- [H.A.S.C. No. 110-52]OVERVIEW OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION (MWR) PROGRAMS

[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[H.A.S.C. No. 110-52]

OVERVIEW OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION (MWR) PROGRAMS

__________

HEARING

BEFORE THE

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

HEARING HELD

MARCH 29, 2007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-163 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman
MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
NANCY BOYDA, Kansas WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania JOE WILSON, South Carolina
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
Michael Higgins, Professional Staff Member
John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
Joe Hicken, Staff Assistant

C O N T E N T S

----------

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2007

Page

Hearing:

Thursday, March 29, 2007, Overview of Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation (MWR) Programs...................................... 1

Appendix:

Thursday, March 29, 2007......................................... 23
----------

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007
OVERVIEW OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION (MWR) PROGRAMS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative from New York, Ranking
Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee........................ 2
Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman,
Military Personnel Subcommittee................................ 1

WITNESSES

Arsht, Leslye A., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military
Community & Family Policy...................................... 2
Downs, Michael P., Director, Personal and Family Readiness
Division, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department,
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps................................ 6
Handley, Rear Adm. Mark A., Deputy Commander, Navy Installations
Command, U.S. Navy............................................. 5
Myers, Arthur J., Director of Services, U.S. Air Force........... 7
Pinckney, Brig. Gen. Belinda, Commander, Family and Morale,
Welfare and Recreation Command, U.S. Army...................... 4

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Arsht, Leslye A.............................................. 31
Downs, Michael P............................................. 86
Handley, Rear Adm. Mark A.................................... 63
McHugh, Hon. John M.......................................... 29
Myers, Arthur J.............................................. 108
Pinckney, Brig. Gen. Belinda................................. 49
Snyder, Hon. Vic............................................. 27

Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]

Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record:

Mrs. Drake................................................... 158
Mr. McHugh................................................... 150
Dr. Snyder................................................... 141
OVERVIEW OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION (MWR) PROGRAMS

----------

House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, March 29, 2007.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:50 p.m. in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

Dr. Snyder. We apologize for the delay. I don't think we
are anticipating further delays. You may have also caught on
that most members over the next few minutes will start heading
for airports to go home for the spring break. I did not even
come down to say hello to you.
I am going to do a brief opening statement, and we will go
to Mr. McHugh, and we have your written statements and most
members will have looked at them, and if you can condense that
down, then we have got some questions to ask, and we will try
not to keep you here longer than is necessary but, again, we
apologize for the delay.
We are pleased you all are here today because these
programs you are responsible for and you have been involved in,
we think, are absolutely vital to our men and women in uniform
and our military families, and we will flesh that out as the
hearing proceeds.
You are such an important part of not just feeling good but
of the morale and the readiness of our men and women in uniform
and their families. If they don't feel good about what is going
on in other parts of their lives, including the family, it
impacts their work. And so that is why we think the work you do
is so important.
Some of the concerns of the subcommittee include a decline
in appropriated fund support for Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation (MWR) facilities, the construction at new facilities
with increased populations, and the need to increase access to,
call it child care, and I know that some of you will be talking
about that in your opening statements, and we will ask you
about that, and I would like to let Mr. McHugh make any
comments.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the
Appendix on page 27.]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
YORK, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. McHugh. I did have a chance to speak to each one of the
witnesses personally, but I want to state for the record how
pleased we are, how privileged we feel to have you with us
today. I ask my statement be entered in its entirety in the
record. Thank you, sir. And I just echo the comments that you
made. These are challenging times. I think the opening sentence
to the staff memo that tells us quote, ``MWR programs are
intended to provide military personnel the same quality of life
as is afforded the society they have pledged to defend,'' end
quote, kind of says it. That is the challenge.
As you know, you folks are an indispensable part of that.
The challenges from base realignment and closure (BRAC) to
global rebasing to pressure on appropriated fund support and on
and on and on are going to have to cause all of us to rise to
those significant challenges.
So we look forward to your comments here today, and thank
you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McHugh can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
I also want to apologize in advance. You may see members
having to leave sooner than they otherwise would because of the
lateness in the day.
Let me introduce our panel: Ms. Leslye Arsht, the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family
Policy; Brigadier General Belinda Pinckney, Commanding General,
U.S. Army Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command;
Rear Admiral Mark A. Handley, United States Navy, Vice
Commander, Navy Installations Command; Mr. Michael P. Downs,
Director, Personal and Family Readiness Division Headquarters,
Marine Corps; and Mr. Arthur J. Myers, Director of Air Force
Services.
And if you would do your opening statements in that order,
I will put the five-minute clock on you, but that is to be a
reminder. If you finish under that today, that is great, but if
you see the light go on and you got things we need to know
about, you go ahead and fire away. But that is to let you know
that five minutes have passed.

STATEMENT OF LESLYE A. ARSHT, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR MILITARY COMMUNITY & FAMILY POLICY

Ms. Arsht. Chairman Snyder, Ranking Member McHugh,
distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify on Department of Defense (DOD) morale,
welfare, and recreation programs.
Dr. Snyder. We need you to bend that thing down and get it
a little closer to your face. Even closer than that. This is
old time equipment here.
Try it again.
Ms. Arsht. When I first appeared before the subcommittee a
year ago, I had been in my current position just 13 days. Since
that time, I visited over 30 military installations around the
world and toured MWR facilities at all of them. I have talked
to service members and their leaders, and I have a great
appreciation for just how important MWR is to our troops and
their families.
I must say that the resiliency of service members and their
families is nothing less than remarkable. Our military families
are the heart and soul of troops on the battlefield and when
service members call back home, what they want to hear is, we
are doing fine, we miss you, but we are doing fine.
Of paramount importance to those deployed is to know that
their families have good support and someone to reach out to
while they are away. We continue to maintain robust morale,
welfare and recreation programs, and the Department has made
family support a priority.
Military spouses indicate that being able to communicate
with their spouse members is the number one factor in being
able to cope with deployment. Back home, computers and Internet
services located in the family support centers, base libraries
and use centers help ensure families can send and receive e-
mails from their deployed loved ones.
Communications support to deployed service members include
175 free MWR operated Internet cafes, 171 MWR operated fund
centers. This communication capacity is essential to morale and
our ability to sustain deployments.
Today's military families want easy and rapid access to
reliable information and resources. Two important Web-based
tools are helping to improve the delivery of information and
assistance to our families: Military One Source and Military
Home Front. In partnership with the services, we have leveraged
the technology to provide service members and their families
with information they want as well as someone to talk to 24/7.
Ready access to books, magazines, newspapers are important both
during and between deployments.
The Army, Navy, and Air Force each ships several thousand
newly printed books and magazines to various addresses to
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF) theaters each month.
Counseling support is available both on and off military
installations in the United States and overseas. Family
assistance and military member counseling has more than doubled
over the last year.
Among the most important supports to military families is
high quality child care and youth programs. DOD child care
continues to be a national model in both standards and
oversight. While we have greatly expanded child care capacity,
about 7,000 spaces, we still have unmet demand for 30,000
additional child care spaces.
Providing child care for Reserve and Guard presents
additional challenges. Many do not live close enough to
military installations to use on-base child care, and off-base
care is not always affordable.
An initiative designed to address these challenges is
Operation Military Child--I am sorry--Military Child Care
which, although it does not fully subsidize the cost of child
care, does reduce the financial burden. Services are provided
through a national non-profit organization to help parents
locate child care at reduced rates in their own communities.
Long-term plans are being made to modernize the fitness
infrastructure beginning with the services request for four
fitness center construction projects in fiscal year 2008.
Entertainment helps build morale for deployed service
members. Nowhere is this support more important than in the
austere locations where service members are performing in
support of the global war on terror. In 2006, Armed Forces
entertainment conducted 118 tours with 1,433 shows in 25
countries.
In addition to the stress associated with deployments, a
sizable number of military personnel and their families will be
affected by base realignment and global restationing. We are
actively pursuing partnerships with community leaders to
facilitate development of supportive infrastructure for
relocating families.
Clearly the road ahead is challenging, but we are committed
to meeting the needs of service members and their families. We
appreciate your support of DOD MWR programs and will seek your
continued support as we implement changes associated with BRAC
and restationing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Arsht can be found in the
Appendix on page 31.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
General Pinckney.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. BELINDA PINCKNEY, COMMANDER, FAMILY AND
MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION COMMAND, U.S. ARMY

General Pinckney. Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I am honored to appear before you today to
discuss the direction of Army family and MWR programs. Let me
begin by thanking this committee for your consistent support to
service members and families and their quality of life. I have
submitted my statement for the record and have a few brief
comments at this time.
I am privileged to address you today as the first
commanding general of the Family and MWR Command. The Family
and MWR Command is a subordinate command of the United States
Army and Installation Management Command, or MCOM. When the
Army established MCOM, the United States Army community and
family support center changed its name to more accurately
reflect its mission focusing on family and MWR programs. The
family and MWR command's efforts support soldiers and family
readiness. This support helps to deliver a quality of life that
matches the quality of service soldiers proudly provide to our
Nation.
We remain committed to providing quality support to
deployed soldiers around the globe and their awaiting families
back home. We have professional MWR staff in Southwest Asia and
the Balkans supporting our deployed soldiers and maintaining
MWR facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia,
Hungary, and Macedonia, to mention some. MWR promotes physical
fitness and provides recreation, social, and leisure pursuits.
Activities offered in these deployed locations include
cardiovascular and strength training theaters, electronic game
stations, and paperback books and online libraries. Our armed
forces recreation centers (AFRC) are also responding to the
needs of both the active and reserve component soldiers and
their families.
Since our rest and recuperation program started in October
2003, our AFRCs have privileged--have been privileged to host
over 75,000 soldiers and their families.
Our soldiers and families remain resilient. However, given
the challenges of modularity, global defense, partial
realignment, base realignment and closure, and the global war
on terror, stress on the force remains a constant.
Given this transformation and restationing backdrop, the
Army is committed to providing continued quality family and MWR
programs to all of the soldiers and their families. This
includes active and reserve component soldiers. In fact, today
this is--this support is crucial to maintaining our all-
volunteer force.
Mr. Chairman, with the help and support of this committee,
we are moving the Army's family and MWR programs forward as we
continue to service our soldiers and their families when and
wherever duty calls.
I will be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Pinckney can be found in
the Appendix on page 49.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Admiral Handley.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. MARK A. HANDLEY, DEPUTY COMMANDER, NAVY
INSTALLATIONS COMMAND, U.S. NAVY

Admiral Handley. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to
appear before you today and discuss morale, welfare and
recreation programs for the Navy. I have submitted, like
colleagues today, a written statement for the record. I will
summarize a few thoughts for you today.
Dr. Snyder. All written statements will be made a part of
the record.
Admiral Handley. Navy MWR continues to improve quality,
accessibility of our programs because we know how vitally
important it is to our sailors, our civilians, our families. We
invested in a number of initiatives in 2006 that will serve for
the foundation of healthy MWR and child youth programs in the
future. Some examples of our major improvements in fiscal year
2006 include: the creation of a ``fitness for life'' initiative
that reaches out to improve the health and fitness habits of
the entire Navy community, including family members, DOD
civilians, senior personnel and retirees; a commitment to
construct 26 new fitness facilities across the Future Years
Defense Plan (FYDP), starting with Guam in fiscal year 2008,
this represents over a $500 million investment in enhanced
fitness opportunities for our sailors and their families; the
creation of 1,300 new child development center spaces in fleet
concentration areas that will come on line in the next 18
months, this will reduce the current Navy child care waiting
list and bring us closer to the goal of meeting 80 percent of
the need; implementation of outreach contracts to provide child
care and youth services outside the military infrastructure for
geographically isolated active duty personnel and activated
reservists. So far, 4,900 additional spaces have been made
available for Navy children as a result of these contracts.
We have also significantly increased our investment in
major and minor Non-appropriated Funds (NAF) construction
projects leveraging central cash funds. As part of a multi-year
plan, our MWR board of directors approved increasing the level
of investment of over $80 million in fiscal year 2007 and
fiscal year 2008. An emphasis is investing in our employees so
they have an opportunity to enhance their customer service
skills while fulfilling personal employment objectives. Our
focus to help them build long-term careers with MWR.
In summary, our commitment to ``fitness for life'' programs
will help us ensure a strong and healthy force for the Navy for
the future. Our investment in equipment and facilities will
assure that sailors and their families enjoy a quality
recreational experience for many years to come. Investing in
quality child care enhances the morale of Navy families while
greatly contributing to force readiness.
And, finally, ongoing training development initiatives for
MWR staff members help to ensure the level of service our
program exceeds customer expectations.
Thank you for your time and continued support for MWR
facilities and services. I look forward to working with you as
we continue to improve this vital program, and I stand by to
address any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Handley can be found in
the Appendix on page 63.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Mr. Downs.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. DOWNS, DIRECTOR, PERSONAL AND FAMILY
READINESS DIVISION, MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,
HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS

Mr. Downs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman McHugh,
Congresswoman Davis, for this opportunity to report on the
Marine Corps welfare and recreation program. As you well know,
MWR programs are imperative to the quality of life of Marines
and their families. Whether providing innovative fitness
programs to improve Marine Corps readiness, taking care of
children and youth or offering wholesome recreational
activities to Marines and families, our MWR program is robust
and expansive.
Although the environment is indeed challenging, I am proud
to report that the Marine Corps continues to maintain required
levels of appropriated funds necessary to our MWR programs. As
an important part of the Marine Corps landscape, MWR has
successfully sustained rigorous budget prioritization sessions.
Equally important, MWR revenue generation is up $7 million in
sales and $1 million in net income from 2005 to 2006. Moreover,
our exchange dividends are at the highest levels in the last
six years.
For the third consecutive year, we have met or exceeded the
85/65 minimum Appropriated Funds (APF) funding metric for
categories A and B activities established by DOD. In view of
the combat and operational tempo of the Marine Corps,
sustainment of MWR funding is remarkable and further indicative
of value and overall contribution.
Our installation commanders are actively monitoring program
delivery, and at the headquarters level, we are working to
ensure continued compliance with DOD standards.
Let me assure you that any necessary program adjustments
will include safeguards to protect the integrity and
functionality of our MWR program that continues to serve the
Marine Corps so well.
The support of this subcommittee through annual hearings is
vital to the future of MWR and helps to ensure that the program
receives the credit it deserves.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and for your
longstanding support of military MWR programs.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Downs can be found in the
Appendix on page 86.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Downs.
Mr. Myers of the Air Force.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR J. MYERS, DIRECTOR OF SERVICES, U.S. AIR
FORCE

Mr. Myers. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Military Personnel Subcommittee.
I truly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to talk about the status of Air Force MWR programs. Let
me begin by thanking you for the tremendous support you have
provided for the troops over the past year. Our Air Force is
transforming. As we modernize our aging weapon systems, we must
keep the focus on our most important weapon systems, our airmen
and the families who support them.
The Air Force services face major challenges as we seek
innovative ways to transform our community support services and
programs while avoiding unnecessary impacts to service delivery
and quality of life.
As we balance these competing requirements, we are
concerned about the impacts of joint basing, especially on our
civilian workforce, the quality of life for people at that
installation, and operational mission.
We are also concerned about the downward trend in exchange
dividends; five years ago, our exchange dividends averaged
nearly $90 million per year. Last year, we received only $73
million, and the current exchange financial plan projects less
than $57 million for the Air Force. Almost a $33 million
reduction from the level five years ago. This has already had a
negative impact on our programs in the field and will have even
larger-term consequences as we cut back our non-appropriated
fund facility program.
Based on the exchange's current dividend projections, even
a partial recovery will be a long time coming. And finally, we
can and should do better for our non-appropriated funded
employees than the current DOD-wide NAF health benefits permit.
As we rise to meet these challenges, we and our leaders are
committed to ensure the needs of our airmen and their families
are met. Our Air Force service team provides life sustaining
support to our troops in the field and the central community
programs to our airmen and their families back home. I am
extremely proud of the hard work and dedication they put forth
to make our mission and therefore the Air Force mission happen
everyday all over the world.
Your help continues to make a direct impact on our airmen
and their families.
You have my written statement, and I welcome your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers can be found in the
Appendix on page 108.]
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Myers, and thank you all for
your opening statements.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you
allowing me to kind of jump the order here a little bit.
My dad was a great skeptic when it came to averages and
percentages. He used to say to me, you know, John, if you put
one foot in a bucket of ice water and one foot in a bucket of
boiling water, on average, you are comfortable.
I look at these charts, and on average, I am comfortable,
but I wonder how comfortable I am. And they are somewhat
misleading. Percentages of goals. You look at the Army
expenditures was 87 percent of goals in 1997, and now in fiscal
year 2006, they are down to 83 percent. That is below the 85.
You might be concerned about that. But if you go to real
expenditures, in fact, from 2003 through projected 2008, the
Army difference is up by $92 million.
And Mr. Downs mentioned the Marine Corps is above the
averages, and I am not accusing the Marine Corps of this, but
it is in fact possible to reach the averages, not by spending
more but by cutting programs. So I am not sure what these
percentages tell us. But I do know this, and Mr. Myers spoke
about it, we have got a massive rebasing coming about. We know
that huge customers of the resale system which drive dividends
available to you in support of your programs are already on
their way down and are probably going to continue to do so. At
the same time, we are going to have an increase in end strength
which means you have got more people, more families to serve,
more gyms, more libraries.
What kind of plan do we have for the future in meeting that
kind of two-edge dilemma, that of decreased support from the
dividends yet increased demand for programs through the
rebasing here at home and the expansion of the end strength?
Anybody got any thoughts on that and tell us what the future
may look like?
Mr. Myers. In the Air Force, we have gotten our MCOMs base
level people together to devise a strategic plan to set our way
into the future to do things smarter, more efficiently, and so
forth.
In the Air Force, we have always focused on quality of life
for our programs and so--in taking care of our people. So, in
the Air Force, rather than have a cookie-cutter approach across
our bases, we are going to focus on the programs that meet the
needs of our troops and their families. It will be a difficult
task, but one, I believe, will be successful in doing.
Mr. McHugh. As we go down, if any of you have additional
thoughts, I would appreciate that.
I would add to that as well into the mix the most important
part from our perspective, what can Congress do to be as
supportive as possible in helping you meet that challenge? If
you have any thoughts on that.
Madam Secretary.
Ms. Arsht. I would like to echo what Mr. Myers has said
here in one important way. That is all of the services. They
are different, and you will hear us say that a lot today. They
are different in how they make their decisions and different in
how they allocate their funds. And those differences are
important, that flexibility to be able to respond to the needs
even within their services, different installations have
different requirements, and within DOD policy. Their boards and
other governing decision-making policy bodies do make those
decisions to ensure that they are responding to the needs of
the service members and families at the various installations.
I think if you turn to Mr. Downs's comments, the exchanges
and the MWR funding allocations are different. And so they are
not all declining. And overall, we think the MWR programs are
financially solid and that the services are responding to the
changing demands and showing a tremendous innovation, some of
which we will detail in other parts of the areas of MWR and
specific areas that we will talk about later.
Mr. Downs. Just for the record, the Marine Corps's MWR are
not declining. And the ability to meet and exceed the standards
is directly related to the infusion of appropriated funds into
the Marine Corps MWR program beginning in fiscal year 2002 and
continuing through this year.
Mr. McHugh. If I may, just to underscore for the record, I
tried to state, I am not accusing the Marine Corps of doing
that. I am just showing the vagaries of mathematics that you
really can't tell just from the numbers what the commitment is.
I apologize for interrupting.
Mr. Downs. Just from 2002 to--through 2006, the
appropriated funds for category A has increased from 87.5 to
125.6. And in category B programs, from 110.1 million to 151.7.
Mr. McHugh. I am glad to hear that, but you started it, so
I am going to finish it.
So if you adjust for inflation, every one of the services
is spending less today, including the Marine Corps, than they
did back in 2004. My point is, I am more interested in hearing
your plans as to how you are going to accommodate whether you
are the Marine Corps, Army, Air Force Navy. You have got the
challenges of deployment less so in the Marine Corps. Coming
back home from rebasing is not going to be a huge issue for
you. But for the other services, it is going to be. But end
strength is going to be a significant issue. So I wanted to
just try to be reassured you are on it, as they say.
Admiral.
Admiral Handley. Sir, from the Navy's perspective,
obviously, it is mostly a seagoing and expeditionary service.
Different challenges for us. We do not have the same rebasing
challenges. Most of our changes under BRAC are addressed, but I
will tell you that we are laser focused on looking at the cost
of our programs to make sure we are as efficient as possible.
In 2004, I think you know we stood up the commander, Naval
Installations Command, similar to the Army, with the
Installations Management Agency (IMA), and we took eight
claimants or eight organizations that were responsible for
running bases and running MWR programs and consolidated it into
one.
Just in 2005, we also consolidated our program management
function in Millington, Tennessee, to be part of that
organization, and we are finding a lot of efficiencies from the
backroom consolidations that we have done for that.
Sir, to answer your question on what more can we do and
what more we can support, I will point that we do a lot of
partnerships with a lot of other outside organizations, Boys
and Girls Clubs, certifying their affiliations with our youth
centers and as Congresswoman Davis would know, the First for
Five initiative in San Diego to help with child development
centers where we have a public-private or a public-public
venture to help solve some of those problems; those are
programs that I think we can exploit more in the future.
Mr. McHugh. I thank you.
I am sorry. General, please.
General Pinckney. Sir, thank you.
Like the Navy, I think with the stand up of the
Installation Management Command, and two direct reporting units
falling under the MWR, MCOM, we are able to garner a lot of
savings by reducing the redundancies within the different
organizations. In addition to that, we also track use of non-
appropriated funds for those activities that should be funded
with appropriated fund dollars, and I say that to say that we
have brought this to the attention of our board of directors,
MWR board of directors, and we, in fact, were challenged to
look at new initiatives that could generate additional income
given the fact that we know there is going to be a decline in
dividends coming from Army and Air Force Exchange Services
(AAFES) as well as support that we get from our Army
recreational program because they are overseas, and we know
that people overseas tend to spend more dollars in AAFES as
opposed to being here.
So we are partnering with AAFES in some areas that we know
that we can actually garner more savings and actually use our
dollars as a buying power. We partner with corporate America
for public and private ventures. We are also working with the
Boys and Girls Club and the 4-H camp to provide child care. In
terms of capacity, when we know that we can't accommodate child
care needs on post, we have to provide that kind of support off
our posts. So we are doing that as well.
And we are combining contracts throughout the Installation
Management Command, not just within the family MWR command.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield back. Let me underscore again
how much I know we all appreciate the great work that these
leaders do across the board, and the challenges that they face
are not of their making. But together I am hopeful we can
continue to provide to our brave men and women in uniform these
invaluable programs and as the good secretary started off at
the beginning, they are critical to their quality of life. So I
thank you all for your service and again for being here.
Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate your courtesy, and I
yield back.
Dr. Snyder. Mrs. Davis for five minutes.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want
to echo Mr. McHugh's thoughts as well because we know the
important work that you were doing. Without our families,
without them feeling supported, we really are nowhere. And so
it is critically important work.
I wonder as we look at these numbers though, I think it is
always tough to point out some of the shortcomings, but are
there some degradation of services that you have seen that
perhaps don't show up easily in numbers that we ought to be
alerted to in any of the services that you see. You mentioned
child care, the need to try. I wanted to ask about that in a
second. But are there some areas in which we really--given
another year or two, the slide could create a problem?
General Pinckney. I think, Ma'am, from an Army perspective
I will tell you yes, there are some shortages. We aren't going
to be able to actually fund the non-appropriated fund major
construction projects that we would normally do because of the
possible decrease in dividends coming from AAFES. So we know
that probably on average, we will not be funding three projects
that we normally would have--would be funding.
Mrs. Davis of California. And do those impact families
directly?
General Pinckney. Depending on the type of project.
I will tell you that the projects that I see mainly
impacting families we are normally able to provide support to
and that would be the Child Development Centers (CDCs), the
Capacity for Children, because that is a given concern, and
given the fact that we partner with Boys and Girls Clubs and
the 4-H camp and actually other child development centers
within--that are located around our installations and some
further away from installations for those remote sites, I don't
think that that is a major concern for the Army.
Mr. Myers. I will add to that. One of the things we face in
the future is the decline in AAFES' dividends. We sort of
insulate the installation that they are always going to get
their dividends but with the shortage of dividends, that
impacts our construction program in the future. So we are going
to be building a lot less. And one of the family programs that
will be impacted is youth centers because they are built with
non-appropriated funds. As we sit here today, the Air Force is
taking care of 120,000 children so their parents can focus on
the mission. As long as they know their family is being taken
care of, they are a hundred percent on the mission. So down the
road, the decrease in AFEES dividends will have a big increase
on the Air Force.
Ms. Arsht. I would like to address your question by talking
about the three-pronged approach that we are taking in child
care.
It speaks to need, that is the first--the first prong is
that we have used the emergency intervention support that we
have gotten.
Mrs. Davis of California. Do you know how many families
that are helped as a result of that? If you have a certain
number of families that you know aren't being served locally
but you are trying to provide that additional support for them,
does that answer the need or answer the need for half of the
families who are in need?
Ms. Arsht. We have three different ways really of talking
about this. One is in the emergency supplemental dollars that
we use. We actually created 7,000 new spaces, and we also did
renovations in addition to existing spaces. So adding space is
one of the big priorities that we had for this last year.
That authority is going to end. So, obviously, we would
like to continue that authority to have the small construction
opportunities to continue to add spaces.
The second opportunity that we have used to expand our
capacity is a relationship with the National Association of
Child Care Resource and Referral agencies. They are doing at
least two things for us, two important things. One is helping
families find quality child care in their communities, and the
second part of that is the new child care program that provides
discounts to families. And that program is producing direct
savings to families.
And then the third prong is to actually have three to four
Military Construction (MILCON) projects each year. In 2007, we
were able to have eight funded projects. So we are really
working, and child care being a good example but not our only
example, of trying to create a mix of opportunities to expand
capacity and use some community resources where they are
available and leverage them to extend our abilities.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. And not here but
perhaps if you could just give us a sense of what the unmet
need is as you address it on those different levels, that would
be helpful. And Admiral, I know that there is a uniform fee
structure that has been put in place with the Navy; is that
correct?
Admiral Handley. I am sorry?
Mrs. Davis of California. A uniform fee schedule for child
care, has that had an impact?
Admiral Handley. Yes. And again, to a positive effect. The
other things that we are also doing in child care, we have gone
to a centralized waiting list across the Navy. We did find that
people were on multiple waiting lists across, so it had a
harder time on fixing on what the demand signal was. So that is
helping us target where we need child care and how much child
care we do need.
As the secretary already mentioned, we do use all of the
same tools that she has outlined, military construction, the
operations and maintenance (O&M) funding goes from the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and also through our own O&M
funding. Again, that authority runs out in the end of 2007.
That has been very responsive to putting it to where we need it
to most.
And then, obviously, I mentioned earlier the First for Five
in San Diego. And I also think we should explore more public-
private ventures similar as we have done in housing. It has
been very successful. But we want to make sure we keep laser
focus that we don't drop that standard.
We obviously enjoy a very good reputation with the
standards of care that we have been providing, and we want to
make sure as we do that, similar as we have in housing, we set
the standard as we go out in those kinds of deals.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Pinckney. I forgot one thing.
For fiscal year 2007, for MILCON, this is the first time
that the Army had committed this type of funding for child
care, and I just wanted to make a point of this; 29 child
development centers in our 2007 MILCON, I don't know if we have
ever done that before and--29 CDCs, three youth centers, two
physical fitness centers, and a pool for a total of $180
million. That is record-breaking for the Army.
Mr. Myers. Mrs. Davis, one other thing. I would like to
reiterate what Ms. Arsht said. OSD has done great in helping us
with emergency intervention funding so we can build additional
child care spaces. Through their efforts, we have opened up
2,200 additional spaces because we can use O&M funding and you
can get them done fast. However, the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) language that constructs CDCs with O&M
funding rather than MILCON expires this year. So we would
really like the committee's help to extend this waiver so we
can continue to build these child care spaces in a timely
manner.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much.
And you, ma'am, you mentioned the authority that is needed
in one of the programs as well. Is that something that you can
make certain that we are very well aware of? Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder. Before we go to Mrs. Drake, Madam Secretary, I
wasn't sure of one of your answers to Mrs. Davis.
You were talking about, I think, minor MILCON projects, and
you said that the authority is going to end. What authority are
you talking about?
Ms. Arsht. That is the emergency intervention from the
supplemental funding we used. The construction of the child
care centers doesn't come under the normal MILCON budget. It is
a separate emergency authority.
Mr. Myers. They come under O&M funds, so you don't have to
go through the whole MILCON process so you can build them a
heck of a lot faster; less than a year, sometimes months.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Mrs. Drake.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here.
First, I have asked this before in other hearings, but I am
concerned about the base credentialing. And the adverse effects
that the lack of implementation could have on our MWR
activities.
Madam Secretary, if you could tell us, how do you view the
current status or progress for base credentialing and what
progress has been made, and is it on track for a timely
implementation, and is there something that could be done in
the meantime until the Department has electronic readers in
place? Could you give us your assessment of that?
Ms. Arsht. I think there may be two parts to this answer.
The first part is a concern by our business partners and
vendors who have sought credentials that would allow them to
come on the installations. And as Mr. Dominguez reported in the
resale hearings just a couple of weeks ago, there is a program
now that we believe is compliant with Homeland Security, that
is being implemented in Europe and in Korea and next to go to
southwest Asia that we believe is going to meet the needs of
the vendors. And that will come next after Southwest Asia to
the U.S. It will be accessible both to commanders and will make
it much easier for vendors to monitor and manage the people who
need to come on the installations.
I think you were speaking about employees also.
Mrs. Drake. And the employees of our vendors as well as
employees.
Ms. Arsht. They would be covered, I believe, under this
system.
Mrs. Drake. If I could get each of the services to let me
know what their concerns are, if they feel this is coming,
because it is a big concern in people's minds right now.
General Pinckney. From the Army, ma'am, this would be--this
would be a topic that I would take back to the Installation
Command, the United States Army Command, because in the Army,
the garrison commander and the senior mission commander make
these kinds of decisions, and so I know that there is some
concern with the amount of dollars, resources, that would be
required to implement.
Mrs. Drake. And also to hear from say, Mr. Myers, next and
then go down the line to make sure that we are doing one and
not multiple ones for our vendors who work on multiple bases.
Mr. Myers, could you give us your take on that?
Mr. Myers. Of all of the years I have been with the Air
Force, I have never heard really a concern from the vendors as
far as access from the base, and today, of course, we are
really concerned about force protection and so forth. So in the
Air Force, we have a system that if the vendor is going to
visit us, we will make the person available to assist them in
getting on the base and so forth.
So I think the big concerns that we have to look at is the
force protection part.
But I will tell you, in the Air Force, I have never had
that concern brought to my attention.
Mrs. Drake. Really.
Admiral.
Admiral Handley. I will tell you from my own experience
down in Norfolk, vendor access was an issue. I would say less
in the MWR arena than it was in the exchange arena because of
the number of vendors, and you get longer-term relationships
with them. But I will tell you, on every base that we have, we
work vendor issues, I think you bring a valid point is if they
go from base to base or installation or especially service to
service, do they have a different process they would do?
Most of our processes do tend to be regional by local to an
installation. Under regionalization, we will set one policy for
the region. So we don't have that problem as much in going from
an installation like on a Norfolk Naval base to Oceana, but we
may have that problem if you go over to an Army or Air Force
installation. That I don't know.
But I would tell you that we do do that consistently across
the Navy. It is an issue that we will continue to monitor as
base access technology also changes. We also look at common
access card (CAC) readers and other things for access as well.
Mrs. Drake. General Downs.
Mr. Downs. The driving force for this is the Homeland
Security Presidential Directive that was issued in August of
2004. And it places a great deal of responsibility on the
individual installation commanders and for us in the
decentralized way to bring this security apparatus up to place
and to make certain that adequate, background investigations
and credentialing is done.
We have had some installations on the West Coast that it
implemented a stop-gap measure for credentialing that could be
problematic.
Right now, it has not impacted anybody, to my knowledge,
and we are as much concerned about our non-appropriated fund
employees as we are of vendors. And within the Marine Corps, it
is not as well coordinated as it ought to be. The policy is run
by C-4. They run the policy on the covered access card. The
security folks are the ones that have interest in the security
piece to it. There is a Marine installation board scheduled on
the 25th and 26th of April, and I have a paper that addresses
this issue and we would hope to--we will discuss this from
Marine Corps headquarters oversight of installations and those
responsible for installations Marine Corps wide.
But your point is right on. We need to have a Marine Corps-
wide, really a DOD-wide solution, not one by base.
Mrs. Drake. And particularly in regions like southeast
Virginia where we have all of the bases, every branch of the
military has a base.
But Madam Secretary, do you have any update on that General
Accounting Office (GAO) study that is being done? We are being
told it could be as late as September of this year and DOD is
waiting on them. So do you have any information on that, or
could you get back to us on that?
Ms. Arsht. Which study is this?
Mrs. Drake. The GAO study. We are being told DOD is waiting
on that.
Ms. Arsht. On base access?
Mrs. Drake. On base access and credentials.
Ms. Arsht. I will take that for the record.
Mrs. Drake. If you would do that, I appreciate it. I have
one more, but I don't know if you want to do another round.
If I could also ask about the merging, where we are doing
joint bases and we are merging the MWR programs. If, Madam
Secretary, if we could hear from you and then from each of the
service representatives how--whether progress is or is not
being made on the merging of these MWR programs. I am hearing
both; it is going well, there is good progress, and then I am
hearing that it is not. So I wonder, from your perspective, if
you could bring us up-to-date on that.
Ms. Arsht. I can say initially there is consensus that we
all want to ensure that the quality-of-life programs are
sustained and even in this opportunity perhaps improved in
places as part of the joint basing concept. Every one at this
table or their designees have been involved in working groups
to address the issues around joint basing and MWR, and
performance levels is one of the areas of concern that is being
worked. And I am certain that the services will want to speak
about this.
Perhaps we will start with Mr. Myers.
Mrs. Drake. Go right down. Thank you.
Mr. Myers. I believe joint basing is going to have a huge
adverse effect on employees. For instance, for our NAF
employees, each service has a different retirement program, a
different life insurance program, a different severance
program. On our appropriated fund employees, like in the Air
Force, we have a career program for them, and under joint
basing, if you are at Bolling Air Force Base, you become a Navy
employee. So here I am an Air Force employee. I have been
working for a career job in the Air Force and all of a sudden,
I become a Navy employee under Navy rules. And if I am an
appropriated fund employee, the other services for our type of
positions normally change them to non-appropriated fund
employees.
And remember, under a non-appropriated employee, if I am an
appropriated fund employee, I go the NAF, before I have Blue
Cross and Blue Shield as an appropriated fund employee. Now as
a NAF, I have a choice of one health care plan. So that is a
big change.
Plus, the majority of our employees can be represented by a
union, and I believe unions will have a problem with their
personnel. We could have different standards at every single
base.
So I think we are going to have a big impact on our
employees. As I go out in the field to talk to them, a lot of
them that are on a joint base want to go back to an Air Force
base, and consequently, I have been to an Army base where they
want to move to an Army base because they want to stay in that
system.
Plus, I believe it has an impact on us on our operational
mission. For instance, in services, we have military personnel
postured to deploy at joint bases. Many of them are going to
convert these to contractors and so forth, so therefore we lose
our opportunity for deployment.
And finally, all of the services have different standards.
When the Air Force fights, we fight from the base. So
consequently, we put a lot of effort into basing through the
years. The other services, the Navy, will fight from the ships,
the Army and Marine Corps from the field. We will see an
adverse impact as far as standards for our people at joint
basing.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you.
General.
General Pinckney. Yes, ma'am.
From the Army's perspective, Mr. Myers has been talking to
the portability issue with non-appropriated fund employees, and
that is an issue that is being worked. But the Army takes the
lead at Fort Lewis and McCord, and I have been out there, and I
have visited them. And what I liked about what I saw was the
fact that on a regular basis the Air Force garrison commander
at McCord was working closely with the Army garrison commander
at Fort Lewis. They were meeting on a regular basis. They
were--they were looking at it from a different perspective.
They were taking the quality of one service over the other.
For instance, if there was an area that the Air Force had
that was better than the processes--the processes were better
than what the Army had, they were making the decision to see if
they would meet that process. The Army, Fort Lewis, for
instance, has a point-of-sales system that the Air Force didn't
have and felt that they needed, and it was an easy way to give
them that system.
So I like their approach. They were documenting the
differences, but their approach was, let us take the best of
both worlds, and we will work through the delta, and the delta
wasn't that big with the exception of the portability issue.
Mrs. Drake. Admiral.
Admiral Handley. Yes, ma'am. I will tell you, change is
always hard; isn't it? And I will tell you that, as we work
through the details of joint basing, and I sit on the Senior
Joint Base Working Group with Secretary Grone, and I have had
many lengthy discussions with Major General Eulberg from the
Air Force about the challenges that await us there and how we
are going to best meet them, and Mr. Myers accurately I think
portrayed some of the anxiety that is probably out there with
some of that workforce.
A couple of things that we are doing in order to address
that. Secretary Grone has been putting out joint
implementations, standards and guidelines still in draft form
that we are trying to settle on. But to help further that, both
the Army--or the Air Force and the Navy have joined together in
holding some table top exercises for joint basing. General
Eulberg and I just yesterday kicked off the initial planning
conference for the first one at Bolling Air Force Base and
Naval Station Anacostia because we have to work through all of
these details to do that.
We are doing this in an effort to make sure that we look at
the standards that we are going to go to and make sure that we
meet those.
By and large, I think the experience that the Army has
represented here is representative of what we are doing in
joint basing. In fact, we are looking at what the best standard
is out there. We may not go to the most expensive solution, but
we are looking at the standard that we are going to be proud
of. And for the most part, I think most people are going to see
an increase in standards across the board as we go to joint
basing.
From my own personal perspective, I think that this is also
part of the future for the Department of Defense as we look at
the opportunities to leverage the assets we have jointly as
opposed to running them individually.
So as we go through this, we are going through it with eyes
wide open. We know there are plenty of challenges out there,
and we are going to address those as we go through the
implementation guides with DOD and as Madam Secretary
mentioned. We have all at some point been involved in the roll-
out of that, and we will continue to work that again through
the BRAC process but also through the joint basing process.
Mrs. Drake. General Downs.
Mr. Downs. Yes, ma'am.
The only installation in the Marine Corps mentioned in
joint basing in the BRAC was Henderson Hall where the joint
base was between Henderson Hall and Fort Myer. The BRAC
Commission recognized the responsibilities Henderson Hall has
to Marine Corps headquarters and to Marines in the National
Capitol Region, and the MWR non-appropriated fund and to
include the exchanges. All of Marine Corps Community Services
(MCCS) was excluded from the elements of Henderson Hall to be
consolidated with Fort Myer by BRAC. That decision is confirmed
in the draft joint base guidance. And so, at this time, there
is no--there are no joint base implications for the Marine
Corps.
Obviously, with the impending move of Marines from Camp
Butler in Okinawa to Guam--Guam is a joint base. The
differences there will be, there is no Marine presence at Guam
now. So it won't be--we will have to work that as the time
comes, and that is some years away yet.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
We have been joined by Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The reason I was delayed is I am going to be on a
Congressional Delegation (CODEL) with Congressman Ortiz
visiting Guam this coming week on our way, amazingly enough, on
our way to Hanoi, Vietnam. But as you--I want to always state
how much we appreciate when we visit with our troops overseas,
how inspiring it is to see the new greatest generation. And
this will be my third visit to Guam, and each time, I am just
so pleased with the young people who are serving and protecting
our country.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
I wanted to touch briefly again on the issue of child care,
Madam Secretary. In both of your written statements and in the
discussion today, we talk about the shortfall, which is
something that everyone wants to correct. I want to ask the
question, how do you monitor quality of child care?
Ms. Arsht. Not only do we monitor it ourselves and the
services do as well; they all manage their waiting lists and
have annual reports and do inspections and all of that, but
just this month we received an accolade that we are very proud
of. And that is the National Association of Child Care Research
and Referral Agencies did a study to rank all 50 States and the
District of Columbia child care programs for oversight and
standards. Included in the oversight was an evaluation of
efficiency to make sure that resources were being used
properly.
And out of those rankings, DOD child care centers came out
on top of both lists. And the agencies suggested that DOD's
child care centers should be a model for the Nation. So we are
very proud of that. We want to be able to sustain that. We
think our partnership with this national organization will
build additional capacity for us outside the gate both for--
with discounting their fees and as a finder service to find
quality child care that is a model kind of relationship for us
to have, also to build capacity and to make sure that quality
is maintained.
Dr. Snyder. I want to ask a second question. I will ask it
to you and if anybody else wants to join in, feel free to on
that question or this one.
If I have a special needs kid--and we are expecting a
report out, I think in April, from DOD on autism and how the
military is going to handle autism. That is a common diagnosis
amongst toddlers these days. It has major ramifications on
families. And yet you all are in a business where one of the
parents in a household who has trouble enough keeping up with
one or two children that don't have special needs may be jerked
out and transplanted away for 15 or 18 months and leaving one
parent behind in a household with one child that has--or maybe
more that has--very dramatic increase in need in child care and
therapy.
How do you all feel--where do these programs fit into those
families, our military families, with special needs children
such as autism?
Ms. Arsht. The special needs children receive preference in
placement in DOD child care centers. But perhaps one of you all
would like to speak to it in practice.
General Pinckney. Well, in addition to that, because those
parents need a break, we have respite care where we provide
hours so those parents can get a break as well.
Mr. Myers. I agree with both those statements. They do get
priority, and we are very attuned to their needs, and I believe
we have been successful across the board in meeting the needs
of those families.
Dr. Snyder. Mr. Myers, how has the impact of the reductions
in numbers in the Air Force, how has that impacted on services
to our men and women in uniform in the Air Force and their
families? We have heard complaints over the last year or so
that some of the first things to go are perhaps some of the
things you all have been working on. How has the reduction in
numbers impacted on the programs that you are working on?
Mr. Myers. The impact has so far been minimal.
Dr. Snyder. Minimal, but present?
Mr. Myers. But present. And the reason is we were only
manned at about 85 percent. So when we gave up positions the
first year, we gave up authorizations and not faces. So what we
have done with our predominantly military personnel--and in my
organization, all of our military personnel deploy--we have
sort of postured them at our bases with a warfighting mission
to deploy. And our people who deploy work in food service, work
in lodging, work in fitness, work in mortuary. So we are
starting to migrate them to all of the bases and we are
backfilling the military with our NAF, MOA and other positions.
So, so far in the Air Force, we haven't seen an impact. We
will see some impact in the future but we are already planning
with our strategic plan and so forth to meet the needs of our
community. For instance, in some bases we have had the same
programs at every base, but there is not a need for that
program. So we can shift those resources to our programs where
they are needed.
So I think we have a good plan. I mean, it is not going to
be easy, but you know the Air Force's priority has always been
taking care of its people and we will continue to do that.
Dr. Snyder. For example, if I were to go out there and
look, would I be able to find Air Force bases in which there
had been a reduction of hours at a fitness center?
Mr. Myers. If you go out there, you could find a fitness
center with some reduction in hours. You know, in the past we
have had some fitness centers open 24 hours a day, where in the
middle of the night there was little or no people using it. So
we have reduced it that way.
And some of our dining facilities, we have had midnight
meals with only a handful of people showing up, so we have
reduced that. But we have other alternatives where we do our
box lunches and so forth to provide meals.
So I think we have taken efficient--looking at prudent
measures to reduce operations where they impact our personnel
the least.
Dr. Snyder. I wanted to go back to this issue that Mr.
McHugh touched on with regard to the dollars. And if we could
just go down the line. Mr. Myers, let's start with you.
When I look at this chart that compares appropriated
funding in 2003 with funding in 2007, but putting an
inflationary increase in there so it will compare real dollars
to real dollars, and when I see that there is a reduction, the
number hasn't kept pace with inflation, I need each one of you
from the services to explain, you know, how you think we are
doing as far as being upbeat as you are about the programming.
Give me some reassurance. I need to understand that number
better. And there are pretty dramatic differences between the
services.
Mr. Myers.
Mr. Myers. Well, in the Air Force, as I say, we always put
the priority on our number one weapon, our airmen and taking
care of their families. We have seen some reduction in our
appropriated fund support because we are going to modernize,
recapitalize our aircraft and so forth in the Air Force. And
over the years, we have just been more efficient. We have done
a lot of lean events where we can do things more efficient and
more better across the board.
As I said, some programs that weren't being used, we are
eliminating them and so forth. I travel the Air Force a lot. I
got my quality-of-life programs where we have seen some
reductions, I think. And over the long term, our programs will
survive.
The only programs that I have serious concerns about is our
construction program, and that is as a result of the
significant reduction in AAFES uniforms, in AAFES dividends.
We protect our bases. Our bases always get their dividends
up front so they know exactly what they are going to get every
year. Whatever is left over, we use in construction. So with
the reduction in AAFES dividends, we are going to do a lot less
construction than we have in the past. So of all my major
concerns, I think AAFES dividends is the major one right now.
Dr. Snyder. General Pinckney
General Pinckney. Sir, in the Army I can look at categories
A, B and C, but I also look at military construction, and I
look at the Army Family Program appropriated fund dollars
coming in as well. So when we compare 2003 execution to budget
2007, I look at '07, and what I see is a projection of more
dollars, and primarily because of the military construction
that I talked to earlier.
The Army is committed, and they have added $180 million in
the MILCON specifically for MWR programs. And that is 29 CDC, 3
youth centers, 2 fitness, and a pool.
The other issue you mentioned earlier is the percentage,
the 83 percent for the Army. That really on record seems to be
a decrease in percentages, but that actually was a difference
of methodology. The Army looked at it from a more logical
perspective, whereas we considered all categories, A, B, and C,
and we looked at appropriated and non-appropriated fund
dollars. So the total sum--and as we compare that to, say, a
category A, if I actually would have used the same formula that
everybody else used for category A, we would not show an 83
percent, we would show an 87 percent.
So I see the Army committing to actually putting more
dollars in Family and MWR programs.
Dr. Snyder. Admiral Hadley.
Admiral Hadley. Thank you, sir.
To summarize on my earlier comments, one of the things that
we in the Navy went through, you take 2003 as a bit of a high
watermark for us, but really the major changes for us in 2004
was the standup of the commander--of Navy Installations
Command. Obviously, significant efficiencies when you go from
eight organizations managing installations, managing different
MWR programs, you bring that into one. Our efficiencies that we
have gained through regionalization have also made a
significant contribution for us.
And then, finally, is the last, the pull in management
program from that one.
The other one I will add, you have to look at this in total
from a requirements base as opposed to a straight either a
percentage of appropriated funds or a dollars of appropriated
funds. And we go through a very rigorous process to define our
requirements and then we fund to those requirements, and those
do require us to look at the levels of service that we provide
based on location, based on demographics.
You know, clearly, overseas locations we provide a
different level of service. There are different important
programs that you might have. For example, a library overseas
is going to be far more important than it would be in a place
where we have that service right outside the gate.
But, again, we look at it from a requirements base as we go
forward. But we have seen significant efficiencies in the last
three to five years as we have gone through the consolidation
of those programs.
Dr. Snyder. And I think, Mr. Downs, I heard your comment
before and your number is--my numbers don't look as down as the
other.
Mr. Downs. Yes. I would like to reinforce what General
Pinckney said regarding comparing program dollars in 2007 to
actuals. And we are comparing in this figure 145.7 as an
inflated 2003, to 138. In truth, in fiscal year 2006 we spent
162.6 in execution. I would expect the 138.4 to be
substantially higher at the end of 2007 than it is shown right
now. And so it is a little misleading.
Dr. Snyder. I gotcha.
Mrs. Drake, do you have anything further? We had
originally, I think, probably told you all to estimate about
from two o'clock to four o'clock, and I think we will try to
stick with it.
I want to apologize for having to get up and leave a short
time ago. But to make the point, I carry my BlackBerry. I have
a wife and ten-month-old baby in Little Rock. And I looked at
it and it said, your wife needs you to call now. So I went out
there and called. She said, you didn't need to call now, it
wasn't an emergency.
But I don't ever forget how many of our men and women
overseas have kids that are literally 12,000 miles away and are
blessed or cursed with good communication.
And on the Little Rock Air Force Base, I met with some
families not so long ago. We have got a public school that is
operated by and owned by the local school district that really
needs to be replaced, and it has needed to be replaced for
years. And one of the families told me, it was a real pain
overseas for a person, either mother or father in the Air
Force, to get an e-mail from the their kid that the roof leaked
again on my desk and all my paperwork and my books were ruined.
Well, that is just a little thing, but that is the kind of
thing you don't want your mothers and fathers that are based
overseas to have to hear from their kid, almost in realtime
nowadays, about what is going on in their school.
So what you do is really important to us. It is really
important to the families. You all know that. And we really do
want to help you in any way we can, because it is such a huge
part of the morale of all our military families, but
particularly those who are divided up for periods of time
because of deployment.
And we appreciate you all being here. I will give you this
open invitation. If there is anything you think you need to
clear up on any of these numbers, I will just submit it as a
statement for the record, and we will add that on, and the
staff will get it to us. We will put it as part of the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 141.]
Dr. Snyder. Anything further, Mrs. Drake?
The hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?

======================================================================

A P P E N D I X

March 29, 2007

=======================================================================

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

March 29, 2007

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.109

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8163.112

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

March 29, 2007

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER

Dr. Snyder. I need each one of you from the services to explain,
you know, how you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are
about the programming. Give me some reassurance. I need to understand
that number better. And there are pretty dramatic differences between
the services.
Ms. Arsht. The Department of Defense does not wish to add
additional comments.
Dr. Snyder. I need each one of you from the services to explain,
you know, how you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are
about the programming. Give me some reassurance. I need to understand
that number better. And there are pretty dramatic differences between
the services.
General Pinckney. The Army has nothing else to add.
Dr. Snyder. I need each one of you from the services to explain,
you know, how you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are
about the programming. Give me some reassurance. I need to understand
that number better. And there are pretty dramatic differences between
the services.
Admiral Handley. Navy has no additional information to add or
correct.
Dr. Snyder. I need each one of you from the services to explain,
you know, how you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are
about the programming. Give me some reassurance. I need to understand
that number better. And there are pretty dramatic differences between
the services.
Mr. Myers. We appreciate the committee's continued support for Air
Force MWR and quality of life programs. As we transform our forces to
meet the warfighting needs of the future, competition intensifies for
scarce resources. The efforts of the Military Personnel Subcommittee
has been and will continue to be instrumental in helping us provide for
our Airmen and their families' needs.
Dr. Snyder. I need each one of you from the services to explain,
you know, how you think we are doing as far as being upbeat as you are
about the programming. Give me some reassurance. I need to understand
that number better. And there are pretty dramatic differences between
the services.
Mr. Downs. The Marine Corps is not projecting to spend less on MWR
programs. The following display depicts a Marine Corps MWR budget
increase of 34 percent between FY03 and FY07 (the period of interest to
the Subcommittee). This stable budget profile sustains existing
operations and programs. The FY03 and FY06 actual data totals include
additional funds allocated during the year of execution (e.g.,
supplemental). It is important to note that budgeted numbers differ
from actual spending. Comparisons (between budgeted figures and actual
figures/two different data points) yield inaccurate spending
projections.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY03 FY03 FY06 FY06
Budget Actual Budget Actual FY07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total MWR Direct 120,275 131,699 130,920 162,551 138,359
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MWR Indirect 38,152 57,273 73,442 79,176 74,629
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total MWR 158,427 188,972 204,362 241,727 212,988
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MWR programs are of significant value to the Marine Corps and these
programs have successfully sustained rigorous budget prioritization
sessions. For the third consecutive year, the Marine Corps has met or
exceeded the 85/65 minimum APF funding metric for Categories A and B
activities established by DoD. Our Installation Commanders actively
monitor program delivery, and at the Headquarters level, we work to
ensure continued compliance with DoD standards.
The Marine Corps is not anticipating a reduction in the level of
MWR operations and programs. Specific MWR priorities are established by
the respective Installation Commanders responsible for the provision of
installation support services, to include MWR. This decentralized
execution of support services optimizes Commander flexibilities to
quickly adapt operations to meet current and future needs within
available resources.
Future MWR trends for the Marine Corps Exchange dividends are
positive. The Marine Corps dividend is up 34 percent from 2005 to 2006.
Irrespective of a slight decline in 2007, our dividend remains 28.5
percent higher than in 2005.
Dr. Snyder. While it is important to measure the services'
commitment in terms of the percentage of appropriated fund support for
a program, I would think you must also review the total amount of
spending on MWR. For example, if you looked at the percentage of
appropriated fund support in isolation of total spending, you could
maintain that percentage by simply decreasing the total spending on MWR
programs. Ms. Arsht, do you consider the relationship between the
percentage of appropriated fund support and total MWR spending when
evaluating service MWR programs? Service MWR chiefs, can the success of
the services in meeting appropriated fund guidelines be attributed to
some degree to cutting back on MWR program access and quality? Admiral
Handley, why has the Navy's funding of MWR programs fallen so
consistently since fiscal year 2003 and does the Navy plan to reverse
the trend? General Pinckney, what prompted the dramatic increase in
Army appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006 and what
is the affect of large swings in appropriated funding on the programs?
Ms. Arsht. This is a good point. The continued vitality of military
MWR programs depends on consistent APF support. We also review whether
or not the overall MWR funding goes up or down significantly and for
what purposes. Funding must be reviewed from several angles. The
current APT support metric serves a good purpose to monitor the degree
of appropriated funding of MWR programs by category, and to measure
compliance with established funding standards. The metric is not very
useful when viewed in isolation, and it must be considered in context
with total APF support to be meaningful. However, the metric fails to
highlight significant disparities between the Military Services' APF
support. The metric could be improved by excluding APF indirect
support, which is already included in the public works budget, and
standardizing the formula for apportionment of APF direct overhead and
non-appropriated fund common support between Categories A, B, and C. I
have been working with the Services to determine recommendations for
improving the metric and would like to brief the Committee staff on the
proposed changes before they are implemented.
Dr. Snyder. While it is important to measure the services'
commitment in terms of the percentage of appropriated fund support for
a program, I would think you must also review the total amount of
spending on MWR. For example, if you looked at the percentage of
appropriated fund support in isolation of total spending, you could
maintain that percentage by simply decreasing the total spending on MWR
programs. Ms. Arsht, do you consider the relationship between the
percentage of appropriated fund support and total MWR spending when
evaluating service MWR programs? Service MWR chiefs, can the success of
the services in meeting appropriated fund guidelines be attributed to
some degree to cutting back on MWR program access and quality? Admiral
Handley, why has the Navy's funding of MWR programs fallen so
consistently since fiscal year 2003 and does the Navy plan to reverse
the trend? General Pinckney, what prompted the dramatic increase in
Army appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006 and what
is the affect of large swings in appropriated funding on the programs?
General Pinckney. MWR program access and quality have not been
diminished or reduced due to lack of appropriated funds. Soldiers and
Families consistently rank MWR programs very high in both importance
and use. Garrison commanders typically use non-appropriated funds when
appropriated funds are insufficient.
The increased Army appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal
year 2006 is a result of the increased worldwide commitments and the
high priority Army commanders place on MWR programs for Soldiers and
Families. Large swings in appropriated funding may result in
inconsistent and unpredictable delivery of services. For example,
upward swings may reduce the shortfall of child care spaces, and
downward swings may result in the permanent loss of MWR programs at
some installations.
Dr. Snyder. While it is important to measure the services'
commitment in terms of the percentage of appropriated fund support for
a program, I would think you must also review the total amount of
spending on MWR. For example, if you looked at the percentage of
appropriated fund support in isolation of total spending, you could
maintain that percentage by simply decreasing the total spending on MWR
programs. Ms. Arsht, do you consider the relationship between the
percentage of appropriated fund support and total MWR spending when
evaluating service MWR programs? Service MWR chiefs, can the success of
the services in meeting appropriated fund guidelines be attributed to
some degree to cutting back on MWR program access and quality? Admiral
Handley, why has the Navy's funding of MWR programs fallen so
consistently since fiscal year 2003 and does the Navy plan to reverse
the trend? General Pinckney, what prompted the dramatic increase in
Army appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006 and what
is the affect of large swings in appropriated funding on the programs?
Admiral Handley. The Navy's overall budget for base operating
support has been and remains tight and that has placed increasing
pressure on our ability to fund MWR at pre-2004 levels. Thus, we have
focused our efforts on continuing to find overhead and operational
efficiencies and carefully prioritizing programs so that we ensure
adequate funding for essential mission support MWR programs that are
strongly supported by Sailors and their families. This has resulted in
curtailment or elimination of some programs that could not reasonably
be sustained with increased user fees or were not widely supported by
users but undoubtedly had a positive impact on our ability to meet the
appropriated fund percentage guidelines.
Total Navy MWR, which includes MWR and Child and Youth Programs
appropriated funding is budgeted to decline through FY07 as compared to
FY03, but trends upward at the same rate as expected inflation across
the Future Years Defense Program.
With Congressional support, we will continue to fund our core MWR
programs to the fullest extent possible. Core MWR programs include:
fitness; afloat recreation and movies; Single Sailor (Liberty)
programs; child and youth programs; Information, Tickets, and Tours
(ITT); and libraries.
Dr. Snyder. While it is important to measure the services'
commitment in terms of the percentage of appropriated fund support for
a program, I would think you must also review the total amount of
spending on MWR. For example, if you looked at the percentage of
appropriated fund support in isolation of total spending, you could
maintain that percentage by simply decreasing the total spending on MWR
programs. Ms. Arsht, do you consider the relationship between the
percentage of appropriated fund support and total MWR spending when
evaluating service MWR programs? Service MWR chiefs, can the success of
the services in meeting appropriated fund guidelines be attributed to
some degree to cutting back on MWR program access and quality? Admiral
Handley, why has the Navy's funding of MWR programs fallen so
consistently since fiscal year 2003 and does the Navy plan to reverse
the trend? General Pinckney, what prompted the dramatic increase in
Army appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006 and what
is the affect of large swings in appropriated funding on the programs?
Mr. Myers. Cutting back on appropriated fund (APF) MWR program
funding can skew the figures representing the percentage of APF support
provided. However, the Air Force places a high value on Quality of Life
programs and tracks APF support carefully at each installation. Each
Wing Commander is attuned to supporting the MWR needs of the Airmen and
their families and ensures programs are well funded, but more
importantly are meeting the needs of the base population. The Air Force
is continually looking for ways to provide the same high quality
service more efficiently thereby reducing overall APF requirements. For
example, the Air Force has significantly reduced APF expenditures by
using non-appropriated fund (NAF) memorandums of agreement (MOAs) to
provide services in activities such as libraries and outdoor
recreation. The Air Force then pays the NAF account for the costs of
providing these services. The NAF programs are able to provide the same
high quality service while reducing the APF bill by 10 to 15 percent,
without impacting quality of life. Since 2003, our use of MOAs has
grown from $14 million to nearly $37 million. While these are still APF
expenditures, cost savings are realized in the form of reduced civilian
pay and other associated costs.
Dr. Snyder. While it is important to measure the services'
commitment in terms of the percentage of appropriated fund support for
a program, I would think you must also review the total amount of
spending on MWR. For example, if you looked at the percentage of
appropriated fund support in isolation of total spending, you could
maintain that percentage by simply decreasing the total spending on MWR
programs. Ms. Arsht, do you consider the relationship between the
percentage of appropriated fund support and total MWR spending when
evaluating service MWR programs? Service MWR chiefs, can the success of
the services in meeting appropriated fund guidelines be attributed to
some degree to cutting back on MWR program access and quality? Admiral
Handley, why has the Navy's funding of MWR programs fallen so
consistently since fiscal year 2003 and does the Navy plan to reverse
the trend? General Pinckney, what prompted the dramatic increase in
Army appropriated funding for MWR programs in fiscal year 2006 and what
is the affect of large swings in appropriated funding on the programs?
Mr. Downs. The Marine Corps MWR appropriated fund budget increased
34 percent between FY03 and FY07. This stable budget profile sustains
existing operations and programs to include access and quality.

Dr. Snyder.

MWR Funding Compared to Inflation Fiscal Years 2003 Compared to Fiscal
Year 2007
[Dollars in Millions]

FY 2003
Service FY 2003 FY 2007 Inflated Difference
Actual Programmed to 2007

Army 460.5 471.5 509.3 (-37.8)--7
%
Navy 369.7 300.6 408.8 (-108.2)--
27%
Air Force 539.4 545.6 596.6 (-51.0)--9
%
Marine Corps 131.7 138.4 145.7 (-7.3)--5
%
Total DOD 1,501.3 1,456.1 1,660.4 (-204.3)--
12%

Ms. Arsht, given that each of the services is projecting to spend
less on MWR programs during fiscal year 2007 then they did in fiscal
year 2003 when inflation is considered, what should be the
Subcommittee's view of the future of MWR programs in the military
community?
Ms. Arsht. MWR programs have a profound impact on the quality of
life of our Service members and their families. The continued vitality
of military MWR programs depends on consistent APF support to non-
revenue generating programs. The chart below is MWR direct support only
(no indirect support) and as noted does not include global war on
terror (GWOT) supplemental funds for FY 2004-2006.
There is concern about the funding trend for the MWR program,
because the FY 2007 budget indicates the Army is budgeted to lose $93.7
million and the Marine Corps is budgeted to lose $16.3 million from
actual FY 2006 expenditures. Looking historically, the Navy MWR program
is budgeted to receive $69.2 million less than in FY 2003. Typically,
the Services offset any decline in APF funding with a combination of
cost reduction, program cutbacks (usually in Category B programs), or
increasing non-appropriated fund support. Some Services are able to get
additional funding due to reprogramming actions during the year of
execution, but often the additional money comes late in the year. When
funding is inconsistent, programs and facilities are usually degraded
and the quality of life for Service members and their families is
negatively impacted.
Based on growth by inflation, in FY 2008 Army funding is on track
while Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps funding continue to lag behind
minimal inflation rates since FY 2003 (Difference between FY08 inflated
funding and FY08 budget--Navy: -$102.8, Air Force: -$53, and Marine
Corps: -$12).

Fiscal Years 2003 to Fiscal Year 2007
[Dollars in Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MWR Direct Support Only without GWOT for FY 2004-2006 *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 * 2005 * 2006 * 2007 * Difference
Service 2003 Actual Actual Actual Budget between 2008
Actual FY03 & FY07 Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Total 460.5 426.5 445.5 565.3 471.5 11.0 553.8
Difference from prior year -34.0 19.0 119.7 -93.7 82.3
Navy Total 369.7 325.5 303.0 291.9 300.6 -69.2 316.3
Difference from prior year -44.2 -22.6 -11.1 8.7 15.7
Air Force Total 539.4 543.6 537.6 511.7 545.6 6.2 558.5
Difference from prior year 4.2 -6.0 -25.8 33.8 12.9
USMC Total 131.7 133.5 149.1 154.7 138.4 6.7 137.3
Difference from prior year 1.8 15.6 5.6 -16.3 -1.1
Total 1,501.3 1,429.1 1,435.2 1,523.6 1,456.0 -45.2 1,565.9
-72.1 6.1 88.4 -67.6 109.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OP-34; President's Budget--Direct Support
* Does not include GWOT Supplemental expenditures

Dr. Snyder.

MWR Funding Compared to Inflation Fiscal Years 2003 Compared to Fiscal
Year 2007
[Dollars in Millions]

FY 2003
Service FY 2003 FY 2007 Inflated Difference
Actual Programmed to 2007

Ms. Arsht, given that each of the services is projecting to spend
less on MWR programs during fiscal year 2007 then they did in fiscal
year 2003 when inflation is considered, what should be the
Subcommittee's view of the future of MWR programs in the military
community? Service MWR chiefs, should the Congress be concerned about
the inevitable degradation of programs and facilities? Is it necessary
for the Congress to step in to protect these programs?
General Pinckney. Soldier Family Programs continue to remain a
priority at all leadership levels. Army continues to offer robust MWR
programs within available resources to best meet the needs of Soldiers
and Families. The Army executed $565M on MWR and Child and Youth
Services (CYS) activities for FY06. This expenditure represents a 23%
increase from FY03 actual, which exceeds the 10% inflation experienced
over the same period of time. First priority for appropriated funding
goes to MWR programs and services that support deployed Soldiers and
their Family members. These programs include sports, fitness,
recreation center, library, outdoor recreation, and auto skills
programs, and child and youth services programs. It is important to
note that not all of the Army's MWR funding is in the base budget. MWR
programs that directly support the global war on terror are funded in
the Supplemental. In FY07, the Army again plans to increase Family
program funding above the level in the FY07 budget providing additional
MWR funding during the rest of the year of execution as we have in
previous years as shown in the table below. The Army appreciates
Congressional support of Army MWR programs.

FY03 FY06 FY07

($M) (Budget) (Actual) (Budget) (Actual) (Budget)

MWR Direct 217.1 237.2 220.0 306.5 214.6
CYS Direct 194.0 221.4 237.7 258.5 239.3
Total MWR Direct 411.1 458.6 457.7 565.0 453.9

Dr. Snyder.

MWR Funding Compared to Inflation Fiscal Years 2003 Compared to Fiscal
Year 2007
[Dollars in Millions]

FY 2003
Service FY 2003 FY 2007 Inflated Difference
Actual Programmed to 2007

Navy 369.7 300.6 408.8 (-108.2)--
27%

Ms. Arsht, given that each of the services is projecting to spend
less on MWR programs during fiscal year 2007 than they did in fiscal
year 2003 when inflation is considered, what should be the
Subcommittee's view of the future of MWR programs in the military
community? Service MWR chiefs, should the Congress be concerned about
the inevitable degradation of programs and facilities? Is it necessary
for the Congress to step in to protect these programs?
Admiral Handley. 1. In PB08 budget submission, Navy programmed to
execute MWR at Common Output Level 2 (COL 2) on Naval installations
outside the continental US (OCONUS) and COL 3 for installations within
the continental US (CONUS). This is an increase in service level
provided at COL 3 and addresses both MWR programs and equipment. In
PB08 budget submission, Navy programmed to execute CD at COL 3 for both
CONUS and OCONUS installations.
2. An extensive review of alternative program delivery models
determined that more efficient delivery systems such as greater
partnering with outside organizations would streamline operations and
maintain program delivery levels despite reduced funding. Some examples
of successful partnering efforts are the ``Boys and Girls Club''
certified affiliation for all Navy youth centers, mutually supporting
Memorandums of Agreement with the Navy Exchange Food Service and
Vending programs and the ``First Five Commission'' in San Diego area
child development centers.
3. The effect of global war on terror--GWOT places additional
demands on MWR program quality and capacity for programs outside the
core program group. These requirements are addressed in GWOT
appropriations and Congress has supported these requests in the past.
4. Included in FY03 reporting figures is $5.2M MPN working within
MWR at various activities. MPN dollars are not reported in FY 2007
figures.
5. Congressional support, other than fully supporting all Base
Operating functions is not required to protect the Navy MWR program.

Dr. Snyder.

MWR Funding Compared to Inflation Fiscal Years 2003 Compared to Fiscal
Year 2007
[Dollars in Millions]

FY 2003
Service FY 2003 FY 2007 Inflated Difference
Actual Programmed to 2007

Ms. Arsht, given that each of the services is projecting to spend
less on MWR programs during fiscal year 2007 then they did in fiscal
year 2003 when inflation is considered, what should be the
Subcommittee's view of the future of MWR programs in the military
community?
Service MWR chiefs, should the Congress be concerned about the
inevitable degradation of programs and facilities? Is it necessary for
the Congress to step in to protect these programs?
Mr. Myers. The table above takes actual spending from FY 2003,
projects it forward with inflation, and compares that to the amount
shown in the FY 2007 budget. A budget-to-budget comparison would show
Air Force with $543.9M in the FY 2003 budget, which would be inflated
to $601.6M and reflect an apparent reduction of $56M. Regardless of
whether the number is $51M or $55M, there is always concern when
funding appears to decrease. Congress should be concerned about any
degradation, or potential for degradation, in support for the service
member. However, this is not inevitable. As part of our efforts to
transform and deal with reduced resources, Air Force Services has and
will continue to develop new tools and procedures to evaluate the needs
and preferences of our Airmen and their families to ensure our programs
remain relevant. Congress has always expressed its will regarding MWR
programs, and our commanders have struggled to provide the needed
resources. We do foresee potential problems with base realignment and
closure (BRAC). Appropriated funds are supposed to pay for BRAC
impacts, to include expanding MWR and exchange facilities and programs
at gaining bases. We have identified over $136 million in lodging and
MWR requirements at these locations and will continue to pursue
funding.

Dr. Snyder.

MWR Funding Compared to Inflation Fiscal Years 2003 Compared to Fiscal
Year 2007
[Dollars in Millions]

FY 2003
Service FY 2003 FY 2007 Inflated Difference
Actual Programmed to 2007

Service MWR chiefs, should the Congress be concerned about the
inevitable degradation of programs and facilities? Is it necessary for
the Congress to step in to protect these programs?
Mr. Downs. The Marine Corps is not projecting to spend less on MWR
programs. The following display depicts a Marine Corps MWR budget
increase of 34 percent between FY03 and FY07. This stable budget
profile sustains existing operations and programs. The FY03 and FY06
actual data totals include additional funds allocated during the year
of execution, (e.g., supplemental). It is important to note that
budgeted numbers differ from actual spending. Comparisons (between
budgeted figures and actual figures/two different data points) yield
inaccurate spending projections.

FY03 FY03 FY06 FY06 FY07
(Budget) (Actual) (Budget) (Actual) (Budget)

MW Direct 98,665 114,778 107,344 127,287 111,855
CD Direct 21,610 16,921 23,576 35,264 26,504
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total MWR Direct 120,275 131,699 130,920 162,551 138,359
MWR Indirect 38,152 57,273 73,442 79,176 74,629
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total MWR 158,427 188,972 204,362 241,727 212,988

Dr. Snyder. One recent estimate suggests that the services remain
approximately 27,000 child care spaces short of the total requirement.
Ms. Arsht, what is the current shortage in available child care spaces
as calculated by DOD and how is that number calculated?
Ms. Arsht. We calculate the shortage of care at approximately
30,000 spaces. The number of spaces DoD provides fluctuates as a result
of several factors, including the loss of in-home care spaces offered
by military spouses with a deployed member; families who relocate
during deployment to be closer to their extended family; changing
facility capacity due to shifts in age groups; population shifts due to
rebasing; and personal decisions to change child care requirements as a
result of stresses tied with spouse's deployment.
The Department developed a formula to project the macro child care
need. This formula utilizes Defense Manpower and Data Center
demographic data, the total number of children ages 0-12 years assigned
to an installation, and an analysis of potential demand (number of
single parents, number of military couples, and number of children of
military members whose spouses work outside the home, etc.). The
Service components adjust the formula to meet the particular nuances of
their personnel and mission for a Service-wide perspective and then
work with local installations to determine how much care is needed at
specific installations. This check and balance allows for unique
adjustments based on local on and off installation capability,
employment opportunities, mission requirements, and Service member
demographics from additional sources such as stationing data.
Dr. Snyder. A recent Rand report found that child care programs are
important to retention of families and that 20 percent of military
families are not satisfied with their current child care. The study
also concluded that improved child care options for dual-military and
single parent families were needed. Ms. Arsht, are you aware of this
Rand study and what is DOD doing to deliver the child care options that
military members desire? Service MWR chiefs, what special effort is
being applied to providing improved child care options for dual-
military and single parent families?
Ms. Arsht. Yes, I am aware of the Rand study and am pleased that
the survey reinforced the Department's position that child care is a
retention issue for our families. It is important to note that 80
percent of the families were satisfied with their current child care
arrangement. The Department monitors parent satisfaction through
additional data sources such as the Services customer service surveys
and the DoD 2006 Survey of Active Duty spouses.
DoD supports the child care needs of families through a
multifaceted approach based on the principles of quality,
accessibility, and affordability. While an existing DoD child care
arrangement may not be the parent's first choice, DoD considers care
provided within the Child Development Program (CDP) system to be
equivalent in quality, and encourages the military Services to
intervene until the family's child care needs are met. Subsidies
available to home-based care providers equalize the cost between center
and home-based care. In order to better meet the needs of families who
live off-installation, the Services have broadened child care options
within the community through their partnership with the National
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. The 2006 DoD
CDP annual Survey of Operations demonstrates that more than 20,000
subsidized outreach child care spaces were utilized.
Military child care continues to be one of our most important
programs for supporting families, especially during deployment. The
Department acknowledges that it is challenging to meet the child care
needs of all military families. Many initiatives have been implemented
that will help families find quality and affordable child care. For
example; through the emergency intervention plan, we have accelerated
program availability through construction of both temporary child
development centers and permanent renovations which are resulting in
7,000 spaces. Thank you for your strong support of these programs.
Dr. Snyder. A recent Rand report found that child care programs are
important to retention of families and that 20 percent of military
families are not satisfied with their current child care. The study
also concluded that improved child care options for dual-military and
single parent families were needed. Ms. Arsht, are you aware of this
Rand study and what is DOD doing to deliver the child care options that
military members desire? Service MWR chiefs, what special effort is
being applied to providing improved child care options for dual-
military and single parent families?
General Pinckney. Single and dual Army personnel receive priority
for child care in Child Development Centers, School-Age Programs, and
Family Child Care Homes. The Army requires that installations charge
the lowest authorized fee for single parent Families who fall under
lower income categories.
Single and dual military Families are primary beneficiaries of the
Army's extended duty day subsidy, which includes evening, weekend, and
long-term care in Child and Youth Services Programs. Additional care
hours needed (beyond the normal duty day in direct support of the
mission) are provided at no additional cost to these Families.
Dr. Snyder. A recent Rand report found that child care programs are
important to retention of families and that 20 percent of military
families are not satisfied with their current child care. The study
also concluded that improved child care options for dual-military and
single parent families were needed. Ms. Arsht, are you aware of this
Rand study and what is DOD doing to deliver the child care options that
military members desire? Service MWR chiefs, what special effort is
being applied to providing improved child care options for dual-
military and single parent families?
Admiral Handley. Navy continues to give single and dual military
families highest priority for placement into our child care programs.
Navy is adding 1,000 additional child care spaces over the next year
that will support our single and dual military families. Additionally,
we offer extended hours programs in our military home care program to
support their unique situations.
Dr. Snyder. A recent Rand report found that child care programs are
important to retention of families and that 20 percent of military
families are not satisfied with their current child care. The study
also concluded that improved child care options for dual-military and
single parent families were needed. Ms. Arsht, are you aware of this
Rand study and what is DOD doing to deliver the child care options that
military members desire? Service MWR chiefs, what special effort is
being applied to providing improved child care options for dual-
military and single parent families?
Mr. Meyers. The Air Force remains steadfast in our commitment to
provide Quality of Life initiatives including affordable and available
child care through our Expanded Child Care programs. We also use the
adjustment to the Department of Defense (DOD) formula for unmet need to
ensure we more closely support the needs of single and dual military
families. Through partnerships with the National Association of Child
Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA), the Air Force offers
additional child care placement opportunities through its Quality
Family Child Care program as well as other DOD-wide initiatives such as
Military Child Care in Your Neighborhood.
In addition, the Air Force offers a subsidy for those families
unable to access care in on-base facilities and those whose needs are
better suited to Family Child Care homes. The Air Force Subsidy program
reduces out-of-pocket expenses by allowing parents to pay the same fee
they would if they were in a center-based facility. It also provides
increased child care options for children under two years of age,
children with special needs and parents who must work non-standard
shifts such as swings, evenings and weekends. Unique outreach programs
such as our Missile Care program provide additional support to single
and dual-military members assigned to missile sites by providing child
care during consecutive 24-hour shifts when center-based care is
unavailable. Another support mechanism for single and dual-military
parents is provided via the Air Force Give Parents a Break program,
funded by the Air Force Aid Society, to help support those parents
needing relief from the demands of parenting.
Dr. Snyder. A recent Rand report found that child care programs are
important to retention of families and that 20 percent of military
families are not satisfied with their current child care. The study
also concluded that improved child care options for dual-military and
single parent families were needed. Ms. Arsht, are you aware of this
Rand study and what is DOD doing to deliver the child care options that
military members desire? Service MWR chiefs, what special effort is
being applied to providing improved child care options for dual-
military and single parent families?
Mr. Downs. Our dual military and single parent families receive
first priority on Marine Corps child care waiting lists. Additionally,
we provide Enhanced Extended Child Care to families in emergency
situations, when regular child care is unavailable. This care is
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as needed in Family Child Care
homes at no cost to the parents. We also provide respite care and child
care during deployment briefs.
Dr. Snyder. Admiral Handley, your written statement addressed the
three-year implementation plan for a Navy-wide uniform child care fee
structure that will ultimately allow Navy service members to pay the
same child care fees at Navy Child Development Centers and other child
care programs. Admiral, would such a plan call for higher fees at some
locations where local child care rates are lower than the military
rate? If that is true, would this plan result in service members
seeking child care in off-base commercial facilities that are perhaps
of lower quality? Does this policy result in the fees from low cost
areas subsidizing the fees in high cost areas?
Admiral Handley. Navy child care rates on average are about 60% of
fees charged at equivalent off-base centers. Standardizing fees has
resulted in minimal fee increases in some areas and decreases in
others. The standardization has resulted in Service members paying the
same fees for the same quality of care from installation to
installation and because fees are still based on total family income
variables. Spouse employment wages are also taken into consideration.
After two years of the changeover process to standardized rates, we
have no evidence that this has caused any loss in patronage. In fact,
our problem remains that we have more demand for our spaces than we
have capacity. Thus, it is unlikely that this effort will result in
migration to off-base care. All fees remain within the region where
they are generated so there will be no subsidization between low and
high cost areas.
Dr. Snyder. Ms. Arsht, how has Operation Military Child Care been
progressing and what is the annual cost to DOD? How many families
benefit from the program and how many of the total are reserve
component families?
Ms. Arsht. OMCC addresses the temporary need for child care
availability and affordability for the Total Force during times of
increased OPSTEMPO. OMCC is a DoD-funded child care subsidy program
designed to assist all activated members with child care costs in their
local communities, in state-licensed, off-installation Family Child
Care Homes and Child Development Centers. Military members such as
recruiters, those who are geographically dispersed, on special duty
assignments and all military members in active duty status not assigned
near a support installation are eligible for subsidized child care.
Over 5,600 children of deployed Service members have received fee
assistance through OMCC. Reserve Component families comprise 44% of the
total population served. Fees are generally discounted 15-25% from the
local rate. This program is funded through Emergency Supplemental as
money becomes available.
Dr. Snyder. The ongoing global repositioning of forces would seem
to demand that some appropriated funding be provided to support
construction of expanded MWR facilities. Ms. Arsht, will appropriated
funds be available to reduce the pressure on non-appropriated accounts?
Ms. Arsht. MWR is committed to providing adequate facilities to
support quality of life for Service members and their families. Under
Department policy, appropriations may fund requirements for those
installations receiving over a 25 percent increase in personnel within
a two-year period. The Military Services prioritize all Service
military construction (MILCON) projects, to include MWR facilities
where Service members are being repositioned. Projects are funded in
priority order until MILCON appropriated funding is no longer
available. Those requirements that do not receive appropriated funding
during a budget cycle are strongly advocated for in future budget
submissions.
Dr. Snyder. Service MWR chiefs, as we see increasing numbers of
overseas base closures, are the MWR activities being reimbursed for the
facilities being returned to use by the foreign government?
General Pinckney. No. Public Law 101-510, as amended, only allows
for the reimbursement of the undepreciated value of non-appropriated
fund (NAF) investments in facilities constructed or improved with NAT
at Base Realignment and Closure locations in the United States. Status
of Forces Agreements govern the transfer and disposal of facilities
constructed or improved with NAF overseas.
Dr. Snyder. Service MWR chiefs, as we see increasing numbers of
overseas base closures, are the MWR activities being reimbursed for the
facilities being returned to use by the foreign government?
Admiral Handley. To date, Navy has not received, nor do we expect
to receive, any reimbursement for facilities being returned for use by
foreign governments.
Dr. Snyder. Service MWR chiefs, as we see increasing numbers of
overseas base closures, are the MWR activities being reimbursed for the
facilities being returned to use by the foreign government?
Mr. Myers. The Air Force is not heavily impacted by the current
overseas base closures as most of our base closures occurred in the
1990's. However, in 2005, we turned Rhein Main Air Base over to the
German government. Our investment of $10 million in non-appropriated
fund facilities was not reimbursed.
Dr. Snyder. Service MWR chiefs, as we see increasing numbers of
overseas base closures, are the MWR activities being reimbursed for the
facilities being returned to use by the foreign government?
Mr. Downs. As the Marine Corps has not yet experienced an overseas
base closure, the question is not applicable to our organization.
______

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCHUGH
Mr. McHugh. I am concerned about the effects of reduced exchange
dividends and in the reduced level of appropriated fund support, when
that appropriated fund support is measured in constant dollars. I
believe that your statements submitted for the hearing reflect a sense
of optimism about the future of MWR programs that I do not necessarily
share. For example, none of your statements mentioned any of the
reductions in hours and services, as well as outright closures of
programs that we all heard about last year from our constituents as the
military services struggled to find the cash to fund operations and
maintenance of deployed forces. Given what you know about future trends
in exchange dividends and appropriated fund support levels, what MWR
programs and services are most at risk for curtailment, reduction, or
outright elimination?
Ms. Arsht. The Department of Defense does not support reducing or
eliminating MWR programs. MWR programs have a profound impact on the
quality of life of our Service members and their families. However, if
appropriated funding were limited, the MWR programs and services at
most risk for reduction or closure are Category B programs, with the
exception of child care. If exchange dividends should fall short, the
most significant impact is reduced funding for non-appropriated major
construction projects.
Mr. McHugh. I am concerned about the effects of reduced exchange
dividends and in the reduced level of appropriated fund support--when
that appropriated fund support is measured in constant dollars. I
believe that your statements submitted for the hearing reflect a sense
of optimism about the future of MWR programs that I do not necessarily
share. For example, none of your statements mentioned any of the
reductions in hours and services, as well as outright closures of
programs that we all heard about last year from our constituents as the
military services struggled to find the cash to fund operations and
maintenance of deployed forces. Given what you know about future trends
in exchange dividends and appropriated fund support levels, what MWR
programs and services are most at risk for curtailment, reduction, or
outright elimination?
General Pinckney. Given the trend in exchange dividends, the Army's
most significant funding category at risk is non-appropriated fund
major construction (NAFMC). The Army splits exchange dividends between
garrisons and the Army MWR Fund, with the majority going to garrisons.
The Army MWR Fund uses available dividend receipts to finance NAFMC
projects. As exchange dividends diminish, the Army forecasts losing the
ability to fund approximately three NAFMC projects a year. Currently,
there is no alternative source of funds to offset this forecasted loss.
The ability to keep pace with the backlog of NAFMC requirements, much
less reduce the backlog, is severely at risk. The majority of the
dividend going to garrisons is allocated based on the revenue generated
by Army and Air Force Exchange Service programs at the exchanges on
garrisons. The garrisons' share of the exchange dividend will decline
only if sales in exchanges decline.
Mr. McHugh. I am concerned about the effects of reduced exchange
dividends and in the reduced level of appropriated fund support--when
that appropriated fund support is measured in constant dollars. I
believe that your statements submitted for the hearing reflect a sense
of optimism about the future of MWR programs that I do not necessarily
share. For example, none of your statements mentioned any of the
reductions in hours and services, as well as outright closures of
programs that we all heard about last year from our constituents as the
military services struggled to find the cash to fund operations and
maintenance of deployed forces. Given what you know about future trends
in exchange dividends and appropriated fund support levels, what MWR
programs and services are most at risk for curtailment, reduction, or
outright elimination?
Admiral Handley. MWR programs most likely at risk of closure or
curtailment are primarily programs that cannot reasonably be sustained
with increased user fees, or have been underused by patrons. The
majority of these activities fall into the Category B and C program
areas because APF funding is being re-directed from these programs to
core programs. Examples of programs at risk are Category B bowling,
auto skills, outdoor recreation, and arts and crafts programs.
Mr. McHugh. I am concerned about the effects of reduced exchange
dividends and in the reduced level of appropriated fund support when
that appropriated fund support is measured in constant dollars. I
believe that your statements submitted for the hearing reflect a sense
of optimism about the future of MWR programs that I do not necessarily
share. For example, none of your statements mentioned any of the
reductions in hours and services, as well as outright closures of
programs that we all heard about last year from our constituents as the
military services struggled to find the cash to fund operations and
maintenance of deployed forces. Given what you know about future trends
in exchange dividends and appropriated fund support levels, what MWR
programs and services are most at risk for curtailment, reduction, or
outright elimination?
Mr. Myers. The decrease in appropriated funds has disrupted some
programs at base-level. However, so far, we have been successful in
insulating our bases from the direct effect of reduced exchange
dividends. The Air Force distributes Army and Air Force Exchange
Service (AAFES) dividends to its installations based on a percent of
AAFES sales, rather than earnings. This has helped shield the bases
from the downturn in exchange profits; as long as AAFES sales remain at
their current level, bases will continue to receive the same level of
support. However, with AAFES earnings down, the pot from which we make
these payments is shrinking. We feel the greatest impact in the
centrally-funded Air Force non-appropriated fund (NAF) construction
program. Since the majority of the over $32 million in annual NAF
facility expenditures are centrally funded, many facility projects will
be deferred and we will not be able to consider any new requirements
for several years. As exchange dividends drop further, the shortfall is
likely to spread to other centrally-funded programs that can only be
supported with NAFs. We hope to avoid disrupting the payments that
support day-to-day base programs, as this would have the most immediate
impact on quality of life.
Mr. McHugh. I am concerned about the effects of reduced exchange
dividends and in the reduced level of appropriated fund support when
that appropriated fund support is measured in constant dollars. I
believe that your statements submitted for the hearing reflect a sense
of optimism about the future of MWR programs that I do not necessarily
share. For example, none of your statements mentioned any of the
reductions in hours and services, as well as outright closures of
programs that we all heard about last year from our constituents as the
military services struggled to find the cash to fund operations and
maintenance of deployed forces. Given what you know about future trends
in exchange dividends and appropriated fund support levels, what MWR
programs and services are most at risk for curtailment, reduction, or
outright elimination?
Mr. Downs. Future MWR trends for the Marine Corps Exchange
dividends are positive. The Marine Corps dividend is up 34 percent from
2005 to 2006. Irrespective of a slight decline in 2007, our dividend
remains 28.5 percent higher than in 2005. Although the funding
environment is constrained, MWR programs are of significant value to
the Marine Corps and these programs have successfully sustained
rigorous budget prioritization sessions. For the third consecutive
year, the Marine Corps has met or exceeded the 85/65 minimum APF
funding metric for Categories A and B activities established by DoD.
Our Installation Commanders actively monitor program delivery and at
the Headquarters level, we work to ensure continued compliance with DoD
standards.
Mr. McHugh. Let me ask you to assess the funding challenges you all
face in another way. Describe what MWR programs and services will not
likely be offered in two years and in five years due to funding
challenges? Where will the MWR funding priorities for programs and
services be in two years? In five years?
Ms. Arsht. The Department of Defense does not support reducing or
eliminating MWR programs. If appropriated funding were curtailed, the
MWR programs and services at most risk for reduction or closure are
Category B programs, with the exception of child care. Funding priority
would most likely be given to MWR programs such as sports and fitness,
child and youth programs, and libraries.
Mr. McHugh. Let me ask you to assess the funding challenges you all
face in another way. Describe what MWR programs and services will not
likely be offered in two years and in five years due to funding
challenges? Where will the MWR funding priorities for programs and
services be in two years? In five years?
General Pinckney. The Army has no plans to eliminate MWR programs
and services in the next five years. The priority for funding in the
next two years and five years will continue to be the programs that
support deployed Soldiers and their Families, as well as those programs
identified as ``most important'' by our customers. These programs
include sports, fitness, recreation center, library, outdoor
recreation, and auto skills programs, and child and youth services
programs. The Army has implemented a resource prioritization and
allocation process--Common Levels of Support (CLS). Garrisons
participate in the development of the future years' CLS and request
adjustments to priorities, capability levels, and performance measures.
Annually IMCOM convenes a senior executive leadership (SEL) meeting to
review garrison recommendations and balance priorities within available
funding. The Commanding General, Family and MWR Command, is a member of
the SEL.
Mr. McHugh. Let me ask you to assess the funding challenges you all
face in another way. Describe what MWR programs and services will not
likely be offered in two years and in five years due to funding
challenges? Where will the MWR funding priorities for programs and
services be in two years? In five years?
Admiral Handley. Over the next two to five years, MWR programs most
likely at risk of closure or curtailment are non-core programs. The
majority of these activities fall into the Category B and C program
areas. Examples of programs at risk are Cat B bowling, auto skills,
outdoor recreation, and arts and crafts programs. Realistically, only
those non-core Category B programs with sufficient revenue generating
capability will likely be retained in the long run.
Mr. McHugh. Let me ask you to assess the funding challenges you all
face in another way. Describe what MWR programs and services will not
likely be offered in two years and in five years due to funding
challenges? Where will the MWR funding priorities for programs and
services be in two years? In five years?
Mr. Myers. In the next two to five years, the Air Force intends to
preserve our current functions; however, the delivery methods may
change to make the best use of the available resources in meeting the
need. We do not intend to react precipitously. Our approach will be
determined through a deliberate strategic planning process. Using
industry best practices, this approach will help us develop
efficiencies in providing needed programs and services.
Our priorities in the next two to five years will be defined by
this strategic planning process, but we are committed to the following:

- Supporting the warfighting commanders, their troops and families
- Core programs such as fitness, libraries, and child development
- Community services that, in your words, Congressman McHugh,
``provide military personnel the same quality of life as is afforded
the society they have pledged to defend.''

Mr. McHugh. Let me ask you to assess the funding challenges you all
face in another way. Describe what MWR programs and services will not
likely be offered in two years and in five years due to funding
challenges? Where will the MWR funding priorities for programs and
services be in two years? In five years?
Mr. Downs. The Marine Corps is not anticipating a reduction in the
level of MWR operations and programs. Specific MWR priorities are
established by the respective Installations Commanders responsible for
the provision of installation support services, to include MWR. This
decentralized execution of support services optimizes Commander
flexibilities to quickly adapt operations to meet current and future
needs within available resources.
Mr. McHugh. To what degree do you as the MWR leaders in each of
your services influence decisions about the curtailment, reduction,
and/or outright closure of MWR programs at the installation level when
appropriated funding levels are reduced or reallocated?
Ms. Arsht. The Military Services decide appropriated funding levels
for MWR and the level of service offered when appropriated funding is
reduced.
Mr. McHugh. To what degree do you as the MWR leaders in each of
your services influence decisions about the curtailment, reduction,
and/or outright closure of MWR programs at the installation level when
appropriated funding levels are reduced or reallocated?
General Pinckney. The Army provides corporate governance for
Morale, Welfare and Recreation programs through a Board of Directors.
The Board's mission is to develop program, resource, and finance
strategies; develop short- and long term goals and objectives;
establish implementing plans and performance measures; and maintain
corporate MWR oversight including fiduciary responsibility. The Board
is comprised of Army 4-star commanders. The Morale, Welfare and
Recreation Board of Directors has an Executive Committee comprised of
Army 3-stars. The Commanding General, Family and MWR Command presents
and addresses operational and funding matters that include curtailment,
reduction, and closure of MWR programs.
Mr. McHugh. To what degree do you as the MWR leaders in each of
your services influence decisions about the curtailment, reduction,
and/or outright closure of MWR programs at the installation level when
appropriated funding levels are reduced or reallocated?
Admiral Handley. Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) makes
the final decisions on resource allocations within the shore command
community based on available funding. These funding allocations are
based on well defined standards and program requirements. Guidelines
from CNIC have been provided to regions and installations as to the
priority of maintaining core programs. Specific decisions to curtail or
close operations are made at the regional or installation level after
consultation with CNIC program leadership.
Mr. McHugh. To what degree do you as the MWR leaders in each of
your services influence decisions about the curtailment, reduction,
and/or outright closure of MWR programs at the installation level when
appropriated funding levels are reduced or reallocated?
Mr. Myers. Air Force Installation Commanders are responsible for
setting facility hours and determining the right mix of programs to
meet the needs of the base population. Changes in demographics and
Airmen's needs will often drive redirecting of resources from
underutilized programs to programs with increased demands. When making
decisions that will reduce service, Installation Commanders make
careful business-based decisions to ensure any negative impacts are
minimized and that resources are maximized. In the unusual instance
where a program is no longer viable, the installation commander can
recommend closure. However, to ensure closure is the appropriate course
of action, approval from the Air Force Director of Services is required
before closing any Air Force Services activity other than at a location
involved in Base Realignment and Closure.
Mr. McHugh. To what degree do you as the MWR leaders in each of
your services influence decisions about the curtailment, reduction,
and/or outright closure of MWR programs at the installation level when
appropriated funding levels are reduced or reallocated?
Mr. Downs. As Installation Commanders are responsible for the
provision of installation support services, they have full decision-
making authority. From an oversight perspective, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps chartered the Marine Corps Community Services (MCCS) Board
of Directors (BOD), which acts on issues that cross installation
boundaries. The BOD reviews quarterly appropriated fund execution
reports and takes action when necessary to ensure execution is
appropriate and consistent with requirements. Additionally, when deemed
appropriate by the Installation, Region, or Marine Forces Commander,
issues are elevated to the MCCS BOD for enterprise-wide support and
solution. This construct maintains Marine Corps leadership awareness of
Corps-wide issues and helps sustain, to the degree possible, support
services to Marines and their families, regardless of duty assignment.
Mr. McHugh. What will be the impact on MWR programs if the FY07
Emergency Supplemental is not quickly enacted?
Ms. Arsht. Sustaining morale and readiness during deployed
operations is the essence of MWR programs. Supplemental appropriated
funds are required to continue providing Service members with a full
spectrum of MWR activities, specifically implemented for forces
deployed to fight the global war on terror. Recreation and social
activities include cardiovascular and weight equipment, sports,
recreation, motion pictures, reading materials and continuing education
support, games, large screen televisions, DVD/CD players, up-to-date
video games and game CDs, first-run movies, free Internet access, e-
mail, and voice over Internet phone capability, and celebrity and
professional entertainment provided by Armed Forces Entertainment.
Continued supplemental funding is also required to maintain the
expanded capability of MWR programs on military installations to meet
the recreational and support needs of family members left behind.
Supplemental funding has been critical to provide activities and
services for family members, while spouses deploy.
Mr. McHugh. What will be the impact on MWR programs if the FY07
Emergency Supplemental is not quickly enacted?
General Pinckney. The Army plans to minimize the effects of a lack
of Supplemental funding by using financial management techniques rather
than cancelling, delaying, or deferring projects and programs. Examples
include recording obligations and making payments as late as possible
without breaking government accounting rules, and obligating contracts
in 30-day increments. Should this strategy prove inadequate, the most
significant consequence to Family and MWR programs will be reduced
support resulting from hiring restrictions. Additionally, late receipt
of the BRAC funds in the Supplemental will defer construction of child
development centers at Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Riley, Kansas, and
youth centers at Fort Bliss and Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
Mr. McHugh. What will be the impact on MWR programs if the FY07
Emergency Supplemental is not quickly enacted?
Admiral Handley. Because MWR mission requirements have grown due to
the demands of the global war on terror, Navy MWR needs supplemental
appropriations in order to continue providing needed MWR programs. Navy
has greatly expanded fleet support to provide fitness, recreation
equipment, and movies to forward deployed forces in recent years.
Currently, Navy supports over 110 forward deployed, ground units in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait. Without supplemental funding, these
programs will be jeopardized.
Additionally, continued supplemental support is needed to maintain
programs for families left behind while spouses deploy. Supplemental
funding has provided expanded capability for deployed Sailors to
connect with loved ones at home and increased programming to meet the
recreational and support needs of family members at home. Supplemental
funding has been a critical element in Navy's efforts to provide the
correct level of support for family members.
Mr. McHugh. What will be the impact on MWR programs if the FY07
Emergency Supplemental is not quickly enacted?
Mr. Myers. This will impact the MWR program at every level as the
Services try to cover these costs within existing resources. First and
foremost, it impacts our capability to support our troops in the field:
inability to pay contract costs, transportation of rations and
equipment replacement and repair. Next, it impacts our programs at base
level: reduces levels of manning and hours of operation, stops service
and maintenance contracts and facility restorations, reduces scheduled
equipment replacement purchases, and cancels technical subscription
renewals. Last, it impacts many Air Force centrally-sponsored and
funded programs and initiatives: availability and cost to the patron
for child development and related activities; on-site visits for
training, oversight and control; and projected savings from initiatives
like the Non-appropriated Fund Transformation project. Even more
drastic reductions will be likely if Air Force funding is pulled to
cover shortfalls in other areas.
Mr. McHugh. What will be the impact on MWR programs if the FY07
Emergency Supplemental is not quickly enacted?
Mr. Downs. Delays in the FY 2007 Emergency Supplemental may require
an initial re-balancing of MWR baseline execution plans, as deemed
appropriate by the respective Installation Commander. Due to
uncertainties of future Emergency Supplementals and the sustained
impacts associated with the Long War, the Marine Corps is assessing
baseline requirements to not only ensure sufficiency and relevance, but
to also ensure programs are transitioning to an appropriate wartime
footing. These actions will help establish an appropriate balance in
Marine and family support, whether forward deployed or in a garrison
environment.
Mr. McHugh. In your written statement (p. 9), you indicate that the
Department continues to work with the United States Paralympics
Committee to provide severely injured service members have
opportunities to participate in adaptive sports programs. You also
state that the USOC Paralympics organization is also coordinating with
key Military Treatment Facilities to see how severely injured sports
and recreational opportunities can be expanded and incorporated into
all aspects of the recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration process.
You also indicate that the Department is coordinating with
organizations such as the Armed Forces Recreation Society to provide
similar opportunities for severely injured veterans--that is persons
who are no longer in the military--on the municipal and local levels.
How extensive is the Department's support to the USOC Paralympics
Military Program and to what extent is additional legislation required
to expand the opportunities for severely injured military personnel to
participate in the USOC Paralympics Military Program?
Ms. Arsht. The Department of Defense (DoD) continues to support the
United States Paralympics Committee. Currently there are 37 Service
members scheduled to attend the May 2007, Military Sports Camp in
Colorado. This number is up slightly from previous camps. The USOC is
hopeful to double participation for the remaining three camps this
year. The DoD remains a strong proponent of this effort. The USOC
proposal to conduct a 20-month pilot program at Walter Reed Army
Medical Center, Brooke Army Medical Center, and San Diego Naval Medical
Center has been vetted at each of the Military Treatment Facilities.
Our effort to engage organizations such as the AFRS continues to
evolve. A clearer mission has been realized to the extent that a DoD/
AFRS partnership initiative will be discussed at the AFRS June board of
director's meeting.
Additional legislation is not needed at this time; however as our
cooperative efforts continue, we will continue to review this
possibility.
Mr. McHugh. Explain the extent to which the Defense Health Program,
through the MTFs, provides severely injured military personnel with
sports and recreational opportunities to aid in their recovery,
rehabilitation and reintegration process.
Ms. Arsht. There are a multitude of different sports and recreation
offerings at the MTFs. From the new Intrepid Center at Brook Army
Medical Center to the host of outdoor trips and sporting events at
Walter Reed, Bethesda, and other MTFs, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) works closely with the Wounded Warrior Disabled Sports
Project to recruit participants directly from the MTF's. OSD has
ongoing coordination with the National Basketball Association and the
National Football League and is coordinating with numerous non-profit
organizations to identify severely injured for activities ranging from
skiing and biking to kayaking and hunting.
Mr. McHugh. To what degree and under what conditions should DOD
support and assistance be provided to sports and recreational programs
at the national, regional, local and municipal levels which assist
severely injured veterans who are no longer in military service? To
what degree are the Veterans Administration and the Department of
Defense coordinating in such support?
Ms. Arsht. The DoD as a whole and through each Service continues to
support severely injured veterans even after they have left the
service. Ensuring that these veterans have opportunities to participate
in sports and recreation as part of their everyday lives is of the
utmost importance to ensure their physical and psychological health.
Supporting local, regional, and national organization and competition
targeted at severely injured veterans will create the structure and
motivation for their ongoing participation in sports. Such support of
competition should be coupled with local and municipal organization,
education, and encouragement to yield high participation in sport
activities and these recreational/regional competitions.
Furthermore, the Army is actively pursing Paralympic-eligible
soldiers to participate in the World Class Athlete Program and the Navy
already has an active-duty, Paralympic gold medal winning sailor. DoD
support of these athletes, and of severely injured veterans competing
for the United States in international Paralympic competition, is of
high value to raise awareness and motivation among other veterans who
have sustained similar injuries.
The DoD and VA cooperation should ensure that injured service
members of both active duty and veteran status can immediately take
advantage of such opportunities as part of their recovery and re-
integration process.
Mr. McHugh. In November 2006, I wrote the Department supporting the
creation of a DOD-wide standard for base access credentials for
employees of companies that deliver goods and services for the military
resale system. Last month, Dr. Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, responded to Chairman Snyder and me, saying
that the Department would defer action on establishing such a common
access process until the General Accounting Office completed an audit
of base access issues, possibly as late as September 2007, and DOD
organizations involved could update policy to address the GAO
recommendations. Why must DOD wait to establish of a common access card
for exchange and commissary retail vendors until the GAO finishes its
work? Isn't such a common access card already coming into use in many
areas of the Department?
Ms. Arsht. The Department of Defense is awaiting completion of the
Government Accountability Office audit to implement common access
policy for retail vendors to allow the Department to benefit from the
information expected in the final report. The Department anticipates
that the comprehensive study on the standards, protocols, and rules for
interoperability will contain recommendations on the establishment of
common base access policy. Awaiting these recommendations and aligning
Department-wide policy will help ensure that the installations
commanders, who are ultimately responsible for security, can make
appropriate physical access system investments in accordance with a
common implementation strategy.
The Department is currently using the Common Access Card (CAC) to
comply with Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD-12),
which requires Federal agencies to issue interoperable credentials to
employees and contractors. However, the CAC is not intended to serve as
a common credential for retail vendors. The CAC supports both physical
and logical access and is subject to HSPD-12 requirements in areas such
as identity proofing, background checks, and personal data retention,
making it an inappropriate choice as a common card for retail vendors.
Mr. McHugh. No one wants to jeopardize installation security, but
surely there is a way to expeditiously standardize some aspects of the
clearance process and eliminate unnecessary duplication of
administrative processing and cost?
Ms. Arsht. The Department has started to implement systems and
procedures that support standardized clearance processes and can help
eliminate duplicative costs related to installation access. The Defense
Biometric Identity System (DBIDS) is a standardized, vetted, proven,
system that has been implemented at approximately 300 gates on over 160
bases across the Department of Defense (DoD). DBIDS supports
installation access for companies that deliver goods and services to
the military resale system and has the capability to reduce a portion
of the redundant administrative processes that currently exist in
today's environment. DoD policy states that DBIDS will serve as the
enterprise system for physical access, however, the system is currently
not mandated for implementation throughout the Department. Installation
commanders continue to have the authority over base access and the
technology migration of base physical access control systems.
Mr. McHugh. In your statement (p. 7), you state that the Army is
working with both the Department of Defense and the Department of
Education to address issues of dependent schools related to the return
to the U.S. from overseas of significant numbers of military personnel
and their dependents. Please explain what specific measures are being
developed to address the increased demands on DOD and civilian
dependent schools.
General Pinckney. The Army is developing relationships and
informing local education agencies and Department of Defense schools on
the number of school-age students that are expected to be gained
between 2004 and 2011. Representatives from 25 Army locations with
gains of 250 or more school-age students attended the 2005 Army
Education Summit. Community teams consisting of school liaison
officers, garrison commanders, and school superintendents developed
local action plans, coordinated systems for information sharing, and
utilized the Army School Transition Plan to establish processes for
successful transition of school-age children into local schools.
The Army School Transition Plan develops and implements strategies
that prepare Army Families and supporting school districts for
successful transition from one school to another. This plan deploys a
variety of transition support mechanisms such as: School Liaison
Officers, School Transition Specialists, Transition Counselor
Institutes, Special Education Leadership Institutes, Student2Student
Transition Programs, and Parent to Parent Cadre teams. The plan
facilitates over 270 reciprocal agreements among military-affiliated
school districts.
Mr. McHugh. Please describe the major initiatives that the Army is
supporting and the extent to which DOD and the Department of Education
are moving ahead in cooperation with the Army.
General Pinckney. Strong collaborative relationships are
established between the Army, Department of Defense, Department of
Education, and local communities and garrisons. The Army participated
in the DOD Conference on Education for Military-Connected Communities
held in November 2006 that provided BRAC and rebasing communities and
installations alternative approaches to consider when communities are
looking to build or expand current facilities.
The Army provides information about the Office of Economic
Adjustment to garrisons as a major Department of Defense resource for
assisting communities that are significantly impacted by stationing
changes, such as base closures and realignments. The Army also
submitted input for the DoD Report to Congress, November 2006, which
addressed the number of students that have been gained or expected to
be gained at BRAC/transforming installations; a plan for how DoD and
Army will work with federal, state, and local education agencies; and a
list of possible funding resources, including federal grants available
to local education agencies to assist in financing construction,
expansion, and addition of teachers to accommodate significant students
increases.
In addition, the Army supplies data regarding the requirement to
provide information to the Department of Defense to be able to utilize
the Department of Education NDAA 2006 and 2007 retroactive Impact Aid
payments ($7 million and $8 million) to school districts affected in
school years beginning 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 where local education
agencies were impacted by growth of 250 or more military-affiliated
students.
Mr. McHugh. For more than a decade, as part of each National
Defense Authorization Act, Congress steps up and authorizes additional
funding for what I call ``DOD Supplementary Impact Aid.'' This funding
is in addition to whatever Impact Aid is provided by the Department of
Education. Last year the HASC authorized a total of $65 million for DOD
Supplementary Impact Aid. DOD has never formally embraced this idea of
DOD Supplementary Impact Aid by incorporating such funding in its
budget request. How important is this ``DOD Supplementary Impact Aid''
to the Department's ability to ensure adequate support to military
dependents by local educational agencies?
Ms. Arsht. Funding and financing for local education agencies (LEA)
is the responsibility of the local or state governments. The Department
does not develop, oversee, or have authority over an LEA's budget or
financial requirements and cannot comment on the DoD Supplementary
Impact Aid.
However, the Department has been given authority to assist LEAs to
help ensure quality educational opportunities for military children.
Therefore, the Department has offered assistance by sharing expert
information about financing, funding, building, and ensuring quality
education with LEAs and impacted communities.
Funding for this new support is now included in the Department of
Defense Education Activity budget in 2008 ($2.4M).
Mr. McHugh. Given the significant challenges facing many local
educational agencies due to the return to the US of military members
and their families, should the Congress consider authorizing more than
the $65 million?
Ms. Arsht. Funding and financing for local education agencies (LEA)
is the responsibility of the local or state governments. The Department
does not develop, oversee, or have authority over an LEA's budget or
financial requirements and cannot comment on the amount of Department
of Defense (DoD) Supplementary Impact Aid or the assistance that it may
or may not provide. The new budgeted support to partner with LEAs is a
more appropriate DoD mission.
Mr. McHugh. Internet access, recreational on-line gaming and E-mail
are in great demand by our military personnel around the world,
particularly those serving in combat zones. The activities provide
relaxation and allow Service members to stay in touch with family and
friends. How are you currently meeting the demand for these services
within the MWR system? Are these services provided exclusively through
MWR activities and programs? To what extent are these activities
revenue generating entities for the MWR program?
Ms. Arsht. Military spouses indicate that communication with their
Service member is the number one factor in being able to cope with
deployments. At home, computer and Internet service is located in
libraries and recreation, community, and youth centers.
MWR programs operate 145 free Internet cafes in Iraq with 4,435
computers and 1,829 phones. Iraq/Kuwait totals are expected to increase
by 615 computers and 323 telephones by May. There are 30 MWR-operated
Internet cafes in Afghanistan with 246 computers and 142 phones.
Afghanistan totals will increase by 9 locations, 488 computers, and 212
phones by May. Voice over Internet protocol phone service at Internet
cafes is less than $.04 per minute.
Because of communication resources, families are connected to their
Service members in near real-time, which has a dramatic effect on
morale both at home and overseas. This communication is essential to
morale and our ability to sustain deployments.
Mr. McHugh. Internet access, recreational on-line gaming and E-mail
are in great demand by our military personnel around the world,
particularly those serving in combat zones. The activities provide
relaxation and allow Service members to stay in touch with family and
friends. How are you currently meeting the demand for these services
within the MWR system? Are these services provided exclusively through
MWR activities and programs? To what extent are these activities
revenue generating entities for the MWR program?
General Pinckney. MWR provides no-charge, recreational Internet
access through community programs in libraries and Youth Technology
Labs. Army communications infrastructure is the primary provider of no-
charge services. No-charge services allow families to maintain contact
with deployed Soldiers but afford patrons limited gaming and
recreational use. Fee-based Internet services are being consolidated
through the Family and MWR Command (FMWRC) and utilize commercial and
MWR-owned assets to provide services. FMWRC offers garrisons fee-based,
high speed services to barracks and MWR facilities. Garrisons also
contract locally to provide Internet access to housing areas via
multiple commercial venues. These services are the same as those
generally available to off-post residents and are paid for by the
individual subscribers. Patrons can employ these services for on-line
gaming and other personal uses. MWR generates revenue from direct
customer payments when patrons use FMWRC offerings, from ancillary
purchases made by patrons in the MWR facilities offering Internet
service, and from access franchise fees charged to commercial
providers.
Mr. McHugh. Internet access, recreational on-line gaming and E-mail
are in great demand by our military personnel around the world,
particularly those serving in combat zones. The activities provide
relaxation and allow Service members to stay in touch with family and
friends. How are you currently meeting the demand for these services
within the MWR system? Are these services provided exclusively through
MWR activities and programs? To what extent are these activities
revenue generating entities for the MWR program?
Admiral Handley. Navy currently provides internet and e-mail
capability at no-cost to Sailors at all MWR libraries and Single Sailor
Liberty Centers. Additionally, this service is also provided at no-cost
to some forward deployed, ground units. This service provides a vital
link between Sailors and loved ones at home.
Navy is also greatly expanding Wireless Fidelity (WI-FI) internet
capabilities at libraries and Liberty Centers. Currently over 50% of
Navy MWR libraries and Liberty Centers have WI-FI capability. Full
implementation is expected during FY07. This service is provided at no-
cost to Sailors. Additionally, Navy MWR is partnering with the Navy
Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM) to provide no-cost WI-FI at all NEX
food courts. This effort is on-going with completion later this year.
Expanded on-line gaming capability is also provided either free, or
in some cases on a fee-for-service basis, at Liberty Centers.
Since most of these services are provided at no cost, there is
minimal revenue generated from these activities.
Mr. McHugh. Internet access, recreational on-line gaming and E-mail
are in great demand by our military personnel around the world,
particularly those serving in combat zones. The activities provide
relaxation and allow Service members to stay in touch with family and
friends. How are you currently meeting the demand for these services
within the MWR system? Are these services provided exclusively through
MWR activities and programs? To what extent are these activities
revenue generating entities for the MWR program?
Mr. Myers. We do not consider Internet access programs as revenue
generating activities. We currently provide internet access in our
Services activities through a variety of activities such as Libraries,
Youth Centers and Community Centers free of charge. Many of our Lodging
operations also provide a business center that connects the user to the
Internet for free. Internet gaming such as ``X-Box,'' Internet Trivial
Pursuit and sports trivia packages are also offered free of charge
through many Air Force Clubs and Community Centers.
Mr. McHugh. Internet access, recreational on-line gaming and E-mail
are in great demand by our military personnel around the world,
particularly those serving in combat zones. The activities provide
relaxation and allow Service members to stay in touch with family and
friends. How are you currently meeting the demand for these services
within the MWR system? Are these services provided exclusively through
MWR activities and programs? To what extent are these activities
revenue generating entities for the MWR program?
Mr. Downs. In today's technologically-advanced society, customer
demand for continued improved levels of Internet access requires
innovative access strategies to satisfy changing demand. Some Internet
access requirements are a feature or activity of MWR Category A or B
recreational or leisure programs. In those cases, access is free or for
a nominal fee. We additionally offer Category C, revenue-generating
fee-for-service or a pay-as-you-go basis for more extensive electronic
services via Marine Corps Exchange concessionaire contracts.
Mr. McHugh. The Department of Defense regulations provide guidance
for Exchanges and Service MWR operations. Do these regulations clearly
address the responsibility and guidance for providing Internet and on-
line gaming functions, including both those that are provided at no
cost and those that generate revenue?
Ms. Arsht. MWR provides no cost Internet access, recreational on-
line gaming, and e-mail in libraries and recreation, community, and
youth centers, as well as to forward deployed, ground units. There is a
nominal fee for voice over Internet protocol phone service. The
Exchanges have primacy in the operation of ``fee for service'' personal
telecommunications, including personal Internet access (e-mail
accounts, high-speed internet service provider accounts, etc.).
______

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DRAKE

Mrs. Drake. Do you have any update on that General Accounting
Office (GAO) study that is being done?
Ms. Arsht. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is currently
conducting a comprehensive study of standards, protocols and rules for
interoperability in physical access in the Department of Defense. The
Department expects the GAO report
will contain useful information that can be used to establish efficient
and effective procedures for credentialing retail vendors. We have been
testing technology that will enable the Department to provide uniform
validation and authentication procedures which in turn will enable
vendors to obtain the access their employees need. It is not being
delayed by the GAO review.