

• Elimination of all conferences and symposia 

A significant long-term effect due to sequestration will be felt at Marine Corps 

Command and Staff College, the School of Advanced Warfighting, and the Marine 

Corps War College. While delivery of core professional military education (PME) 

curricula will continue, there will be a substantial decrease in depth of education 

due to: 

• Absence of civilian faculty due to furloughs 

• Cancellation of some classes due to reduced faculty availability 

• Reductions in information education technology support 

• Significant reduction in curricula related travel for all programs 

• Reduction in international engagement opportunities 

All civilian professors and support staff will be subject to furlough in accordance 

with policy. 

The Marine Corps University does not plan to extend this academic year. 

Sequestration impacts will likely have a wide ranging effect on the schools. Due 

to differences in both student body size and teaching methodology, each school will 

be addressed individually. 

Command and Staff College (CSC). Through the end of the current academic year, 

CSC will not be significantly impacted. CSC has a balanced military and civilian 

faculty, and classes will continue as scheduled. Classes with a civilian faculty lead 

instructor will be completed before furloughs are scheduled to begin. The same is 

true with Spring exams. However, furloughs will have an impact on the capstone 

exercise NINE INNINGS, which is scheduled for May. The College’s leadership will 

mitigate the impact by the close management of faculty so as to not to disrupt the 

exercise in any fundamental way. 

If sequestration and furloughs continue past the August start date for the next 

academic year, momentum will be slowed going forward in faculty and curriculum 

development in both the short term and long term. We also anticipate having to 

modify next year’s curriculum by providing more individual study and research time 

to balance the required furlough of faculty. 

School of Advanced Warfighting (SAW). In light of a small (three professors) resident civilian faculty at SAW, the only viable plan is to furlough professors on days 

they are not scheduled to teach. As with CSC, anticipated furloughs will have a limited impact on the current class since we are nearing the end of the academic year. 

However, if furloughs continue through the end of the fiscal year, they will have 

a significant impact on the AY13–14 class. Reduced faculty availability will negatively impact seminar preparation, staff rides, and planning exercises. 

Marine Corps War College (MCWAR). The current class should see limited impact, but the course will need to be restructured in order to accommodate furloughs 

of civilian faculty. As with the other schools, MCWAR will be attempting to accomplish 100% of their requirements in 80% of the time. This has second- and thirdorder consequences; specifically, limited feedback and mentoring time with the 

students. 
117 

Other impacts include: 

• Travel restrictions. Reduced travel from sequestration and furloughs will 

have a negative impact on faculty development, university outreach programs 

to civilian institutions, and participation by visiting faculty designed to enhance and develop the curricula of the MCU schools. Lack of international 

travel is a concern as it plays an important role in the MCWAR and SAW 

curricula and the education of officers. • Faculty accession/recruiting. Sequestration will adversely affect the ability to 

recruit and retain high-quality faculty. Lack of adequate, competent faculty 

will jeopardize MCU’s regional accreditation from the Southern Association of 

Colleges and Schools (SACS) and the ability to issue masters degrees in three 

courses. Job security and stability is essential to maintain quality faculty. Sequestration and furloughs will degrade, if not eliminate faculty development 

opportunities, essential for the instructor currency. • IT Support. Sequestration will jeopardize our ability to provide IT support for 

the new Warner Center for Advanced Military Studies, designed to house 

CSC, SAW and History Division. Construction for this facility begins April 

2013. A 62% reduction in IT funding is anticipated if sequestration occurs. • Curriculum development and review. Currently the Marine Corps University 

is undergoing a 2-year process of a zero-based curriculum review, designed to 

thoroughly assess all aspects of the curricula. This effort will be slowed or 

halted due to reduced faculty availability. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. How will Professional Military Education at the military academies or other defense educational institutions be impacted by sequestration cuts 

and furloughs? Many professors are civilians. Our cadets and midshipmen at the 

academies, and military officers at the other institutions, need to receive instruction 

to complete their degree requirements. It matters greatly if they are less well 

trained and educated because of these cuts. Are you extending the academic year? 

Will there be furloughs of the civilian professors? If so, how will you manage with 

the loss of 20% of teaching time per civilian professor? What other impacts will 

there be to Professional Military Education at the academies and other defense educational institutions? 

General JONES. Sequestration cuts and furloughs will have limited impact on the 

United States Air Force Academy’s Professional Military Education (PME) courses 

and civilian professors. Currently, PME requirements are covered both in Commandant of Cadets courses and in Dean of Faculty core academic courses. 

Sequestration presently does not affect PME courses provided by Commandant of 

Cadets since they are taught by Active Duty squadron commanders during commissioning education periods. 

If the Dean of Faculty does declare a shortfall in meeting the education requirements due to sequestration, the Commandant of Cadet programs would review existing capacity and lesson plans. Learning objectives that could no longer be taught 

in the Dean of Faculty core courses would be added to the PME courses. 

United States Air Force Academy civilian professors will be subject to furloughs. 

Under furlough they will have 20% fewer hours during the 14-week furlough period 

beginning in June for contact with cadets for tutoring, lesson planning, and additional duties. As a result, our Active Duty members will cover the gaps. The United 

States Air Force Academy has no plan to extend the academic year due to sequestration cuts and furloughs. 

Although the Air Force has taken significant steps to mitigate the short- and longterm impacts of the sequestration cuts and furloughs to Air University (AU), impacts to AU PME courses and civilian professors cannot be avoided entirely. Currently, all short-term temporary duties for officer and enlisted PME, e.g. Squadron 

Officer School and Noncommissioned Officer Academies will be either considered for 

reduction and/or cancelled. A reduction to our short-term PME schools means fewer 

Airmen will be armed with the competencies deemed necessary to execute their duties and responsibilities. 

Long-term AU PME, which are usually courses 10-months or longer and require 

a permanent change of station, are considered mission critical. The Air Force will 

continue these education courses as scheduled. These include other sister service/ 

joint Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE)/Senior Developmental Education 

(SDE) courses, Air Force Fellowships, and Advanced Academic Degrees (AADs). If 

the restrictions continue, this will have a long-term strategic effect on the credibility, retention, and academic credibility of the university’s faculty and student production. 

At this time, Air University has no plans to extend the academic year. However, 

should these restrictions become protracted, it would potentially delay academic 
118 

year 2014 graduation by 3 weeks, delay the start of academic year 2015 by 2 weeks, 

and possibly reduce student in-resident opportunities by 20%. 

Other potential impacts include the potential for production will be delays for new 

curriculum across all programs, negatively affecting the currency and relevancy of 

PME. More importantly, the Air Force could have fewer strategists and warrior 

scholars at the Ph.D. level to leverage for mission accomplishment. 

Æ