U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i

38–421 2008

[H.A.S.C. No. 110–83]

ACTIVE ARMY, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD,

AND ARMY RESERVE RECRUITING AND

RETENTION PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD

AUGUST 1, 2007

(II)

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

NANCY BOYDA, Kansas

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

JOE WILSON, South Carolina

MIKE HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member

JOE HICKEN, Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS

2007

Page

HEARING:

Wednesday, August 1, 2007, Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army

Reserve Recruiting and Retention Programs ..................................................... 1

APPENDIX:

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 .................................................................................... 43

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2007

ACTIVE ARMY, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, AND ARMY RESERVE

RECRUITING AND RETENTION PROGRAMS

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

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

McHugh, John M., a Representative from New York, Ranking Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee ............................................................................. 2

WITNESSES

Bostick, Maj. Gen. Thomas P., Commander, United States Army Recruiting

Command, U.S. Army .......................................................................................... 7

Dominguez, Hon. Michael L., Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

(Personnel and Readiness) .................................................................................. 3

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

Vaughn, Lt. Gen. Clyde A., Director, Army National Guard ............................... 7

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Bostick, Maj. Gen. Thomas P. ......................................................................... 82

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 47

Dominguez, Hon. Michael L. ........................................................................... 52

McHugh, Hon. John M. .................................................................................... 48

Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D. .......................................................................... 65

Vaughn, Lt. Gen. Clyde A. ............................................................................... 77

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Charts of the Army National Guard submitted by Lt. Gen. Clyde A.

Vaughn ........................................................................................................... 95

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Mrs. Davis of California ................................................................................... 101

Mr. Kline ........................................................................................................... 102

Mr. McHugh ...................................................................................................... 101

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 102

(1)

ACTIVE ARMY, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, AND ARMY

RESERVE RECRUITING AND RETENTION PROGRAMS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Wednesday, August 1, 2007.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in room

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan Davis (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.

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

PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

Mrs. DAVIS. Good afternoon, everybody.

Today, the subcommittee turns its attention to the closely

aligned issues of military recruiting and retention. While the debate on the future of the war in Iraq is capturing much of the

public’s attention, those laboring to recruit and retain the highquality force that is the bedrock of military readiness continue to

perform their vital mission under great stress.

The sound job market and the pressures of the war make this

task incredibly difficult and it is incumbent on the Congress to be

watchful and ensure recruiters and their managers have the necessary funding and tools to be successful.

The one enduring lesson that the subcommittee has learned is

that those funds and tools are ineffective if not delivered in a consistent and timely manner. Unlike many of the problems being confronted by the armed forces, the task of attracting people to the

military cannot be achieved with increased spending at the 11th

hour.

Competing in the marketplace for people requires the consistent

and early allocation of resources. It is the subcommittee’s experience that every military recruiting failure in the last 20 years can

be attributed to some degree to inconsistent and late allocation of

funding to meet the challenge.

This hearing today focuses on the Army because the subcommittee has observed that all three Army components have endured setbacks in their recruiting programs in recent months. It is no secret

to anyone that recruiting and retaining a quality force is extremely

difficult in today’s environment. This is particularly true for the

Army, given the larger numbers associated with their mission.

However, a full understanding of the challenge seems to have not

prevented funding from being a factor that has put the recruiting

programs within all three Army components at greater risk. In an

era where we have an urgent need to increase the strength of the

2

Army and its reserve components, it is critical that we not make

mistakes in funding recruiting programs.

The subcommittee will be interested in hearing the perspectives

of Department of Defense (DOD) and the Army on the issue of consistent and timely funding and a range of other important issues,

to include recruit quality and recruiter misconduct as well.

I am delighted to be here today to have this hearing.

I want to turn to my colleague, Mr. McHugh, if you have any

opening remarks?

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 47.]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW YORK, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, let me join with you in welcoming our distinguished

panel here today.

As you noted, Madam Chair, this is a very necessary hearing. I

would argue also a very timely hearing. We are nearing the end

of 2007, and certainly I think it will be a useful update for the subcommittee on the recruiting and retention challenges still facing us.

As you noted, Madam Chair, the most challenged of all the services

in the United States military is that of the United States Army.

I could add a number of concerns. First, end-strength, especially

whether the active Army is going to be able to meet not only the

fiscal 2007 authorized end-strength level, which is 512,400, but

also that of the target that they have set, the 518,400. That is a

step, if you will, to stay on pace for the increase of the force that

has been authorized by 2013, 547,400.

It is a cloudy question right now. As of June, as I understand it,

the Army has a strength of 510,000; that is 2,400 below the authorized end-strength and 8,400 below its active force growth objective.

The Army Reserve appears to be headed in fiscal year 2007 for

another year when its actual end-strength will not even reach authorized levels. Obviously, without manpower growth, Army plans

to build additional brigade combat teams (BCT) and support brigades will be jeopardized. Recruiting is always a challenge. The

Army Reserve continues to miss its objectives.

Moreover, I, along with many others, I am sure, were disturbed

to hear retired General Jack Keane testify just last week before the

Full Committee that the Army is not likely to meet its recruiting

mission in fiscal year 2007. If true, any erosion in the Army’s quality standards and congressional efforts to provide Army-unique recruiting authorities, we need to know what the Army and DOD are

doing to ensure active Army and Army Reserve recruiting stays on

track to attain, not only accession missions, but also contract goals.

All of the questions that you have identified, Madam Chair—inappropriate funding strategies, inadequate planning, and on and on

and on—are great, great concerns. We need to talk about those

today to ensure that we, as a Congress, are doing both our oversight objectives and missions as are appropriate; but also, of

course, to ensure that we are providing all in the services, but for

the purposes of today, the Army components with the necessary

3

ability to meet the great challenges that the brave men and women

who wear the uniform of that great service are facing on our behalf.

With that, Madam Chair, I would just ask that the rest of my

written testimony be submitted in its entirety for the record, and

yield back, and look forward to the panelists’ comments.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McHugh can be found in the Appendix on page 48.]

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.

I might just mention that we are all a little challenged today by

the schedule and by the votes, so there may in fact be some procedural votes coming up, or other votes, and we will try and plow

through this as best we can.

I wanted to just welcome our panel again, and introduce them:

The Honorable Michael Dominguez, principal deputy undersecretary of defense, personnel and readiness; Lieutenant General Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff, U.S. Army; Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn, director of the Army National Guard; and

Major General Thomas Bostick, commanding general, United

States Army Recruiting Command in Kentucky.

Thank you all very much for being here.

Secretary Dominguez, we look forward to your comments.

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ, PRINCIPAL

DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PERSONNEL AND

READINESS)

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be with you

today.

Let me begin by acknowledging an historic achievement that

many, including some of our own experts, would have thought impossible a few years ago. We have taken an all-volunteer military

to war. We have done it in a strong economy with 4.5 percent unemployment. We often have asked that force and their families to

do more on short notice. And through it all, we have manned this

Nation’s military with people far above average relative to their

peers.

Support from this subcommittee has been critical to our success.

And the department, and particularly the Army, delivered this success even as transforms itself in design, location and mission focus.

That context and the continuation of those challenges ought to

serve as a context for this hearing.

The Army is growing from fewer than 520,000 at the end of this

year to about 547,000 five years from now. Within those numbers

are major organizational shifts brought about by Army’s migration

to modular design, more and smarter units, and a design that allows more flexibility and more even burden-sharing across the

force.

In turn, this requires a slightly higher proportion of officers, particularly captains and majors. And then naturally, this plan requires growth in officer accessions and the Army continued its

move in that direction last year with the addition of 300 more officers annually. Initially, the Officer Candidate School (OCS) will

generate the growth, while the longer lead-time sources like ReVerDate 22-MAR-2001 08:06 Nov 20, 2008 Jkt 038421 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-83\213020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
4

serve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) ramp-up to higher levels of officer production.

Longer service commitments are being encouraged through a variety of programs to improve officer retention. More experienced officers soon will see a bonus program that now is in its final stages

of development. The Army is making all the right moves to meet

its increasing demand for officers.

On the enlisted side, all active component services achieved their

recruiting goals for July. The three reserves—Army and Navy Reserve and Air Guard—fell somewhat short. We in the Office of the

Secretary of Defense (OSD) monitor this progress carefully, and we

engage with the military departments and services when we have

cause for concern.

As a result of these engagements, I am confident that our leaders

are taking appropriate actions, and I am optimistic about ending

this year on-target. An on-target finish for all Army components

and for the Air National Guard is achievable, but it will be challenging.

Over the longer term, meeting recruiting targets will remain

challenging. The propensity to enlist is down. The willingness of

coaches, teachers, counselors, and parents to commend military

service to America’s youth is lower than is good for our Nation and

our military. The number of people who meet our enlistment standards is astonishingly low.

Madam Chair, as we execute our difficult task in the months

ahead, we need your help and the help of the Congress in four concrete ways.

First, lend your voices to the chorus reminding the American

people that service in our armed forces is a good and noble path

and one that every citizen of our democracy ought to seriously consider.

Second, ensure that our recruiters have access to America’s

youth equal to that afforded to colleges and to other employers.

Third, support our efforts to develop, test, and deploy flexible, innovative recruiting and retention programs for this dynamic and

challenging environment.

And fourth, quickly approve the reprogramming request the Department has submitted so that we can properly fund the Army’s

large program.

I will end my opening oral statement, Madam Chair, by once

again reaffirming that our success in recruiting, fielding, and sustaining a high-quality force through almost six continuous years of

combat is attributable in large part to this committee and the

strong partnership between the Department and this committee

that has endured over many years and over many Administrations.

Thank you for your partnership and your many contributions to

our all-volunteer force.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Dominguez can be found in

the Appendix on page 52.]

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

General Rochelle.

5

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

CHIEF OF STAFF, G–1, U.S. ARMY

General ROCHELLE. Chairwoman Davis, Representative McHugh,

distinguished members of the committee, thank you for offering me

once again the opportunity to appear before you. It truly is an

honor.

I appear before you today on behalf of America’s all-volunteer

Army. Today, we have an Army of over one million strong proudly

serving and growing to meet the demands of the current and future

operational environment. With our focus today on recruiting and

retention, I am prepared to discuss two of the Army’s highest priorities with you.

I will highlight where we have achieved successes and will request your continued support and flexibility to sustain and in some

instances expand incentives and initiatives that will attract the

quality young men and women who will join tomorrow’s Army.

This year marks the fifth consecutive year that the volunteer

Army is at war. Even with our global commitments, we continue

to grow the Army to sustain combat operations and defend our Nation’s vital interests. Since the start of the global war on terror, we

have of necessity grown the all-volunteer Army by nearly 23,500

soldiers. America’s patriotic men and women are answering the call

to duty in an Army that has served the Nation’s interests since before the Meuse-Argonne.

The reason we are able to grow and sustain our Army during a

time of conflict is because of patriotic young adults who accurately

see the Army as an opportunity to serve the Nation’s vital interests, as well as providing themselves the bridge to a brighter future. In an ever-competitive market, the Army is faced with an

even greater recruiting challenge than our sister services or those

in the private sector, namely attracting quality young men and

women in a strong economy, while engaged in persistent conflict.

Today, with unemployment at an all-time low, communicating

the value of America’s Army as a place of dependable employment

and noble service is no longer an effective communication. Additionally, given the dynamic of the private sector employment options and the likelihood of military deployment, many parents,

teachers and coaches—commonly referred to as influencers—are

discouraging even highly motivated prospects.

Despite the challenges we face and will continue to face in the

future, the Army continues to be successful overall in growing and

maintaining the all-volunteer Army. In 2002, we began a landmark

transformation from a division-centric force to a brigade-centric,

highly mobile force. Along with that transformation came a need

for additional manpower. Consistent with recent congressional authorizations, the Army will have grown its end-strength from more

than 468,000 at the end of fiscal year 2002 to 518,000 at the end

of fiscal year 2007.

Congress also addressed the need for the added flexibilities to

meet the challenges associated with growing the all-volunteer force,

and this committee was a standout. As a result, we have boosted

our recruitment efforts by establishing innovative approaches to

enlistments nationwide.

6

Despite a 7 percent drop since 2003 in youth propensity to serve,

currently at an all-time historical low of 16 percent propensity, the

Army has remained ahead of our annual targets or glide required

to meet not only our year-end accession goals, but multi-year

growth targets as well.

As good stewards of our resources, I have directed that in no case

do we trade quality for quantity. At the heart of most enlistments

is a desire to serve our Nation, and we must be cautious as we develop new incentives not to trade that desire for monetary, educational, or other incentives. We don’t require that every young soldier become a hero on the battlefield, but we do ask that every

young American be presented an opportunity to respond to our Nation’s call to duty.

The all-volunteer Army is Army strong precisely because each

American that joins our ranks chooses to do so. Enlistment is the

first act of selflessness that develops young Americans into the courageous troops we all admire. We are leveraging the flexibilities

you have given us to close fiscal year 2007 successfully. We remain

ahead of glide path to achieve our fiscal year 2007 recruiting mission, and I am reasonably confident that we can achieve that success in fiscal year 2008.

An innovative program that offers future soldiers our next generation of incentives and has the capacity to expand our reach well

beyond that of the Army College Fund of nearly 25 years ago is the

Army Advantage Fund. The Army Advantage Fund has the potential to attract the innovative, entrepreneurial, and values-based

youth willing to accept the challenge. We ask for your continued

support to implement this groundbreaking incentive, as well as establishing the vehicle with which to employ it.

I will focus my next comments on retention, brief comments.

Clearly, a key indicator of our soldiers’ commitment and high

morale is our retention rate. Active Army has achieved all retention targets for the past nine years. As a result, that can be directly attributed to the Army’s leadership and the motivation of our

soldiers to accept the continued call to duty.

To man the future force, the Army must increase company-grade

officer retention to keep up with the structure growth driven by

modularity. The Army has successfully grown the officer corps over

the last several years through increased officer promotion selection

rates and earlier pin-on points to captain and major.

America’s Army is strong. We value your continued support to

ensure our Army is fully prepared to meet America’s global commitments. To ensure our values, our values-based Army is prepared for the future. We need your continued flexibilities and support, as well as approval of the fiscal year 2008 President’s budget

request to support maintaining and growing the Nation’s Army.

Additionally, I would urge that every member of the committee

share the message of, first, a call to national service, and second,

the great opportunities available in America’s Army.

In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to once again appear

before this distinguished committee, and I look forward to taking

your questions.

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

Appendix on page 65.]

7

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

General Vaughn.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. CLYDE A. VAUGHN, DIRECTOR, ARMY

NATIONAL GUARD

General VAUGHN. Chairwoman Davis, Representative McHugh,

and distinguished committee members, it is an honor to appear before you as the director of the National Guard. I would ask that

my statement be entered into the record, and I would just like to

make just a quick couple of comments.

We have had a historical year, as I think all of you know. Over

the last 22 months, we have gained nearly 22,000 soldiers. The

chart that you see in back of you portrays where we started at on

the far left, called the bathtub chart. I can assure you that it is a

real pleasure to appear before you today as compared with eight

months ago, and then probably one and a half years prior to that.

We promised at that time that we would make end-strength, and

we did in March of this year as a result of the great support of this

committee. It is a result of the great leadership of our adjutant

generals (TAG) and our governors. But most of all, it is the support

of each one of these communities out there that embrace and worship these units from nearly 3,000 towns and cities around the

United States of America. There is an enormous amount of pride

in the Army National Guard today.

We have challenges, and our challenges exist in the areas of getting the base and the supplementals right to gear us through, and

I am sure we will be able to discuss that soon. There were some

assumptions made, as I think everyone here is aware of in here,

a couple of years ago that started us down the wrong track, you

know, in the position of our base budget. We are still recovering

from that. We don’t want to kill this momentum, and we want to

go right on into 2008 positioned to grow.

I think one of the great noticeable things, or notable things about

this is we have actually improved our quality in a significant manner with innovative programs, a lot of support from over here, and

a lot of pride in the force.

So thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

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

Appendix on page 77.]

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

General Bostick.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. THOMAS P. BOSTICK, COMMANDER,

UNITED STATES ARMY RECRUITING COMMAND, U.S. ARMY

General BOSTICK. Chairwoman Davis, Representative McHugh,

and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Army recruiting today.

I also want to thank you for supporting our initiatives to attract

the very best soldiers. Having served in combat with these wonderful Americans, I am confident that we continue to maintain a quality Army of dedicated and loyal professionals.

As a result of additional manpower, resources, and incentives,

the Army enlisted 13,000 more soldiers for the regular Army and

the Army Reserve in 2006 than it did in 2005. It was clear then

8

that we made the right adjustments. However, adequate resources

are not always enough to ensure success. We must now overcome

a more challenging environment, an environment marked by low

unemployment, decreasing influencer support, and the lowest propensity to serve in two decades.

Nonetheless, nearly 70,000 Americans have joined our Army this

year. They are reenlisting in record numbers. We have the besttrained, best-led, and the best-equipped Army in the world. Our

soldiers are staying in the Army because they believe in each other.

They believe in their mission and they appreciate the support of

the American people.

In the area of quality, regardless of their educational credentials

or test scores, every applicant we enlist is qualified to serve. For

high school diploma graduates in fiscal year 2006, the regular

Army and Army Reserve achieved 81 percent and 89 percent, respectively, against the goal of 90 percent. We met our goals in all

other areas of aptitude.

In the area of waivers, we have a sound process for reviewing all

waivers. In fiscal year 2006, 85 percent—nearly 90,000 of those

that we shipped to basic training—entered the Army without the

need for a waiver. Waivers have increased approximately two percent to three percent overall each year from 2004 to 2006.

We believe this is partly a result of changes in society, changes

in policy, and our improved processing procedures. In fiscal year

2007, we expect to achieve 80 percent high school diploma graduates, 60 percent in Category I to III offers, and no more than 4

percent Category IV.

We are currently reviewing the impact of less high school diploma graduates and increased waivers on the effectiveness of an

Army at war. We have taken a number of innovative actions to accomplish this mission, many with your assistance. We added incentives and heavily advertised the two-year enlistment. We established a super-leads program to refine nearly one million leads to

save valuable recruiter time.

We issued an operational mission to the field to inspire them to

achievement in these final three months. We implemented the recruiter incentive pay to reward our very best recruiters. We increased the quick-ship bonus to $20,000 for all MOS’s—military occupational specialties—that ship in the remainder of the year. We

requested additional soldiers graduating from initial training and

returning combat veterans to assist in our recruiting efforts.

We reemphasized the $2,000 referral bonus program, and we requested the temporary return of up to 1,000 former recruiters in

these final months of this fight that we are engaged in. We asked

the leadership of the Army—general officers, senior executive service, command sergeant majors—to come out and help us with recruiting in the field force and they are doing that. We emphasized

‘‘March to Success,’’ an education program to assist those that are

having difficulty passing the armed services vocational aptitude

battery test.

We expanded ARMS, the Assessment of Recruiter Motivation and

Strength, to enlist some of those who are slightly overweight, but

who are confident they can lose that weight in their first 12

months of service. With your help, we increased the age limit to 42,

9

allowing those that have always wanted to serve, the opportunity

to serve. We added greater flexibility with tattoos, which aligns

with societal changes that we have seen. We have implemented a

team recruiting concept in one of our brigades where every soldier

does not have to be an expert in every task.

We can and we will accomplish this mission. It will be challenging, but it is a challenge not only for the Army, but for this Nation.

I thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to your

questions.

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

Appendix on page 82.]

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Thank you, all of you, for being here. We certainly thank you for

your service. We recognize the professionalism with which our recruiters go about their job and the need to really have the support

of our communities. You make that case very well.

I think what we are here to do today is to really drill down, as

they say, on some of the major challenges that you face and how

we can be as supportive of those and at the same time really ask

you as well to help us understand the accountability issues behind

that so that we can have dollars available when they are needed

and to be sure that the programs are as creative as necessary for

us to complete your job and your mission.

So I wanted to start quickly looking at some of the Army recruiting and retention issues that you have talked about. I think you

mentioned briefly looking at the differences that we have come to

rely on, really, on the supplemental appropriations.

I want to ask, why are we still relying largely on those supplemental budgets? And if you see a shifting so that we are able to

really reinforce the needs that you have, but do it in our basic

budgets as opposed to the supplemental? Why are we relying on

those today and how do you think we can shift away from that?

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Madam Chair, if I could take that question. In preparation for the hearing, I consulted with the Office of

the Undersecretary of Defense for Comptroller, and reaffirmed with

them the uncertainty about the strength of the United States Army

is behind us now.

So we have very clearly established and great leadership consensus around the growth path of the United States Army, so that it

has enabled us to, for the fiscal year 2009 budget submission, we

will fund the program for all components in the base budget. So we

are out of the supplemental business for the recruiting program.

General ROCHELLE. Madam Chair, if I may simply add, for the

purpose of this hearing, clearly the primary focus is on recruiting

and retention costs within the base budget. I am pleased to echo

Mr. Dominguez’s comments with respect to that level of funding,

which in fiscal year 2009 will indeed be thoroughly and totally in

the base.

Mrs. DAVIS. I think for now, in terms of trying to provide the bonuses that are needed at the right time, I am wondering why you

have actually—it appears that the Army recruiting command has

waited until July 25th to be more aggressive on increasing recruiting bonuses. Why is that?

10

General ROCHELLE. Well, first of all, ma’am, that is my responsibility to pull the switches and the levers on the incentives at the

Department of the Army level. Two things: On the retention side

of the equation, we were attempting to make sure that we added

first and foremost to the end-strength of the Army with our budget,

with our offerings for incentives, retention incentives.

Let me be more clear. A soldier who was scheduled to separate

in fiscal year 2007, whom we then convinced to stay with us, was

in fact additive to the end-strength of the Army at the end of fiscal

year 2007, and obviously additive to the end-strength in fiscal year

2008.

Our offerings typically span at least two years, so we held back—

I held back—on the fiscal year 2008 retention dollars to attempt to

make it more attractive for more in fiscal year 2007 to join us. That

worked. However, we are going to execute our retention budget in

total to the level of funding by the end of fiscal year 2007.

On the recruiting side, March and April—and General Bostick

may wish to comment a little more on this—March and April were

where we began to see a little bit of softness in the execution of

the plan, accelerating gains to be able to grow the Army in fiscal

year 2007 a little faster.

We then began to put in place, in concert with and from a total

Army perspective, active, Guard and Reserve, the incentives necessary to take us through. As General Bostick has mentioned in his

opening comments, we will be successful in fiscal year 2007.

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. You have avoided some of those challenges with

having more recruitment bonuses available to you?

General BOSTICK. Ma’am, we received the bonuses upon our request. The issue is really one of timing and having the intelligence

ahead of us to know that we have an issue at hand, and then to

execute in a timely fashion in order to put those bonuses on the

street. What had happened to us, as you know, and it was successful in the mission all the way until May. We missed it by about

400 that month and then about 1,400 the next month.

But as soon as we saw in May the challenges that were there,

we looked at how we could expand the market, what other part of

the market out there were we not touching. We looked at the twoyear enlistment. We thought that we could quickly ramp-up the

two-year enlistment if we put the right bonus to that.

So we went back to the Army and asked for a $15,000 quick-ship

bonus, along with a two-year enlistment that came with two years

of college. Normally in a month, we will enlist about 30 or so with

the 2-year enlistment, and we did 10 times that in our first month

with this program.

So we feel like we turned it right away and then we looked at

June, and June was a very, very difficult month. It was a month

that we did not expect to see turn the way that it did. So it reinforced some of the environmental factors that we were already facing.

So again, we came back to the Army and asked for a $20,000 enlistment bonus, but this time for all soldiers that were shipped in

every military occupational specialty for the rest of the year.

11

Mrs. DAVIS. I think just before we turn to the members, we are

certainly going to want to focus on the erosion of recruit quality as

an issue, but I think it is fair for us to address.

Are there additional dollars that you have foregone that could

have been used for enlistment bonuses that are still available to

you? Have you basically worked through that now?

From that discussion, I think we are just trying to pinpoint

whether there are some additional opportunities out there that

have been missed.

General ROCHELLE. I don’t believe there are opportunities that

we have missed thus far for the remainder of fiscal year 2007. We

shifted our focus just a little bit toward ensuring that we enter fiscal year 2008 at least as strong as we possibly can, not to say that

we have written off 2007.

It is still, as both Mr. Dominguez and myself and General

Bostick have all attested, it is going to be a challenge nonetheless.

We have all the resources necessary to be successful. It is a reflection of the difficulty and the propensity, the strength of the economy, and of course low unemployment.

General BOSTICK. And if I could also say, on the bonuses, and I

understand the preciseness of your question, and whether we could

have used more bonuses earlier in order to get ahead. We are balancing two things: one, to bring the Army to the size that it needs

to be; and also to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars.

As we look at those bonuses, we target them to the most challenging military occupational specialties that we need to fill. We

balance those as long as we are moving along and accomplishing

the mission as we need to be.

I think the next 2 months will be a good test for us because now,

with a fairly large bonus of $20,000, and it is open to all of those

who ship in the last 2 months, that is available to everyone who

joins the Army.

So this will be a good test to answer the question of whether increased bonuses at a time where the environment is shaped like it

is, will actually attract more young men and women to serve.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Madam Chair, if I might, the Army Guard

is facing currently in fiscal year 2007 a resource shortfall for their

program, so the guard does need rapid action on a reprogramming

request to fully finance that.

I think General Vaughn can fill in if he would like.

Mrs. DAVIS. If for some reason that reprogramming didn’t move

forward, what would that mean to your recruiting efforts?

General VAUGHN. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for that question.

We are still sailing along on the back of some flawed assumptions about what kind of end-strength we were going to make. We

have had to survive in 2006 and 2007 on very small base budgets,

and our supplementals that didn’t reach all the way around it also.

In 2006, we took as much money as we could possibly take out

of statutory programs and cash-flowed what we had to do to make

this real, to make this recruiting drive happen for the United

States of America. The Army supported us and bailed us out with

a reprogramming action, as you well know.

12

They came over here and got the support and it paid all of the

cash advances that we had moved up to make up for what we

didn’t have in the base and supplemental. So in looking at that situation and the fact that the base came forward again very, very

low, and the supplemental also was very low, it didn’t reach around

what our requirements were by a large amount.

And so this year, we wouldn’t have continued recruiting past

June had we not had the promise from Army that they would support an omnibus reprogramming. And so I talked to the leadership

of the Army about it, and the impact is if we don’t have the omnibus reprogramming this time, then we will cut the Guard Recruiting Assistance program (G–RAP) program completely out.

We will significantly curtail all of our recruiting and retention efforts for the remaining portion of the year just to pay down and

be able to recover somewhat, but we will fail to make statutory

payments to our Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) and technicians.

That is how short we were in the base and supplemental side. We

reduced retention and recruiting bonuses in the Army National

Guard.

Mrs. DAVIS. General, I think the concern—and I certainly appreciate what that would mean if those reprogramming dollars don’t

go through, but I also am hearing you say that you have been

short, we have all been short, in predicting what is really required.

And that concerns me, that we need to make certain.

Why is that? I mean, is it because we didn’t want to put those

needs forward? Were people just off in the predictions? Why such

a shortfall?

General VAUGHN. Madam Chairwoman, we have been on the

mark as far as what we needed. We have been on the mark as far

as what we needed. We were told, if you remember, the secretary

of the Army came over here and testified that they would pay for

whatever we could recruit to. It is in testimony.

And so I had no fear, even though we were so short in the base

and supplemental last year, I had no fear that Army was going to

come through with that. Otherwise, it was going to look like an

agenda that someone didn’t want us to make end-strength.

And so, this year as we move forward, once again the great vice

chief, who is a friend of mine, assured me that they would help us

on this.

Now, the problem we have leading into near year, just so you

know, is I have gone to the comptroller because I had the same

concerns, and said, ‘‘Dear comptroller, this doesn’t look quite right,

and I am concerned. Are you going to be able to do this, for instance, in 2008?’’ And the answer I got was: You live on your base

and supplemental, as we work to get it into the base.

And so now, the real problem—and I talked to the secretary beforehand—and we have to straighten this out because next year we

will quit recruiting about February. Every year it gets a little closer to us, but we have gone as far as we can under the conditions

that we have been operating.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Madam Chair, if I might add, looking

backwards over the last several years, there have been pretty intense discussions within the Department and then between the Department and the Congress about the end-strength, the relative

13

strength numbers of the armed forces in general and the Army in

particular.

Those discussions, as well as the uncertainty of the conflict and

how many people we would be needing for that, contributed a great

deal to the decisions about splitting money between supplementals

and the base.

Those are behind us. There is a leadership consensus now on the

strength of the armed forces and all the components. So we will

now be building budgets that fully fund the programs necessary to

achieve those outcomes, beginning with the Fiscal Year 2009 President’s Budget.

Dr. Chu, Secretary Hall, and I are committed to working with

Lieutenant General Blum and Lieutenant General Vaughn here to

sort out fiscal year 2008 and make sure that he is postured for success. The guard is critical to the success of the Army. The guard

is critical to the governors. We will make it right.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. I guess that is good news, but I have to tell you

it is about one and a half years of interim ‘‘not good news.’’

It also, with all due respect, Mr. Secretary, sounds to me like the

vaunted promise of out-years that we have all heard about. I go to

bed every night praying that the good Lord above one day before

I die he will let me live in an out-year, because everything is going

to be wonderful. I just can’t help but express some wonderment if

that is the case.

In the meantime, we have to kind of look at where we are today

and where we are going in 2008. I have to be honest with you. I

have heard to the extent you have addressed the issue, the responses with respect to this reprogramming, and I don’t for a

minute doubt the need to have this done.

I understand the great challenges that General Vaughn and his

leadership finds him under. They have been dealt a pretty difficult

hand, to say the least. It requires money.

But I am at a loss to understood how we can justify, rectify tak- ing over $800 million out of the personnel accounts of the United

States Army, including I might add $155 million in recruiting bonuses from the branch of the service and active component that is

not exactly in clover.

Can you help me understand this?

You heard General Rochelle talk about, and we are all aware of,

the new recruiting bonus that is out there—$20,000, I believe, for

a two-year enlistment, and it goes up for longer enlistments.

I don’t know what the overall price tag is on that, but seeing as

how we just, if we do a reprogramming in the way it is structured,

take away $155 million in your recruiting money, doesn’t that

cause a crunch?

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. I believe, sir, that that is inaccurate information that was provided.

Mr. MCHUGH. Then help me get it right.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. What I have been told—because I had

this same reaction, ‘‘How can this be?’’ As our staffs work together

to dig down to this, what I have been told—and I hope General Rochelle can echo that—is that we are reprogramming from money

14

that we thought would be paying for mobilized soldiers on active

service that we didn’t need to mobilize and bring onto active service.

So that the cash anticipated to pay for those mobilized soldiers,

since they weren’t mobilized and we didn’t bring them into active

service, is now free and we are actually moving that over.

Mr. MCHUGH. That is the entire, I believe the figure is $845 million?

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. That is what——

Mr. MCHUGH. Can you see why I am confused a little bit here?

Mr. Secretary.

General.

General ROCHELLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCHUGH. Okay. General, help me better understand it.

General ROCHELLE. Yes, sir. The amount that was moved to help

the guard, which doesn’t really address the larger issue that General Vaughn brought up, but the amount that was moved out of the

military personnel accounts of the active component——

Mr. MCHUGH. The reprogramming? The entire reprogramming?

General ROCHELLE. Reprogrammed, yes, sir. It was $155 million,

and as Mr. Dominguez correctly states, it was money that we estimated in the 2007 budget build that we were going to need for

members of the reserves who would be activated, and they were

not in the numbers that we estimated.

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, my understanding is the entire reprogramming request for the guard—and maybe I am wrong here—is about

$500 million. Is it not?

General VAUGHN. I think that the reprogramming for the omnibus is about $810 million: $272 million in Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and $538 million in Personnel and Administration

(P&A).

Mr. MCHUGH. You are right mathematically. I am sorry. I

thought we were talking about recruiting and retention. But $500

million of that is for recruiting and retention.

General VAUGHN. Sir, there is all but $112 million of that piece

that is payback to our statutory accounts, and that was because of

the recruiting and retention piece that we had to pay for.

Mr. MCHUGH. I am not challenging the fact you owe it. I am

questioning the affordability of it from the other reprogramming

here. We are trying to decide where the money is coming from and

I don’t know as we have determined that yet.

Yet, General Rochelle, you tell me it is $155 million for direct

payment to there. That leaves about $700 million that the reprogramming request seeks to move out of active Army personnel

accounts. Yes?

General ROCHELLE. No, sir. My understanding is only $155 million out of active Army military personnel accounts.

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, you are wrong. It is $845 million, and I hate

to be the bearer of bad tidings here, but that is the problem. I don’t

know, maybe the Administration has given us bad figures or they

are giving you bad figures, but somebody has bad figures here.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Sir, why don’t we take that for the record

and we will get back to you very quickly with some clarification.

15

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 101.]

Mr. MCHUGH. Okay.

General ROCHELLE. Sir, I misspoke. I misspoke. I was looking at $155 million which was directed. You are correct on the $845 million out of military personnel Army accounts.

Mr. MCHUGH. And $155 million of which are your enlistment bonuses being shifted over to the guard.

General ROCHELLE. No, sir. That part is not correct. Sir, I will

clarify.

Mr. MCHUGH. You better take that for the record. You are losing $845 million out of personnel accounts.

General ROCHELLE. That is correct.

Mr. MCHUGH. Can we agree your retention and recruiting monies come out of your personnel accounts?

General ROCHELLE. Oh, yes, sir. Absolutely.

Mr. MCHUGH. So you are losing $845 million. We can argue or

discuss whether or not it is actually coming out of a designated account, but you are losing $845 million.

General ROCHELLE. That is correct.

Mr. MCHUGH. You just instituted a new $20,000 per two-year enlistment bonus.

General ROCHELLE. Correct, sir.

Mr. MCHUGH. And it goes up in gradations of, I believe, $5,000

per added tour. What is that going to cost? And where are you

going to get the money? That is what I am trying to understand.

I am not begrudging the guard the challenge. They have a big,

big problem here. And this gets down—and I understand in fairness that you all are dealt hands by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and others that tell you, ‘‘Here is how we are going

to do it.’’

But this is the forum we have. And, Mr. Secretary, you know

that you have heard this schtick before. I am not going to apologize

for putting you through it, but I will say I am sorry we have to talk

about this again. This is the wrong way to run an airline—or an

Army. I guess that is a better way to put it here.

I have to tell you, for the record and so that the folks who in

2009 will actually be making the decisions to keep the commitment

that you, as an honorable person, came here today and relied upon

to give, they better damn well get it right and get it right that

time, because this is an awful, awful way to proceed.

General Vaughn, if we do this reprogramming in time—and God

love you for having to rely upon the Congress to do anything on

time right now—but if we are able to, I mean you could have as

little as 30 days left to spend that money. Part of that, as I understand it, you have about a $22 million advertising budget.

How are you going to spend that kind of money effectively?

This is not your fault. I don’t mean to be accusing you. I don’t.

But this is what you are looking at—$22 million. I know a little

bit about buying ads and I think every politician does. You can’t

possibly spend that money effectively.

General VAUGHN. Congressman, thank you. Those contract vehicles are in place, and $50 million of that I

talked about was for G–RAP. One of my great, big, huge concerns

16

is on this whole thing is just $112 million of it that is on the back

end for recruiting. The rest of it is payback in order to pay the salaries of our technicians and AGRs.

Mr. MCHUGH. I have got you.

General VAUGHN. And so dropping those contracts—now, the

tough piece is here comes this thing over to the Hill to be acted

on, and every day is a huge deal, whether it is the 29th, 28th, 27th,

there is an enormous difference between the 27th and the 26th, for

instance.

So I understand, but we can execute if we get it early enough,

and I don’t mean the pressure early enough to get it 30 days in

front of 15 days in front, but somewhere between 15 days prior to

the end of the month. Every day is an issue for us, for only the recruiting piece of it. The other piece is spent.

Mr. MCHUGH. In fact, you need the money right now.

General VAUGHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCHUGH. Underscoring the fact, no culpability at this front

table. We are underscoring the fact what an awful process this has

been over the past several years where we are repeatedly going to

the supplemental process of funding something so challenging and

critical as recruiting and retention.

It is just the wrong way to do it. I just think the Administration

has made some bad, bad choices. I will shut up with that, because

our other colleagues have been very, very patient. But I want to

ask one more question.

General Rochelle, you said you were—looking for the word; I

wrote it down—‘‘reasonably confident’’ you are going to meet you

recruiting goals.

As you heard in my opening statement, two things: One, General

Keane, retired—someone we all know and deeply admire—just

gave his opinion, and it is a valued opinion, but it is an opinion,

that you weren’t going to do that.

As you look at the figures right now, as I mentioned in my opening statement, you are about 2,400, I guess, below your authorized

and over 8,000 below your target, which is above the authorized because you are trying to grow to that higher authorized level.

June is a bad month. June is usually a good month, and I think

that was why General Bostick said we were kind of surprised by

that. I mean, the schools are out and generally that is where things

start to get good again.

How reasonable is your ‘‘reasonably confident’’ level? I know you

are a military guy, but this is an incredibly tough challenge, is it

not?

General ROCHELLE. Sir, the challenge is tough, and I did not

mean in any way to diminish the significance——

Mr. MCHUGH. And I know that, absolutely. I didn’t mean to pit

you against General Keane.

General ROCHELLE. I have the utmost respect for General Keane.

Mr. MCHUGH. I know.

General ROCHELLE. I can only say I am reasonably confident that

we will make it, sir. I have watched from a very close proximity

Army recruiting for well over six years. I think I have, in addition

to the analytical background to watch exactly how it is working,

but also a respect for the desire that General Bostick spoke about

17

on the part of those 7,000 or 6000-some recruiters as well to be

able to pull it out.

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, gentlemen, thank you all.

Let me just say in closing, all of us I know on this panel, perhaps

more than most in this Congress, have such a deep appreciation of

the challenges that this Army, our men and women in uniform,

face across the board and we are in awe of their achievements.

But for those who don’t routinely have firearms shot at them,

you folks are brave as well. You have a heck of a challenge. I hope

nothing that I, or certainly anyone else would say, would in any

way suggest to you that we don’t respect the effort and the honor

you bring to the challenge each and every day. I deeply appreciate

it, and we are all trying to pull in the same direction. We want to

work together to realize a better day.

So thank you for your service and your great work.

Madam Chair, I yield back.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.

Dr. Snyder, we are going to go on the clock following all the

members’ questions. Thank you.

Dr. SNYDER. Madam Chair, Mr. Murphy has a conflict with another hearing and during his time in the Army didn’t get much

time to ask probing questions of two- and three-star generals. So

if I might, I yield my time to him and then assume his place in

the queue for questions.

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay.

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

And thank you, Dr. Snyder. I appreciate the time.

Gentlemen, thanks for testifying today. We do appreciate your

continued service to our country. I was proud to help recruit for the

Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps when I was a professor

at West Point. I know how critical your mission is for our country,

and thank you.

Historically in our country during times of war, everybody was

asked to sacrifice. And even the private sector helped out with the

war effort. It seems to me that a major part of our services’ recruiting budget must be spent on television and radio advertisements.

I have had a great deal of difficulty, though, finding the statistics

on how much money the services spend on television and radio recruiting, but I and every other member on this panel understand

how expensive it is.

My staff and I have been working on a proposal, and I would like

you all to give us your thoughts on it. What would you think about

requiring that during a time of war, television stations must run

armed forces recruitment advertising for free, or at least only

charge our military the lowest unit charge?

I know that this is an extremely complicated issue, but I believe

that we need full thoughts during this time, and I think it is something that I am personally very interested in, but also curious to

see how the Department of Defense and our armed forces would

react to such a proposal.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Sir, if I might take that for a little bit

first.

Thank you for your continued service to the Nation.

18

I think as a matter of policy and principle, I believe the Administration would view unfunded mandates of that nature particularly

as it applies to the private sector, would be maybe not the best

public policy.

Now, you know, I haven’t had a lot of time to think about it and

work with you, but I would guess that our attitude would be that

there are better ways to do it. That we are confident there are resources in the country to support the sustainment of the armed

forces.

That part of that is, as you pointed out accurately, is an advertising program, and that we ought to acknowledge that that is part

of the cost of the national defense and step up to it; authorize, appropriate, and spend the resources required without putting that

burden as a tax on a small part of our great Nation and the great

private sector who is doing many things in small ways to help and

contribute.

Mr. MURPHY. Just so I am clear, then, you would say that in

your opinion you believe the Administration would not welcome

this free advertising on television?

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. No, because it is not free to those businesses who would have to—it is a tax on them. We would rather

that we recognize the cost of owning and operating our armed

forces, including its advertising and we will pay for it.

We will come and ask you for the money. I trust the Congress

to appropriate it, and we will spend it accurately, and we will get

it right in the 2009 budget.

Mr. MURPHY. Gentlemen, could I have your thoughts as well?

General VAUGHN. Congressman, we have a non-commercial announcement agreement with the state broadcasting associations,

NCSA. And for every dollar that we spend, we get $4 back from

them. And so the nearly $9 million that we put into this thing has

resulted in close to $40 million worth of broadcast. And so I think

we are kind of close to what you are getting at already.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. That is a great point from General

Vaughn. It already is part of maintaining their licenses; television

and radio stations across the country have to do public service announcements, and these do qualify.

Mr. MURPHY. I understand that. I also understand those public

service announcements aren’t shown on national television during

primetime hours when the population that we are looking for, the

18- to 28-year-olds are watching television (TV) and music television (MTV) and other things.

So gentlemen, if I could have your comments, I would appreciate

it as well.

General BOSTICK. Congressman, I would say there are some programs out there that we might be able to better leverage.

First let me go back to how I closed my opening remarks. This

is not just a mission from the Army and a challenge for the Army,

but this is a challenge for the Nation. So how the Nation stands

up and supports this country to protect its freedoms I think is very

important.

We do have programs, and I will pick one that we work on now.

It is called the Partnership for Youth Success. It is program that

General Shinseki started when he was our chief of staff. We have

19

well over 200 companies that are now partners. And what we do

with these partners is that we sign up an agreement that they will

partner with the Army such that when a soldier enlists in the

Army, they have an opportunity for an interview with that company.

Some of these companies have done advertising and some of

these companies on local levels have done things for our soldiers,

for our future soldiers, for our family members, whether they are

at football games, baseball games, within their own local media,

with the police force, with governments.

I think we have an opportunity to leverage that. And as you all

are out in your communities and speaking with the leaders there,

I think leveraging with systems we have in place already could actually get to some of what you are talking about, Mr. Congressman.

General ROCHELLE. I would like to just add one thing, Congressman Murphy. That is I think we have, as General Vaughn has indicated, some very good examples of where major advertising agencies and major distributors of sorts have taken it upon themselves

to do things in direct support of Army recruiting and direct support

of military service and in direct support of our Department of Defense in general. What I would prefer to see is a call for more of

that from this body and from others.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

I am going to turn to Mr. Kline.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us today. Thank you for

your service. I want to echo the comments of all my colleagues, particularly Mr. McHugh, when he said how much we appreciate the

very tough job that you have and how much we admire the hard

work that you are putting in.

I also want to echo his comments when he said it is tough to

have to depend on Congress to get something done in a timely

manner.

I know, General Vaughn, that you are really under the gun, so

to speak. When we visited, you and I and Congressman Walsh at

Oakfield a couple of weeks ago, to start welcoming back the first

contingent of the 2,600—5,000 actually—Red Bulls that completed

their historic 16-month combat tour, a subject of some discussion

then, and before then and after then, is: How do we reintegrate

these fine soldiers back into their civilian jobs and civilian lives?

We have had a program much discussed up here which has broad

bipartisan support, called the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program—sort of spiraling off the efforts of General Shelton in Minnesota and other wonderful TAGs that are out there. And yet now

we are sitting here getting ready to move forward to appropriate

funds starting the first of October, and it appears there aren’t any

funds to pay for that.

So we are looking for the opportunity to bring these fine soldiers

back in and help them with potential problems with post-traumatic

stress disorder and perhaps family and job programs. We apparently are going to be unable to find any money to do that. We are

going to try, and use every sort of wile that we can to do that, but

it doesn’t bode well for some of the $850 million problem that you

have facing you.

20

General Vaughn, I am extremely impressed with this. I know we

all are, and some of us were on this committee when the Department of the Army said that wasn’t going to happen and cut that

money, and you have been trying to catch up ever since with the

money. You have explained that difficulty, how it is moving you

closer and closer, and yet nevertheless we are over here, and that

is a very impressive and good thing.

I guess the question that I want to explore with you is, nobody

thought you could do this. What do you think you can do? What

would be feasible—350,000, 360,000, 370,000? We are looking to increase the end-strength of the active forces and we have met unfortunately a great deal of resistance from the Administration up to

now, but now we have it in law and we are trying to move forward.

But it appears to me there may be some room in the National

Guard.

Could you explore that with me a little bit?

General VAUGHN. Thank you, Congressman. I think 360,000,

based on what we have done here, is certainly attainable in fairly

short order were we provided the resources to do so. I would say

370,000, you know, based on this, but I would hate to bite off more

than we can chew all at one time.

Mr. KLINE. Please don’t.

General VAUGHN. And so you know we thought that we would

end up this year at somewhere around 356,000. We had a substantial amount of help on the three percent in case that came true.

It looks like the estimate is now around 353,000 as about where

we will end up simply because we have had to cut back on the bonuses.

But if we run this thing wide open just like I talked to Secretary

Dominguez ahead of time, and they pledged that help, if we run

it wide open, 360,000 is certainly achievable in pretty short order,

sir.

Mr. KLINE. Is that three percent right? Is that with the flexibility

we need to go over?

General VAUGHN. The three percent will get us to about 359,000.

Mr. KLINE. About 359,000.

General VAUGHN. Yes, sir. That is, of course, without the appropriations behind that, that is end-strength that doesn’t have any

money behind it, sir.

Mr. KLINE. I understand that. I hate to jump back into the discussion that Mr. McHugh was having because there is a lot of

money and there are a lot of dates and it is kind of confusing to

all concerned.

But we have two issues here, and I see the yellow light just came

on, so I will be very brief. We have the issue of reprogramming

that is going to get us to the end of this fiscal year, and then we

have the issue of what is it going to take in 2008.

Do you have both of those numbers?

General VAUGHN. Sir, I do. I would like to give them to you for

the record.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 102.]

Mr. KLINE. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

General VAUGHN. Thank you, sir.

21

Mr. KLINE. Madam Chair, I yield back.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

Dr. Snyder.

Dr. SNYDER. I thought those men were ahead of me.

Mrs. DAVIS. If you would like.

Mr. Jones, are you next?

Mr. JONES. Yes, ma’am. That is very generous of——

Mrs. DAVIS. Dr. Snyder is yielding.

Mr. JONES [continuing]. Dr. Snyder. I appreciate it and would

certainly have waited for you.

Generals, I have great respect for everybody. I mean, you have

an impossible job. Thank you for what you are doing.

I want to get back to the issue of recruitment. General Bostick

and also General Rochelle, I read an article—I have made many

mentions of this, it was in the Carolina paper, ‘‘Deployed, Depleted,

Desperate.’’

Yesterday, in the Oversight Committee chaired by Chairman

Snyder, we had General McCaffrey, General Newbold in here yesterday. General McCaffrey has written about this. Yesterday, he

was very emphatic when he said that the Army will start to unravel in April, sometime in the spring of next year.

I know that you had difficulty meeting your goals in May and

June. General Bostick, you talked about now, which we all know

that you raised the age to 42 and people who are close to 42 can

join the military and I guess the guard as well, and the reserves.

According to this article, the demands of the war on our troops

and their aging, worn-out equipment already pushed the annual

costs of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses above $1 billion, recruit advertising to about $120 million annually. I know you have

been talking about numbers with my colleagues earlier.

I want to go to the point that both generals made—well, there

are three, but the two—General Rochelle and General Bostick. You

made mention that you are not getting much help from the coaches

and the teachers. When did you start seeing where that was a

problem that the coaches and the teachers across this Nation, in

the high schools?

At one time you counted on them—I guess you did, or you

wouldn’t have made that statement—you counted on them to encourage those high school seniors to think about the military as a

possible career or at least for a period of time.

When did you start seeing this becoming a problem?

General ROCHELLE. Sir, let me first of all comment that I am

aware of some of the comments made by General McCaffrey. I saw

something just today that was attributed to him. I did not specifically see a reference to April of next year. So I respectfully cannot

comment on that.

To answer your specific question on when I think the Army

began to see that statistically significant numbers, the answer is

in 2005. We began to see it in 2005. It spread from, if you will, educators to coaches to moms and dads, and then it began to take an

even steeper dive within those same groups up to today.

I will defer any further comment on that to General Bostick.

General BOSTICK. Congressman, I replaced General Rochelle in

recruiting command so I saw the same downward decline of

22

influencer support while changing command with him and we have

seen that continue to erode. Today, about one-fourth of mothers

and one-third of fathers would support the military.

When I first arrived at recruiting command and would walk into

recruiting stations, a lot of the youngsters were concerned, as they

are today, about the war. The question was usually, ‘‘What can I

do, what assignment can I go into, what unit, what location can I

go to in order to avoid the war?’’

Now, many sign up knowing that this is a commitment that they

have voted with their heart and their minds and they are committed to doing it. We have a number of future soldier losses every

year, of soldiers that have signed up, said this is what I wanted

to do, and then somewhere along the line, they change their mind.

We estimate that that is going to be about 10,000 this year that

have signed a contract, and then change their mind and decided

they are not going to come in.

I can’t tell you how much of that is caused by influencer support,

but I know we are going after it in every way that we can. We run

an all-American boat with the accessions command, my next higher

headquarters, every year where they highlight the best high school

football players, and we bring in coaches and teachers and educators.

This is an important area for us to spend time on. The educators,

the influencers, the coaches, and parents must know the opportunities that we can provide. So explaining what the Army is all about

and the advantages of service is very important.

Mr. JONES. I wasn’t being critical, because you all have done a

tremendous job. I have seen that football game on TV myself. But

definitely the recruiting is tracking the national debate, and you

can do nothing about that.

I want to again, as my time is up, I want to compliment you on

the great job you are doing, and all of our men and women in uniform, and God bless you all. Thank you.

I yield back.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Wilson, would you like to go? You all were here before this,

so we will let you do that.

Mr. WILSON. I would certainly not mind if doc would like to proceed? Thank you.

Generals, secretary, thank you so much for being here today. I

am particularly happy to be with you because I have never been

prouder of the military than I am today. I was a veteran for 31

years: 3 years in the reserves, 28 in the guard. I have had the opportunity to visit Iraq seven times; Afghanistan three times. I, six

weeks ago, visited with my former unit, the 218th Brigade, which

is currently in Afghanistan. I have never seen them look so good.

So obviously, recruiting and retention, I truly believe it is the

best ever, and I am very proud of the people serving. I have heard

you all mention that. I love the terminology. It is a good and noble

path, a call to national service. And then you really identified it,

and that is that military service is opportunity. I know what it

meant for me, the opportunities that I had of training at AG school,

JAG school—I see an AG officer back there with a smile.

23

The people that I have gotten to meet, and in fact it was inspiring to me, but all of my sons—four—have joined the military. I

know first-hand the opportunities for them. My oldest son went to

field artillery school. It truly propelled him, amazingly enough, into

law school. It gave him the confidence and background to do it. I

am very proud of the guy, and he is a veteran of Iraq.

Another son, and I see all these Army people here, I have to acknowledge one guy. He is off-track. He is a doctor in the Navy. But

again, we are really proud of his opportunities in military service.

A third son was in signal school. He now has a phenomenal background in communications, which helps him as a member of the

National Guard and his civilian position as a commercial real estate sales representative. And then our fourth guy is an engineer.

He is ROTC, and just grateful for the opportunities. He is learning

leadership thanks to being in the military.

Another point, I am so thrilled as I visit with Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) and ROTC units throughout the district I represent. Anytime we have a new school built, the first

thing that the community wants is JROTC. It has a great background.

A final point in regard to this issue is the recruiters themselves.

I have met so many recruiters over my career, but the recruiting

school at Fort Jackson, I want you to know, as I am flying back

and forth from Washington to Columbia, the recruiters that I meet

are first class, people who are truly concerned and interested in

providing opportunities for our young people.

Now, obviously I am somewhat biased to the National Guard, so

General Vaughn, I want to congratulate you on the increase in endstrength by 22,000 troops. Could you explain to us how you think

this occurred, and what reasons there have been? What do you see

for the continued success of the Guard?

General VAUGHN. Thank you, Congressman. We put some innovative programs in place, we think. We think the Guard Recruiters’

Assistance Program is probably the best thing that we have ever

done. It changed the face of recruiting. We went from the bottom

of the totem pole among high school graduates to the very top. We

have nearly 93 percent high school graduates now.

So we put the right things in place. In our advertising, we were

very selective about where we advertised, and a lot of people think,

well, how come you all aren’t on the National Association for Stock

Car Auto Racing (NASCAR)—I wasn’t a NASCAR fan, but there

are 70 million people that are. We put some money into fishing, because there are 50 million fishermen out there and there are lots

of parents trying to make memories and grandparents trying to

make memories for them.

I think the biggest thing—you know, it is like pouring gasoline

on a fire—is there are still a lot of patriots out there. There are

a lot of patriots. And by the way, you know, the question on

schools, I think we were recruiting a couple of different types of

folks. We didn’t realize that there was that kind of market when

we started. We had to change to a non-prior service market. And

we have many, many, many soldiers that want to stay in the communities with a job and serve the Nation, and go to war or go to

school.

24

And so the patriotism aspect of this just kind of blew everybody

away. It is the support of the communities. It is not the bigger

issue of right or wrong. I mean, what they were proud of is stepping forward with the people they serve with in that community,

and the whole community—just like in Minnesota—this thing in

Minnesota welcoming the Red Bulls back. You know, town by town

by town by town, they didn’t want a great big ceremony. Every one

of them wanted in on this thing statewide.

And so we put the right programs in place at the right time, a

very innovative approach to it. And rather than the influencers, we

think it is peer recruiting. We think it is, you know, we would like

for you to join our team, and be with us. And that is what we were

able to do, sir.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you.

Again, I have two sons participating in G–RAP, so I know firsthand what this means. So again, thank you all. Thank you for the

opportunities provided to the young people of the United States.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

Dr. Snyder.

Dr. SNYDER. General Rochelle, it sounds like if we just paid Joe

Wilson to have more children, we could solve a lot of our recruiting

issues. [Laughter.]

I want to pick up a little bit on what Colonel Kline was talking

about, and Walter Jones talked on a little bit, too, which is the

comments that General McCaffrey made at our subcommittee hearing. It is not just him that is making it. It is this issue that we

expect—you know, we have these recruiting goals that you are targeting, and we have had this end-strength discussion in Congress,

primarily with Secretary Rumsfeld for six years or so. And now the

President and the Congress are moving ahead.

But there are some voices out there that think that the Army

ought to be dramatically bigger, you know, dramatically bigger. We

are talking about going from 12-month to 15-month rotations. We

are talking about the most powerful Nation in the world, you know,

we are struggling to maintain our Army at 160,000 troops in there

for a relatively short period of time, that the Commander-in-Chief

should not be put in this position, that there should be a dramatic

increase in numbers.

So my question, General Rochelle, is what if the Congress were

to come back in September and say, you know what, we have been

listening to some of these folks in and out of uniform, and we think

we need to increase by 50,000 over the next year, or 30,000, and

we are not going to do this glide path over 4 or 5 or 6 years.

Do we have that ability to do that? Is it just a matter of money

and putting more people in recruiting? Or is that just really a pipedream? Is this a glide path, and we probably have already chosen

that because we really don’t have any choice but to choose this

glide path to increased end-strength?

General ROCHELLE. Sir, if you will permit me just a bit of a diversion to go back to General Vaughn’s comments. I will answer

your question, sir.

There is patriotism out there. There clearly is. Each of you distinguished members has addressed that in one fashion or another.

In point of fact, we have six or seven young people in the chamber

25

today that I would ask to stand, members of the Army ROTC and

the United States Military Academy.

Please stand.

They just happen to be here.

[Applause.]

Army ROTC cadets who simply happened to be here to observe

this congressional process and our Constitution being played out.

So it can be done, but it cannot be done without the support of

the Congress. It cannot be done without a, if you will, national call

to duty, which thus far the Army and DOD have been beating that

particular drum, but it is much larger than just DOD and the

Army.

Dr. SNYDER. So who is it?

General ROCHELLE. I beg your pardon?

Dr. SNYDER. Who is it?

General ROCHELLE. The national call to duty.

Dr. SNYDER. Are you implying that there are other people out

there that are not hitting the drum?

General ROCHELLE. Sir, I am implying that every single American should be beating the drum. I am indeed implying that every

American should beat the drum. We have members, as I mentioned

before, we have corporations that have signed up to do their part,

and they are beating the drum.

General BOSTICK. Congressman, if I could make a comment. I

would like to hearken back to earlier comments about the patriotism of Americans that are out there, and also what Secretary

Dominguez talked about in ensuring access at the beginning of

this. We have to look at 32 million 17- to 24-year-olds, and we have

to peel that back down to about 2.2 million young Americans that

are qualified for this service that we are enlisting soldiers into.

The challenge for our recruiters is often the access, the ability to

tell the Army story to a soldier or an applicant that we know once

they hear that story, they are going to be willing to serve. There

are many, many patriots out there, and having that access and how

do we enable that access is very important to us. The more that

we can help there, the better I think we can grow.

Absolutely, there are many out there that would love to serve,

and we need to find them and we need to talk to them. Our

recruiters——

Dr. SNYDER. I understand all this, and I am agreeing with all

that. I also agree that at times of great foreign policy debate, we

need to have our military at the size we think that we need it, and

then the political debate is over, the decisions of the Commanderin-Chief. And we don’t always agree with those decisions, but that

is how we maintain the national defense of the country.

My question is, what if the Congress were to decide to say, you

know, I think a lot of us think this number is a pretty minimal

number, this increase over the next several years that ought to be

dramatically higher, and we are not sure that we could get there

even if we made that decision.

I see my time is up, Madam Chairman. I had some interruptions.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

We do have to say that if there are interruptions, we do have to

ask any of you to leave that are creating this.

26

I want go to on and talk about recruit quality, because I know

that that is a difficult issue, and yet at the same time I think that

we need to talk about it because it says something about the leadership that we are going to see in the services in the next 20 years.

And so I wonder if you could address that for us?

We are well aware that the number of new recruits testing below

average in mental categories has shifted, and nearly 40 percent

during fiscal year 2006—the highest level since fiscal year 1990 in

categories 3(b) and 4, which indicates a shift. Active Army accessions during fiscal year 2007, 78 percent of them are high school

graduates. The goal is closer to 90 percent.

Talk to us a little bit about what you see in those shifts. And

particularly how it applies to the non-commissioned officer leadership that we will be looking for in the future. How do these numbers affect that? What do you see?

General ROCHELLE. Madam Chair, I personally believe that the

spirit of volunteerism today has a certain aspect of quality unto

itself. Not to diminish the 90 percent high school degree grads, 60

percent 1 to 3(a), but as General Bostick has said, every young person who raises his or her right hand is fully qualified to serve and

fully qualified for the specialty into which they volunteer.

In 1981, fully 51 percent—if my memory serves correctly—of the

young men and women entering the Army in 1981, 50 percent were

at the category four level. Today, consistently, that number is at

or below four percent. The senior non-commissioned officers (NCO)

who are leading in Iraq today and around the globe in the global

war on terror, by and large, were those individuals who enlisted—

not all of them, of course—but are representative of many of those

individuals who enlisted in that 1981 timeframe.

So the answer to your question I think is two-fold. One, how does

it bode? I think their performance in the field under-fire, their performance all around the globe today speaks volumes for the future,

and it is very positive. Second, I cannot overemphasize enough, in

the market that has been described by every member of this panel,

volunteerism today has a certain aspect of quality unto itself.

General BOSTICK. Chairwoman, I have served with these soldiers

in combat. At this point in time, I am very confident of their capabilities. They are great soldiers. The non-commissioned officers are

truly the backbone of this Army and they are leading this Army

very well.

I will say that we ought to take a look at the quality metrics.

When we talk about quality, we are talking about the high school

diploma graduates, their aptitude, and we look at waivers. Those

are three areas that affect us. In terms of high school diploma

graduates, that was set up, as I understand it, to make sure that

we did not attrite to a level that was too great. We looked at basic

training and through Advanced Individual Training (AIT), and attrition has dropped in the last 18 months from 18 percent attrition

down to 7 percent.

So granted, we have brought in many more General Equivalency

Diplomas (GEDs) and home schoolers, 19 percent last year and the

goal was to hold that around 10 percent. But even in expanding

that to 19 percent, we are seeing that attrition is okay. So in terms

27

of that metric of attrition, I feel confident we are meeting the desired end-state.

In terms of aptitude, and this gets to the category fours and

those that are testing a little bit lower on the armed services vocational aptitude battery (ASVAB) test, I would say again look at

what is happening in the field, and talk to commanders that are

out there. If you are a mechanic and you have to change an engine

in peacetime and you change that engine once a week, and now you

are changing it every day, multiple times a day in combat operations, the aptitude concern is no longer an issue.

They are learning at exponential rates in combat operations. I

don’t know what the impact of that is on the aptitude quality component of how we measure our Army, but I do know we need to

go look at it and see if it is having an impact.

In terms of waivers, the third area, we have grown, as I said in

my opening statement, about two percent to three percent each

year since 2004. There are a number of reasons for that. I don’t

know all of them, but I know some of them have to do with the

makeup of our society today.

We have a zero-tolerance policy in most schools and most

states—things that children would get into trouble for when I was

a youngster, and you would be taken to the principal or your parents would be called—you are often reported and many times

charged. And if you look at the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) database, in the last 5 years it has increased 14 percent for

those who are in the age group from 17 to 24 years old. That is

a factor. I don’t know how big a factor it is, but it is important.

The other one I would say is that with the Internet and the

connectivity and automation, there are things that we could not

find out about you in the past, that we now know about, and the

states are connected, the FBI database is connected. There are

probably some folks that are in the services today that 15 years ago

had they not voluntarily said whether they smoked marijuana or

did something else, we would not be able to track that. We can

track it today.

And finally, we have gone through our own processes and made

sure that through main Six Sigma, that we have a very efficient

process for the recruiters. Before, if they had to submit someone for

a waiver, it would take weeks before they would get an answer.

Now, it is days. So if a person comes in and he has to make a decision, the recruiter has to make a decision of whether to take a

chance on him—and I mean ‘‘chance’’ in terms of time, which is his

most valuable resource—he is going to do it now.

So you are going to see the waiver numbers increase. I think it

will increase another two percent to three percent again this year.

I think for us in the Army we have to look downstream and see

what is the impact of those waivers on the force.

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. I appreciate that. I don’t think anybody questions their bravery, their dedication or their ability to perform tremendously, as they have. But I think trying to find some way of

really tracking that information so that we can begin to be perhaps

even more creative. Actually, General Rochelle and I had a discussion about the small percentage of people who are actually eligible,

28

and we know that health reasons are an outstanding factor why

some people are not able to come into the service.

We know that our population as a whole is more obese today, has

more problems around nutrition and weight than we have probably

ever had. And it seemed to me that maybe we needed to be more

creative around that, and create some incentives to bring people in

who might even be questionable in that area or in delayed fashion.

I don’t know. I just think that we need to certainly, and I appreciate the fact that you are saying we have to look at it. We can’t

just assume that it is going to all work out okay, especially when

it comes to leadership, which is such a critical, critical need today.

So I hope we can find a way to do that so a year from now we

can sit here and have perhaps more data which suggests why what

we are doing is working out fine; perhaps we should even change

it and allow more people to come in perhaps on waivers or we need

to cut back, because that is creating a problem.

The issue that Dr. Snyder raises, if we are going to go to greater

end-strength and clearly making the recruiting numbers becomes

a far greater challenge that it even is today. And that means that

we perhaps need to be even more creative and try and find better

ways of trying to do this. The bottom line for us as we started is

having dollars available when you need them to bring people in.

I want to go to my colleagues, but I also wanted to in a minute

or two just talk about some special needs categories that need to

be addressed for the future.

Mr. McHugh, do you want to ask a few more questions?

Mr. MCHUGH. Yes. Sort of in the same vein you were in, I associate myself with what the chair just said. We have standards for a

reason, and by and large they are good and they are something we

should all strive to meet. When you don’t meet them, the problem

is that it brings into question the entire force, and that concerns

me.

We had a witness before the full committee very recently—the

name is irrelevant—that talked about the military in general, in

this case the Army’s inability to meet many of the pre-established

standards—the 90 percent standard, for example, and others. And

then said very flatly that recruit quality was diminishing dramatically, where we were even bringing in felons.

That was his word, ‘‘felons.’’ He is certainly entitled to his opinion. His overall view was, I believe, that the military of today is

stressed—certainly no argument there—stressed beyond its capabilities. And the quality of the men and women in uniform today

was suspect. That part concerns me. I am not sure that was his

intent, but certainly the words he said brought into question that.

Just to kind of state it in a different way and put it on the record

again, I would like to ask you gentlemen to state how you feel

about the quality of the men and women overall that you are recruiting into the military today, and make a comment, if you will,

about felons in terms of waivers if you have such a thing.

I mean, generally when we talked about waivers, there is the

medical waiver, there is the moral waiver, which by and large has

to do with minor crimes, generally as a youth, whether it is an alcohol situation or some kind of truancy, vandalism, something like

that.

29

But are we admitting hardcore felons into the United States

Army today? Did I miss something?

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Sir, I will start and then I think General

Rochelle should pile on.

But no, we exclude members of hate groups and gangs and those

kinds of things. We have very well established procedures to exclude those. We don’t recruit murderers and rapists and that kind

of violent criminal.

What amounts to a felony in the United States of America varies

from state to state. So you can be arrested for what constitutes a

felony for what many of us, in particular many years ago, would

have thought would not amount to an act that would associate

yourself with that word. But the drug business, in particular, has

that, so the use of marijuana——

Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Secretary, forgive me for interrupting. When

you say ‘‘drug business,’’ you meant—for example, the state of New

York, we have something called the Rockefeller drug laws, where,

at their extreme, small amounts for personal use, you are a felon

and you go away for certain drugs for a long time.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Right, right.

Mr. MCHUGH. That is what you are talking—you are not talking

about street sellers.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. No, I am not talking about guys who are

in that business. I am talking about people who have been arrested

or apprehended with narcotics or illegal substances. In some states,

sir, that would classify as a felony.

Now, the waiver process, and we need to understand this, is that

it is a process that triggers in every case, in every service, a general officer to intervene and look at the whole person here, to consider input from coaches, pastors, parents, neighbors about the

character of the individual, and to make an assessment about

whether there is a potential. Kids at 17 make mistakes.

They may make mistakes at 16. Today, some of those things,

some of those mistakes in growing up—burglaries, right? You

know, these are serious mistakes, but is it a mistake that ought to

keep a kid away from a growth opportunity and professional development opportunity forever?

What we would do, what our process does is trigger a general officer to get involved and make an informed judgment after considering all those people around him and say, you know, was that a

mistake in a kid who other has potential to serve? Is there enough

here that we want to make a bet on him and give him this person

an opportunity to demonstrate their potential? That is what our

waiver process does.

In some cases, yes, kids have been picked up for burglary, kids

who have been picked up for possession or use of controlled substances—yes, those people are brought in that net, but they are

looked at and an individual judgment made by a general officer in

every case.

Mr. MCHUGH. But by and large, you are not admitting violent

felons?

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Right. To my knowledge——

Mr. MCHUGH. Physically violent felons.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Right.

30

General Rochelle, you are the expert here.

General ROCHELLE. General Bostick is really the expert.

General BOSTICK. Let me take that one.

First, to answer your question directly, Congressman, on whether

I am concerned about the quality. I am not. I think we have a high

quality Army. I came into an Army almost 30 years ago where we

had an issue with quality. But I am very comfortable with where

we are at. I have served with many of these soldiers that General

Rochelle brought in and that I am bringing in now. They are serving admirably.

We did a study back in 2003, and I think we have to go back and

take a look at something similar. To answer the question directly,

we looked at the serious criminal misconduct. The vast majority of

those that we bring in with waivers are misdemeanors. Last year,

86 percent were misdemeanors. The rest were in the area we call

serious criminal misconduct.

We did a study in 2003 to see if their behavior, their discipline

problems, were any different from those that had not received a

waiver, and they were essentially the same, really no different between the two of those. I would offer that we do that again. But

when you look at the serious criminal misconduct, there are no

hardened criminals here. There are no drug dealers, no sex offenders, none of those kinds of offenders are coming into our Army.

I received an e-mail yesterday from an individual that we have

to waiver. He started it off by saying, ‘‘General Bostick, when I was

eight years old I was in a barn with my friend who is 13, and he

sprayed the WD–40 can and lit a match, and caused a fire.’’ Many

years later—now he is about 18 or 19—he thought this thing was

completely done, that nothing happened. He was told by the judge

that you will bake a cake with your mother, and that is your community service. Well, we have to do a waiver on him. That is arson,

and we do a waiver on him.

We had a sister and another sister, and one of them we had already signed up, and got into a fight. The parents called the police

to stop the fight because one of the sisters had hit the other with

a bat—aggravated assault. We had to do a waiver on her.

We have had sexual misconduct. It sounds very serious, and he

was charged—a 17-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-yearold—not something we want to have happen, but now that he is

many years removed from that incident, has he educated himself,

has he worked in society, has he demonstrated that he deserves another chance?

Those are the kind of serious criminal misconduct waivers that

get raised to a general officer, either myself or my deputy, and we

approve those. So I am very confident we have a solid process, but

I would open it up, and have anyone come out and look at those

that have had waivers, and see how they are doing.

Corporal Vaccaro, killed in Iraq, in Afghanistan, 10th Mountain

Division—he smoked marijuana for 20 to 30 times; he saved many,

many soldiers and earned a Silver Star. Those are examples of the

kind of soldiers that have been given a second chance, have demonstrated before that second chance opportunity that they had

overcome any misgivings they had earlier in their life. So I feel

very, very confident of it. But I do think we ought to look at it.

31

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, I appreciate that.

[Audience interruption.]

Mrs. DAVIS. I am sorry. You will have to leave please. Please

leave so we don’t have to have somebody come in and take you out.

Ms. Boyda. Ms. Boyda, go ahead.

Mrs. BOYDA. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. MCHUGH. May I just make my closing comment? So I approve—and it will be right to you, Ms. Boyda. I apologize. I was

interrupted by the lady.

This is an important issue, and I think the idea of perhaps doing

another study off your baseline as to what happens to these people

on discipline versus non-waivered would be a good way to hopefully

resolve many of these questions.

And so, I don’t believe either in the House or the Senate we have

that in our base bill, and you probably are rather busy right now,

but that kind of study I think would be a good idea. I will resist

the temptation to ask how that fellow with the WD–40 lit the oven

when he baked the cake, but thank you again for your service.

Madam Chair, I yield back.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.

I would like us to, if you already don’t have something in place,

to begin to track some of that information anew with the greater

number of waivers that we have in. It seems as if that would be

something that would be desirable to do, and if you need us to help

you out with that, please let us know.

General ROCHELLE. If I may, Madam Chair, in our discussions of

yesterday, this subject came up. As soon as I got back to the Pentagon, I had the individuals who are responsible to doing those types

of studies in my office and we are going to undertake that longitudinally.

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Boyda.

Mrs. BOYDA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

I just had a few questions. They are a little bit just out of curiosity trying to learn some things here. The first one is about contractors. Do you feel like you are competing with contractors? Or does

that ever play into the decision? That is my question. Do you feel

like you are competing with contractors?

Whoever would like this.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Yes, ma’am. Let me start.

Yes, largely in the retention area, and not just contractors for the

armed forces, but lots and lots of people in American business are

eager to get the talent that we produce because they have been

brought in. They have demonstrated the ability to achieve against

great odds and under great pressure. They have integrity. They

show up for work on time. They are clean. They understand what

the work ethic is all about. These are valuable employees anywhere, and that is the retention problem for us.

In some cases and in some skills, you have contractors and we

are creating our own competitors. We are looking at that and I

wish it weren’t so, but for the most part, we are holding up well.

Attrition is not significantly greater. I just looked at this in the

special operations business to see if we are hemorrhaging soft talVerDate 22-MAR-2001 08:06 Nov 20, 2008 Jkt 038421 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-83\213020.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
32

ent into the backwaters at all. And no, the attrition is really at the

same levels it has been over several years.

Mrs. BOYDA. But you said that that would hold true for your captains and majors as well?

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. In the mid-grades, as we talked about, in

the Army in particular, because of the way they are growing and

size that they are growing, we need to push retention levels for

captains and majors beyond historical experience.

Mrs. BOYDA. Would anyone else care to comment on this?

General ROCHELLE. I would, ma’am. Thank you for the opportunity.

Mrs. BOYDA. Really, this is something I hear about. It is just

grumbles and these guys—and they are mainly guys—and women,

but they are proud to serve in the military, and understand the difference between what they are doing and contracting. This is a

commitment. They are proud to wear the uniform.

General ROCHELLE. I would like to make three points, ma’am, in

response to your question. The first is that going back to my earlier

comments about the 50 percent category, 51 percent category in

1980. If you were to reexamine those same individuals one year

later, they would not resemble the individual who was tested prior

to having come into the Army.

That is a testament to what the Army does for every single person who joins our force. So in response once again to Madam

Chair’s question about am I concerned about the four percent? Absolutely not. I think I would echo General Vaughn’s comments as

well.

The second point is that, yes, indeed some of our high skills are

particularly susceptible to contractors recruiting them right out of

our ranks, because they can simply pay an awful lot more. As a result of that, some of our bonuses for special operators, since Mr.

Dominguez raised that, are in the $150,000 retention range to officers.

Mrs. BOYDA. What level officers?

General ROCHELLE. I beg your pardon?

Mrs. BOYDA. What level officers?

General ROCHELLE. I am changing to officers. I wasn’t referring

to officers and that led—there was a transition. Forgive me.

Mrs. BOYDA. Okay. But you said $150,000 bonus to——

General ROCHELLE. Special Forces sergeants, senior non-commissioned officers.

Now to the subject of officers, which was your other question.

Most definitely our young officers who are supremely talented are

able to operate without lots of direct supervision and are doing

things today that far more senior officers would have done in years

past. They are particularly attractive to contractors. They are aggressively, aggressively recruiting those young officers.

We are responding—back again to Madam Chair’s comments

about innovation—we are responding innovatively, as you heard in

Mr. Dominguez’s opening comments, with the first-time ever a critical skills retention bonus for young captains, who will help us

close the gap between the requirements of a modular Army and the

year 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 by retaining them and offering

them options, a menu of options, which would include branch of

33

choice for newly commissioned officers; station of choice; and monetary incentive—graduate school being the fourth of the menu.

It is largely in response to your question. Yes, they are a very

attractive commodity; and two, we are trying to retain officers.

Mrs. BOYDA. Could I just ask, Madam Chairwoman, have we

tipped a balance in contracting—the decision to contract—to where

we have pushed that balance to where now it is a good option? Or

is there something that we should start to push that balance? I understand it is very difficult when you are trying to recruit and now

you have gotten yourself kind of in a corner, but do you feel like

we have pushed that?

We have defense contractors—God bless them—that I can’t imagine anybody doing. You know, we contract out weapons systems.

The Army doesn’t do that themselves. We contract out all kinds of

things. But I am talking about boots on the ground and our contractors that we are seeing.

May I ask if you think that has that tipped to a point where it

is becoming more and more problematic, and now we are going to

have to keep, you know, upping the ante on both sides to keep up

with that?

General ROCHELLE. It is clear we must compete. We must be able

to compete with the attractiveness of salaries and benefits that are

offered outside. I believe the temptation and the pressures have always been there. I also believe that they are slightly greater today,

not only as a consequence of broader contracting, but quite frankly

the environment in which we find ourselves.

Mrs. BOYDA. All right. Any, you know, with this committee,

any—again any suggestions that you have on what we can do to

help you find that balance, or to do anything in that regard? It is

certainly why we are here, and we have made some attempts at

that in our Defense Authorization Bill. So whether in this committee or some way to help us do that. Thank you.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Wilson, did you have a comment?

Mr. WILSON. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I want to tell you another perspective that I have. I represent the

initial recruit training facilities of Fort Jackson for the Army, Parris Island for the Marines. I want you to know that on my visits

there, I have seen again the fruits of what you have done and how

much it means for these young people with opportunity. Madam

Chairman, I would like to invite any of our members, if you have

the opportunity to visit the great state of South Carolina, you

would truly be inspired.

I was recently at Fort Jackson with General Steve Siegfried, who

gave a welcoming induction to new recruits. He himself is a role

model extraordinaire. He was a private. He rose all the way to be

general, to be commanding officer of Fort Jackson. He is just a

wonderful person and so dedicated.

And then three weeks ago, I had the privilege of attending—and

it was a multiple visit for me because every time I go, it is an inspiration—but at Parris Island, I was there for the graduation. And

all of the male recruits east of the Mississippi, all of the female recruits in the United States, attend and participate in training at

Parris Island. And you are there with the families, and they just

34

could burst with pride. You are there with moms, dads, siblings,

grandparents, aunts, uncles. I knew some from my community and

it was an extraordinary cross section of America.

So I want to thank you for what you do, because I see it as I

visit throughout the district. Thank you and God bless you for your

service.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

Dr. Snyder.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I have several questions I will direct to each of you individually.

General Bostick, I will ask this to you. I think it is in Secretary

Dominguez’s written statement. He talks about the number that

are not even available for recruiting because of problems. Specifically, he says about 39 percent are medically disqualified, with obesity representing the largest contributing factor.

So when the folks that come into your command then, there just

aren’t that many people that are overweight? Is that what happens? If a person is obese, we just don’t recruit them?

General BOSTICK. No, actually, Congressman, we have several innovative programs. One is called the ARMS Program, the Assessment of Recruiter Motivation and Strength. What this program

does is, working with the psychiatrist, the doctors, our recruiters

developed a way to test the motivation of an individual to determine if he is overweight, does he have the motivation to get

through basic training.

Dr. SNYDER. Okay.

General BOSTICK. So you can come in overweight and you can

still pass the——

Dr. SNYDER. And of this number—this 39 percent that are disqualified with obesity representing the largest contributing factor,

what percentage of obese men and women that want to get in are

we letting in?

General BOSTICK. I would have to get that number for the record

for you. It is a small number that are involved in the ARMS program.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 102.]

Dr. SNYDER. A small number.

General BOSTICK. That we are bringing in, and the last time I

looked at this, I will tell you that the one thing we did track very

closely was to see how they attrited through basic training. Even

though they came in about two percentage or three percentage

points above body fat, they attrited at the same rate as those that

had no waiver. But I can get the precise numbers on the ARMS

program.

Dr. SNYDER. In the olden days in the Marine Corps, they would

just let them in and them keep them in basic training until they

actually got down to the weight of the rest of us, which I thought

they were the bravest men I had ever seen that went through Marine Corps boot camp for six weeks trying to get down the weight.

General Vaughn, I wanted to ask you, we have had discussions

before, but you know there is a great interest in the Congress on

dealing with this issue of GI bill for reserve component members

who come back. My own view is that—and Secretary Dominguez

35

and I have had this discussion before, too—but my view is that it

would help overall recruiting if there was a clear message out there

that if somebody came into the Guard or Reserve for a period of

time and served overseas, came back and got out, that they would

still be entitled to full GI bill benefits.

Is that your feeling also?

General VAUGHN. Congressman, I couldn’t agree more, and all

the TAGs do also. You know, we don’t see it as an incentive. We

see it as a benefit and it ought to flow with them all the way

through. I say we don’t see it as incentive. Do you know what I am

getting after?

Dr. SNYDER. I think what you are getting after is that I think

it is the view of the Pentagon that if members can get out and still

get out of the reserve component and still keep their educational

benefit, that they might not have the incentive to stay in.

My own view is that that is more than made up for this general

sense that we treating people fairly and equitably and that the

military is a place to go, the reserve component is a place to go for

educational benefits whether you stay in or out; that it overall

would help you to have a robust educational benefit.

I know that with Senator Lincoln on this on the Senate side is

interested in working on this. We already have the first step of

dealing with that issue in our bill this year, although we still have

to work out this issue of——

General VAUGHN. If I could for a second, because we really agree

with that. There is a recruiting program that Mike and Tom and

I are trying to work called Active First, where we would recruit active soldiers into the guard first, and then go on active duty for a

small period of time. The big deal about that is you get the bonus

up front, but you get the full Montgomery GI bill.

And you know what? I mean, the TAGs are just overjoyed with

this thing because now they come back, and as you well know, it

is transferable to the spouses potentially a little further down. If

you put that with the state pieces of this, this amounts to something for the entire family.

Dr. SNYDER. And it amounts to something for the entire country,

because whether they are in or out of the service, it can have dramatic effects.

My third question is, and I have asked before about this issue,

about a glide path for the increased active duty number. I think

Secretary Gates at one point in a moment of candor, as he is prone

to do, and much appreciated, he said, ‘‘I think we chose that number because I was told that is what we felt we could recruit.’’ Which

is probably not the best way to do foreign policy, and if we think

we need to go to 20,000 or 30,000 a year, then that is probably

what we need to do.

General Rochelle, have you gotten any downstream comments as

this number is going up where—are you getting feedback that, wait

a minute, that is a maximum number that we can have because

we don’t have barracks set up at our recruit depots; we don’t have

the ability to train these young men and women and they are coming in as this number goes up; or do you think that the system can

handle substantially more numbers of new recruits if there was a

fairly dramatic increase?

36

General ROCHELLE. Sir, there would clearly be a need to look at

the total infrastructure costs.

Dr. SNYDER. Does anybody look at that on an ongoing basis? I

would assume you would have to be looking at that. I mean, we

could wake up tomorrow morning—God forbid—and have a major

foreign policy crisis in which everyone would look around and say,

yes, we need 100,000 troops by next Tuesday.

I assume that you all have studies that would deal with that. Is

that an ongoing look?

General ROCHELLE. We have begun to take a look at that requirement should it occur. However, my comment was that we are

looking at the infrastructure requirements for the current rate of

growth.

Dr. SNYDER. For the current rate.

General ROCHELLE. Yes, sir, absolutely, most definitely.

Dr. SNYDER. Is that a report that will be coming to Congress? Is

that an in-house thing? Or is there going to be some kind of formal

document that you can share with us when it comes out?

General ROCHELLE. Sir, I am not aware of a report headed this

way to Congress, but I will take that for the record and we will respond back.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 102.]

Dr. SNYDER. Because I would assume that if it says we need

more barracks, you would want us to know about it.

General ROCHELLE. Yes, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

Thank you all for the work you do.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Dr. Snyder.

I wanted to turn to the issue of recruiting at schools, because I

think when you go into communities, this is one of the issues that

is raised. I am wondering if there is a hotline or a complaint line

or some way in which if parents are concerned, students are concerned, that they can call and say, you know, I am being harassed

or I am uncomfortable with what is happening.

Does that exist in some communities? Or where are we even in

thinking about that kind of opportunity for people to try and express themselves in that way?

General ROCHELLE. Let me respond to that if I may, Madam

Chair. Since the high school ASVAB testing program is a Department of Defense-wide program used by all service recruiters, including the Coast Guard, I might add, I can only answer for the

Army. I can tell you that I have no capability for a hotline. We

have no hotline established for parents who may be feeling a little

bit harassed by recruiters.

Mrs. DAVIS. Any thoughts about whether that is something that

would be helpful?

General ROCHELLE. I will be happy to take a look at that.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. If I might——

Mrs. DAVIS. I guess we serve as his hotline. I think the congressional offices in some ways serve as a hotline. Someone should

serve as a hotline.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Well, that is where I was going. I think

the hotline, there are 435 of them.

37

Mrs. DAVIS. Right.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. But I think I would like General Bostick

to really talk some about that interface with the community, if you

could, and how you manage that to ensure that our recruiters stay

on the right side of the line and make sure that parents are apprised of their rights to say, ‘‘No, I don’t want this information presented to my children.’’

Mrs. DAVIS. I ask this partly because, as you know, there is concern in some communities to have a kind of opt-in, as opposed to

an opt-out provision so that families who don’t want to be contacted

and know that up front can state that clearly at the beginning of

the school years.

In many schools, most schools I think, there is that opportunity,

but there is a concern that in fact that either people don’t get the

word, they don’t understand it, there are lot of other things going

on at the beginning of the year, and so they don’t actually activate

that provision.

So there is a push in some communities to do just the opposite,

which I know would be very problematic. I am not suggesting that

that is the right course to take, but I am concerned that we hear

repeated, and we do because we are actually the hotline of how we

can deal with that.

So in that spirit, I am just trying——

General BOSTICK. While we may not have a hotline, my judgment

is that the parents know how to reach us. They reach us through

the chain of command. Generally, there is a recruiter that is making contact at the home or at the school. If they have concerns,

they know how to call us either through their child, or if they go

to a website.

They use the web very frequently and they are able to get my

e-mail and a number of these will come directly to me. But generally, they engage with the chain of command. I don’t know if that

works for all parents out there, but it works for many because I

can tell you I have received those first-hand.

In terms of the way ahead, as I look at the No Child Left Behind

Act and what it does for us or does not, one of the challenges that

we have is this friction between the recruiters and the school, in

some cases not in all, certainly. But the friction is caused by a lack

of any structure in terms of when the high school lists are provided, what the timeline is for that, what the format is, whether

it ought to be automated or a stack of papers.

I think clarity in how that is done at the local level is what we

work on. We do that through the superintendents, through the

principals, and through our recruiters. The last thing we want is

an adversarial relationship. We just want to have the opportunity

to have access and to talk to the individual and give them the opportunity. This is a volunteer Army and we would like to keep it

that way. We are not going to force anyone to come into the military.

General ROCHELLE. May I comment on the opt-in versus opt-out?

As we have already established, access is the primary challenge

that we have today. It would be, in my opinion—and I think you

have alluded to this in your comment—it would be absolutely devastating for an opt-in versus an opt-out.

38

Already, as General Bostick has stated, and I know that any

leader at this table can attest to this, already we are challenged

with a lack of consistency in terms of receiving access to high

school lists, ASVAB lists, et cetera, the way in which they are received, et cetera.

In order to move now from an opt-out procedure, which is the

current one—and I know there are some circles where people believe that we should move to an opt-in, that means it is withheld

unless you by commission opt in, would not be good. That would

further restrict access.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

Could you please just share with us what are some of the special

needs categories that you have? And are bonuses working in that

regard to help to supplement, certainly, the needs that are out

there? Where are they? And what is being done to recruit those individuals?

General ROCHELLE. If I may, I would like to provide for the

record a more thorough answer to your question, but I can give you

some tidbits if you will to address your interest.

We apply bonuses for several reasons, not just to address specific

needs, but the way in which we apply bonuses to special skills also

helps us shape the future force.

For example, if we have too many soldiers—and Congressman

Wilson addressed the adjutant general corps as an example, and I

wouldn’t address judge advocate general necessarily—but if we had

more individuals in those skills and those are easily acquired skills,

then we would shift our bonus weight—meaning amount—to other

areas where we are having to grow capacity in the future Army in

the next two, three, four, five or even ten years, if we can see that

far.

We are doing that. We are using our bonuses not only to help entice individuals who might otherwise be teetering on the question

of service, but also to shape the force. We are growing requirements in the logistics field, and our bonuses reflect that, the bonus

amounts and the terms of service associated therewith.

We are also growing in the military intelligence field, and our bonuses reflect that. Those are hard to acquire skills. They require

the capability to pass massive security screens for security clearances and the like.

Those are some examples. I would like to submit a more thorough response in writing for the record, if I may.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 101.]

General BOSTICK. If I could follow up, one of the areas that I

work very closely with our team is the medical recruiting. We have

been challenged here with our doctors and our nurses and our dentists, on both the active and the reserve side. You all have helped

with some of that.

Next year in the bill I understand there is a two-year mandatory

service obligation for some of these critical skills, so that the doctors and dentists can come in, do their service, and then move on

with their careers wherever they are in the country. Also within

that bill are some significant bonuses for doctors, dentists and others.

39

We have made some headway. We work very closely with General Pollock on the nurses. We have made some headway there, but

in this area as well, we have to reach out. Access is important to

the medical community, the universities and the leaders out there,

for them to understand the challenges that we face and the need

for them to step forward as well.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.

I understand that, as you mentioned nurses, that there was a recent bonus that was approved for nurses. Is that being utilized?

General BOSTICK. The nurse program actually is moving upward.

We came in the year last year about 78 percent of the mission accomplishment. We think we are going to finish at about 96 percent.

So the focus by Major General Pollock and her team in assisting

us out in the field, and my recruiters on the medical side has

helped to move that in the right direction.

Mr. James just had a summit in Washington State where he

brought in a lot of educators just to focus on nurses and what can

we do to help move forward in nurses, because America is having

a challenge in nurses as well.

Mrs. DAVIS. Let me just understand. There is an incentive pay—

has that been funded yet?

General ROCHELLE. Nurses are included in the critical skills, the

Office of Critical Skills retention bonus that I alluded to earlier.

We are hopeful that we will have that program activated and out

there before the end of this month, August.

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay, so we can assure folks in that area that that

should be out there. When you say ‘‘out there,’’ that means that it

would be advertised?

General ROCHELLE. Actually, it was advertised, and because of

some reviews that we had to conduct subsequent to it, and some

modifications that we are making to it, frankly to make it even

more attractive, we had to hold it back just a little bit. We are beyond that now and we expect that before the end of this month it

will be advertised and fully available.

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. We will look for that on the first

of the month.

General ROCHELLE. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. DAVIS. You are talking about September first. Is that right?

General ROCHELLE. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Great. Thank you.

The other issue that I think is difficult to think about and talk

about when we talk about recruiting is ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’’ The

number 41,000 has been the number that is out there in the public

of the number of male recruits, male applicants who would be

available to enter the armed services if that were to be repealed.

I know you are going to tell me that ‘‘that is the law, ma’am,’’ and

I appreciate that. That is the law today.

But do you think that the Congress ought to be taking a look at

this so that we can understand if there is a skill we need or just

general need to include all those who wish to serve in the services,

and if there is a way that we might take another look at that issue.

It has been a great number of years since that law was passed.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Ma’am, if I might start. The first, is, people who believe themselves to be homosexuals can serve in the

40

armed forces of the United States. The law is about conduct. So

anyone who wants to serve who meets these criteria, may serve in

the United States. The issue is around conduct.

In terms of numbers of discharges by virtue of violations of the

law around conduct, in the last 5 years that has amounted to about

700 people a year, which compared to about 30,000 to 40,000 people who leave the armed forces of the United States under involuntary separations for a whole range of other reasons.

So we bring in a bunch of people and we have to discharge ahead

of schedule in the neighborhood of 30,000 to 40,000 a year, about

700 a year on average for the last 5 years is because of violations

of the law around homosexual conduct. That is not a big number.

It is not a high-leverage place in terms of generating populations

to serve in the armed forces.

Mrs. DAVIS. If those were in high-skill areas, is that an issue?

I understand what you are saying about conduct. I think there is

probably some question about how that is interpreted. I think the

concern here is whether or not there are people who may not even

think about serving, who would like to serve because they somehow

don’t feel welcome in the services.

I think that is an issue that in a time that we need to be as open

as possible and look to other services, other countries that we work

with on an ongoing basis, whether or not we have reached a point

where we should take a look at that, where Congress ought to be

asking some of those questions. Operationally, I am just asking you

whether you think this is something that we ought to be asking,

we ought to be taking another look at.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. Ma’am, it is our responsibility and leaders

everywhere in the chain of command to ensure that any citizen of

the United States who qualifies for entry into the armed forces is

welcomed there and feels welcomed there. We have invested a lot

of time doing that.

In this particular case, stemming from some real tragedies in the

1990’s, we have invested a lot of time to make sure the climate is

right and that people can serve, serve honorably, and feel welcomed and appreciated for their service so long as they comply with

the law around the conduct in this case.

Mrs. DAVIS. I appreciate your comments. Like everything, we

want to look to data on that. I think it is important to try and be

as informed as possible. So I appreciate your comments.

Mr. Snyder, did you have any other questions?

I am sorry. Mr. McHugh, are you done? Okay.

Dr. Snyder.

Dr. SNYDER. I am done now. Thank you.

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Great.

I want to thank you all for being here. I think that our concern

is having a number of tools in the toolbox to work with the issue

of recruiting and to have plans in place if in fact, as Dr. Snyder

I think raised the question, that if in fact end-strength was even

increased beyond our plus-ups that we are looking at now, and if

we have the ability to do that, and to be able to create an environment where many of the challenges that we see today perhaps we

can deal with constructively.

41

We would be interested in working with you on that, being certain that the bonuses that are available are utilized, and certainly

in a timely fashion, and of course we go back to the idea of getting

all of our recruiting and retention issues within base pay, within

the basic budget so that we do not have to rely on supplements in

the future, as we have.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here.

[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

AUGUST 1, 2007

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

AUGUST 1, 2007

(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

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

AUGUST 1, 2007

(95)

96

97

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD

AUGUST 1, 2007

(101)

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA

Mrs. DAVIS. Could you please just share with us what are some of the special

needs categories that you have? And are bonuses working in that regard to help to

supplement, certainly, the needs that are out there? Where are they? And what is

being done to recruit those individuals?

General ROCHELLE. The following specialties are considered critical needs: Special

Forces, Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, Aviation, Communications and Information Systems Operations, Medical, Transportation, and Supply and Services.

These Military Occupational Specialties are targeted to fill critical skills, which results in increased unit readiness and capability to meet operational and mobilization

requirements.

Targeted bonuses have been an effective management tool in attracting quality

recruits into these skills and permitting the Army to shape the force to meet our

mission requirements. It is essential that the Army remains competitive with the

other services and with other civilian alternatives. A strong incentives package supports the Army’s ability to attract the best talent available. Therefore, it is imperative to review the maximum bonus amounts annually to ensure the incentives keep

pace with inflation.

The Regular Army implemented the $40K enlistment bonus program. The previous enlistment bonus ceiling for the Regular Army was $20K. The Army Reserve

and Army National Guard implemented the $20K non-prior service (NPS) enlistment bonus. The previous non-prior service (NPS) maximum for the Reserve Components (RC) was $10K. Statutory authority was also approved for an inter-service

transfer bonus of $2.5K. The Army used the existing bonus authorities in the latter

part of FY07 by increasing quick ship bonuses in critical skills.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCHUGH

Mr. MCHUGH. General Rochelle, you tell me it is $155 million for direct payment

to there. That leaves about $700 million that the reprogramming request seeks to

move out of active Army personnel accounts. Yes?

Well, you are wrong. It is $845 million, and I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings

here, but that is the problem. I don’t know, maybe the Administration has given

us bad figures or they are giving you bad figures, but somebody has bad figures

here.

Secretary DOMINGUEZ. The Army reprogrammed $845M in FY07 from MPA

($790.9M from BA2, Enlisted Pay and Allowances and $54.1M from BA4, Subsistence in Kind). From the $845M, $690M went to the National Guard and $155M

went to the Air Force to return a FY05 transfer. The reason for the excess in MPA

was due to overestimating the RC mobilization for FY07. The Army’s supplemental

budget request assumed that an average of 86,700 Reserve Component soldiers

would be mobilized over the course of the fiscal year, including additional RC mobilization pay for forces extended or deployed in support of the theater plus-up/surge.

The latest estimate is that an average of 71,900 RC soldiers will be mobilized. This

under execution is due primarily to fewer RC personnel mobilized in support of the

surge than projected, mobilization of other Service personnel in lieu of Army, and

delayed mobilizations due to the Secretary of Defense policy on Utilization of the

Total Force.

The funding for recruiting and retention for FY07 was sufficient. In FY07, the

Army has exceeded the year to date (YTD) mission at all times, and made the

monthly recruiting goal in all months except May and June. The shortfall in May

and June was unexpected, and the Army began to increase recruiting incentives in

anticipation of a continued shortfall in the remaining 4th Quarter FY07. The new

incentives have been a success, as the shortfall expected for July through August

never materialized. However, since all enlisted bonuses are paid to recruits when

they arrive at their first active duty unit, all recruits who enlisted in the 4th Quarter will not receive their bonuses until FY08.

102

Therefore the excess money in FY07 MPA (from the overestimate of the RC mobilization) could not have been used for new recruiting incentives, such as the Quick

Ship Bonus, which was not offered until the 4th Quarter in FY07.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I hate to jump back into the discussion that Mr. McHugh was having

because there is a lot of money and there are a lot of dates and it is kind of confusing to all concerned.

We have the issue of reprogramming that is going to get us to the end of this

fiscal year, and then we have the issue of what is it going to take in 2008.

Do you have both of those numbers?

General VAUGHN. The Omnibus reprogramming action required for the ARNG for

FY07 in recruiting and retention and bonuses is $233 million in National Guard Pay

and Allowance and $227M in Operations accounts. In FY08 to reach the OSD funded end strength level of 351.3K it will require a total of $1.8B. This breaks out to

a base budget of $651M and $1.2B in Supplemental dollars.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER

Dr. SNYDER. What percentage of obese men and women that want to get in are

we letting in?

General BOSTICK. For the year 2006, 968 Soldiers came in the Army with an

ARMS waiver. From January through April 2007, the most current data we have,

705 men and women have come in with the ARMS waiver. For the Army Reserves

the figures are 148 for 2006 and 114 for 2007 (January through April); and for the

National Guard 280 for 2006 and 15 for 2007 (January through April).

Dr. SNYDER. Do you think that the system can handle substantially more numbers

of new recruits if there was a fairly dramatic increase?

General ROCHELLE. The Army conducts an in-depth analysis annually of the

equipment, manpower, infrastructure and training support systems required to

train the recruiting mission during the Structure Manning Decision Review. The

analysis addresses the volume and flow of Army Trainees and the infrastructure requirements needed to train them at each installation.

The Army uses the Training Resource Arbitration Panel to analyze of the impacts

to equipment, manpower, infrastructure and training support systems based on

changes to the Army’s Accession Plan in the execution year.

The Army is currently conducting the (TATC) study to identify the operations and

infrastructure requirements for the Army’s individual training. The Army’s Training

and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is responsible for analyzing the Initial Military

Training (IMT) for officer and enlisted Soldiers at 33 military schools and five training centers and is using the FY 2009 Army Program for Individual Training as the

basis for analysis.

Æ