And there are so many other things that go into what quality of life really means, how often do you move and your spouse get a job, that sort of thing. In terms of quality of service, were hearing more and more from our people that theyre sort of surprised by all this. What really matters to them more than keeping this high rate of growth is they want to fight in a modern and ready force. They want to go to work every day, and they want to have parts in the bin where they can repair the thing that they are entrusted with, they want to be able to drive it or fly it or sail it and feel confident that they are on a winning team. That matters. Its an intangible, but it makes a tremendous difference for our people, and we have to look after that as well as the quality of life piece. Secretary fox . Senator, i would just add that i think admiral winnefeld laid it out beautifully. I these intangibles, i think, are important as we look at any changes to retirement, for example, Going Forward. I do believe we have really excellent, ive dug into them, models of the broad economics. And i am pretty convinced that whatever we do can we can find ways to tweak it with pays and incentives and so forth. Its very hard for those models to account for those intangibles. And the individuals view of what theyre there to do and what theyre able to do given the way we support them in, you know, this broad term thats overused, readiness, but that means the things that admiral winnefeld outlined about their ability to operate, their ability to have parts to fix it, their ability to show up for duty on a ship and have other people there. Theyre not trying to do three or four jobs. All of the things that i think are eroding the morale of our force right now. And, and another way of putting it might be the sense that the country appreciates what theyre doing as well, that theyre not only on the best team, the winning team, the gold medal team, but that the country appreciates the work that theyre doing. You cant even begin to understand how important it is to our young soldiers, sailors, marines, when ordinary americans come up to them and thank them for their service, its huge. You know, one other question in the limited time i have left. I though that you do surveys that you, that you try to apply some Scientific Method to assess the incentives and so forth that youve just described. And, of course, we all have our personal experiences. Senator kaine has a con who is serving, i son who is serving, i have two. We know friends and so forth. I wonder how well you think those surveys, the scientific effort are doing in measuring the kinds of incentives and so forth that are at play here. Thats a good question. You always have to take any kind of survey or data with a grain of salt, and if youre not listening to the drum beat that youre hearing from people anecdotally, what theyre saying to you, what your Senior Leaders who are terribly important to this process are saying to you, then you dont get it. So we have to temper anything we hear in the surveys. I dont have a crisp answer on whether theres a dichotomy there, but i think in general its what were hearing. Theyre both reflecting the same thing. And i do think were very aware surveys can lag. And i do think thats why our Service Chiefs and our secretaries spend so much time out talking to the force, to the men and women in uniform. Thank you. Thank you for your excellent testimony this morning. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator blumenthal. Senator vitter. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you both for your service. Certainly, i want to express strong support for fixing this problem absolutely as soon as possible as well. I voted against the budget deal in december, and this issue was the single biggest reason why, so we need to get it fixed. And i want to express strong support for fixing anytime a way that doesnt fixing it in a way that doesnt increase the deficit in any way. That would be doing through two steps what the huge majority of us vowed absolutely not to do. And so that would be a failure as well. So im very hopeful well get this done. I just have one question for both of you. This provision essentially treated folks in uniform fundamentally differently and worse than federal civilian employees, all other federal civilian employees. It sort of penalized them, if you will, retroactively on this issue while the change is made for all other federal employees was prospectively only. Do you think theres any justification for that different treatment . I think it was surprising. I dont think that the vast majority of our force actually, you know, thought that through. They werent aware, i think. It was really just a cola minus one piece itself that registered with them. But it is, it is definitely a difference. Sir, i think, again, thats why we support grandfathering and believe that you have to look forward. Maybe theres a change. Whatever change that is, its for new people coming in. Well, great. Im glad most of them dont realize it, but my description, unfortunately, is accurate. And its the fact of it. And i just want to underscore that i think thats fundamentally wrong and inappropriate. Thank you. Thank you, senator vitter. Senator, senator king. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In light of the fact that we have a second panel, i think ill submit my questions for the record. I just have one observation. In light of senator kaines comments, i always thought that the passing of the first budge out of a budget out of a divided congress in 28 years was somewhat miraculous, but i think today weve established that this provision, this cola minus one provision confirms that because we cant find parenthood. It was an immaculate concession, i think [laughter] this provision, immaculate misconception might be a better term for it. But i appreciate your testimony, and im going to have some questions for the other, for the other panel. I associate myself with everyone else here. I dont think we should wait until the commission, i think we should fix this. Its not a huge item. It should be fixed, and i think our veterans and people that are receiving pensions for some odd reason may not fully trust i us to resolve this trust us to resolve this in 2015. So i think we should take care of it as soon as we can. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. That will complete the questions for our first panel, and we will now call up our second panel. Thank you so much, both of you, for your testimony. [inaudible conversations] we now welcome our second panel for witnesses, outside witnesses, socalled. Retired army general john tilelli jr. , the chairman of the board of the military Officers Association of america. Retired army general gordon r. Sullivan, president and chief executive officer of the association of the United States army. Retired air force Master Sergeant richard delainey, national delaney, National President , retired enlisted associate. Dr. David chu, president and chief executive officer of the institute for defense analyses. And dr. Chu served as undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness under president bush from 2001 to 2009. We also want to note in our audience that we have with us a number of veterans, particularly, im informed, that we would welcome veterans all our veterans, but that would, obviously, include a special group that are veterans of our wars in iraq and afghanistan. We also have statements for the record from the following individuals and groups, and they will be entered into the record. The Fleet Reserve association, the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, the american legion, the veterans of foreign wars, the National MilitaryFamily Association and Lieutenant Colonel michael parker, usa retired, whos a wounded war advocate. We are now going to start with generality hellly. General tilelli. And by the way, this is a reunion of a sort, and we want to tell you that were delighted to see you all here, and we, of course, very much treasure the relationships which have been established between this committee and all of you and treasure the service which you have performed for our country. We thank you. General the city hellly. Chairman eleven, senator inhofe, members of the Armed Services committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Ive also submitted a statement for the record, but its an honor for me to speak today to you on behalf of those who serve and have receive served and their families. On behalf of the members of the military Officers Association of america, i have the honor and privilege of serving as the chairman for the rest of this year. We thank the Armed Services committee for holding this hearing on military Retirement Program. The purpose of our Retirement Program is to offset the extraordinary demands and sacrifices inherent in a service career. Retirement benefits are a powerful incentive as weve heard today, but those who serve 20 or 30 years in uniform, despite the sacrifices that they and their families have to endure over the period. The critical element top sustaining a high quality career military force lies with establishing a strong reciprocal commitment between the Service Member and the government and the people that they serve. And if that reciprocity is not fulfilled, if we break faith with those that serve, retention and readiness will inevitably suffer. The cola cut to Service Members retirement pay in the bipartisan budget act is a clear breach of that reciprocal commitment. Although the recentlypassed omnibus exempted chapter 61 retirees and survivors from the cola cut, we believe that the partial deal breaks the sacred trust with the rest of the entire Retiree Community and their families. We belief it should be repealed now. The Financial Impact has been called in various quarters as teensy weensy and small. But, for example and weve heard it today a noncommissioned officer in the grade of e7 retiring this year with 20 years of service would see a cumulative loss of 83,000 by the time he or she reaches the age of 62. More than three years of his original retirement pay of 23,000 a year annually. The ongoing rhetoric about spiraling, outofcontrol personnel costs has emboldened some to propose drastic changes to military benefits and compensation in the name of fiscal responsibility without fully understanding the unintended consequences of their action. Suggested costcutting proposals are gaining traction because critics continue to cite personnel cost growth since 2000 as a motive to gut paying benefits. And when we think about that, we need to think about that in the context of people, soldiers, sailors, airmen and ma reaps, who are serving in harms way every day rather than look at it in a budget context. We believe its important to put the two the growth since 2000 in context. Have costs grown since 2000 . Yes. But using the 2000 baseline without Historical Context is grossly misleading. First, it implies that 2000 was an appropriate benchmark for estimating what reasonable personnel and Health Care Spending should be. We dont believe thats correct. At that time years of budget cutbacks had depressed the military pay, cut retirement value by 25 for post1986 end tragedies. Entrants and booted other bebb fishery beneficiaries out of the military health care system. Retention was on the ropes, if we recall, and at the urging of the joint chiefs of staff, congress fixed the problems to prevent a readiness crisis. Congress worked diligently over the next decade to restore military pay comparability, repeal the retirement cuts and restore promised Health Care Coverage for older retirees. In other words, the cost growth was essential to keep the previous cutbacks from breaking the career force. Now many express shock that these fixes actually cost money. They forgot that congress deems that these changes were less costly than continued erosion of our defense capability. Moreover, military compensation studies have erroneously concluded that the cost trends of the last decade will continue indefinitely. We do not believe thats correct. Now that pay comparability has been restored, there wont be any further need for extra pay plusups above private sector pay growth which is in the law. Similarly, Congress Wont have to approve another tricare for life program or repeal redux which we had to do in order to maintain the readiness, asession and retension of the current force. Those were onetime fixes that wont be repeated, hopefully, and wont need to be repeated. Yet we continue to focus on recent growth trajectory and have adopted a new budgetcutting phrase which is slow the growth. We believe the math doesnt add up. Military personnel costs which have been derived from the omb data which include military personnel and the Defense Health program, continue to consume the same amount of the pentagon budget for the past 30 years, about onethird. Thats hardly spiraling out of control. Even so, were asking for deeper cuts. Leveraging our People Program versus readiness is simply a false choice of what this nation should be able to afford for its defense. The key to a ready force is and has been sustaining a topnotch Service Member for midyear, noncommissioned officers, midlevel noncommissioned officers and officers for another ten years. Without existing military career sniffs over incentives over the past ten years of this protracted warfare, the allvolunteer force would have been placed at serious risk. So in conclusion, we believe that the cola cut needs to be fully repealed now and not wait until the retirement commission. Secondly, we believe that any changes to todays Retirement Program needs to be grandfathered to existing retirees in the current force. And, three, any further changes recommended by the Commission Must be fully vetted through this committee to determine what impact it will have on our world class, allvolunteer force. Our obligation is clear, and thats protecting National Security. And as it always has been, the most key element to our National Security are the men and women who serve and the family members who serve also. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, general. General sullivan. Mr. Chairman, senator inhofe, distinguished members of the to panel of the panel, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today as the president of the association of the United States army and as a former chief of staff of the United States army. The association of the United States army represents hundreds of thousands of members of the active army, Army National guard, army reserve, the retired community, civilians and the army families. 121 chapters worldwide. Our members and i are very well aware of the fact that much of the good done for soldiers over the last few years would have been impossible without the commitment of this committee, and we are indebted to each and every one of you and your predecessors. Your tireless and selfless personal staffs, professional staff as, we appreciate their efforts. And we understand that in these fiscal times these are very challenging times for our nation, certain things need to be done. Now, before i continue, i want to acknowledge the bipartisan bill. Ive never been sure what it was called, so lets say the murrayryan bill or the ryanmurray bill. But whatever it was, the chips into sequestration have been very important for all of the services and i just want to add the my voice to the thanks for everybody who made that bipartisan bill and the budget and the return to somewhat normal order which is taking place here. And i remain hopeful that these chips into the walls that surround money known as sequestration end permanently. Now, in many ways as has been stated by countless people here this morning, the bum deal was good news budget deal was good news. Unfortunately, included in it was a broken promise, and the broken promise has been talked about repeatedly. In spite of the fact that the president , the chairman of this committee, several secretaries of defense and the chiefs of the military services and the senior civilians in the pentagon and you heard it here this morning on the first panel had stated repeatedly that any changes to the military compensation and benefits package would be grandfathered for the currentlyserving force and for current retirees would be grandfathered. Yet it was changed. Now, this one line in the budget act has created doubt in the minds of the very people who do not need doubt created in their mind about the commitment of the American People for their well being and their ability to fight and win the nations wars, whatever those wars may be. And, frankly, we now have them worried about things i never worried about in my 36 years of active service. And i could not imagine that at this point in our history we need to cause them to be worried about their well being. The congressionallycreated military compensation and requirement Modernization Committee that was tasked with reviewing potential changes to military retirement system was directed to follow guidelines set by this committee and the president that included grandfathering the currentlyserving force and current retirees. In my view, the commission should be allowed to do its job, and i recommend strongly that this provision which gets into the retired pay of those between retirement age and age 62, be taken off the table now. And not passed to the commission. Based on some hope that someone else sometime down the road is going to change it. I dont think its ever worked in the past, and i doubt it would work now. And by the way, the longer it continues, the more uncertainty will be created in the minds of the people. And i think this will be a pay now, pay later. I dont think we understand the full impact of what were doing here. As economy rights itself, this blow to an err in deferred compensation earned deferred compensation benefit will be an enormous disincentive for qualified, battletested military personnel to remain on active duty. Recruitment will also suffer because any decision to serve could be influenced by how the current force is treated. Todays soldiers are tomorrows retirees, and they are watching, and they will speak. And the current retirees who are many of whom are combat veterans themselves will influence in some way recruits or potential recruits. In the case of the army, the army is a family business, and you are find a very High Percentage of those serving on active duty today were influenced by either parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles. This cut in pay and benefits must be balanced against the longterm viability of the allvolunteer force. Recent history has been, which has been pointed out from the 80s and 90s, shows that precipitous pay cuts and benefit cuts have unintended, detrimental consequences. The prime example is the illfated redux retirement adjustments. Actually, in just a few years we faced a recruiting challenge which congress wisely reinstated the old system. The current cola cut provision which some say will help tame the, quote, wildly out of line military peppings, will hit pensions, will hit hardest on the enlisted force. And in most cases, i would point out that these people grade Staff Sergeant e6 or Sergeant First Class e7 are not fully employed in lucrative retirement positions in todays economy. For many, their retirement check is their main source of income, and after decades of service which, i hasten to add, could have involved repeated, repeated tours of duty in conflict areas this puts them in a bad position employment wise, so forth and so on which i wont go into today. The fact of the matter is the compensation package in place today recognizes compensation which has been earned by other 20 years of arduous service. And by the way, this compensation was designed to encourage a career of service in the allvolunteer force. Based on personal qualifications. And this force has performed magnificently over the last several decades and certainly the last 1213 years in active combat. And by the way, without the support of their families, the thing would have fallen like a deck of cards. And i think we need to pay particular attention to their families and their role in all of this and the children who have seen their mothers and fathers come and go to serve this country. And they need to be taken care of Going Forward. In addition to patriotism, what has kept professional soldiers in the army and professional sailors or whatever the case may be in their service has been the assurance that the benefits which they understood they received would be forthcoming. And i will tell you, i never worried about retirement. It was just there. And somehow wd doubt in their mind. The last people in the world you want worried about that kind of stuff. Those who are out there climbing into helicopters and airplanes and ships and jumping out of airplanes in the middle of the night is whether they or their or families are going to be taken care of. Troops too much. When i hear we and that this is the reason we have to cut back on training, readiness, modernization of the force. At the end of the day, the force is people. It is people. Were talking about high quality men and women dedicated to their nation. And they are not the problem. The message they hear, though, is that they are contributing to their own unreadiness by their mere presence. We must change this narrative. America can afford the defense it needs. It is simply a question of priorities. Shifting the burden of the nations fiscal problems on to the backs of the troops is unnecessary and, in my opinion, wrong. The instability caused by this cut will reverberate for years unless its taken off the table. Were going to feel it, pay now, pay later. I understand very clearly the concept of shares responsibility. But the federal government and all americans must remain true to the promises made to our military personnel. We understand that military programs are not above review. I understand all of that. But always remember the nation must be there for them, those who answer the nations call. And theres only a handful, less than 1 percent of the American People. This committee, this committee right here safeguards the welfare of americas military personnel on behalf of the nation, and i want each of you to know that we appreciate what this committee does. And we also appreciate the fact that as has been stated earlier i think general tilelli said it you are the ones who are look at what the commission comes up with to insure that it meets your goals of protecting the allvolunteer force. I urge you to find a bipartisan solution that will remove the under62 military retiree cola provision and do it now. My recommendation is you take the issue off the table and send the signal out there to the force. Now, so that people sitting around a stow in the middle stowe in the middle of stove in the middle of afghanistan in the middle of the night will not be talking about this issue. This is not the kind of issue they need to be worried about. This system was really created in the 40s. It probably deserves to be looked at. Theres no doubt about it. But they dont need to worry about it. And their well being at this point. I think it has a hugely destabilizing effect on the force, and i urge you to take it off the table now. And ill do whatever i can. And im sure these other people will too, to testify to that effect. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, general. Now weve got the sergeant delaney. Chairman leaven, Ranking Member inhofe and members of the committee, good morning. Tria is the largest association that was created exclusively for for enlisted personnel from all branches and components of the u. S. Armed forces. I appreciate the opportunity today to drees the issue address the issue of military compensation, specifically, the cola reduction for military careers. I am greatly concerned about the recent action this congress has taken. Quote, when you freeze salaries, eliminate bow fusses and change the health care benefits, its folly to think its not going to have an impact on the work force, end quote. Thats a quote from the president and ceo of the Congressional Management Foundation not two weeks ago in politico. And he was not talking about military retirees, of course, he was speaking about the Congressional Staff and the effect that e eliminating Traditional Health care is going to have on pursuing other opportunity. According to a recent survey, 09 of staffers 90 of staffers said they are concerned by the benefits in the new health care law. When asked if they would look for another job in the next 12 months, four in ten 40 of chiefs of staffer and state and direct managers said yes. If these predictions come to pass, it would largely with the largest brain Drain Congress has ever seen, end quote. What makes anyone think that reducing benefits for military careers would not have an effect on their decision to remain in the service . Congressional staffers are dedicated, conscientious, hard working professionals who care about this nation and the institution they serve. The same is true of military careerists. But unlike Congressional Staffers, military personnel signed an employment agreement that obligates them to serve for a specific amount of time. Whats more, military careers can be sent to prison if he or she fails to go to work. I believe the multitude of kutz and benefits for military cuts and benefits for military careerists being urged will have a seriously negative impact on our Nations Defense posture. The senior safers in staffers in your offices and committees are critical to your being able to fulfill your duties and responsibilities as members of congress. Together, they hold the institutional memory, as well as the subject matter expertise that are indispensable to the functioning of congress. The same is true of military Career Personnel who the cola cut has been aimed at. The largest single segment of military personnel is e7s who make up 27 of all military retirees. The top commissioned officers make up 47 of all retired personnel. And if you add in e5s and e6s, youve reached 73 of all military retirees made up of ncos. The fact is theres no way to retire from the military and have the same standard of living that existed while on active duty without getting another fulltime job. And to be hit with a cola cut that work out to about 83,000, that equates to a lots of four years in retirement pay. The cola cut will degrade the Living Standard of the military retirees affected i affected by it. Why after doing a job that less than 1 of the entire population is willing to do is congress now going to punish military careerists . Why under this law were they singled out for immediate cuts . Why were they not grandfathered in as federal civilian employee were . What have they done to earn this slap in the face . Some members of congress is selfserving and nothing more than lip service. As those members who believe these are nothing more than a small adjustment to a police sub talking about how great you think our airforce is our. To the members to agree to my rescue to put aside partisan and ideological differences and agree on a way to pay if. Many areas have been put forth by many members command the task now is to every on one. The department of defenses the only the federal department that is unable to be audited. We urge congress to add a matter of spending cuts the personal benefits and telamon the defense can audit its books and see how is who is batting is money. The men and women who have served if in our Armed Services flauntingly agree to shoulder the sacrifices they were asked to endorse visit to west acidosis dozen government if to repay that debt . Representative read it is not fly. President Calvin Coolidge says the nation that for gets its defenders will be forgotten. Please call members of congress, do not forget our nations defenders. Thank you. Thank you for if so much, master sgt for. We very much indeed your testimony. Next is dr. David chew. Mr. Chairman, welcome back cetera, members of the committee to make is the privilege to appear before you this morning. The views the offer are entirely myron do not reflect the institute for defense order the part of defense perry that have a formal statement which i hope might be made part of the record. The limitation as the focus on the revolution, especially the recent evolution of military compensation, particularly added we get to where we are now. I would argue there are three important forces that have created the compensation system that is the subject of discussions. First and other military pay explains the lack of so much a military composition is deferred and a substantial part is offered in kind as opposed to in cash. Second there is a desire by the kutcher to recognize reward for those who have served in the military which explains a substantial growth in a series of benefits and last 15 years another appeal every ducks to with the advent of check ever arrived, the expansion of g. M. Bill and the decision to make some of its benefits tense verbal. These substantial relaxation of the century old ban on concurrent receipt of federal, annuities. The third force, of course, has been emphasized this morning, the need to ensure that we have a high quality allvolunteer force. That was the source, as other witnesses has emphasized of the targeted pay raises that congress enacted at the end of the 20th, beginning of the 21st century and also the source of expanded authority that the department used to ensure that all volunteer forces were successful during the current conflicts. Both have been reduced as conflicts have waned in importance. The issue Going Forward command as we all know, is the question of change. And i agree wholeheartedly with those who argue that we ought to use the commission, the commission process to take a holistic view of changes to post a piecemeal changes such as the ones being discussed this morning i do argue that a prior question that some of the question said of the size, what forces the country what in the super . What shape of experienced and level of quality, differences in skill background is essential to secure. Youd obviously have different compensations. My well be argued some are more efficient. To say that they could sustain the same force at less total cost to the taxpayer. And i do think to important issues in that regard our weather so much of the composition should be deferred, particularly because the fairness perspective for several benefits most military personnel will never actually collect. And also the issue of whether some much of the compensation should be offered. As those changes are contemplated, i do think the testimony of the size it is critical to keep in mind the circumstances. The difference in that circumstance and most American Families and that we can i change the reality of the process of appointment. I think that we have to be sensitive to the fact that the familys circumstances of the board and the effect the military persons decision stake with the military over time. Above all, the various system one is a they have stressed i do think that it is critical to Pay Attention to transition mechanisms and to the question and expectations of those who have served in the past and those who are serving now and whether the changes that are proposed are consistent with expectations for those who are exempted to except the changes that we wish to make. I look forward to your questions. Thank you so much, doctor. We are going to have to have a short first round of questions here if were going to be able to get to all of our senators. That me ask about the commission, which is going to be reporting to us in the connection of our Service Groups and veterans groups to this commission. I think is the incident of everybody that is speaking, all of the senators that have spoken, in terms of this cpi plus one language that we that it is our intention and believe that it should be immediately repealed. Sns is possible. Ill think from anyone i have heard from that there is an intention to wait until the compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission and reports. Clear the air on that. Remove that item at this time. But my question then turns to the commission as to whether or not your organizations feel that you will be contacted, that youre edifies will be solicited, whether for instance you looked at the numbers of the commission and feel that it is a representative group. Why dont we start with you, general . Mr. Chairman, first the military author had one meeting with the commission. We think that it is relatively representative of the force as determined by this committee. Whether or not we will be asked to go back again and discuss with them some of their final recommendations, i cannot answer that. We have not yet been informed of any such an opportunity. If you feel this goes for any of the organizations represented here today and the others that are out there, feel that they are that their advice is not being saw, then i have an opportunity to express their views, we welcome hearing about that. The commission and should be soliciting the views of those organizations that represent our retirees and the veterans. So let me now ask you as well, general sullivan. Senator, we have already been before the commission once at the national level. I believe some of my people out in the field have been doing some field interventions. Some of our and participated in those. So i think our viewers are well represented with them. And i am comfortable with the representation on the board. Thank you. Master sgt. Yes, sir. Our organization has spoken twice to the commission. We are comfortable with the way it is operating and our hope about an outcome. Obviously it is too early to tell yet what that will be, but we will have to wait and see. We are happy with the commission. Thank you. We are facing a real budget crunch, although it has been kind of deferred for a yearandahalf or so panel nonetheless, the law requires that basically the sequestered approach be back in full blast starting in 2016 unless we act. We have acted the best that we could in terms of 2015 the rate were going to face the same kind of horrific problem through 19 2021 starting in 2016 unless we take steps to avoid it. And that means that we will have in place if we dont act roughly 8 trillion in cuts to the Defense Budget that were enacted as a part of the budget control act two years ago. Half of those have already been implemented. The other half are what we would face basically. And so i am wondering if you have thoughts not just about that subject. Think that we can infer what your thoughts would be about trying to avoid sequestration and that approach to those years, but if these budget caps that are currently mandated by congress continue to matt do you have any thoughts on any approach to how to we deal with the balance between pay and benefits as well as the need to train and equip and so forth . Do any of you have any thoughts on that . I think you probably let me start with you on this one. I will quickly get to the others. The key question in that regard is the mix of personnel that you believe it is best suited to the nations security needs. The balance among activeduty personnel, reserve personnel, federal civilian and contract personnel. There may be more mileage longterm in getting that balance right than any of the kinds of changes that might otherwise be discussed in terms of the compensation system. That is not to put the commissions work aside. It is important and significant. I would argue the operating cost for military personnel active and reserve. I think this question of the demand side, so to speak, in other words, what makes of personnel is best suited to securities, could you, for example, make greater use of federal civilians then answered today . Think there is a number of evidence that suggests that is the case. The reserve military personnel, the truly military functions of the apartment. If you want at a commented that the fall we turn it over. Senator, i think it is a profound question. I am not sure i have a profound answer, but it depends upon how much risk you want to take. Until somebody comes up with a Defense Strategy and National Security strategy combined nothing that you can wave the equation. Think then you have to ask yourself what kind of a prediction we can make about the distant future. And right now i think we are out there. In my view, we it has always been hard to predict the future. I think that we are making we are taking risks without understanding the future. I will just leave it at that let me turn to the center i will call on the others because of the time limits. One question. I want offset some of the accusations that you hear from people and Service Organizations. My feeling is that those of you heading of Service Organizations if you had ted choose between an adequately Strong National defense and a maintenance of the current military tyrant compensation levels which would you choose if you add to . Real quickly . That is an easy question. I would always vote on the side of the Strong National defense. The other two of you would agree with that. Is. I mean, look, we all took an of to protect and defend the United States of america. Thats good. You, too. Okay. The reason i sell that to win the think you hit the nail on the head when you said, america can afford the defense that it needs. It is a matter of priorities that is my position and then a shell. That is something that a lot of people dont believe. Theyre people serving right now who think that we really do not believe in the Strong National defense that all of us agree with. Let me make sure that everyone understands, there are 15 members to ask questions and made statements in this hearing, primarily on the first panel. You guys have one. You came here because you want the 1 corrected. We all agree. In fact, i made the statement that it is a moral issue because during the years when i was in the army and people would talk about realistic are Something Like that, and commitments were made to them. You cannot come along later and change those. Now, yes, we want a comprehensive reform, to get into all of these things. First we want to make sure we correct. As you said, general sullivan, will want to correct it now. All of us. I just want to make sure that anyone, that three of you or anyone else who might be here from the military or representing, participating in one of the services understand that we agree with you. Thats it. I do. Thank you so much, senator. Who will be next . Dont have much choice. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony. Believe that we will fix this and fix it promptly. I want to ask a question about the next issue down the road which is as we start to think about what we might hear back from the commission in early 2015 from conversations with, you know, primarily knew people in the military, have a your answer, the way they talk about the compensation and benefits is that they have a feeling that some are promised, was contracted. A retirement home, that is in the promise on perris are reasonable expectations of time in the military and have an injury. There will be a system that there will be functional. And i have a reasonable expectation without knowing what the budgetary topline is that there will be a functioning system. Some are less than a promise a particular expectation. And maybe i hope or desire. For example, what with the premium level before a Retirement Health policy if to drive for Health Insurance policy that i would play if i get to that . Most are not thinking about those issues. Theyre not really contractor for a particular premium level. Obviously the commission will come back with recommendations about all these kinds of things that are in the promise on. That might be prospective, not retroactive, things that are in the reasonable exit to of expectations and is an things that, frankly, newcomers are adopting about that much. There would just curious. Talk to us about how we ought to be in the thinking about these issues having to make decisions year or so from now. If i might thank you for the question, the first are think the Commission Proposes panera think we have to review every aspect of it we do want an all volunteer force, but you focused on an issue which is key and critical in the surveys that we do, the military and military families after of tariffs. Military families and Service Members believe that military health care or health care is a promise. They do not see it as optional. Certainly when you are young and believe you are a mortal military health care is not as important as when you get to be older and look at it from the family aspect. In that context i think we have to be careful because it is a slippery slope. We have already cut military health care, increased copays, increased the pharmacy fees. So youve already done things that are detracting from what Service Members and their families perceive to be cantor and benefit. Could are just follow upon as . That gets to my question. If theyre is a belief that health care is a promise, and i believe that it is a promise is there also an expectation from your surveys that that promise extends to a particular premium or a particular premium that is an annual one that would not change the course of retirement . I cannot think that we have never gotten to that point. I do think that reasonableness is a variable that must be considered, and that variable must be considered in the context of retirement and with that individual is going to get in retirement. Think about the context that you have for today. A Sergeant First Class who is getting retirement at 23,000 per year and has a family of three or four, he is at the Poverty Level to start with. So to require him to pay an exorbitant health care fee, think, is very problematic. Other comments on my question . Thank you for the question, senator. I think that it is if you just take that last last piece about the medical, the young person who can send to and gets into the service today, the concept of retirement might be different than the concept that we had which was developed in the 40s, after all Life Expectancy now is 77, think for males anyway. But okay. So there is a model for retirement. And theres a model for medical. Whatever the model is, in my view, should be, if there are increases, it should be stated of fund paid those increases will be within the call look, the worldfamous the cpi is such that whatever increase to pay might be with inside data. So as opposed to it is hardly fluctuating medical inflation, i mean, very quickly you could take an booktv off the table if you go to medical inflation. So i think there has to be a model and the concept. And they bring the system toward. And as the general said, we did not worry about that because it was retired 50 at 20 plus. Then after 20 years and it was capped at 30. And medical, we just went and got an aspirin or whatever, tylenol, couple, malls, a cup of black coffee and you were gold and. That is making a song with a launch. Thank you. In the center is next. Thank you, mr. Chairman. What to think all of you for being here today on this incredibly important issue. Here is what worries me is i think about how we ended up. You have a budget agreement that the only group that really takes a hit right now are men and women in uniform. So what worries me is that we grandfathered the federal employees meaning only knew hires would get him back to the ride, but our men and women in uniform who have taken the bull was for us, they gather calves right now to their cost of living increase. Is it because of less than 1 percent of the population defense the rest of us . Is it because the federal employees and other records around here just have stronger lobbyists and voices to get, you know, we are going to protect our people . With orders me about this is that it was a huge disconnect from washington in terms of those who have sacrificed the most that they would be the one group targeted in all of this command i just wanted to get your thoughts on all of it as leaders of our military organization because, as i think about the big picture on this, what is the lesson that we need to learn from this . That worries me as i think about the big picture of the messes of rescinding to our men and women in uniform when we have been at war, it is been a tough time. I think that the problem we face is that a lot of people view the military as an easy target. We are a small group. Okay. In the baltics and money from them. Over five or teniers rather than saying, okay, lets adjust this. Lets grandfathered and wait a little longer to get a return on our money. But when i reenlisted in 1972 which would take me over the Halfway Point i believed i was going to a medical care when i retired. When i retired a said, you may not be able to get in to the base hospital, but they are there for the active duty course i can deal with that, but i still have my medical do the opposite. Now theyre looking at ways to change all that. Commissaries talking about closing, looking at putting enrollment fees. I have to pay. Now i have to pay for that. Increasing copays on medical costs. Copay raises or even freezing pay. A lot of things, it just seems to me, we are an easy target. That is what really bothers me. General sullivan, and what kind of message do we send it this . What do we need to learn from this . Well, as i said in my remarks, we are causing our people in uniform to think about the issue, to think about an issue which they dont understand. By the way, dont want to work the system or ascribe any motive to anyone on whatever happens. But did we forget . I am worried. What are our priorities to max. That is it. You have to decide how we will spend the national budget. Where will we spend it . Will we spend it on security all or nothing . And i think that is a decision that has to be made right now, it appears i am sure it appears to some of the troops that all of this and their families, all of this is being placed on their back. Go out and fight for the last 25 years beginning in panama right through to this day when were fighting in afghanistan and camacho, by the way, now we changed the formula. I dont get it. Senator, i think he made a great point. First of all, we all have to understand that servicemen and women and their families are getting a message bill read the messages being sent every day. You can read every day in any number of periodicals starting with the commissary, the companies, the try care. And they see that there is a devilish and, if you know, support. The other issue is the servicemen and their families, their contract is with the United States of america. And they count on the congress to take care of him. They dont have a union. They depend on us to take care of them. And when we look at it, theyre willing to do extraordinary things with this nation and for each other and put themselves in harms way, be without a family cannot have equity in the house, change six or eight times your kids out of school and all of those things and count on the congress of the United States and american to take care of it carries in they are hitting the seriousness is now. I can tell you the amount of emails that we get from family members of this would choke a horse. There are very, very concerned of this. I would like to clear the area around one. Add enough think that they are asking more than they deserve. I dont kate that feeling at all. I think all that they want is a fair shake. And they want to know that people like you and you are, by the way, to your credit, paying attention to what is going on. At thank you for it. I think you all for being here. I will also add that to you know, when people call things like in 80,000 cut to a Sergeant First Class whose average retirement is 23,000, like the Washington Post did or miniscule, it is offensive. And we should fix this. And i are sending the wrong message. Earlier today attorney general eric wilder announced a 17 billion settlement with bank of america or the institutions role in the 2008 financial crisis and discussed his visit to ferguson, misery where violence and protests continues take place. Heres a look. First, let me just say that we are as appalled, i am as appalled by the brutal murder has, i think, all the rest of us are. It was heartbreaking to see his parents yesterday who shared a composure that from my perspective is almost incomprehensible. My heart goes out to them. It just as to permit is actively pursuing justice in this case. We have an up and criminal investigation. And those who would perpetrate such acts need to understand something. This just as to permit cameras to permit the defense, this nation in, we have long memories, and our reach is wide. He will not forget what happened, and people will be held accountable when the other. And i also want to take note of the fact that, you know, it gym was a journalist. And he made tough choices to do the kind of things that make our society great, affirmation, affirmation gathering, sharing with us, giving us a view of the world in danger circumstances. And i think that in part that is what led to his death. He was journalist. He was a symbol of what is right about the United States. As i said, the matter is an open investigation, and one that we will be pursuing vigorously. Was the apartment menu with the efforts to bring into negotiations. I dont want to comment on what i would consider a National Security question. Did you watch the video . Will was your reaction . I dont want to comment on that. A portion of the attorney general martian earlier today. You can see the entire briefing leading later on our schedule or watch it any time on line at cspan. Org. Here is a look at our primetime schedule. Starting at 8 00 eastern, the Heartland Institute whole discussion on Climate Change issues. It is book tv with author speaking at the prison festivals. And on our companion and york, American History tv with programs on the civil wars Atlanta Campaign and the subsequent march to the sea. Here are some of the highlights for this weekend. Friday on cspan and primetime important sites in the history of the civil rights movement. The highlights from this years new York Ideas Forum including cancer virologist andrew hasselhoff. And on sunday kaynine a new york car riesman Charlie Rangel of 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Freddie nighter is 00 on cspan2 in depth with writer and religious scholar. Saturday on afterwards at 10 00 retired neurosurgeon and columnist ben carson. Sinden at 11 00 p. M. Eastern lawrence goldstar of the competition between the right brothers and glenn curtis to be the predominant name in manned flight. American history tv and friday and in on been sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Former white house chiefs of staff discuss how presence make decisions. Find our Television Schedule one weekend events at cspan. Org and let us know what you think of the programs youre watching. Carlos. Email us. Join the conversation, like us on facebook, follows on twitter. The Senate CommerceScience CentersPetition Committee recently reviewed ecigarette advertising specifically targeting young people. The hearing also assessed the potential Health Impacts of exposure. Of witnesses include a campaign for tobacco free kids president and the heads of the ecigarette companies this is two hours and 15 minutes. Of Cape Canaveral today the committee is examining the marketing of ecigarettes by midshould warn you that emotionally and on edge on this whole subject. Ion etch. A product whose popularity has recently been soaring including and especially among the young people. We will hear it today is that they are marketing it to adults, which i will find an amazing answer. Ecigarettes are battery operated products that vaporize a liquid containing something called nicotine. Well remember that, dont we . A people with their hands raised resolve the rest of it. And know that as cigarette, its somewhat different. But nicotine is nicotine do a little kids out of kids. And they are looking for things which they get to see a lot of an advertising. One of the nice things to all you can limit the act of smoking. It is cool. These products are relatively new and the longterm Health Effects are unknown to point which, to me, raises the question why in heavens name you are going ahead and marketing and selling these things and putting them on line with the the results of house that is being none seriously still out you want to make money. That is your answer. You will tell me your just talking to adults, but youre not. You want to make money. Coupons intimate it would you cant amend the studies coming out and you go ahead and do it until the fda permits nuys rules and regulations on the point of these products are relatively knew end of the longterm Health Effects are unknown. However, they do indicate committed to deliver the nicotine patches is a highly addictive substance. Nicotine does affect brain development. The Simple Program that it will open a smoking combustibles cigarettes and others are concerned it may reduce quitting by encouraging dualuse but we have not done enough research. I admit that, to his office questioned. But that is not the focus of this hearing. Instead, they are going to focus on our marketing of the cigarettes regions americas youth and what consequences that fact may have when planning your decisions generations became addicted to nicotine and they used to does not make sense to the consent of the weather esears would get people on a similar path to addiction which under any form is a bad thing i dont know. We figured maybe the 4,000 kids in West Virginia affected by this badly. The last thing that anyone should want to do is to encourage our people to start using a new nicotine delivery product. The last thing. Lets get in and make as much as we can because there are no regulations he had approximately 72 of the states. [laughter] sounding several alarms on these virtually unregulated products. In addition to the issue of nicotine addiction ecigarette recalls that are related causes Poison Control Centers to be very much on the rise. Moreover us some studies indicate that toxins other than nicotine may be found in ecigarettes. Given the Health Concerns and the lack of data substantiating Health Benefits calling it is imperative to restrict the use exposure to ecigarettes simply stated, children and teens should not be guinea pigs as we await more conclusive research. I do not understand that. I do not understand the corporate view on that to. Making the money is a wonderful thing, but making money was Something Like this where you dont know what the results are but you do know what the results are with nicotine in cigarettes is the awareness has been surging