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 

65–595 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–28] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARING 

ON

MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 17, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

CRAIG GREENE, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JIM WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, March 17, 2011, Military Personnel Overview ................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, March 17, 2011 ...................................................................................... 23 

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011 

MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW 

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 

Bostick, Lt. Gen. Thomas P., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1, U.S. Army ...... 4 

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

Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy ................................................................ 6 

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

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

Milstead, Lt. Gen. Robert E., Jr., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower 

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

Stanley, Hon. Clifford L., Ph.D., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

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

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bostick, Lt. Gen. Thomas P. ............................................................................ 84 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 28 

Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III ................................................................... 105 

Jones, Lt. Gen. Darrell D. ................................................................................ 153 

Milstead, Lt. Gen. Robert E., Jr. ..................................................................... 128 

Stanley, Hon. Clifford L. .................................................................................. 30 

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

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

The Fleet Reserve Association Statement for the Record on Military 

Personnel Policy, Benefits, and Compensation .......................................... 173 

The Military Coalition Statement for the Record on Military Personnel 

and Compensation Matters .......................................................................... 180 

The National Military Family Association Statement for the Record ......... 207 

The Reserve Officers Association of the United States and the Reserve 

Enlisted Association Statement for the Record .......................................... 240 
Page

IV 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 251 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 251 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 256 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 255 
(1) 

MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Thursday, March 17, 2011. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:16 a.m., in room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for 

being here today for a subcommittee meeting of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. 

This is a very important hearing as to military personnel overview. 

Today the subcommittee will turn its attention to the important 

issue of maintaining an All-Volunteer Force that is not only faced 

with continuing to fight even after 10 years of war, but also is now 

in a period of fiscal constraints and manpower reductions. 

The Department of Defense has completed an efficiency review, 

which will result in $100 billion being reinvested into the services 

over the next 5 years. 

The Department is also facing an additional $78 billion cut over 

5 years to its top-line, with proposed cuts by the Department to a 

variety of programs to include end strength reductions for the 

Army and Marine Corps in 2015 and 2016. 

Today’s hearing will focus on actions the services have taken to 

create efficiencies in personnel employment programs, to include 

pay and compensation, and the policies and programs that still 

need to be examined to successfully continue down a path of fiscal 

responsibility without undermining the readiness of the All-Volunteer Force. 

We will also examine how the proposed reduction of end of 

strength for the Army and Marine Corps will impact individual 

dwell time in light of unknown force requirements in the future. 

We are also concerned about the manpower reductions that all 

services will undertake and how they will employ voluntary and involuntary separation measures to achieve those reductions and how 

they will reduce the nondeployable populations in their services. 

We are joined today by an excellent panel consisting of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the 

four personnel chiefs of the military services to help us explore 

these issues. 
2 

I would request that all witnesses—and it is going to be tough— 

maintain an oral opening statement at 3 minutes. And Craig 

Greene is really tough on this, and so good luck. 

But, hey, he is the impartial scorekeeper. 

Without objection, all written statements will be entered into the 

record, to include statements submitted by the Reserve Officers Association, the Military Coalition, the Fleet Reserve Association, and 

the National Military Family Association. 

I would also like at this time to introduce our panel. The Honorable Dr. Clifford Stanley, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, the 

Deputy Chief of Staff G–1, Headquarters of the U.S. Army. Vice 

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

Chief of Naval Operations, Total Force, U.S. Navy. Lieutenant 

General Robert E. Milstead, Jr., the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters of the U.S. Marine Corps. 

Lieutenant General Darrell D. Jones, the Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters of the U.S. Air Force. 

And I would especially like to welcome General Milstead and 

General Jones, who will be testifying for the first time in their new 

roles and very important positions that you have. 

I at this time will defer to the Ranking Member, the distinguished member of Congress from California, Susan Davis. 

[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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And to all of you, we appreciate your being here. 

Dr. Stanley, welcome back. 

And, Lieutenant General Bostick, and Vice Admiral Ferguson, 

Lieutenant General Milstead, and Lieutenant General Jones, to all 

of you, we are glad you are here. 

After nearly 10 years of war I look forward to hearing from you 

on the state of our military personnel and their families and the 

impact that the current economic climate is having on them. 

In recent years the services have enjoyed both a robust recruiting 

environment and budget. This has led to record achievements in recruiting and retention objectives, as well as an increase in the 

quality of our recruits. 

But recent indicators are sending a different signal. I am concerned that as job growth continues to improve and budget reductions are being implemented, the services may find themselves 

back to where we were just a few short years ago—a difficult recruiting environment. 

The major difference will be that we may not have the budgetary 

headroom to quickly change course. I hope we will address this 

issue. 

I am also concerned that the budget reductions will have an adverse impact on our quality-of-life programs for our 

servicemembers and their families. While the services all made a 

good faith effort to ensure that that the spending was included in 
3 

the baseline budget, personnel and operation and maintenance 

funding seem to be in the first place where the services seek to reduce expenditures. 

Many of our quality-of-life programs are vital. We know that. 

They are vital to our servicemembers and their families, especially 

during these last 10 years of high tempo deployment. 

As the demand for these services remains constant and the budget continues to decline, we are going to face difficult choices. But 

we must remember that it is our men and women in uniform that 

makes our military the best in the world. 

Thank you all once again for being here. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 28.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

And even before we begin, I have had the privilege and opportunity of meeting with each of you. And when I think of military 

personnel and military service, to me it is an opportunity for young 

people to achieve to their highest possible level. 

And it is very personal. My dad served with the Flying Tigers in 

the Army Air Corps, so—and I have a nephew who is in the Air 

Force. So I know how meaningful it has been. 

And then I have—I served 31 years, General Bostick, in the 

Army National Guard. I have three sons in the National Guard, 

and each one, they actually enjoy going to drill. So this is very positive. 

And then I am so grateful that another son is a doctor in the 

Navy. And so I know how uplifting. And then my late father-in-law 

and late brother-in-law were marines. So we are joint service. 

With that, I would like to proceed to Secretary Stanley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD L. STANLEY, PH.D., UNDER 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, good morning, Chairman Wilson, and 

Ranking Member Davis, and members of the committee. 

First of all, I want to respectfully request my witness statement 

be made a part of the record. And with this hearing I will have officially reached the 1-year mark in my tenure as the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. 

But during this past year, I have focused on honoring, protecting, 

and improving the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. 

This next year will demonstrate that while my focus has not 

changed, I will continue to refine my priorities to better serve our 

servicemembers and their loved ones. 

I look forward to continuing to work with you and this subcommittee as we support our total force of Active, National Guard, 

and Reserve servicemembers, as well as our civilian workforce and 

the dedicated families that support them. 

My focus: Total force readiness, caring for our people, and creating a culture of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. I view 

total force readiness as a mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual 

preparedness and resilience. 
4 

And this involves enabling training, equipping, and supporting 

the total force when they are deployed and ensuring that they and 

their families have the care and support they need and deserve 

when they are at home. 

We have committed ourselves to supporting the Secretary of Defense in preparing the force to manage risk, preserve assets, and 

meet the challenges of a dynamic operational environment. We 

must increase the emphasis on agility, flexible force structures, responsive force-shaping policies, and integrated personnel management processes. 

We will continue to experience global competition for our educated and skilled workforce. Therefore, it is more imperative than 

ever for the Department of Defense to have personnel policies that 

attract, retain, train, educate, and sustain the right people. 

As we examine the total force, an All-Volunteer Force that first 

emerged in 1973, we intend to go beyond the scope of our Active, 

Guard and Reserve force, and in particular we are looking at the 

role of civilians in supporting the force, and most especially how 

families and volunteers fit into the total force equation. 

I also cannot overemphasize enough how essential it is that we 

continue to work in providing quality of life commensurate with the 

quality of service for our military, and most especially their families, and we will work to do everything possible to support our military families. 

It is our families, as you well know, who support our 

servicemembers, who support our Nation. 

I want to thank the subcommittee for all you do for our dedicated 

servicemembers, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Stanley can be found in the 

Appendix on page 30.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

At this time, General Bostick. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. THOMAS P. BOSTICK, USA, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF STAFF, G–1, U.S. ARMY 

General BOSTICK. Chairman Wilson and Ranking Member Davis, 

distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 

thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. 

Chairman Wilson, I just want to thank you for your personal 

service in our military and also thank you for your sons and all 

that they have done to serve in uniform. We appreciate that. 

And, Representative Davis, I want to thank you for your focus 

on our people. We had a former Chief of Staff Abrams that used 

to say that people are not in the Army, they are the Army. So we 

agree with you and we are going to focus on our people, both our 

soldiers, civilians and their families. 

On behalf of the Secretary of the Army, the Honorable John 

McHugh, and our Chief of Staff, General George Casey, I would 

like to thank you for your unwavering support and demonstrated 

commitment to our soldiers, Army civilians, and family members. 

Our All-Volunteer Army is now in its 10th year of continuous combat operations. More than 1.1 million soldiers have deployed into 

combat, and this has impacted not only the soldiers, but their families as well. 
5 

Additionally, Army civilians shoulder the majority of the burden 

in the generating-force mission, and 30,000 civilians have deployed 

into harm’s way. 

Despite this unprecedented operational tempo, the Army is on 

track to achieve sustainable deployment tempo for our forces and 

restore balance to the Army by 2012. Both the Secretary and the 

Chief of Staff of the Army have set two priorities for the coming 

year: First, maintain our combat edge while we reconstitute the 

force; and, second to build resiliency in our people. 

To maintain our combat edge and sustain the All-Volunteer 

Army, we must continue to recruit and retain citizens and soldiers 

with the greatest potential for service. With the support of the Congress and the Nation, we are very proud to report that America’s 

Army exceeded its enlisted goals of recruiting and our retention 

missions for fiscal year 2010, and we are confident that we will 

meet the goals for fiscal year 2011. 

We also achieved all benchmarks with regard for recruiting highly qualified soldiers. Moreover, all components of the Army exceeded their reenlistment goals. Your support of initiatives and incentives remains key to our multi-year success. 

As the pace of the economic recovery increases, we will continue 

to carefully review incentives and seek your support to ensure we 

remain highly competitive in the evolving job market. The Army 

has already reduced bonuses dramatically for new accessions, as 

well as the retention mission. Average recruiting bonuses dropped 

from over $13,000 in fiscal year 2009 to just under $3,000 today 

and are only used to incentivize longer-term enlistments in a small 

percentage of critical skills. 

These incentives are only used to ensure the success of the total 

Army recruiting and retention mission and to shape the force to 

meet specific grade and skill requirements. 

Despite our success in recruiting, the Army and the Nation face 

a significant challenge in this area due to increased obesity and decreased high-school graduation rates in certain parts of the country. 

Currently less than 3 in 10 17- to 24-year-olds are eligible to 

serve, primarily due to physical and educational requirements. 

Only 1 in 5 youth fails to graduate high school; 1 in 5 youth 12- 

to 19-year-old is currently overweight compared to 1 in 20 in the 

1960s and this trend is projected to grow 1 in 4 by 2015. As a Nation together we must continue to address these concerns. 

The Army implemented a civilian workforce transformation effort 

that will invigorate and strengthen the civilian workforce by addressing critical issues of structure, accession, development, retention, and succession planning. This initiative will give civilians the 

tools and resources to plan and achieve their career goals while at 

the same time providing Army leaders a workforce with the right 

skills and experiences to meet current and future missions. 

The Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army 

have directed that we continue to provide services and programs to 

build resiliency in our soldiers, civilians, and families, and to maintain or increase as necessary the quality of care, support and services that they require. We look forward to working with you as we 
6 

move on a broad front to address the challenges of 10 years of war 

for our soldiers, civilians, and their families. 

To conclude, I want to thank you for your continued support, 

which remains vital to sustain our All-Volunteer Army through an 

unprecedented period of continuous combat operations. Now, as we 

prepare to draw down the Army and prepare for the complex strategic environment of the future, we will continue to work toward 

restoring balance and sustaining the high-quality Army. 

Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for 

your generous and unwavering support for our soldiers, civilians 

and families and I look forward to answering your questions. 

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

Appendix on page 84.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And, Admiral Ferguson. 

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

CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL 

OPERATIONS, U.S. NAVY 

Admiral FERGUSON. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis 

and distinguished members of the committee, good morning and 

thank you for the opportunity to review our fiscal year 2012 budget 

request. 

We believe our request appropriately balances risk in supporting 

the readiness requirements of the fleet and the joint force, growth 

in new and emerging mission areas, and the essential programs 

that provide for the care of our sailors and their families. 

The extraordinary people of our Navy are serving around the 

globe with nearly 50 percent of our ships underway or deployed. 

Sailors remain engaged on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

and more than 24,000 Active and Reserve sailors are serving in the 

Central Command region. 

Our forward-deployed Naval forces give us the flexibility to respond around the globe at a moment’s notice. They provide deterrence, support maritime security, as well as conduct combat operations, and are able to rapidly respond to a humanitarian crisis, as 

we have seen in Indonesia, in Haiti, and now Japan. 

Our unique capabilities and our extraordinary people stand 

watch every day from the Middle East to the Mediterranean to the 

Western Pacific. 

Our sustained operational tempo continues to place stresses on 

the force. Providing a continuum of care for our sailors and their 

families remains our constant priority. Our safe harbor, operational 

stress control, and medical home port programs are critical elements of this continuum. 

We continue to adapt these programs to meet the needs of our 

sailors and their families. We monitor the health of the force 

through surveys and retention data, and pleased to report that sailors indicate they are satisfied with their leadership, their benefits, 

and their compensation. Your support has made this possible. 

In developing our fiscal year 2012 budget, we review current operations, our procurement profile, and our readiness requirements. 

This review indicated a need to add approximately 6,800 billets to 

the operating forces. 
7 

To source these billets without additions to our overall end 

strength, we reduced or consolidated approximately 8,400 billets in 

the fleet, squadron staffs and shore activities. 

Additionally, the Navy has placed end strength previously funded by supplemental appropriation into our baseline program for fiscal year 2012 and beyond. We assess our end strength request of 

325,700 will meet our projected requirements. 

We continue to attract, recruit and retain the Nation’s best talent and have met or exceeded nearly all of our recruiting and retention goals for the year. 

In addition, your Navy has received over 20 national awards over 

the past 12 months recognizing accomplishments in the areas of 

workplace flexibility, training, diversity, recruiting, and workforce 

development. 

On behalf of the men and women of the United States Navy and 

their families, I extend my sincere appreciation to the committee 

and the Congress for your support. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Ferguson can be found in 

the Appendix on page 105.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And, General Milstead. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. 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. 

The Marine Corps is our Nation’s expeditionary force in readiness, and we are ready to respond to today’s crisis with today’s 

force, today. 

In addition to the over 20,000 marines engaged in combat in Afghanistan, marines are already providing humanitarian assistance 

to those impacted by the earthquake and the tsunami disaster in 

Japan. We began deploying forces less than 24 hours after the disaster hit and our numbers will soon total 2,200. 

The individual marine is our corps’ most sacred resource, and the 

quality of our force has never been better. Part of my job is to 

make sure it stays that way. 

Regardless of any future force reductions and structure changes, 

the challenge of shaping our force with the right grades, combat experience, and skills to fulfill operational requirements will remain. 

We appreciate your continued support for the tools and funding 

to succeed. 

The top priority of the Commandant and mine is to keep faith 

with our marines, sailors, and their families through program improvements, and with your support we are doing just that. 

The Marines are proud of their eagle, globe, and anchor and 

what it represents to our country, and with your support a vibrant 

Marine Corps will continue to meet our Nation’s call. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 
8 

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

Appendix on page 128.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And, General Jones. 

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

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

FORCE 

General JONES. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Davis, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and represent all the men and women of the 

United States Air Force. 

These tremendously talented men and women, the officers, enlisted, and Air Force civilians of the total force are the backbone 

of our service. 

In an era of evolving requirements and constrained budgets, our 

Air Force faces an ever-increasing set of challenges. As the Deputy 

Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, I will do everything I can to deliver fully qualified and ready airmen to the 

joint warfighter while meeting the essential needs of the airmen 

and their families. 

We are dedicated to properly managing our end strength. Unfortunately, with retention at a 16-year record high, we are compelled 

to use voluntary and involuntary programs. 

We expect to exceed our end strength in fiscal year 2011 by 

roughly 1,500 officers and could experience additional growth 

through fiscal year 2012 if we do not actively manage our force levels. 

Our force management strategy is not a quick fix, but a tailored, 

multi-year effort. Beyond existing force management legislative authorities, we are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to seek additional legislative authorities to provide the tools 

to better manage our end strength. 

America deserves the very best Air Force in the world and that 

is what you have. As a result, it is our job to recruit, develop, and 

retain the highest-quality airmen from the broadest landscape to 

maintain that status. 

Even though quality and retention are high, we are obligating a 

portion of our budget for bonuses to recruit the right skill sets and 

retain experienced airmen in critical warfighting skills. Without 

these funds, we will handicap our commanders and their ability to 

carry out the full range of the missions that America demands of 

our Air Force. 

We are committed to streamlining and strengthening the resilience of our airmen and their families. Our goal is to build resilient 

airmen who have the ability to withstand, recover and grow in the 

face of stressors and changing demands. 

We remain fully committed to caring for our wounded airmen. 

We continue to provide support and assistance through the Air 

Force Survivor Assistance Program, the Recovery Care Program, 

and the Air Force Wounded Warrior Program, and we will do so 

for as long as needed. 

With your support, the warrior and survivor care programs will 

continue. 
9 

In closing, today’s airmen are an unsurpassed dedicated group. 

They enable us to have the competitive advantage against our adversaries and deliver dominance in air, space and, cyberspace. We 

continue to recruit, train, and retain America’s finest and we will 

provide the care and the service that they and their families need. 

We appreciate your unfailing support to the men and women of 

our Air Force, and on behalf of the Chief of Staff of the United 

States Air Force, I look forward to answering your questions. 

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

Appendix on page 153.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And we will now begin the 5-minute rounds, and beginning with 

me, and strictly adhere as best we can to this. And Mr. Greene will 

be the scorekeeper. 

So at this time I would like to point out that I am a strong supporter of the all-volunteer military. I have seen it work. I know and 

you—we do have America’s finest. The new generation out there is 

so committed. They do remember the attack on our country on September 11, 2001, and so they are motivated to serve. 

I also am very, very concerned in the last 60 days events have 

occurred that I just didn’t anticipate. First, we know of the instability of North Africa, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, our great 

ally Bahrain that is so crucial. There is instability that certainly 

we need to be reconsidering what force structure is. 

Then we had the multiple catastrophes, disasters in Japan. Here 

one of the most advanced countries on Earth, and our sympathy to 

the people of Japan. But we saw what happened to us with Hurricane Katrina, and again massive areas of their country, just as 

Katrina was massive areas of our country. The military is just crucial, as we see, trying to protect the people of Japan, and we are 

backing them up. I want to thank all of you. 

Additionally, we are fighting cowardly combatants in Iraq and 

Afghanistan simultaneously. With that in mind—and, Secretary, 

we will go in the order whoever can answer—I am very concerned 

about a force reduction and the instability that is just worldwide. 

Secretary STANLEY. Congressman Wilson, let me just take the 

first stab at that and then turn it over to the services. 

We are also—it is not a matter of just being concerned, it is actually a top priority. I was fortunate to have been on active duty in 

a manpower billet at Headquarters Marine Corps when we went 

through this process in the 1990s. 

And so we kind of—I remember vividly what happened then, 

what worked, what didn’t work. And so as we look at right now, 

looking at our management tools, helping the services out, and 

even going to Congress to ask for help maybe with either voluntary 

or, you know, boards and so forth—with separation, to get the right 

force structure in place. 

And this is what General Jones alluded to, but there are other 

things that go along in the equation. 

I am going to turn it over to services and have them also address 

this. 

General BOSTICK. Chairman, as you know, the Congress approved a 22,000 temporary end strength increase for the Army, and 
10 

in that we will come down in September of 2013. And we think we 

have the tools in place in order to do that properly. 

And we really needed that because of the end of stop-loss and because of the nondeployable situation that ran in our wounded warriors. So we deeply appreciate that. And based on the demand that 

we see ahead of us, we feel that we have the tools in place to bring 

that force down. 

The second reduction, in 2015, is going to be much more difficult 

for us, and as the Secretary of Defense said, it is conditions-based 

for us, and we are going to hold 547 through fiscal year 2014, and 

over the next 15 months, in 2015 and 2016, we will draw down 

that 27,000. 

And the key for us is, what is the environment at that time? And 

we are doing our plans with the G–3 and the other leaders in our 

department to make sure that we do it appropriately and our number one mission, which is to fight and win the wars for the country, 

that we can do that both at home and abroad. 

Admiral FERGUSON. Well, thank you. 

In the Navy we continuously plan and assess our manpower requirements versus force structure and the demands placed on the 

force. And we are in a period where we have, you know, we, the 

Navy drew down from the period of 2003 to 2010 by about 45,000 

that we came down. And so the last few years, we are in a very 

stable profile tied to our force structure, and the 2012 proposal has 

us continuing on a fairly stable. 

As we go forward and should there be changes in force structure 

or reduction in commitments, then we will continue adjust both the 

size of the force, and we feel we have the adequate tools at this 

point to do so. 

General MILSTEAD. Yes, sir. You know, the Marine Corps did 

grow. We grew from 175,000 to 202,000, we grew 27,000 for this 

fight, this dual-front fight. We have just finished our Force Structure Review Group. It is capabilities-based. We feel that we can 

bring the corps down to 186,800; that is about 15,000. 

Again, it is capabilities based, but it is important to stress to you 

that we have no intention of reducing our size until either 2014 or 

we are done with Afghanistan. So until we are done with Afghanistan, we have no intention on reducing our corps. 

And again, it is capabilities-based, and so we feel that that will 

allow us to do what the Nation expects us to do. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you all very much. 

And we will proceed to Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much again for being here and for 

responding, I think, to that. 

I want to thank you for the response in Japan. I think that we 

always have to have that capability. I think it is one of the most 

important things we do, is responding to our friends and allies 

around the world, especially in such a calamitous time as they are 

experiencing, and it is good that we are there and that we are able 

to do it. 

I wanted to just turn to a few issues that I hear about, and when 

I go on base in San Diego probably more than anything else I have 

sailors who come up to me and talk about their own personal situations, especially with their children. And I wanted to ask you about 
11 

the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, which required the 

establishment of the Office of Community Support for military families with special needs. 

Dr. Stanley, that was under you, I believe, and I am wondering 

who you have designated as the director of the office and when you 

think we will be able to learn what programs and what policies are 

being implemented to assist families with special needs? 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Davis. 

First of all, we have established the office within our Military, 

Community, and Family Policy Office. That office has been stood 

up. We have actually started working with the services to determine what the services’ requirements may be and are. We have 

also launched about three different studies to actually help us as 

we go through the process of working with the services, you know, 

on exceptional family members. 

The money that was associated with that did not come with that, 

so we work with the services in providing them money to assist 

them in the Exceptional Family Member Program. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Do you happen to know about what they are able to 

utilize in terms of those dollars? I think $50 million was in the authorization, $40 million was allocated to the services to carry out 

the task. 

Secretary STANLEY. I would have to get back to you, Congresswoman. I can take that for the record on the actual amount. 

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

page 251.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. All right. Thank you. I know that the different times 

that we have met, I have always wanted to check in on that and 

find out what is happening. It is not something that is known, of 

course, to the families at this time, but we are hoping that they 

will become more aware of it and we will have many vehicles for 

getting that information out. 

Probably not wanting to set too high an expectation, but on the 

other hand it should be available to them and we need folks who 

are helping. 

Secretary Stanley, I wanted to ask you also about programs 

which are helping in the transition. San Diego’s veterans community has been very interested in a program at Camp Pendleton, and 

I wanted to just commend Pendleton for that. 

The program, Veterans in Piping, where a partnership has been 

established between the Marine Corps and the United Association 

that takes marines who are about to leave the service and places 

them into a 16-week apprenticeship program. 

This program helps marines get good-paying jobs, of course, 

when they leave the service, but the training is carried out without 

any real cost—direct cost—to the government or to the Marine 

Corps. About 97 marines have graduated from the program and it 

sounds like almost everyone who has participated has gotten a job 

on leaving. 

So I wanted to know whether you support the program and 

would you and the Administration support a revision to Title 10 

that explicitly allows, but by no means would require the services 

to have this kind of program available on base? 
12 

Secretary STANLEY. Okay. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate the question and I actually know the people personally who 

are actually running the program, a couple of retired Marine generals, and have met with them, and I am very supportive of the 

program. 

Have not followed up on it recently. Put them in contact with not 

only my Wounded Warrior—our Wounded Warrior office but also 

the Department of Labor. I would have to circle back with them to 

see where it is right now. 

I will say that I would have to take it for the record on whether 

or not that should be a Title 10, you know, entitlement, but I certainly am supportive of the program and the success they have already enjoyed. I am very supportive. 

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

page 251.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. All right, thank you. 

I will let that go there, but I—the enthusiasm for this program 

is such that we really do need to follow up and make certain that 

we are not having some issues where we are not able to allow people to do that when it really would be of such great benefit to them 

as they are leaving. So I thank you for that. 

And I will go ahead and turn back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

And Congressman Allen West, of Florida. 

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

And to the panel, I can’t tell you the privilege it is to having been 

in uniform and now have the opportunity to be on this side, but 

to continue to serve the men and women that make this country 

great and protect our freedoms. 

And, General Bostick, just to let you know, my young nephew is 

the artillery assignments officer down at Fort Knox, Kentucky, so 

kind of had to talk to him about his perspectives on personnel. 

But, you know, when I look at the history of U.S. military operations, especially in the 20th century, we seem to have peaks and 

valleys. And, you know, one of the big concerns that I look at is 

how we ramp up for certain things and then the next thing you 

know we ramp back down. And we always seem to get ourselves 

caught, you know, excuse me, with our pants down. 

And we have seen that. I saw that when I was a brigade S–3 and 

a battalion XO [executive officer] post-the Soviet Union collapse, 

post-Desert Shield/Desert Storm, all of a sudden we start to riff 

and ramp down. 

So as I look at now—and this kind of dovetails off what the 

chairman brought up—how we have a more deployed military, to 

include our Reserve Component forces, we want to try to have that 

1:3 dwell time out there. 

The fact that we have so severely cut the Navy, from 546 ships 

down to 283 ships, but now we see the maritime threats that we 

have out there, which definitely dovetails over to the Marines. And 

of course we have an Army that is stretched thin, we have an Air 

Force that is—you know, needs to get back to being a force projection platform. 
13 

My concern is this, and this is my question. General Cavazos, 

who was a great mentor for me, always said that quantity has a 

quality all its own. 

So in looking at that, do you believe that your total force is at 

a steady state to support the full spectrum of the operations and 

challenges that we see on this modern, complex, and very fluid 21st 

century battlefield, because the world as we knew it on the first of 

January 2011 is already a totally different world, and it seems that 

it changes just about week to week. 

So I just want to make sure that we don’t find ourselves going 

into one of these valleys, because the people that ultimately will 

have to suffer because of that are the men and women we put in 

uniform, so. 

Secretary STANLEY. I will give my service counterparts here an 

opportunity to think about that a little bit as I take a stab into 

that. 

Total force, as I alluded to first of all, deals with not only those 

on our Active, but also our Guard and our Reserve. I think they 

are an important part of the equation. But also we have civilians 

who are also a part of this. 

And so as we look at what we are doing, that is how we are 

shaping and approaching this. The assessment—your question is 

actually a part of the assessment process that we are going 

through right now. 

I am going to defer my time to the services. I know it is precious. 

General BOSTICK. Congressman, I would agree with you that we 

have taken some risk in our ability to operate on the higher end 

of the spectrum due to the requirements to fight as we are in the 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

We know that we need to train at the higher end, and for the 

first time, recently we had a brigade combat team at the National 

Training Center that was able to train at the high intensity of combat end of the spectrum. 

So we are rusty in that. We know that. And as we come out of 

Iraq and Afghanistan we are certainly training in that area. 

We are also concerned that we get the dwell time that our soldiers and families need. As you pointed out, for the first time we 

believe that we will have 2 years of dwell for our soldiers and families. When the soldiers deploy in October of this year, when they 

come back for the first time they can expect that they will have 2 

years of dwell. And that hasn’t happened from any of them for 

quite some time. 

The other thing we found that we have to do, to address your 

point on contracting and expanding military, is that we have to 

look at new ways to expand our force. We have to look at lateral 

exits and lateral entry. We have to look at sabbatical assignments 

where you can go get a Ph.D. and be away from the Army for 3 

years and then come back in. We have to look at continuum of 

service, where you can leave the Active Army and go into the 

Guard and Reserve or you can come from the Guard and Reserve, 

come in Active. 

So all of those types of ideas is what we are looking at now because we have the same concern, that we might have to ramp up 
14 

very quickly and how do we do that, particularly in our Officer 

Corps, which once they leave generally do not come back. 

Admiral FERGUSON. Congressman, for the Navy the CNO [Chief 

of Naval Operations] has testified that a floor of approximately 313 

ships is what we will need to sustain a global Navy at demands 

that we see today and the threats into the future. And we are on 

a building profile to reach that point in our budget submissions. 

We believe a balanced force with an integrated Reserve that is 

operational rise, that has the continuum of service which we are 

working to is vital. But we are making new investments. We are 

increasing our investment in the cyber area. We are investing in 

ballistic missile defense, and we are reinvesting in our warfare capabilities in anti-submarine warfare, electronic warfare, in the high 

end in our budget submission. 

We are able at the force structure that we have to call on our 

Reserves to surge, which they have been invaluable in that and 

have been able to sustain in most of our areas, about a 2.8 to 3:1 

dwell time. So we feel we are in balance at this point. 

General MILSTEAD. Sir, you expect your Marine Corps to be most 

ready when the Nation is least ready. That means we have to be 

ready today. That does not facilitate tiered readiness, as you spoke 

of. We can’t have peaks and valleys. We have to be ready and we 

have to be ready today. 

I will tell you this is the healthiest Marine Corps that I have 

seen, and I am just beginning my 36th year of service. It is the 

healthiest corps I have seen in 36 years. 

And it is all about the people, as General Bostick mentioned. 

What sets us aside as a corps is people. And, you know, what it 

takes to be a marine today is what it will take to be a marine tomorrow. 

So we will continue to recruit that high-quality young men and 

women that feels called to serve their Nation, something greater 

than them. And I have no qualms about what the future holds for 

our corps. 

Mr. WILSON. At this time we need to proceed, but, General 

Milstead, I want you to know that the next person is very interested in the marines being stationed in her very beautiful and strategically located island of Guam. 

Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo. 

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

always been so supportive of our military buildup on Guam. 

And I just have two quick questions. As Guam is the closest U.S. 

neighbor to Japan, I want to thank all the services for the support 

you have given during this disaster. 

General Bostick, I want to ask you about a problem we have 

been experiencing on Guam now for some time. This provision—or 

it is relevant to the section 621 of last year’s defense authorization 

bill, and this provision provided a 1-year extension of authority to 

provide travel allowances for inactive duty training outside normal 

distances. 

Now, members of the Guam National Guard live just north of 

Guam in the Northern Marianas Islands. These men and women 

have limited transportation options for training on Guam and often 

spend a lot of money out of pocket to get to and from drills. 
15 

I have asked for a pilot program to be launched in Guam that 

would allow these servicemembers to utilize this authority to defray the cost of travel. 

This is an important readiness issue, as well as key recruiting 

and retention matter for our Guam National Guard. All we hear 

from past correspondence is that we are working on it. 

So my question for you is, what must be done to get this program 

started? What can the committee do to assist in regards to this 

matter? And can I get your commitment to work with me on this 

initiative? 

General BOSTICK. First, Congresswoman, you do have my commitment. This was brought to my attention. And the primary thing 

that we have to work is the joint travel regulation, which doesn’t 

authorize this flight travel. 

But we have the issue, we are talking with your team and the 

team in the Department, and I believe we can find a way to resolve 

this. 

But I concur with the issue. We are working it, and I will personally get back to you on it. 

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

page 251.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Is this because we are located outside of the 

mainland United States? 

General BOSTICK. No, it is just—we work exceptions to all of our 

regulations and policies, as you know, all the time. So it is just 

something that we have to come to closure on. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, thank you very much for your commitment, 

and we will remember that. 

My second question is to General Milstead. In the Secretary of 

Defense’s recent posture hearing before this committee, he mentioned a reduction in Army and Marine Corps end strength in the 

out-years of the FYDP [future years defense program]. 

What impact will these reductions have on the proposed Marine 

units that will be realigned to Guam over the coming years? And 

could this impact the bed-down of marines on Guam in terms of 

what units and skill sets will be placed on Guam? 

What impact might these reductions have on our ability to participate in operations such as humanitarian assistance, disaster relief or mil-to-mil engagement in the Pacific? 

General MILSTEAD. Yes, ma’am. We indeed were directed to reduce our corps 20,000 over the years 2014 and 2015. And as I mentioned earlier, we have completed our Force Structure Review 

Group where we briefed the Secretary and he agreed that we would 

go down about 15,000, and it would be 186,800, not to commence 

until we are complete with combat operations in Afghanistan. 

As far as how that will affect specifically our bed-down per units 

on Guam, I would like to take that for record if I may and that 

is a PP&O [plans, policies, and operations] piece, and I will get you 

a good solid answer that I am not prepared to provide at this time. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. We will wait for that information. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for always being so supportive of 

our buildup on Guam. 
16 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I have been there, so I know how good it is 

and what a strategic location it is, and wonderful people. So thank 

you for your service. 

We will proceed to a second round in coordination with the Ranking Member, and what we will do is each person will ask another 

question. 

As we proceed, I am very grateful that Congressman West 

brought up maritime challenges. And, Admiral, many of us thought 

that piracy was something that occurred 250 years ago with the 

Barbary pirates. We are aware how shocking that really you have 

to face piracy today, which is affecting world commerce, and safety, 

and security. And that is in addition to a threat from Iran. 

So I want to thank Congressman West for bringing up the increasing maritime threat. 

I know firsthand that Active Duty personnel, Guard personnel, 

and Reserves are grateful to serve. They are grateful to be deployed. I know firsthand, my former National Guard unit, the 

218th Brigade, served for a year in Afghanistan, 1,600 troops led 

by our current—our new adjutant general, Bob Livingston. It was 

the largest deployment since World War II. But the people were 

very proud of their service. 

But something that has to be kept in mind is dwell time. And 

as we look at reduction or downsizing, beginning with Secretary 

Stanley, I would like to know what the goal of dwell time is? This 

is of great concern to members of the military and their families. 

Secretary STANLEY. Thank you, Chairman Wilson. 

Secretary Gates set dwell time goals of 1:5 for Active and 1:2 

for—excuse me, 1:5 for our Reserve, 1:2 for actually our Active 

Component. I actually think that is 1:3, I think I just wrote it down 

just 1:3. 

And the services now are moving in the direction of getting 

there, and I am going to allow the services to address that if that 

is okay. 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. 

General BOSTICK. We would certainly like to get to 1:2 for the 

Active, 1:4 for the Reserve component. There has been discussion 

about going to 3 years, and it is really a 1:3. So it is 1 year or— 

we think if you go to 1:3 it could be 9 months deployed, for example, and 27 months back home. So that is a 1:3 ratio, not necessarily 3 years back. 

Right now we are at 1:2 for the Active Force, and we believe that 

it takes 2 to 3 years to get your family and yourself settled after 

a tour of 1 year in length. So it is important for us to get as a minimum to 2 years back home. And we think for the units that deploy 

in October of this year, we will see that when they return. 

And so it is very much of interest for us. We are working towards 

that. 

What really matters for us, though, is the end strength is important, but it is, what are the demands? What are the demands on 

the force? If those demands come down then within the end 

strength that we are directed to go to, we could still meet a 1:2— 

dwell and a 1:4 for the Reserves. 

Admiral FERGUSON. Chairman Wilson, we are meeting, as I stated earlier, on the broad force, we are seeing selected units go under 
17 

increasing stress. And I want to mention our special operations 

forces, explosive ordnance detail, and our special operators in particular because their training ranges and what they need to do to 

work up is not co-located at their home site, that they spend a 

greater amount of time away from home in preparation to deploy 

and then in actual deployment. 

So we have concerns about those particular forces. They are very 

small. But in the broader force we manage it very carefully. We set 

fairly strict policies and track their PERSTEMPO [personnel 

tempo] and dwell. And to break certain boundaries, the Chief of 

Naval Operations has to approve those. 

And so we feel comfortable, but do see some concern with those 

forces that are carrying the fight in theater for us. 

Mr. WILSON. And they are so effective. 

Excuse me, General Milstead I believe is next. 

General MILSTEAD. Yes, sir. 

For the Marine Corps our goal for our Active Forces is a 1:2 

dwell, and then post-Afghanistan our goal will be a 1:3. For the Reserves currently in combat it is a 1:4, and post-OCO [overseas contingency operations] our goal will be a 1:5. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

And, General Jones. 

General JONES. Mr. Chairman post-conflict our goal would be 1:4 

dwell time for our airmen, who are very much in the fight. Thirtyseven thousand airmen are deployed today; 29,000 of those are in 

the CENTCOM [United States Central Command] AOR [area of responsibility]. 

But also we have to remember that in the Air Force we have a 

large number of our forces who are supporting COCOM [combatant 

commands] requirements every day. In fact, 43 percent, about 

217,000 people at places like Creech Air Force Base in the Nevada 

desert, which as you walk through the front door you see the sign 

that says, ‘‘You are now entering the CENTCOM area of responsibility,’’ because they are able to do their mission in a distributed 

fashion, actually flying the remotely piloted aircraft over the conflict. So we are very much involved. 

We need to provide—as we have bands and buckets with our different dwell times, from 1:1 to 1:2 to 1:3, we try to focus very hard 

on getting those airmen that are in the hot—the short dwell times, 

the 1:1 and the 1:2, to incentivize them, to give them the special 

bonuses to reenlist, to keep the numbers up, because only by keeping the numbers up in those specialties can you increase their 

dwell time and shorten the amount of them that they have back 

home—or excuse me, increase the amount of time they have back 

home with their families. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, and I appreciate you mentioning unmanned aerial vehicles. I always hope with two sons in Iraq that 

there was one over their head. So let them know at Creech, we appreciate them. 

Congresswoman Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I know everybody is really struggling with some of the personnel 

accounts and trying to find efficiencies out of those. We also know 
18 

that we haven’t given our managers a lot of room to maneuver with 

them as well, so much of it is driven by formula. 

But I wanted to just ask about one in particular because I hear 

about this more as a work-life family balance issue often, and that 

is the permanent changes of station moves. 

It has been considered as one of the efficiencies that we need to 

look at, particularly in terms of travel expenses. But I also wondered about some of the other issues. Because particularly for 

women who are in the services and are deciding whether or not 

they are going to stay in the service, the fact that they and often 

their spouse have to move a great deal makes a difference. 

We know there are reasons for that in the different services, but 

I am wondering to what extent you think that that is actually a 

good place to be looking to see whether there is a way to better create that work-life balance while at the same time dealing with that 

as a budgetary issue. Or is that, you know, just not a possibility 

in the way that we might think, certainly in terms of those efficiencies? 

Secretary STANLEY. I am just going to just make one comment, 

Congresswoman Davis. We actually have started those discussions, 

and I don’t know if we have even begun to have those discussions 

with the services yet, as we look at how we approach that very important subject, as we look at the balancing and looking at how our 

forces. Because as I said in our opening statement, families, they 

are part of this equation, moves and everything. 

So I don’t know where the services are yet on it because we 

haven’t had mature discussions on it yet. I will defer to them. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Anybody want to comment? 

General JONES. Ma’am, in the Air Force we have increased the 

length of PCS [permanent change of station] moves or the amount 

of time you get to stay at your base over the years and that is important because, as you point out, with the work-life balance, 

around 19 percent of our force are women in the Air Force, officers 

and enlisted, and about 48,000 of those are joint spouse couples 

married to another servicemember. 

And we try very hard to manage the assignments of those officers and those enlisted members where they can continue to 

progress at their base and get them in the same general location. 

In some career fields that is easy, in some career fields that is 

obviously more difficult. And women in the same career field, it increases the difficulty. 

But we feel like we work that very, very hard, and that is something we would like to consider to work and try to add that stability. And I can tell you as a dependent when I was young, having 

gone through it with my own family, and now watching my son go 

through it in the Air Force, we need to focus on those family things 

because that is what keeps us in the Air Force and their ability to 

serve their family and also serve their Nation. 

Admiral FERGUSON. I agree with General Jones. And we also approach it similarly, as a family readiness issue, a work balance and 

a quality-of-life issue. 

I would like to present another aspect of it for your consideration, and that relates to continued operation under a continuing 
19 

resolution. Because of the manpower counts that we operate under, 

about 96 percent are nondiscretionary pay bonuses allowances. 

And as we approach the end of the year, if we were to continue 

for the entire fiscal year under a continuing resolution, in the Navy 

we would be forced to start to halt moves, to use those funds to pay 

for pay, base pay and bonuses and other things that are required. 

And so the uncertainty of our funding stream presents a challenge to our families who start to plan on moves and relocations 

and children starting school in the fall. And so I would just offer 

that that is a great concern to us, that if we start to progress later 

into the spring under a continuing resolution, we will have to take 

actions to delay moves and to slide them into next fiscal year in 

order to ensure we have sufficient funds to cover our accounts. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I hear that is a hot topic on the Internet, on 

Facebook right now among our servicemembers. 

Anybody else? 

General BOSTICK. Congresswoman Davis, as you said, much of 

our budget is must-fund for the Army, 96 percent of our budget is 

must-fund, so PCS and tuition assistance and education and other 

things that are very important to our soldiers and families are in 

that 4 percent. 

I don’t think there is a lot of wiggle room in PCS moves. Part 

of our Army force generation model that is a rotational model in 

about 50 percent of the force coming back from a brigade combat 

team is going to have to move to schools and move to training, 

move to other assignments as they move higher in grade. 

What we have been sensitive to is spouses and children that 

need to complete school, or spouses that are in a position or a job 

where they want to retain that position, or families that while their 

husband or wife is deployed, their soldier is deployed, allowing 

them to remain in an area where their housing is stable, their 

school is stable, and their job is stable. 

General MILSTEAD. Yes, ma’am, I will just close it out. And I will 

agree with everything that has been said, you know. About 47 to 

48 percent of our corps is married. There is little flexibility in the 

MILPERS [military personnel] accounts, absolutely. It is a rob 

Peter to pay Paul. And so then you have to maintain that balance 

and make sure that you don’t take away from the other things. 

As Admiral Ferguson pointed out, the continuing resolution is a 

significant issue here. With the Marine Corps, if we were to remain 

on the CR [continuing resolution], we are looking at somewhere 

close to $500 million. And we are going to have to rob Peter. And 

Peter is going to be procurement accounts. It is going to be other 

things. 

So, you know, I would just reinforce what my Navy brother said. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you all. And we will be concluding with Congressman Allen West of Florida. 

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

Recently I had the opportunity to go down to SOUTHCOM 

[United States Southern Command] headquarters down in Miami. 

And when you sit there, you get the Major General (Select), Chief 

of Staff USMC [United States Marine Corps] really did a great job 

hosting me. 
20 

When you sit down at SOUTHCOM you get the sensing that this 

is kind of the economy of force AOR. But when you get the ops and 

intel brief, you really get concerned about some of the actors that 

are starting to come into that AOR because, you know, the bad guy 

always looks for the soft underbelly. 

My first question is, you know, how are we looking at our allocation of forces that we have in the SOUTHCOM AOR? And how 

quickly we can increase the allocation of forces to the SOUTHCOM 

AOR? 

And then the second question is, after the visit I had to Guantanamo Bay—and I have to tell you these soldiers, sailors, airmen, 

and marines down there are doing a fantastic job and I think that 

we need to make sure we get that message out. 

But as we talk about drawing down forces in Afghanistan, as you 

know, we have the prison facility there in Bagram where we are 

expanding that to Parwan, if we are going to draw down forces in 

Afghanistan, what happens with the—some very bad actors, highvalue detainees that we have there. 

Are we looking down the road as we lessen our capability to deal 

with the detention facility in theater in Afghanistan, how do we increase a level of personnel, not ad hoc personnel, but how do we 

increase a permanent cadre of personnel at Guantanamo Bay, and 

also the facilities for the families down there as well? So those are 

my two final questions. 

I yield back. 

General BOSTICK. I would just say we don’t see it as an economy 

of force. I think with each of the combatant commanders we provide them the joint personnel and all of their requirements. At 

least from the stable authorizations in the joint arena, we have 

been providing the Army portion of that. 

In terms of how quickly we could ramp up, that is a good part 

of the reason our chief and secretary drove us to the Army force 

generation model. Right now we meet all demands that we are 

asked to meet, and when we run out of forces, we cannot meet others. 

We are trying to get to a supply-based force of 1 corps, 5 divisions, 20 brigade combat teams and about 90,000 enablers to provide places like Afghanistan and Iraq or other locations. But we are 

not at the point where can surge anywhere. And we are trying to 

build that surge capability. And once the demand comes down in 

Iraq and Afghanistan and if a surge requirement were necessary, 

that is part of the Army force generation model design. 

Admiral FERGUSON. Congressman, I would offer that we recognized that about 2 years ago when we stood up the 4th Fleet staff 

down in Florida under Admiral Guillory. And he reports directly to 

SOUTHCOM because there is a necessity for an ongoing planning 

effort and operational awareness of what is happening in theater, 

and he provides that as well as the close contact with the countries 

of the region. 

There is a great flexibility in naval forces. You know, the first 

forces on the scene in Haiti were naval forces and the ability to 

surge from our various ports on the East Coast or even forces returning from theater I think can meet the allocation. 
21 

And like the other services, we are responsive to the combatant 

commander in how that allocation process works. But the ongoing 

relationship piece I think is the important part that we recognize. 

General MILSTEAD. I would just add again to what Admiral Ferguson said. 

There is great flexibility in the Navy-Marine Corps team. Theater security cooperation efforts in that area can have a great return on investment. 

When something happens, probably the COCOM’s first question 

is, you know, where is the MEU [Marine expeditionary unit] and 

where is the carrier battle group? I think that these give you that 

sort of flexibility. You know, again, our FSRG [force structure review group], our 186,800, that is the number, and we feel it will 

allow us to still do those things and source those MEUs and remain a flexible force and be continually ready to go. 

And I guess the last thing I would say is we are also looking at 

operationalizing our Reserve. I think there is more opportunity to 

use them in an operational role. 

Thank you. 

General JONES. Sir, we are very pleased to have Air Force General Doug Fraser down commanding SOUTHCOM and he is doing 

a great job. And we just spoke with him the other day, and we are 

trying to give General Fraser everything he needs for the AOR that 

he supports. 

But one of the great jewels the Air Force is fortunate to support 

is the Inter-American Air Forces Academy in San Antonio that allows us to bring members of South American and Central American air forces and other—and police forces up and train them 

alongside their U.S. counterparts, and allows for those long-term 

relationships for when we do need contacts in those areas. 

And so we can provide support through many avenues taking 

that approach. 

Mr. WEST. Any thoughts on Gitmo and how we can—that personnel challenge if we draw down our force in Afghanistan, which 

means that will effect the detention facility there? 

Secretary STANLEY. I don’t have any thoughts on it because that 

is not in my domain of what I have worked operationally, if you 

know what I mean. 

Mr. WEST. Yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. As we conclude, I want to 

thank all of you. And I want to thank Congressman West. 

As we were thinking of uncertainty, we have uncertainty to our 

southern border, whether it be the humanitarian efforts that all of 

you were so helpful with, with the people of Haiti, but then the instability of our great neighbor, a country that is very important to 

all of us, Mexico. 

So thank you for what you do, and I am delighted to hear about 

the 4th Fleet. 

So at this time, unless there is anything further, we shall adjourn. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 17, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 17, 2011 

(27) 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 17, 2011 

(173) 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 17, 2011 

(251) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

Secretary STANLEY. Although the NDAA 2010 authorized $50M for the programs, 

appropriations did not follow. However, the Department took the following actions 

to comply with the NDAA: 

• Provided the Services bridge funding in FY 2010 and FY 2011 to establish case 

managers (120) within the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP). These 

case managers were new to the Air Force and Navy, while the positions were 

used to supplement the well-established Army and Marine Corps programs. 

• Drafted a new issuance clarifying policy regarding the Exceptional Family 

Member Program (EFMP). The new issuance will reflect the requirements of 

U.S.C. 1781c, as added by the NDAA 2010, for a uniform DOD policy regarding 

military families with special needs. A draft for Service review will be available 

in the Spring 2011. 

• Initiated three research studies: 

Æ Availability and accessibility of services for children with autism (Phase 1 

completed; report and directory to be available on Military HOMEFRONT 

website Spring 2011). 

Æ Availability and accessibility of Medicaid to military families with special 

needs (anticipated completion date: September 2011) 

Æ Benchmark study to assist in establishing family support programs for military families with special needs (anticipated completion date: November 

2011). 

• Developed professional materials to communicate the EFMP to military families. Materials to be disseminated to all military installation family centers in 

April 2011. 

• Developed electronic learning modules, which will be available to families with 

special needs and to providers on DOD and Military Service websites. The 

eLearning modules will educate families on the benefits and services available 

to them and the member with special needs. Anticipate first module to be available summer 2011. 

• Initiated a Functional Analysis of the EFMP including a review of the Military 

Services’ current policies, procedures, databases and case management systems 

as a first step in developing a joint database/case management system. The 

Functional Analysis will be conducted during FY 2011 to examine existing systems and project future needs for sharing information. This is a long term 

project to assist in the development of a joint database. The final outcome will 

network EFMP family support, personnel activities and military health systems 

to provide information as needed for assignments and for family support. 

We are working with the Services to validate the level of EFMP staffing necessary 

to meet the intention of the law for individualized services, and to ensure that the 

Services have adequate funding for these positions beginning in FY 2012. [See page 

11.] 

Secretary STANLEY. The Department has no objection to an amendment to Title 

10 that would authorize, but not require vocational training on military installations. [See page 12.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

General BOSTICK. We believe we can support the NGB’s request for IDT travel 

reimbursement without the need to establish a Pilot Program. To do so requires validation of shortage Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) in Guam and a change 

to the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) to modify the 150 mile one-way commuting distance for U.S territories. On May 2, 2011, the Army requested a change 

to the JFTR. We expect a final determination by May 27, 2011. [See page 15.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 17, 2011 

(255) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Secretary, today there is an increased emphasis on reducing federal spending, especially on programs that have not been operating effectively. Can 

you help the committee understand, how effective has the JAMRS program been 

both in terms of helping the Department attain its objectives for maintaining the 

all-volunteer force and in terms of the returns for the dollars being invested? 

Secretary STANLEY. Yes, the work done by the Joint Advertising Market Research 

and Studies (JAMRS) is necessary for sustaining the All-Volunteer Force (AVF). 

JAMRS has been proven operationally effective, and a critical resource DOD’s recruiting efforts. Specifically, JAMRS bolsters the effectiveness of every Service component’s (Active, Guard, Reserve) recruiting efforts by helping them better understand and adapt to the complexities of the recruiting environment. JAMRS serves 

three primary functions within the Department and tracks the operational effectiveness of these functional areas, demonstrating strong performance in each: 

1) Market Research: To successfully recruit the AVF, the Services must have actionable information about recruiting markets. JAMRS performs this function for all 

the Services through efforts like the DOD Youth Poll, an effort conducted since the 

advent of the AVF to provide the necessary intelligence to maintain it. This was 

clearly demonstrated in early 2006, when JAMRS provided key indications that enabled USD (P&R) to take preemptive action to sustain recruiting and retention efforts. The operational effectiveness of JAMRS’ market research efforts are evaluated 

annually through a survey of all of JAMRS’ constituent groups. The results from 

this survey continually affirm the necessity of the research conducted by JAMRS 

and the high level of service that JAMRS provides. Moreover, the operational effectiveness of JAMRS is demonstrated through the Services’ actions as they continually 

turn to JAMRS’ staff for consultation on the recruiting market and to request special studies on hard-to-recruit populations (e.g., physicians, prior service members, 

etc.). 

2) Comprehensive Prospect Database: The centralized efforts by JAMRS to acquire, maintain and update a database of potential prospects (30.5 million names 

and more than 90% coverage of the recruit age population) create efficiencies for all 

recruiters. This database is the backbone of the Services’ direct marketing and recruiting efforts. As a result, every military recruiter becomes more efficient because 

they have a database of prospects in their area, and direct mailing efforts DOD-wide 

can be targeted to those households with recruit age youth. 

3) Outreach: Through outreach, JAMRS has created a more receptive environment 

for recruiting in definable and measureable ways. JAMRS developed an award winning campaign that actively advertised to adult influencers (e.g., parents, grandparents, educators, etc.) of recruit age youth. This advertising campaign played a 

key role in sustaining public support for military service during the war, and was 

specifically praised by former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, 

Ike Skelton. JAMRS routinely conducts studies measuring the return on investment 

on its outreach efforts. These studies demonstrate that exposure to JAMRS’ outreach efforts result in influencers being more knowledgeable about military service 

and willing to engage in more pro-recruiting behaviors (e.g., have conversation with 

youth about the Military, support decision to join, etc.). 

In summary, the efforts of JAMRS save DOD considerable money (an estimated 

$96 million) and effort. The high return on investment is achieved through close coordination between JAMRS and the Services as well as efficient streamlining of 

roles and responsibilities. These consolidations identify common needs across the 

Services and then remain the responsibility of JAMRS alone. Moving forward, the 

return on investment must also incorporate gains achieved as a result of more precise and targeted recruiting efforts. These efforts may be furthered through market 

research and the prospect database and the creation of a more receptive recruiting 

environment through continuous influencer outreach. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Secretary, in your written statement you indicate that JAMRS 

is one of the most cost-effective recruiting programs in the Department. Can you 

please elaborate and explain to the committee what evidence you have to support 

this position? 
256 

Secretary STANLEY. Yes. The goal of JAMRS’ (Joint Advertising Market Research 

and Studies’) is to ensure that the shared needs of military recruiting are performed 

one time for the entire Department rather than once per Service so that the Services can focus on their unique recruiting goals. Although each Service approaches 

recruiting differently as they each have unique recruiting goals and cultures, the 

Services share many of the same basic information and resource needs. JAMRS 

works side by side with the Services (via daily collaboration as well as formal meetings) to identify the activities to perform so that shared needs are met efficiently. 

This approach ensures that JAMRS provides only those resources that are vital to 

support the Services’ needs. 

Without JAMRS, each Service would be forced to take on functions that the program has successfully provided for more than a decade, ultimately resulting in the 

total cost of military recruiting increasing needlessly (approximately $96 million). 

These functions include: 

1) Market Research: JAMRS ensures that the shared information needs required 

for military recruiting are met and that duplication of efforts is minimized. This includes conducting tracking studies to monitor propensity to serve and the attitudes 

and behaviors of specific populations essential for recruiting success (i.e., prospect, 

educator, parents, prior service, recruiters). JAMRS also tracks the effectiveness of 

all DOD recruitment advertising campaigns so the Services can optimize their marketing resources, and helps to ensure nearly a billion dollars of advertising is spent 

effectively (GAO–03–1005 recommendation). Additionally, JAMRS conducts specific 

mission critical research to provide intelligence on hard to recruit markets (i.e., physicians, racial/ethnic diversity recruiting). Together these efforts unveil trends so the 

Services can prepare strategies to combat problematic issues before missions are 

missed or resources are wasted. Performing this function at the joint level saves 

DOD a minimum of $25 million annually. 

2) Comprehensive Prospect Database: JAMRS acquires, maintains, and updates a 

database of over 30.5 million names. The Services rely on this database as their primary source of contact information for prospective recruits and it serves as the 

backbone of the Services’ outreach efforts. JAMRS brokers consolidated purchases 

from DMVs and public vendors on the behalf of all Services, allowing the Department to purchase names once for use by all. This minimizes the duplication of cost 

and effort, creating an essential resource at a meaningful cost savings for the Department. JAMRS spends approximately $3.5 million on this database. Having the 

Services independently create and maintain this database would increase cost to 

DOD by at least $35 million annually. 

3) Outreach: Outreach efforts conducted by JAMRS are distinct from—yet integral 

to—those of the Services. Recruiting is a long-term effort and joining the Military 

is a big decision that takes an extended period of time and involves the prospect, 

his/her family, close friends, and educators. To stay successful, the Department 

must stay relevant. In 2002, a congressional report recommended that DOD ‘‘reconnect with America’’; JAMRS outreach efforts strive to do just that. Today, JAMRS 

is the only DOD entity that actively advertises to adult influencers of recruitmentaged youth (i.e., parents, grandparents, educators, etc.). JAMRS disseminates information and persuasive messages via direct marketing, three websites (each with a 

unique purpose), magazines distributed to 95% of public high schools nationwide, 

and TV and magazine advertising. Conducting outreach to influencers at the joint 

level saves DOD approximately $36 million annually and allows the Services to 

focus on prospects. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

Ms. TSONGAS. I would like to commend the Army for their hard work in developing and fielding the Third Generation Extended Cold Weather Clothing System 

(GEN III ECWCS) which continues to play an essential role in the combat effectiveness, health and safety of our soldiers. Prior to October 2010, industry was producing 20,000 GEN III ECWCS sets a month to ensure that all deploying soldiers 

were issued this required clothing system. It is my understanding that in 2011 the 

Army has greatly reduced the orders of this clothing system in the new Operation 

Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern (OCP). These numbers represent a 130,000 

decrease in annual GEN III ECWCS orders and do not appear to be sufficient to 

properly equip the deploying force nor sustain the domestic supply chain. It is critical that the Army continues to ensure both soldier safety and the effective use of 

taxpayer dollars. For this reason, I am concerned that the recent sharp decrease in 

GEN III ECWCS production is already resulting in shortages of a critical combat 

clothing system and is creating a substantial disruption in the domestic supply 
257 

chain that supports our troops. It is my understanding that this is a fragile supply 

chain and as these manufacturing lines cease operation and layoffs occur that the 

United States stands to lose the ability to domestically produce GEN III ECWCS 

as well as other basic items necessary for combat and peacekeeping operations. I 

would like to ascertain the Army’s near-term plans to ensure that the GEN III 

ECWCS supply chain is sustained in order to ensure our nation’s capability to fill 

future personnel requirements. 

Secretary STANLEY. This request is not within the purview of the USD (P&R) 

issue portfolio and instead is within the Army’s area of expertise. Therefore, the following response has been provided by the Army. 

There are no GEN III ECWCS shortages for deploying or deployed Soldiers. The 

Army is in the final year of a five-year contract for ECWCS initial fielding to Soldiers. To date, the Army has procured over 850,000 kits since the introduction of 

ECWCS onto the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) list of issued equipment. Soldiers 

retain the ECWCS after initial fielding for future deployments. After the initial 

fielding requirement is met, the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support (DLA– 

Troop Support) will provide sustainment quantities to ensure every deploying Soldier will continue to receive ECWCS as required. DLA–Troop Support is in the process of awarding new contracts for the ECWCS individual layers to maintain the supply chain and ensure future capability in the industrial base. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I would like to commend the Army for their hard work in developing and fielding the Third Generation Extended Cold Weather Clothing System 

(GEN III ECWCS) which continues to play an essential role in the combat effectiveness, health and safety of our soldiers.Prior to October 2010, industry was producing 

20,000 GEN III ECWCS sets a month to ensure that all deploying soldiers were 

issued this required clothing system. It is my understanding that in 2011 the Army 

has greatly reduced the orders of this clothing system in the new Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern (OCP). These numbers represent a 130,000 decrease in annual GEN III ECWCS orders and do not appear to be sufficient to properly equip the deploying force nor sustain the domestic supply chain. It is critical 

that the Army continues to ensure both soldier safety and the effective use of taxpayer dollars. For this reason, I am concerned that the recent sharp decrease in 

GEN III ECWCS production is already resulting in shortages of a critical combat 

clothing system and is creating a substantial disruption in the domestic supply 

chain that supports our troops. It is my understanding that this is a fragile supply 

chain and as these manufacturing lines cease operation and layoffs occur that the 

United States stands to lose the ability to domestically produce GEN III ECWCS 

as well as other basic items necessary for combat and peacekeeping operations. I 

would like to ascertain the Army’s near-term plans to ensure that the GEN III 

ECWCS supply chain is sustained in order to ensure our nation’s capability to fill 

future personnel requirements. 

General BOSTICK. There are no GEN III ECWCS shortages for deploying or deployed Soldiers. The Army is in the final year of a five-year contract for ECWCS 

initial fielding to Soldiers. To date, the Army has procured over 850,000 kits since 

the introduction of ECWCS onto the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) list of issued 

equipment. Soldiers retain the ECWCS after initial fielding for future deployments. 

After the initial fielding requirement is met, the Defense Logistics Agency Troop 

Support (DLA–Troop Support) will provide sustainment quantities to ensure every 

deploying Soldier will continue to receive ECWCS as required. DLA–Troop Support 

is in the process of awarding new contracts for the ECWCS individual layers to 

maintain the supply chain and ensure future capability in the industrial base. 

Æ