- MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009

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

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
CHET EDWARDS, Texas, Chairman
SAM FARR, California
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ALLEN BOYD, Florida
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARION BERRY, Arkansas ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
JOHN CARTER, Texas
KAY GRANGER, Texas

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Carol Murphy, Tim Peterson, Walter Hearne, Donna Shahbaz, and Mary C.
Arnold, Subcommittee Staff

________

PART 7

________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Part 7--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009
?
?
?

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
CHET EDWARDS, Texas, Chairman
SAM FARR, California ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JOHN CARTER, Texas
ALLEN BOYD, Florida KAY GRANGER, Texas
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARION BERRY, Arkansas

________

PART 7

________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-754 WASHINGTON : 2008

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JERRY LEWIS, California
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia RALPH REGULA, Ohio
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York JAMES T. WALSH, New York
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey
ED PASTOR, Arizona TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
CHET EDWARDS, Texas TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
Alabama JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island KAY GRANGER, Texas
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
SAM FARR, California RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois DAVE WELDON, Florida
CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
ALLEN BOYD, Florida JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
MARION BERRY, Arkansas JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
BARBARA LEE, California RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico KEN CALVERT, California
ADAM SCHIFF, California JO BONNER, Alabama
MICHAEL HONDA, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TIM RYAN, Ohio
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
Maryland
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas

Rob Nabors, Clerk and Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N TS

__________
Page

Quality of Life.................................................. 1

Veterans Affairs................................................. 105

American Battle Monuments Commission............................. 169

Arlington National Cemetery and United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home National Cemetery................................ 182

Armed Forces Retirement Home..................................... 197

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims............... 218

Inspector General................................................ 235

Central Command.................................................. 349

VA Medical Care.................................................. 389

Navy............................................................. 445

Pacific Command.................................................. 515

Air Force........................................................ 587

Outside Witnesses................................................ 651

Veterans Affairs Information Technology.......................... 895

DoD Overview..................................................... 949

Army............................................................. 1035

European Command................................................. 1083

Southern Command................................................. 1139

Special Operations Command....................................... 1169

Testimony submitted for the record............................... 1205

(iii)

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009

----------

Thursday, February 7, 2008.

UNITED STATES ARMY

WITNESS

KENNETH O. PRESTON, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Let me officially open the new
year for our subcommittee. I want to welcome the witnesses and
everyone here today.
I am Congressman Chet Edwards, and this is my second year
as the subcommittee chairman of Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. It is a real
pleasure for me to welcome back to our subcommittee Congressman
Zach Wamp, who is a personal friend of mine. Zach and I have
served in the House together for a number of years, including
on the Appropriations Committee. He is not a new face to this
subcommittee, previously served on this subcommittee. He has
also been a ranking member of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations subcommittee.
Zach, welcome here. It is just great to have you. I know of
your long record of commitment to veterans and their families
and our troops and their families. We are honored to have you
with us.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Would you like make an opening statement right
now?
Mr. Wamp. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. I will go when it is my
turn.
Mr. Edwards. Judge Carter, welcome back.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Good to have you.
Let me also make some other introductions and make a few
comments as we begin here, before we have the testimony. I want
to introduce the staff that is so critical on this
subcommittee. We thank them. I consider the staff to be without
equal of the committee staffs in the Congress, and we are proud
to have them as our partners.
I want to mention that Martin Delgado is not new to the
Appropriations Committee, but new to this Appropriations
subcommittee. Martin, where are you? Welcome. It is great to
have you here.
I also welcome back Liz Dawson, and I want to welcome Kelly
Shea, who will work on the minority side. But let me say that
one of the proud traditions of this subcommittee, and I know
Zach and I want to continue this, is our tradition of working
on a bipartisan basis. When it comes to taking care of veterans
and our troops and their families, there is not a Democratic or
a Republican program. They are programs for the great men and
women who are sacrificing so much for our country.
On the majority side, it is a true honor for me to work
with critically experienced staff. Carol Murphy is our chief
clerk. Carol? And we have Mary Arnold, who for nearly 20 years
had a view of the basement of the Rayburn Building. Her view is
now out on the mall of the United States Capitol, so life has
improved for Mary. She does an outstanding job of handling the
administrative work of the subcommittee.
Tim Peterson and Donna Shahbaz, both have done outstanding
work on Veterans' Affairs work. And then Walter Herne, who is
by my side, who is just an experienced, talented, hardworking
leader on military construction issues. So I know I speak for
Zach and me, and he will comment later I am sure, but we
consider it a real privilege to work with such a critical,
professional, bipartisan staff. That is one of the real keys to
the successes we have had in past years.
In terms of our track record last year, let me just say for
the record, we make this subcommittee by working together on a
bipartisan basis. Truly, by any standard, we accomplished a
great deal. First and foremost, we provided an additional $11.8
billion beginning with the fiscal year 2007, that continuing
resolution, the Iraq war supplemental, and then the fiscal year
2008 appropriation bill.
Together, we provided the largest single-year increase in
the VA's entire history, and made critically needed investments
in healthcare facilities, research, and claims processing for
veterans. Our bill passed the House by an overwhelming vote of
409-2, and we are going to try to work on those two this year
and see if we can get that. But I think that vote is a
reflection of the great tradition that we continued last year,
with this committee working for the benefit of our veterans and
our troops, not for partisan motivations.
We have a great record to build on and we are going to keep
fighting for veterans and the quality of life for servicemen
and-women and their great families.
To our witnesses, let me say that it is not by happenstance
that we asked you to honor us by being the first witnesses in
the first hearing each year, because over the years we have
found that our top noncommissioned officers have been the most
effective voices for our servicemen and-women and their
families. There are probably times where you have the right to
wonder when you leave this room, well, did anybody hear me or
not? Let me just tell you tangibly that many of the
accomplishments for military construction and our troops were
the result of your previous testimony.
Specifically, very specifically, it was your testimony over
the last 2 years that convinced this subcommittee to make a new
initiative, the Military Family Initiative, where you told us
that one of the top quality of life challenges was finding
affordable, accessible healthcare for families that are
sacrificing an awful lot with the kind of op-tempo we are
facing. As a result of your testimony, we put together $130
million for 16 new childcare centers. Three of those were in
the administration request, and 13 of those were added by this
subcommittee. So we do listen to you. Your testimony is very
important and that is why we are so glad to have you here
today.
Before we proceed in terms of introductions of our
witnesses, let me offer the floor and room to my colleague, Mr.
Wamp. Again, welcome to this great subcommittee. Welcome back.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to put in words the
emotion that I felt yesterday and today as I met these four
great Americans one-on-one in my office and listened to their
stories and asked about their lives, and realized that they
represent so many that are willing to lay it on the line for
our country and our freedoms and the principles that we hold so
dear. Their faces and their eyes and their ears, and just
listening to your lives, and each of you with a 30-plus year
commitment to the service that you are in, at the ground level.
It is just an inspiration.
So I want to open by thanking you for your service and
every single person that you represent for their service,
saying that in my professional life outside of my wife and
kids, this is the highest honor and the greatest privilege that
I have ever had to be associated with this committee and the
work that it is tasked to do, to serve those who serve our
country.
It reminds me of William Wilberforce when they asked him
about the leadership role he wanted to take in the Parliament
in Great Britain, and he basically said he wanted to be the man
who served the men who influenced the nation, and not
necessarily the man who influenced the nation, but the man who
served the men who influenced the nation. That is the role that
I feel like I can play.
Chairman Edwards is exactly the right guy for his party to
put in this chair at this moment in history because he is a
patriotic blue dog Texas Democrat who appreciates the military
and their role every minute of every day. I am just so honored
to be at his side in a minority role to support the bipartisan
work of this committee.
I was born at Fort Benning, Georgia when my dad was on
active duty, and my older brother cost $8 to be born and I cost
$12 to be born. [Laughter.]
My parents often joke if they got their money's worth.
[Laughter.]
My nephew is at Camp Bucca outside Baghdad right now with
the First Field Artillery Brigade of the Tennessee National
Guard. My other nephew will graduate boot camp at Parris Island
3 weeks from tomorrow. That makes this close to home. It is an
honor. It is a high privilege. This is such an important time.
I want to commend Mr. Wicker, who is now a senator, and
certainly the chairman, and this new majority, for the
commitment that they made to these priorities last year,
because I think that helped us bring the Congress together so
that we could speak with one voice standing behind the men and
women in uniform.
When I heard these four leaders yesterday give personal
examples and stories of what these dollars are doing for the
quality of life, and how much better housing is today than when
I served on this committee in 1997 and 1998, how many more Job
Corps centers there are, and how many things that were
absolutely unacceptable that are much better today, even though
we have so many more needs and we are stretched so thin, and we
are experiencing the pain of multiple long-term deployments.
Yet, the quality of life is improving so that we can retain and
recruit the best Americans in this all-volunteer force.
It bodes well. We have a lot of work to do. I am committed
to partnering with you. I understand going in that I am joining
the best staff front office on Capitol Hill, either side, any
committee, with this committee here. And man, it is a great
opportunity to serve.
Mr. Carter, Ms. Granger, Mr. Young, Mr. Crenshaw and I,
this is a pretty good minority team we have over here, Mr.
Chairman. So we look forward to working with you and the
majority team in getting this work done. What a pleasure. I
couldn't ask for more. I am grateful for the opportunity----
Mr. Edwards. Very eloquent statement. Let me add to what he
said about Mr. Wicker. We will miss Mr. Wicker, but he left an
indelible mark for our veterans and our service-members and
their families by his great leadership. I know he will continue
that commitment in the Senate. Thank you for saluting him.
At this point, let me go through some brief introductions.
Understandably, if I were to give each of the witnesses the
entire biography, we would be here most of the afternoon,
because they would not have the positions they had it not been
for an unbelievable distinguished record of accomplishment and
service. I will introduce all four of you and then we will go
to the opening statements.
The first witness I would like to introduce is the sergeant
major of the Army, Sergeant Major Ken Preston. He is a
returning witness, and was sworn into his present position on
January 15, 2004. He has over 32 years of service in the Army.
Thank you for those 32 years, sergeant major. He served with
the First Cavalry Division at Fort Hood; was command sergeant
major for the Combined Joint Task Force 7 in Baghdad prior to
becoming sergeant major of the Army.
I anticipate Sergeant Major Preston will introduce them
formally, but let me also note that there are others that are
here that I want to recognize. Please excuse me up front, but I
do want to note and salute their service, and thank them for
being here: Command Sergeant Major John Gipe from the National
Guard; and Command Sergeant Major Leon Caffie from the Army
Reserve. Thank you both. We know this is a total Army today,
and thank you for your tremendous leadership, for being here.
Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Carlton Kent. Sergeant
Major Kent is a new witness. We hope you will choose to come
back again.
Sergeant Major Kent. I will do that, sir. [Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. You are in a friendly environment here,
sergeant major. He became sergeant major of the Marine Corps on
April 25, 2007. Congratulations to you for that distinct honor.
He has over 31 years of service in the Marines. He served as
sergeant major of the Marine Forces Europe and the First Marine
Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton prior to his current
position. Welcome.
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Joe Campa, Jr. We
are sorry that your son could not be with us again this year,
but you tell him we are thinking about him today. It was great
having him here----
Master Chief Campa. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. At your testimony last year. The
master chief's wife, Mrs. Campa, is here. Mrs. Campa, where are
you? I want to especially thank you. In my book, military
spouses and children are the unsung heroes and heroines of our
nation's defense, and we don't often enough thank you. While
you may not wear the nation's military uniform, you serve and
sacrifice every day. Thank you to you and your children for
their contributions to our defense. In thanking you, we want to
share that respect for every other military spouse here, or
anywhere in our country. Thank you, Mrs. Campa, for being with
us today.
Master Chief Campa has 27 years of service in the Navy. He
served as command master chief for the USS Curtis Wilbur and
the USS Frank Cable, and command master chief of Joint
Taskforce Guantanamo, and is a graduate of the Naval War
College. Welcome back again.
Master Chief Campa. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Rodney
McKinley is a returning witness. Welcome back to the
subcommittee. He was appointed on June 30, 2006 to his present
position, and now has 28 years of service in the Air Force. He
has served as command chief master sergeant at major wing
command levels, and was deployed to Southwest Asia in support
of OEF and OIF. Thank you for that, as well as your
distinguished service as well.
Thank you all for being here. Without objection, your full
testimony will be submitted for the record. I would like to
begin now and recognize you. If you could keep your testimony
to approximate 5 minutes we will then turn it over to members
for questions and discussion.
Sergeant Major Preston.

statement of sergeant major kenneth o. preston

Sergeant Major Preston. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp,
committee members, thanks very much for the opportunity to sit
before you today and represent the men and women of America's
Army. Your support this past year has continued to support us.
Your support today has had a tremendous impact on the Army. On
behalf of the soldiers and their families and Army civilians, I
want to start by saying thank you for what this committee has
done for all of them out there, not only over the time that I
have been up here and testified, but for all the years before
this, so thanks very much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Sergeant Major Preston. I have with me today, sir, you have
introduced the command sergeant major of the Army National
Guard, Command Sergeant Major John Gipe. He is the senior
enlisted adviser for Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn, Director
Army National Guard. And I have, of course, Command Sergeant
Major Leon Caffie, who is the senior enlisted adviser for
Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, Chief, for the Army Reserve.
Both of them represent our citizen soldiers, and they
represent 50 percent of America's Army. They play a vital role
in defending our nation. Your Army today has more than 250,000
soldiers forward-deployed to 80 countries around the world. We
have more than 142,000 soldiers currently deployed in Iraq,
Kuwait and Afghanistan.
General Casey early in his tenure as the Army chief of
staff searched for a way to describe the state of the Army, and
he used the term ``out of balance.'' We are not broken or
hollow, but the conditions of persistent conflict have strained
our Army resources. Those resources are our soldiers, our
families and our equipment. These resources are strained to a
point where we are consumed by the demands of the current
conflict and cannot do all the things we need to do to sustain
the force and prepare for the future.
With your continued support, we intend to restore balance
to the Army. Our recruiting and retention programs are a
success. Last year, we recruited over 170,000 men and women,
and reenlisted more than 127,000 soldiers. We appreciate your
continued support to our efforts, as they allow us to sustain
the quality of the all-volunteer force.
We are seeing indicators of stress on the force as we enter
the 7th year of the Global War on Terror. Increases in suicides
and post-traumatic stress disorder cases are two of these
indicators. Our Army soldier and family programs mitigate these
stresses, and we continue to resource and support these
critical programs and initiatives. Last year, sir, Congress
funded $900 million toward traumatic brain injury and post-
traumatic stress disorder. I want to say thank you up front for
that support.
Your support has provided improvements to the equipment,
soldier and family housing, soldier barracks, child and youth
programs, pay gains, and a host of other important quality of
life initiatives. I ask your support for one more critical
quality of life issue, medical care. Soldiers and families
routinely identify access to quality medical care as a priority
for them, and a primary reason they opt to stay with the Army
team.
We have invested heavily this past year in caring for our
wounded warriors returning from combat. The medical challenges
we faced a year ago were not limited to Walter Reed. We cannot
have consistent world-class healing environments without proper
investment in medical facilities and improved quality and
access to care. Our medical facilities are well maintained and
operated, but they are old and not configured or constructed to
provide the full range of treatments available in modern
medical facilities. Our soldiers and families deserve the best
access and quality of care that we can provide, and I ask your
support in achieving this goal.
Over the last 4 years, one of the top five recommendations
from our soldiers has been the transfer by soldiers of their GI
bill benefits to their families. The 2002 National Defense
Authorization Act gave the services the authority to allow
service-members the ability to transfer Montgomery GI bill
benefits to their spouses and children. This act allows spouses
to begin using benefits immediately, while children have to
wait until the soldier has completed 10 years of service.
I ask for your support in amending the law to allow the
transfer of benefits to eligible children when needed, without
the prior 10-year waiting period, and your consideration of
providing funding for this initiative. We would also at a
minimum like this law to immediately apply to the spouses and
children of fallen soldiers. That is really where we see the
emphasis in order to help.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you, and I look
forward to your questions.
[Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O. Preston
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.016

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Sergeant Major.
Sergeant Major Kent.
----------

Thursday, February 7, 2008.

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

WITNESS

CARLTON W. KENT, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE MARINE CORPS

Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent

Sergeant Major Kent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Wamp, and all the members for what you do for our service-
members today.
At the Marine Corps, we are focused on taking care of our
warriors and their families. That is the key for us, especially
in operational tempo that stresses the force that equates to
stress on the families. With their contribution to the mission,
comes great sacrifice, and our families can be the most brittle
part of the deployment equation.
It is our moral obligation as a Marine Corps to ensure that
their needs are provided for. I am pleased to report that the
Marine Corps continues to make positive changes for Marines and
their families that will benefit them for generations to come.
We are making investments in our quality of life, and
particularly our family support programs. Actions are underway
to broadly refresh, enhance and improve installation
infrastructure and support mechanisms.
Additionally, housing and infrastructure are key quality of
life components. Marines and their families are grateful for
your continued support and attention to the condition and
states of our housing, our barracks, our childcare centers,
dining facilities, and fitness centers. Particularly, we are
most appreciative of your attention to the barracks and your
support of the commandant's bachelor quarters. Barracks are a
critical element in supporting our warfighters. Providing
appropriate and comfortable living conditions positively
impacts the morale and the development of these dedicated young
men and women.
On behalf of your Marines and their families, I thank you
for being such strong quality of life advocates. Your
unwavering support and interest in the welfare of Marine
families continues to be vital to our mission accomplishment. I
have submitted my written statement for the record, and I look
forward to your questions.
[Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.036

Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much, Sergeant Major.
Master Chief Campa.
----------

Thursday, February 7, 2008.

UNITED STATES NAVY

WITNESS

JOE R. CAMPA, JR., MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE NAVY

Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Joe R. Campa, Jr.

Master Chief Campa. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp, distinguished members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
It is with great pride that I come before you on behalf of our
Sailors and their families. Joining me is my wife, Diana. In
addition to being my wife and the mother of my children, she
serves as the Ombudsman-At-Large for our Navy, representing
over 223,000 Navy families. Also joining me is the Force Master
Chief of our great Navy Reserve, Master Chief Dave Pennington.
From combat operations to humanitarian relief efforts, our
Sailors continue to meet the high expectations the American
people have of them in defense of our great nation. I wish to
express their gratitude for the hard work of Congress in
supporting the many initiatives over the last year that have
directly improved their quality of life. Our Navy has moved
beyond the blue waters of our oceans, and as of January this
year has contributed over 63,000 individual augmentees since
the beginning of ground operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Due to the high demand of our maritime forces and with the
continued role of these non-traditional ground support
missions, pillars of support such as healthcare, childcare and
housing are more critical than ever. My wife Diana and I have
seen firsthand the impact on family stability and peace of mind
that these traditional pillars of support provide when a Sailor
is deployed.
Navy families are strong, resilient and proud of their
contributions during this critical time in our nation's
history. Surge deployments, individual augmentation, and duty
in places our Navy has never been has resulted in the need for
strong family support. The programs and initiatives we
presently have in place to support our families must continue
to evolve as the needs of our families change.
In my travels throughout the fleet, I continue to be
inspired by the dedicated efforts and the patriotism of all our
men and women. They are succeeding because they believe in who
they are and in what they do. Our total force of active duty
and Reserve Sailors continues to rise to the challenges of
world events, as they always have. They do this because they
are keenly aware of the trust, confidence and responsibility
that the American people have in them, and because they believe
in the rich tradition of our Naval service.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, I am honored for the
opportunity to speak here today, and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[Prepared Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Joe R.
Campa, Jr. follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.047

Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much, Master Chief.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley.
----------

Thursday, February 7, 2008.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

WITNESS

RODNEY J. McKINLEY, CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE

Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J. McKinley

Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman and committee members. I am honored to speak to you on
behalf of the 685,000 Airmen proudly serving our nation. They
are active, Guard and Reserve, officers and enlisted and
civilians. I am honored to collaborate with my fellow warriors
on quality of life issues impacting all our military members
and their families.
Sir, I want to thank you and this committee for your
invaluable support. Thank you for supporting pay raises and
continuing reenlistment bonuses. We are having successes with
our privatized housing efforts, and we appreciate the authority
you gave us to pursue this new avenue to better house our
Airmen and their families. Thank you for visiting our wounded
warriors and their families, and thank you especially for
taking time and effort to visit our deployed Airmen, Soldiers,
Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen.
Your efforts pay huge dividends for all military personnel
and their families. Because we are an all-volunteer force and
because the Air Force mission especially depends on highly
educated, trained and focused and experienced Airmen, your
support has a direct impact on our recruiting, retention and
overall combat readiness. America's Airmen are in the fight.
Our Airmen have been continuously and globally engaged in
combat and contingency operations for over 17 years, from
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, throughout the
1990s, to ongoing engagements in the Global War on Terror. In
total at any given moment, over 208,000 active duty Guard and
Reserve Airmen directly contribute to combatant commands,
contingency operations, humanitarian efforts, and joint and
coalition combat operations around the world.
Spreading their wings over America following 9/11, Airmen
of Operation Noble Eagle continue to protect our nation's air
corridors and maritime approaches, having flown more than
51,000 missions. Nearly 7,000 Airmen continue to serve in lieu
of ground component personnel in Iraq, in addition to the
27,000 Airmen deployed to 112 worldwide locations to fight in
the Global War on Terror.
They are taking the fight to the bad guys. Over the past 12
months, Air Force strike missions against enemy locations and
forces have increased 171 percent in Iraq and 22 percent in
Afghanistan, proving their effectiveness in counterinsurgency
operations. But we also believe the maxim: Where there are
roads, there is progress. Therefore, your Airmen have directly
taken on projects to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, building
schools, digging wells, building roads, rebuilding lives,
winning trust, and forging enduring relations. Our Airmen
interact daily with allies in host nations, and they showcase
America's image of strength, freedom and hope.
Quality of life is key to success. Our Airmen deserve the
best support available, and we are committed to providing the
highest quality of life standards possible, a commitment that
points to our recruiting and retention successes. Our
recruiting standards remain high. We have achieved tremendous
recruiting success and continue to select airmen from among the
most educated, motivated and highly qualified volunteers.
Knowledge and innovation are hallmarks of Air Force heritage
and service culture. We are particularly focused on training,
education and professional development. Our Airmen are the most
highly educated in our nation's history. We firmly believe this
is an indicator of future mission success.
America's Airmen now receive core and expeditionary
knowledge and skills training throughout every phase of their
career. We are also offering more numerous and specialized
educational opportunities along the way. We are emphasizing
post-deployment, support, and in assisting Airmen as they
reunite with their families and return to their communities.
We have had considerable success in providing care and
assistance to severely injured Airmen and their families. We
want to build upon those successes with more job placement,
education and training opportunities for these great Americans.
The civilian job market actively seeks our trained and
technically qualified Airmen. We must continue to offer viable
and competitive reenlistment bonuses and special duty pay in
our critical job areas to retain our qualified Airmen.
We appreciate continued congressional support as we work to
meet our retention goals and resolve shortages we have in some
critical Air Force specialties. Additionally, every Air Force
leader understands we recruit Airmen, but we retain families.
Airmen retention in the Air Force and effectiveness in
executing their mission and professionalism representing
America to the world directly reflects how well we support them
and their families.
We strongly advocate education and employment initiatives
specifically targeted to mitigate some of the economic
challenges our military families currently face. Nearly half of
all service-members are married and have children. And of
course, these families move frequently, this means things such
as transfer of school credits, in-state tuition eligibility,
and professional credentials for military dependents can become
particularly difficult for military families and can easily
affect a service-member's decision to continue serving.
We are eager to work with Congress and the states to find
solutions. Our Airmen and fellow service-members should never
have to choose between caring for their family and serving
their country.
Mr. Chairman, we are working hard to continually improve
how we develop and care for our Airmen and their families, with
emphasis on families. Our base commanders and their local
service providers are, of course, on the frontlines of our
efforts to maintain and improve services to our Airmen, their
families, veterans and retirees. Local control of real property
and resources, combined with the natural responsiveness of
direct customer feedback, has proven to be the most effective,
efficient way for service providers to respond to customers'
needs, prioritize projects, and tailor services.
We are preparing for tomorrow's challenges. We must set
conditions today to realize future victories. Nearly 17 years
of continuous global operations have put extreme stress on our
people and equipment. It has become exceedingly difficult,
costly and time consuming to maintain aircraft and equipment of
declining military utility. These are frustrations I hear and
see every day, especially from our deployed airmen. Quality
equipment and work environment have a lot to do with job
satisfaction, and therefore impact morale and retention.
To successfully meet future challenges, maintain our
advantages, and maximize results, we must keep pace with the
talent of our 21st century Airmen and ensure they have the best
equipment, facilities, and resources available. With your
continued support, we will maintain and sharpen our nation's
global vigilance, global reach and global power advantages,
America's edge.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the
committee again for the outstanding support you extend to all
service-members and their families. We fully recognize the link
between readiness and the issues that extend from our Airmens'
quality of life, to their duties around the world, on the
flightline, in the operations centers, and on the battlefield.
America's Airmen, your Airmen, stand shoulder to shoulder with
their fellow American warriors defending this great nation and
our way of life.
A new generation of America's Airmen continues to do what
our Airmen have always done in peace, conflict, crisis and war.
They set conditions for success across the entire spectrum of
military operations. It has been more than a half-century since
an American service-member has been attacked from the sky.
Today, the airspace is secure.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear with my
fellow warriors and represent America's Airmen before you
today. I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J.
McKinley follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.065

Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Thank you all for your excellent statements, and even more
importantly, for your lifetime of service to our country.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley, to test the effectiveness
of your testimony today, while you were speaking about the need
to try to guarantee in-state tuition, an amendment that Ms.
Boyda and I had cosponsored on the Higher Education
Reauthorization Act passed while you were speaking, that will
say if your son or daughter has started college with in-state
tuition, and then our country has asked your family to move to
another state, your child will be able to continue in-state
tuition at that college. Or if you are living at a post or
serving at a military installation in any state in the country,
you will qualify for in-state tuition. There are five states
that don't even allow you to get in-state tuition even if you
are living in that state as a result of your military service,
so very effective testimony. [Laughter.]
Thank you for mentioning that.
Let me welcome Mr. Crenshaw and Mr. Young and Mr. Bishop.
Before I make a few administrative comments, Chairman
Young, we are so honored that you are on this subcommittee
again this year. There is no member of this House, Democrat or
Republican, who has done more for military families than you
have as chairman of the full committee, and as ranking member.
I would like to recognize you if you would like to make any
comments before we start our 5-minute round.
Mr. Young. No, sir. I will wait my turn.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. A humble servant of our military. Thank
you for being here, and thank you all for being here.
Just a couple of administrative things, if I could, since
this is our first hearing of the year. Everyone knows the
process. We are going to begin every subcommittee hearing on
time out of respect to the witnesses' time and schedules, and
respect to other members' schedules.
In terms of the questions, we are going to recognize
members after the ranking member is recognized. We will go
through questions based on seniority, based on whether you were
here at the start of the meeting, and if you weren't here when
we started the meeting, your order of questioning will be based
on the order in which you came into the room.
The only other administrative point I wanted to mention,
out of respect, again, to everybody's time, is that we have
invested in high technology this year. This is our 5-minute
clock. What I am going to do is just do a light tap when a
member's time is down to 1 minute left, and I will do a total
tap when there are 5 minutes. I will ask each member if they
can finish that thought or sentence quickly.
At this point, I think it would be appropriate to start the
first questions of this committee year with our ranking member,
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. You are too gracious. One thing that I observed
yesterday meeting with you, and then listening today, is that
in the 10 years since I last served on this subcommittee, two
things I think are profound. I may be wrong, but I think that
these branches of our armed forces cooperate more today than
they did 10 years ago.
I was taken back 10 years ago to how much competition there
was, and frankly sometimes that was pointed-elbow kind of
competition. It sure does seem to me, and there are issues we
will talk about today and in the future where you cooperate a
whole lot more and are sharing a whole lot more, and more like
a combined force team. I know war has a way of bringing people
together, but it is noticeable.

FAMILY HOUSING

The second thing is that the whole concept of privatizing
housing and improving the housing on-base and off-base, off-
post, dramatically has changed. This was just beginning to
start in 1997 and 1998 when I was on the subcommittee.
So I want to start on that front and let each of you, say
what is happening with housing and how important it is. I know
Sergeant Major Kent, you told me a story yesterday about Camp
Lejeune, I think.
Sergeant Major Kent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. And the radical transformation just in the last
few years of housing, and what a difference it makes either
retention or recruitment in knowing where you are going to live
and where your wife and children or husband and children may be
when you are away.
Do you want to start?
Sergeant Major Kent. Yes, sir. I will tell you, you know, I
mentioned a story yesterday to the congressman. I mentioned I
was stationed at a place called Camp Lejeune. It was Midway
Park, back in the early 1980s. If you had seen that housing
back then, I will tell you. That housing was some housing that
no one wanted to live in. And just about a month ago I went
past that same housing and that housing was torn down and brand
new housing is up. If you asked the average Marine what do you
think about housing today, they will tell you that it is the
best of the best.
We have our junior Marines living in housing today that
would not touch the housing anywhere else. I will also tell you
that the family members are very honored to live in the
housing, and it is because of the members sitting here today,
that the Marines and their families are able to live in such
great housing. I would like to personally thank you for that.
But we still have some work to do, so we are looking forward to
it, but I will tell you today's housing is right on the mark.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, if I might?
Mr. Edwards. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Young. I have met with the chiefs of the enlisted ranks
prior to the meeting. We are meeting with the surgeon generals
on the very important subject of PTSD, so I am going to go over
to the other subcommittee and may have a few questions for
them.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, are there any questions you
would like to ask?
Mr. Young. I am advised that the surgeon generals have
already begun their testimony. I am sorry. I want to welcome
these guys here. They are good. I had a chance to visit with
them in the office personally. My wife can tell you some
stories about a couple of them.
[Laughter.]
Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp. Well, then moving beyond housing, we may come
back to that, but let me also ask, and I want to start, again,
with you Sergeant Major Kent, because you have to grow your
force rapidly.
Sergeant Major Kent. Yes, sir.

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

Mr. Wamp. And I know we are not going to get into specifics
of the president's budget request, but I was fascinated
studying it on the dollars that go with this rapid increase
here, and there are changes across the board. I want to get to
the Air Force and the reductions in the president's budget
request may be in the second or third round.
But Sergeant Major Preston has had a challenge maintaining
high school graduation rates in the Army, so that we can keep
the quality as we meet the needs and face the challenges. So
for both of you all, how do you ramp up that quickly and
maintain that level of proficiency? And then how are you doing,
Sergeant Major Preston, at continuing to improve that level of
high school graduation rates among the people you enlist?
Sergeant Major Kent. Sir, I would love to start. First of
all, on the recruiting piece, we are doing really, really well.
We are maintaining the standard. We have 96 percent high school
grads, close to 96 percent. That says a lot about our force out
there that is finding these young individuals and bringing them
in. And we have some great individuals out there that actually
want to join the Marine Corps.
We are giving some type of bonuses to individuals in
critical jobs just to get them in, but it is not a vast amount
of money. I will tell you, our recruiters are selling a title,
not the money. They are saying, okay, if you want to earn the
title, you join the Marine Corps. I can tell you, last fiscal
year which ended September 30, our goal was to increase by
5,000, which would have put us at 184,000 Marines. But our
recruiting force did better than that. They got us at 186,000
Marines in the Marine Corps. So we are ahead by 2,000 Marines
right now.
And we are not low on quality, gentlemen. I can guarantee
you that. Our commandant has made his focus at not lowering the
quality in the Corps.
Mr. Wamp. Sergeant Major Preston.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, last year we recruited as an
Army: active, Guard, and Reserve; 170,000 soldiers.
Specifically, when you look at the active duty Army, 80,000
soldiers, and 79 percent were high school graduates. The rest
were GED equivalents. So as far as the standards for coming in,
the quality that is there, they all met the DoD standard that
is established. They all have to have a high school diploma
graduate or the equivalent to come into the force.
In the past, our benchmark has been 90 percent high school
graduates, with 10 percent GED equivalents. As I said, we
dropped to 79 percent that were high school graduates last
year. But when you look across the force, there are five
categories--category one through category five. We take no one
from of category five. Historically, we have always limited
ourselves to 4 percent or less in category four, and everybody
else comes from category one through three. We are still on
that benchmark.
The only thing that we missed this last year was the drop
in the high school graduates versus the GED equivalent. There
are a lot more initiatives out there. We have a lot of
recruiting programs that we put into place. We are now
partnering with the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.
There are a couple of programs out there I will just talk about
very quickly.
When you look at the number of noncommissioned officers we
have out there today that are recruiting, we have almost 7,000
recruiters out there for the active duty Army. There are about
5,100 for the Army National Guard, and about 1,800 for the Army
Reserve. We are going to partner with those Army National Guard
and Army Reserve recruiters. Under the Active First program, we
are offering bonuses for young men and women to come in to
serve anywhere from 2, 3, or 4 years in the active duty Army,
and then once they finish that commitment, to transfer into the
Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. So there are a lot of
programs out there that we are working.
Mr. Wamp. I need to go over my time by a few seconds.
Mr. Edwards. The ranking member has that right, so very
good. Take whatever time you need.
Mr. Bishop.

PROGRAMS FOR VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your appearance. I, too, have an
obligation across the hall at the other hearing with the
surgeons general, but the testimony here is somewhat similar.
The first thing I would like to get to, though, is on the
Marine Corps particularly, but it will affect all of you
gentlemen, I think, the recent murder of Lance Corporal Maria
Lauterbach, with the investigators stating that the base
authorities didn't consider Corporal Laurean, who was suspected
of murdering her, and also accused of raping her at Camp
Lejeune base.
Can you explain once the services have someone accused of a
sexual assault or domestic violence-type offense, what the
military does to protect the victim? And is there a general
policy for a victim of sexual assault or domestic violence?
What kind of rights do they have? Do you have specific
programs?
Obviously, I assume that you have medical care, but if you
could comment on that. And how do you deal with sexual assaults
in combat zones? And what are the command responsibilities
under those circumstances?
Sergeant Major Kent. Thank you, sir.
First of all, sir, that was a tragedy that happened to
Corporal Lauterbach. But I will also tell you, sir, that we
have some things in place starting with the leadership. If
someone is accused of doing something that is sexual assault to
an individual in the Marine Corps, first of all, the command,
they will start and they will separate the individuals. Then
from there, it is an investigation that will be started. From
that investigation, it comes out, sir, then they decide if they
put what we call a military order on this individual to ensure
that this individual does not go up to the victim or anywhere
close to the victim.
I cannot really talk about this case because it is still in
the legal process right now, but I can tell you, sir, there
were things in place to actually protect the corporal. But I
will also tell you that we are on top of this thing right now,
and also with the state officials and federal officials.
Legally, you know, I just don't want to touch on the process
because there are a lot of legal things going on, sir. But I
will also tell you that if a victim is accused of doing
something, well, if someone is accused of doing something to
the victim, then that person is separated from that victim, and
then we start the legal process.
Mr. Bishop. Does that pertain to the other services also?
Sergeant Major Preston. Yes, sir. Sir, just to add to what
Sergeant Major Kent said, we have trained advocates in all of
our units, to specifically handle and work with a victim of
sexual assault. We also have victim assault coordinators on our
posts and installations. There are many different assets
available to victims.
And of course, to be able to sit down with a victim and to
talk about confidentiality, or to open an investigation, the
victim coordinator walks the individual through that whole
process. We have had a lot of success over the last year since
putting those programs into place.
Master Chief Campa. For the Navy, sir, we have a similar
process. Of course, you want to protect the victim. One of the
things that is often put in place is a Military Protective
Order that is issued by the Commanding Officer that directs the
person that has been accused to stay away from the victim. On
similar things, a command investigation is initiated, but like
the Army, we have sexual assault victim advocates that work
with the victim and help take them through the process. Those
sexual assault victim advocates are members of the command, but
we also have further resources at our Fleet and Family Support
Centers that support that whole process.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, in the Air Force, we
have sexual assault response coordinators. If there is a sexual
assault or sexual whatever, the member gets a person appointed
to them, and we follow up with that person to make sure that
they have someone they can continually talk to. Every Airman in
the Air Force gets sexual assault prevention training every
single year. We make sure this is a focus item on all
commanders' calls. We have hotlines for anybody to call to have
someone talk to them at any time. So we take this very
seriously, and I think we are doing a good job on this right
now.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Is my time up?
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Okay.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Judge Carter.

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last year, we talked a lot about PTSD. We talked about
health services for our military, the very sad story about the
Marine who committed suicide while waiting in line to get
treated. I think we all reacted very positively and attempted
to try and do something about that.
With the 15-month deployments and the other stresses that
are being placed upon our military, I would like to know how
you feel about this mental health component. Are we making
progress on the things we talked about last year, and I would
like to hear from you about that.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I will start. We started this
last year specifically for post-traumatic stress disorder and
mild traumatic brain injuries. We did a chain teaching program
across the Army. It ran from July to October of 2007.
Specifically, we started with the senior leadership, leaders
taking their soldiers, their subordinate leaders, and that was
driven all the way down to the lowest levels of command, down
at the company and platoon levels.
But the intent was to get leadership talking about the
symptoms of mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder.
But more importantly, what that chain-teach does is open the
doors for soldiers within those commands to understand that
their leadership supports the program. It helps break that
stigma and the fear for a soldier to go and ask for help.
We still see some stigma out there to seek help coming back
for post-traumatic stress disorder, but it is a stigma that is
two-sided. It is from an individual perspective, where an
individual perceives that if he or she asks for help, they are
seen as being weak, or that they are not effective as a
soldier. And likewise, there is still a stigmatism out there
where the individual perceives that their leadership would
think less of them as a soldier, and potentially impact them
for assignments and promotions.
But we have a number of programs out there. The chain-teach
was very effective last year to really drive that down to the
lowest levels. You are a help, this committee, and the
investment that has been put into hiring those healthcare
professionals has also been a big help.
Sergeant Major Kent. On PTSD, sir, I will tell you. The
Sergeant Major hit it right on the head. It has to start from
the top, the leadership. Our Commandant has focused on telling
Marines it is okay to come forward. It is okay to come forward
with your families. I will tell you, that message is throughout
the Marine Corps. It used to be a stigma out there, and I can
tell you, if you were to ask me back in 2001, sir, I would tell
you that it was not good to come forward because it was a sign
of weakness.
Now, I would tell you, I know senior leaders in the Corps
that have come forward and said ``I have PTSD.'' So it is
really a positive change.
Master Chief Campa. Sir, we work very closely with our Navy
and Marine Corps team, starting with our Navy Corpsmen that
receive training in how to identify these things. In the Marine
Corps, they have units embedded at the battalion level that
work with Marines in early identification.
We, this last fiscal year, have put 13 post-deployment
Healthcare Clinics in fleet concentration areas and Marine
bases. But in addition to that, it is the education piece, in
educating the senior enlisted, our officer community, and in
our troops in general, in changing how it is viewed, and
changing that culture. That is probably the most challenging
piece. We could throw all the money and resources that we have
at it, but until we change that culture, we are not going to
get very far. But having said that, I think we are on the path
to doing that.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, I would like to add, I
think the committee does a lot in helping with this PTSD, and
we have come a long way. We can't rest on our laurels. We don't
really know the effects down the road of how many troops are
going to have PTSD. We are doing some great things. I know at
Ramstein Air Base, Germany, the staging facility there, as many
of our wounded are coming back, you know, we try to do surveys
to find out PTSD from the beginning, but we also have to follow
it. We have to keep investing and researching on PTSD.
Also, we need to invest and go out and recruit and properly
train mental health professionals. That is a key to make sure
we have those professionals out there in our units to be there
for counseling.
Mr. Carter. Well, I think that is good news. The
(INAUDIBLE) that came up last year, (INAUDIBLE). Right now, we
ask them to come back and give us a statement. The one we heard
was check, check, check, check, and go home. And the suggestion
was that maybe in-theater, with their direct superiors. They
also might be inquired of before they come back home. Is there
any of that going on or is that being worked also?
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, in-theater, several things
happen. One is the training to help soldiers over there that
are redeploying back to home station really understand the
dynamics of what they are going to come through. I mean, out of
a combat zone, being forward-deployed, coming back home again,
and re-integrating back with the family and back with their
post, camp, or station.
But then it is also the re-integration assessment. There is
a health assessment. Specifically, they sit down and they have
a chance to talk with a healthcare provider before coming back.
And then we are also doing reassessment 90 to 120 days once
they get back.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, thank you all for being back. Good to see you
again.
Just to follow up on the question about PTSD, it is my
understanding that not only you encourage people to talk, to
kind of talk about it, but are we doing what we should be doing
in kind of making everyone aware? It is almost like treatment
is one thing, but finding out early, kind of self-diagnosis, or
just understanding what it is. I imagine a lot of people, you
can ask a lot of questions, and they don't know exactly what
you are getting at.
Is it something we ought to be looking at in terms of just
some of the basic training in all the new age of terrorism, all
the new things we are doing in the various services? Is that
something? Are we doing enough to kind of help people
understand what it is on the front end, so that maybe they
recognize it in themselves? Not just not be afraid to stand up
and say ``here is the way I feel,'' but maybe even help him
understand where he is on the front end, to see it is common
and it is all part of that being able to come forward. Are we
doing enough there, do you think?
It sounds like we are recognizing the problem. I just want
to make sure that we kind of can catch it on the front end
maybe, as opposed to waiting until everything is over and
somebody comes home and so many questions they are asking, and
you realize, good grief, this stuff has been building up. Can
you touch on that?
Sergeant Major Kent. Well, we actually educate them through
the chaplains, medical and the leadership, sir. I mean, down at
the lowest level, to the squad leader level, it is education
all the time. I will tell you, even family members, we bring
them in and we educate them. And people are getting a full
understanding of this PTSD. So I am confident.
Mr. Crenshaw. That is good to hear. You know, I imagine we
start out that you didn't recognize it, and then all of a
sudden 20 years later, somebody--it sounds like we are really,
because I know that is on the forefront of a lot of the members
and has been for the last couple of years, so I think that is
wonderful.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, one of the things that we are
doing is we have introduced what we call Battlemind training.
It starts in basic training for new soldiers coming in the
Army. It is done for those soldiers as part of the unit
organization prior to them deploying. It also is done, too, for
the post-deployment, coming back from the deployment. It really
helps soldiers, not necessarily telling them what to think, but
how to think, and how to understand the dynamics of what is
going on, the anxiety, and what they are feeling inside and how
to overcome that and work through it. That has been very
successful the last 2 years since it was introduced. It has
continued to grow and we have expanded on those programs.
Master Chief Campa. The education--Sergeant Major brought
up a good point in educating the family members to recognize
those things also. One of the things that we have tried and I
think we need to strengthen in this area is our Reserve Force,
because those folks, instead of coming back to a fleet
concentration area where they are around those great networks
of support, they go back oftentimes to the heartland of
America, and we don't see them as often. So there is follow-up
with them, but that is an area that we still need to strengthen
our connection with those folks as they re-integrate back into
the society and go back into their civilian jobs.

QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE

Mr. Crenshaw. Okay. Let me ask you a quick question about
just healthcare in general. Everybody touched on it. It is
something that everybody knows and understands. I know that
along with our DoD colleagues, we have done a lot in the past
few years just to improve the quality of the healthcare that
folks get in the military. When I talk to the senior civilians
and officers, they seem to agree. I certainly see that, but I
don't get to always talk to the enlisted guys that you talk to
every day.
I would like to hear what you all have to say, because it
is interesting to me not only because I am on this committee,
but I come from Jacksonville, Florida, where we have a military
hospital and there have been some big high profile medical
malpractice situations. So it is on people's minds in terms of
what is the quality of healthcare.
So talk a little bit about it, and maybe mention your
overall assessment, what maybe one or two things you think you
are doing well, that you hear you are doing well, and maybe one
or two things that maybe from time to time you hear a guy
saying maybe I wish they did better. I know they are talking
about OB/GYN, having babies, but apart from that, just the
general quality of healthcare, give me your general assessment
and where you think we are doing good and where you think we
can do better.
Sergeant Major Kent. I will speak on the positive first,
sir, and that is the wounded warriors. I will tell you, our
wounded warriors are getting great healthcare. As we visit
them, even family members, they say this is the best healthcare
in the world. And that is the positive.
A negative is the family, as far as them getting in, and
they need appointments, it could take a long time for them to
get an appointment on a military installation, so they have to
go outside most of the time, because we have a shortage of
doctors, and that is the issue, sir.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, healthcare is the number one
concern when you talk to family members. It is accessibility
and the quality of the care. A lot of the facilities on-post,
not necessarily the doctors, but also the facilities are
conditioned to providing the care that they need, so of course
you push them off to civilian communities. One of the things as
I look at it, we have 25 major hospitals or medical centers in
the Army, and of the 25, 8 of the 25 are now over 50 years old,
and another 11 are somewhere between 25 and 50 years old. So
there are aging medical facilities.
On the good side, the Army medical action plan, what we
have done over the past years to take care of the wounded
warriors and to get the care, to rehabilitate, get more of them
back on duty, or to help them with their transition, has been
very positive.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, I would like to just
briefly talk about the great job the medical community is doing
in taking care of the wounded warriors. If we get the wounded
to a medical treatment facility, they now have a 97 percent
chance to survive, which is unbelievable. We have Critical Care
air transport teams that get them back stateside very quickly.
I have flown on those missions and I have seen the
capabilities of what they do. It is absolutely incredible, from
the battlefield to the time that we now can get them stateside
for medical treatment is about three days, versus in the
Vietnam era, it was about three weeks. They are doing a
fantastic job on the medical side.
One area in the Air Force where we do need some help is,
once again it goes back to equipment. Our equipment is aging.
We need to update all of that.
Master Chief Campa. Sir, I will just add something real
quick. I don't hear very many complaints on the quality of care
within our military treatment facilities. I don't. I know the
cases you are speaking of that might have blocked out a lot of
press attention. What I do hear complaints about is the access
to care when a family member cannot get into that military
treatment facility, understanding the process outside of that.
There is frustration at times with understanding that. So
what do they do? They go into the emergency room, and then that
creates a whole other problem. So the education piece, and
maybe improving how we do that is something that is a
consistent theme that I hear. My wife and I recently had some
calls with the family members, and that was one of the big
frustrations--accessing the care.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.

TOP QUALITY OF LIFE PRIORITIES

Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Let me follow up on that. Sergeant Major Preston, you
already mentioned healthcare as the number one concern. The
question I would like to ask each of you, and I would ask again
now, is if you think of the quality of life concerns that you
hear from the men and women you represent and their families,
aside from pay and time away from family--we know how important
pay is and we know you can't put a price tag on the time away
from family--but on the quality of life issue we can have a
great impact in this committee, and the Defense Appropriations
committee. We have a lot of members on this committee that also
serve on Defense Appropriations.
Let me ask you, among the choices of healthcare, housing,
daycare and education--those four--which would you rank as your
top three? Healthcare, housing, daycare and education? And if
there is another one you would put in the top three that I
didn't mention, please feel free to do that.
Sergeant Major Preston, we will start with you, and then
just go down the line.
Sergeant Major Preston. Well, probably the one, sir, that I
would say now is healthcare, waiting to get into it.
Mr. Edwards. I heard that at Fort Riley. Okay.
Sergeant Major Preston. Childcare is number two, and we
have been working that very hard this past year. And education
has always been an issue. We specifically look at soldiers and
families, and education is a big priority. It is continuing
education for the soldiers. It is also education for the
children.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. How about, do you know how many soldiers
are living in barracks today that don't meet Army standards for
barracks?
Sergeant Major Preston. Right now, today, for permanent
party, 35,400.
Mr. Edwards. So there are 35,000 soldiers.
Sergeant Major Preston. About 35,000 soldiers.
Mr. Edwards. About 35,400 that are not living in barracks
that meet the Army 1-plus-1 standard?
Sergeant Major Preston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Sergeant Major Kent.
Sergeant Major Kent. Sir, I would first of all say housing
is number one. The reason housing is number one, when I speak
of housing, sir, I am talking about the single Marine barracks.
We need to really focus on the single Marine barracks. I spoke
with you about some barracks up at Camp Pendleton that a Marine
made a comment, ``I would rather be over in Iraq than to be
living in the barracks here,'' which is a flat-top single
barracks. So our focus is taking care of the single Marine
barracks. That would be number one.
Mr. Edwards. Do you happen to know the number, and it is
okay if you don't, that are inadequate?
Sergeant Major Kent. Inadequate? It would probably be about
3,300, sir.
Mr. Edwards. About 3,300.
Sergeant Major Kent. Yes, sir.
And then the second one would be healthcare.
Mr. Edwards. Because of the waiting lines?
Sergeant Major Kent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Not the quality so much as the waiting.
Sergeant Major Kent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Sergeant Major Kent. And then third would be childcare,
building more childcare facilities, and then the last one would
be education, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. And not to downplay education. We know
anything less than third or fourth ranking, our military troops
and families ought to get quality services in all four of these
areas, but this does help get a sense of priorities.
Master Chief Campa. Yes, sir. I would have to say that
number one would be childcare consistently just about
everywhere, especially in our fleet concentration areas. Number
two, I would say access to health care. And number three would
be our single Sailors that live onboard ship. We have a program
called Homeport Ashore. We still have 9,000 Sailors across our
Navy that still live onboard ship, junior Sailors, when that
ship is in port.
Congressman Wamp asked me the other day, we talked about
the USS HARRY S. TRUMAN. I talked to the Command Master Chief
this morning. They are at sea, and I asked him, out of your E4
and below that would qualify to live in single Sailor barracks,
how many do you have living there. He has none, because that
program hasn't affected that command yet. We have plans to do
that, but he cites that as his number one quality of life
issue. They remember your visit. So he has about 600 that would
benefit from that program. So those USS HARRY S. TRUMAN Sailors
when they get back from their deployment, those that live
onboard the ship will continue to live there when they get back
in home port.
Mr. Edwards. Would you happen to have a number, an estimate
of the number of sailors living in housing that doesn't meet
the standard set by the Navy?
Master Chief Campa. The DoD standard is 90 square feet. We
have a hard time meeting that standard because we typically put
two and sometimes three in a barracks room, but it far
surpasses the quality of life of having to live onboard that
ship, but I could get you some numbers.
[The information follows:]

The number of shipboard unaccompanied Sailors currently living in
inadequate BEQ conditions, as defined by either two or more per room or
less than 90 square feet per sailor, is approximately 4,700.

Mr. Edwards. Okay, if you could. We do appreciate it.
Chief Master Sergeant.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Yes, sir. Without question,
I would put number one as childcare. From base to base that I
visit, that is the number one thing that always pops up. There
are not enough spaces available. As I said earlier, with so
many military working together on active duty in the Air Force,
and also spouses having to work, not having the spaces
available on base, it makes them go downtown, and some of the
costs are just enormous. That would be number one.
Number two, I would continue on with healthcare. Our focus
is always taking care of the wounded and so forth, and making
sure that we are taking care of PTSD, traumatic brain injury,
securing a good future for the wounded after their injuries and
so forth, but also making sure that we update our facilities as
we go. We can go out and hire the healthcare professionals, but
we do have some intruding issues with getting the doctors and
dentists and so forth. So I think that would be number two.
And number three is, education. I think that that probably
might fly down the list a little bit after the good news that
you gave us today, but continue to make sure that we go and we
take care of students as they transfer from state to state,
that they don't drop a grade lower because they didn't
transfer. And also the possibility of the Montgomery GI bill
that we can pass on to spouses and family members, that would
be a great benefit to all Airmen.
Mr. Edwards. Good. By the way, there are 17 states that
will start charging out-of-state tuition if your son or
daughter started college at a state university in that state,
and then you were re-stationed in another state. In fact, I got
some very powerful letters from some servicemen and -women
whose children had to drop out of the college of their choice
for the reason that our country asked their family to move to
another place in service to all.
Thank you all for that testimony.
I would like to go to Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well, two quick points, and two quick questions.
One thing I will tell the master chief of the Navy is that they
don't have enough space to live in, but they sure do eat well.
[Laughter.]
Master Chief Campa. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. It doesn't matter how far out to sea they are,
they eat really well.

GUARD AND RESERVE

Also, I want to make a point, looking at the 2009 budget
request, of how grateful I am that the president recognizes
these needs, and that he also recognized that the increases
that the new majority put in last year become the new baseline,
and that we don't retreat from where we got to. That hasn't
been discussed, but I want to lay that out and compliment him,
while he doesn't get many compliments much from some people,
but I want to point that out.
Because we are starting from a good place, because he
recognized that what was done here last year was necessary, and
then goes forward above that in his budget request does go
forward. There are a few areas that Chairman Edwards has
already brought to my attention that we are going to need to
look at hard, to adjust, but overall I am pleased to be
starting at that point.
The third big area that has changed in 10 years for me is
that 10 years ago the Guard and Reserve forces were not
partnered with our active duty men and women, and today they
are, big time. I heard that all day yesterday from you all. I
just want to ask you in general, what are you doing? Sergeant
Major Preston introduced the command sergeant major
specifically with the National Guard, but what ways do you make
sure that the Guard and Reserve know that the focus is not just
on the active duty and this really is a partnership, and that
everybody frankly is pulling the same wagon with the same
string?
Sergeant Major Kent. Sir, I can start off.
Mr. Wamp. Sure.
Sergeant Major Kent. Sir, first of all, it actually starts
in boot camp. Every Marine is a Marine. Once they graduate,
there is no separation between the Reserve and Active. And that
is the focus coming out of boot camp. You are a United States
Marine.
From that, I mean, they go through the same training. Once
they get called back on active duty, they go through the same
training, and they get trained up to go forth. So we just let
them know that they are a Marine first. We don't separate them
at all, sir, and that is where we keep the focus.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, same thing. All of our
soldiers are all treated the same, and of course now with the
Global War on Terror and with the way we are using the Guard
and Reserve, it is really going in there and expanding on all
the family programs and the services that are available for the
Guard and Reserve to make it the same. It is one team. It is
one fight.
Master Chief Campa. Yes, sir, we could not do our mission
if it wasn't for our Navy Reserve. When I go out and visit
Sailors in-theater, onboard ships, you can't tell the
difference between an active duty Sailor and a reserve Sailor.
They provide that same quality-level of service across the
board.
But we take a different approach to our reserves over the
last few years in how we train them. Gone are the days where
they come to a reserve center and sit around and just give
classes. They are out there doing meaningful training, mission-
specific training, and it is paying off tremendously as we
integrate them into the total force.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, I said it from the
beginning. I represent all Airmen--active, guard and reserve.
The Air Force is committed to total force integration. If you
are flying a C-17 airlift, whatever, you don't know if that is
a guard, reserve or active duty person on there flying that
plane, and you really don't care because they are out there
doing a mission. They are fully integrated and fully trained.
We could not survive without total force integration.

JOINT BASING

Mr. Wamp. Chief Master Sergeant McKinley, there may not be
time to finish this question, but maybe on the third round you
could continue, but I want to go ahead and start. I talked
about the cooperation but there is one big issue that I don't
think we have total agreement on, and that is joint basing. I
know that it certainly affects the Air Force in a big powerful
way.
Can you just share a little bit without getting yourself in
trouble what you shared with me yesterday? [Laughter.]
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Thank you, sir. [Laughter.]
You know, we as the Air Force are fully committed to joint
basing. Anytime that we can get together in bringing all four
branches of service together, to find ways to be more
efficient, to spend the taxpayers' dollars more wisely, we are
all for that. But I would also like to say that for the Air
Force, one of the great recruiting and retention tools that we
have is the quality of life, the standards that we have had on
bases for a long period of time. And this didn't happen
overnight.
We have invested in the quality and standards of our bases
for decades, and we just want to be able to maintain those same
standards, sir.
Mr. Wamp. And point out that you fight from those bases.
You operate from those bases.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Yes, sir. That is where we
train. That is where we get ready to go to war. That is why we
need to make sure that that base is ready and fully capable.
And we put a lot of money, a lot of emphasis, in taking care of
those individual bases.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. You bet. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Judge Carter.

INTEGRATED FAMILY SUPPORT NETWORK

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Getting back to some of the challenges, I would encourage
everybody that you talk to, my wife has a saying in Dutch that
says it's not the mountain that you have to climb that gets
you, it is the grain of sand in your shoe.
It is the little things that can make families irritable,
make soldiers and Marines and airmen worried about what is
going on back home. And all of those little things are not that
hard to fix. For example, I have a bill right now that we
discovered that spouses have a hard time getting jobs--a pretty
simple little thing we put in already for convicted felons when
they get out of prison, is we give a one-time tax benefit to
the employer who will hire that convicted felon. Well, if they
can do it for convicted felons, I certainly think they ought to
be able to it for our military personnel. Give a one-time tax
benefit to the employer who hires them. I think that allows
more jobs----
I got that. So I got the wife of a soldier telling me that
when her husband transfers, he gets to claim Fort Hood as his
home base, so he is taxed under Texas law. This means he
doesn't have an income tax. But when they get transferred to
Virginia, she pays the income tax, and he doesn't, because he
gets to claim Texas as his home and home base. To me, that
seems fairly easy to fix, to allow the spouses also to claim
the home base of the soldier.
Soldiers are making good economic decisions on their future
by doing that. These are little things. So if you have those
little things, I would sure like to hear about some of them
that can help--the tuition issues. Another one, General Taylor
tells me all the time, is the students that are halfway through
high school in North Carolina and then they get transferred to
Texas, and they have all these things they lose, and their high
school friends. We need to work out a uniformity for our
military personnel on that, and I would like to hear anything
you have to say about those kind of things. I am just looking
for more avenues to help.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I will just talk a little bit
about the new rolling out this year of our Army's integrated
family support network. One of the things that families of
soldiers told General Casey and Mrs. Casey as they came on as
the chief of staff is that the Army has a lot of great
programs. Instead of adding more programs, fund the programs we
have. There are a lot of programs out there that in the past
were funded at 100 percent, and we have talked about childcare,
and we have talked about housing and barracks.
Of course, there is a lot of investment now going in this
year to bring that up to the levels that we want to achieve.
But the Army's integrated family support is really a star-gate
portal to pull together all the quality of life issues out
there, and really push that information out to families.
You specifically talked about spouse employment. We have
partnered now with 31 different companies out there. These are
Fortune 500 companies that are giving spouses preference for
hiring. One of the companies out there that I am very proud of
is the Army-Air Force Exchange which gives preferential hiring
to military spouses, and that is on-base, as well as those
Fortune 500 companies that you find off-base, like Home Depot
and Sprint and those kind of things.
So there are a number of those programs out there working
very hard. You listen to what soldiers and families out there
want, and then you try to put those programs in place, but the
Army integrated family support network, it's really getting the
information that is available out to the families. That is one
of the things now that we are going to work at pushing that
information out there to make more awareness.
Sergeant Major Kent. Spousal preference, sir, as far as a
federal job. When a spouse leaves from one duty station to go
to another, and she is a GS worker, most of the time that
spouse has to start all over again. You know, continuing moving
up the ladder, they have to start from scratch. We have gotten
a lot of feedback from spouses in reference to how can we fix
that.
Mr. Carter. (OFF MIKE)
Sergeant Major Kent. Yes, sir.
Master Chief Campa. Military spouses on average earn $3
less an hour when they are employed, and they are also three
times more likely to be unemployed, because of the fact that
they move around. A lot of time they cannot take advantage of
state-funded programs with job placement or job training
because they are not a resident of that state. That is an area
I think we can make a difference in also.
The spousal preference in hiring is an initiative, but I
think we need to make beyond the lifelines of DoD or the
federal government and just create a greater awareness out
there in the community about the talents that they have. There
is a program that started this year. It is called Career
Advancement Accounts. It started in eight states, 18 different
military installations, which will give a military spouse
$3,000 a year for education or vocational education. If they
come back a second year, they can request to get a second year
of funding.
Now, from what I understand, it is supposed to be a 3-year
pilot program, but the initial success of this program, the
number of spouses going toward that, is very encouraging. It is
focused to our spouses that are from E1 through E5, and I
believe it is O1 through O3--a very great initiative. I think
more publicity about that and programs like that would
certainly help our military spouses.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, I would like to echo
what my peers have said. I would like to publicly thank all
spouses for what they do to serve this great country of ours.
They have sacrificed much and they do it silently. We have
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) and travel so much, and many
of them have passed on the opportunity to have a career because
they know what we do is good for the country. We don't do
enough for them. We need to find opportunities to employ them
and thank them for the great service they give.
Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. I agree.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Before I recognize Mr. Crenshaw for his next round of
questions, let me follow up on Mr. Wamp's comments about the
president's request for daycare centers. For the record,
compared to a 2008 request of $25 million to $26 million, the
president for the 2009 budget has requested $168 million for
daycare centers. So I don't know when you guys got into the
Oval Office, but----
[Laughter.]
The president and the DoD leadership heard the daycare
concerns that you mentioned.
Mr. Crenshaw.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On that point, in terms of childcare, we spent more money
and now we are getting ready to spend even more money, but we
are still not at a zero waiting list time. I just wonder, do we
ever in localities where there is a long waiting list, do we
ever outsource? Do we ever use some of the local daycare
centers that are in the communities? And if we do that, I think
that is appropriate, but how do we make sure that we have the
same quality of care?
And then maybe as you answer that question, what are some
other options until we get, in terms of all the military
construction we need, which is probably going to be--you know,
it is always going to continue to grow and we may never get to
the place where you don't have to wait. But if we are doing any
outsourcing, are we making sure we have the same quality? And
are there other options that we are looking at? I heard every
one of you say you would rank it in the top two or three of
issues.
Can you talk a little bit about that? We know it is a
problem, and appreciate that, and we are dealing with the
construction side, but are there other things we can be doing?
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, I will start off. I
know in the Air Force one of the things that we do is we kind
of outsource to some spouses. We go out and we license them to
make sure that they are ready to have a daycare set up in a
room in a house for five or six children, whatever. We follow
up and make sure they are educated and make sure this is a good
home environment. So if someone cannot get on base, there are
some opportunities that they can use some of these daycare
spouses outside the gates.
Master Chief Campa. Sir, in the Navy we have about 3,000
home daycare homes set up, and that has been a successful
program. But your comments about looking to the community, and
this is something that I have asked about. Our standards for
our daycare are very high. So as we go to look to the community
to see that they have to meet state requirements, we have
federal requirements that are higher.
So when looking at this, we are looking for the options in
trying to partner and leverage some of that that is out there,
but some of the challenges are those higher standards that our
daycares hold themselves to.
Sergeant Major Kent. And that is the issue here, too, sir.
We have a lot of home childcare, and it is working great in the
Marine Corps. It really is. But the thing is just sourcing
outside the base. Most of the spouses, they actually do the
home, and it is working fine, but the issue is finding a great
place outside the military installation.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Crenshaw, if I slow down the clock, would
you mind if I piggybacked with you on that?
Mr. Crenshaw. No, sir. Please.
Mr. Edwards. On a recent trip to Fort Riley and Fort
Leavenworth--and I need to check my facts on this--I was given
the impression that the costs of childcare on a post come out
of the MWR program. Is that correct? In effect, they have to
pay for themselves. I may be mistaken there, but you know, we
don't ask our military families to pay for 100 percent of the
cost of their healthcare. At a time when we are asking our
soldiers, sailors, Air Force and Marines to spend so much time
away from family in Iraq and Afghanistan, it just doesn't make
sense.
If I am correct, if we are asking them to pay for in effect
100 percent of the cost of childcare other than maybe the
construction costs that we pay for up front, that seems
somewhat unfair. Maybe we need to talk to our defense
appropriators about subsidizing that, because even where we
have childcare, apparently it can be very, very expensive. So
we are trying to address the accessibility issue through this
subcommittee in the president's budget request, but there is
still the affordability issue. Can you shed any light on that?
Sergeant Major Preston. Just from as far as on-post and
off-post, we have for the married soldiers--67 percent of our
married soldiers and their families live off the post. So
naturally, you wouldn't want all your childcare centers on the
installation. So we partner with those childcare centers that
are off the installations. There is an accreditation process
they go through to make sure that they meet the high standards.
Of course we subsidize that, so what you would pay for
childcare living on Fort Riley would be the same thing that
someone would pay living off-post.
Mr. Edwards. We purposely met with enlisted spouses, and
many of these were first sergeant spouses, and they were having
to pay $500 a month for childcare. On a sergeant's salary, that
has got to be a pretty big hit. I hope that is something we
could follow up on.
Mr. Crenshaw, thank you for letting me in. You still have
several minutes left.
Mr. Crenshaw. Okay, good. [Laughter.]

FINANCIAL COUNSELING

Let me ask on kind of a related issue dealing with finance.
You know, when you ask the question, what are some of the
issues--housing, healthcare, childcare--I don't know. You hear
people say, well, one of the problems is just overall
financing, and then it gets into this whole issue that we face
in terms of payday loans. We finally, I think, got a handle on
it to say, look, we are going to limit that to 36 percent. That
is still pretty high, but before that it was a whole lot
higher. If you ask them what the interest rate is and they say
it is only 4 percent, and then they tell you that is 4 percent
a week, and it is just astronomical.
So I know that is brand new law and it has just kind of
been put in place, but can you talk about now that we have
that, are we trying to kind of offer financial counseling to
some of these enlisted guys who probably aren't as savvy as
they could be about finances. Now, they have some protection,
but also like how we can deal with that alternatively within
the services.
But also, do we have any information yet on how it is
working? I can envision a lender saying, well, I am not going
to lend it to you because they capped me at 36 percent; I would
rather go gouge somebody else; I can't gouge members of the
military. And then you might envision some guy in the military
saying, well, I really need to borrow the money, so I am not
going to tell him I am in the military because then they won't
lend me the money.
Are we looking at ways to deal with that? We have that law
in place, but it seems like we have a ways to go in terms of
really helping folks understand this picture of finances.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, it is education. It really
starts from day one when we bring a soldier in going through
basic training and advanced individual training. It is
financial counseling. One of the things that I use as a
yardstick to help gauge the successfulness of that training is
the thrift savings program.
We have had a very high success now with those soldiers
that sit through the training that are investing in the thrift
savings program. It is up to about 90 percent of those now
investing. That has been a very successful program. Of course,
we do financial counseling and training in all of our units and
organizations. We also push that out and make it available for
families as well.
Mr. Crenshaw. Has anybody--can you comment--has anybody
found any issues with now that we have the new payday loan cap?
I mean, would it ever be too much of a reach for us to say in
geographic areas, you hear about people that are members of the
military, and when they go in, then you know they are members
of the military and they know they can't be charged more. And
if they try to get a loan by saying they are not in the
military, can they kind of get around it on either side? Is
there something we ought to be doing there, or is it too new to
really know? Can you talk about that along the way?
Sergeant Major Kent. It is actually new right now, sir. I
know California is a high-cost place. It is actually working
out there, because I will tell you a lot of those payday
lenders outside of Camp Pendleton, they are feeling the pain.
So thank you very much, gentlemen.
But I will also tell you that it is the education process.
It starts from day one. So that is the key, sir, is the
education.
Master Chief Campa. We are still assessing the impact that
the law has had. I think it will take a little bit of time to
see what the full impact is. I think if we start to see less of
those institutions around our bases, maybe that will be an
indicator, because if you go into Norfolk or one of the fleet
concentration areas, you see those places. They are all around.
So maybe as we see them disappear, that may be an indicator.
But education--but an alternative for the Sailor also, and
maybe the lending institutions that are on-base and looking at
the ways that they lend to our Sailors, to provide an
alternative instead of seeking those places outside the gate.
Our Navy-Marine Corps relief has just started some quick
assistance loans that are a lot easier to get than the loans
that we traditionally give them. We typically make them go
through counseling and try to get to the root of the problem.
These quick-assistance loans are meant as a quick alternative,
because you go into those places and you could walk out of
there with money pretty fast.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, the same in the Air
Force. It is about education. We start it in basic training,
technical school. They get to their first duty station, and the
first term, Airmen center, we get them financial counseling
from the very beginning. When the Airman moves into the dorms,
the last thing we want him to do is go out and buy a 42-inch
plasma TV in the dorm room and a brand new car with $350 a
month car insurance.
So we try to educate them on making wise choices, having a
budget, setting up a savings plan and save for the future and
not live for the moment.
Mr. Crenshaw. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

EFFECTS OF BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Can I ask you about the challenge of BRAC on top of going
forth, particularly going forth as it affects Marines and the
Army? And then global repositioning, added to the fact that we
have inflation factors for military construction projects that
are far beyond the 2.4 percent inflation that the OMB
bureaucrats dictate that we follow.
Can you comment on whether there is a pattern of real
shortages? If so, in what areas? Is it housing barracks
particularly, as those installations that are growing as a
result of BRAC and grow-the-force and global repositioning?
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, as you know, one of the
biggest installations that is growing, that has seen a influx
of soldiers and families is Fort Bliss, Texas. That will be the
future home of the First Armored Division, and there will be
six brigade combat teams going there.
I sit down and I talk to the BRAC folks. Everything is
online. When you go out there onto the airfield, behind the
Sergeant Major Academy, that entire desert floor now is under
construction. It is amazing to see the work that is going in.
As for what is going on right now at Bliss construction-wise to
take care of the brigade combat teams that are going to be
based out of here, that is on-target.
Mr. Edwards. Is there a lot of temporary housing, though,
as troops are coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, and being
stationed out there and having to live in temporary housing?
Sergeant Major Preston. Yes, sir. We have a brigade set of
temporary barracks that we have used, and that is because
military construction takes so long to get stood up. We are
growing units quicker than we are building.
I was just down at Fort Hood a couple of months ago and
visited Third Brigade of the First Infantry Division. That
brigade will be based out of Fort Knox, Kentucky. With the
surge that went in last year, we knew that we needed that
brigade a year sooner, which was originally planned to be stood
up this year.
The barracks and the facilities at Fort Knox are still
under construction. We are standing that brigade up at Fort
Hood, Texas, so that is where the brigade is going to be
equipped, manned and trained. They will deploy, and then when
they come back we will move that brigade to Fort Knox. So there
is some of that transition that is going on out there.
Money-wise, as I look at the BRAC moves, and it really
involves Fort McPherson and Fort Gillem in Atlanta. I am told
that is on track, but I have concerns because we are getting
closer to 2011, and we haven't started construction yet for
those headquarters and those facilities that have to move. But
right now as I sit down and talk with the BRAC people, they say
we are still on track and everything is in line.
Mr. Edwards. Let me follow up and ask if particular
communities such as Fort Bliss and Fort Riley and Fort Carson
that are going to receive such an influx, and maybe we haven't
seen all the largest numbers of influx yet, but have you seen
or do you expect to see off-post housing rental rates and
housing costs to go up dramatically? Is there any evidence of
that?
Sergeant Major Preston. We have seen some of that at Fort
Riley--off-post, some of the rental rates going up. Right now,
Fort Bliss and the city of El Paso, have been phenomenal. They
have been a great city and they have really embraced the
soldiers and the moves that are now starting to come in.
I talked with some of the senior leadership there, the
parent-teachers organization, with the school districts in and
around Fort Bliss. There was initially concern. They have put a
lot of teachers into the schools to prepare for the influx of
children that were coming in. Of course, when we stood up
Fourth Brigade of the First Cav Division down there a year go,
a lot of the soldiers that moved from Fort Hood or new soldiers
that were coming in, because they knew that they were deploying
within a year, they elected not to bring their families.
So we have seen some of that transition, where families
have stayed in place at previous duty stations because they
were going to a unit that was getting ready to deploy, they
didn't elect to move. So that has kind of thrown some of the
numbers off. In the case of El Paso and Fort Bliss, it has been
a great partnership down there. At Fort Riley, we have seen
some of the rental rates going up, but I know that the
leadership has been working very closely with the city
officials in and around the installation.
Mr. Edwards. Wouldn't you say that is one item we ought to
watch in this subcommittee at these bases, at these
installations that are receiving a huge influx of Marines or
soldiers. Is it barracks or is it single family housing off-
post that we need to watch? Or is it family housing? How much
temporary housing for barracks or families? Is there one issue
more than any other that you think we need to keep an eye on?
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I would say single family
housing. You know, we have some single senior noncommissioned
officers that are living off-post. We are starting some pilot
program: for privatization of single soldier quarters for
senior noncommissioned officers on some installations. We have
67 percent of our married soldiers and their families that live
off the base, so the concern is to make sure we take care of
those families.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Sergeant Major Kent, any comments?
Sergeant Major Kent. We have a younger force, sir, so most
of our force is single. But we have a lot of Marines married
also, but most of the force is single. As we grow over the next
four years, it is important for the growth, too, as you know
sir, so we can get on a cycle as far as deployments going over.
Right now, we have 1-to-1 for most of the unit--7 months
over and 7 months back. The Commandant's goal is to get them
more dwell-time back in the states, which would give them 7
months forward and 14 months back. And we really want to get
them more than that, but as we grow the force, the barracks are
the main concern because we have a younger force, sir. So the
shortage for us would be the single Marine barracks.
Mr. Edwards. Master Chief Campa of the Navy, in terms of
BRAC?
Master Chief Campa. Our numbers are continuing to go down
in the Navy. We are more in shaping the force so we don't have
some of the challenges that the Army and the Marine Corps has
as they grow their force in that infrastructure part of it.
Mr. Edwards. Any installations where BRAC may be bringing
them in, while your numbers are going down? Or at a particular
installation where the numbers are going up? Any we ought to
keep an eye on?
Master Chief Campa. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Chief master sergeant.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, BRAC is on track in
the Air Force, but it is highly dependent on timely revenue
flow. So we are looking to this committee to reinstate the full
request of the amount in 2008 if possible.
Mr. Edwards. And as you know, last year we did replace
dollar-for-dollar the money we took out of BRAC, frankly, to
fund other priority military construction needs, including
daycare centers and our VA needs, knowing that in a
supplemental we could go back and replace BRAC. So I can't make
any promises, I think we will see real bipartisan effort to
replace the $933 million we had to frankly borrow out of BRAC
to take care of 5.8 million veterans in the VA system and some
of our other MILCON needs. But thank you for mentioning that.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well, Mr. Chairman, my final question is kind of
directed at all of you, but Master Chief Campa has Diana back
there, and I have been watching her, and man she is radar for
the families and spouses, and interested in all these issues.
[Laughter.]
I was just going to say that encourages me. I know you all
have to be the radar for all the men and women that you
represent here at this table today. How do you do that? I mean,
you have your wife and she is here today, and that is one
really great example, master chief, but how do the rest of you
stay connected to all the people? I mean, you have to represent
so many different needs, and you seem so in touch, but how do
you do that?
Sergeant Major Kent. That is easy, sir. We have to get out
of the Pentagon and travel around the Marine Corps. My spouse
actually travels with me constantly, and she talks to the
spouses and families on family issues. The Commandant and his
spouse constantly travel. As a matter of fact, the Commandant
is out in California right now visiting families right now. I
will join him tomorrow out in California so we can talk to
Marines and their families, just to find out what the issues
are, sir.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, Tuesday, myself, my wife,
General Casey and Sheila Casey, were out at Fort Ladmore. We go
out there each month. It is part of a pre-command course. He
had all the new battalion brigade commanders and their spouses,
and all the command sergeant majors and their spouses, that
were out there for that course. We have a chance to go out
there, and we do a joint seminar and we do separate sessions
with them. Then, of course, with all the other travel to posts,
camps, and stations.
Master Chief Campa. Sir, I think we all operate very
similarly in going out and seeing our troops, going out and
seeing them as they operate, visiting families back in our
fleet concentration areas and our bases. I think all our
spouses play a pretty big role in keeping in touch with the
families, because the families don't hold back on what they
tell us. Often, a Sailor may be a little reluctant to bring up
an issue, but we find that when we engage with the families,
they are honest and forthright and they will let you know what
their needs are.
Mr. Wamp. Congressional families do that, too. [Laughter.]
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. We spend a lot of time on
the road throughout the whole world, whether it be in Iraq,
Afghanistan, or the Pacific or Europe, and meet with a
tremendous number of Airmen and their families on a regular
basis. In my house, I am not the Chief Master Sergeant of the
Air Force. I am just a husband and she tells me to take the
trash out and keeps me in line.
Mr. Wamp. You all are an inspiration, I tell you. I feel
good about our country sitting here listening to you and
meeting with you. It has been a great 5 hours these last 2
days. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. I will finish just a couple of points. First,
on the public-private housing partnership, we have heard over
the last several years the positive things. I am thrilled to
hear that this subcommittee, working with this administration
and the previous administration, really worked hard to change
the old way of building military family housing.
Let me just ask, though, the question: Are you hearing any
complaints about the housing itself or perhaps the maintenance
of the housing? We want to be sure that not only good houses
are being built--and I have looked at a lot of them and I have
heard wonderful comments back--but we want to be sure that the
developers have incentive financially to maintain them well.
Are any of you hearing any periodic systematic complaints that
is not just maybe a one-shot deal? Anything out there?
Sergeant Major Preston. Nothing systematic. Sir, as an
invitation to the committee, Fort Belvoir is very close, and
Fort Meade, but I would offer you the invitation to go down if
you really want to see what residential communities initiative
is all about, and really see the quality of housing out there
now that is being provided for soldiers and families. I offer
that invitation anytime you would like to come, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Sergeant Major Kent.
Sergeant Major Kent. No, sir.
Master Chief Campa. One of the greatest initiatives, as you
said, sir--no. We have with some of our partners. When we start
out with these relationships, there are things to be worked
through, but we have found that they have been very responsive,
not only in the construction phase, but in the maintaining and
being responsive to the needs of our family members.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, we are not really
getting any issues from the family members. I think
privatization is a tremendous success. We have had some issues
with some of the contractors, and we have to work through
those.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. My final question, I don't know how many
protocol toes I will step on in doing this, but Mrs. Campa, you
are an important voice for the families out there. I have found
in my trips to military installations that I have learned an
awful lot from listening to spouses. You have been kind enough
to listen to all of us speak and talk today.
Could I ask you if you wouldn't mind responding to the
question of what are the two or three most common concerns? If
you don't mind my asking, what concerns are you hearing? I
probably need you to, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. I
apologize for doing this without notice, but I have found
unscripted conversation with spouses have oftentimes been the
best conversations I have had.
And for the record, if you wouldn't mind identifying
yourself.
Mrs. Campa. I am Diana Campa, and I am the Ombudsman At
Large for the Navy.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mrs. Campa. I guess I would say what Joe would have to say
is that childcare is a big issue. I don't know about the
programs that the Army has that fund the additional costs of
going to a civilian provider, but in talking with families in
the Navy, we don't see that, and that is one of the reasons why
they will opt to not work because they can't afford the
childcare on-base.
And also our deployment cycles for the Navy. Our families
are really feeling that, with them going out longer, the surge,
coming home and not spending as much time. That is taking a
toll on our families. So that also is I believe a retention
problem for our service.
Then also the working, not being able to come into another
area. Lots of times we are not here for 3 years. Sometimes we
come in for one year, and we know we are coming in for a year
and that is a hard sell for an employer. You know, if they ask
you what brings you into the area, and I know they are not
supposed to ask, but that is also difficult for somebody to
come in and expect to get a really good job based on only being
here for a year.
Mr. Edwards. Right, right.
Mrs. Campa. But overall, I think our families are
resilient. We have a great program, our ombudsman program, that
is all over the world wherever our Navy is at, and they really
have a way of bringing the problems and addressing them at the
regional levels, and then also as we go out and travel, being
able to pick up on that in a town hall, and just sitting down
with them.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for those insights.
For families of enlisted personnel that have two or three
children, and the spouse is working, what are they doing on
childcare? How can they afford it? Or do many of them just quit
their job because they can't make enough money in the job to
just even pay for the childcare?
Mrs. Campa. Well, it is difficult. I can speak for my
family. I worked from the beginning when our kids were young,
and sometimes I had to find somebody, and sometimes I would pay
a lot more in childcare and bring home a lot less, but I knew
it was part of the progression for me to be able to get the
work experience. So we sacrificed in that way.
Sometimes we looked at shortening our hours, things like
that, and we would get creative with it. But for a lot of
parents, and also there are some military that are having
difficulty getting their children into the daycare because it
is a priority for people that are deployed for their children
to go to that daycare. So you have regular active duty that are
on lists also, and when they are single parents, it is
difficult for them also.
Mr. Edwards. Well, I hope we are going to make real
progress between the money we put in the budget for the 2008
fiscal year, and what the president has asked for in 2009, to
see real progress. I know it won't happen overnight. It will
take a while to build the facilities. I want to further look
into how we cost those out to our military families.
Thank you for your testimony.
Mrs. Campa. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. You know, listening to you speak and thinking
of your son coming here last year, I guess it is probably
better not to do this in a formal hearing. We wouldn't want to
intimidate military children, but I think it would be important
for members of our committee to sit down with some sons and
daughters and ask them what the challenges are. I mean, they
are such an important part of the sacrifice for our country.
Maybe we can talk with some of you about arranging an
opportunity to meet with some children of enlisted servicemen
and -women.
Mrs. Campa. He would have been here, but actually Hillary
Clinton was going to be at their school today. So that is where
he is.
Mr. Edwards. He had to choose between Mr. Wamp and me and a
presidential candidate. [Laughter.]
Mrs. Campa. It wasn't his turn to come, so he is educating
himself.
Mr. Edwards. Well, congratulate him. It is a great
compliment to the two of you. Your children have done so well
educationally. Thank you, Mrs. Campa, for that eloquent
testimony on no notice at all.
Mr. Wamp, I have no additional questions. I just echo what
Mr. Wamp said. It is an honor for us to just be at the same
table with each of you. Thank you for your service to the
country and for all the great families you represent so
eloquently here. Thank you very much.
We stand in recess at the call of the chair.
Thursday, February 14, 2008.

VETERANS AFFAIRS

WITNESS

JAMES PEAKE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Secretary Peake, good afternoon.
Let me welcome you to your first formal testimony before this
subcommittee. I want to congratulate you for having earned the
tremendous honor of being Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I want
to thank you, as well as your colleagues, for the lifetime of
service to our veterans and military troops and families. It is
an honor to have you here.
As we have our first hearing on the budget request for the
Department of Veterans Affairs, on a personal note, a number of
us this morning attended a very moving service for Congressman
Tom Lantos. In the program, Mr. Lantos had a quote that was
printed there, that said, ``Only in America could a penniless
survivor of the Holocaust come here, raise a family and be a
member of Congress.'' I think the tie-in to this is that today
at this hearing we are honoring those who have made ours the
kind of nation where a penniless Holocaust survivor could come
to America, could be successful in every way--personal, family
and public.
And so that, to me, is the solemness of this subcommittee's
responsibility, and your duties and your position. It is a
privilege to honor those who have made the sacrifices so we can
have the Tom Lantos's of this world truly live out the American
dream. So for those reasons, I thank you, Secretary Peake for
being here. I also want to thank Dr. Kussman, our Under
Secretary for Health, for your presence here, and Admiral
Daniel Cooper, Under Secretary for Benefits. Admiral, it is
good to see you again.
We also have the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, Mr.
William Tuerk. There you are, Mr. Secretary. We also have the
Honorable Paul Hutter, general counsel of the VA; the Honorable
Robert Henke, Assistant Secretary for Management; and then the
Honorable Robert Howard, Assistant Secretary for Information
Technology. Thank you all for being here.
I think it is also appropriate to mention that this is
National Salute the Hospitalized Veterans Week. One of the
things that I am proud of is that this committee, working
together on a bipartisan basis last year, showed our respect to
veterans not just with our words, but with our deeds as well.
It was a privilege for us to be a partner in that effort.
Last year, we were able to increase funding for veterans by
$7.8 billion. That is $5.5 billion more than was requested by
the administration. It represents the largest funding increase
in the 77-year history of the department. What does that mean
to veterans? It means increased health services. It will mean
our veterans will wait less time to receive the benefits they
have earned and the doctors' appointments they need.
It will mean that Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom veterans will be screened for PTSD and
traumatic brain injury, including the non-visible forms of TBI.
It will mean that the Department of Veterans Affairs will be
able to address a significant backlog in facilities
maintenance, and ensure that our veterans are cared for in a
safe and healthy environment.
I would like to take this opportunity to again thank our
ranking member, now Senator Wicker, for all of his leadership
in our work together last year. And again thank all the members
of this subcommittee, both Democrat and Republican alike, who
have worked on such a nonpartisan basis.
The budget request for fiscal year 2009 totals $44.7
billion in discretionary spending, and an additional $46.2
billion in mandatory spending. On the discretionary side of the
ledger, the amount requested represents an increase of $1.7
billion over the fiscal year 2008 appropriations, when you
consider the additional emergency funding that was included in
the fiscal year 2008 bill.
I want to salute the administration for requesting
significant increases in medical services accounts, but I do
have concerns about the very large cuts for VA research and VA
construction, in both minor and major construction. I do have a
number of questions. I am sure we all do. Some of those that I
have include how the VA is dealing with what we are seeing
across the country, whether it is in DOD or the private
sector--high inflation rates for construction and how that is
impacting our construction program and budgets; questions about
whatever level of confidence the department has in its
estimates in regard to the OEF/OIF population in our hospitals.
I know that is not an exact science. It is always a
difficult and challenging process to estimate; and inflation
rates for the department in other areas such as health care. Is
our budget, while going up on paper, actually allowing us to
keep up with health care inflation and continue to improve
service for our veterans?
Mr. Secretary, we very much look forward to hearing your
testimony in a moment, but at this point I would like to
recognize our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any comments that
he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I know we have a lot of
witnesses and a lot of testimony to listen to, but I just want
to say briefly, this week what I said at my first hearing last
week, and that is the highest honor and greatest privilege of
my adult life, outside of my family, is to be a part of serving
those who have served or are serving in uniform for our armed
forces.
This is an extraordinary privilege, and I do compliment the
chairman, the new majority, and this committee on the work that
was done last year on both military construction and veterans
affairs. The new baseline was established because of your
strong advocacy, Mr. Chairman, and the president acknowledged
that in the 2009 budget request. I do share your concerns with
aspects of the budget request, but do compliment both the new
majority last year for their commitment to these programs, and
the administration request for 2009. We are setting some new
standards for these programs.
I think continuing reforms at the Department of Veterans
Affairs are needed. Mr. Secretary, thank you for the courtesy
of coming by to see me, and to everyone at this dais,
particularly Under Secretary Tuerk, who has been to my district
long before he knew I would be sitting in this chair. So I
thank you for your personal attention and for what you do.
With that, let us get on with the testimony. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the courtesies all along the way.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Young, I do want to give you the opportunity as a
leader on defense and veterans issues and former chairman of
our full committee, and now ranking member of the Defense
Subcommittee, an opportunity to make any opening comments you
would care to make.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much.
I want to echo what my friend Mr. Wamp said. We appreciate
the way that you conduct this chairmanship and this
subcommittee, and your dedication to our veterans is
unchallenged. I appreciate this very much.
I have the privilege of representing one of the greatest VA
hospitals in the whole system at Bay Pines. But I appreciate
the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to say a personal welcome to
General Peake. We go back a long way, and we have talked about
a lot of things. But I just want to mention one of those
opportunities that we had to be together when our adopted
Marine son Josh was shot in Kuwait, and General Peake, as
surgeon general of the Army was one of the surgeons who saved
his life.
Shortly thereafter, after Josh had recovered--well, it
wasn't shortly thereafter. Josh was in the hospital for 6
months. I took Josh to a dedication of a Fisher House at
Landstuhl Hospital in Germany. And sure enough, General Peake
was there, and Josh was there in uniform. And I can tell you
that the emotion of that moment, when the two greeted each
other, was something that I can't really describe. It will
always be in my heart forever, General Peake. I just thank you
for that, and I thank you for your willingness to take on this
job.
As we discussed earlier, this is a massive bureaucracy, the
Department of Veterans Affairs. There are some problems. We
want to be your help. We want to be available to provide you
with whatever you need to take care of our veterans. If we
don't take care of our veterans, we haven't taken care of our
country.
So general, you know the strong personal feeling that I
have for you, and I just really appreciate you. I talked to
Josh last night and told him that I was going to see you today,
and he asked me to extend his best wishes also to you.
So Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to make
those personal comments about the general.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Young.
Secretary Peake, I was going to go through a rather lengthy
bio of your accomplishments, but I think Chairman Young's
comments are the best and most genuine introduction anyone
could ever offer you. Thank you for your 38 years of service in
the military, and now your continuing service to our country.
We are honored to have you and would like to recognize you for
your opening comments now.

Statement of Secretary James Peake

Secretary Peake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With your permission, sir, I have a written statement that
I would like to submit for the record.
Mr. Edwards. Without objection.
Secretary Peake. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp, Chairman
Young, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I am honored to
be here as the sixth Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and now
responsible for the care of our veterans. I appreciate the
opportunity that the president has given me to make a
difference.
With me today to present the 2009 budget is the VA
leadership of this department. You have already introduced
them. It is indeed a great crew. I couldn't be more pleased
with the people I have to work with, and many I have known for
a long time.
In my almost 2 months at VA, I have seen both the
compassion and the professionalism of our employees. It is
frankly just what I expected. The culture is one of deep
respect for the men and women we serve. This group at the table
and the VA at large understands that America is at war, and it
is not business as usual.
I appreciate the importance of, and I look forward to
working with this committee to build on VA's past successes,
but also to look to the future to ensure veterans continue to
receive timely accessible delivery of high-quality benefits and
services earned through their sacrifice and service, and that
we meet the needs of each segment of our veterans population.
The president's request totals nearly $93.7 billion, with
$46.4 billion for entitlement programs and $47.2 billion for
discretionary programs. The total request is $3.4 billion above
the funding level for 2008, and that funding level includes the
$3.7 billion plus-up from the emergency fund.
This budget will allow VA to address the areas critical to
our mission. That is providing timely, accessible and high-
quality health care to our highest priority veterans. We will
advance our collaborative efforts with the Department of
Defense to ensure continued provision of world-class service
and an interoperable electronic medical records system. We will
improve the timeliness and accuracy of claims processing, and
ensure the burial needs of our veterans and their eligible
family members are met, and maintain veterans cemeteries as
national shrines.
The young men and women in uniform who are returning from
Iraq and Afghanistan, and their families, represent a new
generation of veterans. Their transition and re-integration
into our civilian society when they take that uniform off is a
prime focus. Those seriously injured must be able to transition
between DOD and VA systems as they move on their journey to
recovery.
This budget funds our polytrauma centers and sustains the
network of polytrauma care that Dr. Kussman and his team have
put in place. It funds the federal recovery coordinators
envisioned by the Dole-Shalala commission report; and sustains
the ongoing case management at all levels of our system.
We know that our prosthetics support must keep pace with
the newest generation of prostheses as our wounded warriors
transition into the VA system. You will see a 10 percent
increase in our budget for this. In 2009, we expect to treat
about 333,000 OEF and OIF veterans. That is a 14 percent
increase. With the potential of rising costs per patient--and
we have seen some of that--we have budgeted a 21 percent
increase to make sure that we can cover those costs. That is
nearly $1.3 billion to meet the needs of OIF and OEF veterans
that we expect will come to the VA for medical care.
This budget will sustain our outreach activities that have
ranged from more than 800,000 letters to the 205,000
engagements that our vets center outreach personnel have made
with returning National Guard and Reserve units as part of the
post-deployment health reassessment process. VBA alone has
conducted more than 8,000 military briefings to nearly 300,000
servicemen and -women.
This is also part of seamless transition. With the
authority to provide care for 5 years now for service-related
issues, we can, without bureaucracy, offer the counseling and
support and care that might be needed to avert or mitigate
future problems. I highlight the outreach because we want these
young men and women to get those services. Mental health from
PTSD, to depression, to substance abuse are issues that I know
are of concern to you, and they are of great concern to us.
This budget proposes $3.9 billion for mental health access
across the board, a 9 percent increase from 2008. It will allow
us to sustain an access standard that says if you show up for
mental health, you will be screened within 24 hours, and within
14 days you will have a full mental health evaluation if
needed.
It will keep expanding mental health access, according to a
uniform mental health package, with trained mental health
professionals in our CBOCs. And there are 51 new CBOCs coming
on for 2009, in addition to the 64 that are coming on in 2008.
Our Vet Centers will bring on yet an additional 100 OIF/OEF
counselors, and Dr. Kussman is prepared as need is identified
to add additional Vet Centers. We appreciate the issues of
rural access in this arena, and our Vet Centers are budgeted
for 50 new vans to be able to support remote access, as well as
expanding telemental health in 25 locations.
But this budget and our mission is more than just about
those most recently returning servicemen and -women. We should
remember that 20 percent of VA patients, who in general are
older with more co-morbid conditions than our general
population, have a mental health diagnosis. In fiscal year
2007, we saw 400,000 veterans of all eras with PTSD. This
budget will sustain VA's internationally recognized network of
more than 200 specialized programs for the treatment of post-
traumatic stress disorder through our veterans medical centers
and our clinics that serve really all of our veterans.
We have a unique responsibility to serve those who have
served before. You know, we still have some World War I
veterans. One died about a week or so ago. The World War II and
Korean veterans are recipients of our geriatric care, and our
efforts in improving long-term care, noninstitutional care
where in this budget we have increased our funding by 28
percent. It will make a huge difference in their quality of
life. We have currently 32,000 people served by home telehealth
programs. This budget continues our work in this area and in
the expansion of home-based primary care.
Another facet of this complex problem is the issue of
homeless veterans. Under this budget, our grant and per diem
program continues to grow. We will have 13,000 grant and per
diem beds funded by 2009. Our work with HUD for permanent
housing vouchers continues, which we will support with case
managers. And it sustains the 11 domiciliary facilities that
have been coming online over the last 3 years, such that by
2009 we will be up to about 10,000 domiciliary beds, with
substance abuse treatment embedded with many serving otherwise
homeless veterans.
Our most recent study looking at homeless vets in
particular shows a downward trend of about 20 percent, from
195,000 on any given night, to 154,000--still too many, but
real evidence of progress. What many don't know is that we
provide a good deal of health care to homeless veterans--about
$1.6 billion in 2007--and we anticipate $1.9 billion in 2009.
Overall, the president's 2009 budget request includes a
total of $41.2 billion for VA medical care, an increase of $2.3
billion over the 2008 level, and more than twice the funding
available at the beginning of the Bush administration. With it,
we will provide quality care, improve access, and expand
special services to the 5,771,000 patients we expect to treat
in 2009. That is a 1.6 percent increase above our current 2008
estimates.
In April of 2006, there were over 250,000 unique patients
waiting more than 30 days for their desired appointment dates.
That is not acceptable. As of January 1, 2008, we had reduced
the waiting list to just over 69,000--still not where we want
to be. Our budget request for 2009 provides the resources to
virtually eliminate the waiting list by the end of next year.
Information technology cross-cuts this entire department,
and this budget provides more than $2.4 billion for this vital
function. That is 19 percent above our 2008 level. It reflects
the realignment of all IT operations and functions under the
management control of our chief information officer. A
majority--or $261 million of the increase in IT--will support
VA's medical care program, particularly VA's electronic health
record.
I emphasize it here because it is so central to the care we
provide, touted in such publications as the book, ``Best Care
Anywhere,'' as the key to our quality that is lauded worldwide.
This IT budget also includes all the infrastructure support,
such as hardware and software and communications systems, to
include those 51 new CBOCs that I mentioned. There is $93
million for cybersecurity, continuing us on the road to being
the gold standard.
IT will also be key as we begin to move our claims model
down the road to a paperless process. It is an investment that
we must make. This budget sustains the work in VETSNET that is
giving us management data to get after our claims issues, as
well as supporting our Virtual VA, our electronic data
repository.
In addition to IT, this budget sustains a 2-year effort to
hire and train 3,100 new staff to achieve a 145-day goal for
processing compensation and pension claims in 2009. This is a
38-day improvement from 2007 and 24-day, or 14 percent
reduction from what we expect this year.
This is important because the volume of claims received is
projected to reach 872,000 in 2009. That is a 51 percent
increase since 2000. The Active Reserve and National Guard
returning from OEF/OIF have contributed to an increased number
of new claims, but also bring with them an increased number of
issues per claim. This chart shows that, with the top line
being issues per claim, each one of which has to be adjudicated
separately and rated, while the claims you can see growing. I
think it is remarkable that Admiral Cooper has been able to
keep that average days to complete relatively constant, even in
the face of that extensive growth. We want to do better than
what we are doing.
The president's 2009 budget includes seven legislative
proposals totaling $42 million. One of these proposals expands
legislative authority to cover payment for special residential
care and rehabilitation in medical foster homes for OIF/OEF
veterans with TBI. We again bring a request for enrollment fees
for those who can afford to pay, and for a raise of the copays.
Again, this does not affect our VA budget, just as last year,
as the funds will return to the treasury. That is $5.2 billion
over about 10 years. It does reflect the matter of equity for
those veterans who have spent a full career of service, and
under TRICARE do pay an annual enrollment fee for light care.
The $442 million to support VA's medical and prosthetic
research program--the lesson we have had from the augmented
2008 budget is actually a little more than 7 percent above what
we received in 2006 and what we asked for in 2007 and 2008. It
does contain $252 million devoted to research projects, focused
particularly on veterans returning from service in Afghanistan
and Iraq, including projects in TBI and polytrauma, spinal cord
injury, prosthetics, burn injury, pain, and post-deployment
mental health. In fact, we anticipate with Federal and other
grants a full research portfolio of about $1.85 billion.
This budget request includes just over $1 billion in
capital funding for VA, with resources to continue give medical
facility projects already underway in Denver, Orlando, Lee
County, Florida, San Juan and St. Louis, and to begin three new
medical facility projects at Bay Pines, Tampa and Palo Alto,
two of which relate to our polytrauma rehab centers and
continue our priority in this specialized area of excellence.
Finally, we will perform 111,000 interments in 2009. That
is 11 percent more than in 2007. The $181 million in this
budget for the National Cemetery Administration is 71 percent
above the resources available to the department's burial
program when the president took office. These resources will
operationalize the six new national cemeteries that will open
this year, providing a VA burial option to nearly one million
previously unserved veteran families, and will maintain our
cemeteries as national shrines that will again earn the highest
marks in government or private sector for customer
satisfaction.
This budget of nearly $93.7 billion, nearly double from 7
years ago, and with a health care component more than twice
what it was 7 years ago, will allow us to make great progress
in the care of all of our veterans, and will keep us on this
quality journey in health, in management of an extraordinary
benefit, and in ensuring excellence of our final tribute to
those who shall have borne the battle.
Sir, it is an honor to be with you, and I look forward to
your questions.
[Prepared statement of Secretary James Peake follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.081

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your excellent
opening statement.
Mr. Wamp, let me ask you, we have 4 minutes and 37 seconds
on the vital vote on whether or not we are going to adjourn, on
the floor of the House. I can miss that vote, but I don't want
to ask any others to miss it. Would you want to go vote, and I
can ask my questions while you are gone? Or do you want to
continue on? How would you like to proceed?
Mr. Wamp. I am concerned that this vote is going to be
followed by other votes on the floor, and I think that I need
to go.
Mr. Edwards. Maybe what we could do is we could do a tag-
team here. Some members have gone to vote. I will go ahead and
go through my initial questions while you are voting. And then
if it turns out they are not having additional votes, then come
back and maybe you could begin while I am gone. Would that be
fair?
I am a little bit concerned because we are having a series
of procedural votes today. Also because of Mr. Lantos's
funeral, we already cut the time for this hearing in half, so I
am a little worried. If you don't object to that, we would
proceed ahead.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Young will stay and I will vote, and that way
we are covered. Thank you.

IMPLEMENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Secretary, let me just begin by asking
you, there were legitimate concerns about the fact that given
that the VA received so much additional funding last year for
both supplemental as well as the 2008 budget year, and the fact
that those dollars did not come initially on October 1, the
beginning of the new fiscal year, that the VA might have a
difficult time putting in place a plan to spend that money
efficiently and effectively. Could you just make some
observations about how you feel in terms of the VA's plans for
implementing the budget that we passed and the president signed
recently? Do you feel comfortable in how you have those
resources allocated? Do you think there could be sooner, rather
than in the last quarter of the year, a request for a transfer
of funds in order to allow you to use that money most
efficiently.
Secretary Peake. Yes, sir. I think that we will be coming
forward to talk about shifting some of that money around a
little bit to make sure that we can use it most effectively. I
do think that we have a good plan in place to be able to
execute that, in what I have been able to see so far. Some of
it is going to be things that don't require an ongoing
sustainment. They are sort of one-timers as well. I think we
can get those executed.
But I think that we also have in this budget the ability to
sustain the things that will have an out-year tail to them.
Mr. Edwards. In regard to transfers, let me just say that
this subcommittee would want to do careful due diligence in
reviewing those requests from the VA to be sure they reflect
the priorities that the Congress has set in its budget. At the
same time, I would urge you to not have the department wait
until the second or third week of August to ask for that
transfer of funding.
We understand you have a great deal of new funding and you
got it late in the process. So given that process wasn't
perfect, we know there may be some adjustments. The bottom line
to us is that those adjustments be made whenever it can best
help the most number of veterans.
Secretary Peake. We will not be waiting until August. We
will up here soon.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Great.
Mr. Young.

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
General, when the casualties began coming home from Iraq
and Afghanistan, the military hospitals were pretty much
overwhelmed. I remember seeing hospital beds in the hallways.
But what happened was, that great influx of wounded heroes
eventually came to the VA system. And all of a sudden, you were
pretty much overwhelmed at a lot of places, especially your
polytrauma centers.
A lot of these young men and women swore to me, to others,
that we don't have any kind of a post-traumatic stress problem
at all. I think they were wrong. I think they are going to find
out, and I think that the VA system is learning now that they
might have felt that way when they came from Walter Reed or
Bethesda, but as time went on they did develop the problems.
Now, my question has to do with, do you have enough
personnel in the VA system to deal with post-traumatic stress
disorders? Are you able to give your patients sufficient time
with a psychologist or a psychiatrist? Or do you need more
psychologists and psychiatrists? And the answer is probably
yes, because I know that time has been rationed for some of
these cases.
What do you need? What can we do? What can this Congress do
to help you help our veterans by providing them the appropriate
care for their post-traumatic stress situations?
Secretary Peake. Well, sir, first let me comment about the
great assistance we have had from the Congress in a couple of
ways. One is giving us the money to move forward with the
mental health strategic plan that Dr. Kussman put in place back
in 2004, that started laying out the groundwork for what we
needed to start to grow. We have better than 10,000 in the VA
in terms of mental health professionals. If you look at all of
the people that we have working in the mental health arena, it
approaches 17,000, focused just on mental health.
Part of the issue is being able to hire people in different
places. Rural America has a challenge, and that is why I was
pleased to find the fact that we are already budgeting 24 new
telemental health access points. I think we did 43,000 mental
health telemedicine consults last year, or something like that.
So there are challenges to being able to find the psychologists
and the psychiatrists where you need them.
The ability to pay more and pay closer to going rates that
has been authorized has, as I understand it, made a difference.
So we are seeing less attrition of some of those folks than
what we have seen in the past. But there is no question that it
is a sub-segment of really a national issue of having enough
mental health workers across this country.
Mr. Young. General, I know that the American Red Cross has
a program of working with medical doctors, surgeons, to
volunteer their time in military hospitals. I have met a number
of these doctors who are there gratis under the sponsorship of
the Red Cross. Do you have a similar program in the VA system?
Secretary Peake. Sir, let me ask Dr. Kussman, because I
actually don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Kussman. People can volunteer as Red Cross volunteers
in the same manner that you just described, to provide
services. So on a case-by-case basis, we will take advantage of
that.
Mr. Young. Does that include psychologists and
psychiatrists?
Mr. Kussman. Yes, sir, I believe that is true.
Mr. Young. Well, let me go back to my question. Do we need
to do anything? Do we need to do anything to help you fill this
need?
Secretary Peake. Sir, I don't have a good answer of a
specific requirement. I think right now we have budgeted the
money. Part of the issue of PTSD I think is breaking down the
stigma. We are working on that with our Vet Centers. We are
going to expand that. By bringing in OIF/OEF people to work in
our Vet Centers, it starts to give the younger servicemember a
chance to identify with somebody that is really of their own
age group and their own experience set.
The other thing that I want to be able to do is more in the
way of outreach and try to get folks in. The opportunity to be
able to have access to our system for 5 years after returning
from overseas I think is a tremendous opportunity for us to be
able to get somebody in to try and avert the potential for
problems down the road. We are working with the post-deployment
health reassessment, so we have to really link in with the
military because that is really our feeder organization, if you
will.
Mike, did you have a comment?
Mr. Kussman. Yes, sir.
As the secretary said, we are aggressively hiring people.
We have been quite successful in that. We have hired, in the
last 2 years, 3,800 new mental health people, including social
workers, psychiatrists and psychologists. One of the issues of
the stigma of mental health is that people don't want to come,
or they don't want to come to a mental health clinic.
So what we have initiated is a very thorough and aggressive
program of integrating mental health into primary care, where
the individual might be more comfortable going to a primary
care clinic for a backache or a knee ache, but really the real
reason they need to come is for their mental health. That has
been very successful as well. So there are a lot of initiatives
to try to break down the barriers.
Mr. Young. Well, I really appreciate what you just said,
doctor. The week before last, Beverly and I visited the wounded
warrior battalion, the Marine battalion at Camp Pendleton. We
had an opportunity to visit with some of the Marines who were
there rehabilitating that we had actually been with when they
were at Bethesda when they first came from the war zone.
I remember that when they left Bethesda, they were
determined--``I don't have any mental or emotional problems.''
But a couple years later, being there at Camp Pendleton in the
wounded warrior battalion, they finally admitted that, ``Yes, I
do need help.'' These young guys are going to be coming to you
very shortly, and your system, so I do worry. I do want to do
anything that we can to make sure that when they get to your
system that they are taken care of, because I think it is going
to be a more serious requirement even than we recognize today.
Thank you very much for what you do. I just appreciate the
chance to see you again, and thank you for all of your service
to the Army and to the Department of Veterans Affairs and our
heroes. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Peake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Before we recognize Mr. Farr for his
questions, one other person I would like to take the privilege
of introducing is not at the front table, but who has been a
tremendous leader for the VA, and that is Deputy Secretary
Gordon Mansfield. Secretary Mansfield, I want to especially
thank you for taking over the reins as acting secretary of the
VA during a very important time when we were discussing large
increases in the VA budget. That was a challenging process, and
thank you for your leadership in that role and for your
continuing leadership as deputy secretary. We are honored to
have you here today. Thank you.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin this year's appropriation hearing,
and especially thank you for upgrading the room that we are in.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Don't get used to it. [Laughter.]

BURIAL NEEDS FOR VETERANS

Mr. Farr. Mr. Secretary, as I read the budget, I see that
the president has again cut the VA construction budget to half
of what was appropriated in fiscal year 2008. I am sure you are
aware that California has the longest list of potential major
construction projects. If you add them up, they exceed the
total proposed for the budget in all VA construction.
So as a concerned Californian, particularly one that has
been trying to really reach out to this expanded veteran
community in the greater Monterey Bay area, I am wondering if
you are aware of a major construction project in the out-years
at the former Fort Ord which would serve as a community-based
outreach, and if you would pledge to make sure that in those
out-years planning, in the FYDP-type things, that there is
adequate funding for this project at Fort Ord for the VA-DOD
joint clinic there.
Secretary Peake. Well, sir, I don't know the specifics of
that clinic, or where it is in the out-years, but I am a
proponent of DOD-VA sharing. I have been to that clinic on
Monterey before, so I know that area. I have also walked the
grounds of the old Fort Ord, so I am familiar with the area and
the environment. I would certainly look to making sure that we
can serve our veterans in the most effective and efficient way
possible there.
Mr. Farr. Well, if you walked it, that is incredible,
because it is 40 square miles, but I think you are aware that
it is the largest military base ever closed in a BRAC round,
and there is certainly a lot of opportunity. The land is still
in federal ownership, to use it for VA efforts.
Part of that land has been set aside and designated as a
cemetery. Mr. Tuerk has been out there for a wonderful meeting
out there with everybody, and he certainly recognizes the value
and the importance of it. I was just wondering, given your
mention of the critical importance of burial needs for our
vets, and the fact that there is a density threshold now--this
170,000 veterans--and you do it by these 70-mile radii--that
there is consideration of lowering that density threshold.
Secretary Peake. Well, sir, as of this year I think we are
going to be at about 84 percent. Our objective is to get to 90
percent, and then I think when we hit that strategic objective,
we start to look at how do we expand it and offer burial
services to even a wider group of underserved veterans.
Mr. Farr. Well, what we are talking about is how do you
reach out to those rural areas. I am very critical of the fact
that in California, if you went up the central valley, and if
you draw a 70-mile radius, you go from Nevada to the Pacific
Ocean, except that very few people live in the central valley.
They all live along the coast, and we don't have any burial
sites along the coast. Fort Ord is a place where we are putting
together a private-public partnership to have a state grant. I
don't need to consume the committee's time on that.
The other issue, and I just want you to be aware of it
because I am working on it, I am really intrigued by the fact
that in your former position as Army surgeon general you have
the unique skill-set of being in both DoD and now VA--if you
are going to be able to break down the stovepipes that exist
between those two agencies, particularly as it comes for VA
health care. I wondered what changes you would make in how DOD
deals with the VA or vice-versa. Have you got any ideas yet on
how to break down some of those stovepipes?
Secretary Peake. Well, sir, I think the chairman
acknowledged Secretary Mansfield. He has been working
essentially a weekly meeting or twice a week meetings with DOD.
I think there has been a lot of progress in this area. I think
there is more to be made. I think we need to work our IT
systems, and in March I am expecting to see the study come back
to talk about our way ahead in terms of our combined IT
systems.
If you go out to North Chicago, and I haven't been there
yet, but I am going, where we are looking at a federal shared
facility between VA, co-managed VA and DOD. There are a number
of places around the country where that just makes eminent
sense, and we need to really work through that North Chicago as
a pilot to understand the issues. And there may be some
legislative support that we need--I am not sure exactly yet--to
be able to enable that kind of a cooperative effort.
But I think there are great opportunities for us to move
forward. I have met with the secretary of the Air Force just
recently within the last 2 days, and I signed a joint agreement
with the secretary of the Army. So I think we can move forward.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. I am pleased to hear that. I look
forward to working with you. That clinic at Fort Ord is just
that. We still have about 7,000 uniformed personnel now at the
Defense Language Institute at the Naval Postgraduate School and
some of the other military footprints there. And we are trying
to joint locate with the RCI, the residential community, so
that essentially the families of soldiers and the veterans can
share in facilities. I think we get a much bigger bang for the
buck, so I appreciate your leadership on that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will have a few more
questions in the second round.
Mr. Edwards. Okay, thank you, Mr. Farr.
Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
General Peake, we are glad you are there. We know you are a
man of great skill and integrity, and yet this is a challenging
job. I don't know why, but for some reason over the years we
have never done quite as well by the VA as I think we should
have. That last year was changed by Chairman Edwards to say,
hey, we have to do better.
For some reason, we have underfunded this area. I am very
pleased about last year's budget and this year's budget. But I
am concerned about two things. In the out-years after 2009--and
I can understand, and I am not blaming you for this. I want to
blame OMB. Let me blame OMB, okay? We see that over the next 5
years, there is going to be--it is $20 billion below the levels
needed to maintain what the VA is doing today. Is that correct?
You are below current services?
Secretary Peake. Sir, I have looked at that. My
understanding is that that is a calculated placeholder by OMB.
The way we will build our 2010 budget is based on our forecast.
Mr. Dicks. What you think is really necessary?
Secretary Peake. Yes, sir. And I think we are getting
better at forecasting. It is one of the things that we have
been asked about in the past. When I have looked at the data, I
think we are getting better at being able to tell you what we
are going to be asked to do in terms of work, and there be able
to appropriately budget.

AMERICAN LAKE, WASHINGTON

Mr. Dicks. Now, Mr. Farr brought up the construction
funding. I think the need was $1.1 billion, Mr. Chairman, for
this year, but the request is reduced to $587 million. Now, we
have concerns in the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Farr is concerned
about California, and rightfully so. We have concerns in the
Pacific Northwest where we have seismic issues on some of our
facilities, particularly at American Lake. For the record, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to submit two or three questions about
local projects so I don't take the time of the committee.
Mr. Edwards. Without objection.

TRANSITION TO VA

Mr. Dicks. These are of concern. But we have some seismic
issues, and we are worried that if this thing gets delayed even
further, at American Lake and at Seattle, we could have a big
event out there, which we have had in the past. So I hope you
can take a look at those things.
The one thing that really bothered me in this whole
discussion last year about Walter Reed and the VA is this
transition. We were just talking about this. But it is so
important to try to work out a way to make that transition. I
think the Army has the most difficulty here. It is amazing to
me how in the Army, the level of benefits is at one level, and
then the Navy and the Air Force are up here. And the VA is up
here, in terms of what these kids finally get.
But the Army has low-balled this, and they can't get away
with this anymore. But that transition from the Army wounded
warrior units now, over to the VA, when they decide. They go
through this process. They decide that he can no longer serve
in the Army. There is not a place for him, and then he goes
into the VA system. How is that working? I know that is where
we added a lot of people to try to get that under control.
Can you tell us how you think that is working?
Secretary Peake. Sir, first of all, there is a pilot
program that started on November 27, where those wounded
warriors going through the physical evaluation board, the
medical evaluation board to have their fitness for duty
determined will have their fitness for duty determined by the
military. However, all of their medical exams for rating
purposes will include not only the unfitting condition, but any
potentially claimable condition.
We will do that evaluation, and then Admiral Cooper has
centralized the rating for that down at St. Petersburg, so they
will get a consistent rating.
Mr. Dicks. Is this just the VA? Or is this the Army as
well? I mean, is there a way to have one evaluation?
Secretary Peake. That is the point. That is what this is.
Mr. Dicks. Okay.
Secretary Peake. The VA does the physical evaluation and
the rating. The military just takes the evidence and says you
are unfit or you are fit for military duty. If they are unfit
for military duty, that particular unfitting condition, the
rating that Admiral Cooper's people have done, will determine
whether they have a severance or whether they get medically
retired.
So it is out of the hands of the military. It is one
consistent rating with one medical examination process. So that
is the pilot.
Mr. Dicks. In the old days it was two. You would go through
the Army process, and if you were let go, then you would go
over to VA and they would start over.
Secretary Peake. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. So we are trying to put that together?
Secretary Peake. Absolutely, in this pilot.
The other thing that we have done, really, is with the BDD
program, the benefits delivery discharge program that has been
going on for some time, but has only really picked up steam
with the OIF/OEF experience, is that when a soldier, not
necessarily being medically retired, but says ``I am getting
out of the service, and I have some potentially claimable
conditions, things that I want to get evaluated,'' then they
can see a VA counselor 180 days before they leave the service.
The VA counselor right there at the post, camp or station--
we do it in 153 different locations--that VA counselor can
start working that claim, get the physical examination done,
get them into a fast-track rating system, which we are doing.
And by the way, those are two of our paperless evaluation
pilots.
So that by the time the soldier gets home, we are shooting
for 60, where I think our time has been about 85 days. But they
get a check right away, as opposed to when they finally go home
and then start to try to pull all the stuff together, all their
paperwork, and then get adjudicated, where that can really
stretch out. So I think we are making some progress.
Mr. Dicks. And one final thing. I know that community-based
outpatient clinics are sometimes criticized at OMB again. But I
think these things really work. We have a situation in the
State of Washington where we have the entire Olympic peninsula,
and a veteran at Neah Bay would have to get up at 2 a.m. in the
morning to get to Port Angeles for the 4 a.m. departure to go
all the way into Seattle.
We just got started out there, and I appreciate the VA's
work on this, where the VA works out of the hospital in Port
Angeles and the Coast Guard clinic. This program is working
very well. People really appreciate that. However, I think a
full clinic would be better, and I put a bill in to authorize
it and fund it. But to me, and we have had accidents on the
roads out there, you get dangerous winter conditions on the
roads. I think these situations for remote areas should still
be a valid consideration. I know it has to cost less than
sending people to Seattle.
Secretary Peake. Sir, we agree with you.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
There is some question right now on whether there is a
quorum being maintained on the floor. Staff is checking to see
whether some of us might need to go over to the floor for that
quorum, but in the meantime we will continue on until we get a
clear message.
Mr. Wamp, with my personal apologies for the inconveniences
caused you by this process between the committee and the floor,
I am privileged to recognize you for whatever time you would
like to take for your questions.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are a class act, and
don't you apologize to me. But to you seven, we all apologize.
We don't even really know what the rest of the afternoon is
going to be like, but thank you very much for your time and
your patience. Please remember, too, when I began, that I am as
green to this subcommittee as this carpet.

CARES

This is new, so when I start in a parochial example, in
that context, please understand I am not parochial, and I will
try not to be. Everybody that represents a district for 14
years has a lot of parochial interests. But I am going to use
this example as part of a bigger picture, just to start on the
front of reforms that I mentioned in my opening statement.
Mr. Secretary, I am interested in CARES and some of the
recommended changes with the CBOCs and with areas of service
that are not fully and accessible. Mr. Dicks just talked about
an example of travel. In my backyard, we have a very strong
outpatient clinic, a CBOC that has been expanded--and is
servicing a whole lot of veterans in 18 counties. It has been
listed as one of the top five areas that doesn't have a
hospital, but has a very strong outpatient clinic.
In CARES, they recommended a couple of new CBOCs in that
service area by 2012, but then I am looking at the 5-year plan
and they are not there. So I just wonder how the reforms of
CARES are going nationally in terms of trying to meet some of
the goals that you have, and then I will follow up with another
question you and I talked about in my office.
Secretary Peake. Yes, sir. Regarding CBOCs and CARES, I
think there were 156 new CBOCs that were part of the CARES
process. We add the 64 that are going in, the 51 that are
coming up in 2009. My understanding is that of that 56, there
are 24 that have been decided, really because of changing
demographics or whatever, are not needed. That would still
leave 10 after 2009. I honestly don't know if that is yours or
not, but we would certainly be willing to work through that.
Mr. Wamp. Well, in a technical question, do the
construction budget reductions affect even meeting the needs of
these 10 or others?
Secretary Peake. Sir, the CBOCs are generally not major
construction. In many cases, we are leasing, which I think is a
smart thing to be able to do, because then you can shift as the
population needs shift and change. And we have actually seen
some of that. So it isn't necessarily tied.
Now, there are CBOCs that we have built. In those cases, if
it is under $10 million, then it is minor construction. If it
is over $10 million, it needs to be authorized as major
construction.
Mr. Wamp. Because I am under my 5 minutes, I may come back
to that later, if the time allows, and they go vote or
whatever, because I have other questions about the construction
piece of it.

MENTAL HEALTH AND TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

Let me jump back to mental health for a minute, because we
have talked about this as well. There is a connection, everyone
understands, between the mental health aspects of veterans care
and the homeless population, which is in decline. And there are
a whole lot of misperceptions about how many homeless people
that are veterans are out there without benefits.
But it is true, isn't it, that the benefits actually are
there for these veterans, and in most cases if the veteran
would take advantage of the benefits, or if they might need
medication to take care of any mental health issue that they
have, they would then be in the capacity to go and seek the
treatment. Whereas, we end up with quite a few in our homeless
veteran population that are either not on their medication, are
incapable, or not coherent enough to come in and get the care
that is available under these kind of numbers. Correct?
Secretary Peake. Sir, you are absolutely right. I will tell
you that we have had a push to get the homeless to be able to
access their benefits. Admiral Cooper, if you have the numbers?
I was talking to Pete Dougherty, our homeless director, and he
talked about 17,000 homeless recently that were able to access
their benefits.
I will tell you also, when I was out at the homeless
standdown at the VA medical center in Washington, D.C., I spent
some time talking to our outreach person who goes under the
bridges here in Washington, D.C. to try to identify homeless
veterans and encourage them, pull them into the system, into
the shelters and into the health care system. I think we got 34
folks to sign up into our electronic health record, that are
homeless people that can access these things.
As I believe I mentioned in my opening comments, in 2007 we
spent about $1.6 billion on health care for homeless veterans.
Even though it is going down, it is still too many, but we are
really aggressive in our programs and we will continue to be.
Mr. Wamp. I know the chairman is concerned about the
research piece of this, and I haven't even studied the research
flow well enough to understand all the aspects of how it might
be used, but one thing that you and I talked about is this head
trauma issue coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan--particularly
Iraq right now--and the long-term consequences of that.
Are we spending enough? Does this committee need to try to
do more for the research today to determine w we need to be 4,
5, or 6 years from now based on head trauma and long-term
problems from stroke to clots in the brain--all the aftermath
of this kind of IED damage to not just the troops that are hit,
but the troops that are close to the troops that are hit.
Secretary Peake. Well, you know, our four polytrauma
centers really started out as traumatic brain injury centers.
That was their focus. Of the 487 patients that have come to our
polytrauma centers from the active duty side, 460 of them
really had predominantly traumatic brain injuries.
So I guess my point is that we have a longstanding and
aggressive interest in this issue. Further, we are working very
closely with DOD because obviously we share a common interest
there. You may have perhaps met General-select Laurie Sutton,
who is going to be heading that. We are going to provide a
deputy to her to make sure that we can continue to integrate
our efforts in PTSD and TBI.
There are about $252 million of our research budget that is
focused on these OIF/OEF issues, to include TBI and MPTSD, and
really that is something where we are looking for the overlap
there. So we have I think in mental health across the board
extra-mural funding, which was about $100 million. So we do
have a very strong interest in it.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, why don't I yield back.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.

BUDGET PROJECTIONS

Mr. Secretary, back in 2005 and over a period of several
years, one of the challenges we faced was that even though on a
bar graph the funding each year for the VA discretionary
budget, and particularly VA medical care, was going up, it was
not going up as quickly as the increasing number of veterans
needing health care, added to the medical inflation numbers
which I guess traditionally had been 200 percent higher than
the CPI.
And I know the VA has worked very hard on its modeling, and
again it is not an exact science. It is an art and a science
and economics. But could you tell me how comfortable you are
with the projections? What assumptions did you make in the 2009
budget in terms of the increasing number of veterans needing
health care, outpatient, in-patient? How comfortable are you
with those projections, within a certain parameter? And what
inflation numbers did you use, both for medical care and for
construction?
Secretary Peake. Sir, I can talk to the medical care
projection.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Secretary Peake. If we could put that graph up. I know we
have had a history where our projections have been questioned,
and maybe for good reason. So what this shows is the variance
from the original estimate for each year, going back to 2001.
What you see is, as we have come to 2005, 2006, and 2007, we
are within 1 percent of what was estimated.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.084

I asked the question, because I wanted to be comfortable
when I came to you, that we had decent projections. This looks
to me like it is. You know, most of this is from Millman, which
is probably the best medical actuary available. They understand
us and they know us. So they have been involved with doing
these projections.
There are 12 percent or so that is outside of the Millman
projection, but this number includes even that 12 percent that
is outside. So we have been accurate even with those that have
to be taken off-model. So in terms of being able to come to you
and say I think we have some confidence in where we are going
in terms of our projections, this gives me some confidence.
The other point I would make is that even within that now,
the 333,000 OEF/OIF, you know, we have put some Kentucky
windage in there because we want to make sure that we don't
underestimate there. So we think we have 14 percent growth, and
we have budgeted 21 percent in terms of the cost, because we
want to make sure if something develops we are ready to do it.
I think we are--again, if you have that other graph--we
have confidence that we are going to not come in over the OEF/
OIF folks. Looking back now, you know, back in 2005 and 2006,
my understanding is we may have missed it because we really
didn't take it into account. But I think that we have the data
to really support what we are doing.
Mr. Edwards. What about the medical inflation factor? Is
that something that the VA must follow OMB dictates? Or are you
given the flexibility to estimate medical inflation? If so,
what factor did you use for that?
Secretary Peake. Sir, my understanding is the number is
4.63 percent medical inflation. As you know, we are 5.9 percent
more than really the augmented funding that you all gave us
last year. So even if you say that 4.63 percent of that is
going to be taken up by inflation, we are still a couple of
percentage points above that for new initiatives and so forth.
Mr. Edwards. For medical care?
Secretary Peake. Yes, sir, for medical care.
Mr. Edwards. Right. Okay. So 4.63 percent--do we know what
the private health care sector uses?
Secretary Peake. Sir, that is the national----
Mr. Edwards. That is the national health care inflation
factor?
Secretary Peake. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Who sets that? Does anyone know? Dr.
Kussman, would you know who sets the national health care
inflation factor? Is that an independent private group?
Mr. Kussman. I am sorry. I don't know what company, but I
think it is from----
Secretary Peake. You know, my experience in the Army is
that we would look for Millman. They do it for lots of people
and they will tell you that they measure it.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Could I ask you about the inflation
factor for construction? We are seeing it in highway
construction, military construction--in some parts of the
country inflation is as significant as 15 percent. At least on
the MILCON side of our subcommittee's responsibility, we
learned a couple of years ago that the OMB magically dictated
that military construction inflation would be 2.4 percent per
year. It doesn't pass the smile test or the laugh test.

CONSTRUCTION INFLATION

Can you tell me what kind of a factor you are using for
your construction inflation?
Secretary Peake. Sir, I don't have that information.
Perhaps somebody at the table does. I will tell you that we are
concerned about the cost of cement, the cost of steel, and the
cost in the competition with people that actually can do the
labor. For us, it says wait a minute. Where--in the future, are
we going to be running into billion-dollar hospitals, and who
can afford them?
So going back to Mr. Wamp's point and Congressman Dicks's
point, this issue of maybe looking at how do we leverage these
CBOCs in a different model is going to be important as we look
our way forward.
Mr. Rogers. Does OMB require you to use a certain inflation
factor for construction?
Mr. Henke. No, sir, not that I am aware of. We have a
number of different commercial indices that range between 23
percent and 37 percent in 2003 to 2007.
Secretary Peake. I am just informed that we do market
surveys of the local areas and we use a locality factor as we
project our requirements.
Mr. Rogers. Have your estimates for your major construction
projects, such as in Las Vegas and around the country, are
those updated in the 2009 budget using the best estimates? Or
are we going to have to make some adjustments upwards on those
projects because of inflation?
Mr. Kussman. Mr. Neary, who works with our Office of
Construction, says that for Las Vegas we used the latest
information, which was in 2008.
Mr. Neary. Las Vegas was funded in the 2008 budget, and we
used the best information we had from a current market survey
at the time, recognizing that when we come into a budget, we
are some time away from a contract award.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Maybe what I would ask you is just that
if you would monitor that. It is not the VA's fault that
construction costs are going up significantly all across the
country. As we need to make adjustments as to what the real
costs are, it would be nice to plan ahead. Perhaps we need to
build-in for some of that before we pass the 2009 budget
through this subcommittee. Maybe that would be helpful and we
could work together on that.
Mr. Farr, we have 7 minutes and 52 seconds, would you like
to take several minutes to ask questions before we go? And then
I am going to turn it over to Mr. Wamp to take whatever time.
Would this vote be the vote that you don't need to answer?
Ms. Granger can then take whatever time she wants.
Go ahead, Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
I bet they will love having us out of the room. [Laughter.]

PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

My brother-in-law is disabled, and he has really worked
hard. I really wanted to thank you for your support. We finally
got DOD to admit, one, that there are golf carts on courses
that have to meet ADA standard, and therefore have to buy the
specialty carts. I think that is going to be great for vets all
over the country, particularly those that have spinal cord
injury.
I don't know if it was last fall, DARPA had a demonstration
downstairs in this building. What they are doing is remarkable
research on prosthetics. I just wondered, I mean with your
medical background, is VA doing anything to leverage the
prosthetic research? We found that it is not a big private
sector research area because there is not a big market.
It is very expensive research, labor intensive, and there
is certainly not a market big enough to support that. So it has
to be subsidized research. I wonder if you have leveraged that
with other federal agencies, DARPA and VA and others who might
be involved to provide our wounded warriors with the latest
advances in the DARPA research, and whatever research you are
able to do also.
Secretary Peake. Well, DARPA has its own funding. I have
been involved with DARPA for a number of years in terms of
their medical research. I know that they are into the
myoelectric arms and the biofeedback mechanisms. I haven't seen
their most recent stuff, but the collaboration between DARPA
and DOD and the VA I think is----
Mr. Farr. So when new technology comes out, it is very
expensive. I think an arm was about $30,000. Is there an
outreach to vets? I don't know enough about production and all
of that, whether you call them in to get the training or things
like that, on a prosthesis?
Secretary Peake. It goes a little bit to what I was saying
before about meeting the different needs of different veterans.
I had something to do with the amputee center getting started
out there at Walter Reed, because what I wanted was these young
kids that really should be treated like world-class athletes--
they have their whole life ahead of them--to have every
advantage that could go on.
The VA's history then was more of taking care of the
diabetic amputee that is older--my age and older. That is a
different requirement set. So where I see us now is the fact
that we are merging that continuum of care, and we are
leveraging contract support to make sure that our VA has
everything that we need to be able to support these new
myoelectric arms and all of the new computerized legs and so
forth.
I would also point out that a lot of people think that
there are thousands and thousands of these major amputees.
There are about 701 at the last count of major amputees. So we
can take care of them, and we can customize what we need to do
for any one of them.
Mr. Farr. That center you created, I visited it. It is
fantastic. That is where I got the idea, because you are
training people on golf as an indoor rehab, but when they went
out to the courses, they couldn't get on them.
Secretary Peake. You ought to come to our winter games and
you will see these young men and women out there skiing.
Mr. Farr. So the question I think goes back to whether
there were any resources to bring these vets back, money to fly
you back to Washington to outfit you. And I thought that is
just a dumb-dumb--that we couldn't pay for a plane ticket?
Secretary Peake. I couldn't agree with you more. I think
that we have had some bureaucratic pieces there that we can
overcome, given the numbers that we are talking about. Dr.
Kussman is already addressing those on a one-by-one basis, but
we can do a better job of making sure that people are enabled
to do the right thing.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. I like that answer. Thank you very
much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
We now have 2 minutes and 49 seconds, so we are going to go
vote. Mr. Wamp waited 12 years to get this gavel, so if you
will promise to give it back, I will proudly give it to you and
recognize you for continuation. [Laughter.]
Mr. Wamp. I won't even touch it, Mr. Chairman. It will be
sitting right here when you get back. [Laughter.]
Secretary Peake, let me just say anecdotally before I ask a
brief question, and maybe move down the line here while the
chairman is gone, you have been on the job for 6 weeks. I mean,
I don't know of anybody with a life experience more well-suited
for your position. However the president talked you into doing
this, I just want to thank you for accepting this service.
You sit here as if you have been in this job for years,
because of your life experience. It really is impressive. It is
nice every now and then in this city to see a round peg in a
round hole, instead of a square peg in a round hole, which you
see often.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Back to the construction and the reforms, because I think
in many ways this is at the heart of where we need to go. As I
said to you, I was not as concerned about the president's
budget request on construction as I was research, because I
have somewhat of a built-in thought that veterans need as many
options as they can possibly have on how to receive their
health care, and the notion that it has to be inside of a
veteran's ``box'' to me is like a 20th century mindset and we
are in the 21st century.
Number one, we have all of it, from telemedicine to, as you
say, medical records, and all these transitions with technology
and information that would allow people, frankly, to receive
their care in a much more efficient way than traveling
somewhere to get it in a veterans BOCs. And that is my problem.
A couple of years ago we had a bad wreck in a van driven by
volunteers, transporting our veterans from our out-patient
clinic to the hospital 2 hours away, in very treacherous
weather conditions. They have to go over the mountain, and it
is one of those things that logic defies. Why would we do that,
when in fact we have a $500 million public hospital in our city
with available beds? Keep that veterans hospital in
Murfreesboro, Tennessee open.
Make sure that it is available so the veteran can go there
if that is what they want. But if that veteran had a piece of
paper in his hand that said, if I want to go to Erlanger
Medical Center and get this care, it is going to be reimbursed
at the proper Medicare reimbursement rate, or whatever we
decide, but that gives the veterans more options, and then you
don't have to worry about steel increasing by 20 percent and
concrete increasing by 30 percent, and the availability of
construction products.
So that is a reform that would make sense to me--empowering
veterans to use the providers that are available to them,
because their family can come see them. Their quality of life
and their recovery is much better. This danger of transport is
eliminated, et cetera. Is that the philosophy of CARES that I
thought was part of the reforms in the VA?
Secretary Peake. Sir, I think that we have ways and some
constituencies to work with to be able to do that kind of good
work. There are areas that we are looking at that right now--in
Harlingen, Texas, as an example, where we don't need a new
hospital. We need to be able to take care of the folks locally.
If they need something that we can do better than anybody up in
San Antonio, we will move them.
In Columbus, we have a super CBOC there because of the
operating rooms and day surgery programs that are about to open
here--September, I believe. We have a great model for doing the
kinds of things that you are talking about. One of the things
that we want to do is make sure that those veterans aren't just
out there shopping, though--where we are paying for that care,
that they are going to have the quality, and that we can assure
the quality, and make sure that that information is part of
their continuous longitudinal patient record.
So there are some pieces to it that we need to work on, but
I think it is the direction that we need to be going in.
Mr. Wamp. I don't want to lead you, but wouldn't you say
that political decisions on veterans construction in the past
has led to certain inefficiencies today?
Secretary Peake. One could ask why we have certain
facilities in certain places. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Okay. One other, and then I think Mr. Crenshaw
will be ready.
Blue Cross, for instance, one of their big offices is in my
hometown as well, and really has a whole subsidiary now on IT
and health records. Where is the VA compared to the private
sector on this issue? As we make this a big issue today in your
budget request, are we ahead or behind the private sector?
Secretary Peake. Sir, we are ahead of the private sector.
At a local level, you may find a good patient record and so
forth. When you look at Blue Cross and Blue Shield, mostly that
is billing information. When we talk about clinical
information, Dr. Kussman and the team that he has is leading
the way.
Now, do we have an issue? Yes. We are on a must-pay system.
It is not Web-based. We are going to need to migrate that
system in the future, and that is going to take a lot of effort
and a lot of dollars. When we get that done, it is going to be
even better. It will allow us potentially to reach into the
local doctor's office and allow them the opportunity to update
the patient's record when we buy that care from them.
And we really need to look with DOD, because as we migrate,
there is an opportunity for us to come together in not
necessarily the same system but to have absolutely computable,
interoperable medical information on our patients.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I want to thank my Republican colleagues for coming and
attending this important hearing today, and I yield to Mr.
Crenshaw for any questions he may have.

OUTPATIENT CLINIC IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. You will get thrown in the fire
right away, and I appreciate your service.
I have a couple of questions to start with that really
relate to my district. Dr. Kussman, when you talk about health,
it seems like every year I ask this question and try to get
updated on a couple of things. One is the outpatient clinic
that has been proposed for Northeast Florida. Everybody knows
how important outpatient clinics are. We kind of move in a way,
just like the health arena is, from in-patient to outpatient.
And 11 years ago, as you probably know, the decision was
made to expand an outpatient clinic in Jacksonville, Florida--
probably one of the largest populations of veterans are in
Northeast and South Georgia. It has kind of been a combination
of changing plans, bad luck with hurricanes, increasing costs
of construction, some political disagreements back in the
community. But it has been 11 years and people are so
frustrated. I ask about this every year.
Part of it, I guess, you can attribute to the general
bureaucratic problems, but some of these things are maybe
beyond your control, but it is almost embarrassing sometimes
when people say, well, how are we doing on the clinic. The
plans are great. Actually, the plans get better and better, but
nothing happens.
So I guess my question is, can you kind of give us an
update on where we are? Maybe any benchmark dates that you can
give us some encouragement as to where we are?
Secretary Peake. Yes, thank you for the question. As you
alluded to, it is a long, drawn-out story of efforts and not
getting to exactly where we want to be. As you know, we are
going to increase the clinic by about 30 percent in size. But
to give you some dates, I think there is an end in sight here.
The dates that I have been informed--we have been working with
the city. We very much appreciate what the city has done with
the Shands Medical Center and others related to parking and all
those different things.
My understanding is that in March of this year, we will
finalize the contract with Shands. A few months later, we will
issue the solicitation for offers. We are going to lease the
property, or have a developer develop it and not build it
ourselves. It will be leased property. And then we hope that by
next year, we will have awarded the lease, and this will be
completed by September, 2011.
Mr. Crenshaw. And we are kind of on-track as far as that
goes?
Secretary Peake. I just got this today. If we don't make
it, let me know. We will monitor it.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, I will see you again next year.
Secretary Peake. No, no. [Laughter.]
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, we have a few years. But that is
encouraging. I know it has been a combination of things, but
you can imagine that the metro population is pretty frustrated.
So thank you for that update.

VETERANS CEMETERY IN JACKSONVILLE

And the other is another kind of local issue. As you know,
we have been working on the--I guess I will ask Under Secretary
Tuerk about this--the veterans cemetery, which we authorized
back in 2000. We have made progress. We went through all the
site selections, environmental studies. I think we are about to
acquire the land. And then originally if the land is acquired,
I think in this year's budget there is money to kind of fast-
track the construction. The hope was that by the end of this
year, if everything goes according to plan, we could actually
have the fast-track take place, and actually have some burial
sites open by the end of the year.
So from your perspective, I try to talk to the city from
time to time. I know that there are some negotiations going on.
But could you give me an update from your perspective on how we
are doing? Can we get to that point in terms of the fast-track
construction and actually--because I know there is already
someone there to over-see this--so everything is moving in the
right direction. But I just want to see what you have to say
about where we are.
Under Secretary Tuerk. I am happy to give you an update,
Congressman. It is a pretty good story. We are on track. We
don't yet own the site. As you know, the city of Jacksonville
owns the 568-acre site that we are going to develop. We expect
to have received an offer to sell title to the property from
the city by the end of February. We will then be in a position
to actually take title in late spring or early summer.
We are not waiting, though, to get title before we started
design of the cemetery. In fact, we let the contract for design
activities last August. I have some materials here I can share
with you after the hearing if you would like to see the
sketches and drawings. Design is not final yet, but we are well
along.
Right now, we anticipate breaking ground in August of this
year. We are on track. It is going to be close. It is going to
be tough, but we are on track to have our first burials before
the end of this year. Right now, we are scheduling December,
2008 to have our first burials in the so-called fast-track, or
the early turnover, area. So we are moving along crisply. There
is a lot that can go wrong, but so far so good. It is my
objective to get that cemetery open before this year is over.
Mr. Crenshaw. That is great news. I have been kind of
pushing the city. The city council is still--and I think they
are on track to have the title transferred.
Under Secretary Tuerk. I appreciate that. We appreciate
your support and help. We had some issues to work through with
the city in terms of the boundaries, but we have resolved those
matters. I think we are in good shape now. If I may, we will be
in communication. If we could use some help in dealing with the
city council, I would like to be able to call on you, if
possible.
I might also note that the cemetery director, one of my
leaders in the NCA headquarters office of a construction
business here, and a representative from the design firm, the
AE firm that is designing the cemetery, are going to escort
some of your staff members around the grounds on Monday, so you
will have a good feel through your staff about what this site
is going to look like.
Mr. Crenshaw. Right. Thank you so much.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
The gentlewoman from Texas will be recognized, but let me
say there are 13 minutes left on the first of eight suspension
votes. We may be able to finish on this side.
Ms. Granger.

SUICIDE RATE AMONG VETERANS

Ms. Granger. Great. Thank you.
I know that we are all alarmed at the increase in seeing
the suicide rate among veterans. There was recently a story in
the Dallas Morning News about two veterans who committed
suicide in the Dallas-Forth Worth area just within days of
being released from the Dallas VA Medical Center.
So I have two questions. The first one is what is the VA
doing to determine what is causing this rise in the suicide
rate, and of course what steps you are doing to address it. The
other part of it has to do with the percentage of those
veterans who are members of the National Guard and Reserve.
According to the DOD data, approximately 28 percent of the
forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan were National Guard and
Reserve members. But a recently released report found that over
half the veterans who commit suicide--half--were guardsmen and
reservists. So I would ask if you are also looking at that
particular problem and what you are finding out.
Secretary Peake. Yes, ma'am. If I could address the second
issue first.
Ms. Granger. Yes.
Secretary Peake. I am familiar with this data. What we did
to get that data was to look at everybody that was separated
from the service. Of those that are separated from the service,
those are the ones that become veterans and then we can get
information on. And really, that is about half and half, active
and reserve. So you still have a lot of active duty guys and
gals on active duty.
This study you are talking about where we had 144 suicides
was about split between active and reserve. So it really
doesn't show that there is a much larger number among the
reserves. It looks like it is about similar, pretty close.
Ms. Granger. Thank you for that.
Secretary Peake. Yes, ma'am.
The other thing is to tell you that we really are doing
quite a lot about this. We are very concerned about it. Even
144, and we really look at age, match and controls with the
general population. It is not way out of bounds if you just
look at the young men in that cohort. It is similar to what the
civilian population is, so it is not way out.
But you say, boy, these are our soldiers, sailors, airmen
and Marines and we shouldn't have anybody committing suicide,
is what we would like. So we have the suicide hotline that has
been put in place; 23,000 calls to the suicide hotline; about
400 rescues; 250 active duty members have called that, or in
that ballpark.
We feel very good that has been put in place. Dr. Kussman
has put suicide prevention coordinators in every single one of
our medical centers. There has been a policy to train all of
our VA employees about the issues of suicide. People get asked
about it, so they can get screened for that, as well as PTSD
and TBI, when they come in to see us.
So there is a concerted effort. I think part of this
outreach piece is to get people in. It is very interesting that
that study did suggest to us that if you come in and avail
yourself of being seen at the VA, that it is a lower incidence
of suicide. Now, you have to look at the numbers carefully in
terms of statistics, but we want more people to come and avail
themselves of our services, so we want to push our outreach.
There have been 1.5 million people deployed. About 800,000
overall have separated from the service. About 300,000 have
come in to be seen by the VA. That is 500,000 out there that
haven't yet, but we can see them under the way the rules are.
So we want to encourage those that need it, and educate their
families to say, hey, you maybe ought to go. It is okay. We
want to break down the stigma.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. And thank you for your service. I
am like Congressman Wamp, very impressed with your background
and how much good you can do in the position you are in right
now. Thank you.
Secretary Peake. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Carter.

OVERPAYMENT OF BENEFITS

Mr. Carter. Thank you very much.
First, let me thank everybody for being here, and what you
do for the veterans. There is nothing more important, as far as
I am concerned where I live, in taking care of our veterans and
making sure they have the best. I just have a question that
came up last year. We talked about overpayment of benefits.
Admiral Cooper, we talked about it last year. At that time,
there was some indication that--and we had a follow-up visit
about that also--that it really wasn't an issue at the time.
But then on September 28, 2007, the IG report indicated
that wasn't necessarily the case. This report stated that delay
on the part of the VA regional office employees resulted in
$5.8 million for only 209 cases. There were an additional
$481.4 million in overpayments, of which Veterans Benefits
Administration staff could have avoided $50.8 million had they
processed adjustments promptly. VBA's emphasis on incoming
claims created a priority list, and adjusting existing claims
was low on that list. And last year, this committee provided
for 3,100 new claims processors.
Now, in light of that information, first I guess I would
like to know how many more claims processors are involved in
this process of that 3,100 than we had last year when we
discussed this. How are these new processors helping address
this backlog? And if the IG found $55 million in avoidable
overpayments so easily, why is it that we were told last year
that this wasn't a problem?
Mr. Cooper. I can tell you that we have looked into it, and
are continuing to look into it. We are taking some of those
people coming aboard, the 3,100. We have been hiring very fast,
having gotten a start on that at the beginning of January of
last year. We have to do a lot of training to get those people
to be able to fully contribute to the total process.
On your question about overpayment, it is a matter of
quality. We are looking at it very closely. It continues to
happen. Hopefully, we see it less than in the past, but I can
only assure you that we continue to look at it, and are doing a
lot of training with these new people coming on board.
Mr. Carter. Well, these overpayments create a crisis in the
veteran's life, because he gets overpaid. He operates on that
money. And then he gets a notice that he was overpaid and he
needs to reimburse, and it creates a crisis for the veteran. I
am not trying to say I don't want to pay a veteran as much as I
can get in his hands, but then to get him out there with
something he owes the government, and then tell him he has to
put it back, puts a crisis on the veteran and his family.
I think quite a few in my district have raised this issue
with me. It has caused a real domestic crisis in their families
with their wives and children. So that is why the question was
asked last year. I think it really needs to be looked at
because they have enough stress in their lives without having
to owe the government a bunch of money. I think it is really
important that we try to be accurate on that. So I just wanted
to raise that issue again this year.
Secretary Peake. I appreciate it. It does talk a little bit
to the complexity of our disability system, and why we need to
figure out how to simplify it. One of the things that we have
done is put an RFI out for rules-based engines to get into this
paper, this process that I mentioned in my opening remarks, so
that we can start to have this stuff digitized with rule-based
engines. Hopefully, with a more simplified system, we will be
able to have more accuracy and more automated checking, instead
of just somebody looking at reams and reams of paper. So I
appreciate the point.
Mr. Carter. I thank you. My whole point is to make sure
that that veteran's life is better. That puts a crisis in his
life.
I thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Wamp. Well, thank you.
Now, we have 4 minutes left on this first vote. I am going
to go vote. The chairman has indicated from the floor that he
does desire to come back. Hopefully, the remaining seven votes
will be reduced to 2 minutes each, which will shorten the time
that you will have to wait.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards follows:]

Vet Centers

A year ago the Department announced that 23 new Vet Centers would
be opened to make ``vital services more accessible for returning
veterans.'' Can you tell me what criteria are used to determine the
location of Vet Centers? What resources do you need for a successful
Vet Center in terms of space, people, and services? Why doesn't the
budget request contain any new Vet Centers for FY 2009?
Question. Can you tell me what criteria are used to determine the
location of Vet Centers?
Response. The site selection was based on an evidence-based
analysis of demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the
Department of Defense Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) and with
input from the seven Readjustment Counseling Service Regional Offices.
The main criteria for new Vet Center site selection are the veteran
population; area veteran market penetration by Vet Centers;
geographical proximity to VA medical centers; and community based
outreach clinics in the Vet Center's Veterans Service Area (VSA). This
analysis included information from the DMDC as to the current number of
separated OEF/OIF veterans and the reported distribution of home zip
codes of separated OEF/OIF veterans as well as the number who were
married and those with children. Special consideration for relatively
under-served veterans residing in rural areas at a distance from other
VA facilities is given in site selection for some of the new Vet
Centers.
Question. What resources do you need for a successful Vet Center in
terms of space, people, and services?
Response. Vet Centers are small community-based leased facilities
with a staff of 4 to 5 team members including a team leader, office
manager, and 2 to 3 counselors. Space requirements are approximately
600 square feet per staff member, and include confidential office space
suitable for provision of professional counseling services for
individuals, groups and families. The annual cost for a new Vet Center
is approximately $380,000. Funding for these centers are covered in the
Medical Care appropriations.
Question. Why doesn't the budget request contain any new Vet
Centers for FY 2009?
Response. It is anticipated that the 23 VET Centers coming on line
in FY 2008 will be adequate through FY 2009. VA will monitor the change
in workload for the VET Centers to ensure that actual experience is in
line with estimates.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.098

Major Construction--Gravesite Expansions

The budget includes $83.4 million for gravesite expansion at three
existing National Cemeteries. What were the criteria used for selection
of these three sites for expansion? What other sites are also
candidates for gravesite expansion?
Response. Usually, only our large national cemeteries are
candidates for major construction ($10 million or more). Most gravesite
expansion projects are addressed through the minor construction
appropriation.
The principal criterion for selecting a site for a gravesite
expansion project is the expected depletion of casketed gravesites. It
is NCA's top priority to prevent the closing of a cemetery and the
interruption of burial services. The sites where we propose major
construction expansions in the FY 09 budget--Calverton (NY),
Massachusetts and Puerto Rico National Cemeteries--will close to first-
casket interments by 2012 if we do not expand those cemeteries with the
requested funds. The projects at these cemeteries will provide an
estimated nine to ten years of burial capacity. Infrastructure needs
are also included in the scope of each project to take advantage of
economies of scale.
The following national cemeteries are projected to deplete
available gravesites between FY 2013--2018 and are potential candidates
for future major gravesite expansion projects: Indiantown Gap (PA),
Quantico (VA), Fort Mitchell (AL), Houston (TX), Dayton (OH), Abraham
Lincoln (IL), Jefferson Barracks (MO), Tahoma (WA), National Memorial
Cemetery of Arizona, and Riverside (CA).

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Edwards.]
Tuesday, February 26, 2008.

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION

WITNESSES

BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN W. NICHOLSON, U.S. ARMY RETIRED, SECRETARY,
ACCOMPANIED BY BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM J. LESZCZYNSKI, JR., U.S.
ARMY RETIRED, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR;
TOM SOLE, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND MAINTENANCE
MIKE CONLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ALAN GREGORY, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING
MATTHEW BECK, BUDGET OFFICER.

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Let us call the committee to
order.
This afternoon, the subcommittee will hear testimony from
four agencies related to the issues of concern to retired
military personnel and other veterans. Our first panel is from
the American Battle Monuments Commission, with a request of
$47,470,000 for salaries and expenses, and $17,100,000 for the
foreign currency fluctuation account.
For salaries and expenses, this budget is $2.87 million
higher than the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. The foreign
currency fluctuation account request is $6.1 million above
fiscal year 2008 appropriation.
As we know, the American Battle Monuments Commission is
responsible for the administration, operation and maintenance
of cemetery and war memorials commemorating the achievements
and sacrifices of the American armed forces. The commission
maintains 24 permanent American military cemetery memorials and
34 Federal and Non-Federal monolith memorials, markers and
offices in 15 foreign countries.
Representing the commission today is its Secretary,
Brigadier General John Nicholson, retired. General, welcome
back to our subcommittee.
General Nicholson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. And Brigadier General, retired, William
Leszczynski, Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer.
General Leszczynski, welcome back as well.
Thank you both for your distinguished service to our
country in the military. General, please give your brother our
very best, and let him know we are deeply grateful for not only
his service to the military, but his tremendous work on behalf
of America's veterans as VA secretary, and we wish him all the
best.
General Nicholson. Thank you, sir. I will.
Mr. Edwards. In a moment, I will recognize you for your
opening comments, but I would like to first recognize our
ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any comments he would care to
make.

Opening Statement of Ranking Minority Member Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, if I could just open by saying that
we too, join your friends and associates in expressing our
condolences for the loss of your father, who lived 90
outstanding years, and whose son is a living testament to what
kind of a man he was. And so, we are with you, and I know that
this is a time of loss, but at the same time a time of
celebration for 90 outstanding years, as you shared with me as
we walked off the floor just a minute ago. I have the highest
admiration for you and that speaks volumes about what kind of
guy your dad was.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. He was a naval aviator in World War
II and a great father. Thank you for that. He wrote the last
chapter in his book and lived life to the fullest, like so many
of the greatest generation. Thank you for your kind words and
thoughts.
Mr. Wamp. And to these two generals, welcome and thank you
again for the courtesy of coming by my office and just getting
to know me and talking a little bit about your work and these
important assets. I just want to share publicly that, as I said
in my office, having been at Normandy and stood among the white
crosses, you really don't need to do any more than that to
understand the importance of what these facilities that you are
charged with taking care of, and we are charged with
resourcing, mean in the world.
There is no greater sense of pride that an American can
have than to stand in one of your cemeteries in one of these
places, on this hallowed ground, on foreign soil, than to know
how important it is for us to maintain them and to give these
places the proper resources to honor the sacrifices of the men
and women that are interred there. For any American who has not
done that, it is a breathtaking moment of patriotism and pride.
I think, while we might split hairs from time to time over
exactly where the money goes, we stand completely united in
this Congress behind the missions that you represent and carry
out for these incredible places. Thank you for your appearance
here today, and I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. So very well said.
It is going to be my tradition to also recognize Chairman
Young, who has been such a leader on this committee, the full
Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, and our full committee.
Mr. Chairman, any comments you would care to make?
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I would like to join the comments of my ranking member
about your father.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Young. I certainly agree with everything that Zach
said, and also his comments about visiting the cemeteries
overseas. I have had the chance to visit many of these American
cemeteries overseas and I can tell you, you come away with just
a special feeling that it is hard to describe, the inspiration
and the feeling of humbleness leaving one of those cemeteries
that are really beautifully maintained. If there is anything
that you need to make sure that they are maintained up to the
standards that you have established, let us know. The chairman,
I am satisfied, would be more than happy to fix it.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Young and Mr. Wamp said it well for all of
us on this subcommittee.
Thank you both for your service. General Nicholson, your
full testimony will be submitted. I would like to recognize you
now for your opening comments.

Statement of Brigadier General John W. Nicholson

General Nicholson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee.
Before I begin my opening remarks, I would like to request
that my written statement be entered into the record.
Mr. Edwards. Without objection.
General Nicholson. On behalf of our chairman, General
Franks, and our commissioners, I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you regarding the fiscal year
2009 appropriations request for the American Battle Monuments
Commission.
Since its creation in 1923, the American Battle Monuments
Commission has served as guardian of America's overseas
commemorative cemeteries and memorials. Our purpose is to
preserve for future generations the 24 cemeteries and the
memorials, monuments and markers we maintain around the world
to honor America's war dead, missing in action, and those who
fought at their side.
These cemeteries and memorials are symbols of America's
willingness to fight for our freedom and the freedom of others.
They inspire patriotism. They evoke gratitude, and they teach
important lessons of history to all who walk those hallowed
grounds.
Our fiscal year 2009 request provides $47.47 million for
salaries and expenses. Our request also includes $17.1 million
for our foreign currency fluctuation account, which has become
a significant issue. This account is used to defray losses due
to changes in the value of foreign currency against the U.S.
dollar. With the funds in this fluctuation account, maintain
our purchasing power to operate and maintain our commemorative
sites, which is critical when you consider that 80 percent of
the commission's annual appropriation is spent overseas using
foreign currency.
Since the summer of 2006, the U.S. dollar has fallen
steadily against the European euro and the British pound. This
drop in the value of the dollar has serious implications on our
ability to maintain our cemeteries and memorials. To lessen the
impact of the declining value of the U.S. dollar on our
overseas operations, we are requesting that the committee
modify the commission's appropriation language to read as
follows: ``Such sums as may be necessary.''
This change would ensure that we have the funding we need
when we need it to maintain our purchasing power overseas if
the dollar becomes weaker than estimated, while maintaining the
committee's oversight of these expenditures. The commission's
fiscal year 2009 request fully supports our strategic goals and
continues our commitment to honor the service, achievements and
sacrifice of America's armed forces and to fulfill the promise
of our first chairman, General of the Armies John J. Pershing,
who wrote that ``time will not dim the glory of their deeds''.
I would like to close my remarks by introducing the staff
that accompanies me today. I believe you know General Bill
Leszcynski, who is the Chief Operating Officer and Executive
Director. Tom Sole is the Director of Engineering and
Maintenance. Mike Conley is the Director of Public Affairs.
Alan Gregory is the director of finance and accounting. And
Mathew Beck is our Budget Officer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my opening
statement. I will be pleased to respond to your questions.
[Prepared Testimony of Brigadier General John W. Nicholson
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.102

SUPPLEMENTAL

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, general.
Let me just begin on the foreign currency fluctuation
issue. It just seems to me it would not be the intent of
Congress to want the hallowed ground that you have
responsibility for to be impacted for the worse because of
foreign currency fluctuations that are simply not under your
control. Do you know if OMB has any intention of requesting in
a supplemental appropriation bill the money needed to make it
up? I think you have a $6.1 million shortfall you are
projecting for the present fiscal year 2008. Do you know if OMB
has signed off on any request to ask Congress for that
supplemental funding?
General Nicholson. Let me ask Alan to answer that. I think
I know the answer, but I want to make sure.
Mr. Gregory. I am Alan Gregory, the Director of Finance.
OMB has not indicated or identified any supplementals
specifically for that. However, they have supported our efforts
to identify that requirement.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Can you briefly explain the kind of
cutbacks you would have to put in place to make up for a loss
like this? A $6.1 million cut relative to your budget would be
a 15 percent cut in your budget, with a lot of fixed expenses.
What would you have to do to make up for a $6.1 million loss?
General Nicholson. We would have to take that money out of
projects that we have planned to implement to maintain the
standards that were described here and that you have seen.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Nicholson. We don't want to cut into salaries. That
would be the last resort. So we would make our cuts in the
engineering and maintenance.
I would like to ask my chief of engineering and
maintenance, Tom, to speak to it.
Mr. Sole. It would be a very difficult cut for us to make.
In fact, we were having that conversation on the way here. As
you know, most of our budget is taken up by fixed costs, like
personnel, so it is very difficult to change in the short term.
And so things like equipment purchasing to replace outdated
equipment or engineering, a lot of what we have worked on as to
infrastructure modernization, I think a lot of what this
committee has given us in the past and this year, would be
sacrificed for this.
Mr. Edwards. Would you be able in the next week or two to
put together a list of maybe not the exact projects, but the
most likely projects you would have to cut back on for the
total $6.1 million so we could look at the specifics of what
the impact would be? That might help us as we are going into
the supplemental process perhaps as early as March. I don't
know the latest plan, but it would allow us to present a case
for this.
Mr. Sole. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wamp.

FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATION

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a quick follow up on that. General, those words in
your hands, ``such sum as may be necessary,'' are not troubling
to me, but I think those should be troubling words to any
appropriations subcommittee when a request is made to include
language ``such sums as may be necessary,'' because that
certainly in some areas of government spending could get out of
control.
I wonder if there is another way, or did you all consider
other language recommendations besides that that might somehow
peg the amount to the fluctuation in currency? Or is there just
no way to do that?
The second part of my question is how do you forecast into
the future in any way what the value of the dollar is going to
be? I know this year it was the biggest issue when you came to
see me, but I just wondered at the hearing here today what our
options are, or if you have already exhausted them all and you
think this language change and this amount of money is the only
option that we have?
General Nicholson. Thanks. That is a real good question.
Let me give you two points, and then ask Alan to help me out
here.
This is not unprecedented, this ``such sums as necessary.''
It is used elsewhere in the United States Government and it is
successful. Secondly, OMB backs that.
Now, how about some more details, Alan?
Mr. Gregory. Several years ago, this committee asked the
GAO to examine what our process was for estimating. They deemed
it reasonably appropriate after their study. The process we go
through is we look at the rates and we look at the projection
of those rates, and we have to lock them in at a certain point.
That point is usually the last calendar date in the year prior
to the submission. So for the fiscal year 2009 budget, we did
it on December 31, for this budget that we are looking at for
fiscal year 2009. For fiscal year 2008, it was the year prior.
So when we block it in, the rate was .82, and now it is .69. So
it has dropped considerably. So that is where that delta amount
comes in.
We looked at other alternatives and numbers, to time it to
the fluctuation account, but we couldn't find any other means
within the appropriation language, and we looked at a number of
appropriation titles from the Department of Agriculture and
several others that use ``such sums'' as appropriate. Our
purpose was to look at this from the standpoint of not being
allowed to go directly to the Treasury without Congress, and
using a justification. In those years that (INAUDIBLE) we would
not seek that.
Mr. Wamp. One other question, the capital security cost
sharing program is a 97 percent increase. While it is only $1
million, in this city that is not much money. It is a 97
percent increase and I just wanted you to tell the committee
basically what services you get from the State Department for
this money to begin with, and why the increase.
General Nicholson. Well, that is a good question. This has
hit us, this assessment, but we are implementing it by paying
it. I would ask some of my colleagues here to tell you
specifically what is hitting us here. Alan?
Mr. Gregory. Sir, the capital security cost sharing part of
the law came up in 2005 under the consolidated appropriations,
which requires all of the agencies who have an overseas
presence to participate in the program. Because we have people
designated overseas within that, 398 are overseas, we have to
pay an updated proportion share to that.
Mr. Wamp. And the increase comes just from what?
Mr. Gregory. We did not have the budget for that previously
and we have lost our exemptions and now we have to participate
in the program.
Mr. Wamp. You have nowhere to turn?
Mr. Gregory. No, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Pass, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. No questions.
Mr. Edwards. Well, that's the greatest compliment I have
ever heard to any federal agency--three members of Congress
passing up the opportunity to ask questions--a great
compliment.
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions. I have
read the statements. I believe that they are very, very total
and thorough, and I just offer our support to maintain the
cemeteries and the battle monuments to the extent that is
necessary. It is a proud part of America.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Crenshaw.

SECURITY AT NORMANDY

Mr. Crenshaw. Just a brief question. Last year, we were
getting ready to open the visitor center at Normandy, and I
haven't had a chance to go there, but I understand it has just
been wildly successful. At the time, we talked about since it
is such hallowed ground and of such great interest to
Americans, as well as folks from all around the world, the
question kind of came up last year about security, because in
this unfortunate age in which we live, even a place like
Normandy would be so prominent and such a focus for some sort
of terrorist attack.
I am wondering what kind of implementation was put in place
dealing with security, and has that affected people's freedom
to really appreciate everything. Can you just touch on that,
because I know we talked on that last year?
General Nicholson. Yes, sir. Let me give a quick answer,
and then let these experts give more detail.
The security was dictated by the arts. The security officer
from the embassy said you need to put pylons here so they can't
drive into your building. You need some guards and the whole
nine yards.
Secondly, I don't think that it has impeded the visitors
very much. It is not something we can't deal with. So that is
my quick answer to your question. I would defer to Bill. You
know more about what is involved that I do.
General Leszcynski. The secretary has mentioned a few
things that have been put in place. Certainly, the most visible
one is the security guards that we have over there to basically
monitor the people that are coming into the building, so we do
have a security check to make sure that everything is fine. We
try to low-key it as much as we can because we certainly don't
want that to be a deterrent to anybody to come and visit,
because we think the message that we have portrayed in the
Normandy visitor center, the sacrifice of the men and women
that took part in the Normandy invasions is one that is very,
very important.
So we have a good security force there. They are blended in
with the other host nations and U.S. personnel that are working
there in the Normandy visitor center, but they are a visible
deterrent. If you go there, you are going to see people that
are obviously security guards. So that in itself has a good
effect if there was anybody out there that was thinking about
making it a likely target.
Mr. Crenshaw. Good. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Let me be brief on one other point, because I know we have
three other hearings this afternoon. General, I think the quote
that you used from General Pershing is really powerful, ``time
will not dim the glory of their deeds.'' That is more eloquent
than I could have put it and it that makes me so passionate
about protecting Pointe du Hoc and honoring the incredible
courage of Colonel Rudder and the Rangers on D-Day. I know how
both of you care so deeply about preserving that historic site.
I know you have been working hard on that project. Let me
just, without getting into all the details of it, compare it to
where we were a year ago. Does it look as if the conclusion is
there is a possible way to protect that site from literally
falling into the ocean at sometime in the next several years?
General Nicholson. The answer to that question is yes. A
few details--we don't have a complete study yet, but we think
we know where it is going.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Nicholson. We can't be presumptuous totally on
that, and we will get that this summer, and then we will come
up, look at the plan, what is feasible, and look at the cost,
and get the French involved. That is what it is going to take.
Mr. Edwards. Right. We already had some interaction with
the French on this.
General Nicholson. Yes.
Mr. Edwards. Are they aware of what we are doing? And so
far, have they been open to trying to preserve this site?
General Nicholson. Bill will take that.
General Leszcynski. I can answer that one. We have kept the
French informed all along the way, so they know everything that
we are working on. We are hopeful that there is an engineering
solution, but we are also very well aware of the politics that
are involved. So we have been very, very careful to keep the
French involved along the way.
We have had meetings, a number of meetings with the
Suprefite of Bayou who is very, very supportive. He is an
engineer himself. He is also getting some great support from
his boss, who is the Prefect. I attended one of those meetings,
along with Tom Sole, and people from ABM&C and there were
representatives from Texas A&M over there before Christmas. You
could tell from that meeting that the Suprefite wanted to move
the process ahead.
On January 19, there was another meeting over there
attended by somebody from Texas A&M, Jean-Louis Briand. There
were representatives from American Battle Monuments Commission.
There were also the Suprefite who hosted the meeting. There
were representatives from the Conservatoir Literal, and another
agency called the DeRente. The presentation was given by Jean-
Louis Briand to bring people up to date on the technical
aspects of the project.
There was also some discussion initially about moving the
bunker, so he gave a presentation to convince people why that
was not such a good idea. That idea is not going anyplace
because the Suprefite said it wasn't, and the Prefite said it
wasn't. So that is off the table. But there was some discussion
there at that meeting, and the final results of that meeting is
that the representative from the Conservatoir Literal made the
recommendation and a package was put together to be forwarded
to what is known as the scientific committee for review.
We think that this is a very, very positive step. So I
guess to summarize, we think it is moving forward. We have
tremendous support out of two people who are key players, the
Suprefite and the Prefite. In fact, the Suprefite directed that
ABMC prepare the construction documents, which is a very, very
positive step. So we will wait for the final results of the
study from the people from Texas A&M and the--communities, and
hopefully we can bring things together at the end of the
summer.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for your hard work on that.
To my colleagues, if any of you haven't been to Pointe du
Hoc, the German observatory and even the monument dedicated to
Earl Rudder and Rudder's Rangers, where Ronald Reagan probably
gave one of his finest speeches ever, perhaps one of the most
powerful presidential speeches in history, that is off limits
to tourists now because of wind and water erosion. It would
just be a tragedy, in my thinking, to lose that to future
generations and all that stands for.
I have one request, and I will finish with this. I
understand that the final report, the engineering study, may
not come out until July of this year. If in the March-April
timeframe, you have even some early estimates of what it would
cost, or what would be a first-year effort, if it looks like
you have a plan that might well work, if you could just give us
some estimate, so that maybe we can plug that figure in our
markup on this bill. We can't let time defeat us on this and
the quicker we move, the greater the chance of saving that
hallowed ground. Thank you both for what you have done on that.
Mr. Wamp. No more questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your service.
Mr. Edwards. Any other questions, members?
If not, thank you both for the great work you do.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008.

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY AND UNITED STATES SOLDIERS' AND AIRMEN'S
HOME NATIONAL CEMETERY

WITNESSES

JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL WORKS
ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN C. METZLER, JR., SUPERINTENDENT, ARLINGTON
NATIONAL CEMETERY
CLAUDIA TORNBLOM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. Edwards. Secretary Woodley, Mr. Metzler, welcome to
both of you back to our subcommittee. It is very good to have
you here.
We will now take testimony on the fiscal year 2009 budget
submission for the Department of the Army, specifically
Arlington National Cemetery and the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's
Home National Cemetery. We welcome back Mr. John Paul Woodley,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, to testify on
behalf of the cemeteries. Mr. Woodley is accompanied by Mr.
Jack Metzler, second-generation superintendent, as I recall, of
Arlington National Cemetery, and Ms. Claudia Tornblom, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army. Welcome to all of you and your
staff as well.
The fiscal year 2009 budget request is $31.23 million, the
same amount as the appropriation that Congress approved for
fiscal year 2008. Mr. Woodley, your entire statement will be
printed in the record, and in a moment I will ask you to
briefly present your oral testimony, but we would like to first
recognize Mr. Wamp, the ranking member.
Mr. Wamp. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to welcome you both. I am the new kid on the
block. Mr. Woodley and I go way back, though, on energy and
water, as I am sure he also does with our chairman. I thank you
for your service and look forward to your testimony and the
questions that follow.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo what Mr. Wamp
said and what you have said. I thank them for being here and
thanks for taking care of Arlington National Cemetery.
Unfortunately, we have had a chance to do that too often in the
last few years. I do have a couple of questions that I will
ask.
Mr. Edwards. Okay, very good.
It is hard to put in words that meaning of those hallowed
hills of Arlington.
Secretary Woodley was appointed as Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works in 2005. He previously served as the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment, and retired from the Army Reserve in 2003 as a
lieutenant colonel.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for those years of military
service. It is good to have you back before our committee, and
we would like to recognize you now for your opening comments.

Statement of the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr.

Secretary Woodley. You are very kind.
Let me introduce, if I may, Mr. Thurman Higginbotham,
Deputy Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery; Mr. John
Parez, who works on many of these important issues on my staff;
and Lieutenant Colonel Duane Smith, who is here also as my
military assistant. He was here last year as a major and has
been promoted in the meantime, and has been selected for
battalion command, and will take that up after he serves next
year as the professor of military science at the West Virginia
University Mountaineers, in West Virginia.
My statement, as you have said, is that we are asking, or
the President has proposed a budget of $31.2 million. We
believe that is sufficient to maintain the buildings and
grounds, acquire necessary supplies and equipment, and provide
the standards of service expected of this national shrine.
There are two items of particular significance I would like
to highlight in my testimony. First, the budget includes
approximately $5 million to partially fund construction of the
Millennium Project, which consists of the development of 36
acres of land into gravesite areas, roads, utilities,
columbarium walls and a boundary wall with niches for the
placement of cremated remains.
Approximately 14,000 additional gravesites and 22,000
niches would be provided when development is complete. Burial
capacity would be extended to the year 2045, and niche capacity
to the year 2027. In the long term, this project is very
important to extend the useful life of the cemetery. In the
short term, it is essential to alleviate the crowding of
funeral services that is occurring in the concentrated areas of
the cemetery.
I would like to extend an invitation to the subcommittee
and staff to visit the cemetery for an on-site briefing so you
can see first-hand the importance of this project. I know that
many of you have been there, but it is a real special privilege
to walk the grounds with Superintendent Metzler and to
understand the significance of this new project and how it will
improve the actual operation of the cemetery on a day-to-day
basis.
Secondly, the budget includes $500,000 to develop a
comprehensive cultural resources management plan so that the
cemetery will be in compliance with the requirements of the
National Historic Preservation Act. It will be used as a
management tool to facilitate the preservation of historic
resources at ANC, and a programmatic agreement will be
developed between ANC and the appropriate resource agencies to
address all routine operations at ANC.
The agreement will establish a procedure for future
undertakings that may be excluded from the detailed
consultation process under the Act. The goal is to reduce ANC's
consultation requirements and to establish procedures that ANC
will follow to ensure preservation of its historic resources in
accordance with federal law. I have to say, I think that is a
little overdue, but we are finally getting around to it.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, our 2009 budget is adequate to
maintain existing infrastructure, to provide services to the
visiting public, continue making some of the capital
investments needed to accommodate future burials and preserve
the dignity, serenity and traditions of these great cemeteries.
That would be my summary of my full remarks, which we ask
that you insert in the record.
Mr. Edwards. Without objection.
[Prepared statement of the Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr.
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.109

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Secretary Woodley.
Mr. Wamp.

CEMETERY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will repeat what I said at my first hearing, just for Mr.
Bishop's sake down there, and that is the day I was born at
Fort Benning, Georgia 50 years ago, my father was a lieutenant
in the United States Army wearing those tassels on his lapel as
a member of the Corps of Engineers. So Lieutenant Colonel, it
is an honor to look at you and see those and know that that is
part of my life as well, with my father, on the day that we
honor your father's life.
Also, I want to say that this is an unusual budget request
because it is flat from last year, which we don't see very
often. It is good to see that you can live within your means
and do what you have done. I was at Arlington for the funeral
of a soldier from my district in November. It was unfortunately
a very, very busy day there.
I have to ask, Mr. Metzler, things are not as busy, I would
think, in the last 2 months as they were last fall, but then to
just ask you to go into phase one and phase two of your
cemetery management plan, as we know that your modernization is
underway, and then just touch on the federal water main issue
while you have the floor, please sir.
Mr. Metzler. Thank you.
Well, under the current cemetery operation, it is not quite
as busy, as you mentioned. We are doing about 27 funerals a day
on average. This time of year, it is a little bit slower in the
winter months. We are doing 22 to 25 funerals. However, it will
pick up here in just a few weeks as the spring months start to
come on to us.
As far as active duty funerals, we did last year 123 active
funerals. We are not nearly as busy, thank goodness, in this
current year. However, we are still seeing active duty funerals
about every other week at the cemetery.
The Potomac interceptor is a sewer line coming through
Arlington Cemetery from Rosslyn, so it traverses all the way
through the cemetery. That project isn't quite ready to get
started yet, but we are lined up at our end, in the middle, if
you will, of the project--and we hope that that project gets
through this summer. They are still doing some additional work
with the community on lands and rights-of-way with the National
Park Service and other people who own the land that they are
crossing over.
Mr. Wamp. Do you foresee future-year requests for Arlington
National Cemetery from this subcommittee for any involvement in
this project or not?
Mr. Metzler. For the Potomac interceptor, I believe we are
covered at this point unless something comes up that is
unforeseen. The challenge we have is moving the utility lines
that were in the green space to underneath the roads. So as
this project moves forward and the new sewer line comes in, we
want to have all the utilities either abandoned, removed, or
moved. So that is what we are trying to do, and have told the
utility company to get that accomplished.
Mr. Wamp. And then anecdotally, your father served prior to
you--while we are talking about fathers? Is that right?
Mr. Metzler. My father was there from 1951 to 1972, and I
came on board in 1991.
Mr. Wamp. Well, 21 years plus 17 years is 38 years of
service between you and your father.
Mr. Metzler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions. I would
like to associate myself with the remarks of you and
Representative Wamp and Bill Young. I think they say it best
for all of us.
Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Young.

CARE OF THE HONOR GUARD AND HORSES

Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I just have to ask a jurisdictional question first, and
depending on the answer, I have a follow-up. Who is responsible
for the care and feeding of the members of the honor guard and
the care and feeding of the horses that they work with for the
funerals?
Mr. Metzler. I am very happy to report the United States
Army, the Old Guard at Arlington Cemetery.
Mr. Young. Okay. Well, then my next question would go to
them, then. It has to do with soldiers and their honor guard,
who have responsibility for caring for the horses. Apparently,
the mess facilities were open at a certain time that didn't
coincide with their responsibility, and they went all day
without food. I did think that was up to the Army, but I just
wanted to ask if all that was corrected. Well, I will go back
to the Army and ask the colonel.
Mr. Edwards. I will circle back with you on that, Mr.
Young. Thank you very much for raising that.
Mr. Berry? Okay.
Mr. Bishop.

TOMB OF THE UNKNOWNS

Mr. Bishop. Let me just associate myself with the remarks
of my colleagues. I just have one question, and that is with
regard to the Tomb of the Unknowns, with the crack that has to
be addressed in terms of the--what are the plans for that and
how is that going to take place, and what, if anything, will
that do to adjust, alter, disrupt the changing of the guard
there, which is such a prized opportunity for tourists to come
to this city?
Secretary Woodley. Mr. Bishop, the authorization act for
national defense called for the secretary to make a report on
that matter. That report is not yet due, but it is almost
finished, I believe, and will be submitted to the committees as
soon as possible. And then once that is provided, hopefully we
will get some future guidance on what is the Congress's
pleasure with respect to options on that historic monument.
I can assure you, though, that whatever options are
undertaken, they will be undertaken with a minimum of
disruption, and I believe that we are prepared under any
circumstances to proceed at a time when the public would not be
confronted with something that they do not expect to see when
they come to pay their respects to the unknown soldiers. So
whether everything is accomplished at night or in some way
where we can do that, we would not allow a disruption of the
honors paid to the unknown soldiers.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have the changing of the guard 24 hours,
or is it only during the daylight hours?
Mr. Metzler. The formal guard change starts at 8 o'clock in
the morning when the soldiers are in their dress uniform and it
is open to the public. The last guard change this time of year
concludes at 5 o'clock at night. We are about to change in
April to 7 o'clock at night, and then on March 15, we will
start \1/2\-hour guard changes, on the hour and on the \1/2\
hour, because the crowds are so large at the cemetery. We
receive about four million visitors a year on the grounds of
the cemetery, and at the beginning of the spring months, the
crowds just balloon in the cemetery. So that everybody will
have that opportunity to see the change of the guard, we start
the \1/2\-hour guard changes.
At night, the tomb is still guarded, but it is not open to
the public, and the soldiers are dressed in their non-
ceremonial uniforms. The guards practice at night. The less-
proficient guards have an opportunity to get proficient out of
the public's eye, all the while the tomb is guarded, and they
do have a cycle where they change the guard.
Mr. Bishop. So that would be the time of day for the
repairs to be made.
Mr. Metzler. Right. We would do it during the non-public
hours. We have done a repair at the tomb in the past. As an
example, we did this repair back in the 1980s, one night we
removed all the grouting from the tomb, cleaned it all up, and
came back the next day and everything was normal. The next
night, we came in and then we would apply the grout and clean
everything up before 8 o'clock in the morning and the tourists
wouldn't know anything had happened.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Just on that point, as I understand it, it is
kind of a sensitive issue whether to replace or renovate. I
guess that is all part of that study. But to follow up his
point, is there anything that this subcommittee can do to help
as you go through that process? Anything you need from us as it
relates to the tomb of the unknown soldiers?
Secretary Woodley. Well, other than to reassure your
colleagues that I have consulted with this subcommittee with
respect to that matter as it was going forward, during the time
when we were studying the options, because I received a letter
from some members of the other body that appeared to be unaware
that I had submitted testimony and other materials and I felt
was keeping the Congress aware of the decision-making process
as it unfolded, but that is just a personal matter to me.
I don't really think that matters in the long run, but I
think that it is a very interesting question, and I think a
close question, and I am delighted that the Congress has
decided to relieve me of the burden of making the decision. We
are waiting for the benefit of your wisdom on that very, very
interesting and difficult decision.

AMPHITHEATER

Mr. Crenshaw. Just one real quick question. Last year, I
remember we talked about the amphitheater and it kind of being
a priority. I don't think it is part of this year's budget. Is
there any particular reason? I think you ought to be applauded
for setting your priorities, and I am just curious because I
know it was discussed last year. What went into the decision to
wait a little bit longer in terms of it, because I know it is
used for all the ceremonies, and it is obviously very much a
part of the overall appearance.
Secretary Woodley. Sir, Jack can address that better than I
can, but I think the reason we are suggesting our priorities is
that we really are facing an operational issue with crowding in
terms of having multiple ceremonies undertaken in a relatively
small area of the cemetery. That is not ideal and it is not the
experience that we want to provide for our veterans and their
families. So that is our highest thing to do right now.
The amphitheater, the public areas of the amphitheater
which are used in ceremonies on Veterans Day and Memorial Day
are in very good shape. They are not the part of it that needs
attention right now. The part that needs attention is the
interior that is not seen by as many members of the public or
used in as many ceremonies. So it is on our list. We are not
saying it doesn't need attention, because it does, but it is
just slightly back in the queue.
Mr. Metzler. If I could just add on to that a little bit,
when you come out for the tour, and we certainly want you to do
that, we would like to show you the amphitheater. And we have
had two major projects there to help restore some of the
problems we have had with water. As we have done these
projects, we have discovered other things we need to
accomplish. This is an old structure that was completed in the
1920s, and is subject to all the environmental issues of being
outside.
Our main emphasis right now is the millennium project. The
amphitheater renovation, the amphitheater repairs that we need
are still a high priority. It is our fifth item, but the number
one item for the operation of the cemetery is this money for
the millennium project and we want to continue to push this
forward and have this project--to get this done, as Mr. Woodley
explained, not only to relieve the overcrowding that we have,
but also to add gravesites and columbaria.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
We have four votes. So rather than keeping you here, Mr.
Secretary, if I could just ask you to bear this in mind. While
we added $4.2 million above the president's request for your
budget for Arlington Cemetery last year, and this is a flatline
budget, I would be interested in knowing, given mandated salary
increases and utility increases, if you are going to be able to
maintain your operations and maintenance, and basically defer
major capital expenditures. What will you have to do in order
to keep within a level budget? Our committee wants to know that
you don't have to move backwards in terms of the maintenance on
the hallowed ground that you have responsibility for.
With that, thank you very much for being here. Thank you.
Members, just come back immediately after the last vote.
[Recess.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Farr follows:]

Arlington National Cemetery

Your budget request for $22,218,000 indicates you will be able to
condct an average of 27 funeral services per day.
Everyone knows our country is losing upwards of 1,000 veterans a
day.
1. Question. Please explain how you determined that there would be
an overall increase of only 32 internments at Arlington National
Cemetery from FY07 to FY08?
1. Answer. According to demographics published by the Department of
Veterans Affairs, the death rate of World War II veterans is
approximately 1,000 per day. Most of these veterans are buried in their
home cemeteries, with relatively few interred at Arlington National
Cemetary (ANC). The estimated increase of 32 interments, from 4,052 tom
FY 2007 to 4,084 in FY 2008, is based on the past 15 years of burial
records at ANC, and the expectation that the peak period for World War
II veterans' deaths will be drawing to a close in FY 2008.
2. Question. How do you figure an increase of only 11 interments
from FY08 to FY09?
2. Answer. As mentioned above, World War I veterans deaths are
expected to peek during FY 2008 and then level off, so the impact on
funerals at ANC is expected to be minimal in FY 2009. The small
increase projected in FY 2009 is primarily attributed to an upward
trend that ANC is experiencing in spousal deaths.
3. Question. You state that in FY07, there were only 124 interments
related to the war on terror. Please tell us how many interments you
project from OEF to OIF for FY08 and FY09?
3. Answer. Based on funerals that have already occurred and those
scheduled through the end of March 2008, ANC will have had 41 active
duty funerals associated with Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). If the number of funerals in the second
half of FY 2008 is the same as the first half, the total for the year
would be 82. However, the number could be somewhat less than 82 because
the trend in the monthly rate of funerals for the war on terror is down
so far this year. Funeral projections for the war on terror is beyond
FY 2008 have not been made, due to the many variables associated with
the war.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Farr.]

Mr. Edwards. I would like to call the subcommittee back
into order.
Our third hearing this afternoon will be on the budget
request of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, which has a fiscal
year 2009 budget request of $63 million in the trust fund, an
increase of over $7 million when compared to the fiscal year
2008 appropriation.
Representing the home is once again before our committee,
Mr. Timothy Cox. Mr. Cox, welcome back.
Mr. Cox. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home.
He is accompanied by Mr. Steven McManus, Chief Financial
Officer of the Home. Mr. McManus, welcome. Good to have you
here.
Mr. Cox, we know that in past years we have had a lot of
challenges at the Armed Forces Retirement Home, as you have had
to cope with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, absorbing
those residents into the Washington facility and adapting the
facility to satisfy the new demands.
Before we hear your statement, Mr. Cox, I would like to
yield to Mr. Wamp for any opening comments he would care to
make.
Mr. Wamp. I thank the chairman.
Just briefly, I thank you for your appearance here and your
service to our country. I just now got to meet you, and look
forward to working with you in the future.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp, thank you.
Mr. Cox, I would now like to recognize you for your opening
statement. Without objection, your full statement will be
submitted for the record.
----------

Tuesday, February 26, 2008.

ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME

WITNESSES

TIMOTHY COX, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER ACCOMPANIED BY STEVEN MCMANUS,
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Statement of Timothy Cox

Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
opportunity to be able to speak with you and with the committee
members.
Briefly, I will go over what the budget entails, just in
synopsis, and get to the questions I think you may have.
As you know, we are asking for $63 million, $8 million over
last year, and $63 million is all coming from the trust fund.
The $8 million difference refers to capital improvements that
we need to do. We need to do a study on one of our dormitories,
and we need to actually do some physical maintenance on one of
those dormitories as well. So that is the difference. It is not
an increase in our costs.
Congress is supporting our home with two major commitments.
The $76 million major dormitory renovation, and that is part of
the $8 million to do the study and the planning for that $76
million. That $76 million is scheduled in 2010 to come out of
the trust fund. And then as you know, the rebuilding of the
Gulfport campus is going on, and that is through supplemental
money, a total of $240 million that we received.
The rebuild is on track. On March 3, we are actually having
our groundbreaking ceremony, so we have demolished the existing
facility in Gulfport and on March 3 we will be down there for
the groundbreaking. Again, that will be available the last
quarter of 2010, which is as expected. We also are submitting a
report no later than March 1 on planned services and how we are
adapting our program, including Green House initiatives, which
are important to Senator Wicker, as well as important to
residents. A residentially-based model, Green House,
particularly as it pertains to long-term care nursing home
functions, but we really are looking at a residentially based
model for all continuing care of our home, which we have done.
We have done our multi-year financial plan that went out
and looked at trust fund solvency, while addressing capital
requirements. It includes a financial plan that we are doing
for that independent revenue piece. We have engaged a
nationally known engineering construction firm to look at our
structures and our campus infrastructure, that cost of repair
is not just in the Scott Building, but we are using this $76
million to look at other buildings as well, at a total cost of
$134 million.
With the president's efforts to improve housing for retired
veterans, we felt it was really important to begin to do some
of those deferred maintenance issues in our buildings. That
dormitory hasn't gone under a major renovation since it was
completed in 1954, so we have plumbing issues. We have heating
issues, and we have electrical issues. So that is what the bulk
of the money is for, and specifically the $8 million is out of
the increase; $5.6 million is for planning and design for those
renovations, and $2.4 million is for facility upgrades.
Congress, we also are thankful to you all for the $800,000
that you have given us to be able to study the trust fund long-
term viability, so that $800,000 will be used, I should say
some of that $800,000 will be used for looking at how that
master plan with the funds that will come in once that
development is started, and how we are spending the money for
the renovations, so we make sure we don't get into that
negative cycle that the trust fund was in before.
Past problems, as you know through paper and through
communication with your staff, we have received some unfair
criticism over the last couple of years. All of our
investigations, both internally, by OSD, by Health Affairs, as
well as by JCAHO, have proved all those allegations unfounded.
We received JCAHO's gold seal of approval in 2005, and with two
unannounced visits last year, they found no health care
problems at our home.
We have established a hotline and routinely the AFRH
inspector general cooperates with the Department of Defense
inspector general. The residents have the DOD hotline, OSD
hotline, and our internal inspector general's hotline so they
can call those numbers, as well as reach out to anyone on
campus as well. That seems to have improved communication with
the residents.
The trust fund had declined to $94 million in 2002. We have
now created over $65 million of growth, so after the end of
fiscal year 2007, our trust fund was $159 million. We are very
proud of that. And we have become much more business-savvy. We
have looked at our new budget, our guidelines established by
Congress in 2002 and we operate within those guidelines now.
Our financial performance is probably the one that has
improved the greatest, and we received our third unqualified
audit. The first one was in 2005, and received in 2006, as well
as 2007. We were named GSA's Customer of the Year in 2007, and
just to go on a little bit about the Green House part, because
I know that is of interest, too, there are 10 initiatives. I
won't go through all of them, but the whole premise is really
residential homelike environment, and really matching what the
residents' needs are.
Our needs are unique. Usually, long-term care population is
75 percent to 85 percent women, ours is 92 percent men. The
women traditionally at the age of 82, cooked, cleaned, bake.
Our men do none of those things. So to look at an environment
that really has socialization with other than seven or eight
people, which for our gentlemen, who usually eat with people
that don't live on their floor, because they do like to
socialize. They like big group activities. So we are really
making the best of both worlds both in Gulfport, as well as the
renovation in D.C.
We have made steady progress. The trust fund balance, I
told you, has risen to $159 million. GSA selected Jacobs
Engineering to rebuild Gulfport. The contractor has been
selected, that is Yates Construction out of Mississippi. We
have launched our own in-house channel 99, which includes
communications such as continuous feed of everything from menus
to announcements to bus schedules. Residents on any TV can go
to channel 99 from their room, or we have one outside the
dining room that just keeps telling everyone what is going on.
It is another way to get information out there.
Staff was trained in over 136 hours of health and wellness.
We have really focused to make sure that we are not just
reacting to the health care needs, but prevention is coming in,
too. That is with introducing tai chi, weight training, walking
courses--all those things are really healthy and extend the
longevity of our residents. A resident satisfaction survey this
past year found that 75 percent of those surveyed either ranked
our services very good or excellent.
Mr. Edwards. What percent was that?
Mr. Cox. It was 75 percent very good or excellent.
In conclusion, I want to thank members of this committee
for what you do for us, and Congress, because of your continued
support for the Armed Forces Retirement Home and the veterans
we serve. I look forward to answering any questions that you
have or comments, or anything you would like me to go into more
specifically.
[Prepared Statement of Timothy Cox follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.113

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.114

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.115

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.116

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.117

HOMELESS VETERANS

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Cox, for your statement.
Let me begin by asking you about the recent Washington Post
article regarding the facility that you have leased out to a
group that provides housing for homeless veterans. As I
understand it, that facility will be either knocked down or
renovated, so it won't be available for those homeless
veterans. Have you had any discussions with the VA or anyone
else about what kind of plan could be put in place so that
those homeless veterans are simply not left out on the streets
of Washington, D.C.?
Mr. Cox. Right. As you know, our intent is never to let any
veteran be out on the streets. Part of why we were into this
venture was because Secretary Abell knew someone who was going
to look for temporary housing in the D.C. area for vets in
transition. It is not a homeless shelter. It is actually vets
who have gone through a training program, are substance-free,
and this is their last step before they have a home of their
own.
So when USVets initiative, which is out of California, Los
Angeles, they came to us asking if we had temporary housing. We
said we did. We had this building. Take it as-is, and we had
reduced our footprint. This is one of the buildings that is
going to be torn down because it needs so much maintenance.
They took it as-is, and we have had four leases with them. The
first lease was for 1 year, and the second lease was for 1
year, and then two 6-month leases because our master plan has
taken a longer period of time.
They always knew that it was temporary. They chose not to
have a business plan to look for a transition, but maybe to
force us to keep them. As you know, by law, we can't have them,
because Congress sets the four criteria for admission to the
Armed Forces Retirement Home, and the vets that live there
don't fit the criteria to live in the Armed Forces Retirement
Home.
So with that being said, we have reached out----
Mr. Edwards. What is that criteria?
Mr. Cox. The criteria are four. They are just, again, set
by Congress and each one is independent on their own, so a vet
only has to fit one. The first category is retiree, with 20
years of service, and that one has an age attached to it. So
you have to be a minimum of 60 years of age. The remaining
three don't have any age restrictions.
The second category is you served in a theater of war, and
in all of these you have to be honorably discharged. The second
category is you served in a theater of war, so you actually had
to be in the Pacific in World War II or in Europe, and you
couldn't be here in the states.
The third category is you have a service-connected
disability because of your service at the time of war, and you
are 100 percent disabled and unable to earn a livelihood.
The fourth category is a female who served prior to 1948. A
lot of the women who served in World War II, even in combat,
weren't considered active duty combat, so they didn't get the
same retiree benefits. So Congress felt that would catch them.
Women obviously qualified in the other three categories as
well.
What we have done is we have actually reached out to the VA
and to community partnerships, as vets get most of their money
through HUD, and HUD funds the community partnerships division,
and they give a monthly lease allowance to the vets who live in
the USVets initiative houses. So we have coordinated now weekly
calls with USVets, with Councilman Thomas, with the
representative from VA, and a representative from community
partnerships to really look at options to ensure that those
residents know that they could be moved to a USVets initiative
program in Houston. They might not like that, but they don't
have a job here. There are 29 of their transition housing
providers in D.C., and we will work with them, but they have to
vacate by the end of July. Everyone will either be placed or
USVets will find a new place for them.
Mr. Edwards. So by the end of July, they will have to
vacate.
Mr. Cox. That is correct.
Mr. Edwards. So as of today, there is no specific plan in
play for somewhere those veterans will go?
Mr. Cox. No. What USVets have looked at is they have a
facility in Houston, and they could absorb the 50 persons there
based on if a person wanted to relocate there. They haven't
talked with the other providers because they would like USVets
initiative-D.C. to still stay an entity, but of course that
comes knowing that they have an ultimate deadline and the
building will be destroyed.
Mr. Edwards. Do you know how many veterans are there all
total?
Mr. Cox. Fifty.
Mr. Edwards. Fifty. And how many of these have jobs?
Mr. Cox. I don't know. When we met with Tim Cantwell, who
is the president of Cloudbreak, that supervises this, he said
he felt that only 37 of them had jobs, but he hasn't given us a
roster. We asked for a roster on who had jobs and who doesn't.
Mr. Edwards. Who is your key VA contact on this?
Mr. Cox. The VA contact right now, we don't know. Tim
Cantwell is giving that to us, or Susan Marshall through the
HUD program. But we had a meeting just with Tim Cantwell on
Friday and he is supposed to get that to me by March 3. It has
been Secretary Mansfield, who has been calling Dr. Chu, but I
don't know if Secretary Mansfield would be the one who is on
our weekly calls.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. I will follow up on this, because while
there are criteria and there are responsibilities and different
purposes and different groups, public and private, the public
will not understand any explanation that it takes 50 homeless
veterans and ends up putting them out on the streets.
Mr. Cox. I can assure you that is not going to happen.
Mr. Edwards. I am not sure they would be excited about
taking 37 veterans that have jobs here in Washington as they
are rebuilding their lives, and shipping them off, as much as I
love Texas, shipping them off 1,500 miles away to Houston. We
will follow up on that.
Mr. Cox. That is why we want to talk with community
partnerships, who runs similar programs so they could stay
here. USVets just hasn't done that, so we are willing to work
with them to be able to identify appropriate accommodations
locally.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Well, would you please keep us informed
on any progress on that.
Mr. Cox. Yes. I will give you updates.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. We welcome that.
Mr. Wamp.

GULFPORT FACILITY

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All of a sudden, it kind of hit me like a ton of bricks. I
should have realized this before today, but I have been to your
Gulfport facility, when we went down with the leadership team,
and Speaker Pelosi led that group 2\1/2\ years ago. When we got
off the helicopter in Gulfport, we went by the home on our way
to Biloxi. Then-Representative Wicker was with us, but wasn't
the ranking member of this subcommittee at the time,
interestingly enough, and Governor Barbour was with us as well.
Mr. Cox, the barrier islands issue off the coast--is that
being addressed at all with the continuing Katrina response? I
mean, we are going to rebuild your facility, yet we still have
the issue of another hurricane event like that. Or is your
construction much, much different this time, as are the gaming
facilities in Biloxi, which are now all-masonry and built back
and not floating, and on and on, right?
Mr. Cox. Correct. Barrier islands hasn't been resolved, as
far as I know. And GSA just keeps us in the loop on those
communications. What we have done is actually built to a storm-
surge level that actually our first floor will be washout. So
on the grade that we have built up 20-some feet, then we are 15
feet above that, and the first floor is just parking, storage,
really wash-through. So residents will be above the storm surge
area where living space will occur.
Mr. Wamp. So you break ground on March 3. How long is the
construction period?
Mr. Cox. Until the fall of 2010.
Mr. Wamp. So 2\1/2\ years.
Mr. Cox. About 2\1/2\ years. It is construction, hurricane-
proof windows, so it is built to category-5 for wind, rain and
storm surge, we are hoping.
Mr. Wamp. But the construction is funded in the
supplemental?
Mr. Cox. Correct.
Mr. Wamp. All of it?
Mr. Cox. All but $20 million, which we were going to ask
some larger units, ADA compliance, Americans with Disabilities
Act-compliant units, and we had set aside $20 million in the
trust fund. That we will spend at the end should it be needed.
So in that $240 million is included $20 million from the trust
fund.
Mr. Wamp. That would be great to see it come to fruition.

GREEN CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Cox. Well, there is huge progress now.
Mr. Wamp. You were talking about green housing, which helps
the quality of life. What about green construction in terms of
environment? We are doing it here at the Capitol. Are you doing
it there?
Mr. Cox. That is a very good question. We are. We are
looking to be LEEDS-certified at least gold, but striving for a
platinum. But if you look at green roofs, some of our outside
space will be on the parking deck roof level, where you will
have putting greens, items like that. We are looking at
recirculating water. In fact, I just talked to one of the
architects last week when I was in Roanoke about the 5-gallons
of rainwater that will collect after a storm, and that could be
recycled for use in the building. So yes, we are working
heavily with Yates to be able to get LEEDS certification for
that building as well.

OTHER PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS

Mr. Wamp. The whole construction process is completely
private in terms of the bidding? You talked about Jacobs, and
obviously they are a large contractor from Mississippi who won
the competitive bidding of the master general contract on the
entire facility. Are there any other reforms in procurement of
the construction?
We have witnessed tremendous privatization in housing, and
this is one exception to that. Of course, this is very
different from just regular housing for active duty men and
women. This is much more in the line of nursing care,
retirement living, et cetera. But are there other private
developments underway in your business? Or is this kind of
unique?
Mr. Cox. Well, we are doing a master plan here in D.C., but
to back up, actually GSA did--this was competitively bid, so
GSA ran through it to be competitively bid for design, because
it is design-build. We also bid for the design-build component,
not really the construction component, but design and build for
that.
In D.C., we actually went through a competitive process as
well to select Crescent Resources, who will be the developer of
77 acres in D.C., so it is a revenue source. That is the only
other one.
Mr. Wamp. That is privatization.
When you say you are more business-like, in what way?
Mr. Cox. We are. When you look at how wisely we are
spending our dollars, we have looked at what we do best, which
is really focused on care. We necessarily didn't do
transportation well, so transportation, to hire a bus company
to do that for us made much better business sense, just to have
that available to us. So we really looked at the roles of what
outside groups could do to help our business, so we could
really focus on our core business, which is providing care for
the residents.
And that, as you will see, was a reduction in our requests
for operating maintenance year over year until this year. And
also our services have improved and increased, where we are
able to get great IG reports and we are able to get great JCAHO
reports, which were inconsistent at best. So it is really a
business-like approach to how we are operating, so that we
don't have to do everything as a government entity. We can
partner.
We also partner with other government agencies. For
instance, the Bureau of Public Debt, which is an entity of
Treasury, does all of our accounting for us. So when my
managers couldn't get on a computer to call up their daily
profit-loss statements to see where they were today, or budget
for the month, or budget for the year, and it took me 8 weeks
when I first came to get a profit-loss statement. Now it is
real-time, 24/7, you can access your account from any computer
with your access code, because Treasury does that for us. So I
was able to reduce FTEs, but we get a better quality of
product, because we are using another federal agency that has
expertise in accounting for us.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Bishop.

WASHINGTON FACILITY

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Welcome back, Mr. Cox. I appreciate the progress that you
have made. In Gulfport, you are moving right along. Very good.
How are things in Washington at the facility there?
Mr. Cox. Washington is going great. We are very grateful
for the money that we have. We need buildings repaired or
replaced. We have had some ongoing maintenance problems because
of deferred maintenance for over 20 years. They are biting us
now, so we are being able to focus on those. It is very
helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Last year, we talked about some of the measures
we have provided the residents, including the golf course.
Mr. Cox. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. We talked about, last year you hadn't costed it
out, but it was the cost of the sprinklers on the fairways,
doing some of them up. You said you were going to cost that
out.
Mr. Cox. We notified the Committee that we did not have the
money to adequately cost it out by private correspondence.
However, we plan to make it part of our capital study. We also
want to look at if there is a way to connect it to our
development, so some of the development requirements could be
there as well. So we haven't forgotten that. That is on our
list, and we actually are looking at that as part of the master
plan. We need a way to fund it. We have to do the study because
we have realized that doing that now really wasn't fair,
because we don't have water in significantly 90 percent of
where the golf course is.
Mr. Bishop. That is all I have.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I am very impressed that a young articulate person would be
so concerned and confident in answering question dealing with
the elderly population. It is refreshing to see.
How many soldier homes do we have in the federal
government?
Mr. Cox. Currently, only one in operation, the D.C. site.
In Gulfport, no one is living there because we tore down the
building. But one in operation, and the other 1,100 residents
in D.C.
Mr. Farr. Well, 1,100. So on a $94 million budget----
Mr. Cox. About $63 million.
Mr. Farr. So on a $63 million budget, we are helping 1,100
people.
Mr. Cox. Correct.
Mr. Farr. What is the goal to house how many in federal
jurisdictions?
Mr. Cox. The goal really would be to, when we open
Gulfport, there would be 500 people. There wouldn't be 1,600
people because we would look at, with the reduction in the
building that we are going to renovate, Scott, we would be
looking at a population of about 800.
Mr. Farr. What is the total goal?
Mr. Cox. The goal would be about 1,200.
Mr. Farr. About 1,200 addition to the 1,100?
Mr. Cox. No, 1,200 total in the two homes.
Mr. Farr. Total in the whole nation?
Mr. Cox. Correct.
Mr. Farr. And how many state homes? I know California has
some.
Mr. Cox. California does. I don't know how many state homes
there are. I have spoken to them quite a few times at their
conferences about what we have done.
Mr. Farr. Do all states have veteran retirement homes?
Mr. Cox. Some states have several.
Mr. Farr. We have had testimony here that there are about
200,000 veterans on the streets in America--200,000 veterans
that are homeless. We are only taking care of 1,200. Somebody
has to pick up that gap. What you find in dealing with a
homeless population is you can't get them to deal with an
individual problem until you get them a safe place to sleep.
The shelters are essential to getting them off the streets
and getting them in treatment, though they will not always
accept the help. What I have seen in my district is that that
responsibility has just gone to local government, so homeless
shelters are being built by cities, with public and private
funding.
I would be interested, it seems to me that if the
responsibility here that our committee has taken would be in
essence leave no vet behind, then we are falling really short.
Mr. Cox. I actually gave a report to Congress back in 2006
that had five options. One of the options--and this is just my
personal opinion, not the department's opinion nor AFRH's
opinion, the department being OSD--but one of the options there
was to look at AFRH forming a nonprofit, and being able to
leverage funds to be able to have home four, home five, a home
ten, a home twelve. That plan was not accepted.
Mr. Farr. And the $63 million to help 1,200--I mean, you
could give them vouchers through the housing authorities to get
a better value for your buck.
Mr. Cox. We could. Part of it is that is why we want to
renovate, and as you will see in our financial analysis that we
do, our costs continue to come down because we are in buildings
that have outlived their usefulness, that haven't been updated.
We have so much square footage that really we don't need. So
yes, we can----
Mr. Farr. So how much land do you own?
Mr. Cox. We own 272 acres.
Mr. Farr. That is it in the whole nation?
Mr. Cox. Well, in Gulfport, it is 49 acres.
Mr. Farr. Has there been any discussion of using what the
Department of Defense is using, and what they call RCI, the
residential community initiative, where you essentially have
private dollars build on public land, and then they get the
rent from the BAH. And you could work out a voucher kind of
payment that other authorities use, plus the private sector
would take all the risk and puts up all the capital, and
essentially designs it as state-of-the-art. It's beautiful.
Mr. Cox. That is what we are doing in part, not to replace
what we have, but we are developing 77 acres on the premise
that that income from there, the developer, Crescent Resources,
is responsible for all of the development there, and will pay
us rent. We get rent in three ways. We get rent just based on
the sheer lease of the ground because we didn't sell it to
them. We are leasing it to them. Second, we participate in rent
for every lessor they have on the campus, 4.3 million square
feet of rentable space there. And then third, whenever they
refinance and have a savings, we split in that savings as well.
Those funds will come in the trust fund, and my hope, again
personally--not my professional opinion--or the AFRH's chief
operating officer in the department, but then we would be able
to use funds to be able to look at private-public partnerships
and have like a Del Webb build us 150 units in Arizona, of
which then we could voucher people to go there.
Mr. Farr. What, of these requirement that you have, the
four criteria qualifications, how many vets out there fit that
criteria in one way or another? What is your unmet need, who
qualify, but have no space available for them?
Mr. Cox. There are people who make application to us,
usually we accept because they look right, so we don't deny
people if they meet our criteria.
Mr. Farr. How is it you only have 1,100 or 1,200 units?
Mr. Cox. Well, because our people don't sign an annual
lease. They don't have to give a month's security deposit. So
we turn over about 30 a month, with residents coming in. So the
wait list is really continuous, that people usually only have
an extended time of 90 days to wait from when they make
application to get in because of the turnover we have. People
come. They get better. They go back to their home.
As I testified in the past year, the number one reason
people leave, other than they are able to die at our facility,
is they go back to where their family is, because they are
growing frail and they can't travel back to Texas, and can't
travel back to California. So that is the impetus in the report
that we should have----
Mr. Farr. What is the percentage? I mean, you do have
people who just live with you until they die.
Mr. Cox. Correct. We do. The vast majority--over 80 percent
of our deaths are people--80 percent of our discharges are
people by death, not by choice to leave--but 20 percent leave
because they want to go home because they are too frail to
travel back and forth to see their children and grandchildren,
family members and friends.
Mr. Farr. But if we have 200,000 homeless, and we are
housing 1,200, and of those homeless, maybe not all of them fit
this criteria, particularly people who retire, and I am not
sure they all have 20 years of service.
Mr. Cox. That is only one category.
Mr. Farr. Yes, but you also have served in-theater, war
disability, injury. A lot of them can't prove that either, or
females prior to 1948. It is a very, very narrow niche of
people that qualify to live there. The only reason I am asking
these questions is that it seems to me that Congress has
created this responsibility to take care of essentially people
that are in this narrow niche, and who are financially in need,
and yet we find this huge population out there that is in need
and either doesn't fit this criteria or there is no room.
I would be willing to look at how we should expand it. You
are the administrator. You are smart about the ``how.'' How do
you get better? Do we just work with housing authorities to
make sure that people get housing vouchers or rental vouchers?
Is there a better way in which we can pick up the unmet need,
because you are serving less than 1 percent.
Mr. Wamp. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Farr. Sure.
Mr. Wamp. The secretary of veterans affairs pretty well
told us last week, 2 weeks ago, that it is about 130,000. I
know that is still a huge number, but of the 130,000, a very
large part of the population is either frankly on some kind of
medication. There is a tremendous percentage of them with no
illness. And so you can kind of start to see.
The question that I would have, which is very related,
because I am like the same as those on this subcommittee, I
don't want to leave the veterans behind. I want to find a way
with vouchers to empower these people to find a place to go,
and then make sure the ones that need medication are on
medication so that they will have the wherewithal to understand
what is available to them. Because a whole lot of them--I would
say the majority of them--don't understand what is available to
them.
What kind of waiting list do you have? You said 30 days.
Are there thousands of people waiting to get in your facility?
Mr. Cox. No, sir.
Mr. Wamp. That speaks to what I want to point out, is that
the real challenge is not to have the facilities or even the
voucher, but figure out how to corral the ones that need help
and get them diagnosed properly and treated properly so that
they can pursue the health, because most of them frankly have
mental health issues.
Mr. Farr. Yes, some of them don't want any help.
Mr. Wamp. I know some don't.
Mr. Farr. But that is a treatment problem, too.
Mr. Cox. We would love to look at our admission criteria.
One of the things that we have talked about before is that
spouses are not permitted by law to come to our facilities
unless they independently qualify. So a person moves to our
facility usually at a time of trauma because the number one
reason why they moved is their spouse died. That is the worst
time to make a lifestyle change is when your spouse dies. So we
would love to entertain looking at alternatives to our criteria
that we feel needs to evolve to something better.
Mr. Farr. Have you made those recommendations?
Mr. Cox. We have. They are in the report that we gave to
Congress.
Mr. Farr. When was that report?
Mr. Cox. In February, 2006, and we gave five different
options, and one was pretty aggressive, to give us 18 months to
explore who we need to serve and expand that; look at perhaps
privatizing and partnering with some other retirement housing
developers; and that was not accepted. I would be happy to re-
visit it.
Mr. Farr. What do you mean, it wasn't accepted?
Mr. Cox. It wasn't accepted. The only option in that report
that was accepted was just to go back to Gulfport proper and
rebuild new, and that was option two out of five.
Mr. Farr. The authorizing committee--I mean, who?
Mr. Cox. The House Armed Services Committee. We can
certainly bring that information back out to you.
Mr. Edwards. If you could provide that to us.
Mr. Cox. Yes. And if you want more than the six-page----
Mr. Edwards. We could talk to our colleagues on the House
Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Cox. Great.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Cox, I just have one other question. That is,
when you finish completion, or when you complete the
renovations on the Scott building, do I understand you are
going from three floors to two floors. So what will that mean
in terms of your capacity?
Mr. Cox. With the Scott renovations, and our study will be
completed in the end of April about utilization at the Scott
building, and what most likely--if I had a crystal ball--the
Scott building will come out to be renovated assisted living
and long-term care because we can join two rooms to make one,
rather than joining three rooms to make one, so we don't lose
as much of the volume, and because our infrastructure for
dining, so much of the activities are in that lower level in
Scott, to reproduce that would probably be exorbitant.
Mr. Farr. Right.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Farr follows:]

Question. Is the study of Renovation of Existing/Previously
Existing Structures complete?
Answer. Yes, the report was submitted to Congress on February 28,
2006 and contained five options. Options 1 and 2 proposed rebuilding on
the Gulfport property, either a renovation or a total rebuild. Options
3, 4, and 5 did not propose rebuilding on the existing Gulfport campus.
The Department approved option 2, to rebuild the Armed Forces
Retirement Home (AFRH) on AFRH property. Congress provided the funding
to support this decision and construction is underway. The Department
of Defense does not support revisiting any options contained in the
report AFRH initially delivered to Congress on February 28, 2006.
Question. If so, did the study recommend a reduction in the AFRH
footprint of either facility?
Answer. No, the study provided options to enhance capabilities.
Question. If not, what do you mean in your testimony about reducing
the ``footprint.''
Answer. The terminology ``footprint'' recognizes divesture of
excess infrastructure at the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH)--
Washington. Over the past four years, AFRH--Washington has consolidated
operations to create better support for aging residents. The footprint
of the AFRH has been reduced by over 600,000 square feet, but continues
to serve the same number of residents.
Question. Please update the committee on the scope and status of
the privatization plan for the DC Old Soldiers Home?
Answer. We are not privatizing the Home or supporting a change in
governance or eligibility. The Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) is
seeking final approval for the AFRH-Washington Master Plan from the
National Capitol Planning Commission by May 1, 2008. As part of the
master plan process and competitive bidding, Crescent LLC was selected
as the preferred land developer, pending Department of Defense approval
and Congressional notification.
Related to this master plan, the Department has directed Mr. Cox to
work with US Vets, the Veterans Administration, Housing and Urban
Development, and the DC Community Partnership for the Prevention of
Homelessness to find a suitable alternative for the approximately 50
homeless veterans currently residing at Ignatius House as part of a
lease agreement between US Vets and AFRH. Ignatius House is part of the
AFRH redevelopment plan and is expected to be turned over to the
developer in August 2008. Furthermore, US Vets is also in discussion
with the AFRH developer about being the transitional housing provider
within the future AFRH development.
Question. (Congressman Farr) commended AFRH for developing new
``Green House'' dorms at the Gulfport facility that will foster more of
a community environment with supportive services rather that the
traditional dorm/barracks house. Will these facilities ever be located
outside of AFRH properties?
Answer. At the request of Congress, the Gulfport AFRH Project Team
performed due diligence to ensure we successfully incorporated the best
facets of numerous retirement home concepts, including the Green
House^TM and Small House concepts at AFRH--Gulfport. The AFRH
Project Team, comprised of environmental gerontologists, architects,
retirement home designers, engineers, and residents, has designed
Neighborhoods of Care that will provide an unparalleled quality of life
for all of our veteran residents and the staff that serve them. AFRH--
Gulfport has been designed to meet the specific needs of AFRH residents
while maintaining the intent of our statutory charge to incorporate the
principles of the Green House approach. We have designed a facility,
staffing plan, and program that provides privacy where needed, values
individuality, fosters spiritual well-being, provides meaningful
activities, and, above all, sustains the veteran's dignity; all
concepts embodied within the Green House approach. With the General
Services Administration as our lead construction agent, we expect the
facility to open in 2010, on time, within budget, and on target in
meeting the intent to provide the best level of care possible to meet
the needs of our proud veterans. Similar design concepts will be used
when renovating the Scott Building at AFRH--Washington. There are no
plans to employ this design outside of AFRH properties.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Farr.]

Mr. Cox. So what we are looking at is is there an
opportunity then to build a residential living component. So we
would be looking at perhaps a replacement facility. It could be
the Grant building, that sits on Harewood right across from the
cemetery, or would we build something new? It most likely
wouldn't be a care facility. It would be for those with
independent living. That is part of the master plan as well.
Mr. Farr. Okay. I hope that we can look at that report and
perhaps make some recommendations in report language, but
working to see if we can find ways to meet that unmet need out
there.
Mr. Cox. Great. We would love to have your help with that.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for coming. I will look forward to
updates, if you would, on the homeless veterans issue.
Very good. Thank you both.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Judge Greene, welcome back to our
subcommittee. It is good to have you back. Thank you for all of
your service on the court, and thank you for your distinguished
career as Army judge advocate in the judge advocate general's
corps. It has been, I understand, 25 years, having retired as a
colonel. We are deeply grateful to you for your public service.
This is our final panel for the afternoon, the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The budget request
for fiscal year 2009 is $23,975,000, of which $1.7 million is
for the pro bono program. The request is an increase of $1.285
million when compared to the fiscal year 2008 appropriation.
Judge Greene, rather than my continuing on, let me just
recognize Mr. Wamp for any comments he would care to make, and
then we will recognize you here.
Mr. Wamp. Judge Greene, I wasn't here last year. I am the
new kid on the block, but thank you for your distinguished
service and career. I look forward to working with you and
supporting the improvements that I read are already underway.
Thank you very much for your testimony today, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Judge Greene, we will without objection submit
your full testimony for the record. I would like to recognize
you now for any summary comments you may have.
----------

Tuesday, February 26, 2008.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

WITNESS

CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM GREENE

Statement of the Honorable William P. Greene, Jr.

Chief Judge Greene. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Wamp, and Mr. Farr. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to be here again today. I brought with me my Clerk
of Court, Norm Herring, Mary Anne Marcot, who is my financial
manager, and Alice Kerns who is the counsel to the Board of
Judges. These people help me each and every day in the running
of the court and especially preparing the budget.
Fortunately, this year the budget was pretty easy to
prepare. It is a pretty straightforward budget from last year.
We are asking for, as you say, $1.25 million more than we
received for the 2008 appropriation. Of course, we thank you
very much for providing us $1 million more than we asked for
last year. Your recognizing that the Department of Veterans
Affairs and the Board of Veterans Appeals received more money
to increase their productivity, and the ripple effect that will
come from that, certainly will enable us to prepare for the
inevitable growing caseload. Those executive agencies are
rendering decisions at record pace.
We have the obligation to conduct that judicial review, and
we are doing so to the best of our abilities with the seven
judges that we have and the very competent administrative and
judicial staff.
The $1.25 million increase that we are asking for in FY
2009 is wrapped up basically in the $510,000 dedicated to
covering the anticipated personnel costs that are associated
with pay raises and benefits that will occur simply because of
inflation. For basic operating costs, we are asking for an
increase of $258,000 to cover the anticipated increases in the
rent of the location where the court is located, and the
continuing operation site, as well as payroll services from the
National Finance Center in the Bureau of Public Debt and the
security expenses that we have as a court.
That basically is our request in a nutshell. We certainly
appreciate the support that you can give us in that regard. I
do want to tell you that we have been very successful in our
productivity at the court. This past fiscal year, fiscal year
2007, we decided 4,877 cases. We received about 4,600 cases.
That is an all-time record high. Some of that is associated
with one particular kind of case, but if you subtract the 900
cases that involved that issue, we still decided more cases
than the court has ever decided in its 20-year history.
There is every indication, however, that we will continue
to receive 4,000 to 5,000 appeals each year. As a result, we
have to ramp-up our resources to take care of that caseload,
and at the same time develop efficiencies that will allow us to
dispose of these cases timely and efficiently.
Thank you for the support that you have given us in our
electronic filing plan. That is now in effect. We started in
November requiring representative attorneys to file Equal
Access to Justice Act applications electronically, and that has
shown great dividends to us in terms of administrative ease in
which we are able to make decisions.
We are this summer going to require electronic filing for
all pleadings that come to the court, and that certainly will
streamline our administrative process. Probably, as those
documents become readily available to the judges sooner, then
more cases, of course, will all of a sudden come to chambers
for decision.
We are doing things to develop our record of trial to make
it easier to obtain. Right now, it takes about 90 days just to
get a record established for us to review, or for the case to
be briefed. If we can condense that time by changing the way in
which we develop the record, it will also pay dividends in
terms of cutting down the time it takes to get to decision.
Those procedures will take effect in April.
With the money provided by the committee, we also hired
additional attorneys for our Central Legal Staff. The 10
attorneys that we now have have all received formal mediation
training that will allow them to come to the table with the
parties, improve briefing, and hopefully resolve the disputes
before they have to be presented to the judge. Again, when you
are receiving 3,600 or 4,000 or 5,000 appeals a year, that is a
critical piece of our process.
These innovations are significant. Changing how the
relevant record is created doesn't cost anything. That is
something that we are doing in-house. It may cost VA some
things because it requires them to get into the business of
scanning records. Also, we have been recalling our retired
judges to assist us in deciding cases. The five retired judges
available come in for 90 days at a time to help us there.
Again, that cost is minimal as well. I have one judge who is
located out of town in Utah, and I bring him back for 90 days
to do that.
What is coming up in the near term that we need your
tremendous support on is the courthouse. We are getting very
close now to providing to the Congress a feasibility study by
GSA on the options available for the courthouse. We are the
only federal court in the system without its own dedicated
courthouse. We are putting in place plans to try to alleviate
that unflattering distinction.
GSA, as I said, has done a follow-on feasibility study that
examined our current location, a commercial office building.
That study accesses whether or not it is feasible for us to
take over that entire building, or in fact build at some other
location that is considered to be appropriate and feasible.
There is no better time than now to make this happen if we
are going to let the public know that there sits a courthouse
that demonstrates the public's respect and gratitude to
America's sons and daughters for their service, and also that
is a beacon of justice for the veterans and their families. So
we look forward to working with you to make this a reality.
That is all I have. I would be happy to answer your
questions.
[Prepared statement of the Honorable William P. Greene, Jr.
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.118

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.119

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.120

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.121

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.122

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.123

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754A.124

BACKLOG OF CASES

Mr. Edwards. Judge, thank you. It was very well presented.
Let me just ask you in terms of your backlog, based on the
historic number of cases that you decided this year, it looks
to me like you handled more cases, closed more cases than came
in, so you reduced your backlog. How long is the backlog in
terms of the waiting list? Or in terms of if I were a veteran
today and I filed a case before the court, when would I
generally have my case? How many months later would I have my
case considered?
Chief Judge Greene. It is very hard to speak in terms of
backlog with an appellate court, but let me, if you recall from
last year, I provided an overview of how the process works at
the court. I think our median time for the fiscal year 2007 was
416 days. That was high--higher than previous years--because I
had certainly put pressure on all my colleagues to make sure
that we got rid of the oldest cases at the court, and therefore
reduced the time that cases have been waiting for decision. We
were successful in that.
I think right now we have very few cases in chambers that
have been there over 4 months. Now, how does a case get to
chambers? Because of this record of trial issue that I
presented, that it takes 90 days just to get that, and then
after the 90 days the parties file their briefs, and they have
another 90 days to 120 days to do that. In essence, it takes at
least 254 days for a case to even get ready for the Central
Legal Staff to look at it to see what kind of case it is really
going to be. They take about 2 or 3 months to do that, so you
are already at 1 year before a case can actually come to
chambers.
There is just no way you can really reduce that too much.
We can reduce it by changing the way we develop the record on
appeal. Through electronic filing, there will be 24-hour
access, to file briefs via the cyber-space, and e-filing will
be at the court very soon.
So as we work this, we are going to see how that improves
the efficiencies of getting the case to a judge. But just like
any other appellate court, once you get the case to the judge
then you get into the deliberative process and the legal
process. The time to disposition just depends upon the
arguments raised by the parties, what effect the case may have
on other cases pending at the court at the time, what the
federal circuit is deciding at a particular time, and whether
or not we are going to render a decision on an issue that is
being also considered by the federal circuit--all those factors
play into our ability to dispose of a case. But we are working
to reduce that median time.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. You said you have hired five retired
judges to come back for a certain period of time to help reduce
the backlog. If you had additional budget funding, would you be
able to hire additional retired judges? Or is that a limit?
Chief Judge Greene. No. I have six retired judges. One is
not able to participate right now because he has had a terrible
accident. So the other five are coming in, and by statute, once
they make themselves available to be recall-eligible--and I as
the chief judge decide to call them--they must serve 90 days.
They can serve longer than that if they volunteer to do so.
As it has been working out, I have taken the five judges
that I have and have spread their service over the year, so
that there are always one or two available to help the other
seven judges with the cases.
Mr. Edwards. Good. Thank you.
Zach.

PRO BONO CONSORTIUM

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Besides both Mr. Farr and I wearing our pastel spring
colors today, we have both agreed to a shared goal of leave no
veteran behind. I was wondering--and forgive my naivety because
I am a beginner here--but with your 41 percent increase in
basically your pro bono work, can I assume that that is a
population of veterans that are so indigent that they are
coming through your court and might fit into some of this
population that we are talking about where the goal would be to
not leave these veterans behind? Who are these people?
Chief Judge Greene. An appeal to the court is an appeal by
right. In other words, when a veteran is dissatisfied with the
Board decision, that veteran can appeal the decision. There are
no preconditions to doing it. So if they want to appeal, they
just write a piece of paper to us, and we accept the appeal.
So that is why when you think in terms of 5,000 or 4,000
veterans doing that, it is inevitable that many of them, who
haven't had legal representation because up until last June, a
lawyer couldn't represent a veteran before VA and charge a fee.
Now, they can. So perhaps that is going to change
substantially.
But at any rate, we do have a high rate of individuals
initially filing pro se. But then as the appeal works through
the system, we have a pro bono consortium that screens the
cases, and then they look at cases that appear to be viable,
and thus assign an attorney to represent these veterans. There
are other veterans organizations that come in and represent
veterans from that same pool of unrepresented veterans that was
41 percent at the beginning.
That is why in our annual report at the end of disposition,
that number of unrepresented appeals reduces to about 19
percent.
Mr. Wamp. But then they still have a $490,000 one-time
increase, right?
Chief Judge Greene. I am sorry?
Mr. Wamp. The $490,000 increase in your representation
program, your pro bono work, is a 41 percent increase. Do you
expect that to continue?
Chief Judge Greene. Well, I don't normally comment on the
Pro Bono Consortium's budget, so I am not sure. I am sorry. I
misunderstood you when you said pro bono. You were talking
about the Pro Bono Consortium. Well, as I mentioned the
consortium, in fact, screens the cases and as more cases come
in, there are more cases to choose from as to whether or not
they are going to assign the many lawyers that have signed up
to represent veterans.

FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS

Mr. Wamp. On a little history, you talked about $1 million
that this committee gave last year. Of course, I wasn't here,
so I don't know. That was above the 2008 request?
Chief Judge Greene. That is correct.
Mr. Wamp. And so, did that increase your FTEs once you got
that money?
Chief Judge Greene. As I indicated in my prepared
testimony, it increases our FTEs to 112.
Mr. Wamp. From what?
Chief Judge Greene. From 105.
Mr. Wamp. Okay. So seven FTEs followed the increase. Were
you going to increase that without the $1 million? Or did that
prompt it?
Chief Judge Greene. That prompted it.
Mr. Wamp. That prompted the FTE increase?
Chief Judge Greene. That is correct.
Mr. Wamp. Okay. So that then established a new baseline
that you have to have going forward.
Chief Judge Greene. Exactly.
Mr. Wamp. So it wasn't really a one-time thing. You came to
that level because you needed to.
Chief Judge Greene. Well, we had asked to increase to [I
think we were going] up to 105 FTES for 2008. Then with the
ripple effect coming from all the resources that were being put
into VA, I guess it was nice to think about the court and say,
well, there is going to be some residual effect on the court,
and that gave us an ability to at least increase our resources.
Mr. Wamp. Well, I am learning, and I appreciate the lesson
here today.
Chief Judge Greene. I would be glad to come by and talk to
you.
Mr. Wamp. Very good. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Farr.

APPEALS PROCESS

Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Judge Greene, thank you for coming. I am not a lawyer, so I
want to ask you just a little bit about the process.
Chief Judge Greene. Sure.
Mr. Farr. The way a veteran gets in--a veteran applies for
a disability through the Department of Veterans Affairs, and
they make a decision on rating and payment.
Chief Judge Greene. That is correct.
Mr. Farr. And if they are not satisfied, they appeal that
to the Board. So that is the first instance of an appeal from
an administrative decision.
Chief Judge Greene. That is correct.
Mr. Farr. Then your court is the second tier from the Board
to you, and you are the supreme court of the decision.
Chief Judge Greene. In a sense we are, but really for
questions of law only, the veteran can appeal again to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And
then the veteran can appeal from the Federal Circuit to the
Supreme Court.
Mr. Farr. Have there been any of those cases this year?
Chief Judge Greene. No. I think there have been three cases
to the Supreme Court in history. Well, there have been two
accepted by the Supreme Court. We had one that went up on cert.
It was a big case, but the Supreme Court decided not to take
it.
Mr. Farr. So essentially these 4,000 to 5,000 appeals that
come to your court are people that have lost twice. They have
lost in the preliminary decision. They have lost in the Board
decision, and now they are in this third strike, right?
Chief Judge Greene. That is correct.
Mr. Farr. Now, what I am concerned about is that I think
there is a tsunami of appeals coming with PTSD. Do you think
that we will be able to predict how much they are going to get,
how much disability they have, the ratings? Is that what they
are usually appealing is the rating itself?
Chief Judge Greene. Well, that is why I said in a sense.
Anything may be appealed that can be considered by the veteran,
to be an adverse decision. That could be, obviously, a
straight-out denial of all benefits, or it could be a
dissatisfaction with what has been awarded. So the veteran
could very well receive 50 percent for PTSD, but believe he
should get 100 percent, and therefore a case coming to us would
be the veteran's allegation that the Board erred by not
applying the rating schedule correctly in only giving him 50
percent when he should have received 100 percent.
Mr. Farr. When you have pretrial conferences, do you
resolve a lot of those in the dispute resolution?
Chief Judge Greene. We do. I think the Clerk ends up acting
on about 75 to 100 cases a month--it is about 40 percent of the
conferences, historically.
Mr. Farr. Let us just take the 5,000 figure--would you deny
some of those or would you hear all of them?
Chief Judge Greene. No. Pre-briefing conferences are
designed to get the parties to resolve the issue. Generally,
what happens is that they agree that an error has been
committed by the Board and therefore the matter is returned to
VA for them to do it over again.
Mr. Farr. What is the success rate of making an appeal? Is
it 50 percent or 20 percent? If you appeal to your court, does
the appellant have a pretty good chance of getting a favorable
decision?
Chief Judge Greene. Yes. I was just looking at our annual
report. I thought we had a percentage here of remands. A remand
is considered a win.
Mr. Farr. That is what I have gotten into some casework on
is the remand.
Chief Judge Greene. Right.
Mr. Farr. And the time consumed and the fact that people
then have to go through that to find a regional record. It just
seems like a paper nightmare and big administrative costs.
Chief Judge Greene. We do not fact-find, so consequently in
some cases we can reverse the case as a matter of law and fact,
and as a result say that under no circumstances could there be
any other outcome but an award for the veteran. Make it happen.
But in many cases, there has been some screw-up by the
Board that they didn't do something correctly, and had they
done it correctly, it would have changed the outcome of the
facts in the case. As a result, we return it for them to do
just that, to readjudicate the case correctly, and then if they
don't, I guess it does come back.
Mr. Farr. Do you see an increase in the number of appeals?
Chief Judge Greene. Absolutely. We have gone from roughly
2,400 a year up to 2005, to now from 3,600 a year, to 4,600
this past year.
Mr. Farr. You have said the chances of getting a better
benefit from appeal seems to be there. Is there feedback to the
lower board? Is it a board? Is it a hearing board? What is the
equivalent to the trial court?
Chief Judge Greene. The Board of Veterans' Appeals.
Mr. Farr. The Board of Veterans' Appeals.
Chief Judge Greene. Well, the trial court, if you put it in
that sense, the regional office is the first entity that
adjudicates the claim. Then you have an intermediate
appellate----
Mr. Farr. Is that an administrative process?
Chief Judge Greene. Absolutely, as well as the Board,
although it is quasi-judicial in that they have veterans----
Mr. Farr. Does the Board have to approve that, or unless
there is an appeal, it is a decision? I am a veteran. I think I
have PTSD. I think I am 80 percent disabled, but I get denied.
Chief Judge Greene. So you appeal to the Board because a
veteran has one right of appeal to the Secretary of VA, and
that is to the Board. And the Board looks at the case de novo,
as we say, and looks at the facts, and even will determine if
there are other facts to be considered. If there are other
facts to be considered, the Board generally would return it to
the regional office for them to consider those facts, or ask
the veteran to waive that requirement and let the Board make
those considerations of fact.
Mr. Farr. So how many of these 5,000 cases end up being
recycled, versus final decision?
Chief Judge Greene. Normally, 50 percent are remanded by
us.
Mr. Farr. Here is what I see happening--you are going to
get this increased workload. If you are, in fact, remanding
them because you have found error, shouldn't they be learning
something so there won't continue to be that much error?
Because you are going to be overloaded and you are not going to
have the resources to do this.
Chief Judge Greene. Chairman Terry will tell you--he is the
chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals--that he is learning
from our decisions, and that he has placed emphasis on his 55
to 75 veterans law judges that they are going to prevent these
remands coming back to us because they are going to do it
correct the first time.
Mr. Farr. And you are seeing that happen?
Chief Judge Greene. Oh, absolutely. At the same time, we
are seeing a tremendous output of productivity by the Board as
well. Now, Chairman Terry would tell you in that situation, if
the Board does 90 percent correct the first time, there
shouldn't be any appeals to the Court. That would be great for
us, but that doesn't mean it is going to be so, because as I
said, the veteran could still appeal to us if he gets 50
percent and believes he should get 70 percent.
Mr. Farr. My whole point is that your full workload is
dependent on what happens at the ground level. If the veteran
is feeling that they are being fairly judged or fairly rated,
they won't make the appeal. It seems to me that we ought to
make sure that all the professionalism is necessary, because a
lot of our casework at our local office is about the product of
the bureaucracy.
Chief Judge Greene. I will say that I think it was last
year, the Board had 18,000 cases that were totally denied--
18,000. And all of those potentially could have come to the
court, but they didn't. And so for whatever reason, those
veterans decided to say, okay, that is the decision and I
accept it. We are always concerned about the fact that there is
a pool of cases out there that just don't come to us that
certainly could.
Mr. Farr. Why do you need your own courthouse?
Chief Judge Greene. Well, we are a federal court. All other
federal courts have a courthouse. I put it as simply as that.
Mr. Farr. Does that mean you have to travel here to
Washington, DC?
Chief Judge Greene. No, no, no, sir, because at appellate
courts, counsel appear. A veteran is certainly entitled to come
to his hearing from wherever, but we are a national court and
we go to other places and conduct hearings. I was just in
Florida last week conducting a hearing. It is part of our
outreach program, and is something that we do.
But having a federal courthouse, is designed to demonstrate
the public's respect and gratitude to veterans as a symbol of
justice for them. That is the main reason I think we should
have a courthouse. Soldiers who are court martialed and
convicted of serious offenses can appeal their cases to the
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which has a courthouse.
What about veterans with honorable discharges? So I think it is
time for that to happen.
Mr. Edwards. Judge Greene, could I just ask one last
question? Based on the first quarter, the first 3 months of
2008 versus 2007, there were in 2008 first quarter a little
over 300 per month filings and 387 in the same time period in
2007. Are you projecting any downward trend based on that, or
is that just an anomaly?
Chief Judge Greene. No, I think we are really still on the
same trend that we were in 2007, except for the class of cases
that involved bilateral tinnitus. We ruled one way and the
Federal Circuit ruled the other way, and that caused almost
1,000 cases to get worked in the system.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Wamp. No more questions. Thank you for your statement.
Mr. Edwards. Judge Greene, thank you for your service. It
is great to have you back here.
The meeting is adjourned.

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Question 1. For FY 09 you ask for $1.7 million for the Veterans'
Consortium Pro Bono Program. How many veterans requested or required
the services of the Veterans' Consortium Pro Bono Program last year?
Response. Although the budget estimate for the Pro Bono
Representation Program (Program) is an addendum to the Court's budget,
the Program is a separate and distinct entity from the court and the
funds appropriated for it are deposited through the Court to the
Program. Therefore, I have referred your question to the Chairman of
the Program, Mr. Jeffery A. Stonerock, and asked that he respond to
your question.
Question 2. Electronic Filing of Claims. I've read your testimony
and it seems that your Court is one of the few branches of the Federal
Government that has been successful at records integration. Can you
also access the veterans' claims and medical records electronically?
Response. No. The Court's Electronic Filing and Case Management
Syustem does not have direct electronic access to records maintained by
VA. However, under the Court's Electronic Filing initiative, when an
appeal is filed with the Court, VA will copy the entire Record Before
the Agency and furnish a complete copy to the veteran. All medical
records and other documents from the Record Before the Agency relevant
to the issues on appeal will be provided to the Court electronically.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Farr.]
Wednesday, February 27, 2008.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

WITNESSES

JOHN DAIGH, JR., MD, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR HEALTHCARE
INSPECTORS
JAMES J. O'NEILL, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS
BELINDA FINN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT
MAUREEN REGAN, COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I will call the subcommittee to
order.
Dr. Daigh, Mr. O'Neill, welcome to our subcommittee. At
least in my years in the subcommittee having jurisdiction over
the VA, this is the first time to ask for a hearing
specifically to meet with the Office of Inspector General. We
thank you for being here.
I think we are all proud of our work last year to add $11.8
billion in a 12-month period to the VA budget. I think one of
the things that we all accepted was that this subcommittee
carries with that additional funding the responsibility of
being sure that it is spent wisely and effectively.
We have all talked to our constituents back home about
finding waste, fraud and abuse. To me, the operation of this
office is where the rubber meets the road. I thank you both for
taking on the important responsibility and seeing that our tax
dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. Where there is waste
or even criminal action, as you have uncovered in some cases,
that is vetted.
As many of you may recall on the subcommittee, we added
$7.9 million last year to this account for the VA Office of
Inspector General. The reason was to give them extra resources
to be able to keep up with the kind of oversight that we felt
was so crucial to see that this significant increase in funding
level was spent wisely.
Let me just for the record give the subcommittee a little
bit of track record information on the OIG's office. In their
last two semiannual reports to Congress, OIG identified $820
million in actual and potential monetary savings from proposed
efficiencies. They issued 217 reports on VA programs and
operations and--this is amazing to me--achieved 580 arrests,
336 indictments, 242 criminal complaints, 389 convictions,
1,711 administrative sanctions, and 45 pretrial (INAUDIBLE).
OIG, according to their numbers, their operations provided
a return on investment of $12 to $1. That is not based on
overly optimistic assumptions. I wish I could get that kind of
return on my family's investments.
The president's budget for 2009 did not help us maintain
the funding level that we provided in 2008. In fact, it would
cut the OIG budget by 5 percent, resulting in an 11 percent
decrease in staff. I hope during the discussion today we can
talk about what the impact was. I respect the fact that the
administration asked for some significant increases in some
areas of the budget, particularly VA medical services, and we
all agree that should be the highest priority. I would like to
delve into how many people do you have to lay off or how many
people could you not hire, and what would be the kind of work
you couldn't do that you can do if you have them.
We will not put you in the unfair position of asking you if
the administration budget is fair or not. I respect the chain
of command and once OMB has signed off on a budget, it is
everyone's responsibility in the administration to say we are
going to do the best we can with what we have been given. But I
think we will ask in a fair manner what actions you have to
take to implement that budget cut, or what actions could you
not take with the additional funding that we provided last
year.
At this point, I would like to recognize the ranking
member, Mr. Wamp, for any comments he may have.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
leadership on all these hearings, just the general way that you
present yourself and the leadership that these two major
priorities of federal spending deserve.
The chairman said that this was the first hearing at this
subcommittee for the inspector general to come in. Well, every
hearing that I go to is the first one that I have been to, so
we have that in common. [Laughter.]
I would also say that I can't think of an inspector
general's office that would be more important than this one,
because the covenant that our nation has to the veterans and
with the veterans, and frankly the bureaucracy and the agency
association with that covenant, are very, very important that
we squeeze every dime in efficiency out of the precious
resources that we dedicate to our veterans, and that we root
out any waste any fraud, and any abuse. Because this is a
covenant relationship between our country and the men and women
in uniform that have stood in harm's way on our behalf, your
IG's office is about as important as any you can find.
So I welcome you here on that tone. I thank you for your
service, and commit myself to help the chairman find the
resources to ensure that you can meet these responsibilities in
the coming year regardless of what point we are starting from
with the president's budget request. I look forward to your
testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Well said, Mr. Wamp.
We have two panels today. The methodology here was we
wanted to bring in the assistant inspector generals that have
the hands-on experience, for example, Dr. Daigh in healthcare
and Mr. O'Neill in investigations. So rather than bringing in
the inspector general, we thought that we would get the people
who really have the boots on the ground.
Let me just briefly introduce our two witnesses today. Dr.
John Daigh was appointed Assistant Inspector General for
Healthcare Inspections at the VA in January of 2004. He has 27
years of active duty service in the United States Army. Dr.
Daigh, we thank you for those distinguished years of service.
He obtained his medical degree, and Judge Carter and I would be
proud of it, even though I am an Aggie, from the University of
Texas Southwestern Medical School--it is a great institution,
highly respected--after graduating from the U.S. Military
Academy in 1974.
Mr. James O'Neill was appointed in July of 2006 as the
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. Before joining
the OIG, Mr. O'Neill had a distinguished career in the U.S.
Secret Service--thank you for that--where he held leadership
positions in the Office of Investigations, candidate nominee
for the Protection Division, and the Information Resources
Management Division.
I think we are very fortunate to have people of your
experience and qualifications to serve in these two very, very
important positions. I would like to recognize each of you for
any opening comments you would care to make. Without objection,
your full testimony will be submitted for the record, so if you
could in your initial comments address what you think are your
key points, then we will open this up for discussion.
Dr. Daigh.

Statement of John Daigh, Jr.

Mr. Daigh. Sir, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, it is an honor to be here
to represent the people in the Office of the Inspector General
that work with me to try to ensure that veterans get quality
care. We spend our days walking through the wards of the
hospitals meeting with veterans, meeting with providers, trying
to either inspect hospitals or deal with the issues that
stakeholders bring to us through hotline complaints. While
collecting data, it allows us to publish what we consider
national reviews.
I think that we have had a significant impact on the VA's
performance, and I hope that I can respond to your concerns
through that discussion. I would say to you that I think
veterans do receive quality health care at the VA system. I am,
however, concerned over the last year, where I have had a spate
of what I consider, and VA considers, really quite unfortunate
incidents that we have published as hotline complaints in
general. There is a complaint that arose at Martinsburg, West
Virginia where a veteran was unable to get an adequate airway.
There are some issues that we testified in a House Veterans
Affairs Subcommittee regarding Salisbury surgery service. We
recently published a hotline regarding the San Antonio VA
intensive care unit, and then most recently we published the
Marion, Illinois hotline addressing the significant issues in
Marion.
So I believe that there are some control issues that need
to be attended to in order to assure that veterans do in fact
get quality health care. We publish, and I think make important
recommendations during the year. There are about 57 FTEs that
would work for me in 2009 under the current budget proposal,
which would be about 15 less than the 2008 proposal. My current
workload outlook is to publish a CAP review, which would be a
review of a medical facility about once a week; publish a
hotline about once a week; and publish a national review about
once a month. We would continue that publication pattern at
about the same level.
Of the reports that people expect to come from us, from my
office, most of them deal with the quality of health care. But
there is one I would like to make you aware of that I think
will change our ability and improve our ability to address the
issues that VA has to deal with. That is called the LC dataset
report. We have a problem of universes. The VA is 150 hospitals
of varying sizes at varying places. It is a collection of
nursing homes of different sizes and different places.
We have had a particular issue in coming up with a way to
think about the returning veterans from OIF and OEF. So the LC
dataset essentially creates a series of cohorts--a cohort being
everyone who leaves DoD in a given year. So if you understand
the health care that has been provided and basically the
disease burden that that group of individuals has as they leave
DOD and transition to VA, one can then in the epidemiological
view look and watch as VA tries to treat that disease as it
comes across.
So patients diagnosed with PTSD on the DOD side will have
to be treated on the VA side as well. Similarly, one can look
at that cohort of patients and see who is paying for their
care. You can see for that population are they getting their
care in-patient or outpatient or fee-basis VA? Fee-basis
TRICARE, which many of them are eligible for. Are they in fact
disabled such that they cannot--some would view them as
unemployable? They may in fact be receiving Social Security
income and have Medicare as their primary care. And some of
these individuals are in nursing homes and have Medicaid as
their care.
So one can look at the epidemiology of it. One can look at
the financing of it, and then one can also look at the
disability penetration of these patients as the cohorts leave
DoD. I think that that will allow us to know with much better
precision how close we are to truth when we say that health
care is truly representative of what the VA is doing.
I would like to end my statement there.
[Prepared statement of the Office of Inspector General
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.011

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Dr. Daigh.
Mr. O'Neill.
----------

Wednesday, February 27, 2008.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

WITNESS

JAMES J. O'NEILL, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS

Statement of James J. O'Neill

Mr. O'Neill. Thank you, sir.
I represent the 149 members of the Office of
Investigations. We will be growing to 163 in FY 2008.
We have 120 special agents and administrative investigators
in 25 locations around the country. We are opening up an office
in Las Vegas and in Tallahassee in the coming year, so that
will bump it up a couple. We have full authority to arrest,
conduct investigation--as any other special agent in government
does. In the last 7 years we have averaged somewhere about 6.5
arrests per special agent, and monetary recoveries of $1.3
million per special agent.
I thought I would tell you about some of the criminal
investigations that we conduct. We are most interested, of
course, in any sort of patient abuse, whether that is
intentional homicides which have happened in VA hospitals, and
on a couple of occasions, negligent homicide cases. If there is
a suspicious death, we investigate it.
We investigate allegations of serious assaults, rape, and a
variety of assaults--we investigate threats against VA
employees and facilities. We focus on drug diversion by medical
personnel and by drug dealing on medical campuses that
threatens the rehabilitation of those with substance abuse
problems. We investigate identity theft by people who are
getting benefits either at the hospital or the monetary
equivalent. We are involved in a number of investigations which
are typically civil investigations.
In terms of the monetary benefits of investigations, we
work on fraud committed, either by fiduciary or by survivors
and deceased beneficiaries. We look at investigations of
veterans who fabricate or grossly exaggerate service-connected
disabilities such as blindness or paralysis compensation.
We also investigate veterans who have fabricated or grossly
exaggerated combat experience to support PTSD claims. We
investigate people who pose as veterans and get some sort of
benefit from the VA, or ineligible veterans and non-veterans
who have assumed the identity of a veteran in order to get
monetary benefits, and fraud against the loan guarantee
program. There are many other types of investigations, but
these are the highlights.
We are proactive when possible. We have the Fugitive Felon
Program in response to a law passed in 2001, where benefits are
denied to fugitives who have committed a felony. In that case,
what we do is we get the fugitive felon data from the FBI's
National Criminal Information Center, NCIC, and 14 or 15 other
states. And we compare it with beneficiaries, and if there is a
warrant for their arrest, then we provide the warrant holder
with the last known address and other information from VA
systems so that will expedite the arrest.
For safety reasons, we wait 60 days and then we notify VBA
and VHA, and then they initiate their due process procedures
where they notify the beneficiary of an arrest warrant and that
their benefits will be terminated as long as they are a
fugitive, and that they will owe the payments for any benefits
received while they were a fugitive. So it inspires them to
either surrender or have their benefits cease.
During the time that this program has been in existence,
since late 2002, the program has resulted in 1,700 arrests, of
which 112 were VA employees, because we also match VA employee
information against these fugitive warrants just to make sure
we don't have someone working at a facility who is a fugitive
felon.
We also match the VA beneficiaries against the Social
Security Administration's death file--to make sure that the VA
is not providing monetary benefits to someone who is deceased.
This program has resulted in 250 arrests, recovery of more than
$27 million, and a 5-year cost avoidance of more than $72
million. The monetary benefits associated with the Fugitive
Felon Program approached $1 billion because that is for the
period of time that they are not able to get benefits----
We investigate allegations of bribery, contractor fraud,
and data loss. You probably know we investigated a data loss
last year in Birmingham. We have actually investigated about 50
data losses over the last 2 years. We provide fraud awareness
briefings to about 8,500 VA employees a year, where we try to
give them some sense of what are some of the indicators of
fraud, and what they should be reporting to us.
And finally, we do conduct administrative investigations of
wrongdoing that is not criminal, but administrative, by GS-15s
and SES employees of VA. These typically focus on use of public
office for private gain, inappropriate use of resources,
nepotism, and abuse of authority.

HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. O'Neill.
Thank you, Dr. Daigh.
Let me begin by just asking you, Dr. Daigh, and then you,
Mr. O'Neill, how many people were you able to hire as a result
of the additional $7.9 million that we added to the
administration request for 2008? And then, have you hired all
of those people? Are you in the process of hiring them? And
then, how many of those would you have to fire or not hire if
we went to the budget proposed in the administration's budget
request? And then maybe more specifically, and most
importantly, what would be examples of the kind of tradeoffs
you have to make?
We all know we have to make tradeoffs. We don't have an
unlimited checkbook here, but given the important work that the
two of you and your offices do, what would be some of the
tradeoffs that might, you know, cause priorities to get lost in
the shuffle if you didn't have those additional funds?
Dr. Daigh, we can begin with you.
Mr. Daigh. Let me try to answer that. We have not fully
hired all the people in that when we were told we could hire.
We are in the process of hiring those people.
Mr. Edwards. And that would allow you to hire fully funded,
or when you spent that money or hired those people, how many
people would that allow you to hire?
Mr. Daigh. That would be 57 plus 15. So that would be----
Mr. Edwards. So that is 72 additional?
Mr. Daigh. No. My office would be 72 total--would be my
office.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Daigh. Under the president's budget, I would be at 57
in 2009. So the delta is 15 people, and those 15 have not
totally been hired. They are in the process of being hired.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Dr. Daigh. I have a mandate to try to ensure that veterans
receive quality care, so I try to look at a portfolio of issues
every year all the time. So I try to ensure that the
institutions within VA ensure quality and are performing
properly by going to hospitals. I try to look at acute care. I
try to also look at VA programs designed for elder-care, which
would be the nursing home programs and the various--programs to
provide opportunities for veterans to receive care outside of
nursing homes.
We also look at the programs that are VA-specific, like
care for the homeless and other programs that are not really
health care related and not really institutional care. So even
if I were to lose FTE. I would try to still cover all those
programs every year through the CAP inspections or hotline or
national reviews. I don't focus entirely on the issue of the
day. I think that is not the direction we need.
What would become difficult is it would become difficult to
look in detail at issues that I think are important, and to put
the emphasis on them that we need. For instance, I think
credentialing and privileging are two of the issues that are of
high importance right now; the ability for me to go directly
into facilities and spend the time it takes to take a sample,
and in the credentialing process to ensure that detail work has
been done correctly, is time-consuming.
What we currently do is we go in and we ask the VA what
they do in the credentialing process. We look at their records.
If the records appear to be reasonable, and we have been told
that they do things correctly, then we move on. If you want us
to go in and actually look at the applications for hire at the
VA, to read the documents that allow one to be hired, to go and
check and validate that each of the steps was taken--that is a
much more time-intensive procedure than we currently do.
We realize there are credentialing issues, and we have
asked that through our marion report court that VA change their
processes to improve those credentialing procedures that we
have identified that need to be improved. So that would be an
issue.
Peer review is another issue that is important. When an
event occurs at a facility where the outcome is not what is
desired, there needs to be a review of that. So we have
identified a number of problems with the peer-review process.
We have identified VISNs we think are probably not properly
supervising and applying the controls that one would like to
see over the movement of quality data. So again, a detailed
look at that would be difficult.
The kind of work that the LC dataset would let us use to
bring power to the data that we have and turn it into much more
actionable, useful information for the VA, would be difficult
to do.
Mr. Edwards. Dr. Daigh, let me interrupt. I want to try to
stay to the 5-minute rule. We have an informal committee and a
small number of people, so we can do multiple rounds. And then,
Mr. O'Neill, later I will go back to you.
Just quickly, as briefly as you could, we bumped up your
budget significantly for 2008. If we were to maintain that
level or inflation-adjusted amount for that level of staff,
would you be able to give us a pretty good report within 12
months and say, this is what we think we could have done; this
is what we think we were able to accomplish that we might not
have been able to accomplish before.
Basically, the question is can we, just as you measure the
VA, would we be able to measure some of the results of that
extra money? Rather than a 1-year bump-up and go back, if we
hit the high level for 2 years, do you think you would be able
to give us a pretty good, honest, objective analysis of what
extra results?
Mr. Daigh. I think that where you would see that extra
result is in the 800 CBOCs and 200 Vet Centers that are out
there that essentially get no coverage.
Mr. Edwards. They get no coverage?
Mr. Daigh. Well, minimal coverage, almost no coverage. In
the CAPs, which is our review of ongoing facilities, we for a
year went out and look at the CBOC that happened to be the
closest to the hospital, but that is essentially no coverage.
Of 800 CBOCs, we look at a very small amount--50 of them or 60
of them. We have paid no attention to the 200 Vet Centers. Vet
Centers I think provide peer-to-peer counseling, which is in my
view not health care----
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. Daigh. But they also provide suicide prevention
counseling and social workers provide a therapeutic
interaction. So we have not looked to see that if in fact the
standard of care in there is the same as the standard of care
at a facility.
We would have a very difficult time addressing hotlines
that are in detail or in-depth that Members of Congress or
stakeholders would present to us. So a Marion--I have a 50-
person staff and it takes 10 or 15 people several months
actually, to crank through the data, to interview the people
involved, put together a meaningful report and drive change.
So the number of hotlines I could do, the detail that I
would be able to do, the quality of the national reports, and
CBOC and Vet Centers we can do.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.

INADEQUATE CARE

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know the purpose of this hearing is to make sure that
your office has the resources to meet its responsibilities and
carry out oversight effectively. The chairman has touched on
the what-if scenarios if you didn't have enough money, or if
you had to honor the president's request. Because of my newness
here, I need to ask a couple of questions while I have you here
about the work that you do and what you find out there.
Do you see in VA health care, Dr. Daigh, across the
country, areas of less than adequate service? I will give you
an example. This is a little parochial. We have a large
outpatient clinic, but people have to drive 2 hours to receive
hospital care. At one time, I was interested when Mr. O'Neill
said that you opened offices in Las Vegas and Tallahassee--and
I will ask you in a minute why--but Las Vegas was one area that
only had an outpatient clinic, and I think now there is a
hospital there.
We still are in a large service area with only an
outpatient clinic that they have expanded with an imaging
center and extended hours, but it is a really, really active
place with no hospital. It is very dangerous transporting our
veterans 2 hours to a hospital. As a matter of fact, a couple
of years ago there was a really awful wreck where veterans died
in a van transporting them from Chattanooga to Murfreesboro,
Tennessee, through the mountains in the winter, in the ice.
It is still a problem, but to us it is an area of
inadequate service. Do you see that throughout the VISNs?
Mr. Daigh. We do. The problem that I have is coming up with
a way to present that data in a meaningful way. In other words,
when you explained the story to me, which I understand and
which I agree with, how can I take 100 stories like that and
make that picture that will drive people to do something about
it? So the current problem that we are addressing first is with
this LC dataset I am talking about, is access the mental health
care.
So if I can paint a picture of everyone who left DOD--
several hundred thousand people in a year--and I know where
they are by zip code or census track, and I know where the VA
is, and I can see how these people are getting health care,
then we can describe through various metrics, for instance, the
penetration rate, the percent of veterans who actually get
their care at this or that facility, or who do not use the VA.
So I think that through the methodologies that I am talking
about, which I think we can get to the issues that you are
addressing, that is a population that is due care that is not
receiving care. We can find those pieces through the various
health care----
Mr. Wamp. You are the most objective source that we may
actually get on some of these questions. That is why I would
ask you to be as candid as you can be when you are talking
about your CAP reviews and through your cycle that you do
these. What percent of your VA facilities are actually at risk
under your review process?
Mr. Daigh. I would say that--I have been there about 5 or 6
years now--and I would say that every year we find one or two
facilities that I am going to say is at risk, where the
maintenance or the performance or the quality assurance
activities within that hospital do not meet standard. We report
that. In the CAP report, we say this facility has significant
problems, and we itemize specifically the major flaws that they
have.
Not uncommonly, when we write that report, there is a
leadership change or a significant impact on the leadership of
that hospital. So we write the report. We give it to the VISN
director to make sure that the VISN director and the facility
director agree that we have the facts right. We write
recommendations about how to fix it. There are a number of
times when we have made that statement and changes occurred.

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA AND TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA OFFICES

Mr. Wamp. I have other questions for the next round for
you.
Mr. O'Neill, then, why did you open offices in Las Vegas
and Tallahassee?
Mr. O'Neill. Well, we are opening them, they are not open
yet. They will only be a two-person--office.
Mr. Wamp. Why did you choose them?
Mr. O'Neill. Because we reviewed the likelihood of getting
an increasing number of referrals from there. So if our agents
have to travel, spend the night in Las Vegas, for example, the
nearest office is Los Angeles. So in order to, one, grow our
presence at a facility, we tend to get more referrals if we are
physically at a facility. Las Vegas, of course, has an
increasing number of veterans. It will save us some money in
the long term. And then to address a quality of life issue of
reducing frequent--travel. That is why we chose Las Vegas.
I think, again, there is an increasing amount of work in
that area, and we have one of our agents spending most of his
time in Tallahassee. Our office is in the Tampa-St. Pete area,
so this new office will help us cover the panhandle and
Jacksonville, as well as southwest Georgia and Alabama, and we
just will have a much better presence.

RECRUITMENT

Mr. Wamp. Where do you recruit most of your talent from?
Mr. O'Neill. Well, to give you some sense of that, we do
very well. I believe we are fairly well regarded by the
investigative community. For example, in San Francisco, which
is a fairly large area--because of the cost of living, we had
63 qualified applicants who were GS-13 special agents. We have
hired from the Secret Service. We don't recruit them, but we do
attract them. [Laughter.]
Because, a lot of people know that I used to work there. I
have a son in the Secret Service so I am pretty well informed
as to what is going on there. They are dealing with a
tremendous amount of traveling, and a lot of them wanted to be
criminal investigators. That is one of the reasons they became
a special agent. Instead, they are being constantly asked to
work protection.
So we are able to attract many qualified Secret Service
applicants, because of a fairly effective network to determine
whether they would be interested in us--so we actually have
done well.
We have found other OIGs, and we make sure that when we
find someone from another OIG that they recognize that we are a
full-featured criminal investigative unit, an not an OIG that
focuses on administrative misconduct. So we want to see that
they have had experience in conducting complex criminal
investigations, that they are well-rounded.
So I would say DEA is another source of applicants. We also
try to attract a smaller number of younger folks who have a lot
of promise. We recognize that succession planning is important,
so we try to sprinkle younger people who lack experience, but
have great talent.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I yield back until the next round,
please.

STAFF RESOURCES AND WORKLOAD

Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You say that your workload is divided into two main
categories. One is proactive and the other is reactive.
Mr. O'Neill. I would say that realistically it is mostly
reactive. What we do is----
Mr. Farr. How many cases did you open last year?
Mr. O'Neill. Approximately 1,100, sir.
Mr. Farr. How many of those did you get resolved--1,100 or
11,000?
Mr. O'Neill. About 1,100, we would have opened, and we
basically----
Mr. Farr. Eleven-hundred, one-thousand-one-hundred?
Mr. O'Neill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. You have 488 positions and you only did----
Mr. O'Neill. I have effectively about 95 special agents
actually conducting investigations. The 488 is the entire OIG.
Mr. Farr. And how many of those reactives did you solve--I
mean, our office is a reactive office, too. We have district
offices. Well, I have two staffers, and we process about 3,000
cases a year, so I am a little surprised that with your staff
what you do is so low.
Mr. O'Neill. Well, I will give you an example. We are in
the middle of a major investigation in which we have devoted
9,000 hours already. So the----
Mr. Farr. Yours are more complex.
Mr. O'Neill. Yes.
Mr. Farr. But some of these are just--these are allegations
that you said you have received through a variety of sources,
including Congress.
Mr. O'Neill. Yes.
Mr. Farr. Our offices would call and say this----
Mr. O'Neill. Frequently, a staff member of a Member of
Congress will receive an allegation. For example, John Doe is
said to have never served in the military and he is getting VA
benefits. And then that may get referred to us----
Mr. Farr. And then you would refer that to the VA?
Mr. O'Neill. We get a lot of them directly--involved in
that kind of work, but that is just one example--complaints
that your staff may receive about abusive behavior, so we may
launch an administrative investigation based upon that
allegation.
Mr. Farr. Is that the responsibility of your office? Or
would that just be the responsibility of the VA's normal
management of office managers?
Mr. O'Neill. Most of the time, it would be the
responsibility of VA. It is when the allegation is serious
enough to devote resources to, and it is against a senior level
VA official, that is when we will accept it for an
administrative investigation. If it is a criminal allegation,
that somebody is accepting bribes, for example, then it is
clearly our responsibility to investigate that, as opposed to
the department.
We as the OIG routinely refer allegations to VA that we
receive on the hotline, which is really the source of most of
the allegations we receive.
Mr. Farr. So the proactive input to these 1,100, not all of
them are criminal issues. They just might be----
Mr. O'Neill. Well,--1,100 criminal investigations, as
opposed to administrative----
Mr. Farr. Okay. You indicated in your testimony that there
are some 800 clinics out there. I know I represent two of
them--community-based outpatient clinics. And you haven't been
able to review these clinics. Our problem is VA always wants to
shut them down or squeeze them. We are constantly trying,
because what they would do if they shut them down is require
patients to go a lot further. The idea was to try to handle the
issues close to home so they wouldn't have to go all the way to
the VA hospital, in this case in California, to Palo Alto.
I am curious, because I don't think we have ever used your
office--what kind of issues would we report to you?
Mr. O'Neill. Well, regarding the clinics----
Mr. Farr. Do you inspect them for inspection purposes? Or
is it all based on complaint basis?
Mr. Daigh. No, sir. I proactively go out and look at
medical centers on a schedule. I look at them. So what I am
saying is those 800 clinics I think should in some way be at
risk if we aren't going out and looking at them. The reason I
say this is that the clinics were established with clear goals
in mind. For instance, they should provide a certain set of
services, and the providers at those clinics ought to have a
certain set of credentials and capabilities, and they ought to
have the same standard of care at that clinic as they have at
the local hospital.
So we think that looking at what they are actually doing at
those clinics will improve the quality of care the veterans
receive--not assuming that the care there is good or bad. We
are just trying to make sure that they are doing what they are
supposed to be doing.
Mr. Farr. Whose law do you follow? California has higher
standards than other governmental entities, so do you follow
the federal standard or do you stick to the state standard?
Mr. Daigh. For the review of medical facilities, we follow
VA directives and we follow, where inspections of hospitals are
concerned, we also use Joint Commission JACAHO guidelines,
which are generally accepted hospital standards. So we do not
use individual state guidelines.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Judge Carter.

DATA-MINING

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have a little university in my district that did some
data-mining of projects on the crop insurance program and saved
about $1 billion in fraud for the federal government. I am
looking over some of the programs that you use in a small way--
program is a data-mining sort of program, as is the death-match
program, in looking and comparing and seeing trends now where
we are finding people in those ways, if I understand it
correctly.
But to me, this is what some people would term data-mining
as a negative connotation, when in reality in law enforcement,
it would seem to me that in the inspection of these clinics and
hospitals, that you could establish in a computer program
trends that make indications of mismanagement like excessive
drug use in one clinic over another clinic might give an
indication that there might be somebody stealing drugs. Are you
all doing any of that type of data-mining as you look at both
the health care side and the criminal investigation side of the
VA, to try to establish these trends so that you are regularly
looking with a computer at these issues?
Mr. O'Neill. That happens with data-mining, the VA tries at
a number of facilities to use software programs that flags
suspicious drug disbursement for patients. It helps us to focus
in on either a nurse or a pharmacist who may be either stealing
drugs from inventory or stealing drugs pretending they are
given to a veteran. So we do use technology when it is
available.
Now, for example, in that one particular case, that
software works with only one of VA's dispensing software
programs, but not with the two others. So we are working with
VHA to help develop a more effective tool to identify
suspicious drug disbursement-type of activities.
We actually are waiting for the Department of Defense,
DMDC, Defense Manpower Data Center, to do a match for us now
that will look at VA records and Department of Defense records
and try to highlight the discrepancies between the type of
discharge that may be shown in VA records, or the discharge
records of the individual--so they may not be eligible for VA
benefits or even more important, I guess, is identifying non-
veterans getting treatment and benefits which we don't think is
epidemic.
To give you another example, in Florida we matched--now, to
be honest with you, we can't match databases without a data-
matching agreement. However, you can go in one record at a
time, so we identified in Florida, VA beneficiaries who were
listed as blind, and then went into Florida driver's license
database and went one by one until we found somebody, and that
led to an investigation that the individual may have received
benefits, by fooling VA into thinking he was blind.
So we are looking for that sort of opportunity because with
our limited resources, we don't want to waste our time trying
to do things manually if data can lead us to the fraud.
Mr. Daigh. It is clear to me that some facilities are
privileging people to do things beyond what that facility can
support, allowing for instance physicians to do surgeries they
may well be capable of doing, that anesthesiologists can
support, but the hospital itself is without 24-hour services in
a variety of areas and may not really be capable on a regular
basis of taking care of that.
So we are looking at the data that VHA produces in terms of
workload data by, again, the right kind of medical billing
codes, CPT codes, to identify facilities that are at risk and
that we should go look at and talk to, and say, hey, should you
guys be doing these procedures? That basic issue is what the
Under Secretary of Health has agreed to address in our Marion
report where we identified and said, hey look, you have to call
time out; you have a small facility doing many complex things;
you all need to match, in a sense, what you are allowing these
facilities to do with what they are capable of supporting. So
we are trying to leverage that----
Mr. Carter. Well, you know the VA has a reputation now on
their medical records of having a very superior computerized
medical records program. At least in the experience of the
little program that we funded and financed, it really saves
manpower and it gives you a clear picture. That picture is an
ongoing picture that is being delivered to you every day. All
you have to do is pull it up on the computer and it is kind of
running in the system all the time.
And the fact that you are doing those things caused those
who are cheating to say, wait a minute, they are looking for me
now. And they back off. So you can't maybe catch $500 million
worth of actual theft, but you head-off $1 billion of people
who are not going to steal anymore. It would seem to me that
that would be money well spent for this committee as far as
oversight is concerned, to look into data-mining to try to tie
your systems together so that we could have clear pictures.
I just raise it because I think it is a thing of the future
in government that is going to make a difference in government.
So I am glad that you are working in small ways. I would like
to help you work in bigger ways.
Mr. O'Neill. If I could add a little bit, sir. We have a
staff in Austin, Texas that spends their entire day mining data
from VA systems.
Mr. Carter. Good. I am glad they are in Austin. [Laughter.]
Mr. O'Neill. So I didn't want to let that pass.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Members, let me ask you, I know some members have some
other commitments, perhaps starting as early as 3 o'clock. I
have a number of other questions I would like to ask. I am
wondering if, and Zach, I will proceed in however way you feel
comfortable, if we would like to get Ms. Finn and Ms. Regan to
make their opening statements, and then on the conclusion of
that, I will just recognize anyone for as many questions as you
would like, and then those of us who can stay on, we can
continue on.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, you are very gracious.
It would very much be a great way to proceed the way you
have proposed. That way, the questions can then be directed at
any of our witnesses.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Then if there is still remaining time
left for Ms. Finn's and Ms. Regan's testimony, I will recognize
the two of you for any follow-up questions you would like to
ask of Dr. Daigh and Mr. O'Neill or Ms. Regan and Ms. Finn.
Might it be okay if you exchange seats, and then we will
get all four of you up here?
Let me just say briefly as we welcome you both to our
subcommittee, Mr. Wamp used the term ``covenant.'' I feel as if
we are meeting with the guardians of the covenant. I just thank
all four of you for your tremendously important work. You are
the kind of federal employees working day-in and day-out
without attention and public acclaim, but what you are doing is
seeing to that covenant to spend our tax dollars to help our
veterans, and not with waste, fraud or abuse, or helping those
who are ineligible for benefits. The work you do is so
important.
Ms. Belinda Finn was appointed Assistant Inspector General
for Audit in January of 2007. Prior to joining the VA-OIG, Ms.
Finn was the Deputy Assistant Inspector General at the
Department of Homeland Security. She has also worked as an
accountant and auditor with the Department of Treasury, the
Department of Defense IG, the Department of Energy IG, and the
U.S. House of Representatives IG.
Ms. Maureen Regan was appointed counselor to the Inspector
General in 1989. Ms. Regan is a 1982 graduate of the Columbia
School of Law, and The Catholic University in Washington, D.C.
She began her government career in 1984 as a staff attorney
with the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of District
Counsel, here in Washington.
Thank you both for your service and for being here today.
As you heard previously, your full statement will be submitted,
without objection, into the record. If you could summarize in 5
minutes or less your key points, and then we will open this up
for questions.
We will begin with you, Ms. Finn.
----------

Wednesday, February 27, 2008.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

WITNESS

BELINDA FINN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT

Statement of Belinda Finn

Ms. Finn. Chairman Edwards and members of the subcommittee,
thank you very much for having me here today. I am delighted to
be here to represent the Office of Audit. We conduct
independent financial and performance audits that address
economy and efficiency across the VA operations. We are the
only OIG component that provides programmatic reviews across
all of our five strategic areas, in health care, benefits
delivery, financial management, procurement, and information
management.
In 2009, we will be authorized 175 people. This will be a
reduction of four from our current authorization: We are
currently spread across headquarters and nine regional offices.
We perform a mix of mandatory, reactive and proactive audit
work across VA. We are required to perform three financial
audits. These include the audit of the consolidated financial
statement, the audit of the department's drug control
reporting, and the audit of the department's report on their
capabilities to provide care for special disabilities.
We are also required to perform an annual information
security program audit. This is a requirement under the Federal
Information Security Management Act, known as FISMA. Our work
in this area has resulted in numerous recommendations to
address systemic IT control weaknesses.
In 2009, we are planning to report on 23 national audits,
with a potential for about $100 million in monetary benefits.
In the area of health care, we plan to review and report on
resource allocation for clinical services, outpatient
scheduling process, and safeguards in domiciliary residential
programs.
We also review the VA's benefit processing system. This
provides benefits and payments to about 3.7 million veterans
and their beneficiaries. We will assess VBA's training
programs, the quality assurance program for ratings,
compensation and pension disability examinations, controls over
regional office operations, risk-management processes for
housing assistance programs, and independent living services
for veterans with service-connected disabilities.
We all know VA continues to face major financial management
challenges. It lacks an integrated financial management system,
and has material weaknesses that impact its ability to provide
sound financial stewardship. So in addition to our mandatory
work, we will report on the development of the financial
management system known as FLITE--financial logistics
integrated technology enterprise system; the integration of
budget and performance information to allocate resources; and
the fee basis program billing and collection activities.
The VA has had a longstanding problem with managing its
contracting activities because it doesn't have the visibility
or the corporate database to know exactly what it is buying and
how much it is spending on goods and services at locations.
Both we and GAO have continued to identify significant
continuing deficiencies in VA's procurement activities.
We have a number of issues we would like to report on in
2009, including acquisition efforts across VHA VISNS,
standardization initiatives, community nursing homes contracts,
the electronic contract management system that hopefully will
provide some visibility, capital asset management issues, and
also high-cost medical equipment--the acquisition thereof.
In information management, we are always concerned about
the IT governance issues, as well as information security. In
addition to our FISMA work, we would like to take a look at the
HealtheVet initiative, VHA's efforts to develop a new
scheduling software, and their enterprise architecture.
We have a long list of areas that we think we could provide
oversight over, but right now we are just able to touch the
surface. Other areas would include VHA's enrollment process for
health care, the accuracy of benefits, security of data
exchanges with DOD, and the quality and repair of prosthetic
devices.
That would end my prepared statement. I would be glad to
answer any questions.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Ms. Finn.
Ms. Regan.
----------

Wednesday, February 27, 2008.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

WITNESS

MAUREEN REGAN, COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Statement of Maureen Regan

Ms. Regan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today to talk to you
about the OIG.
The Office of Contract Review is an independent group
within the Office of Inspector General, staffed by 25 auditors
and analysts, and it is actually reimbursed through an
agreement with the department's Office of Acquisition and
Logistics. What our group does is we primarily conduct pre- and
post-award audits of federal supply schedule contracts. We also
do pre-award audits of health care resource contracts awarded
by VA medical centers.
In addition, the Office of Contract Review conducts special
reviews of individual contracts either at the request of
Congress or at the request of VA or the Department of Justice.
Our current program began in 1993 and it has really proven
beneficial to VA. Since October of 2002, we have issued 420
reports with a federal monetary impact of $2.1 billion.
Pre-award reviews. A pre-award review provides contracting
officers with vital information they need to negotiate fair and
reasonable prices on our contracts, as well as on contract
terms and conditions. With respect to health care resource
contracts, we also provide advice to contracting officers on
how they can improve the contract document itself, such as,
performance and what they can do to make sure that VA gets what
it pays for.
In addition, we provide services to contracting officers
during the negotiation process. We will assist them in
explaining the results of our review to the vendor. We also go
out and do training for contracting officers on a lot of these
issues.
The federal supply schedule and health care resource
contracts are awarded sole-source and are noncompetitive
contracts. The vendors are required to provide certain data to
the VA to satisfy their pricing. We review that data during the
pre-award process. We very often find that the data they
provide is not accurate and complete. When a pre-award is not
done, contracting officers rely on that data to award a
contract at the offered prices, and very often we pay very high
prices, much higher prices than we should pay for the same
commercial items and services.
Since October 2002, we conducted 282 pre-award reviews with
recommendations for approximately $2 billion in cost savings.
We plan to conduct 45 pre-award reviews in fiscal year 2009.
A post-reward review, of course, is done after a contract
has been awarded. When we have not conducted a pre-award
review, we will go back and look at the data that was provided
to see if it was accurate and complete. If it was, and we felt
that VA was misled into award of certain prices, we calculate
the damages. It is called defective prices, and we will
recommend the contracting officer get back that money.
We also during post-award look at whether or not the
contractor complied with other terms and conditions of the
contract. In particular, federal supply schedule contracts
contain a price-reduction clause. The vendors are required to
give us a price reduction under certain circumstances, and we
find that very often they don't.
Also, our post-award and our pre-award reviews include
whether or not VA's drug pricing is accurate. As you know, the
Veterans Health Care Act set statutory limits on how much
manufacturers can charge VA. We have a very active program to
look at whether or not they are complying with that statute.
In the post-reward area, since October 2002, we have done
138 post-award reviews and we have returned back to VA, that is
deposited in the VA supply fund $8.2 million. I can tell you
that this year, we negotiated and collected $20 million. We are
expecting to have a good year.
We plan on conducting 25 post-award reviews in 2009. Our
post-award reviews can be done on our own initiative, but many
of them are reactive. Because we have an active post-award
program, we actually make contractors accountable. VA has one
of the most successful and active voluntary disclosure programs
at this point in time, where contractors can come in and tell
us, we have overcharged you; we haven't complied with contract
terms and conditions, and we have overcharged you.
Since October of 2002, we have had 75 voluntary disclosures
and that represents $64.1 million--in recoveries. In fact, our
voluntary disclosure program takes up a lot of our post-award
time, as opposed to proactive post-awards.
Although all of these involved individual contracts and we
deal with individual contracting officers, we periodically
analyze the data that we have in all of these reviews and look
for systemic issues. We then issue a report to the department
on systemic issues in various areas in order to have them make
corrections and improve contracting overall.
In 2005, we issued a report on sole-source health care
resource contracts. The department put together a task force
and issued VA Directive 1663, which established a whole new
process for awarding these contracts and what is required. We
have already seen it saving money. We are paying a lot less on
some of these contracts than we were before.
We conduct special reviews on large-dollar procurements.
These reviews have identified procurement failures that
resulted in significant dollar losses to the government. These
failures were due to multiple deficiencies such as lack of
communication, inadequate acquisition planning, poorly written
statements of work, inadequate competition, failure to obtain
fair and reasonable pricing, and poor contract administration.
Many of these reviews involve multiple problems.
The work that we do in the Office of Contract Review only
looks at a very small percentage of VA contracts. There are
large numbers of contracts at VA facilities and other VA
contracting activities that are not subject to any definitive
oversight.
That is the end of my statement.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Ms. Regan.
Thank you, Ms. Finn.
Mr. Bishop, would you mind moving over? Mr. Dicks and Mr.
Mollohan aren't here.
If I could ask Mr. O'Neill and Dr. Daigh to sit in those
two seats, and then members could direct their questions to
either all of the witnesses or to one in particular.
Mr. Bishop, let me ask you, the Republican Conference has a
meeting at 3 o'clock. So I was going to recognize our
colleagues first on this round of questions, but how tight is
your schedule? Do you need to leave by 3 o'clock?
Mr. Bishop. I will be flexible, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Then let me start with Mr. Wamp.

VISN MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, especially for your
courtesy.
Ms. Finn, two things in your testimony we heard, but I will
repeat them to ask this question. You said VA continues to face
major challenges in financial management, as it lacks an
integrated financial management system and has material
weaknesses that impact VA's ability to safeguard and account
for financial operations. And then you said VA cannot
effectively manage its contracting activities because it has no
corporate database that provides national visibility over
procurement actions or identifies contract awards and
individual purchase orders, credit card purchases, or the
amount of money spent on goods and services.
You know, at the budget request that we see, and then to
hear these words, obviously that is a troubling statement. I
just wonder if you can recommend solutions for this problem to
us.
Ms. Finn. Solutions to correct VA's system issues?
Mr. Wamp. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Finn. System development issues are a very tough
problem all across the government. The department had a
historic effort to create or develop a new financial management
system that was called the Corel FLS. It was before I arrived
at VA, but it kind of went down in flames, in very flagrant
terms. But again, this is not an unusual problem across the
government. System development is very, very tough.
VA is currently working on a new financial management
system, the FLITE system, to integrate the financial and the
logistics information in one system. There are a lot of
difficulties in that because they have different architecture
and different systems all across VA.
Mr. Wamp. For you and Dr. Daigh both, are these problems
that you have pointed out VISN problems or national problems,
or are there some VISNs that are worse in terms of adequate
comprehensive health care delivery?
Ms. Finn. It is a national problem, but it is worse in some
VISNs.
Mr. Wamp. Which ones?
Ms. Finn. I can't tell you specifically.
Mr. Wamp. Okay.
Dr. Daigh?
Mr. Daigh. My concern is that VISNs are not involved enough
in ensuring that hospitals in their VISN provide quality care.
I think they clearly are on the train stop for money moving
out, because I think it goes from the VISN to the facility, but
we don't see their involvement in the peer-review process. We
will be publishing a report very soon which I think will
highlight that.
So when I see hospitals fail or have significant problems,
I don't see them fail by VISN. I don't see them pass by VISN.
So what I don't see is adequate input by the VISNs to make sure
that the problems are addressed.
Mr. Wamp. In your objective opinion, are VISNs a good
organizational structure? Is that a good model for the VA?
Mr. Daigh. My recommendation is that they be reviewed as to
whether or not--I don't believe they are with respect to
ensuring quality care. So I do think that the VISN structure
ought to be reviewed as to whether or not it is at this date
and time providing the kind of oversight that we would like to
see.
Mr. Wamp. Ma'am?
Ms. Finn. As far as acquisition, that is one of the things
that we try to look at, as we are going to be looking at
acquisition and management across the VISNs. I guess the common
wisdom in VA is if you have gone to one VISN to see how it
works, you have gone to one VISN. That is what you know. There
is not a lot of consistency in the procedures and the processes
that they follow and no sharing of best practices.
Mr. Wamp. Did CARES recommend changes to this VISN
organizational structure?
Mr. Daigh. I don't believe so. I believe CARES is a
facility-by-facility review.
Mr. Wamp. And then, Ms. Regan, two quotes in your
testimony. It says a lack of communication between program and
procurement officials results in higher than necessary contract
costs and VA health care resources contracts lack adequate
oversight provisions to ensure VA has received the services
paid for.
What can we do in bill language to help with these problems
that you have identified?
Ms. Regan. I believe that one of the things we have seen
out there is that VA believes they are at the mercy of the
affiliate--VA's attitude is that we need them more than they
need us, so we will pay whatever. So to keep everybody happy,
there is no incentive to monitor procurement or anything else.
So some of the things that we thought of is that we believe
that because it is a sole-source contract to benefit the
education mission that we have for residents, that we should
only be paying costs. Why should we pay a huge profit to
somebody that is so competitive that they are going to do that?
So that is something that could be considered if we limited the
type of payments that we could make, that we will pay for the
costs of the doctor. The only reason we are going to the
affiliate to begin with is that we allegedly don't pay enough
in order to recruit doctors to work at our facilities.
The second one would be there would need to be payment for
procedure-type contracts at Medicare rates, or adjusted
Medicare rates depending on where it is done. Those are two
things that could be done legislatively that we have suggested
in the past.

CONTRACTING

Mr. Wamp. And a final question, does VA health care system
contract enough with local providers to be efficient? Or is
there still room for more local contracting with private health
care providers instead of having to provide the services
through the VA facility?
Ms. Regan. You mean sending the patients to a local
provider?
Mr. Wamp. Or contracting out. Sometimes doctors are brought
into the outpatient clinics that are not VA doctors, to do
certain things.
Mr. Daigh. I don't like to answer questions without having
a report to show the data, but I would suggest to you that if
the VA has a full-fledged Cath lab and it is a relatively small
VA in a relatively rural location, I doubt that there is enough
volume of patients to make the operation of that Cath lab
efficient.
So whether or not the physicians from the outside come to
the VA, the VA physicians have privileges at the local facility
like anybody else has privileges and contracts for time in
their lab. I am not sure what the legality is. It does seem to
me that there isn't an efficiency where we have a space
dedicated to a use for which it can't be used--so I think there
is room for work there, it is just sorting out the best answer.
Mr. Wamp. Ms. Regan.
Ms. Regan. In looking at the contracting side and what we
have seen, I think if you have a service that is needed
intermittently, for example you need a dermatologist once a
month or something like that, that they do try to use local
people to come in and do it or send patients to private
facilities.
But I also think that you have a problem when you have
full-time people coming into your hospital to provide care to
veterans, and they can't act as our employees, because VA
doesn't have personal services authority. We have recommended
in the past that they get personal services contracting
authority, so that we can supervise these people and we can
monitor the care provided, and we can take action if they don't
provide quality care.
So I have a little bit of a concern from the health care
standpoint of just bringing people in and out, who see our
patients without VA having some control over what they do when
they are there. That is where the full-time people come in.
There are a lot of mammograms done outside a facility. A
lot of radiation oncology services are being done under
contract. A lot of radiology now is being done via telemedicine
that is contracted out. So there is a lot of that going on out
there. You have full services coming in to VA facilities--
surgical services and anesthesia, ophthalmology are some--all
of their services are provided by contractors at the VA.
Mr. Wamp. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Since Mr. Crenshaw hasn't had an opportunity to ask
questions, Judge Carter if it is okay with you----

CONTRACTING WITH PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just follow up on that line of questioning about
contracting with private health care providers. I have heard
discussions--well actually, I think there is some legislation--
if not, it has been talked about--about in an area, say, where
they didn't have a rehab hospital or an area where it was a
large community where the rehab hospital was overcrowded. I
have heard veterans groups talk about it, and heard some of the
private rehab hospitals talk about it, the possibility of
contracting with those private facilities, either because you
don't have the service or it is hard to get because of the
overcrowding.
And then listening here and reading the testimony about the
inspections that you all go about are really important in terms
of looking at the VA facilities and carrying out the proper
inspection. Is that one of the impediments to doing that? You
mentioned contracting more bringing people in.
I am just thinking, and I think some of the proposed
legislation speaks to actually utilizing the separate
facilities that are in these overcrowded areas or underserved
areas. Is that something you all look at? Is one of the
problems making sure that you are able to inspect those as you
would your own facility? Where are we in that process?
It does seem to maybe make sense from time to time, rather
than having somebody drive a long, long way, or wait a long,
long time if there are other facilities. And what would you
think about doing some sort of pilot project? The only reason I
mention the rehab is because I have heard the veterans talk
about that. Is that an area that we ought to pursue, do you
think? Or are there problems inherent in that?
Ms. Regan. They have contracting authority to contract with
private facilities or public facilities, to send our patients
someplace else. And there are some areas--Reno for example is
one where they have a number of contracts with private
hospitals because they don't have enough providers at the VA.
So they can do it, and they can always build into the contract
that we would be able to come and inspect. We can go and
inspect nursing homes that we have contracts with, private
nursing homes. So it is a matter of a contractual issue.
Mr. Crenshaw. Is it being done very much? Is it working?
Ms. Regan. I haven't seen that many contracts with private
facilities for anything other than--well, we usually see the
affiliate contracts where VA is sending somebody there for
cardiac surgery or other health care. We have seen some nursing
home contracts, but I haven't seen that many. For example, I
have never seen one for a rehabilitation center. So I don't
know if it works--but anything is possible from a contract
standpoint--authority, so they can contract----
Mr. Crenshaw. But would that be a way to save money,
instead of building a facility in a small community, to serve
those individuals, that if there was a private entity there? I
mean, is that something that you all think about? Or do you
kind of watch what the VA is doing and saying we can't build
facilities everywhere; if they are already there, we will
contract with them? Is that something you oversee, encourage or
discourage?
Mr. Daigh. Well, sir, in my office, we focus on the quality
of the care provided. Care provided off-site or off of the VA
facility, I am not sure that I have the authority to go off of
a VA facility and review the care provided, as you are
envisioning. Certainly, where we have had cases, and hotlines,
where they have received care both on the civilian side and in
various other places, we have gone and talked to civilians and
gotten the records, but we have done it completely collegially.
We could look at this and talk with you about the authority we
have at the VA.
[The information follows:]

The OIG can review quality of care that veterans receive from non-
VA facilities only when VA reimburses the facility for the care
provided. However, non-VA facilities are regulated by the states, and
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also have oversight
authority over these facilities if they receive Medicare and Medicaid
funds.

The other point I need to make is that we don't, in my
office, make decisions on these issues, nor do I. So it would
be very difficult for me to advise if one is better than the
other. It just seems to me that there is in fact space that
could be better used.
Mr. Crenshaw. But the inspection you undertake, that can be
part of the contract. That wouldn't be a particular impediment.
Mr. Daigh. It would not be, to me at all. We just need the
authority. I think I would need the authority to do that.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you very much.
Ms. Finn. My office would potentially review make-or-buy
decisions, and also the oversight of facilities. But we haven't
done too many, at least not to my knowledge, we have not done
any particular reviews on make-or-buy decisions for facilities.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Judge Carter.

BENEFIT OVERPAYMENTS

Mr. Carter. I want to change questions a little bit. In
2007, we talked about benefits overpayments. The reason I have
concern about benefits overpayments is I look at this
overpayment to the VA regional office report. The chairman and
I share a VA facility in Waco, where our soldiers go, and we
have the largest percentage-wise of benefit overpayments in the
nation at the Waco facility--two benefits overpayments on
first-party notification in the amount of $159,000-plus, and 11
benefit overpayments of third-party notification to the tune of
$404,000-plus. Looking up and down the list, we are the champs.
Now, I don't want to be the champs in benefit overpayments.
We have added 3,100 new claims processors. My question is, are
you seeing improvement because of what we gave to try to fix
this problem? And what else can we do to try to fix the
benefits overpayment problem?
Ms. Finn. Presently, I can't tell you that we have seen
improvements because we haven't been able to get back out there
and start looking. Plussing-up your workforce 3,100 people
presents a number of issues in recruiting and training, which
is why we plan to look at the training program, especially for
the new-raters over the next year.
But certainly the overpayment issues resulted because you
were diverting all the workforce trying to get at the backlog
of claims, and therefore you didn't have as many people taking
a look at those compensation benefit issues that resulted in
the overpayments. We plan to take a look at that training
program to see how effectively that new workforce is to be
developed, and we will go back in the future and hopefully
assess the effectiveness of that workforce in reducing the
backlog and improving the overpayments issue, too.
Mr. Carter. This issue is not only an issue to those of us
who are trying to be good stewards of the federal dollar. It is
also an issue that when the find the benefit overpayment, then
they go to the veteran and say, oh, by the way, you owe us
$85,000; pay up. And they come screaming to their congressman
saying, what am I going to do? I didn't know I was getting a
benefit overpayment; I just took what they gave me.
Ms. Finn. Exactly.
Mr. Carter. It makes a real crisis in the life of veterans
when they get these notifications that they have these huge
payments they are expected to return to the federal government.
So it is important that we police this before the fact, not
after the fact, if we can, as good as we can.
Ms. Finn. And we did provide recommendations to VBA to
monitor the timeliness of the processing, because we didn't
have any incorrect decisions. These were just the time it took
the process.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is it.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, judge.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Let me welcome you. I would like to follow up on Mr. Wamp's
question relative to the effectiveness and the proactivity of
the community health clinics. I have a pretty spread-out
district which in land area takes up probably about one-fifth
of the land area of the state of Georgia. It is the southwest
portion of the state. We have veterans that are served by three
community clinics.
In Valdosta, there is one that is apparently a subsidiary
of Lake City in Florida. In Albany, there is one which operates
under Dublin, which is about 1\1/2\ hours or 2 hours away. And
then in Columbus, which is the other major city, there is
Tuskegee/Montgomery. All of those seem to serve some purpose as
a primary care center, but the veterans are very, very
dissatisfied because anything other than rudimentary stuff,
they have to go to one of the hospitals, which requires a great
deal of inconvenience and travel.
How effective are those clinics? I think several years ago
when we established them, it was expected that a veteran could
get to some primary care within 40 or 45 minutes from anywhere.
It was designed to be from anywhere in the country. That
doesn't seem to be working well. Have you considered co-
location of some military facilities and VA facilities?
For example, I think you have some hospitals at some
military bases where there are a great deal of retirees around
the military base who could get some of their heavy--I guess
you could call them med centers--and could get some heavy
treatment, specialist treatment at those if, for example, they
were co-located with some military facilities. Of course, we
have a hospital in Atlanta also, but southwest Georgia, it has
put a heavy burden on our veterans.
Mr. Daigh. Sir, I just would have to answer it this way. I
have 57 or 60 people working for me, something like that, and
there are 800 clinics, CBOCs out there. So I guess when you ask
what would I do with additional resources, it is try to take a
look at what is going on at these 800 CBOCs and 200 Vet
Centers.
So we simply have not had the people to address the issues
that you are talking about--I just simply haven't been able to
do that. There are 155 medical centers out there. So we have
unfortunately not attended to this issue like I think we
should.
Mr. Bishop. When you come before the committee, have you
requested those additional people?
Mr. Daigh. Well, sir, in the normal budget process, the
idea that we would spend more time looking at CBOCs and Vet
Centers has been forwarded in the normal chain of command. I
address the priorities that I am given with the people I have,
and I just haven't been able to address the 800 CBOCs out there
at all like I wish we could.
Mr. Bishop. You could do it if you had additional
resources?
Mr. Daigh. If I had additional resources, the care provided
at CBOCs and Vet Centers would be the number one new item that
we do not currently look at in a comprehensive way. And we
would also be able to look at mental health issues in more
detail, and apply the data capability that we currently have in
more detail to the problems the VA faces.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop, could I pull you back just for a
second?
Would you be able, Dr. Daigh, to give our subcommittee over
the next several weeks just a good-faith estimate of if you had
how many more dollars, how many more people could you hire to
oversee the CBOCs and the Vet Centers, and how many visits
could you make with those employees.
Mr. Daigh. I would be more than happy to.
[The information follows:]

The Office of Inspector General would need an additional $4.5
million for 20 full-time equivalent positions to review the care
provided by the more than 800 community based outpatient clinics
(CBOCs) and 200 Vet Centers. These resources would provide for a review
of these facilities on a 3-year cycle. For many veterans, especially
those in rural areas, these facilities are their primary access to
medical care. It is only through a review of the medical needs of this
population can we ensure they are receiving quality care. For example,
these reviews would assess mental health care provided at CBOCs and Vet
Centers to ensure that veterans receive the same standard of care that
they would receive at a primary medical clinic.

Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Please go ahead.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
One of the two other areas I would like to explore, one is
the co-location issue. If you have a major DOD facility in an
area where there are lots of retirees, for example, and lots of
veterans, at one point there was some consideration given to
co-location of veterans hospitals/clinics and military
facilities. Is the VA still open to some memorandums of
understanding on co-location of facilities so that if you have
a facility there, that it could also serve veterans as well as
DOD personnel?
Ms. Finn. We did a little bit of review work last year
looking at the department's use of interagency agreements with
DOD and found they were not using them very much at all. They
were very rare.
Mr. Bishop. Who are the ``they'' now?
Ms. Finn. The VA. I am sorry--VHA.
Mr. Bishop. Okay.
Ms. Finn. They really were not using the agreements for a
lot of reasons. It didn't seem to work out well for them. The
larger issue of determining the allocation of health care
resources for areas and stuff is, as I think I said, really
complex. Changing demographics make it complicated, VA's
uncertainty of where the population is going to be from year to
year. So this is one of the things I am hoping to take a
programmatic look at over the coming year to see how VHA is
allocating its resources across the country.
Mr. Bishop. You do have a facility, at least one in Texas,
I believe, where----
Mr. Daigh. El Paso is a dual. Las Vegas has also been an
Air Force/VA. We do in our hospital inspections cycle do go
inspect the VA portion of that.
Mr. Bishop. Have those worked fairly well?
Mr. Daigh. Again, from our point of view, yes, they have
been working, from what we see.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. And the third area of inquiry I would
like to ask you has to do with the VA medical health and the
electronic records and the interconnection and interoperability
with the DOD records. One of the biggest challenges that our
caseworkers have in the congressional office is being able to
get military records in terms of medical records, to have them
available for veterans who are applying and seeking upgrades,
disability services from the VA.
The record exchanges of medical records between DOD and the
VA medical system presents a serious problem, and also the
storage of records and the care of records within the VA
system, where veterans submit their paperwork and its gets lost
or they go for one appointment and get referred, and of course
their records can't be reviewed and they can't get the services
they need because the records are still located at the last
provider or the last place where they went to get some
specialized test.
How are you, and do you have the resources necessary to try
to bring some interoperability with your own recordkeeping? Are
you doing it electronically? Do you have the resources to
convert to electronic medical records in the VA system so that
anywhere in your system, that if a veteran presents, that you
can access his or her records?
Mr. Edwards. I am going to ask you to keep it to 2 minutes
or less, and save any additional answer for the following round
so we can continue our rotational questions. It is a very
important question.
Mr. Daigh. Sir, in the IG's office we believe that the
interoperability of these two records is extremely important.
We have asked and commented on where it has failed, as you
indicate, over a number of years. I have personally used the
military medical records system when I was a doctor. I have
access to the VA side now. The VA side is wonderful. Why--I
don't know.
It is such a huge dollar issue, actually, on the health
care side. I am unable to force these two sides to get together
and agree on what they are going to do. And I don't understand
why it doesn't work right now.
Ms. Finn. We have the resources. We can take a look at the
issue. We can't fix it within the OIG.
Mr. Bishop. You say you have enough resources to do it?
Ms. Finn. If we didn't do something else, yes.
Mr. Bishop. Well, in order to do what you need to do and to
accomplish that, can you give us some idea of what it would
require to do that in terms of resources?
Ms. Finn. Can we make that for the record?
Mr. Bishop. Oh, certainly, certainly. I wouldn't expect you
to do it right now, but I would like you to put a little bit of
thought into it.
[The information follows:]

The inter-operational between DoD and VA medical records present
highly complex and difficult technical and management challenges,
particularly since they are not within VA's exclusive control to
resolve. The OIG cannot effectively address these issues because we
lack the authority to review DoD's health care operations and
information technology. This issue could be addressed more effectively
by the Government Accountability Office.

Ms. Finn. Okay.
Mr. Bishop. But Mr. Chairman, do you think that would be
appropriate for our committee to have that kind of information
and know what kind of resources would be needed?
Mr. Edwards. I think it is a tremendously important issue.
Chairman Murtha and I have even discussed the possibility of
having a joint subcommittee hearing with your Defense
Appropriations Committee and ours to bring DOD and VA officials
together to face both committees, and let them know how serious
we are about moving ahead with this, and not just keep talking
it to death for the next 20 years. Very, very, good. Thank you.

BUREAUCRATIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know we have a vote, so I will be quite fast. If you have
been listening here today, I am not sure I even would want to
come to this meeting, because I think you busted my bubble
about being such a great advocate for VA. Frankly, the clinics
in my district have been the best thing for veterans.
But one of the things that I am concerned about, and it is
just that I see this happening in the federal family, is that
we tend to want to federalize everything. Many of us served in
the state legislatures and--in California where everything is
codified and every profession really has to be licensed and
there is a lot of inspection.
What I worry about is that we sometimes forget that these
veterans, and in this case patients, all live somewhere. I
mean, they live in a community. If we just create a federal
pipeline that you must stay in, it is going to make it very
inconvenient because some veterans can't travel great
distances. It is sort of like, we can't solve your problem
here, you have to go there. We are doing too much of that in
government right now.
So I think this contracting out at the local level--the
example you gave of the dermatologist--is exactly what we need
to do more of. But I do agree with you that you have to have
some quality assurance, without becoming too bureaucratic about
it, because that may be overduplicating what states are doing.
Maybe we ought to be working into some kind of joint inspection
contracts like we have been doing with joint lotteries and one
audit can solve a lot of problems, as long as you are
addressing the issues, and we might be able to do that.

INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN DOD AND VA

The other thing that I share this concern. We have been
bragging about the VA's electronic records, but what we find is
that DOD doesn't do a very good job of it. The VA has sort of
invented for the medical community the state-of-the-art of
electronic records, but they are not interoperable.
In your report, you indicate that you made over 500
recommendations for corrective action. Did the VA--I guess
those were in the VA in the audit and health care inspection
contract review reports--did they implement those
recommendations?
Mr. Daigh. I think they do. We make recommendations of
varied severity, so there are some recommendations we make that
we follow up on and--to see if they did do what they said they
would do. By and large, they do do what they say they are going
to do.

VA STANDARDS OF DELIVERY OF CARE

Mr. Farr. I would like to ask a general question. You start
out by saying that the OIG seeks to help the VA become the
best-managed service delivery organization--compared to other
delivery organizations, how does VA rate? We put a lot of money
into it last year and this committee is real pro VA.
Mr. Daigh. I think they provide excellent care. I have said
that here and I have said it to the House Veterans Affairs
Committee. In the care that we see on a day-to-day basis in the
hospitals, veterans are happy with the care they receive in
general and give VA very high marks. In every CAP, we report in
each of those reports what the patient satisfaction is for both
in-patient and outpatient care. There are places where it is
not high, but in most places it is very good. I believe VA
provides excellent care.
To the point that you were making earlier, when I was in
the military, I would have liked the chance to compete, because
I thought if our doctors actually worked or had an opportunity
to work in other hospitals, we would have patients coming to us
to have us take care of them. I thought we would take patients
from the private sector. I wasn't worried about competing
against them. I was worried about having a quality place to
work with the support staff that would let me do what I needed
to do, and the efficiency to get it done well.
So I don't think the VA should be afraid of competing at
all. They have very high-quality people. But you run into
places where just on size and economics, you just simply can't
compete in certain situations. I don't think the VA has
anything to be ashamed of. In fact, I think they are the
premier large medical system in this country hands down.

COST OF PRESCRIPTION

Mr. Farr. I have found that our VA clinic has the cheapest
drugs of any system. I don't care what it is out there.
Mr. Daigh. And Maureen Regan works to make that happen.
Ms. Regan. The issue with the drugs is that we have statute
that sets a price. There is a formula set price for covered
drugs. The comparisons you always see, though, are between what
the customer pays, not what the facility pays.
Mr. Farr. So are we in essence subsidizing those drugs for
the VA?
Ms. Regan. No, we are only paying a certain amount.
Mr. Farr. Then why can you get them cheaper than the
Medicare program?
Ms. Regan. Well, the Medicare program is set up much
different. It is a different formula.
Mr. Farr. It is the same taxpayers' money.
Ms. Regan. But you don't know at the point what the actual
cost is, because you would have to compare, for example, what
the hospital pays. If you are going to look at Georgetown, how
much is Georgetown paying for the pills versus what you pay in
Georgetown for the pills, because I can't tell you there is a
whole lot of difference between our prices and theirs, if you
look at how the manufacturers' sell to somebody.
So the comparison is not with the customer base. It is
going to be what the actual price is for a manufacturer to the
customer, which is the VA or DOD or any government facility,
versus a hospital or buying group.
Mr. Farr. Do you think that the VA model for drug
acquisition is probably the best we have?
Ms. Regan. The VA model is working very well now. We have
it pretty homed in and we have a good price. Is it the same
model that should be used for Medicare and Medicaid, I don't
think so. I think there are some differences in the way the two
programs are run.
Maybe what the government would pay, but you are going to
have your markups because you have middlemen in there. You have
physicians giving the drugs in some cases, and in some cases
you have pharmacies involved. And those mark-up costs are not
included in the costs that you see for us.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Will you yield for just a moment?
Mr. Farr. Sure.
Mr. Bishop. Isn't that difference in terms of the VA--
doesn't the VA negotiate with the manufacturers or the
wholesalers for the price of the drugs?
Ms. Regan. No. Actually, if it is a covered drug, covered
under the statute, it is a formula that sets the price. They
have to offer the government on a federal supply schedule
contract a price that is not higher than what this calculated
price comes out to be. If they don't have a federal supply
schedule contract or they haven't offered that calculated
price, then they can't get paid by any other government entity.
In other words, they can't get Medicare dollars, even though it
is not all for contract, no other government money can go for
it. But it is actually a calculated price.
Now, we could try to negotiate better prices, but
technically they don't have to give us a better price than
the----
Mr. Bishop. But you have a formula which results in a low
price.
Ms. Regan. Right. It is a formula that results in that
price, but it is not a negotiated price. It is statutory.
Mr. Bishop. But other agencies don't have that kind of
formula, though.
Ms. Regan. Nobody has the same formula that we do. Medicaid
has a formula that comes up with a base price, and then
quarterly they have to use best price. One of the two
differences between us and Medicare and Medicaid and HHS is our
statute gives us oversight. We conduct audits of the pricing.
The VA Secretary has the authority and we do the audits.
Medicare and Medicaid do not have the same authority we do. So
you don't know if manufacturers are cheating or not.
Mr. Bishop. Right. That is the report I was trying to read.
Thank you.
Mr. Farr. This is a welcome discussion. I think we have
learned a great deal today, and it would be very helpful for me
and the committee if you could prioritize one or two or three
most important things that this committee ought to be doing. We
can write report language that the agency has to work on, and I
would really appreciate your suggestions of what are the
priority things that we need to do.
Mr. Edwards. I agree. In fact, I was going to ask, and will
just ask for the record, if each of you could put together your
top 10 or 20 recommendations. If you could implement them, you
would do it, in descending order of priority, with top priority
one, second priority two, on down the list. These would be
recommendations that have not already been implemented.
Ms. Finn. To improve VA operations.
Mr. Edwards. Yes. I think this has just been one of the
most interesting, productive hearings we have had. There are
1,001 questions I have.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.017

Just so you know, members, we will have to go up and vote.
This is the end of a 15-minute vote. There will then be a 10-
minute debate. I know Mr. Wamp can't come back, and I
understand if the two of you can't come back. I will stay here
with staff and continue on. I promise everyone on both sides of
the aisle, I won't do anything dramatic by unanimous consent
while I am here by myself. [Laughter.]
With that, why don't we stand in recess until after the
beginning of the 15-minute motion to recommit. I will be back
down, so please relax and we will be back.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Edwards. Let me go back, as we call the subcommittee
back to order, and ask, does that put any of you in any kind of
a difficult situation for us to ask as a follow up on our
request to give us 10 or 20 of your top proposals for changes,
whether it is ensuring quality of care or management
efficiencies?
Mr. Daigh. I will give you a list that has the data that I
think can support it, and then there will be some that I don't
have data on.

AUTHORITY OVER INSPECTOR GENERAL

Mr. Edwards. Okay. I think that would be helpful.
I was talking to Mr. Wamp when we went out to vote. I know
you are constantly sending us reports, but one of the things we
don't do very well in Washington is let the taxpayers know when
we do implement efficiencies. So maybe from time to time when
the VA does implement efficiency programs that save tax
dollars, particularly when we put a dollar number on it,
perhaps we ought to communicate in a way that maybe some of us
in Congress can help get that word out. I think it is
important.
I think it is particularly important since we have just
provided the largest increase in history for the VA, that we
are not just going to make this a one-way street. We are
providing the money, but we are going to ask for accountability
as well.
Let me ask you, too, explain the level of independence that
you have. Or maybe put another way, does the VA secretary--what
direct authority does the VA secretary or deputy secretary or
the central office have over either your positions or your
office operations?
Ms. Regan. None.
Mr. Edwards. None?
Ms. Regan. I guess I will speak as the counselor.
Mr. Edwards. All right, Ms. Regan. [Laughter.]
Ms. Regan. Under the IG Act, the secretary has general
authority over the IG, but not any specific authority. The
Secretary is specifically not allowed to tell us to start or
stop a review or issue a subpoena.
We have over the years become very, very independent. I
know when I started in 1989 and the general counsel assigned
one attorney to work with the OIG. Now, we have an independent
counsel's office and we are independent. We work with general
counsel, for example, but they don't represent us in any of our
cases. We represent ourselves in any case, even if Justice has
the case and it involves the OIG.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Ms. Regan. We issue our own subpoenas. We now have our own
performance review boards. The only thing that--if somebody is
nominated for one of the rank awards, that has to go through
the secretary.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Ms. Regan. We are very independent. We make our own hiring
and firing decisions as we are allowed to under the IG Act.
Mr. Edwards. How about your budget submission to OMB? Is
that done through the secretary?
Ms. Regan. It has to go through the secretary. That is
required by law. There is no other way to get it done.
Mr. Edwards. So if I were to assume a world where a VA
secretary is wanting to send a message to an effective,
aggressive, independent OIG, then I guess the secretary could
cut your budget?
Ms. Regan. That has happened in some agencies. I can't say
it--but it has happened in other agencies.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. So does that answer pretty well reflect
all of you?
Mr. O'Neill. I can tell you that in the 4\1/2\ years I have
been involved with the Office of Investigations, they have not
interfered in a single investigation.

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Edwards. That is great to know.
What kind of whistleblower system do we have within the VA?
Are there clear protections? Or do you have any recommendations
for better protections? Do we even go so far as to provide
monetary benefits if somebody comes up with an idea that helps
us bring about deficiencies or stops criminal actions, Mr.
O'Neill? What are the whistleblower protections within the VA?
How good are they?
Mr. O'Neill. I can answer some of it, but I guess in terms
of whistleblower protection, that would be more in Maureen's
backyard.
Ms. Regan. Well, the Whistleblower Protection Act covers
all VA employees, including physicians, because I think there
was an amendment to the original statute that would include our
Title 38 employees. There is policy. People have to take
training every year on the issue.
How effective is it? That is an individual case issue. I
mean, it is going to be the managers and the supervisors at the
lower level and whether or not whistleblowers are retaliated
against. Whistleblowers first have the right to go to the
Office of Special Counsel to seek relief. We don't do as many
whistleblower cases because we can't give the whistleblower any
relief.
We can issue a report but the Office of Special Counsel can
mandate corrective action and take the case to the Merit
Systems Protection Board on behalf of the individual employee
and MS&B can order disciplinary action against the people who
retaliated against the whistleblower. So the protections are
there and the system works as it should. I think it works just
as well as it does in the other agencies.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Daigh. Can I make a comment, sir?
Mr. Edwards. Dr. Daigh.
Mr. Daigh. I have a current case that may be of some
interest. A gentleman called in and made an allegation that
monies--were not being spent appropriately. The VA then
subsequent to our starting a hotline, basically started a board
of investigation regarding those allegations and others about
the person who called in to us on that hotline.
So I then called the under secretary of health to say this
is not right. And so they then agreed to stop the board
investigation until after they had done a report. So there are
some informal mechanisms. We are aware of that and where it
interferes with--we will try and make sure that that----
Mr. Edwards. Okay, good.
Staff, was that a new vote? If somebody could get me a note
when we have 3 minutes left on the final vote, that would help.

PATIENT ADVOCATE SYSTEM

Okay. How about the issue of getting a key part of the
checks and balance system. Since you, no matter how much
funding we gave you, you couldn't have a large enough staff to
be a complete check and balance as you would want to be, if you
didn't have help from the actual veterans themselves.
Dr. Daigh, when a veteran goes to a VA hospital and has
problems, how good or bad, in your judgment, is the feedback
system? Is it readily available in most hospitals to find an
800 number or a patients' advocate they could contact? Is the
patient advocate system working well? What happens with those?
For example, does the complaint go to the local hospital
administrator, who might have every incentive to want to bury
that in a trash can when we do our feedback? We follow up on
our casework with a questionnaire in my congressional office
once or twice a year. The answers don't come back to the
caseworkers that do the work. The answers come back to our
office here in Washington.
So I would welcome your feedback on that.
Mr. Daigh. Yes, sir. I would say that in the hospitals that
are functioning correctly, and that would be most of them, the
patient advocate system works. They should have a database of
the complaints that they have seen. They should maintain that
database and there should be records that they have presented
that data once analyzed to management. Most of the time, we see
that ongoing.
As an organization, we get 10,000 or 20,000 hotlines a
year. So veterans have our number. That would be veterans
calling in or their families calling in with complaints. So in
that way, there is a process. So I think that most of the time
the advocate system works. We do go to facilities occasionally
where it is broken. In our CAP report, we say it is broken, so
fix it. And I believe they do take steps to fix it most of the
time. So I believe it is an active and usually successful
program.
Mr. Edwards. Good, good.
Have you looked at the Internet? Many veterans are very
literate on the Internet, and go to the VA website. I know at
one point in this past year I looked at it. It is pretty
difficult for me to find where I would go on the web on the VA
site to lodge a complaint if I had been a patient.
Mr. Daigh. There are two sites. One is on our website where
you can lodge a complaint, and we do take hotlines by email, so
we do that.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. Daigh. I would also agree with you that VA website have
become much more user-unfriendly in the past couple of years.
You used to be able to log on and see who was the leadership
and who was working there, and click and find their office
phone number. So I could navigate my way around the system more
easily, so that has become much more difficult.
I put all of my reports on the web to the public, so you
can get all our reports anytime. I hope that helps answer the
question.

HIRING PERSONNEL

Mr. Edwards. Very good. That is helpful.
Ms. Finn and Ms. Regan, I want to be sure I am clear on
what with the additional budget funded by Congress last year,
how many employees did that allow you to be able to hire? Have
you hired those? And how many will you have to let go if you go
back down to the proposed president's budget for 2009? Tell me
as best as you can what would be the kinds of initiatives you
couldn't take if you don't maintain inflation-adjusted current
services in the budget in 2009, compare to 2008.
Ms. Finn. In the Office of Audits, our staffing increase
with the additional funds for 2008 was a little less than the
rest of the organization proportionally because we have had a
great deal of attrition during 2007, and we are down already
about 15 positions. Hiring auditors can be very difficult
because we are looking for people with an accounting
background, and those people are in high demand and they can
make a lot more money elsewhere. So it is a difficult thing for
us to hire auditors. We also try to hire analysts, but it is
still a difficult issue. So we have been slowly trying to hire,
and that is why for us the impact is only about four positions.
Okay?
Mr. Edwards. The impact being, what you have already hired
or what you would hire once you use all the money allocated to
you.
Ms. Finn. The difference between our 2008 and 2009
allocations on paper is only about four positions. However, how
an actual reduction would be allocated across the board could
be a much more severe impact on us. Certainly, it is going to
mean that some of our more difficult, more theoretical, longer-
term work, we might not be able to do because it is not going
to be quite as productive.
For example, trying to look at the department's enterprise
architecture systems, and really help them come up with the
hardware and software architectures that will help them to
manage their information management more effectively. We may
not be able to do that. In every case, we would have to look at
our priorities and see what can we not afford to do.
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Ms. Regan.
Ms. Regan. My contract review group is not affected at all
because they are paid for by the VA Supply Fund.
Mr. Edwards. They are paid for.
Ms. Regan. Yes. It is a reimbursable agreement, so all the
money we put back in is--some of that goes to pay for those
people.
In my own legal office--an attorney, a paralegal, the FOIA
officer and I am not sure at this point if a change in the
budget next year will affect that work.
Mr. Edwards. So who actually decides your budget level for
your office?
Ms. Regan. The IG.
Mr. Edwards. The IG does.
Ms. Regan. Yes. I mean, what funding out of our
appropriation I get?
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Ms. Regan. Yes, the IG does.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Ms. Finn, on the issue of reviewing the training within
DVA, given we provided so much money for so many new hirees.
Have you started that?
Ms. Finn. No, we have not. We hope to start that later this
year.
Mr. Edwards. Do you have any idea how long you think that
will take?
Ms. Finn. We will do it on a national basis where we will
try to look at a number of regional offices to have a systemic
picture. So our goal is to complete all of our audit work
within 10 to 11 months. So I know it will be sometime within
that time window. And that is the best estimate I can give you
right now.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. I might ask you, if you wouldn't mind,
sometime in late summer or first of September, July to the
first of September, if you are at the point where you are
getting some anecdotal feedback that seems to be consistent, I
will understand that you have to draw limited conclusions from
limited data, but even some anecdotal feedback would help us.
We really want to reduce that backlog, but we worked with
the VSOs last year. They had some recommendations on a huge
number of increased employees. We talked to them and said our
concern. We liked the goal, but the concern was what do you do
if you are taking people off of healing cases and train a new
employee, where is the right balance between getting those new
people in the pipeline, versus taking too many people out to
train them. So I hope we keep going in the right direction
before we have another huge increase in employees. It would be
nice to at least get some anecdotal feedback about how we are
doing.
Ms. Finn. I will make it a point to plan our work so we can
provide you some feedback at that time.
Mr. Edwards. Okay, great. I will welcome that.
I would just say, I know there has been dialogue between
your offices and our staff and my staff, but I think my
colleagues would agree that you guys are a gold mine of
experience and knowledge, and you can provide the kind of
objective, well-informed information that we desperately need
if we are going to be part of this check-and-balance system.
The truth is, we have been so busy over the last several
years, it has been hard for us to exercise the kind of checks
and balances system. So I hope we can continue an ongoing
dialogue, and not just at formal hearings, but in just informal
discussions with all of you as we come across some issues. And
we may follow up with you after you have presented what you
think are your best proposals to us.
Mr. O'Neill, do you ever find as you are investigating
these criminal cases, do you come up with systemic problems
where it wasn't just an individual who was a crook, but a flaw
in the system, and therefore we need to correct that flaw so it
doesn't happen over and over and over again all over the
country? And if so, how has the VA been generally about looking
at those recommendations?
Mr. O'Neill. When we conduct a criminal investigation that
has that sort of systemic ramification, we do provide the
department a memorandum that outlines what we have found. To be
honest, we just don't have the resources to follow up to see if
they corrected it, but we have at least provided them
information, when it is an issue that we think will impact
other areas.
We arrested two different directors in the mail out
pharmacy program. That led us elsewhere, and we are working
with the department. In fact, there is going to be an audit of
the whole program.
Ms. Finn. There is an ongoing audit. Yes.
Mr. O'Neill. So basically, if there is something, I will go
to Audit with it, and then if it is not something that would
merit a full-scale audit, then we would share it with the
department, so they can fix the problem. If there is money
going out the door and we can stop it, that is our effort to
make sure it doesn't continue.

DRUG DIVERSION

Mr. Edwards. How large of a problem is drug diversion in
the VA?
Mr. O'Neill. Well, it is hard to quantify how big a problem
it is. I can tell you that over the last 4 years, we arrested
about 430 folks for drug diversion offenses. It is a wide-
ranging thing. You have a nurse or pharmacist who is either
stealing the drugs from the inventory, or worse yet, from the
patient, and may be diluting it. We even had one withdraw
Fetanol from a patch that was on a patient and things like
that.
So when we get these indicators, when we get allegations,
and frequently they come from either patients who say that they
are not getting the proper medication, or are still in a lot of
pain and the treating physician thinks that they are getting
the dosage that they prescribed. So I would say that if you
look at arresting 400 people over 4 years as a significant
problem, which I do, but I couldn't quantify it because it is a
crime that you can subject easily to, say, data-mining as much
as you can line up individual--programs and help give you some
leads, but you get an awful lot of false positives with those.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. O'Neill. So each one has to be investigated
individually, unlike the death match where they can really
fine-tune your work to maximize your effort. Here, you have to
look at each one individually. So I don't think I could fairly
give an accurate answer in terms of how widespread a problem it
is.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
You collect money as a result of your investigations. Where
does that money go? Does that go back in the general treasury?
Mr. O'Neill. It depends if the funds can be returned to a
revolving fund issue. In other words, if the funds can be
returned to VA to some revolving fund, because most often when
we get these settlements, it is years after the money has been
spent, then it is returned. But probably the fact is, if you
are talking about court-ordered restitution and recoveries of
benefits, it is money that we get because the payee is deceased
and it has been sitting in a bank. There is no criminal
behavior, but we find the money has been piling up. I think it
goes back to Treasury, if I am not mistaken.
Ms. Regan. The rule is that anything other than single
damages has to go back to Treasury. If it is the actual damage
amount and it is an expired appropriation that hasn't been
closed, you can put it back in there if they have some basis to
use it. If there is a revolving fund involved such as the
Federal supply fund, and I think there are some better benefits
funds. I think there is a loan guarantee fund when we had some
loan issues, we put money back in there.
So each time we get a settlement, we look to see if there
is someplace we can put it in VA, but a lot of times it just
goes back to Treasury.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Ms. Regan. Now, the recoveries we have almost always to the
supply fund. If it is a contract issue, if it was coming out of
general contract, you can try to get it back there.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Dr. Daigh, one of the questions I have had as we begin to
go out and visit VA hospitals, and I think we are going to get
subcommittee members doing that more than we have done in the
past, would you please at my request present to our committee
the best 10 or 20 questions we ought to ask? It is so easy for
us to walk through a hospital. They have cleaned the floors.
They have fixed the restrooms and they put on a good show. I
was pretty good when I knew my mom was going to check my
bedroom to see if I had made my bed.
I want us to get out in the field more and see what is
going on first-hand. But it would be helpful to know some of
the things to look for, that you would look for as you are
going out there, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel that
you have been able to build with all of your expertise and
experience.
Mr. Daigh. I would be more than happy to do that.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.020

Mr. Edwards. Great.
Could I also ask you, Dr. Daigh, about the LC data program?
Perhaps we need to change the name. I have heard there is an
interesting explanation for that. But give me an example of
what is wrong with the present system and specifically what you
would like to do to change it.
Mr. Daigh. If we take the issue of veterans who commit
suicide. I get a complaint or a hotline or notification that a
veteran is a suicide. The allegation is that the VA didn't
provide proper care. That is one tragic event. Does that tragic
event mean that the VA is failing in delivering mental health
to returning veterans or not? You have to have a universe that
you understand, that you can sample in a statistically
meaningful way, to understand whether those discrete events
that you see represent the behavior of the entire population,
or are they really a random event.
So by obtaining access to DOD data feeds, so that we have a
list of everyone who left DOD in a given year, we have a
universe that we understand. We know what their health care
history is, because we have access to that.
Mr. Edwards. Since DOD doesn't have electronic patient data
systems, do they?
Mr. Daigh. Well, they do. They have TRICARE records, so
they have in-patient records. They have CHCS. They have in-
patient records, outpatient records.
Mr. Edwards. Computerized?
Mr. Daigh. Computerized. Well, you really just need the
business records to do most of what we are doing, because
diagnosis is made in ICD-9 codes or CQT-4 codes. So with the
business data that is available at a hospital, to understand
what they are doing, you can describe patients or populations
in terms of the disease burden they have.
So for this group, we know, for instance, who DOD diagnosed
with PTSD on their side of the wall before they left DOD. If
you have that kind of information, then you can begin to make
meaningful statements about the quality of VA health care.
Right now, I am limited to what happened to the patient at one
facility, where people who are enrolled to that facility may
not get their care at that facility. They may get their care
through--enrollment just means you are privileged to use it,
not that you use it.
Mr. Edwards. Would you hold that thought, and then we will
get in to what you would do, what it would take to provide an
adequate system of information.
Let me go vote and I will be right back.
Mr. Daigh. Absolutely.
[Recess.]
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Daigh.
Mr. Daigh. The House Veterans Affairs Committee is very
supportive of our effort in this, and we currently are working
with VA in putting together an organizational group that would
include DOD, VA, the IG, and VBA to take what is a very
elegant, but simple, formulation that we have published, and
turn it into a relational data set so that government users, or
the appropriate people then, can use that information and turn
that data into information.
So that process right now we are driving as fast as we can
with VA to make this an operational and usable data set that
builds cohorts backward and continues to build cohorts forward.
What I crave are the few people to help me do the analysis from
that data. You know, you get information and you need to
understand what that is. So where I have taken a few precious
resources and invested them in this is to help us, again,
understand the data, make sense of the data, and then work to
offer reports that drive change. So that is my goal in this.
Mr. Edwards. How soon should we be able to implement a new
system that does what you would like it to do?
Mr. Daigh. I believe, and I will provide you with what I
got from VA on this, but I believe that within the next year,
this should be up and going, and probably within the next three
quarters. My staff meets with the developers on this on a
regular basis, and we are trying to get them as quick as we
can. So this is in real-time moving forward. Geoff Bester, who
is a staffer on the House Veterans Affairs Committee has a
meeting on Monday with me, Dr. Clegg, VA, to see where we are
on this proposal. He is very interested that this move forward
also.

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

Mr. Edwards. Good.
One last question I would like to ask you, and that is, I
came across a case where I think he was an OEF veteran came
back to my district and he had clear need for PTSD counseling.
At one point, he was even suicidal. But because he hadn't
kicked the drinking problem, he was in effect locked out of the
PTSD program at the Waco VA. Haven't you made a recommendation
that would not require a sobriety test to be passed in order to
work and help the veteran with his or her PTSD issues?
Mr. Daigh. Yes, sir. The sustained sobriety requirement,
that is that you be basically sober when you get mental health
counseling, has been a tenet of many, both VA and civilian
mental health programs harken back to the veteran population
which is now much older, and many civilian facilities won't
really accept you for mental health counseling if you are not
sober or you are not free from drug abuse.
In a number of the suicide cases that we have reported on
in the last year or two, sobriety has been a problem in
addition to suicidality. When patients have at times presented
to the civilian component, outside of VA care, they have been
refused care if they weren't sober.
So we made the recommendation through a number of hotlines,
and then in our review of VHA's mental health plan, they agreed
that they would remove the requirement that patients be sober,
and allow patients to get both mental health care and sobriety
treatment at the same time, which I think is important and
which I hope makes a difference. Although, that combination is
a very lethal combination and difficult to deal with.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for that.
Well, you have been very patient in being here a long time.
I want this to be just the beginning, and not the end of our
dialogue. So we will draw the subcommittee hearing to a close.
I will just finish with a thought. I just feel personally
very grateful that we have people of your caliber and your
experience and your dedication in these vitally important jobs.
I was so thrilled last year that working together we were able
to add $11.8 billion in funding to the VA. But you, as Zach
Wamp said, this is a covenant and you are the guarantors of the
covenant.
If we don't oversee the VA programs and weed out the
mistakes and spend the dollars wisely, then we won't get a
second or third opportunity to keep increasing VA funding. It
would only take one 60 Minutes program and one 20/20 program to
convince Americans that we are lavishing waste on the VA
programs and the money is not helping veterans.
So not only the direct dollars you save, the crime you
stop, but all the other benefits of your work, I am deeply
grateful for that.
Thank you for being here. We will make this a tradition of
our subcommittee.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Farr.]

Questions for Dr. John Daigh, Assistant Inspector General for
Healthcare Inspections

I. VET CENTERS

I have heard from some employees at the VA that some older veterans
are being turned away or put to the back of the line in favor of
veterans from the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The last thing we want
to see is vets competing for services among themselves.
A. What can you tell us about access to care being received at
local Vet Centers?
We have not done any work regarding access to care at Vet Centers
due to other higher priority work. With additional resources, we would
review access to care at Vet Centers.

II. SEAMLESS TRANSITION BETWEEN VA AND DOD

When an active duty soldier is honorably discharged, the Department
of Defense (DoD) must transfer that soldier's records to the VA. There
have been problems in the past making this a timely action, and some
soldiers discharged with a service-connected disability have discovered
that the DoD and the VA do not always use the same disability ratings
ystem.
A. Does the IG have any recommendations to improve sharing of
medical records or disability ratings?
DoD and VA have different goals in the determination of disability
ratings. However, the medical examination for disability determination
should be the same, that is, providing a single examination for the
collection of data required for the disability determination for
continued employment by DoD and a general disability evaluation by VA.
The Office of Healthcare Inspections (OHI) has not evaluated the
technical issues that must be resolved to improve this process, and
thus have no specific recommendations.
B. Do you think that the VA and DoD are making progress connecting
their disabilities ratings?
VA and DoD are making progress in the transfer of medical
information. We have seen progress in the flow of medical record
information from DoD facilities to Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
facilities in connection with medical treatment. The Office of Audit
recently noted an issue with the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)
not receiving information from the DoD that identifies seriously
disabled OEF/OIF veterans. This lack of information means that VBA
cannot readily identify all veterans who need expedited processing on
disability claims. We expect to issue a final report concerning this
issue in June 2008.

III. VISN STRUCTURE

As you are aware, the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) is
the system that oversees the operation of regional veterans' hospitals
and outpatient service centers.
A. Dr. Daigh, please tell the committee your views on the
effectiveness of the VISN structure for providing health care.
I do not believe the current VISN structure is as effective as it
should be in assuring that veterans receive quality health care. VHA
provides veterans with quality health care. However, the variation in
quality among the many facilities is a recent concern to me. Our
Combined Assessment Program (CAP) reviews of VA medical centers
continue to report problems with the peer review process, credentialing
and privileging of physicians, and adverse event disclosure. In
addition, we continue to find individual facilities in noncompliance
with VHA policies in the area of environment of care on mental health
wards that place patients at risk of harming themselves.
Recent complaints to the OIG Hotline have identified quality of
care issues in Martinsburg, West Virginia, San Antonio, Texas, and
Marion, Illinois. From the data at my disposal, the VISN's impact on
medical facilities is limited to management of financial resources; I
do not see a significant effect of the VISN upon the quality of care
provided at medical facilities.
B. If you think the structure is ineffective, please explain why.
A central tenent of the current management structure is the idea
that health care is best provided at the local level. Thus the chain of
command extends from VACO to 21 VISNs with each VISN responsible for
their share of the 150 medical centers, 800 community-based outpatient
clinics, and 200 Vet Centers. VHA therefore has an organizational bias
in favor of local decision makers over national leaders which impedes
the provision of one standard of excellent medical care for all
eligible veterans. The lack of a standard organizational structure
leads to differences in financial systems, medical data systems, and
management and committee structures from VISN to VISN.
VISNs are important control points in the financial chain of
command. The result however is that there are now more than 20 entities
within VA that must come to agreement on business practices that
address common issues. This duplication seems unnecessary.
In OHI's report in January 2008 on the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in
Marion, Illinois, we identified several issues that the Undersecretary
for Health agreed to address on a national level. Our report identified
a dysfunctional facility quality management structure. The
Undersecretary for Health agreed to create a uniform structure to be
used at each facility to manage the quality assurance process. Our
report demonstrated that the Marion VAMC was performing surgeries where
the expected risk to a patient at a smaller hospital with limited
staffing is significantly different for the same procedure performed at
a more sophisticated medical facility. The Under Secretary for Health
agreed to review the method used to determine which diagnostic and
therapeutic procedures are appropriate to perform at VHA facilities,
and to ensure that the privileging of physicians for these procedures
is matched with available resources.
Both of these issues are symptomatic of the current structure that
tilts in the favor of local control of resources and decisions. With
changing conditions, organizations need to adjust. The current
organizational structure needs to be adjusted to more efficiently
ensure veterans receive quality health care.
C. What recommendations can you give to the committee to improve
the VISN system?
I believe that the current management structure would not be the
best for VA health care in 2015. I would engage management experts to
review and affirm the mission of VHA (health care, training, research,
emergency medical preparedness) and suggest alternatives to the current
structure of VHA to accomplish the desired mission as envisioned by
national policymakers. Veterans receive their health care from a
variety of sources that include VA, TRICARE, Medicare, Indian Health
Service, Medicaid, and third party insurance. A review that considers
the interaction of these sources of funding and community needs would,
in my view, ensure that veterans get excellent quality health care and
that taxpayers get the maximum return for their dollar.

Questions for James O'Neill Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations

IV. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Your office is responsible for conducting criminal and
administrative investigations of wrongdoing in VA programs and
operations.
A. Has the OIG ever been refused any request for information from
the VA?
The OIG has not been refused any request for information from VA.

Questions for Belinda Finn Assistant Inspector General for Audit

V. BACKLOG OF BENEFITS CLAIMS

Currently, it takes an average of 657 days to process a disability
appeal. The VA is working to reduce the time for a disability claim to
145 days.
A. Do you have any recommendations to help the VA deal with the
backlog of disability claims?
VBA needs to strengthen control processes over various aspects of
disability claims processing. In recent audit work related to non-
rating claims and compensation and pension changes, we identified
avoidable delays that occur because claims are handled more times than
necessary. We also found instances where VBA procedures did not ensure
that staff processed compensation adjustments promptly. We have
recommended improved performance measures and additional oversight to
ensure that veterans and their dependents receive timely and accurate
benefit payments.
VBA also needs to ensure its Systematic Technical Accuracy Review
Program provides the comprehensive oversight needed to assure the
consistent application of policies and procedures. Lastly, the
complexities inherent with the rating schedule need to be addressed in
order to improve the consistency of claims decisions.
Several Subcommittee Members expressed interest at the hearing on
the effectiveness of funding provided to VBA for FTE to help address
the backlog of claims. As stated in my testimony and in a later meeting
with Subcommittee staff, we are currently reviewing how VBA hires and
trains new claims processing personnel. We will share our findings and
any recommendations with the Subcommittee upon completion of this
review, which is expected no later than August 31, 2008.

VI. Request for Copies of Reports

Office of Audit mentions reports on the timeliness and quality of
prosthetics provided to veterans and activation of major construction
projects.
A. I would appreciate any copies of current reports on these issues
and copies of any future reports on these issues.
We have no current reports on the timeliness and quality of
prosthetics provided to veterans and activation of major construction
projects. As discussed in our written statement, we believe these are
high-risk areas that would benefit from future review, but we cannot
perform those reviews with our current resources because of higher
priority work. If we are able to review these areas in the future, we
will provide copies of the reports.

VII. BENEFITS PROCESSING

One of the ongoing top priorities for the Congress has been to see
the backlog of claims for disability benefits reduced. Last year this
Subcommittee and the Congress included funding for the hiring of 1,500
additional claims processors. The Office of Audit indicates in your
testimony that for FY 2009 you plan to release six reports on the
benefits processing process.
A. Inspector Finn, how responsive has the VA been in implementing
the OIG's recommendations for addressing the backlog?
While we have not made recommendations that are specific to the
backlog of disability rating claims, during the past year we have
recommended that VBA increase its oversight and monitoring of
processing actions in other areas such as non-rating claims and
compensation and pension changes to ensure that actions are completed
in a timely manner. VA has concurred with our recommendations and taken
action to institute further controls and improve oversight. Because of
the recency of these recommendations, we have not performed follow-on
reviews to determine if the increased controls are effective in
improving processing timeliness.
You mentioned that you would be doing six reports in benefits
processes in FY 2009.
B. How many have you done in the years since the beginning of GWOT?
We have issued eight reports on benefit processing since FY 2002.
Audit of Veterans Benefits Administration Benefit Payments
Involving Unreimbursed Medical Expense Claims (September 30, 2002)
Summary of the Benefits Review of the VA Regional Office
in San Juan, Puerto Rico (March 7, 2005)
Review of State Variances in VA Disability Compensation
Payments (May 19, 2005).
Audit of Adjustments of Hospitalized Veterans'
Compensation and Pension Benefits (February 1, 2007).
Audit of Veterans Benefits Administration's Pension
Maintenance Program Administered by the Pension Maintenance Centers
(March 30, 2007)
Audit of Veterans Benefits Administration Controls to
Minimize Compensation Benefit Overpayments (September 28, 2007)
Audit of the Effectiveness of Veterans Benefits
Administration Compensation Writeouts (December 19, 2007)
Audit of Veterans Benefits Administration Non-Rating
Claims Processing (February 7, 2008).

VIII. STAFFING ISSUES AT VA FACILITIES

It has been brought to my attention by people within the VA that
the process for hiring health care employees is very complicated and
can take several months. Obviously this presents problems when meeting
shortfalls that currently number in the thousands nationwide.
A. Has the OIG recently conducted a review of the hiring practices
within the VA? If yes, could my office get a copy of that report?
OHI last addressed this issue in a national report, Healthcare
Inspection, Evaluation of Nurse Staffing in Veterans Health
Administration Facilities, dated August 13, 2004. A copy is attached.
The Office of Audit has not completed any audit on VA hiring practices;
however, in March 2008 we began an audit to assess the effectiveness
and timeliness of VBA's hiring process and overall progress
assimilating new employees into the claims processing workplace. We
will provide a copy of our final review upon completion, which is
expected no later than August 31, 2008.
[A copy of the report follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.067

B. Does the OIG have any recommendations to address the staffing
shortfalls within the VA?
With respect to nursing shortfalls, OHI has encouraged VHA to
determine a staffing standard to ascertain the magnitude and location
of their shortfall. VHA has not established such a standard for nurses,
despite the requirements of Public Law 107-135, Department of Veterans
Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001.
Where there is a shortfall, creative solutions should be explored.
VA has taken a number of new actions, from supporting nursing education
to creating a traveling nurse corps to address temporary nursing
shortages. OHI will report on staffing issues and the impact of various
methods to address staffing shortfalls in upcoming Combined Assessment
Program reviews.
Additionally, it has been brought to my attention by people within
the VA that newly hired individuals at Palo Alto, California, and San
Francisco, California, are receiving different levels of pay for the
same work. Additionally, some newer employees are being paid more than
current staff for the same work.
C. Has the OIG investigated any reports of this nature at these
locations or elsewhere?
We have not performed any audits addressing position classification
or pay issues as cited.
D. If so, can my office receive a copy of that report? If a study
has not been done, would the OIG initiate a study immediately to
investigate pay disparities throughout the VA?
We believe that a study of pay disparities across the VA is more
appropriately conducted by VA, rather than the OIG. If VA agrees to
undertake such a study, we are willing to discuss a possible role for
the OIG.

Questions for Maureen Regan, Counselor to the Inspector General

IX. PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES

The Office of Audit is very clear in its testimony that the VA
cannot manage its contracting activities and does not offer a
centralized database of its procurement and contract activities.
A. How long has the OIG been working with the VA to address this
problem and what progress, if any, has been made?
The OIG has identified procurement as one of VA's major management
challenges for many years. Some actions have been taken to address the
issues but progress has been slow. As one example, VHA took action to
centralize contracting and/or contracting oversight at the VISN level.
However, this has not been fully implemented in all VISNs. We have not
evaluated whether this action has been effective in those VISNs in
which it has been fully implemented.
With respect to the centralized database, VA has established a
national electronic database, Electronic Contract Management System (e-
CMS), to generate and manage new procurement actions over $25,000. On
June 15, 2007, the VA Office of Acquisition and Logistics issued
guidance regarding the mandated use of e-CMS. An OIG audit of e-CMS is
currently ongoing to determine the extent of the system's
implementation throughout VA and whether e-CMS will provide needed
information for VA to manage and report the cost of procurement more
effectively. We will provide you a copy of the audit report, which we
plan to issue in September 2008.
B. Does it make sense that the VA would make changes to its policy
for resellers when it's not clear what effect these resellers have on a
national level?
The implementation of the recommendation in our report, Final
Report, Special Review of Federal Supply Schedule Medical Equipment &
Supply Contracts Awarded to Resellers, dated October 15, 2007, will not
have any national level effect on the ability of VA or other Government
agencies to purchase the medical and/or surgical supplies needed to
provide quality health care in a timely manner. It will, however,
ensure that VA and other Government agencies purchase these items at
fair and reasonable prices that are comparable to what commercial
customers pay for the same items.
The only ``resellers'' that could be impacted by the implementation
of the recommendation are those who do not have significant commercial
sales. These vendors do not have significant commercial sales because
they do not sell the items they offer the Government on Federal Supply
Schedule contracts to commercial customers. They are used by large
manufacturers to broker a contract with the Federal government to avoid
giving the Government purchasers the same discounts and concessions
that the manufacturers give their commercial customers. As a result,
the Government is paying higher prices than commercial customers are
paying for identical products. More importantly, we determined that the
arrangements are not a commercial practice because the Federal
government is the only customer required to purchase these commercial
items through a third party.

[Clerk's note.--End of Questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Farr.]
Thursday, March 6, 2008.

CENTRAL COMMAND

WITNESS

ADMIRAL WILLIAM J. FALLON, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards. I would like to call the subcommittee to
order.
Admiral Fallon, welcome back before our subcommittee.
Chairman Young, thank you for letting us appear in the
committee room. We appreciate that very much.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, you are always welcome in this
committee room.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, sir.
I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move that the classification will be Executive Session on
all material to be discussed.
Mr. Edwards. All those in favor will say aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it.
I would like for Members and staff to please check your
cell phones, pagers and BlackBerrys to make sure they are
turned off, and also remind everyone that if notes are taken of
the classified parts of this discussion, that those must be
kept in a secured place if you take those notes out of this
room.
Admiral Fallon, again, welcome back to our subcommittee and
in your position now as Commander of the U.S. Central Command.
And we were also privileged to have you here as head of Pacific
Command.
Today we are here to discuss CENTCOM's fiscal year 2009
budget request for military construction as well as the
impending fiscal year 2008 budget model. CENTCOM's fiscal year
2009 request for its responsibilities is $109 million, not
including the Combined Joint Task Force in the Horn of Africa
and Djibouti, which has moved to the African Command area. The
fiscal year 2008 supplemental request is far larger, $1.5
billion, again, not including Djibouti. This request includes
$976 million for MILCON in Iraq, the largest single-year
request that we have received thus far.
CENTCOM is engaged in two wars. It is also trying to
posture itself for the long-term challenges in the Persian Gulf
and Central Asia. We will have much for us to talk about today.
And thank you, Admiral Fallon, for taking the time to be with
us here for these important discussions.
Before we proceed, I would like to first turn to the
Ranking Member Mr. Wamp for any comments he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful. I won't take
any time except to note that this is the portion of our
hearings this year where the hair stands up on the back of your
neck with extraordinary pride and understanding of the
importance of what we are doing, and to be in the presence of a
man like Admiral Fallon is a tremendous privilege.
Thank you for your service, sir. Thank you for your
appearance today. I look forward to the give-and-take of this
discussion, and I appreciate you very much, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. As will be my tradition, I am honored to
recognize Mr. Young for any opening comments he would care to
make.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
It is great to have Admiral Fallon here. I take notice to
the fact that unlike most of our witnesses that come into this
room and your subcommittee room, he doesn't bring a whole
busload of staff. I mean, he is here. You will find that he is
responsive, and we had an outstanding hearing with the admiral
yesterday in the Defense Subcommittee room.
Admiral, welcome. I am glad to have you back again today. I
look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Edwards. Admiral, I am going to dispense with the
reading of the bio of your distinguished service to our
country. We are all familiar with your tremendous contributions
to our Nation's defense on so many different fronts. Again,
welcome back.
I would like to, without objection, say that all of your
testimony will be submitted for the record.
I would like to recognize you now for any opening comments
that you would care to make.

Statement of Admiral William J. Fallon

Admiral Fallon. Chairman, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Young, Mr.
Crenshaw, thanks once again for the opportunity to be here. It
is a very important subcommittee because we would not be able
to do the things that we are trying to do in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and the region without means to do it. We have got phenomenal
people, but we need facilities, and this is how it is made
possible.
If I could, with the great tradition, if you will bear with
me, I will start off this morning with a comment. As some of
you know, there is this morning an article in The Washington
Post that talks about me, alleges certain things, and it makes
reference to a magazine article that is coming out in the
coming days. As usual with these things, there is some truth,
there is some fact, there is some fiction, and there are some
twists.
My feeling right now is one of disappointment and, frankly,
disgust because the upshot of this is that it causes
embarrassment, I believe, to the President, to him personally,
to the institution. It also distracts from the very, very
critically important business of trying to wrap up these
conflicts in the Middle East, and it has a tendency--I think
overshadows what is really important today, and that is the
phenomenal work that is going on by our people and task in
front of us.
The principal issue here is an allegation that I am in
contravention or opposed to the administration policy regarding
Iran, and that is not true. In fact, I have had several
discussions with the President directly on this subject. It
stems from a swirl of media activity last fall in which a big
deal was being made, a couple statements that I made publicly
in which it was construed that I was not going to support the
President in some way in what we were trying to do in Iran.
That is not true. This has taken on a life of its own; kit has
been embellished to the point where it is pretty embarrassing.
Just to let you know, I believe that Iran is a difficult
challenge for us. We know that. There are lots of opinions
about how we might be able to move forward. Everybody is
entitled to their opinion, but the real issue is that we have
national interests here of the highest order with a country
that is very opaque in its nuclear development program. ------.
But the fact is, they are not openly forthcoming and have
disdain for the U.S., the U.N. Security Council resolution and
so forth. They also, by their behavior, have been killing and
wounding our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is obvious to
us. We have had fingerprints all over this. And they have also
seemingly gone out of their way to poke their fingers in the
eyes of other countries in the region.
So for all these reasons, we need to have, to the best of
our ability, a coordinated approach to this, and that has been
my efforts along those lines. And so if you just bear with me,
I know there is going to be a lot of swirl about this. There is
a lot of politics at play here, and it is just a shame. But I
didn't want to begin this hearing without at least making a
statement to address this issue.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Admiral Fallon. If I could move on to the business of
today, again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am
here representing our people because they are the folks who are
getting the job done. They have just been working in a
phenomenal fashion this year. Since I arrived here, and, of
course, I was privileged to testify about a year ago, there has
been a dramatic turnaround in the security in Iraq. It has been
to the benefit of many of the people in that country and by
virtually every single measure. Violence is down. Security has
increased, and we are moving down the road to the time when we
can continue to withdraw our forces, turning responsibility
over to Iraqis, and being able to assume a more normal
relationship with that country.
Part of this directly impacts this subcommittee, because as
we make these adjustments, you know, we are going to have to,
in my opinion, make some adjustments to the facilities that we
are using in Iraq. The big picture here is that we are going to
come down, to bring our forces down to consolidate our presence
there to a few enduring facilities, and eventually I would
expect that we will reduce our presence there at some time to
the point where it is relatively minimal and it is really
engaged in the kinds of things we do in other countries around
the world, training, mentoring, things that are supportive of
them.
The Iraqis have made some big decisions this year,
particularly regarding their finances. This year they are
putting three times as much money into their security than we
are. And that is just in 3 years time, it has gone from the
complete opposite.
They are buying U.S. equipment, and that is good in several
ways. I think, first of all, it ties them much closer to us.
And this has been made very clear by the Minister of Defense,
who told me that one of his principal intentions in pushing the
government to buy in the U.S. forces more cooperation,
coordination just because of the intimate ties that will
result. And I think that is a really good step.
In terms of facilities, there are many, 60-some places,
bases and other major outposts in the country of Iraq, right
now that our forces are using. Our intention is to over the
next months and years withdraw down to a handful of facilities,
and that will, I think, come out in due course as General
Petraeus gets back here and gets a chance to put his next
phase, his plan in public display.
By way of how that is working, I tasked him several--a
couple months ago to come back to me with a plan for what we
would do in Iraq or what he proposed to do in Iraq after July,
and this is a follow-on to the already ongoing drawdown of the
surge forces. And I gave him three scenarios to look at; one in
which security continued to increase, one in which things
stayed about the same, and one in which it might regress
somehow for whatever reason; and to tell me in those
circumstances what he would propose and how we would set
ourselves up to be in that position. And I expect to get that
back--in fact, sometime later today it is due back to me.
We will then look at that ourselves. We will talk about it.
They already have a couple of times. And we will then talk to
the Joint Chiefs about it and to the Chairman and then the
Secretary of Defense, and then, over the next couple of weeks,
take it to the President, give him our recommendations, and we
will also have a decision to make.
We have heard a lot of speculation about this, what are we
going to talk about, this cost thing? I am not sure that is
really a good word because it brings up--everybody has got
their own interpretation of what that might be. To my mind,
what is probably going to be prudent here is in about the July
timeframe, we will have completed a very rapid pull-out of ----
-- brigade combat teams which are now in July. At the same time
we will also be turning over ------ other remaining combat
teams of troops. Those troops are coming out, but there are
replacements for those ------ units going back in, and then a
host of smaller movements that will be under way at the same
time. This will be an awful lot of movement.
If I could try to give you an example of what this looks
like on the ground. If you were to look at a map of Iraq,
looking at it from a God's-eye view, you would see coalition
forces have divided up the entire country into regions of
responsibility, given those to our divisions, brigades all over
the country. As the forces come out, what is going to happen is
that the lines that separate these units are going to come to
change, and fewer units are going to be responsible for more
territory. And at the same time, there are significant numbers
of Iraqi forces that are being fielded and are taking
responsibility for their areas.
For example, right now it is really difficult, unless you
are there on the ground, to understand how complex this is. For
example, in an area like Anbar Province, the largest province
in the country, Marines are generally in charge of that. To an
increasing degree, Iraqi Security Forces are actually doing the
day-to-day things. Our Marines are now generally drawn back to
their bases, and they certainly patrol, they certainly engage
with what the Iraqis have. In certain cases the Iraqis are
pretty much doing this all on their own. In other cases their
companies, battalions are out there, and our people are right
there with them. It is a really interesting checkered
tablecloth, if you will, of all these activities.
All this is going on this summer, and it seems to me that
it is probably going to be prudent to let the dust settle for a
bit for some, I would think, shorter rather than longer period
to see if the stability is as we want it. And clearly
everybody's intention is to get back on drawdown and bring our
forces back, but take it very careful--paying close attention
to what frontiers are ready to expand so that we don't lose the
stability that we have got. I think it is quite possible; not
possible, I think we are going to get it done, but it is very
complex, and I suspect that General Petraeus is going to come
back and say, let us have a little bit of time to take a look
at this before we start pulling more troops out.
We are also very mindful of the fact that the Army wants to
get off a 15-month rotation. General Casey has made that very
clear that we need to get off it, and I agree. So the sooner we
can get this moving, the faster we will be able to let our
people go.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you
and to be here. I will turn it over for whatever questions you
might have.
Mr. Edwards. Admiral, thank you for your testimony and, as
Mr. Wamp said, for your lifetime distinguished service to our
country.
[Prepared statement of Admiral William J. Fallon follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.078

LONG TERM SECURITY

Mr. Edwards. Let me just make a brief editorial comment
from one person in this House, and that is that I hope our
military leaders always are in a position to be able to speak
openly and honestly with the Secretary of Defense, with the
Commander in Chief and without it always getting in the press.
We know you are loyal to the chain of command. but we also
respect the fact that whatever viewpoints you have offered--and
I don't want to get into the viewpoints of that today--vis-a-
vis Iran, whatever views you have expressed are honest and
sincere and well informed.
And the press is always looking for conflict. If it is not
conflict, it is just not news in this town. And that is
disappointing for all of us. I have great respect, though, for
the leadership that you have shown.
Let me just ask, for the skeptics that are out there that
say that there is more security now since we have got such a
huge presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, but as soon as we leave,
the Shia and Sunnis are just waiting to go after each other,
and then the arms of the Sunnis will just be used to turn
against the Iraqis. How would you respond to those skeptics and
suggest that perhaps there is reason for you to believe that
there would be long-term security if we pullout 2 years from
now, 3 years from now or 7 years from now?
Admiral Fallon. Well, I think that the truth is that there
are always going to be some extremists in every society.
Because of the situation in Iraq, there has been more of these
folks who have been in front than maybe some other countries.
But the situation has significantly changed now, and I
think that it is not just the mindset that I would offer. The
picture is not us withdrawing, and now we are just gone, and
they are in charge. This process of gradually turning this over
to the Iraqi Security Forces who are increasingly competent and
increasingly willing to pick this up. Just the steps they have
taken; from the investment decisions that I mentioned
previously, to their continued build-up of their forces, to
some really good decisions that I have seen in putting good
leaders in charge and making assessments of how people have
done over the past year or so and making changes where it is
appropriate.
In the South, for example, where we have a very, very light
presence, all those provinces down there have been turned over
to the Iraqis for their political control and security control.
And a couple of times here in the past 6 months, there have
been indications that trouble was brewing, that the extremists
were trying to take back over or force things to happen. The
Iraqis have dealt with this, and we have not had to put a
significant rescue force, if you would, or response force in
place. We have helped them. We have given them enablers. We
have flown some troops around for them, and we have provided
some of our Special Forces people, who are very effective. They
are close to the Iraqi Security Forces. They mentor them.
But increasingly we are seeing the Iraqis with SWAT teams,
which they have mirrored on ours, with commandos and with some
of the Army units that are responding. They have made
adjustments. They realize that the South, it is trouble. It is
not a place where there is a lot of open conflict, but there is
a continual grinding, and most of it is Shias. It is different
than other places. It is almost all Shia down there, and there
are factions that are, frankly, vying for political domination,
and so they have their times when they go at it and try to
intimidate. But what we are seeing, Iraqis responding, and they
are dealing with it.
One town I will mention, Diwaniyah, I was concerned about
twice, once in the last 6 or 8 months. It looked like trouble
was brewing, and one time we said, oh, we will have to go down
there and clean it up. We did not have to. They took care of
it. They brought people in from other parts of the country, and
they cleaned it up.
I think they are stepping up to the plate, and if we do
this in a smart fashion, I think we are going to be able to
effect this. It is not going to be the U.S. It is their
culture. It is going to be different. But they are dealing with
things.

SYRIAN BORDER

I will give you another example. I was out in the West in
the Sunni area a couple of weeks ago, and the marines there had
tipped me off that there was trouble brewing out at one of the
entry points on the Syrian border, and the issue was that the
border police, Iraqis, out there had not been paid and were
given--they were being short-sheeted by the central government.
At least that was their complaint. And the story was, well, the
Shia government's not paying enough attention to us. They don't
care what happens out here.
Just last week a delegation from Baghdad went out there,
visited with the gang, listened to the complaints, had the
usual lubrication in that part of the world, a bag of money,
handed it out, paid off all the debts, and folks were left with
smiles on their faces and back to work and business as usual.
In another area, Diyala Province, where you have a mix of
Shia and Sunnis, there has been a lot of trouble. Colonel
Townsend with the Army, who just came back from Iraq 15 months
after being Commander out there, his troops fought the battle
of Baquba this past summer, house by house, street by street,
very courageous actions that retook the city, and now it is
generally back in the hands of the Iraqis.
One of the things that has been a real success is this rise
in the citizens which stood up and said, we want to take
responsibility for our neighborhoods, and they have been moving
along. But they went on strike a couple weeks ago because they
were unhappy with the leadership and the police. And again, a
delegation from Baghdad went out, negotiated. They removed one
of the key leaders, put a new one in, and they are moving on.
This, to me, is the type of accommodation that is essential to
moving forward. It is happening. It is not perfect, it is not a
straight line, but it is moving.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Wamp.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Can you touch on Afghanistan just for a minute? My
colleagues that just came back echoed your encouragement about
Iraq, but are not as encouraged with Afghanistan. Can you touch
on that just for a second?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. Afghanistan, I believe, is
significantly different than Iraq. I have to be careful myself
that I don't take whatever we are learning in Iraq and try to
put it on top of Afghanistan, or to take the news clips and the
snippets of information I hear from Afghanistan and put it in
the same context.
First of all, the scale of violence in Afghanistan is
substantially less. These are countries that are about the same
size of population. The number of incidents in Afghanistan are
on a different scale, lower than in Iraq, just to set the
scene. The majority of the violence in Afghanistan takes place
in a minority of the locales. Our troops over there are using a
figure of about 70 percent of the violent activity takes place
in about 10 percent of the provinces.
Now, there are reasons for that. First of all, getting
around the country in Afghanistan is extremely difficult. Those
of you that have been there, you know that there is really only
one road, and you can't call it a highway, and it loops almost
a circle around a central mountainous area, with very few
people in that central area. A majority of people live
somewhere around this so-called ring road. And the contested
areas, the areas where the Taliban who have never been
completely eradicated and probably aren't going to be, their
heartland, if you will, is in the South, in provinces of
Kandahar and Helmand. These are very populated provinces as
well. So there is a continual incursion down there in that
area.
We have another challenge, and that is that the good news
is lots of people have come to help. The bad news is, you know,
there are so many people there with different agendas, some of
them not necessarily nefarious, but they come from different
perspectives, and they are trying to achieve different things.
The coordination on the ground is challenging, and particularly
regarding the development aspects of the country. So lots of
folks here to help, in many cases tripping over each other, in
my opinion, and, frankly, distracting in some regards, because
everybody wants to go see President Karzai. And this is a
fragile government with very immature institutions, so the
amount of time he has to spend, I think, every week--because he
wants to--he is a very outgoing, charismatic guy who wants to
listen to all the stories--how do you run the country? And it
is still running in many cases by a cell phone call to the
Governor to done.
That said, the future of Afghanistan is going to be two
things. One is the development of the government and their
ability to actually govern. This is a challenge because
traditionally the place has been very locally governed and
locally run by tribal chiefs, elders and villagers. I think we
have to remember that 70 percent of this population is still
illiterate. They don't know anything except what they hear.
Most information comes from word of mouth and rumors.
And but that said, I believe that the majority of people
still support President Karzai as their national leader, and
that is really a very strong plus. You don't have this extreme
factionalism that we saw in Iraq, which is also being
mitigated, but you don't have it in Afghanistan.
The other thing is that the Afghan Security Forces, they
are much smaller than Iraq. The army is building towards a goal
right now of 80,000. That is probably not enough, but we are
trying to do this smarter and more methodically than we did in
Iraq. And, by the way, we are paying for it. U.S. taxpayers are
very much footing the bill for the Afghan Security Force. I
think it is a good investment, in my opinion, because we could
use stability in this country. And, frankly, the more they do,
the less we have to do. And the cost of putting U.S. forces
over there is much greater than these things.
These guys are coming along. I like them a lot. They have a
good leadership. They are tough guys. These are really rugged
people, as you might expect growing up in that environment. The
leaders are all veterans of the mujahedin wars against the
Soviets, so they know how to do business. They have a good
vision, and they want to do things smartly.
Another thing I like about it, when you go down and see the
average unit, you will see Pashtuns, you see Tajiks, Uzbeks,
Hazaras, these various sects. They are integrated, and they
work together inside these units, and they have taken pains to
make sure that it is a well representative institution.
So I think the army has really come along, and they want
desperately to be in charge, smartly. They want to take
responsibility. They actively seek every day more and more
responsibility. You have got to love it.
I will be frank with you. The police are a different
matter. The police are about 80,000 and the Army is about
50,000 now, climbing to 80,000. Police are about 75,000 or so
folks on the payroll right now. A lot of them are the wrong
people, in my opinion, or they need to be trained to a much
higher degree of competence. Corruption is endemic. It is just
the way life is. Very little by the way of economic activity in
the country other than subsistence agriculture, and if you
can't grow your own food, raise the money to feed your family
that way, you have to get it some other way. So sticky fingers
are widespread.
This is a big challenge. It is related to the drug culture.
Why poppies in Afghanistan? Because they grow there like wild
flowers do in Montana, and they just bloom, and it is an
engrained cultural activity. So that has got to change.
Activity, the other negative thing that is getting a lot of
press, in the past year the bad actors over here have realized
the value of suicide bombers. They have gone from a dozen or so
incidents last year--the previous year in 2006 to last year
about 140 throughout the country. Now, just to put this in
perspective, every day in Iraq we are dealing with 40, 50, 60 a
day. There were 140 the entire year in all of Afghanistan.
Nonetheless this is troubling because this rise in this kind of
activity is certainly destabilizing, and frankly, in my
opinion, as I walk around Afghanistan and talk to people, they
are concerned about it. I can sense their nerves. They don't
like it; they just feel uneasy. If you are in Kabul, 4 million
people or something, the odds of you getting blown up by an lED
are pretty slim, but it is still unsettling for people. They
have never had this before, and they don't like it. So that is
an issue.
The flip side of that, in my observation, the Iraqi--I'm
sorry, the Afghan intelligence folks are pretty darn good, and
several times this year they have actually come to us and said,
we have got a tip that there is a bomber out there, and he is
driving a white Toyota, and we are on the lookout for him. And
they have in many cases cut this stuff off when they knew about
that.
Probably too much rambling here, but it is very complex.
The number of incidents is clearly up, but the scale of these
incidents is, I think, not even close to Iraq. And there are a
lot of things that are moving forward to try to snuff it out.
We still have a lot of work to do because this is not just
Afghanistan. You cannot, in my opinion, isolate this country.
The Pashtun tribal belt includes a good chunk of Pakistan. They
don't recognize the border. They feel that they need to come
back and forth all the time. And the Taliban are really
Pashtun-centric. They take advantage of this. They know that
the western part of Pakistan is basically ungoverned, it is
really rugged, and so they hide out and take advantage of it.
The good news here is that in the past 6 months or so, the
cooperation between the Pak military, Afghan military, there
has been a lot of friction in the past, it has got a lot
better, and the reason is because we are in the middle of it,
and we are bringing them together, and this has been very, very
helpful to us. In the east of Afghanistan where on paper it
will be the worst, toughest territory because of the proximity
of these sanctuaries and traditionally a lot of kinetic
activity, the violence levels have come down significantly in
the past 4, 5 months, and I am convinced that a big piece of
that is better cooperation between the two countries along the
border.
What we are looking for this summer, I went to the
Secretary and asked him if he would consider putting additional
troops into the country. I know we are stretched really, really
thin. I looked at it, talked to folks who thought we might be
able to identify a couple of Marine units that could do this.
Secretary agreed, President okayed it. And so we are going to
deploy a new Marine maneuver force with all of their enablers,
the aviation and artillery and all those things that can make
them very effective, and I think that is going to be a real
boon for NATO. They are going to work for NATO, for General
McNeil and the ISAF chain of command. There is another
battalion of Marines that are going to work for me, the U.S.
chain of command, and their mission is to train Afghan Security
Forces. That is it. And to the best of their ability, this is
not an ideal match-up. A lot of young Marines. But we are going
to figure out how to make this work, and they will be over
there working through most of this year and should give us a
boost, and again try to make them more competent.
That is Afghanistan, and I pretty much touched every aspect
of it.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, am I on the 5-minute rule, or can I
ask another question?
Mr. Edwards. It is your choice.
Mr. Wamp. Just briefly I will say, I had a nephew in Iraq,
and as of last Friday my nephew, who just graduated from boot
camp in the Marines, said he is going to Afghanistan by the
summer. So I will have both these theaters covered by
relatives, which many of us have. That was a great
comprehensive answer.
But on the CENTCOM organization, we are going through some
changes with AFRICOM. And the President just got back, talked
about mil bases. You shared a little bit of this. I am very
interested.

COUNTRIES IN CENTCOM

First, I am fascinated, have you been to all the countries
in CENTCOM as you have been Commander, one; and two, give us a
little of the needs through this transition, talk about
Djibouti and where the line is. And I know we are all supposed
to know this, but just kind of go through the basics of the
CENTCOM reorganization.
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. I have been to most of the
countries. There are a handful that are either not hospitable
or impractical. I haven't been to Iran, haven't been to Syria,
and have not been to Eritrea or Somalia, but I think just about
every other place I have been to on several occasions.
In Africa, the northeastern part of the continent, the so-
called Horn includes Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia,
and Eritrea, and Egypt. Egypt is going to stay in CENTCOM. The
other countries that are now in CENTCOM are going to transition
to AFRICOM. But we have in place over top of all of these
countries except Egypt another command subordinate to me called
JTF, Joint Task Force, Horn of Africa, which works this region.
Our intention is to transition that command to AFRICOM, that
Commander to AFRICOM, and so he will report directly to them in
a new arrangement next year.
But our intention is to stay connected because, frankly, we
have a lot of resources that AFRICOM is not likely to have any
time soon, and we will try our darnedest to continue to do work
as we are going on.
I have to tell you that in, I think, probably 6 years now
since that joint task force began operations, there has been a
very, very substantial growth and affinity between the
countries of that region and this task force. Every one of the
leaders in the countries, except Eritrea and Somalia, tell me
they are very, very happy with what our people are doing there.
Most of what they do is not military, direct military things.
They are supporting, they are doing medical things, they are
trying to train their military, they are helping in schools and
so forth. That is going to continue.
But the key enabler for all that activity is this base. It
is an airstrip. It is called Camp Lemonier. For those who
haven't been there, it is really an airstrip with a small area
around it in which all of our people, a couple thousand of
them, are embedded down, and the critical feature there is the
airfield. It is a single runway, doesn't even have a taxiway.
It has got a parking ramp. It is shared with the French. It has
squatter--fighters there. It is shared with the Djibouti
Government and their commercial air terminal and our people.
And this is the one facility.
And I think it is most pertinent to your committee here
that we really need to, I think, transition from really
expeditionary, rudimentary, not particularly people-friendly to
something that is more appropriate to our people being there
for a while.
So we would hope they are going to be there for a while.
They are very welcomed. The country of Djibouti welcomes them.
I have met with the President several times. He is very
supportive of our presence, and this is the enduring location.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

IRAN

Thank you, Admiral, for your service. It is great to see
you again. We kind of touched on the present issues that you
deal with, and you have got--obviously you have got your hands
full not only with Iraq and Afghanistan, but I wanted to ask
you a little bit about your thinking as it relates to Iran and
what kind of changes we might need in terms of force structure,
in terms of MILCON, but primarily just how you see that
developing.
As we rotate ships through there, are we going to need any
kind of different aspects of that? The issue back in January, I
guess, early this year, the Straits of Hormuz, I guess those
kind of ships we have got over there, they are kind of fast-
moving. They don't have the protection maybe that they need.
And maybe get to that kind of engagement, kind of speed up your
thinking about how we handle it, just your overall view,
because I know you have to balance the knowledge of present
what you are dealing with, but I am sure you spent a lot of
time and energy thinking about the future because of all the
difficult hot spots there. Can you talk about that and some of
the thoughts you have about how you are dealing with the
future?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. I would be happy to.
A couple of things that are pertinent to remember; first,
that we have had no relationship with Iran since 1979, no
formal way to engage to discuss, no ambassador, no embassy,
none of the normal ways in which countries communicate. And
during that period of time, there has been a pretty obvious
friction, to put it mildly, between the two countries, and that
has continued unabated. The vocal rhetoric out of Tehran is
U.S. go home. It has been the same since 1979, and this stems
from the perception among the segment of the population that
the U.S. supported the Shah. He was corrupt. He was deposed by
the ayatollahs. And it has endured.
However, my observation is that a large number of Iranian
people, the individuals, have a great affinity for the U.S.,
and that is demonstrated most obviously, I think, by the number
of people that are here in the U.S. who have come from Iran and
live here. Nonetheless, we have got this enduring public
distaste and continual friction.
There are issues of Iranian behavior that I think are
really important. Their nuclear program, which they claim is
for peaceful purposes, very opaque. ------. They still kept
their nuclear development program coming, which will enable
them to use it for peaceful purposes, and that was their
choice.
It is curious, because this country has huge energy
reserves of oil and gas, and of all the countries in the world
that might need nuclear power, it doesn't seem like this ought
to be the top priority, given their other challenges, ------.
The other issue is the way they engage in the world. The
Iranians have a curious behavior, bad behavior pattern of using
surrogates to cause trouble. Why do they do this? In my
opinion, this is a Shia-Sunni thing again. The Iranians and the
people who live in the southern part of Iraq are predominantly
Shia. They are a distinct minority in the greater Arab world,
and there has been friction for a long time. Aside from that,
the history is that when they want to, they can live and they
can accommodate what they have. there are many exteriors there,
but there is a perception among the Sunnis that the Persians
who are not arab--most of those ayatollahs are not Arab, they
are Persian, different ethnic background--that they would love
to recreate the Persian Empire and be the kings of the Middle
East again. Who knows?
But that is a fear in the minds of the neighborhood. So the
Iranians for their part have an open campaign of, we are the
nice guys, we are only here to help, we love you all, our
neighbors. But their actions belie that. They have instigated
trouble in Iraq. It is very clear. They have propagated weapons
into Afghanistan, even supported the Taliban, who are
ideologically the other extreme.
Taliban are Sunni extremists on one side, and the Shia
extremists are on the other. They are meddling in a really
negative way. Hezbollah is a clone of Iran, surrogates. And
Gaza Strip same thing, Hamas. They get most of their support
from Iran. And the Iranians have installed a group within their
country, within their security apparatus, called the Iranian
Guards and the external aspect of that they call Quds Forces.
These are the people who actually do the dirty work in all
these countries. It seems to us that they have a very strong
voice in decisionmaking inside of that country.
It is really difficult. I had a tutorial from some British
diplomats several months ago, and my head spun as they tried to
explain to me how the decisionmaking is actually done inside
the country. It is a Ph.D.-level exercise, believe me.
Anyway, that is Iran. Difficult for the neighbors to figure
it out. Most of the neighbors are suspicious, and this includes
neighbors from Central Asia as well. Their demonstrated
behavior, whether it is contested naval presence, ours or
anybody else in the Gulf, to the way they engage the neighbors,
decidedly unfriendly. The things they do are destabilizing to
the neighbors. They persist in this activity.
My opinion is that we need to come at this in a
comprehensive manner. We need to maintain a strong demonstrated
ability to withstand their pressure. We ought to stand tall
with the neighbors who are looking for our help in standing up
to Iran. At the same time, we have got to figure out a way to
deal with these guys, because they are probably going to be
around for a long time, and they represent a significant number
of people as well as a big economic force in that region.
So it is a difficult chore for us, and we have got to
figure out a way to move ahead on it. All this swirl about Iran
policies and stuff is trying to figure out what is--how do you
do this? I don't think anybody has the perfect answers. So
there is lots of discussion, lots of debate. That is my
assessment of Iran.
Mr. Crenshaw. Can I have a quick follow-up?
Mr. Edwards. I will ask staff how many minutes we have.
We have 6 minutes. About 3 more minutes or so.
Mr. Crenshaw. You mentioned in Iran there is kind of a
group who are really friendly toward the U.S. You know, you
have the students, you have women, upper middle class, and I
know that the reformers, you know, over the years have kind of
come and gone. And it seems to me that the thing that I can
understand right now is there is kind of a renewed suppression
of some of the reform movements.
As you plan kind of how to deal with this, what is your
sense of the people within Iran in terms of--as I understand
it, they don't have very much refining capabilities. So they--
gasoline, inflation ramp. Ahmadinejad is not doing everything
he says he is going to do, so it seems there is more or less
right now--but it seems there is more kind of suppression of
the unrest.
In your judgment, do you see a time when you know there
could be, you know, within the country the kind of reform that
began to take place and then gets pushed back, or is that
almost kind of impossible? Are we looking at too much money and
too strong a military, all these kind of things for us to kind
of have any kind of hope that someday within that country there
would be folks rising up and maybe make a change?
Admiral Fallon. I don't know, to be honest with you,
whether that is wishful thinking. There are clearly other
voices in the country. There was ineptitude apparently from the
outside in running aspects of the country like the economy;
might be the thing that instigates more unrest within and among
the people. It is really difficult for us to tell.
What I am learning from looking at decisionmaking, and it
is very different from ours, they have all kinds of layers of
groups who meet. One common thread is mullahs have put a lot of
their own people at these different levels. They really keep
good control of this. How long it might take to develop some
kind of an internal resistance that might be effective in
changing I don't know. I suspect at the end of the day the best
bet will be to work hard at opening the country to as much
interaction with others outside, and thereby forcing the regime
to change and giving people options. The more they know, they
more they might be inclined to kind of do things a little
differently. This is including what is going on now.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Members, why don't we take a brief break. We have got a
previous question vote that is kind of winding down now, then a
5-minute rule vote. Maybe we could vote early in the rule vote
and continue on. Mr. Young will be next. Okay.
Mr. Edwards. I call the subcommittee back to order.
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

DJIBOUTI

Admiral, in looking at your military construction request,
I find that actually your request for dollars is not all that
big, but most of the construction that you request is not
within the United States, in some of your outposts stations
around the world.
I want to ask you specifically about a comment you made in
your prepared statement about maintenance facilities in Africa
and the bad weather and the temperature extremes, that you
don't really have adequate facilities to protect the aircraft
that you might be--that might be maintained there. Let's take
Djibouti, for example, one of the cases you mentioned in your
prepared statement. Does your budget provide what you think you
need for that type of maintenance facility in Africa?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir, Mr. Young. The issue in Djibouti
is that there really isn't any hangar facility except for one
of these temporary things they call a clam shell, and it is not
big enough to take a C-130 or the heavy helicopter, the 53s,
that we have down there. This place is hot and dusty,
sandstorms. It is a tough environment. So to do the
maintenance, you have to actually fly the aircraft out
somewhere else. Now, if the aircraft can't be flown out, then
you have a problem, and you have to figure out how to do it in
pretty bad conditions. So that is why the request for a hangar.
My sense of this before I got here was that the view had
always been that this is just a real temporary place and may be
gone tomorrow literally, so don't put anything in there. And I
have to tell you I agreed with it a couple years ago, but now I
think we are at a point where this is the one location we have
in all of Africa. It is critical in the Horn, and I think we
ought to start thinking about some of these events. So the
answer is yes, we do have some of these things in. The hangar
is one that is definitely needed.
Mr. Young. We are, the committee, the whole Congress is
pretty much concerned that we don't want to establish permanent
bases in a lot of different parts of the world. So what we are
talking about here would not be considered a permanent base of
any type, just to take care of us while we are there?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. The only permanent bases I think
we ought to put in that category are bases in the U.S. or our
territories. All these other facilities are, I believe, at the
option of the governments that host them. Some of these
facilities I would anticipate certainly would desire to be able
to have access to or use longer than others. Djibouti, the more
we operate there, the more I think this is probably one of
those places. So doing a couple of things, some of the things--
the dining facility there is pretty decrepit. I was in there a
couple weeks ago. We need a few of these things. And, again, it
is not big money. But I understand the issue is it is a foreign
place, how much do we really invest there, and my sense is we
ought to certainly desire to have that kind of construction.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Young. Admiral, with the 3,200 Marines increased in
strength in Afghanistan, do you need any military construction
to care for them, to house them or to feed them? Is there
anything in your budget request that would relate to those
3,200 Marines?
Admiral Fallon. The short answer is no, but I think if I
can use this to maybe illustrate one of the items that we would
like for you to consider.
In our MILCON budget process, you know that it takes really
a couple of years from the time we conceive of an idea to get
it all through the process and then get it moving into
construction. In the very fast-paced environment which we are
operating in Iraq, Afghanistan, other locations, there are
things that will come up inside that cycle, that window, that
really need action. And we have been using the provision of
CCA, the contingency support option, to take operations and
maintenance money and convert it into--for us to be able to use
these things.
These things are being used all the time, and there are two
issues that have come to the fore here. One is there is a $200
million annual cap. Now, most of these projects are nowhere
near $200 million, but there are enough of them that come up.
I will give you one that has just come up in Afghanistan.
We have a detention facility there in which we have kept the
bad actors that our Special Forces and other folks have rolled
up in the country. The numbers are a fraction of Iraq. But we
have got pushing 800 of these people in our custody now. It is
a long process to get them dealt with through the judicial
system, either ours or the Afghans'.
I went in to look at this facility last month, and it needs
to get fixed. We will have to physically replace it for a
number of reasons. We are going to have to do this right now,
in my opinion. I don't want to wait. And so we are going to
have to reprogram money within our own assets, and we would do
this. And so this $200 million cap a year is something we would
really like you to consider pushing up to something higher,
anything.
The other aspect is that in the language there is a use of
the word ``enduring'' facility. And I understand the rationale
that if it is an enduring facility, it is going to be around
for a while, the desired process would be through the regular
MILCON system. But there are some bases like Bagram in
Afghanistan which is our main base that we envision as
enduring, but there is so much going on so quickly now, we
really need an exception. I would ask you to consider an
exception. I would ask you to consider an exception. So if you
could look at this word and maybe contemplate giving us a
little more room there, because as soon as--it is a kind of an
immediate lightning rod here, and also at OMB and other places.
Even at OSD they said, well, we are not sure we can support
this because it will be viewed as enduring, and the Congress
isn't going to like it. So these are the two aspects of it.
But back to your immediate question. We can deal with the
Marine deployment this year within the existing authority to
meet our existing needs.

PARKING AT CENTCOM HEADQUARTERS

Mr. Young. Admiral, 2 weeks ago I was at MacDill, drove by
your headquarters. I didn't visit your headquarters. I was
going to another location at MacDill, a lot of activity, and I
know that the last previous 2 years we appropriated funding for
your new headquarters. Talking to some of the folks there, as I
say, a lot of activity and a lot of people, a lot of vehicles,
looked like it was pretty crowded with vehicles. Do you have a
parking problem there? Are we going to need to do something to
help ease the parking problem?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. Because people come to work, and they need
somewhere to put their cars.
Admiral Fallon. Sir, when the original headquarters were
put in, it was up at the front end of the base. As you know, it
wasn't very large, not many people there. Now the staff has
expanded by three, four times what it was originally. We have
cars parked allover the place. They would be in my driveway if
they didn't have a wall to go through to get there.
Yes, we could use the facility. We have looked at the
construction plans. We think that would be something that would
be very, very helpful, and we probably can't get to it until
maybe 2 years down the road. But that would be very helpful.

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I think we should visit that
issue. There is a lot of activity at MacDill. I don't know if
you have been there or not. I would like to suggest that you
take the subcommittee to MacDill and see what this is and what
happens there. The Central Command operation is unbelievable;
the Special Operations Command, which is also located there.
There are some unbelievable things that we couldn't even talk
about in this room, and I think Members would really have an
eye-opening education there.
Mr. Edwards. I look forward to that. If you lead that
effort, I would be proud to join with you.
Mr. Young. Admiral, thank you very much.
Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Admiral, last year the committee was told that
CENTCOM's consolidation plan for Iraq ultimately involved
drawdown in four major contingency operating bases, I think was
the term: Camp Victory, Balad, Al Assad and Camp Speicher; plus
four convoy supports centers. Is that still basically your
plan?
Admiral Fallon. I think so. When I say ``I think,'' it is
because General Petraeus has not come back to me with a
modification. We talked about this extensively during the past
year. They seem to be the most logical places to do it. Big
bases all have an airfield. We need that kind of access in and
out. They have reasonably large perimeters, so they ought to be
pretty defensible. And I have seen nothing to change that.

U.S. FOOTPRINT IN IRAQ

Mr. Edwards. Without getting into a debate of when we draw
down troops, this year, next year, go out into the future,
whether it is--we won't be time specific--whether it is 10
years, 20 years or 30 years from now, what is our footprint?
What is our final footprint in Iraq after the country is
stabilized and we put security back in the hands of the Iraqi
leadership and Government?
Admiral Fallon. I would think that we will get to the point
over time, if this moves in the direction that I would like it
to go, that the bases in Iraq will be Iraqi bases, not ours. We
might share in a couple of these facilities for exercise
activity or facilitating our training and equipping of the
Iraqi Security Forces, but my sense is that these--as our
footprint comes down, the Iraqis will assume responsibility for
these bases, and they will become, over there, their
facilities.

DAILY LIFE IN IRAQ

Mr. Edwards. I think it is important as we make MILCON
decisions to understand what is going on from your perspective
in Iraq. What is life like for the average Iraqi? Power, how
many hours per day; unemployment levels, has the professional
class started coming back in; can you get a doctor? The things
that we care about for our families, our day-to-day lives,
health care for our kids, and schools, and a job and
electricity, what is the status for the average Iraqi family
right now compared to where they were 4, 5 years ago?
Admiral Fallon. It is different depending where you go in
the country. If you were in the north in the Kurdish area
around Irbil, it is very nice, really no security concerns.
They go about, it is booming, construction everywhere from the
airfield to downtown. In other parts of the country, less
visible.
But the average person that I engage, and I do this every
time I go over there, every month, voices virtually no concerns
about security today to me. And last summer, this time last
year, it is all I got: You have got to stop this killing. You
have to help us.
That is not their concern now. It is about day-to-day
things, their lives, the economy. Jobs are, I believe, the
number one issue. They are scarce, lots of folks that don't
have enough to do, lots of people running around, and that is,
I think, the number one issue in terms of the future.
There are other things that are aggravations, electricity.
First of all, they have enough food. That is not an issue.
There are two reasons for that: One, they have a system. Saddam
was pretty clever. That is how they kept control. He instituted
a system of subsidies nationwide all over the place, and that
works. It still works today. Every week they come in, they give
them the basics, the rice, the cooking oil, things like that.
But as I walk through the cities and towns now, increasingly
they are loaded with fresh food. I ask, where it is coming
from? A lot of it from Iran, Syria, things they grow
themselves. I see more and more of that going on. Our AID
people are giving them seeds, and things are booming. Food is
not a problem.
Electricity is probably the most common complaint. It bugs
me because I have been pushing this button myself now most of
the time. I think we are-poised to see it increase
substantially. It got to the point where in fall, October
sometime, it reached an all-time high. It had never been that
high during Saddam's era. And then it dropped off. Some of it
is seasonal because they do a lot of maintenance when the
temperatures cool off. It is coming back. That is the number
one issue.
But there are a number of projects under way to address
this. A lot of them are security related because, frankly, the
bad guys went off after this with a vengeance. They started
blowing up towers all over the country, the pylons fell down,
the power grid. It is an antiquated system. Maintenance was
almost nonexistent in the Saddam era, and so the infrastructure
needs a lot of work.
There are some new power plants coming on line. There were
some power plants that were never functional they're coming on
line. I could bore you for an hour. That is the issue.
The one thing if I had a wand to put on top of this, if we
could fix electricity in a major way throughout the country, I
think people would be very happy, and a lot of other things
would happen because it is so essential. They spend a lot of
money on fuel for generators. Fuel is scarce, and the price is
high, and everybody knows it, so it gets to them.
I walked through the streets in a neighborhood in Baghdad
back about a month and a half ago. I was there last summer just
after some pretty horrible bombings. Buildings were still
broken and shattered. I walked down the street, and I found
booming activity, people out of their shops, out of their
stores, working themselves, putting new storefronts up, a lot
of construction. The center of the street was a mess. There
were piles of dirt and mud for good reason. They were putting
in a new sewer into the street, and the reason they needed
sewers is because when they put the new water lines in, they
discovered the sewer couldn't handle it. So this was ongoing.
People came up to me on the street. In fact, a woman came
up to me, which was really unusual in this area. She pulled out
an ID card and said basically, I am a city council member here
in this part of Baghdad. I would like your help. The sewer over
here is wonderful, but we need one over here, over here; can
you help me? They said, see these kids over here? They need a
job.
One of the things that has been most helpful in the country
has been the initiative of the people to join us in these
things that we call CLCs, concerned local citizens. The name
has been changed now to Sons of Iraq. They are all male. About
80 percent of these folks are Sunni, and it started in Anbar
Province, but now increasingly the Shia are picking this up.
These people are deputy sheriffs, if you would. They are in the
neighborhoods.
Everybody--by the way, this is interesting--everybody has a
gun. You are authorized in Iraq to have one AK-47. So they are
authorized to do this. They bring their own weapons. We outfit
them with ID cards and rudimentary equipment and some kind of
way to distinguish them. In some cases they are just orange
construction vests, sometimes it is certain kind of headgear,
and they go out and do their thing.
It has been the most remarkable initiative in the country,
I think, in turning the local people. We have 90,000 of these
people at last count. General P is trying to throttle back the
growth of them because what are we going to do with them? A lot
of them would like to become regular members of the army and
police. It is not practical. Thousands of them have been
brought in, but it is really not practical to bring them in. So
what are we going to do with the rest of them?
Lots of initiatives, retraining programs. There are a
couple of the schools that have just started for vocational
training to try and get these folks. But this is really
something that is bringing a smile to people's faces because it
is about jobs, it is about having a future.
And so I think that the assessment I have is that in most
parts of the country, they want to move on. Security is much
better. It is not perfect, but it is to the point where they
are not concerned with that nearly as much as they are about
getting a job and moving on.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp.

MACDILL AFB

Mr. Wamp. One specific question: If you are going to build
the parking garage in 2011 at MacDill, don't you need money in
2009? Are you going be to asking for money in 2009 for that
parking garage, sir?
Admiral Fallon. The year 2010 would be the first, because
the ongoing construction now, we physically can't do it or else
we would have to shut the headquarters is my understanding. We
have to complete the headquarters structure before we--there is
not enough land. It has got to go in the same place.

BEYOND 2009

Mr. Wamp. The general question is really like three
variables that I see after talking to you this morning and then
listening for the last hour. The variables are redeployments
that are not yet official or are to come, and then the
supplemental that is moving; and then the variable of the Iraqi
Government standing up by the end of the year and that sandwich
flipping, as you said earlier, those type of variables. But do
you foresee for the MILCON appropriations subcommittee any
specific supplemental request that we can expect beyond the
2009 request that we see today that are pretty straightforward?
Admiral Fallon. I don't have any visibility beyond what has
already been teed up. I think that the idea is to try to put--
give due consideration to all the possibilities, put it in a
package and move on. I recognize this is a challenge because we
are coming down, and that is a good thing, and at the end it
will result in a heck of a lot less money going out to support
this. But we need some construction to accommodate our ability
to withdraw, and, of course, there are other things that pop up
from time to time. We are still burning a lot of money in
operations, but the level of that activity, my observation, it
is really beginning to come down.
General Petraeus made a good point. He said, you know, some
people complain about all this money you are paying to CLCs,
those Sons of Iraq. I look at it a different way. Look at how
much we are not spending now to replace ripped-up vehicles,
tanks, and MRAPs and Humvees that were shredded 6 months ago.
That is just not happening now, not to mention the lives.
By the way, last month was the lowest casualty figure in
Iraq since 2004, and we still unfortunately lost 27 people, but
compared to what it was several months ago, a year ago, it is
all moving in that direction. A little bit of investment here
relative to the big scheme of things enables us to do this.
Mr. Wamp. While I don't expect the CENTCOM Commander to
speculate, if you did look beyond later this year, do you think
that some of those redeployments would stay within CENTCOM? In
terms of planning for future MILCON needs, would it be logical
that some of them would stay in CENTCOM, or would they likely
rotate back here or to Europe, to some other place?
Admiral Fallon. I would anticipate that most of those
forces will come back here to the U.S. I think we are in pretty
good shape. All things being equal, we would like to have a
couple thousand more people in Afghanistan, but that is
relatively small compared to other things.
Mr. Wamp. Mostly Marines?
Admiral Fallon. For now, and some force replacement next
year primarily for training. But most of these forces are
coming back. They are Army forces, Marine forces that are based
in U.S., and that is where we want them to come.
Mr. Wamp. Does AFRICOM mean an increase in troop strength
in AFRICOM or just an organizational----
Admiral Fallon. The idea here would be they will need some
staff personnel, but that is really small potatoes. The forces
that would engage in Africa would be deployed periodically from
other places, just like in the Pacific a lot of the force that
is engaged in countries like the Philippines and Southeast Asia
were based in the U.S. They just go out, do their missions and
come back.
Mr. Wamp. If you had to guess at the cost of making
Djibouti from temporary to more permanent, but not permanent,
what kind of costs do you think would be involved in that?
Admiral Fallon. Certainly in the hundreds of millions, I
think, at the top end. These are 20-year, 15-year; these are
not huge investments.
Again, we have to balance this one. I am not looking to
build big facilities. I just want things so our people can live
in something other than tents, they can eat in a decent
facility, and they can move aircraft around on the field.
Mr. Wamp. And the President made clear no permanent bases
in Africa.
Admiral Fallon. No permanent bases, in my opinion, anywhere
except in the U.S.

HOST NATIONS

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, but I
have conflicting hearings this morning, and I had to use some
information about the border. It is my understanding you gave
testimony mentioning OSD approved a master plan that leverages
host nations in these construction contributions. Now, can you
tell me exactly what will be the contribution of the host
nation and how these agreements work?
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. I will give you an example,
probably the best one. We have been allowed by the Government
of Qatar, in the center of the Persian Gulf, to use two
facilities there. One is an airbase that was originally built
for them which has now become our principal hub for land-based
air operations in the entire region of--both in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as well as transport aircraft. It is the airbase
at Al Udeid. There is another facility in that country called
As Sayliyah about 10 miles away. Our Army uses that to
refurbish a lot of torn-up equipment, heavy equipment, in Iraq,
refurbish it, and send it back into the country or go back home
once it is repaired. And I have a headquarters; forward
headquarters is actually there in As Sayliyah.
The country of Qatar spends $6 for every dollar that we
spend on all those facilities. So, for example, we have asked
for a couple of things. Qataris want part of the aircraft ramp
back because they are buying U.S. C-17s, and they would like to
have that ramp back to use for their aircraft. We have flooded
the place with airplanes right now. So we would like to build
an additional ramp. We have suggested--and this is not
formalized yet, but it is a single runway. We have B-1s, we
have C-17s, fighters, you name it, as they do as well. One
runway, to me, is pretty dicey when you get that level of ops.
They ought to have a parallel taxiway and another runway. They
are interested in doing that. So they are going to pay for the
vast majority of it.
We have very few real facilities in this part of the world:
Al Udeid in Qatar. We have naval facilities in Bahrain, and we
have a small piece of the airfield there that we use in Kuwait,
and they help us with that. In Kuwait we have facilities near
the border that enable us to move our people in and out of
Iraq. Kuwaitis have been magnificent and marvelously welcoming
in allowing us to do this. This summer over the next 6 months,
the truck traffic, the heavy equipment, the Humvee tanks and so
forth that are going to be coming to that country, it is just a
steady stream, they say, fine, go do it. We have some
facilities in the northern part of the country, and we have a
shipping facility in the port to load things on and off the
ship.
As I look around the region, the bases in Iraq, the bases
in Afghanistan really are the only two, Bagram and Kandahar;
and we have a facility up in Kyrgyzstan, a modest airbase,
their airfield, they have allowed us to use, modest facilities;
and then the place in Djibouti, and that is about it.
Everyplace else over there, we rely on the host country for
anything we need and anything we get. So it is a pretty modest
footprint. The host either paid for it directly like the
Qataris, but decided they would like to have the land back that
houses my headquarters now. On their nickel entirely they are
building the new headquarters, complete hardened facility, $150
million, a block long, pretty ``Gucci'' place. They just said,
what do you need? So we will put the electronics into it for
communications, but it is their facility. They help us a lot in
this region.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. The oil business is good, sounds
like.
Admiral Fallon. Yes, sir. If we can take care of the wars
here, we will be in good shape.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Ms. Granger.

BANKING AND MAIL DELIVERY

Ms. Granger. Just a very short question. Thank you for
giving us a good picture of what life is like. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for asking that question.
Two things you didn't mention, that when every trip that I
have been there, electricity was a big problem, banking, and
just delivering the mail. What about banking and the mail?
Admiral Fallon. It is coming along. The Iraqis have not had
a kind of banking system like we do. I just saw something, a
fellow named Paul Brinkley. You may have heard of him or met
him. He works for the Secretary of Defense now in development,
and he has been over there in Iraq the better part of this past
year trying to get things moving again, get the factories
restarted, get people employed, get private investment in, and
he has had remarkable success.
He sent me a note, I don't remember the details, but the
banking system is coming along. He listed hundreds of places
that now actually have banks facilities in cities, that they
were beginning to pick up on this thing and come up into the
modern age. Iraq had--it was an absolutely noncomputerized
paper transfer.
The facts are one of the reasons I have discovered after I
got into this job that life was so challenging with the Iraqi
Army, for example, is when they are paid, they are paid in
cash. And I got a chance, by the way, some months ago to see--I
was up in Baquba after Colonel Townsend, behind me, had
liberated the place of al Qaeda, and a couple of these guys
took me downtown to visit the Bank of Baquba. I was very
interested. I saw a couple of dusty old buildings, and I said,
where is the bank? He said, right here. It was a big Conex box,
a 20-foot trailer, and it was filled to the brim with dinars.
It is all cash and carry.
And so the soldiers are paid once a month, and they are
paid in a big pile of cash, and the money has to get home. They
carry it home. They literally get on a bus or a truck, or we
have been providing an airplane to fly them home, spend a week
or so with the family, and then go back to their unit.
So now I understand. It accounts for why we have all this
activity, why there are only about 80 percent of the people who
are supposed to be there are always there and so forth.
It is going to be a slow process. It is coming along. The
international community is beginning to take notice. A couple
of weeks ago, Paul sent me an ecstatic note. He said that they
had just completed the first of the private investment
turnovers in Iraq; three big formerly state-owned cement
factories in different places in the country had been purchased
by a combination of international and Iraqi investors, into
private hands, $3 billion, modest by a lot of measures, but
significant. This is the start of getting this place up and
running economically.
Paul has been running around; while he is trying to get
these big long-term deals going, he has been trying to jump-
start some other things. There are dozens of old plants,
factories that mostly made ammunition for Saddam, trying to get
these converted to do something for the people; and a couple
small refineries, getting them up. Banking has a long way to
go, but at least they are getting started.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Ms. Granger.
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Admiral, we are going to respect your schedule
and wrap up here soon, but if I could ask one last question,
and any other Members will try to respect your schedule, I
think if you leave at noon, you can make your next appointment.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp had talked about Afghanistan, and he
went into some lengthy discussion of that. Let me ask you about
General Jim Jones' analysis of Afghanistan. I have great
respect for him, his experience and judgment. In terms of his
analysis, what would you agree with and what would you disagree
in his conclusions on where we were and where we need to go in
Afghanistan?
Admiral Fallon. I would say that one of the things I have
learned here in the past year is that activities are
accelerating at a pace that is difficult to keep track of if
you are not there every day watching it. Certainly in Iraq it
has changed dramatically, and every visit I see more and more
things going on. I believe that that is the case in
Afghanistan.
And there are a couple of key points. When General Jones
and his team went over there and looked at this several months
ago, they highlighted a deficiency in troops. That was one of
their big points, not enough troops over here. I agree. The
numbers are something we could debate. But, at the time, there
was no plan to send any additional U.S. forces over there.
About the same time he was making his assessment, I had come to
the same conclusion and had asked for additional troops. So
that number one concern of theirs is being addressed in a
significant way by this deployment.
Mr. Edwards. Did he have a specific recommendation in terms
of the number of troops, increment of forces?
Admiral Fallon. He mentioned to me there were two
outstanding requests that were already on the books, one from
the NATO Command to provide General McNeil with a couple of
maneuver--I think a total of two brigades of troops.
When you talk with, deal with NATO, it is not exactly the
same as just dealing with the U.S., so he is also mindful of
the fact that, frankly, they haven't been particularly
effective. In many cases they are inhibited from performing the
functions that, in my opinion, they ought to be doing. They
have lots of boots on the ground, but they are not getting the
job done, and primarily because they are constrained by a long
list of ``caveats,'' as they are called, restrictions on their
activities, that range from going out at night to going out
without certain protections, and actually going out at all
without asking the capital back in Europe before they get
permission. This really hobbles General McNeil's ability to
work.
Nonetheless, we recognized last summer that putting a small
maneuver unit--we put a battalion of U.S. troops in the
southern area where we had not had U.S. troops before. Those
folks did wonderful work. And it seems to me, after watching
this go on, if we could put a maneuver unit down there, it
would help out. So the Marine group with around 2,300 troops
that are headed over there, they come complete with all the
enablers. They have aircraft. They have tanks. They have
trucks. They have all those things, the communications, the
whole kit and caboodle, because they are designed to be very
expeditionary. I think that is worth maybe double the regular
NATO contingency because they are self-contained. That is going
to be very helpful.
The other outstanding requirement for my own chain of
command, about 2,500 people to help train the Iraqi Security
Forces, that has been an outstanding request for now at least a
year, maybe a little over a year. We have been unable to fill
that, trying to balance the competing demands, sending people
to Iraq and not sending them back to Afghanistan. So we are
going to meet about half of that requirement with the
deployment of battalion brigades this summer.
I think those two injections of capability is going to be
significantly helpful for us, because as we start this in
Afghanistan, the weather really drives the operations tempo as
the snow melts over the next month or so, and Taliban and other
bad actors begin to move. Our intention is to move in front of
them to cut them off, be in front of any annual offensive. They
keep talking about their spring offensive. Last year it really
wasn't an offensive by them, it was us. Now that we have the
additional manpower to work this, I think we are going to be
ahead of the problem.
So back to the basic question. Afghanistan is not as bad as
I think some would have you believe. It is, however, in dire--
not dire, it is in need of real coordination, particularly in
the development phase. Too many nations are over there doing
little bits here and there, and to make it coherent so this
country can move forward. And this development stuff can fill
in behind troops and put security in place. So I think it is
coming along.
The other major thing I highlighted earlier is capability
of the Afghan Army and Police, our number one challenge. That
is where we are going to spend most of the efforts to fix it.
We are learning lessons. We brought them on, thought they were
trained, put them loose out there in the little towns, and a
lot of them turned out to be ineffective for different reasons.
So what we come up with now is to go out to the most
problematic areas, pull the police out temporarily, put in a
special well-trained national Afghan police force to hold the
fort--they are actually doing a lot better than that--immersion
for a couple of months; the other police, put more mentors--
and, frankly, it is U.S. people that are shouldering the burden
of this--and put these folks back in. And we are getting really
good reports. We started this about 6 months ago, and we are
working our way around the country in the most problematic
areas.
So this combination of factors, I expect to make this much
less of a concern. We will see as we go. I don't want to do too
much talking ahead of the results here, but I am very confident
we will take a turn for the better here.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral, thank for your distinguished service to our
country. You are a tribute to the men and women who serve with
you and under your command. We are honored to be with you
today. Thank you.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Question. The four major ``overwatch'' bases in the consolidation
plan are described as ``contingency bases''. What distinguishes a
``contingency'' base from an ``enduring'' base?
Answer. Contingency bases are required to support an operation for
a finite amount of time with access and support requirements tied to a
specific operation. When the operation is complete, CENTCOM no longer
requires access.
Enduring bases include three categories of bases (Main Operating
Bases, Forward Operating Sites, Cooperative Security locations). These
locations provide support required to execute multiple military
missions assigned to a Combatant Commander. Access to these locations
and the establishment of steady state and surge capability at these
locations provides the commander an ability to respond immediately and
expand rapidly to anticipated and emergent requirements in theater.
Question. What role would bases in the GCC countries play in an
``overwatch'' posture in Iraq?
Answer. (S)------.
Question. The consolidation plan does not call for any of the four
contingency operating bases to be located in the northernmost parts of
Iraq where Kurds are predominant. However, Kurdish leaders have made
public statements indicating that they would welcome enduring U.S.
bases in their region. Is it still your intent not to locate enduring
bases in this area?
Answer. I'd like to make it clear that the United States does not
seek permanent bases in Iraq. As the situation in Iraq develops, our
strategy to posture forces and adjust basing structure will continue to
be driven by operational requirements. Currently, those requirements
revolve around how best to support U.S.-led counter insurgency
operations. Over the next year, these requirements will transition to
optimizing support to the Iraqi forces which increasingly lead these
efforts.
To date, the situation in the northernmost, mainly Kurdish areas of
Iraq have not required the deployment or basing of large U.S. forces
there. This is likely to be the case for the foreseeable future. As the
security situation improves and the U.S.-Iraq relationship matures, it
is of course possible that basing locations could be adjusted.
Question. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental request includes $43
million for an urban bypass road at Mosul. Since none of the final
bases in the consolidation plan are at Mosul, why is this project
needed?
Answer. U.S. forces operate in and around Mosul, using Qarrayah
West as the primary consolidation location while using various other
bases in the region as required. We anticipate U.S. and coalition
forces will continue operating in the vicinity of Mosul.
The primary purpose, however, of the bypass is not to support sites
in Mosul, but to support movement along our primary North-South main
supply route. The project will allow convoy traffic to bypass the Mosul
city center, where lED and small arms attacks are more prevalent. By
providing an alternate route, the bypass will reduce that threat and
reduce potentially contentious U.S. presence and friction within the
city.
Question. In a recent interview, General Petraeus stated that
``There will be detainee releases on both the coalition and Iraqi side.
They just passed an amnesty bill last week along with their 2008 budget
and the provincial powers law. It will be a very active period.''
(Defense News, 2/25) Other information indicates that the detainee
population will continue to grow. Assuming that the current security
situation stays roughly constant, do you anticipate that the detainee
population will increase or decline over the next year?
Answer. Over the course of the remaining year, we anticipate the
detainee population will slowly decrease. This reduction however, is
contingent on the Government of Iraq along with MNF-I to stabilize and
restore security to the country.
Question. Do you plan ultimately to turn over coalition detainee
facilities to the Government of Iraq?
Answer. MNF-I detention facilities, located at U.S. Forward
Operating Bases within Iraq were constructed to meet MNF-I detention
requirements. Facilities will be individually evaluated for
reutilization, real property transfer, or foreign excess personal
property transfer in accordance with the appropriate policies and
procedures as part of base closures or transfers.
Question. One of the projects requested in the fiscal year 2008
supplemental is $11.7 million for a Juvenile Theater Internment
Facility Reintegration Center (TIFRIC). How do you define a juvenile
for this purpose? How many juveniles are currently detained by the
coalition? Are juvenile detainees currently segregated from adult
detainees?
Answer. Juveniles are defined as anyone 17 years and younger and
are segregated from the adult population. As of 6 Mar 2008, there were
582 juveniles in U.S. detention facilities.
Question. In a written response last year to a question from the
Committee regarding Bagram, you stated that ``CENTCOM sees a
requirement for a permanent base in Central Asia to support [Operation
Enduring Freedom] and the full spectrum of military operations beyond
OEF.'' What are the specific national security interests that require a
permanent base in Central Asia to support such operations beyond OEF?
Answer. This Combatant Command, like others, is assigned specific
military tasks. This includes, but is not limited to responding to
situations where U.S. personnel must be evacuated (NEOs), humanitarian
assistance and consequence management missions, and peacekeeping and
peace enforcement missions. Additionally, we anticipate requiring
access in the region so that we can combat violent extremist
organizations that are focused on attacking U.S. interests in the
region and globally. Sustaining access is a critical enabler for an
immediate response and rapid expansion as required. Access to basing in
Central Asia will also be used to support Theater Security Cooperation
activities in the region to advance bilateral relationships and garner
support for U.S. policy objectives.
Question. Bagram is highly dependent on fuel supply lines
traversing the Central Asian republics and the northwest sector of
Pakistan. I understand that much of the fuel for Bagram is brought in
by individual contract truck drivers. If you intend to establish Bagram
as a ``permanent base in Central Asia'', are you studying options for
mitigating the fuel supply problem over the long term (beyond
increasing storage capacity at Bagram)?
Answer. We have studied many options but they all route through
either Pakistan or Central Asia. With no refinery or natural production
of crude in Afghanistan we must rely on outside sources of supply.
When studied geographically, there are only three cost effective
alternatives to bring fuel into Afghanistan. One alternative is via
Iran which is not viable given current diplomatic barriers and trade
restrictions. The other alternatives are through Central Asia and
through Pakistan.
A commercial solution may exist to improve this area of operations
but will require State and USAID intervention. ------.
Question. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental request includes $30
million to build a strategic ramp at Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan. The
fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $6 million for a hot cargo
pad. There have been tensions with the Government of Kyrgyzstan over
recent incidents and demands from that government for an increase in
U.S. payments for access to Manas. What is the importance of Manas to
operations within the CENTCOM AOR? What are the terms of current
arrangements with the Government of Kyrgyzstan regarding access to the
base, including U.S. payments?
Answer. (S)------.
Question. In fiscal year 2007, Congress appropriated $370 million
in emergency supplemental funds to pave roads in Afghanistan as a
counter-IED strategy. The fiscal year 2009 request includes $70.5
million for two more such projects. Have you seen any empirical
evidence so far that this strategy is effective at reducing the
frequency and lethality of IED attacks?
Answer. The Funding for the roads did not come through until late
fiscal 2007 and IED emplacement data collected in Afghanistan thus far
does not differentiate between paved and unpaved roads.
However, C-IED analysts conclude that paved roads serve as a
deterrent for IED emplacement. Coalition vehicles travel with much
greater ease and speed along paved roads thus, making them more
difficult targets for insurgents. As such, paved roads reduce the
effectiveness of IED attacks and are an important counter-IED Tactic,
Technique, and Procedure (TTP). Moreover, road pavement programs
provide needed infrastructure improvements and job opportunities for
Afghanis, who otherwise would depend upon insurgents for financial
support.
Question. It was reported recently that the Turkish military set up
at least 11 ``temporary bases'' in northern Iraq following its
incursion into Iraqi territory. (Today's Zaman (Istanbul), 2/29) Has
the Government of Turkey informed you of the locations of these bases,
their populations, their assets, or their specific purpose?
Answer. All Turkish temporary bases in northern Iraq were removed
following the Turkish forces incursion in February 2008.
Question. January 2008, France announced that it would establish a
new military base with about 400 personnel in the United Arab Emirates,
with an additional 150 French naval personnel stationed in Abu Dhabi.
Did the French military coordinate with CENTCOM on the establishment of
this base? Will the U.S. military have access to it? Does the French
military have access to any U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf area?
Answer. The French are in the early stages of establishing co-use
of existing UAE locations to support a small air, ground and naval
presence. No bases are being built for their use in UAE.
Generally in the area, access and use are coordinated on a
bilateral basis with the host nation. The French attache in UAE did
provide information on their plan immediately after the announcement,
but this was not coordinated with the U.S. ahead of time. The U.S. does
not have a base in the UAE. We share existing UAE bases and have
coordinated use of specific areas on UAE bases by use by air and naval
components. The French do not have access to any U.S. bases in the Gulf
and do not share any existing facilities with the U.S.

[Clerk's note.--End of Questions for the Record submitted
by Chairman Edwards.]
Thursday, March 6, 2008.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--MEDICAL CARE

WITNESS

MICHAEL J. KUSSMAN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards. I call the subcommittee to order.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being back and for your
service to VA and our military throughout your lifetime.
Mr. Kearns, thank you, it is good to have you here, as
well.
This afternoon, the subcommittee will have our hearing on
medical care in the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
Our witness for this hearing, obviously, is Dr. Michael
Kussman, the Undersecretary for Health.
As Undersecretary for Health, Dr. Kussman directs a health
care system which employs more than 198,000 health care
professionals and support staff at more than 1,400 sites of
care.
I would also like to welcome back Mr. Paul Kearns, Chief
Financial Officer.
Is Mr. Baker here, also?
Mr. Baker, good to see you, sir. Chief Business Officer of
VHA.
Congress provided more than $37 billion to the Veterans'
Health Administration for fiscal year 2008. This appropriation
was $2.6 billion more than the president's request, and this is
impressive.
It has resulted in an additional 1,335 physicians and 4,968
new nurses and nursing assistants.
Additionally, the total workforce for the medical services
account was increased by more than 15,000 personnel, a result
of Congress' budget increase.
I was pleased to see that our total fiscal year 2008
appropriation came to the new baseline for the medical services
account. Miracles still happen in Washington and how that one
got through OMB, I don't know, but I won't ask questions. I
will salute our leadership in the VA and those at OMB that saw
the importance and Congress' clear intent that $3.6 billion or
$7 billion above the president's request for 2008 became the
new baseline, and that helped us greatly.
I might just report, for those that don't know, that at
12:30 this morning, we voted on a budget resolution out of the
Budget Committee in the House that would increase VA
discretionary funding for fiscal year 2009 by $4.9 billion over
the historic level we set in fiscal year 2008.
That is actually about $3.2 billion above the president's
request for fiscal year 2009. So we are off to another
potentially historic year of standing up for those who have
stood up for our country.
I do have some concerns about some of the decreases within
some of the VA accounts proposed for 2009, but I want to salute
the administration for its significant increases in medical
health care services.
Particularly, I do have some questions about the proposed
cuts in medical research and construction, and we will have a
chance to discuss that.
Before we hear from Dr. Kussman, I would like to recognize
my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Wamp, for any comments that he
would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Just very briefly, so we can get on with it.
I thank you for your service and I concur with the chairman
on virtually everything he said. I am very encouraged by what
is going on.
But we do face many new challenges and I have got keen
interest in continuing reforms in VA health care, as well as
just the entire head trauma frontier that we face in the future
and what that is going to do to our system of addressing these
problems when these veterans come home.
So thank you for your service. I look forward to a great
afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Dr. Kussman doesn't need a long introduction before this
subcommittee. But for those who don't know, he was confirmed as
Undersecretary of Health for the VA Health Administration in
May of 2007.
We are particularly grateful for his 28 years of active
duty service in the U.S. Army, culminating in his assignment as
a commander of Europe Regional Medical Command.
He also commanded the Martin Army Community Hospital at
Fort Benning, Georgia.
Dr. Kussman, welcome back. It is great to have you here.
Your testimony will be submitted for the record.
We would like to recognize you for any opening comments you
would care to make.
Mr. Kussman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the warm welcome
and it is nice to be back.
Mr. Edwards. It is good to have you here.

Statement of the Honorable Michael J. Kussman

Mr. Kussman. Thank you.
As you mentioned, sir, I would appreciate the full
testimony being put into the record.
I have a very short oral statement that I am prepared to
read, and then we can go on to your questions.
As mentioned, I have Paul Kearns, retired, Air Force--I
won't hold that against him--Paul Kearns, and I want to make a
comment.
Paul was in San Francisco yesterday on official business
and flew back last night. So if he falls asleep, we will give a
kick. But I appreciate his dedication----
Mr. Edwards. I am glad he is back.
Mr. Kussman [continuing]. And his getting here this
morning. His deputy was very frightened that he wouldn't be
here and would have to be sitting at the table.
Mr. Edwards. Well, if you fall asleep, we will blame us.
Mr. Kussman. The President's 2009 request includes total
budgetary resources of $41.2 billion for VA medical care, an
increase of $2.3 billion over the 2008 level and more than
twice the funding available in 2001.
Our ongoing commitment to those who have faithfully served
this country in uniform is clearly demonstrated through this
request.
Our total medical care request is comprised of funding for
medical services $34.08 billion, medical facilities $4.66
billion, and resources for medical care collections of $2.47
billion.
Our top legislative priority is implementing the
recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for
America's Returning Wounded Warriors, otherwise known as the
Dole-Shalala commission.
VA is working closely with officials from DOD on the
recommendations of the Dole-Shalala commission that do not
require legislation to help ensure veterans achieve a smooth
transition from active military service to civilian life.
For example, the VA and DOD signed an agreement in October
of 2007, creating the federal recovery coordinating program to
ensure medical services and benefits are provided to seriously
wounded, injured and ill active duty service members and
veterans.
VA hired the first federal recovery coordinators in
coordination with DOD. Three of these federal recovery
coordinators are stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
three at National Naval Medical Center, and two at Brooke Army
Medical Center in San Antonio.
They will coordinate services between VA and DOD and, if
necessary, private sector facilities, while serving as the
ultimate resource for families with questions or concerns about
VA, DOD and other federal benefits.
During 2009, we expect to treat about 5,770,000 patients.
This total is nearly 90,000 or 1.6 percent above the 2008
estimate. Our highest priority veterans, those in priorities
one through six, will comprise 67 percent of the total patient
population in 2009, but they will account for 84 percent of our
health care costs.
We expect to treat about 330,000 OEF/OIF veterans in 2009.
This is an increase of 40,000 or 14 percent above the number of
veterans from those two campaigns.
We will provide timely, accessible and high quality medical
care for those who bear the permanent physical scars of war, as
well as compassionate care for veterans with less visible, but
equally serious and debilitating mental health issues,
including traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress
disorder.
Our treatment of those with mental health conditions will
include veterans' family members, who play a critical role in
the care and recovery of their loved ones.
The department's resource request includes $3.9 billion in
2009 to continue our effort to improve access to mental health
services across the country. This is an increase of $319
million, over 9 percent above the 2008 level.
These funds will help ensure VA continues to deliver
exceptional accessible mental health care. The department
places particular emphasis on providing care to OIF and OEF
veterans with PTSD.
Our strategy for improving access includes increasing
mental health care staff and expanding our telemedicine health
program, which allows us to reach about 20,000 additional
patients with mental health conditions each year.
In April of 2006, there were over 250,000 unique patients
waiting more than 30 days for the desired appointment date for
health care services. As of January 1st of this year, we had
reduced the waiting list to just over 69,000.
Our budget request for 2009 provides the resources
necessary for the department to virtually eliminate the waiting
list by the end of the year, and, I can tell you, as of the end
of February, we were down, I think, at 37,000. And so we hope
that we will be able to eliminate the list by the end of the
year.
Improvements in access to health care will result, in part,
from the opening of new community-based outpatient clinics,
CBOCs, during the next 2 years, bringing the total number to
846 by the end of 2009.
The President's budget request for VA contains $252 million
devoted to research projects focused specifically on veterans
returning from service in Afghanistan and Iraq, including
research in TBI and polytrauma, spinal cord injury,
prosthetics, burn injuries, pain, and post-deployment mental
health.
I look forward to working with the members of this
committee to continue the performance tradition of providing
timely, accessible and high quality benefits and services to
those who have helped defend and preserve liberty and freedom
around the world.
That completes my statement.
[Prepared statement of the Honorable Michael J. Kussman
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.086

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Dr. Kussman.
Mr. Wamp, do you want to begin the questioning this
afternoon?

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. Wamp. Yes sir, Mr. Chairman.
As we go through these notes, I am open for however you
want to tag-team this to maximize efficiency of the afternoon.
Whatever your plan is, I am on board, and thank you for your
leadership.
Dr. Kussman, VA health care is known around the world as
having maybe the most sophisticated records management system
in health care.
But the inspector general came to us and said that you have
got many challenges on financial management.
So how can the same organization that is so sophisticated
on medical records have problems with financial management and
what is underway to cure that problem?
Mr. Kussman. Sir, thank you for the question.
And let me just say I appreciate your comment about the
electronic health record and we believe it is, arguably, the
best electronic health record in the world.
We have a ways to go in our business management. As you may
or may not know, I have four major things that I am interested
in in my time as the under secretary.
One is continuing to improve patient care. The second is
leadership. One is improving new performance measures, and
fourth is business processes.
I believe we can provide the greatest care in the world,
but if we don't provide this in an efficient and effective
manner and cannot account for all the money that you so kindly
and the taxpayers of this country give us, then we are in
danger.
So we have some material deficiencies and we are working
hard. And I don't disagree with the IG on this. We are working
hard to fix those.
Let me just say, and, in fact, yesterday, we just had a
briefing from DeLoitte, who is the contractor for the IG, and I
was gratified to see that they said that we are getting better.
But we still have a very long way to go. And one of our
problems is that we are a socially-driven system, not an
economically-driven system, and, for a long period of time, the
issues that are important weren't important to people and to
put in place the mechanisms that would allow us to answer the
questions that the IG or Deloitte would ask us.
And so when you are a socially-driven system and you are
focused on health care delivery, some of these other things
don't get done.
And I think what we have seen is that you can't continue to
run this business known as the Veterans' Health Administration
without starting to put processes in place that are
economically-driven standards to account for what you do.
And so we are working very hard to start working with the
IG and with DeLoitte and IT and resource managers to start to
put in place--to hire enough people to do the process the right
way.
It is not that we don't know what to do. It is just that we
haven't had, historically, the infrastructure to do this well.
And we are committed to doing that.
Mr. Wamp. Let me just say, as we leave that topic, that if
we don't get our arms around it and the Congress continues to
spend these record amounts of money on these very important
needs, we do a disservice to the veterans of the future,
because there will be a real backlash with the kind of
reporting that you have seen on these organizations that claim
to be working in veterans' best interest, that are serving
their own self-interest, and what a tragedy that is.
And we don't want the VA to be seen as an inefficient
organization. And I don't mean to lecture. I just know this is
a real problem as we ramp up the funding, because it will come
against all of us that we are not efficient enough to handle
increase in funding.
So I just want you to make that the top priority as you go
forward.

COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINICS

On CBOCs, I have got a big one in my backyard, and it is a
good one and it has improved dramatically in the last decade.
And 846 is a better number and I do agree with your testimony
that they meet needs in a very efficient and effective way.
I also think that we shouldn't be caught in the you have to
get your health care in a VA box around the country, because
that has politically kept certain facilities open longer than
they probably should have been open when there was a more
efficient way to deliver that health care, and we have got to
get over that.
And CARES, I thought, was going to bring about more
sweeping reforms than it did. And I want to kind of ask you, as
we look at CBOCs and the need to fund them, are we considering
further reforms?
For instance, where we have--all of us know VA health care
from our district first and then maybe whatever we have learned
outside of our district.
But in my district, people have to go from the CBOC service
area 2 hours for inpatient care in a hospital, and it is
through the mountains and there are wrecks and it is dangerous.
And a lot of our veterans like to have a third option
besides the CBOC or driving 2 hours to get inpatient care, and
that is to have the ability, with a Medicare reimbursed voucher
type approach, to go to the local public hospital and receive
their care so their relatives can come see them while they are
in the hospital.
And how much of that are we considering or is that down the
road or are there just too many reasons why it can't be done?
Because my veterans would like to have all three options--go to
the CBOC, if that will suffice, go to Murfreesboro and get the
health care, if that is what they want, but, frankly,
Murfreesboro stays full.
Yet, there are local providers that would take that
Medicare reimbursement voucher if that veteran chose to go
locally, so they could stay close to home and get that
inpatient care.
Mr. Kussman. A very complex question and I will do my best
to answer it as quickly as possible.
I think that we are always looking at options on the
continuum of care and, as you know, we spend--Paul, correct
me--close to $2 billion on fee-based care.
So we are already buying a significant amount of care
around the country.
One of the things that we are very proud of, as you know,
sir, is the quality of care and the electronic health record
and all those things together that make us if not the best,
clearly near the top of the best of health care in this
country, perhaps the world.
And one of the challenges we have is fragmented care, where
people will, even now, use their Medicare benefit and then use
the VA and then they may use TRICARE for things, and that care
gets fragmented and there is no way to coordinate that care.
And so when that happens, inadvertently, we can actually do
harm to people, because one of the values of our integrated
system, and keeping people in the system, it doesn't make any
difference where they go if you can pull up their record and
find out what is going on, know what medication they are on.
You saw that in Katrina and other instances.
So we will continue to emphasize people in our system. On
the other hand, we want to be sure that we aren't
inappropriately hurting people or creating situations that are
inappropriate.
And not only are we looking at continuing to expand the
CBOCs and make them larger and expanding the capabilities, more
and more care is done in this country in the outpatient
setting. You really don't need a hospital for something like 90
to 95 percent of why people go to a hospital.
So we are looking at that to provide more services closer
to home. We are even looking at what we call outreach clinics,
smaller clinics that are open in rural areas, maybe not every
day, but a couple days a week or a certain number of days a
month. So there are more and more access points.
So I think we are looking at the continuum of care to
provide more and more services within our system, but, where
appropriate, we don't hesitate to buy it.
But if you do that across the board, I worry about the
quality of what we do will start to degenerate, because one of
the big problems in the civilian community and other health
care systems is there is no way for them to talk to each other
and people get fragmented care, and I certainly don't want to
contribute to that.
Mr. Wamp. I will yield back.
I would just say, on my way out, we have an MG center now
as part of our CBOC, which is exactly what you are talking
about, more and more services.
And I agree with you in concept, but I also believe that as
we have the Iraq-Afghanistan veterans coming back and we have
these long-term issues, like head trauma and mental illness and
everything else now, we are going to have to consider reforms
and not be quite so quick to defend the status quo or defend
why things can't be done and look at what the alternatives are,
because the same efficiencies you are talking about, by having
a CBOC approach, there are other efficiencies that we might
want to follow as well.
So I would encourage you to stay open-minded and not
closed-minded that you have to get your care in a VA box.
And I yield back for now.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr?
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

TRANSFER OF RECORDS FROM DOD TO VA

I want to first of all thank you for your leadership on the
Budget Committee to get that budget allocation for veterans.
You ought to be thanked by the whole nation for that.
I am very interested in following up on--to use the term
from another committee--the interoperability of people being in
active duty military and then, particularly with the injury
cases, transferring out to Department of Veterans Affairs.
I don't need any numbers right now, but I wondered if you
could provide for the committee how many of those new
electronic files for these new vets are being initiated in DOD
since they can no longer serve in the military because of their
injury and then being turned over to you.
How many new electronic files are just the historical
veteran, the old vet, who had records in the VA and you
transferred them to electronic records?
What I hear is that the DOD has not yet got into the
system. They are not doing their work and, therefore, this
transition from them to you has been difficult.
Perhaps you could get some numbers for us and tell us what
we have to do to get back to DOD. If they are going to give you
the patients, then they ought to give you the medical records
and it ought to be on their dime to have to create that medical
record.
The interoperability issue is one that I would like to talk
about, because that is the only way we are going to get local,
state and federal government to work together.
The individual living out there lives in a community and
doesn't know which government is which. They have just got a
problem.
And we traditionally have been saying we don't fix it here,
you have got to go someplace else. I think what we are trying
to do is get one stop to fix many problems. In my district, we
have all the military land from the closure of Fort Ord, and
the DOD has a lot of active duty military families.
DOD doesn't have enough outpatient services for them in
their clinic. So what we are trying to do locally is figure out
how we could combine both DOD active duty military and veterans
in building a clinic, an outpatient clinic.
And I think you are aware this is a major construction
project in the out years at the former Fort Ord, which would
serve as a CBOC for the region's underserved veterans.
I want to encourage you to make sure that there is adequate
funding in the fiscal year 2010 budget to get this joint VA-DOD
project moving.
Mr. Kussman. Sir, I am aware----
Mr. Edwards. Dr. Kussman, before you answer. Rather than
have you have to give a short answer, if we could recess just
for a moment, go vote.
We have got a motion to recommit after this, if you don't
mind, if we could just go vote, come right back and have just a
little bit of time. That way, you can give the full answer.
[Recess.]
Mr. Edwards. Let's go back. I am going to defer your answer
to him and let me ask a question or two, if I could, and then I
will stop when he gets here.
The 2009 administration budget request significantly
reduces medical construction, it reduces medical research, all
relative to fiscal year 2008, and then a small reduction in the
homeless program.
Is it fair for me to conclude that it wasn't as if the VA
were saying there aren't needs in these three areas, but I
assume the administration and OMB had to set priorities and it
chose to put the medical services account as a top priority?
Mr. Kussman. That is what takes place in all the budgetary
planning.
What you articulated so well already is that there may be
some decrease from 2008 to some of the line items in 2009, but
they are still significantly greater than what the 2008
original budget was or 2007 budget.
So we are moving in the right direction and there is still
a marked commitment to all those programs that you listed.
Mr. Edwards. While we are waiting for Sam to come back, let
me just get to what Mr. Wamp said and what you and I have
talked about privately, and I would say for the record, is I
hope every person within the VA health care system understands
that this is a golden historic opportunity to raise the bar so
much higher in terms of our baseline for VA health care
funding.
And I hope everyone who has authority over a single dime of
spending understands that it only took one bridge to nowhere to
taint the entire process.
And so it is just absolutely vital and I can't emphasize it
enough, it is vital that not one dime of this be spent on a
$20,000 mahogany desk or--and I have been out to the hospitals.
It is thrilling to see the changes that have been done with
even some of the minor construction, the nonrecurring
maintenance money.
And I have not heard one example yet and that is great news
and I compliment you and your people for that, but, please, I
hope that filters down to every level.
If there is any hospital director that had real patient
care needs, but they quadrupled the square footage in their
director's office and spent a massive amount of money on fancy
furniture, then they will have hurt millions of veterans.
And I appreciate Mr. Wamp emphasizing that, and I know you
understand that better than we do, given your service in the
Army medical program, as well----
Mr. Kussman. Well, I am grateful for that--as you know, and
we are working hard at it. There are some admin and facility
things that do need to be repaired, but not to make
administrators better and it is really all related to how do we
take care of the most deserving patients in the world, people
who have been hurt in defense of their country, and that is
what we are all about. That is all we are about.
Mr. Edwards. And do you think that sense of responsibility
has filtered down to the grassroots level, that everybody knows
how critical this is?
Mr. Kussman. If they do not, they are tone deaf or they
can't hear. Mr. Feeley, who is not here, who is the deputy
Under Secretary for Operations and Management, doesn't take too
well to people who don't understand our mission.
So we are pushing real hard and, as you know, the new
secretary is just as aggressive as we all are. So I think that
anybody who doesn't understand that probably needs to find a
new job. We don't hesitate to ask them to do so.
Mr. Edwards. That is good to hear.
Now that you have answered Mr. Farr's question, we are
going to----
Mr. Farr. Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Mr. Kussman. I am well aware of the issues on the--and the
partnering and things that are going on there with DOD.
I know that both clinics, our clinic and the DOD clinic,
are kind of maxing out on their capability. We are sharing as
much as we can there.
As you know, there was a project that got put through the
joint incentive funds, the JIF fund.
Mr. Farr. The VA funded the feasibility study that is going
on right now.
Mr. Kussman. No, I was just going to say. But that money
came out of the VHA money. Who came out of Bob Weibe, who is
the VISN director, $250,000 that was funded to look at that
feasibility study and come back with a recommendation that we
can then partner with DOD to move forward on that, because I
think it is a good idea.
Mr. Farr. You think it is a good idea.
All these questions essentially--Mr. Wamp's issue about
where we have these clinics and hospitals geographically
located in one place and we have got people into this system
that is a silo system, essentially.
You are in the VA and you go to the clinics and, as you
say, probably you don't need to have as many people going to
the hospitals, and we send the serious specialty cases to a
hospital.
On the other hand, there are people who are a long way
away, and how can we also utilize existing providers that are
there in the community, and I think that is kind of a new area
to open up.
Last year, our bill enacted a law which required the VA to
add a marriage and family therapist to its list of service
providers, but I understand, to date, no action has been taken.
And the question is really how and when will the VA add the
marriage and family therapist to the list of service providers.
Mr. Kussman. That has been looked at critically by our
people and there are some issues of certification and quality
that have to be looked at when we--at our vet centers that are
run by--have people who are trained in family counseling.
We have people in our facilities that are in social work,
psychology, are trained in that same discipline. And so from a
clinical perspective, I think it has been determined that we
didn't think we needed to do that.
Mr. Farr. Well, Congress has asked you to do that and the
reason why, is that these are trauma issues, psychological
issues, and a lot of vets, as you know, don't want to go to a
VA facility. They don't want to go into a quasi-military
situation.
They want to have access to therapists that are in their
local community who are licensed by their state as professional
doctors, the same way you would send a vet to the hospital. I
don't think you check the credentials of the doctor that is
seeing them, the local doctor.
It sounds like there is more of a scope of practice issue,
a fight between those that are in the VA clinics and those that
are outside providers.
Mr. Kussman. Well, I would differ with you in the sense of
if it was determined to be clinically needed and we couldn't
provide the services for people, then we would consider----
Mr. Farr. Well, that was determined and that is why
Congress ordered it. It was required in that law to add
marriage and family therapists to the list of service
providers, and you are saying that you decided they don't need
to do that.
Mr. Kussman. No, I certainly wouldn't be in violation of
the law. And so let me go back and look and see specifically
what was said.
Mr. Farr. And would you find out how and when and if? Thank
you.
Another technology out there is something that has come to
me in my district, it is called HeartMath. It is a behavioral
therapy, with a sister technology that helps reduce stress and
anxiety, and, as I understand it, DOD is using it to help
military personnel returning from combat who may have mental
health issues.
There are 18 VA clinics around the country and 10 DOD
facilities where the doctors are using HeartMath to assist the
servicemen and veterans with PTSD and other mental health
issues.
However, since HeartMath is not an official treatment
technology under the VA formulary, these doctors or patients
themselves are paying for the treatment out of pocket.
And I wonder if, one, you are familiar with this
technology, and, two, as I understand, Bob Ireland is familiar
with this and I wondered if you would meet with him at DOD and
ask him about the DOD's experiences with HeartMath.
Essentially, what I am trying to do is see if HeartMath can
be approved treatment.
Mr. Kussman. I would be happy to do that.

VISION-IMPAIRED VETERANS

Mr. Farr. Thank you.
And then the last one on this round is blind veterans. VA
operates training and rehab centers to help blind or vision-
impaired veterans adjust to the loss of vision.
Palo Alto has a polytrauma center--I think you have several
centers in the United States.
I am wondering, how many blind, vision training and rehab
centers does VA operate?
Mr. Kussman. I don't have the actual number. But we have
four and going to be five polytrauma level one rehabilitation
centers. These are state-of-the-art complexes for the
polytrauma.
Mr. Farr. The National Federation of the Blind has
comprehensive training facilities, and their complaint was that
yours is a very short course. Theirs is more of a comprehensive
course.
Mr. Kussman. I can't comment on theirs. We have been
recognized as really a leading organization in the country
dealing with blind rehabilitation. We have been doing that for
years.
We have several centers around the country that do the very
complex care and then we have what we call HIST and GLOS, the
different levels of blind----
And we developed a new program called coordination and
continuation of care that the blind advocacy groups have asked
us to do and are very appreciative and complimentary of the
sophisticated care that we----
Mr. Farr. Do you know if you contract with any?
Mr. Kussman. I don't know this particular company, but even
in our systems, we have all that available in multiple sites
around the country. I can't give you the exact number. I could
try to find out that for you.
Mr. Farr. Maybe we could just look into this training for
the blind, because the National Federation of the Blind, who is
a very highly respected organization, has some concerns that
they think they can do, in some cases, a better job than the
VA. They would like to provide those services to you, or you
may already be contracted with them. I am not sure.
Mr. Kussman. I am not sure. I will find out.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Zach.
Mr. Wamp. I am going to go back to the issue, after talking
with Mr. Farr during the vote about other options, because I
want to be a little more graphic in the dilemma that we face,
because in our service area, we have got 16,379 vets that use
the CBOC in Chattanooga, from our whole 18-county service area.
And a little contrary to something you said a minute ago,
if they have a gall bladder that needs to be removed, many
times, they have to wait in order to get in and out of
Murfreesboro, 2 hours away, by van, driven by volunteer
veteran, many of whom are pretty old, and equipment that is not
exactly the most sophisticated transportation available to
veterans.
This is how it works. This is the real life.
A few years ago, snowy, rainy, sleety afternoon, a van
wrecked, veterans died. To me, it is like why is that necessary
to get health care when--and I will just call it by name--
Erlanger, the $500 million a year local safety net public
hospital, not only, in 1999, it went into effect in 2000-2001,
I set up a 2-year demonstration, like Dave Weldon did in
Florida, like Dave Hobson now wants in Ohio, where, under VISN-
9, a little carve-out, small amount, for the CBOC doctors to
refer veterans that want to go and have their gall bladder
removed at Erlanger, a public hospital, instead of driving 2
hours to have that alternative.
And over 2 years, a grand total of 58 patients were
referred under this pilot program. We had a field of play of x
dollars. They didn't even use a small portion of it, because
there was just a complete reticence, reluctance to refer
anybody to a local provider, even though the veterans wanted to
do that. They wanted to go there.
They are the ones that came to me on this. I didn't dream
it up. They said, ``We want to be able to go and get this.''
So these are real live situations. This is a safety issue,
it is a time issue, and it is not as simple as we have quality
care. If you have to wait, then access is an issue, not just
the quality.
I am not going to argue with you about the quality, because
I don't get the quality complaints that I got 15 years ago. I
don't get those. It is much better. I believe that. And I
believe there are a lot of--but I don't want to beat the drum
too loud--but I can tell you that there are many more members
like Hobson out in Ohio who says, ``We have degraded care from
an access standpoint from our region,'' because there is the
inpatient care that the outpatient clinics can't meet.
And then what are the veterans' options? I just feel like
these veterans', our greatest citizens, need as many options as
possible, not fewer options. And I don't want any bureaucracy
to defend their existence by saying, ``No, that is only a VA
responsibility,'' when the VA, in this world, can provide some
of this.
Matter of fact, if we had telemedicine and now things that
should not require transporting certain patients 2 hours to go
to get their health care. It takes them out of their family,
out of their community, and, I have got to tell you, through
the mountains of east Tennessee, it is not safe.
And I know we are an area of degradation. There were the
top five areas in the country, we were one of them, and I just
happened to end up as ranking member on the subcommittee, so
you get to hear about it.
But I hope that we can fix these problems.
I also have a pain medicine doctor who contracts with you
who has prescribed pain medications to veterans who then see
another doctor in the VA system who says to them that under the
VA Directive 2002-074-VHA, they do not have to take the
prescription prescribed by this other doctor, because he is a
private provider, which is probably one of your fee-based
statements you said a minute ago.
I know you all contract out services to local providers.
They come in to the VA center. They see the patients at the
outpatient clinic. They end up happening to be in the hospital
in Murfreesboro and another VA doctor says, ``No, you are not
going to take these.'' Yet, they have seen this local provider.
And I don't want to give his name out, but I can tell you
he has complained now over and over that there is not a
consistent standard for pain medication in the VA system.
I would just make you aware of that. And then a whole other
frontier of questions on head trauma, but I will get to those
in the next round, if you want to just keep going.

HEAD TRAUMA

Mr. Edwards. Do you want to go ahead on head trauma?
Mr. Wamp. Well, I just feel like--and I will give an
example. In Erlanger, the president of the United States came
there last year, because they had fished out clots in the brain
with this new procedure, going into the brain, and it avoided
stroke and then they fished out the largest clots and the most
clots.
It is the place in the country to go. Now, unless the VA
duplicates that ability, this is going to be a great need from
IED explosions and head trauma.
You have a lot of stroke now caused in the brain from head
trauma and it is an aftereffect. I am not talking about when
they get hit by an IED, but people that are around head
trauma--I am not a doctor, I am just telling you what I
learned.
I am concerned about this. Will head trauma lead to a lot
of these other procedures and, if so, this is--Erlanger is the
place, in not our region, but in the country. The president of
the United States went there to see it.
If they get to you in a certain number of hours and they
fish out the clots in your brain, you recover from a stroke in
2 weeks instead of 2 years, and the rehab time and everything
else, and then just the overall prognosis.
Many of our agencies, we talked about this at our earlier
hearing today, they don't look down the road--then the next
thing you know, they are not even set up to deal with it.
What is coming down the road in VA health care with head
trauma and IEDs and the asymmetrical wars that we are fighting
now, given the needs of these veterans, because Walter Reed,
you know, that was a painful experience, but what about the VA
system in the future to keep up with the medical needs of these
veterans coming home after experiencing the kind of head trauma
that they are exposed to?
Mr. Kussman. Complex questions and there are several
aspects of it, sir.
One is the standard treatment for strokes, regardless of
where it comes from, is now known as a brain attack. They are
trying to get people to be sensitive around the country, it is
nothing new to VA itself, this is standard of care, to be able
to assure that people, the physicians, the health care
providers and the community realize that a brain attack is
equally as critical as a heart attack.
And the underlying pathophysiology is the same, is it a
clot or an embolism--someplace. And so the whole evolution of
the care for strokes is changing to try to get people within 20
minutes or a half-hour, just like we do with heart attack, that
they can provide this and a lot of that care can be done in--I
don't know enough about the Erlanger clinic to know
specifically, but around the country, everybody is moving
toward that paradigm.
Now, specifically related to OIF/OEF people and veterans, I
have heard that term bandied about about strokes related to
traumatic brain injury. I am not aware of any literature that
actually says that.
Now, I am not denying it. I just don't know if there is any
evidence that shows that.
But if it were going to happen, it would happen more in the
severe traumatic brain injury. And so far, in the whole war,
and I am not minimizing this at all, there are under 500 people
who have suffered moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.
They have all come through our system. A couple have gone
out into the civilian--they have chosen to use the civilian
rehabilitation program.
The big concern, I think that what you have been talking
about, even before and now, is the mild traumatic brain injury.
And we were concerned about that, too.
I mean, the civilian literature or the medical literature
on mild traumatic injury is extremely anemic, I would call it.
It is not very robust in the literature. And most of the
literature has been done in car accidents and the football
field--and it appears from the literature that most people who
have mild/concussion get better on their own. Now, it may be a
little bit--mild concussions, that is the Troy Aikman, the
football player, the quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys,
retired early because he had had eight concussions and the best
clinical advice was, ``Hey, Buddy, you know, enough is enough.
I don't know what will happen with the ninth and the tenth.''
There was a very recent study that came out, it was a lead
article in the ``New England Journal of Medicine,'' 30 January
of this year, and we can certainly get it to you. I am not
suggesting you have to read through all the medical stuff.
But the important thing was the conclusions. This was done
by Chuck Hoge, who works at the Walter Reed Institute of
Research, specifically looking at the sequelli of mild
traumatic brain injury, the aftermath of mild.
And what he was saying is something that we have all been
semi concerned about, is in the context of when you call
something traumatic brain injury, there is a connotation of
this that is pretty scary.
And in the medical literature, mild traumatic brain injury
is nothing--I won't say nothing more, I am not trying to
minimize it. It is really a concussion.
And he says we ought to stop talking about mild TBI, but
talk about concussions, because that has a different
ramification in everybody's mind, because many people have
suffered concussions, including myself.
Maybe I am not what I could have been, but the fact is that
most concussions, people get better right away or over a period
of days.
What his study showed is that the sequelli from this
concussion/traumatic brain injury, he maintains, has nothing to
do with the head bump.
It has to do with how the individual responds to the
environment under which that head bump took place. In other
words, if the person has PTSD afterwards or is depressed or
can't sleep and has--it is related to the fact that he or she
was in this blast or IED thing and they saw their friends, some
of them killed or significantly maimed in this, but not due to
the head trauma itself.
And his conclusion is that under these concussions, at
least one or two of them, there is no significant long-term
sequelli from that.
Now, time will tell about this and we are trying to put
registries together so we can follow people, but if that turns
out to be true, which is consistent with the civilian
literature on the similar types of injury, then, hopefully, I
keep my fingers crossed, we are not going to have a major,
major problem of long-term neurological problems related to
this mild TBI/concussion.
I am not trying to minimize it. It is just this new finding
in the literature.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, if I could just close by telling
you a quick story.
One of our former colleagues and one of my best friends in
the world, his name is Steve Largent, and he was an NFL Hall of
Fame football player. He had six of those concussions in the
NFL.
In absolutely perfect health, 3.5 years ago, he had a
stroke. They told him the same thing you just said. And then
when I was in Chattanooga with the foremost experts on this
particular procedure at Erlanger Hospital, they said that is
not right.
Head trauma causes clots in the brain. So if there is a
warning flag that goes up for you to say look down the road and
be careful, I would say the data may not be accurate and you
may see other things, because there is no other explanation in
Steve Largent's case, none.
It doesn't meet any of the other categories, except the
trauma in the head. And the first thing Coach Osborne said when
that happened to Steve Largent was six concussions in the NFL.
So I just think these are the kind of problems that we need
to all be sensitive to and the data may change and I understand
studies are done and you are hanging your hat on the latest
that you have, but I am telling you, people that fish these
things out, they see a lot of this and they believe that a lot
of it is caused by head trauma.
Mr. Edwards. Would you like to--could you hold any response
to that? Are you comfortable, each of you, if we go vote, come
right back, miss the debate on the motion to recommit--We will
stand in recess for a few moments.
[Recess.]
Mr. Edwards. We will call the committee back to order.
Zach, did you want to followup the direct question to Dr.
Kussman----
Mr. Kussman. Well, I don't have--I mean, what I was trying
to allude to is I don't dispute what you are saying, because I
think that time will tell and that the important thing for us
is to not make mistakes like we did in the past and make sure
that we do epidemiologic studies and have good registries so we
can follow.
And if it turns out, 5 or 10 years now, suddenly, more
strokes are happening, we certainly would want to know that and
be prepared to deal with it.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.

PRIORITY EIGHT VETERANS

Dr. Kussman, let me ask you about priority eight veterans.
It has been since 2003 that we have said, no, that we didn't
have the capacity.
My assumption would be if, overnight, we opened the doors
of our VA hospitals to all the priority eight veterans, you
could end up having such a dramatic increase in demand that you
end up compromising quality, increasing waiting lines for
doctors' appointments for millions of veterans, including those
presently using the system.
But short of having all or nothing, does the VA have any
data that would suggest that if you raise the income level
$5,000 or $3,000 or $10,000, what the increased demand would be
for VA care?
I know under the present scenario, in some parts of the
country, a single veteran, say, making under $30,000 would be
considered too wealthy to get VA care if he or she is not
service-connected.
And we all know, in this day and age, that is not very
wealthy. I know in higher income areas and higher expense
areas, that that threshold is higher and whether they are
married or single, too.
But any data that would allow our committee to take a look
at that and see if there is even a demonstration project
approach or if you just incrementally raise that so we could
begin to, not overnight, but over time, maybe open the doors to
middle income veterans without opening the floodgates?
Any thoughts on that?
Mr. Kussman. You are exactly right, Mr. Chairman, that we
would predict that if we opened it the way we were before
January 2003, my recollection, and somebody can correct me, but
I think we were projecting something like 750,000 new uniques
and somewhere around 1.4 million, 1.5 million enrollees.
But as you have articulated, that was overwhelming, the
system in a bolus. And it is not that we wouldn't want to take
care of these people. The problem would be there is no
infrastructure that could absorb it.
Now, one other thing we are looking at, with all the
largess that we have gotten last year and hopefully this year,
is to more efficiently and better take care of the people we
are taking care of.
And as you know, we are still growing, not as rapidly as we
were before, because the net increase is about 1.6 percent, but
it is actually more new people coming in and it is because of
the vets of World War II, the Korean veterans, and, much to my
chagrin, my age group of people from Vietnam are starting to
die. And the number of deaths is somewhere probably about 1.5
thousand a day all together, the majority being World War II
veterans.
So if they were all to come in, we couldn't absorb them.
And so we would either have to fee-base it or find some other
way to take care of them, or let the waiting times and all
those other things go back, which was what, as you recall,
drove Mr. Principi into making that decision in January 2003.
And it was a decision that Congress said that the secretary
is supposed to do every year and decide what groups of people
can--so I don't think we have any specific numbers for you, but
it is something we certainly could look at or consider what
would happen and some kind of changes, but we haven't----
Mr. Edwards. But you would agree that immediately opening
it up to all priority eights would swamp the----
Mr. Kussman. It is not a matter of not wanting to do it. It
is just that there is no way to take that number of patients.

INNOVATION

Mr. Edwards. One other line of questioning. We have tried
to resist tremendous calls for earmarking VA bills. I think I
like not doing that.
But one of the things that happens is we all have different
people coming in, presenting ideas that they think are
innovative ideas that could save the VA money and provide
better care to veterans.
I will give you one case, and I do not have the facts. I
couldn't tell you whether this particular company's product is
better than others or makes sense or not.
But a Member of Congress brings a group in and they claim
they have a system that would send out a message to either
somebody's cell phone or their cell phone in their home and
their pager, and you must respond back, one, on when you have a
VA doctor's appointment, so you don't miss your doctor's
appointment, and, two, when you need to take critical
medication.
In this particular company's case, I think there are a
couple of major Fortune 500 companies that have used this
system and claim that it is a cost savings.
My question isn't so much about that particular product, I
just use that as an example. But do you have a corpus of money
where you can try innovative demonstration projects that might
benefit the entire VA health care system if they worked out,
but it would be otherwise an expense to a VISN or to an
individual hospital?
For example, if I am director of the VA hospital in Houston
and somebody approaches me with this idea, I might think it is
a great idea, but with budgets always being stretched, I don't
want to take money out of my operating expense of the Houston
VA DeBakey Center in order to do a demonstration project that
might save the VA millions of dollars and save a lot of
veterans' lives and improve the quality of their care.
Tell me how the VA system is evaluating innovative ideas
from the private sector and is there a system of funding when
you do come across some ideas that really are worthwhile.
Mr. Kussman. Thanks for the question. It is an interesting
one. We get buffeted--that is maybe not a good word. We get
challenged on this regularly. People come to us for a whole
litany of things, some good, some not so good, and some
terrible.
Frequently, they come that the product needs to be tested
and it is not ready for prime time and they would like the
government/VA to provide them dollars to test their product.
We don't do that. We don't support people's testing a
product. What we will do is, if they have a product that has
been tested and they want to do some research on whether that
product is effective or not, they can apply to our research
program, through DeBakey or the Temple VA or Waco VA or whoever
it is----
Mr. Edwards. What would be? Would you go to the research
program or would you go to an individual hospital?
Mr. Kussman. Well, there are two ways to go. We want to
determine if the innovation is effective, and we don't know if
it is effective, then that would be a research project, I
think, and we will entertain requests for research if they can
find a VA--a principal investigator at a place that would
support it, and we would fund it and they would have to compete
for other research dollars out of pot.
This can be done in conjunction with industry, as well as
directly with our--as you know, our total research budget is
about $1.8 billion and it is a mix of appropriated dollars and
DOD, NIH, and industry.
If it is a proven product and they come to me, and
frequently they come to the secretary or myself or somebody,
and they--I am always willing to talk with them, because I
never know when this is going to be a great--And afterwards, I
usually will refer it to the subject matter expert. If it is a
neurologic thing or what you are describing, IT and other
things, to see if this could work.
If there is good interest in that, because, as you know,
this has been done and Fortune 500 companies and things are
using it and it is very effective and we would like to try it,
then there is money available either through the VISNs or
through the central office for pilot studies.
I have a contingency fund that we can use for different
things, if it is appropriate, or it could be, as I said, into
research.
And so there are multiple ways that we can do it. If they
want us to buy the product, which is a slightly different
thing, then they frequently will come to me asking for a
corporate purchase, and I don't usually, at the central level,
drive how the care should be done in one way or the other.
And if it is a good modality, then they really need to go
to the VISNs or facilities, who would then want to add that to
their armamentarium.
Mr. Edwards. If they went to the VISN, would that have to
come out of the VISN's operating and maintenance money?
Mr. Kussman. See, that is different than putting the
product on the list of things that we can use versus they want
us to test the product for them or do a pilot study. Then it
would be our money testing an individual's product.
So there are different ways to do it, but we are always
willing to consider, on a case-by-case basis, something that
would benefit the veterans.
Mr. Edwards. And if you would have your staff look at this
system, all I want to be sure of, because I don't have the
expertise to evaluate, when somebody comes into my office
today, whether it is a worthwhile idea or not.
I just want to be sure the system isn't so biased against
innovative ideas because of money coming out of a particular
hospital's operating budget, and if you have decided that we
needed an innovation fund so it doesn't come out of the VISN
budget or doesn't come out of the local hospital budget.
That may not be a good idea, I don't know, but----
Mr. Kussman. The under secretary----
Mr. Edwards. How much money for innovative ideas?
Mr. Kussman. Well, it is a mix of things. If there is
something new that happens someplace and it was an emergency,
there are all kinds of different things----
Mr. Kearns. We keep about $400 million at the beginning of
the year for initiatives that Congress may direct, or that the
secretary or the under secretary might direct--and
unanticipated requirements, or a new idea that has merit.
Mr. Edwards. If you would just take the time to review the
system to just be sure. You think you have got a good vetting
system so that if there are some great ideas out there that
help us save dollars, I think we need to send a message to the
taxpayers, we are not only spending more for the VA, the
veterans' health care system, but we are being innovative and
have a system that encourages innovation, at the same time,
being able to ferret out the frivolous----
Mr. Kussman. And I think Mr. Wamp basically asked the same
question.
Mr. Farr. So did I, the HeartMath.
Mr. Kussman. And it is very easy to get lazy in an
organization and just say, ``Okay, this is the way to do it.''
And part of my job is to be sure, and many of the people
sitting here, is to be sure that when news ideas come up, they
get a fair shake.
But if it is a good thing, we should make it available to
the veterans. The veterans should not take second-class care on
anything.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Sam.

THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE RESEARCH

Mr. Farr. Yes, please. I would just add a HeartMath to that
same list.
Mr. Kussman. You got it.
Mr. Farr. I want to share with the committee, I had the
privilege of listening to some people that are real big
thinkers of where society is going and combining technology
with medical breakthroughs.
And essentially, with the genome project, the future of
mankind will be the ability to do this kind of assessment of
your being and then come up with a plan and the idea with this
plan is that you will heal by yourself, because you will know
what you are susceptible to and aware of things that your body
lacks that you need to be healthy.
And the emphasis will be on that and it is fascinating. The
whole direction of politics right now is universal health care.
If you listen in this town, it is health care that is busting
the Federal Government. It is the largest continuing
inflationary cost of government.
Without change, it is going to bankrupt us. And so it seems
to me that one of the advantages you have in this incredible
system is being in the forefront of the public health debate.
Do you treat more people than the Department of Defense
does?
Mr. Kussman. Well, there are more veterans in the country--
--
Mr. Farr. Than there are active duty.
Mr. Kussman. Of veterans in the country, about 10 percent
are retirees. And then if you look at active duty and the
family members and everything, I don't know--what is it--about
10 million or something for the whole--but the systems aren't
too far apart.
Mr. Farr. The retirees, if they are in places like
Washington, DC they will go to Bethesda for space available,
and they always seem to have it, at least when I am out there.
Mr. Kussman. TRICARE for life, which is a very good
program. But to answer your--I think the question is----
Mr. Farr. Well, I haven't asked it yet. A friend of mine
created a company where he goes out to counties and assesses
all of the inputs in a particular field, like what is all the
mental health, where does it all come from, all the moneys,
private, public sector, what kind of services are out there,
and provides essentially the service model for every kind of
field and he has done this now 600 sites in 25 states.
And what is interesting is you can set up a case management
system. So, essentially, you can take that electronic record
that you have compiled and put it into this system.
I want you to just look at this. It isn't going to cost you
anything, because he doesn't charge for that. But it is a way
of really helping case management electronically and giving-
back to the patient so they can know what kinds of incredible
options are.
And why I think it is important for veterans is that this
discussion we have had about what about this vet who is not
living in an urban area, who lives way out on the boonies, in a
small town, and he has come back with severe disabilities. The
VA doesn't know where there is a support group in that town, or
what kind of expertise might be there.
It is a little community. The civilian community knows
that. The family may not, because you usually don't know those
things until it hits you and then you ask questions. If you ask
the right question, you end up getting a lot of help. You ask
the wrong question, you still don't know what is going on.
This program, called Network of Care, is that one that will
allow every community in these 25 states, these counties, to
give you this kind of comprehensive information.
It seems to me it is just information that ought to go into
a packet for the vet and say, ``Okay, when you go home, look
this up and you will be able to find like kinds of folks with
similar kinds of problems,'' and you can also find out who the
docs are and what the specialties are there and so on.
And I have tried to encourage you to look at it before and
I think the department has said, ``We are not interested,''
although now they are just putting out grants to do this rural
outreach.
So maybe this is a way of checking out what the right hand
and left hand want to do.
Let me get into somewhat of a specific question, though. It
is about the polytrauma operations at VA hospital. I understand
we have three polytrauma hospitals that are running at full
capacity and the Palo Alto is running under capacity.
What is the problem there?
Mr. Kussman. Well, I don't know if there is a problem. Each
of our centers have, I think, 12 beds each and, at any given
time, there may be full or not full, depending on the flow of
patients and geographically where they want to go.
We are in the process of building a fifth one in San
Antonio. It will be online in 2010 or 2011. But the money is
there to build it, I think $66 million, $67 million for it.
So the number of people who are in there vacillates on the
clinical situation. If there is a place that is filled and the
next one comes in, we have never turned anybody away. We will
create another bed for the period of time that we need it or,
generally, what we use is one of the spinal cord beds or some
other bed that is available in the institution.
I am not aware that we have ever turned anybody away.
Mr. Farr. They are under-capacity at the facilities in Palo
Alto, but at your other polytrauma--centers, they are at full
capacity.
Mr. Kussman. I don't think there is any sinister plot
there. I think it is really a matter of who wants to go or not
wants to go, and they will take the patients as appropriate.
Mr. Farr. Well, if we are having a problem there of not
getting enough patients, maybe outreach could be provided in
our area, because we have clinics.
Mr. Kussman. I will just give you a quick little piece of
information, if you don't mind. We have transferred about 470-
480 patients in the total of 5 years into those four centers
from OIF/OEF.
The total number of patients who have transitioned through
those centers is about 1,100. And what it says is that less
than 50 percent of the patients that need this type of care are
actually injured in the war.
This is something that happens in car accidents and other
training accidents and things, that is why we have this
infrastructure that existed, to some degree, before the war,
with traumatic brain injury centers, and we built on for this
polytrauma.
So there is a real need for this and it doesn't appear that
there is a huge number of--more non-combat wounded veterans
that are in this than combat.
Mr. Farr. Do you prioritize that?
Mr. Kussman. No.
Mr. Farr. Because one of the other complaints--is that the
old veterans feel that they are being put to the back of the
line or being delayed because we are prioritizing Iraq-
Afghanistan vets.
Mr. Kussman. When they are in the system, the decision what
needs to be done is done by a clinical physician. It doesn't
make any difference what your priority was or anything once you
are in.

SUICIDE RATE OF VETERANS

Mr. Farr. How about measuring suicide rate? We discussed
that in a previous hearing here. I guess the records weren't
there to be able to compare suicide rates among wounded
warriors from different conflicts over time and that there is
some work being done on that, but the data isn't comparable and
hasn't been transparent.
Mr. Kussman. I think this is a great challenge, because if
you wanted to know how many veterans commit suicide, which is
the basic question, remember, we only see a segment of the
veterans population.
So there are veterans who may or may not have committed
suicide that we don't have any visibility of. We have 7.5
million enrollees out of 23 million. So about a third of the
people we might have some information on, but even the
enrollees, we sometimes don't know. It is the people we are
seeing.
I am not trying to obfuscate it. It is just that when
somebody says, ``Well, how many veterans','' we don't know. A
lot of times, it is hard to collect data on suicides, because
somebody might have driven into a tree or been drunk and they
really were trying to kill themselves, but it doesn't get coded
as a suicide, but as an accident.
There are people who commit suicide by police, they do
things, and it doesn't--and sometimes we don't even know that
that happened, even though they were a veteran.
What we have to do is we have to rely frequently on the
Centers for Disease Control, because they keep a national death
registry, of which suicide is part of that.
And on all death certificates, there is a little box on the
bottom that says, ``Was this patient a veteran or isn't this
patient a veteran?'' If the coroner or other people will check
it, then we have a chance of finding out what happened.
Sometimes that doesn't happen. So we don't know. We have
looked very hard at this, because there is a suggestion that
all these suicides are happening and what is going on. It is a
very important priority for us.
We have had our epidemiologists look at OIF/OEF veterans,
in particular, to see if we can get some sense of how many of
them, that we know of, anyway, are committing suicide.
Now, you have got to be careful you don't compare apples
and oranges, because if you look at the national suicide rate
and then look at the suicide rate of veterans, you get a skewed
picture, because there are two groups of people who commit
suicide more frequently than others.
One is white males over the age of 60. Fifty percent of our
population is over the age of 60. And so right away we have a
skewed group.
The other group are particularly males in the age of 18 to
25. They do a lot of quick--they do things, they don't look at
the ramifications of what they do.
And so if you cull out those groups of people and compare
apples and apples, because if you compare the whole population
of the country, which includes, obviously, 50 percent women or
more than 50 percent women and children, they don't commit
suicide at the same rate that these other groups, which we have
a high percentage of.
And so if you compare and compare, the suicide rate, as far
as we can tell, in veterans, is not significantly different
than an age-adjusted population in the civilian community.
Han Kang, who is our epidemiologist, looked back using
state data and epidemiologic data from the CDC and looked at
how many OIF/OEF veterans that we could find that committed
suicide from 2001 to now, it was 114. Is that right? I think it
is 114.
And if you then do the statistics on that, there is a large
variance. I don't want to get into statistics, but because the
number is relatively small, that you can say that the number
truly would fall, say, between .65 and .25, with one being
the----
Mr. Farr. Now, does that number differentiate from they are
truly a veteran, they are not currently serving?
Mr. Kussman. That is correct. That is correct. I am not
commenting on people who are on active duty in the DOD. These
are people who were on active duty, transitioned, have a DD-
214. They are veterans.
And so if you look at that number, it is pretty consistent
statistically with anybody else.
So it is not that this isn't important. We think it is
extremely--every suicide is a suicide too many. And we have put
in place a very aggressive program where--you know of our call
center, our hotline that is in Canandaigua, that 24/7, it is
unique because it is staffed not by volunteers and things,
which SAMHSA hotlines and other local hotlines for suicide are
staffed by.
These are staffed by mental health professionals and the
beauty of this, not only are they mental health professionals
who can talk to the person who calls, but they have access to
the health record.
So what gives us a leg up on that, that is, the person will
talk to us besides just calling in sometimes--we have had about
20,000 calls since last August, 20,000 calls. You say, ``Why
the heck didn't we do this sooner?'' But I can't explain that.
We were just stupid, I don't know.
But the fact is it is obviously a need. We have had about
500 saves. Now, we consider a save as someone that seemed to be
really serious. I mean, most people, when they think about
doing something, killing themselves, don't do it, 98 percent of
the time they don't do it.
But that 2 percent is still a lot of people. And we have
been able to find out where they were. Here is an anecdote for
you. This is one of the great stories.
It is an individual who called, didn't want to tell us
where he lived. He was talking to one of our people on the
line. The conversation went on for quite a while.
Finally, he admitted--wouldn't say who he was, but said he
was in San Antonio and he was on a bridge and he was going to
jump.
So while one of our providers was talking to him, one other
called San Antonio police and said, ``We have got a jumper.''
They said, ``It is a big city. Where would we go?''
Finally, the guy mentioned his name. So quickly pulled up
on the record where he lives and then went and Googled, got a
map of San Antonio and looked where he lived and looked for the
nearest bridge.
Then they called the San Antonio police back and said, ``Go
to bridge X and see if he is there.'' He was there. Saved this
guy from jumping.
Now, it is anecdotal and all that other stuff, but the
point is having this service for veterans has turned out to be
extremely, extremely valuable.
Also, what we have done is we have put a suicide
coordinator in every one of our facilities. They are not
coordinating suicide. They are coordinating the fact that the
services that are provided, we have educated all our primary
care people and other people what to do when somebody mentions
to you that they are thinking about killing themselves.
So they have skills. It is like yelling ``fire'' in a
crowded room and it is against the law. The same thing happens.
Anybody says that, you have got to believe them and be very
serious in that.
So we have done a lot of things. We will never stop
suicide, I am sad to say, because it is part of an illness and
when people are determined to do it, they are going to do it.
I have had a tragic situation in my own practice, where
somebody came in, I talked to them and they were depressed. I
said, ``Are you doing okay?'' ``Yeah, I am doing fine, Doc,''
and all this other stuff, and shake hands, ``see you next
week,'' and they walk and shoot themselves in the parking lot.
I said, ``What did I do wrong? What did I miss?'' Very
unfortunate and we all have examples of those tragic things.
So I believe we are really working very hard on trying to
minimize suicide, though you know we----
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Thank you for that.
We are through voting for the day and the week. They have
pulled the bill down. In case anyone has to catch a plane or
anything.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know this meeting has not
been as specific about the funding request levels as normal
appropriation subcommittee hearings.
In a sense, it is bigger than that on some of the concerns
that we have and there are forms that we desire.
But I want to followup on Mr. Farr's comments, because I
think he and I and the chairman agree on a whole lot of things
and have the same kind of concerns.
To pick up on what Sam said, I think if you add people that
receive their health care through the VA system, the Medicare
system, Medicaid system and SCHIP, you are now above half of
the American people.
Fifty-two percent of Americans receive some form of
government health care. But that is why I think it is so
important for the VA to demonstrate, because I don't know where
we are going with this, this is an evolution, as Sam said, of
health care.
If we are moving to a single payer or two-tiered system or
wherever we are headed, it is so important that the VA be a
model for how you can deliver government health care in an
efficient way.
And so you almost have like a triple burden on you right
now, not just the traditional VA paradigm and mindset, but this
literally is going to determine, I think, whether the
government can efficiently deliver it, because you have the
advantages provided to you that Medicare and Medicaid don't
really have, because of the way the money passes down and the
state match on Medicaid and the fact that Medicare is
reimbursing and the fact that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
has cut so many Medicare benefits.
You have all your fingers on the buttons of the health care
delivery system and if you go through reforms that make it
efficient and prove through the VA system that government
health care can be delivered, it changes the paradigm.
It changes the possibilities of whether we embrace some
kind of universal coverage. And that is why this is bigger than
just your funding request and whether the VA works.
But I am very interested in this committee playing a role
in seeing that you are as successful as you can be.
And to be honest with you, my history in 14 years here is
that the authorization committee is awfully difficult to
maneuver through. I know you have got to kind of suck up to
both appropriations subcommittee and authorizing committee.
But it is easier to get things done through the
appropriations process than it is authorization process, and
there are 100 reasons why things can't be done.
I am interested, in thinking like that, in how you measure
customer satisfaction, because when we have like the master
sergeant in the Marine Corps here, his wife was back here and
she had these meetings with the family members of people that
are on active duty and keeps her finger right on the pulse of
what it is that they need and whether or not their quality of
life is acceptable and whether or not they might consider
reenlisting. They have their antennae up.
How does the VA really keep their finger on the pulse of
the veterans to understand what it is they want, what it is
they expect?
My experience is I have been one of those people, because
when the veterans beat my door down with our outpatient clinic,
the next thing you know, we have extended hours and we have a
larger waiting area and we have pharmaceutical this, that and
the other. The dental guy works an extra day out of the week,
because the veterans come through me and say this needs to be
done and the representative goes there.
But what are you doing to make sure that the VA is a state-
of-the-art customer satisfaction organization in health care in
America today?
Mr. Kussman. A very important question--so we have a whole
litany of things, advocates and facilities where people can go
to complain about it if we are not doing it.
We have a ``secret shopper'' program, where people go out,
don't tell anybody who they are, but pretend they are just a
plain old customer and see what happens when they call for an
appointment, and things of that sort.
The national survey on satisfaction of people in health
care that is done out of the University of Michigan, every
year, it is done it and we, both inpatient and outpatient, get
better scores than the civilian community.
We do what is called SHEP, and, for the life of me, I can't
remember what the S-H-E-P stands for, but we send out 600,000
surveys periodically and ask all these questions to people and
get them back, by facility and by clinic, to determine whether
we are doing the job that we think we are doing.
And by the way, as you are alluding to, you can provide the
best care in the world, but if people are unhappy about it,
then shame on us.
So the other part of this is just plain old traditional
patient satisfaction surveys. We do that and our satisfaction
rate across the board is about 86-87 percent, which is right in
there at the top of most systems.
Now, the question is what about the other 12-14 percent of
people, what are they unhappy about? And you have to drill down
a little farther to figure that out.
But one of the questions, ``Did you get an appointment when
you wanted to,'' and the answer may be no, but they wanted it
tomorrow and we gave it to them 3 days from now. So it is very
subjective, but it is important.
So we try very hard and I am very proud actually of all the
numbers that we get back. It is not perfect, we have got to
keep working at it, but most of the complaints that we have are
really related to more access than they are once they are in,
and people are very happy generally with the care, whether it
is a CBOC or whether it is a main facility.
And that is a problem I have been challenged with about
access. When I took over August 12, 2006, I was acting for 9
months--I remember the day, the moment, the hour.
But the truth of the matter is I have been listening to
what you all tell me and the VSO groups. People are unhappy
about this, they can't get an appointment, and we are measuring
it and thinking most people are getting appointments.
So what is the disconnect? Why do you go out and have town
hall meetings and hear that people are complaining? I am not
critical that they are complaining. We don't see it on the
basis of the accumulated data.
And I have been very puzzled, I am still puzzled by it, and
what I did is we have contracted with Booz Allen Hamilton. I
have asked them--they are going to be through in June or July--
to do an assessment of our access, looking at our appointment
schedule, you know the issue with the IG, things like that, and
come back to me and tell me what is actually going on, because
I am having trouble, quite frankly, getting my arms around
something that the data isn't consistent with what I am
hearing.
And I believe that what we are hearing is a
miscommunication. I would ask you, when you go out and ask--go
to see your constituents, when they say they couldn't get
something done, ask them what exactly is it. Is it an
appointment or is it a procedure?
And there is a difference here. For instance, could you--
within 30 days? It is not perfect.
But the question then is how long does it take you to--that
is a different question. And so now we are starting to measure
hip replacements, knee replacements, cataracts, colonoscopies
as a performance measure. Those are four big volume things that
we do.
It is to try to take those performance measures that we
have been using in an outpatient setting and transfer them into
the inpatient setting and find out maybe that is where the
breakdown is, that you have to wait for your procedure, and
that is what the people are upset about. But it is not that
they couldn't get an appointment to see the orthopedic surgeon.
I am not trying to split hairs. I think it is a different
issue and we are working hard to get our arms around it.
Sorry for the long answer.
Mr. Wamp. I think it was an excellent answer and I thank
you for that answer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. And as you begin, let me--I am going to excuse
myself. Mr. Farr is going to continue to gavel and please
continue on.
Mr. Bishop, thank you for coming.
Dr. Kussman, as I leave, let me just thank you again and
everyone that works within the VA health care system, for the
hard work you do and for your particular leadership. Thank you
for that.
I look forward to following up on this and I know we will
have a number of questions in writing----
Thank you for being here today.
Mr. Berry. Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary. And I
think everyone in this room and on this committee and I am sure
everyone at the VA is primarily interested in being able to
take care of our veterans, and I appreciate that very much.
I wanted to ask you about one specific program that we have
in Arkansas. One of our biggest problems is being able to get
our veterans in rural areas into a place where we have got some
clinics.
But still, especially for mental health services and things
like that, it is difficult to get them where they can be
treated or where services are available from out in the rural
areas.
And as that has continued to develop as a result of the
ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have begun to realize
that it was a larger problem than we realized in the beginning.
And the private sector has risen to the occasion and
partnered with one of our universities there that has an
extensive community college network in northeastern Arkansas
and north central Arkansas.
And we had one particular individual that contributed $1
million to get this program started and they have put together
an organization that helps with education assistance, all that
that implies, rehabilitation services, mental health resources,
and social services, and the ability to help with all of these.
Now, their objective is primarily to help the veteran and
to work with the VA or anyone else that is willing to work with
them to get the job done and see that these people can return
to as normal a life as possible.
And they met with you and you basically told them, ``We
hope it works out for you, but we are not interested.''
And my question to you is: Is that going to be VA policy?
Should they just pursue their goals on their own without any
coordination or cooperation from the VA or what is your thought
on that matter?
Mr. Kussman. I would take umbrage, sir, with the fact that
I don't think that was an accurate description that we are not
interested.
The issue was that they were, as I recall, and I see a lot
of people--the exact everything. But they were looking for us
to provide money to support that and it wasn't that we weren't
interested in the concept, because I think it is a good one,
but we don't give money out to--if we were going to do it for
this university, what about any other university?
And so the issue was how can we work together, but they
were, as I recall, wanting a donation to help support the
program, and----
Mr. Berry. Well, I know that that is not the case today. Do
you outsource anything like that? Does the VA outsource
anything like that?
Mr. Kussman. We outsource--earlier, we were talking, and I
was actually corrected. I said $2 billion was the fee-based--I
have been told it is $3 billion.
We outsource a lot of stuff to people where it is
appropriate to provide the care----
Mr. Berry. And you would be willing to work with these
people.
Mr. Kussman. I am always willing to work with it. I think
that what they need to do is talk to the nearest--in Arkansas
and see what would be appropriate, because there is always--not
from a national level, because--and I don't mean to--49 other
states that have the same thing.
So I can't necessarily condone or take one thing over
another. If I gave a grant, then the next thing I know, we
would have to have maybe 49 other grants.
But I think the concept is good, because what we want to do
is get these veterans back into school, provide them the full
depth and breadth of resources that they need to maximize
whatever capability they have.
Mr. Berry. Well, I wasn't in pursuit of a grant for these
folks. If there is an opportunity for the VA and they are going
to do some outsourcing anyway, I don't know why these people
wouldn't be qualified to apply to be a part of that as much as
anyone.
Mr. Kussman. Well, I think, again, when we buy services, it
is usually for a specific service at a specific time. And so I
would encourage them to continue the dialogue at the local
level--see what can be done in a partnering locally.
Mr. Berry. Well, they have not been well received, I can
tell you. And I have spent some time with these folks and I
know what they do and I don't see it.
It would be pretty hard for me to find a problem with it,
because they have done a good job. They are doing a good job
for our veterans, even though they are not in cooperation with
the VA at this time.
So you think that they can expect to be at least heard from
the folks in the local----
Mr. Kussman. [Off mike]
Mr. Berry. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farr. You are welcome.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome.

JOINT VA/DOD MEDICAL FACILITIES

Mr. Kussman. Nice to see you again.
Mr. Bishop. That is a wonderful segue to my question.
I am very interested in hearing your views on the--and the
productivity of joint military-VA medical facilities, the ones
that you now have up and operating, for example, in north
central--San Antonio. You have got facilities in Chicago,
Biloxi, and Alaska.
How viable an option is it going forward, particularly as
we begin to build more DOD military medical facilities, and
there are some that will be coming up this year?
Are there obstacles, pitfalls, other issues that we should
know about?
In the other subcommittee, I had an opportunity to meet and
talk with--the under secretary of defense health affairs,
General Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, Vice Admiral
Robinson of the Navy, and General Roudebush, who is the surgeon
general of the Air Force, and all of them expressed very strong
support for VA-DOD cooperative efforts.
Is there a way that we can work together to try to
facilitate that--we expect that Martin Army may be getting a
new hospital. It is a 50-year-old facility, as you are aware,
and we expect that this year they may be building a new
hospital.
The closest VA hospital is Tuskegee, which is aging, and,
of course, they have to send people to Montgomery if it is
anything other than a cold and if it requires any specialty, to
Birmingham.
I am from Georgia and, of course, that is Atlanta or
Augusta or Dublin, and, of course, Dublin has downsized its--
the southern part of my district with the state of Florida.
If we were--I should say, when we build this new military
hospital at Martin Army, is there a possibility that we could
get some kind of memorandum of understanding so that it could
be a joint facility with VA?
We have got a tremendous number of veterans in a 50-mile
radius that could make good use of that right there at Fort
Benning.
Mr. Kussman. The issue of DOD-VA sharing is--part of the
reason I came to the VA was to work on that and it is a very
important issue.
We stand ready in any way, shape or form to partner and
look at it. I know that DOD is starting to look at its aging
infrastructure or its medical hospitals.
We have the same problem. We have 153 hospitals, average
age is 57 years, and the challenge of building new full service
hospitals is money--for us, it is anywhere from about $750
million to $800 million to $1 billion a hospital, and,
actually, we are worried it is pricing us out of business.
I mean, how do you deal with that huge amount of money for
one--and when the examples of north Chicago and Biloxi and
other places, I think that we--I know all those people you talk
about very, very well and----
I believe that the partnering with DOD-VA--there is a lot
of interaction and we are looking at partnering.
So particularly at Fort Benning, that hasn't--I am not
aware that that has come up on the radar screen of DOD wanting
to build a hospital, requesting a partnering.
Mr. Bishop. Well, DOD hasn't requested the partnering. But
as the representative for Fort Benning and for the surrounding
areas, with lots of veterans who are requesting a veterans'
hospital, it seems to me like it would be economically feasible
to, one, give the services to the veterans and DOD save the
taxpayer dollars, if that was--to have a joint location there.
Mr. Kussman. Well, there are all kinds of other options. We
asked about--should be expanded and then partner with the new
hospital----
I don't know the answer to that, but certainly we stand
ready to work with DOD.
Mr. Bishop. Sir, I don't want to take up any more of this
committee's time, but I would like to get with you or someone,
your designee, probably ASAP, because I know that hospital
building program is going to be--at this time.
Mr. Kussman. We will get somebody to contact you, the
appropriate associate, to get some insight----
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
The last question, Mr. Wamp, and then I have one quick one,
and then we will adjourn.
Mr. Wamp. Just a technical kind of question. The $3 billion
that you referred to on private contract, does that include
veterans that go get emergency are?
Mr. Kussman. Sometimes.
Mr. Wamp. Does the $3 billion that you referred to--
It includes the emergency care. So it is basically all non-
VA healthcare is in that $3 billion category you have, because
I figured that would push it way up.
How much of that is emergency care and how much of it is
actually contracting? And I say that, because like in our
outpatient clinic, more and more, rightly so, you are
contracting for services.
So you don't have to keep doctors around for these
particular procedures that you are able to get a guy to come in
and do with a certain amount 2 days a week and you pay him or
her, and that is the contracting.
But wouldn't a majority of the $3 billion be emergency room
care for veterans that just go and get health care or not? I am
just asking.
Mr. Kussman. We can get back to you. It is a mix. When we
have a contract with somebody----
Mr. Wamp. Because, see, like in a lot of these areas, and
this is what gets to the CBOC challenge, if you are a veteran
in my area and you need emergency room care, you are not going
to the VA hospital, because it is 2 hours away.
So by definition, you are going to be--that is going to be
a big ticket item at a CBOC with a large service area, because
they are going to go and get that at whatever hospital the
ambulance takes them to when it is time to have an emergency
exception here to the VA delivery system.
Anyway, I think this committee maybe understands you all
pretty well and I am really looking forward to working on
reforms even through our bill to try to help you do your job
and to improve the way you do your job and even maybe to set
the new paradigm into the future as to the role the VA plays in
the whole system and the new world that we live in, because
wars are changing, veterans are changing, by definition.
The challenges of keeping veterans or keeping our men and
women in uniform, both Guard, Reserve and active duty, or all
three, serving our country is predicated by what they see out
into the future.
Is this a--not only is it a worthy vocation and is it the
right thing to do, but is it a long-term commitment I should
make, because is the country going to be there for me. So it is
all really tied in to patriotism in a big way. I don't mean to
give a speech.
But I thank you for your appearance here today. I think it
has been helpful to everyone.
And, Mr. Farr, I want to thank you especially, because I
think you and I share a lot of the same goals here.

ACCESS TO QUALITY CARE

Mr. Farr. I want to echo your sentiments. I think this
committee, in the House and Senate, the incredible increased
appropriations we made last year and, as Mr. Edwards said, we
are going to continue it again with some additional money this
year, the whole concept there is that we move VA from sort of
that other organization to being probably the most respected
medical service provider in the United States.
What all states and providers are struggling with is: How
you do this in a cost-effective manner that gives quality care
and is using all the adequate technologies that are out there.
So my last questions are essentially along those lines.
One is as you expand your tele mental health care to people
who do not live in the area that offers the broadband
connection services, how are you going to do that?
We struggle with this broadband issue here and what we find
is rural America just gets screwed.
Your effort is to expand your tele mental health. And have
you got a system that will reach beyond the broadband service
area?
Mr. Kussman. Well, I am not an expert on those particular
issues, but as you know, we stood up our new office of rural
health. Our director is here with us today.
And we are going to spend this year about $22 million
looking at the whole concept of rural health--and, also, how we
can outreach more.
Mr. Farr. Some of those things we suggested will hopefully
be looked at.
Mr. Kussman. That is exactly correct.
Mr. Farr. What about the non-institutional long-term care?
As I understand it, the number of the non-institutional long-
term care patients in the VA is expected to grow in the next
several years.
You mentioned that VA is expanding the services provided by
organizations and the community, essentially, contracting out.
If you expect, as your testimony pointed out, approximately
a 40 percent increase in the number of patients receiving non-
institutional long-term care, what criteria are using to
project that increase? How do you determine that?
And can you tell the committee, as a percentage, how many
veterans receive some form of non-institutional long-term care?
Also, how does this care, cost-wise, compare per patient to
provide in-home services to veterans? Do you have any
comparison?
Mr. Kussman. What the cost is related to?
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Mr. Kussman. We can certainly get that for you. But the
important thing here is that, as you know, the fastest growing
part of our multi-pronged approach to long-term care is the
home health care, going up, I think, 28 percent in this year
alone.
We provide long-term care in our own bricks and mortar. We
have community nursing homes and state homes. And now the
biggest and fastest growing is people staying at home, because
we talk to the veterans, they would like to do that.
They would like to stay home as much as possible, stay in
their own communities, not have to go someplace where we have
bricks and mortar or whatever it is.
And so we are working very hard to be able to provide them,
in conjunction with the communities, day centers and other
things, including foster homes and other things, where people
can stay in a much more conducive area and environment than to
go to a traditional----
Mr. Farr. It is a very cost-effective medicine.
Mr. Kussman. It is both cost-effective and it provides a
better service for the veteran. I mean, we are not doing it
just because we want to save money.
Mr. Farr. And I think what is going to happen, as you do
more of that, is that you are going to have a lot of other
service providers coming up and saying, ``We can do this more
cost-effectively for you.''
How are you going to select these service providers? I
think that is the question we have been asking all day. How do
you verify the quality of service from a non-institutional
provider?
Mr. Kussman. Well, we have our office of long-term care and
geriatric care that sets standards and we then go out and check
both the state homes and our own homes.
When we have somebody enrolled in the community-based long-
term care, it is done at the local level, not from a central.
They have the standards that we put out and the policies and
procedures that are supposed to be done, and they will monitor
that with their social workers and other people to ensure that
the people who are providing the care are continuing to do
that.
If they don't, they won't get the contract or won't work,
but there is a lot of granularity in the contract of what we
expect them to do.
Mr. Farr. Mental services, the licensed care providers, is
there a federal standard that might be different from a state
standard California is always arguing they upgrade these
standards and the California standards are higher than the
fed's. Is that true?
Mr. Kussman. Which is a national standard. We would work
with the standard--I mean, if there is a better standard of
care in the state, we would certainly consider using that. We
wouldn't use a worse standard.
Mr. Farr. It is always these minimums. We know now that the
military has to follow building codes of a local community. For
a while, they didn't have to.
They built a hospital in my district at Fort Ord and then
when they closed, nobody wanted it, because they didn't build
it to earthquake standards, because they just felt the federal
standards were all they had to meet.
I want to just thank you. We have had a long day. I am
sorry that others missed it, because it is not often in these
congressional hearings that you get as much interactive
dialogue with the witnesses that we have had today, and I think
we both appreciate the frankness of it.
Certainly, it will lead to a stronger and better Veterans'
Administration and particularly the health care. We are really
looking forward to working with you.
Mr. Kussman. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.

[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]
WOMEN'S HEALTH

In the fiscal year 2008 budget request, the Select Program called
``Women Veterans'' was estimated at $78 million dollars. The fiscal
year 2009 budget request estimates that VHA will spend $149 million for
Women Veterans in fiscal year 2008 and requests $163 million for fiscal
year 2009. Can you please give us your thoughts on what caused the
growth in 2008 and how comfortable you are with the 2009 estimate?
Response. The growth is directly tied to the increased number of
women veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF) who are seeking health care from the VA. Five years
ago, 7% of all veterans were women, but 14% of today's active duty
military forces are women. Five years ago, 12% of eligible women
veterans sought care from the VA, whereas, 41% of eligible women
veterans from OEF/OIF are seeking VA care.
VA uses an actuarial model to forecast patient demand and
associated resource needs. The annual patient projections generated by
the VA Enrollee Health Care Projection Model are a function of the
projected enrolled population and the mix and intensity of workload for
those enrollees as projected by the Model. The patient projections are
then adjusted to account for those enrollees who seek only non-modeled
services such as readjustment counseling. Components of the model
methodology and data sources are continually updated, allowing VA to
make accurate forecasts. VA believes the 2009 budget request for this
program is a reasonable estimate.

MEDICAL ACCOUNTS

Since 2004, the Veterans Health Administration has had three
medical accounts in order to allow for greater visibility of how
medical funding was spent. Can you tell me why the fiscal year 2009
budget submission combined the Medical Services and Medical
Administration accounts?
Response. In the 2009 request. VA is proposing that the Medical
Administration appropriation be consolidated into the Medical Services
appropriation. Merging these two accounts will improve the execution of
our budget and will allow VA to manage the delivery of health care to
veterans more effectively.
Prior to the establishment of the three medical care appropriation
accounts in 2004, a medical facility director was allocated a single
budget that could be used to address local operational priorities in
the care of veterans as they occurred. For example, funds could be used
to address critical vacancies in nurse staffing or personnel performing
security, patient scheduling, or the medical collections functions as
the need arose. All of these functions are critical to the successful
care and treatment of the patient.
Under the current appropriation structure, the facility director
has limited management flexibility in making operational decisions. For
example, a medical center director may need to hire additional clinical
staff, which is paid from the Medical Services appropriation; however,
in certain cases, to accommodate the additional staff the medical
center director may need to hire additional staff to safeguard against
unnecessary and inappropriate medical care, conduct quality assurance,
or perform medical coding, which is paid from the Medical
Administration appropriation. However, if sufficient funding is not
available in the Medical Administration account at the facility to hire
these supporting staff, the director cannot shift funding from the
other medical care appropriations to support this function. Instead,
the director must first seek a realignment of funds between
appropriations at the network level, or at the national level if
network funding availability and flexibility is also limited. If
funding is not available at the national level, VA must notify the
Office of Management and Budget and the Congress of an appropriations
transfer request. This is one way the current multiple appropriation
structure has added complexity to the management of health care at the
facility level and increased the amount of time it takes to implement
operational changes. By combining the two appropriations, the facility
director could immediately hire additional clinical staff and the
appropriate supporting staff.
In addition, the multiple appropriation structure has significantly
increased the volume of financial transactions needed to administer
VA's health care system. Each appropriation is allocated to
approximately 150 separate facilities or program offices. For example,
in 2003, there were approximately 30,000 funding transactions to
support the single medical care appropriation structure. In 2005, there
were over 55,000 funding transactions required to support the three
appropriation structure, and this has grown to about 91,000 in 2007.
The significant growth in transaction volume has also increased the
risk of errors and the potential for anti-deficiency violations.
Can you help us understand why it has been so difficult for VHA to
submit accurate budget requests for these accounts?
Response. Since the creation of the three account structure in FY
2004, there has been a series of significant changes that have made it
very difficult to accurately estimate the exact amounts required in
each appropriation approximately 23 to 24 months prior to the end of
the execution year. For example, in FY 2004 it took until the start of
the fourth quarter (July 2004) to fully implement the new three
appropriation structure. The FY 2005 President's Budget request had
already been submitted in February 2004 prior to any operational
experience at the facility level under the three account structure. The
FY 2006 President's Budget was submitted in February 2005 based on less
than 6 months actual experience under the three account structure.
Subsequently, an additional $1.5 billion was added to the FY 2005
Medical Services appropriation and an additional $1.452 billion was
provided by Congress to the FY 2006 Medical Services appropriation.
In addition, we have had to continually adjust our estimates for
the three medical care accounts to reflect actual operational
experience in delivering care to veterans at the local level.
If the accounts are combined, can you tell me what safeguards will
be used to ensure that spending on Medical Administration does not grow
at a greater rate in proportion to medical services?
Response. VA already has cost centers established in its financial
system that would allow us to monitor costs associated with Medical
Services and Medical Administration. VA can separately identify the
costs for Medical Administration and would be able to provide cost
information to Congress upon its request.

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY HOSPITAL

Mr. Secretary, last year the CARES priority list for major
construction listed the Louisville, Kentucky project as #4 and this
year it is #7. What has changed in the last year that would justify
moving this project down the priority list? What is the status of the
site selection process for this facility, and how quickly do you expect
to be able to finalize site selection?
Response. As part of the annual VA capital investment process,
projects that have not received any funding through the appropriations
process are resubmitted and evaluated along with any new projects that
are added for the next budget cycle. This resubmission gives the
medical centers an opportunity to update their application or provide a
new one based on any policy changes regarding the delivery of health
care and other external factors such as changes in workload
projections.
The main reasons Major Construction project submissions moved up or
down in the ranking between FY08 and FY09 were due to the updates or
changes that were made to the applications, new projects that were
added, and adjustments that were made to the evaluation criteria
definitions to include the latest special emphasis related programs
such as traumatic brain injury and polytrauma care.
The Louisville site selection process will begin when this project
is prioritized for funding within the annual planning process.

HOMELESS

Can you tell me why, after the fiscal year 2008 appropriation
included $130 million for the Homeless Grants and Per Diem program,
funding it at the fully authorized level, your fiscal year 2009 budget
submission estimates $107 million for fiscal year 2008 and only
requests $122 million for fiscal year 2009? Can you tell me what
process is used to determine the priority of funding for additional
grants?
Response. Based on VA's review of homeless care programs in the
private sector, as the FY 2009 President's budget was being developed,
it did not appear that there were enough programs that meet VA
standards for homeless care to effectively obligate $130 million in FY
2008. Funding up to $130 million is available for the Grant and Per
Diem (GPD) program in FY 2008, and any unobligated funds will be
carried over into FY 2009 to be available for the GPD program. In
addition, VA plans to spend $2.5 million to improve the infrastructure
of the GPD program by adding GPD liaisons, program development
specialists, and training initiatives.

PTSD

The fiscal year 2008 budget submission included an estimate of $171
million to treat all veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The
FY 2009 budget submission estimates that VHA will spend $45 million in
FY 2008 on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for OIF/OEF veterans and $55
million in FY 2009. Can you tell me why this year's budget submission
only addresses OIF/OEF veterans and what the numbers are for all
veterans for 2008 and 2009?
Response. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) estimates for all
veterans are included in the Mental Health estimates found on page 1H-
13, Volume 2, Medical Programs and Information Technology Programs, but
not as a separate line item. The estimates are as follows:

PTSD Estimates, FY 2008-FY 2009
[Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2008 FY 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTSD (All Veterans)..................... 265,633 319,032
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DUAL DIAGNOSIS MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS

In 2007, the Office of Inspector General reviewed the Veterans
Health Administration's Mental Health Strategic Plan. The Office of
Inspector General recommended that VHA should not require sustained
sobriety for treatment in inpatient PTSD programs for returning combat
veterans. Can you tell me what progress you have made in implementing
this recommendation?
Response. The Veterans Health Administration issued a memorandum to
the Field in November of 2007 establishing principles for the
assessment and treatment of all veterans presenting with a substance
use treatment need. The memorandum clearly stated key principles that
highlight VHA's recognition that substance use disorders (SUD) can be
acute, episodic/recurring, or chronic conditions. The memorandum
reaffirmed VHA's commitment to treat veterans appropriately during
acute states of intoxication or withdrawal, whether at risk for
suffering a withdrawal syndrome, whether abusing or dependent, and
whether the SUD is co-occurring with other physical or mental health
concerns. Key principles in the memorandum included:
(a) VA facilities must not deny care to an enrolled veteran on the
basis of intoxication, active abuse of or dependence on an illegal
substance or alcohol, or withdrawal. If it is clinically appropriate to
delay certain services or treatments because of these conditions, other
services and treatments must be provided both to address the veteran's
immediate needs and to promote his or her engagement in ongoing care.
(b) All facilities must make medically supervised withdrawal
management available as needed for enrolled veterans with substance use
disorders. Although withdrawal management can often be accomplished on
an ambulatory basis, facilities must make inpatient withdrawal
management available for those who require it. This support can be
provided in VA facilities or by referral to other facilities on a
contract or fee-basis.
(c) Facilities must not deny or delay appropriate care for
substance use disorders to any enrolled veteran on the basis of the
length of current episode; number of previous treatment episodes; use
of prescribed controlled substances; legal history, or other mental
health disorders. When it is clinically appropriate to delay a specific
service or treatment, another must be provided that is specifically
targeted to treatment of the current needs of the veteran.
(d) Every medical center must have services available to meet the
care needs of enrolled veterans with both substance use disorders and
PTSD or other mental health conditions. When active treatment is
required for both conditions, it can be provided in specially designed
dual diagnosis programs with treatment planning, care coordination, and
collaboration between providers or through services provided by both
substance use disorder and mental health programs.
These principles codify the requirement for patient-centered care.
VHA facilities and providers can never adopt the position that a
veteran is untreatable because substance use or dependence precludes
addressing mental health conditions or that concurrent or complicating
mental illness make it impossible to also address substance abuse or
dependence. Services must be available to provide care for veterans
with substance use disorders and mental health conditions, alone or in
combination, regardless of acuity or chronicity. The services offered
must be appropriate to the needs of the veteran suffering an SUD.
VHA is in the process of making the principles of the memorandum a
VHA Directive. VA also is in the process of doing site visits to
monitor how this guidance is being implemented in the field and to help
sites work out any problems in full implementation of this guidance.

MEDICAL RESEARCH

We have heard in the past that most Medical Research projects last
at least 3-5 years. We appropriated $480 million for Medical Research
for fiscal year 2008. The fiscal year 2009 budget request reduces this
amount by $38 million and applies that reduction to the research areas
that most effect the OIF/OEF veteran population (for example, trauma
and mental health). Can you tell me what steps you are taking to
mitigate the impact of this reduction on research for these veterans?
Response. VA remains committed to increasing the impact of its
research program. VA's strong commitment to research that addresses the
needs of veterans of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom
(OIF/OEF) has been reflected in the growth in the number of projects
and project funding over the last few years. As a result of the
supplemental appropriation in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and additional
emergency appropriations in FY 2008, there have been considerable
investments for expensive equipment such as high-resolution magnetic
resonance imagers that will be used to enhance VA's OIF/OEF-related
research. Over the next few years these investments will payoff in
better understanding and treatments of these important disorders, but
the very large increases were ``one-time'' expenses that have
effectively met the immediate needs for enhancing the strong ongoing
research programs.
We have carefully prioritized our research projects to ensure they
continue to address the needs of veterans of OIF/OEF in addition to
other veteran populations. The FY 2009 budget request includes $252
million for research directed at the full range of health issues of
OIF/OEF veterans, including traumatic brain injury and other
neurotrauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and other post-deployment
mental health, prosthetics and amputation healthcare, poly trauma, and
other health issues. Additional research funding priorities covered by
the FY 2009 budget request include chronic diseases and health
promotion, personalized medicine, women's health, and aging.
Our ability to achieve the level of $751 million in other federal
funding will be contingent upon the relative availability of the
research funds and the degree to which our research proposals are
accepted and funded by the other organizations.

LONG-TERM CARE

In your statement you mention that the FY 2009 budget will support
an average daily census of 61,000 for non-institutional care compared
to a census of 44,200 in FY 2008. This would be a remarkable 38%
increase in noninstitutional care while institutional care remains
essentially flat. What could explain this remarkable growth in the use
of long-term care resources? Is there really such an incredible waiting
list for these services? And if so, why was it not addressed earlier?
Response. The growth in non-institutional long-term care in the FY
2009 Congressional Budget Submission reflects VA's long range plan to
shift resources to home and community based services, while maintaining
capacity in nursing home care. VA believes that a comprehensive
approach of noninstitutional care can limit increases in the demand for
nursing home care. This approach also reflects veterans' preference for
home based services.
VA's estimates of the demand for home care services are based on a
model which measures actual home care utilization by age, disability
level, marital status, and veterans' use of these services. Demand is
expected to grow steadily for a number of years.
The FY 2009 increase appears particularly strong because, for the
first time.in the Congressional Submission, VA has added the long-term
care portion of its Home Telehealth Program to the mix of non-
institutional care services. The Home Telehealth Program average daily
census increases 80 percent from FY 2008 to FY 2009.

SMOKING CESSATION

What progress has been made by the Department with regards to
smoking cessation?
To address the issue of tobacco use among veterans, the Veterans
Health Administration (VHA) has adopted a number of measures to
increase access to the evidence-based smoking cessation care for
veterans who smoke.
All FDA-approved smoking cessation medications, including
over-the counter medications, are on the National VHA Formulary.
ln 2003, VHA issued national guidance that lifted previous
restrictions on prescribing smoking cessation medications in order to
make them available to any veteran who wanted to quit.
ln 2004, the revised DoD/VA Clinical Practice Guidelines
on Management of Tobacco Use encouraged integration of smoking
cessation treatment into primary care, dentistry, and other clinical
settings.
In 2005, a Federal regulation was adopted to eliminate the
co-payment for smoking cessation counseling for veterans seen in VHA
clinical settings.
VHA developed smoking cessation programs to address the
high rates of smoking among patients with psychiatric disorders, as
this population smokes at nearly twice the rate of patients without
psychiatric disorders and they are disproportionately affected by
smoking-related illnesses.
The VHA electronic medical record is an important tool to
support clinical reminders and national performance measures to help
identify patients' tobacco use and to prompt health care providers to
advise patients to quit and to offer them assistance.
In 2006, VHA revised the national performance measures on
tobacco use. The national performance measures, in addition to
screening for tobacco use, required all patients who smoked to be
provided with counseling on how to quit and offered smoking cessation
medications and a referral to a smoking cessation clinic at least once
a year.
For fiscal year 2007, approximately 75 percent of smokers
seen in VHA non-mental health clinical settings were provided with
counseling and a referral to smoking cessation clinics and 71 percent
were offered medications to help them quit.
What steps are being taken to decrease OEF/OIF veteran tobacco use?
VHA has taken the following steps to decrease OEF/OIF veteran
tobacco use:
VHA has funded multi-site research trials looking at the
linkages of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and tobacco use and
the efficacy of a treatment model that integrates smoking cessation
treatment into PTSD care to address the needs of these patients.
This year the Public Health Strategic Health Care Group
has partnered with the Durham VA Medical Center Mental Illness
Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC), which specializes in
behavioral risks for OIF/OEF veterans to look at the unique treatment
needs of this population to assist with the development of clinical
programs that will be responsive to this veteran population's needs.
Because of continuing concerns about the higher rates of
tobacco use among both military and veteran populations, VHA has
collaborated with the Department of Defense to contract with the
Institute of Medicine to convene a study to identify future policies
and programs needed to help address the use of tobacco.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by Congressman
Wamp.]
request to merge medical administration and medical services accounts
Under Secretary Kussman, the VA is proposing legislative language
that would consolidate the Medical Administration appropriation and the
Medical Services appropriation. The budget justification says that
merging these two accounts will improve the execution of the budget and
would allow VA to respond rapidly to unanticipated changes in the
health care environment throughout the year.
What are the current challenges in executing the budget based on
the current account structure, and how will merging these accounts
improve the execution of the budget?
On the point of allowing the VA to respond rapidly to unanticipated
changes in the health care environment throughout the year, what
unanticipated changes have you had to respond to in the past, how has
the account structure hindered your ability to respond to those
changes, and how will merging these accounts allow you to respond?
Response. ln the 2009 request, VA is proposing that the Medical
Administration appropriation be consolidated into the Medical Services
appropriation. Merging these two accounts will improve the execution of
our budget and will allow VA to manage the delivery of health care to
veterans more effectively.
Prior to the establishment of the three medical care appropriation
accounts in 2004, a medical facility director was allocated a singe
budget that could be used to address local operational priorities in
the care of veterans as they occurred. For example, funds could be used
to address critical vacancies in nurse staffing or personnel performing
security, patient scheduling or the medical collections functions as
the need arose. All of these functions are critical to the successful
care and treatment of the patient.
Under the current appropriation structure, the facility director
has limited management flexibility in making operational decisions. For
example, a medical center director may need to hire additional clinical
staff which is paid from the Medical Services appropriation; however,
in certain cases, to accommodate the additional staff the medical
center director may need to hire additional staff to safeguard against
unnecessary and inappropriate medical care, conduct quality assurance,
or perform medical coding, which is paid from the Medical
Administration appropriation. However, if sufficient funding is not
available in the Medical Administration account at the facility to hire
these supporting staff, the director cannot shift funding from the
other medical care appropriations to support this function. Instead,
the director must first seek a realignment of funds between
appropriations at the network level, or at the national level if
network funding availability and flexibility is also limited. If
funding is not available at the national level, VA must notify the
Office of Management and Budget and the Congress of an appropriations
transfer request. This is one way the current multiple appropriation
structure has added complexity to the management of health care at the
facility level and increased the amount of time it takes to implement
operational changes. By combining the two appropriations, the facility
director could immediately hire additional clinical staff and the
appropriate supporting staff.
In addition, the multiple appropriation structure has significantly
increased the volume of financial transactions needed to administer
VA's health care system. Each appropriation is allocated to
approximately 150 separate facilities or program offices. For example,
in 2003, there were approximatelY 30,000 funding transactions to
support the single medical care appropriation structure. In 2005, there
were over 55,000 funding transactions required to support the three
appropriation structure, and this has grown to about 91,000 in 2007.
The significant growth in transaction volume has also increased the
risk of errors and the potential for anti-deficiency violations
Since the creation of the three account structure in FY 2004, there
have been a series of significant unanticipated changes that has made
it very difficult to accurately estimate the exact amounts required in
each appropriation approximately 23 to 24 months prior to the end of
the execution year. For example, in FY 2004 it took until the start of
the fourth quarter (July 2004) to fully implement the new three
appropriation structure. The FY 2005 President's Budget request had
already been submitted in February 2004 prior to any operational
experience at the facility level under the three account structure. The
FY 2006 President's Budget was submitted in February 2005 based on less
than six months actual experience under the three account structure.
Subsequently, an additional $1.5 billion was added to the FY 2005
Medical Services appropriation and an additional $1.452 billion was
provided by Congress to the FY 2006 Medical Services appropriation.
In addition, we have had to continually adjust our estimates for
the three medical care accounts to reflect actual operational
experience in delivering care to veterans at the local level.

COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINICS

The VA budget request includes $9.5 million for Community-Based
Outpatient Clinics. You note that these clinics have shown to be cost
effective and have improved access to high-quality health care for our
veterans. The budget documents [page 1D-3] say that ``as part of the
Strategic Planning process, VA has also initiated a review of
nationwide access in rural areas. Nationally, VA had identified the
underserved areas and will be developing plans to provide access in
those areas.'' Please tell the Committee, for the record, where those
areas are located. Explain more about how these plans will be
developed, and is there funding in the budget request to fund these
rural, underserved areas or are you looking to fund these areas at this
as part of the fiscal year 2010 request?
Response. VHA recognized that delivering health care closer to the
veterans' place of residence was one way to better achieve our mission
of being a patient centered integrated health care organization. As a
result, one of the main focuses of the most recent Strategic Planning
guidance cycle was improving access to care in underserved areas. These
areas include urban, rural, and highly rural, but they are not
differentiated in this process because an area often includes more than
one designation.
For the 2008-2012 Strategic Planning cycle, VHA provided VISNs with
data that demonstrated their performance on drive-time access to
guidelines for primary care (Table 1). VISNs were asked to develop
solutions to meet the needs of veterans in these markets where travel
time exceeded the access standards. Possible solutions included CBOCs,
tele-health, and partnerships with DoD. VHA will proceed with
developing business plans for the CBOCs identified in fiscal years 2008
and 2009 and will re-evaluate the out-year CBOCs in a future cycle.
VHA makes continuous improvements in the process it uses to
identify the need for CBOCs. This most recent strategic planning cycle
focused on improving access to primary care in underserved areas. VHA
is planning to increase the sophistication with which it identifies the
need for CBOCs by evaluating a combination of Geographic access data
and with projections from VA's Enrollee Health Care Projection Model.

Table 1:--ACCESS GUIDELINES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of care Time criteria (minutes) Threshold criteria (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Care............................... 30 min.--Urban................ 70
30 Min.--Rural................
60 Min.--Highly Rural.........
Acute Hospital............................. 60 min.--Urban................ 65
90 Min.--Rural................
120 Min.--Highly Rural........
Tertary Care............................... 240 min.--Urban............... 65
240 Min.--Rural...............
Community Standard--Highly
Rural.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RECOVERY COORDINATORS/WOUNDED WARRIORS

According to your testimony, the VA and DoD signed an agreement
last October to provide Federal recovery coordinators to ensure that
medical services and other benefits are provided to seriously-wounded,
injured, and ill active duty servicemembers and veterans. I know this
program is in its infancy, but please tell the Committee what you can
about how this is being implemented. How many of these Federal recovery
coordinators have been hired? How are they being paid? How many Federal
recovery coordinators is there a need for, and how much funding is in
the budget request for these coordinators?
Response. ``The President's Commission on Care for America's
Returning Wounded Warriors,'' co-chaired by Senator Robert Dole and
Secretary Donna Shalala, endorsed the assignment of a Federal Recovery
Coordinator (FRC), to serve as the primary point of contact for
coordinating clinical and non-clinical care for each Operation Enduring
Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) severely wounded, ill and
injured servicemember and his or her family. Although the Commission
recommended that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
manage the program, VA volunteered to take the lead in establishing the
program in coordination with the Department of Defense (DoD), HHS and
the Public Health Service (PHS) Corps. DoD and VA, through the Senior
Oversight Committee, established the Federal Recovery Coordination
Program (FRCP) whose mission is to facilitate an efficient, effective
and smooth rehabilitation and transition back to military duty or
civilian life. The program is managed by the Care Management and Social
Work Service, Office of Patient Care Services, Veterans Health
Administration (VHA) and is comprised of representatives from VHA and
the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), as well as four
representatives from DoD.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between VA and DoD was signed
on October 30, 2007, for the joint oversight of the FRC Program. In
December 2007, VA hired the FRCP Director and Supervisor. In January
2008, VA hired eight FRCs; however, in March 2008 one FRC who was
located at the National Naval Medical Center died, leaving the program
with a total of seven FRCs in place. VA is actively recruiting two
additional FRCs as soon as possible. These additional FRCs will be
located at Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, and the Naval
Medical Center, San Diego, CA. A third FRC will be selected to replace
the now vacant position at National Naval Medical Center.
Once hired, the current FRC staff attended a joint VA and DoD
training session which was conducted over an intensive 2-week period
which occurred in January 2008. After training, the FRC staff was then
located at the following Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) and are
currently actively receiving patients:
3 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC
2 at National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD
2 at Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX

DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM/WOUNDED WARRIORS

The VA and DoD are piloting a disability evaluation system for
wounded warriors at major medical facilities in the Washington, DC
area. The key features of this pilot project, according to your
testimony, include one medical examination and a single disability
rating determined by the VA with the goal of simplifying benefits,
health care, and rehabilitation for injured servicemembers and
veterans. This is one of two pilot programs that are mentioned in your
testimony, and I applaud you for your work on these. Is there any
concern that as you try to move to a comprehensive program as it
relates to the Dole-Shalala report that these two programs will already
be stovepiped, and the systems that you are setting up to run these
programs won't be able to merge with some larger comprehensive program
that might not be too far off in the future?
Response. VA and DoD are piloting a Disability Evaluation System
(DES) for all servicemembers referred to Medical Evaluation Board/
Physical Evaluation Board (MEB/PEB) in the National Capital Region. The
current pilot program utilizes a single disability rating prepared by
VA that is binding for both VA and DoD. Since this is a pilot, there
are no permanent policies or information technology changes that would
hinder flexibility to implement future comprehensive programs related
to the recommendations of Dole-Shalala, or recommendations by other
groups.
gao report on ``improved operational controls and management data would

ENHANCE VBA'S DISABILITY REEVALUATION PROCESS''

As you know the GAO conducted a study on the VA's disability
reevaluation process. The GAO found that the operational controls do
not adequately ensure that staff schedule or conduct disability
reevaluations as necessary. The GAO recommended, and the VA concurred,
that VA needed to modify its electronic diary system to ensure that
appropriate reevaluations are scheduled to occur; develop additional
methods to ensure accuracy of completed and cancelled reevaluations;
clarify its guidance so that all regional offices use the same criteria
for measuring the timeliness of reevaluations and develop a plan to
collect and analyze data on the results of reevaluations. Please tell
the Committee what the VA has done since this report was released to
address the GAO's findings.
Response. In February 2008, the VETSNET suite of applications was
enhanced to automatically establish electronic ``work items'' for
maturing diaries and other system-generated messages. These electronic
``work items'' remain in the system until resolved. Documentation of
the resolution of the work items (e.g., claim established, due process
notification sent, no action necessary, etc.) must be entered into the
system, providing an audit trail of the disposition of the messages and
diaries.
With this enhancement, diaries and messages may now be managed with
the VETSNET Operations Reports (VOR). These reports also allow regional
offices and Headquarters to assess timeliness of action and
disposition.
Diaries and system messages for claimants paid through the Benefits
Delivery Network (BDN) are still managed using paper VA Forms 20-6560,
which are mailed to regional offices. Currently, over 800,000 veterans
are being paid through VETSNET, and substantially all compensation and
pension records will be converted to VETSNET by July 2009.
As data is collected and accumulated through the VETSNET reports,
we will use the additional information available to assess the
reevaluation process and make appropriate changes.

CHATTANOOGA AREA HEALTH CARE AND CARES DECISION

Undersecretary Kussman, back in 1999 and I helped to create a pilot
program in Chattanooga where the VISN 9 would contract for care locally
that they could not receive at the Outpatient Clinic which is located
in Chattanooga. The alternative was and still is to have my local
veterans drive to Nashville or Murfreesboro for care the Chattanooga
clinic cannot provide. For two years one of my local hospitals,
Erlanger, participated in the pilot program, however they opted not to
continue participating because the VA would not refer patients to a
non-VA facility. (Over the course of the pilot project only 58 patients
were referred to Erlanger.)
In response to this, I worked with former Chairman Taylor to direct
GAO to review the pilot project as well as access to care for
Chattanooga area Vets. In regards to the pilot project the GAO found
that the VA put significant restrictions on what vets were allowed to
be referred to Erlanger.
Additionally, and I think what speaks to the larger problem, GAO
found that at the time 99% or the 16,379 enrolled vets in the 18-county
Chatt area faced travel times that exceeded the VA's guidelines for
accessing inpatient care. In addition 50% or Chatt area enrolled vets
faced travel times that exceeded the VA's 30-minute guideline for
outpatient care.
As I am sure you are aware, since that time the CARES program has
been developed to provide the VA with a national road map charting the
way to better meet the healthcare needs of our veterans.
The final CARES plan released in 2004 recognized the problems in
the Chatt Area and recommended that the VA continue to work to contract
with non-VA providers to meet the needs of the local community.
Could you give me an update on two things: What the VA is doing to
work with non-VA providers to ensure adequate local access to services?
Response. VA has implemented a demonstration project, Project HERO,
intended to assess VA's ability to leverage contracts on a large scale
for these needed services. This project has been implemented in four
VISNs. It requires vendors to meet these internal VA access standards,
provides facilities alternatives to care when internal resources are
not available, and improve sharing of clinical documentation associated
with these external services.
Additionally, VA does contract with available community providers
for case by case fee basis.
Could you update me on the VA's implementation of the 2004 CARES
decision?
Response. Campus Realignments--Tennessee Valley Healthcare System
(HS) has moved all inpatient surgery to the Nashville Campus and
completed the consolidation of all services.
Inpatient Medicine and Surgery--The Commission recommended
increasing inpatient medicine services through a mix of in-house
expansions and community contracts.
The cumulative occupancy rate for FY08 to date at Tennessee Valley
HS--both Nashville and Murfreesboro is 76.4%. This occupancy level has
not necessitated expansion of medicine beds at either facility.
There has been a steady increase in the amount of inpatient care
being contracted in the Chattanooga area:

REVIEW OF INPATIENT SERVICE UTILIZATION--PATIENTS IN CHATTANOOGA SERVICE AREA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patients Treated in the Community.............. 84 122 212 201 267
Patients Treated at TVHS....................... 327 376 437 435 477
Total Patients................................. 411 498 649 636 744
Percent of Patients Receiving Care in the 20.4 24.5 32.6 31.6 35.9
Community.....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the expected growth in veterans living in the Chattanooga
service area, it is expected the need for continued contract and fee
basis inpatient services will continue to grow.
Outpatient Primary and Specialty Care--The Commission recommended
expanding services at current sites of care and use community
contracts.
The Chattanooga CBOC is the most heavily utilized Tennessee Valley
HS clinic, serving 12,682 veterans in Fiscal Year 2007. Tennessee
Valley HS has submitted a concept paper for a new capital lease for a
replacement clinic of 50,000 NUSF in the Chattanooga area. In the
interim they are in the process of leasing administrative space near
the CBOC to allow for additional clinical space.
The following additional staff has been added at the existing site:
An additional primary care team
8 additional mental health providers
A full-time Cardiologist
Contract provider for Orthopedics while recruitment is
underway for a staff Orthopedic Surgeon
Ophthalmology, Podiatry and other subspecialties are
referred to community providers or to one of the main Tennessee Valley
HS campuses.
In response to increasing demand for diagnostic services, in
December 2005, a VA Imaging Center was opened in the same complex as
the CBOC. The center offers diagnostic radiology, CT scans, bone
density studies, ultrasound, and complete audiology testing. Pulmonary
function tests are planned for the future, and possibly cardiac stress
testing.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Wamp.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Farr.]

Last year this Subcommittee and the Congress instituted the largest
funding increase in the VA's history. Given that the VA had a previous
$1.7 billion shortfall in their health care budget,
Is the VA accurately anticipating sufficient funding to
meet the anticipated health care needs of an aging veterans'
population?
Response. VA's actuarial model accounts for the fact that enrollees
will need more health care services as they age, and the utilization
and expenditure projections reflect those services that they are
expected to receive from VA. VA does an annual data match of enrollees'
actual utilization in VA and Medicare that provides a fairly complete
picture of the health care utilization patterns of the age 65 and older
enrollee population.
VA also recognizes that there will be a growing need for long-term
care services as our population ages. VA's goal of improving the
offering of long-term care services with an emphasis on home and
community-based programs will assist VA in planning to meet the
increasing demand for these services by our aging as well as our newest
generation of veterans.
To accomplish this goal, VA has increased its Medical Care budget
obligation request for long-term care services, particularly home and
community based services, in each of the past 4 years (reported in
millions of dollars). VA has targeted its increased budget dollars
toward rehabilitation and longitudinal home care as alternatives to
institutional care. VA is also expanding existing capabilities in long-
term care, including care coordination and telehealth technologies; and
will continue to improve services for traumatic brain injured veterans
through targeted day health and respite care centers.
Is the VA accurately anticipating sufficient funding for veterans
returning from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Response. In FY 2009, VA estimates that it will treat over 333,000
OEF/OIF veterans at a cost of approximately $1.27 billion. This
estimate is based on the actual enrollment rates, age, gender,
morbidity, and reliance on VA health care services of the enrolled OEF/
OIF population. OEF/OIF veterans have significantly different VA health
care utilization patterns than non-OEF/OIF enrollees, and this is
reflected in the estimates above. For example, when modeling expected
demand for PTSD residential rehab services for the OEF/OIF cohort, the
model reflects the fact that they are expected to need eight times the
amount of these services compared to non-OEF/OIF enrollees. The model
also reflects OEF/OIF enrollees' increased need for other health care
services, including physical medicine, prosthetics, and outpatient
psychiatric and substance abuse treatment. On the other hand,
experience indicates that OEF/OIF enrollees seek about half as much
inpatient acute surgery care from VA as non-OEF/OIF enrollees.
Many unknowns will influence the number and type of services that
VA will need to provide OEF/OIF veterans, including the duration of the
conflict, when OEF/OIF veterans are demobilized, and the impact of our
enhanced outreach efforts. VA has estimated the health care needs of
OEF/OIF veterans based on what we currently know about the impact of
the conflict. To ensure we are able to care for all returning OEF/OIF
veterans, we have made additional investments in our medical care
budget and we monitor actual expenditures against budget levels on a
monthly basis.

VET CENTERS

I have heard from some employees at the VA that some older veterans
are being turned away or put to the back of the line in favor of
veterans from the GWOT. The last thing we want to see is vets competing
for services among themselves.
What can you tell us about access to care being received
at local Vet Centers?
Response. The Readjustment Counseling Service (RCS) mission is to
provide outreach and readjustment counseling to all combat veterans of
any war or armed conflict, and to the members of their families. The
number of Vietnam veterans served at Vet Centers has actually increased
over the last three years, and Vietnam veterans continue to make
approximately 70% of all the visits provided by the Vet Centers. Also,
Vet Centers continue to report having no waiting list for new veterans,
of any combat era, to be seen and evaluated. Veterans without
appointments are welcome to walk into a Vet Center, and our standard is
for them to be seen by a counselor within 30 minutes for an evaluation
and to schedule follow-up appointment.

SEAMLESS TRANSITION BETWEEN VA AND DOD

When an active duty soldier is honorable discharged, the Department
of Defense must transfer that soldier's records to the VA. There have
been problems in the past making this a timely action, and some
soldiers discharged with a service connected disability have discovered
that the DoD and the VA do not always use the same disability ratings
system. You mentioned in your testimony that the VA and the DoD need to
``continue'' progress on interoperable electronic medical record
systems.
What progress has been made previously?
Response. VA and DoD have made significant progress toward the
development of interoperable electronic health record systems. Since
2002, DoD has transferred available electronic records on approximately
4.3 millions service members that have separated from active duty. DoD
transferred these records to a jointly developed secure repository,
known as the Federal Health Information Exchange (FHIE), where the
records are available for viewing by VA clinicians treating these
veterans and VBA staff adjudicating disability claims. DoD also has
transferred pre- and post- deployment health assessment and post
deployment health reassessment forms in electronic format on over
880,000 patients. These forms are also available for viewing in FHIE.
In 2004, VA and DoD began sharing current electronic health data in
viewable format bidirectionally through the Bidirectional Health
Information Exchange. At present, VA and DoD have increased this data
exchange to now include outpatient medication, allergy information,
laboratory results, radiology reports, ambulatory encounter notes,
problem lists, procedures, and discharge summaries. These data are
exchanged on shared patients that receive health care from both VA and
DoD facilities and are available at every DoD military treatment
facility and VA medical center (VAMC), including key facilities
treating wounded warriors, such as Walter Reed and Brooke Army Medical
Centers, Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, and Landstuhl
(Germany) Regional Medical Center. DoD also is sending clinical theater
information electronically in order to address issues related to
battlefield injuries.
In support of our most seriously ill and injured, DoD is sending
radiology images and scanning the entire medical record at these
facilities and sending it to the four Level 1 VA polytrauma centers
that are receiving these patients for recovery and rehabilitation.

NON-INSTITUTIONAL LONG-TERM CARE

Dr. Kussman, you also mention in your testimony that there exists
generational differences in providing long-term care to newer veterans.
Accordingly, you list access to modern technologies as a means of
addressing some of these generational differences.
Has the VA projected how many potential long-term care
patients may enter the system from Iraq and Afghanistan--not 30 years
from now but starting now and in the near future?
Response. VA has not made formal projections of long-term care
demand for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Currently, there are fewer
than 500 veterans from these conflicts who require long-term care
services. VA has sufficient capacity to meet both the nursing home and
home and community based care needs of these veterans.
The number of non-institutional long-term care patients is expected
to grow by the VA in the next several years. In your testimony, Dr.
Kussman, you mention that the VA is expanding the services provided by
organizations in the community.
Your testimony mentions that you are expecting
approximately a 40% increase in the number of patients receiving non-
institutional long-term care. What criteria are you using to project
that increase?
Response. The growth in non-institutional long-term care in the FY
2009 Congressional Budget Submission reflects VA's long range plan to
shift resources to home and community based services, while maintaining
capacity in nursing home care. VA believes that a comprehensive
approach of noninstitutional care can limit increases in the demand for
nursing home care. This approach also reflects veterans' preference for
home based services.
VA's estimates of demand for home care services are based on a
model which measures actual home care utilization by age, disability
level, marital status, and veterans' use of these services. Demand is
expected to remain robust for a number of years.
The FY 2009 increase appears particularly strong because, for the
first time in the Congressional Submission, VA has added the long-term
care portion of its Home Telehealth Program to the mix of non-
institutional care services. The Home Telehealth Program average daily
census increases 80 percent from FY 2008 to FY 2009.
Can you tell the committee, as a percentage, how many
veterans receive some form of non-institutional long-term care?
Response. In FY 2007, fifty percent of VA's total extended care
patient population received some form of care in either non-
institutional or enriched housing settings. Of the total veteran
population enrolled in VA for health care, two percent received non-
institutional long-term care services.
How much does it cost the VA, per patient, to provide in-
home services to veterans? How does this compare to the residential
care rates at VA homes?
Response: In FY 2007, the average cost to provide in-home services
to veterans was approximately $42 per day. The average daily rate for
care in VA nursing homes was $654 per day in FY 2007 . VA is unable to
separate the ``residential'' cost of nursing home care from the total
cost of that care.
How does the VA select the service provider for these
services?
How does the VA verify the quality of service from
noninstitutional providers?
Does the VA rate the quality and satisfaction with in-home
services compared to institutionalized services?
Response. VA chooses home and community based care providers on the
basis of quality, geographic coverage, and cost. VA uses Medicare and
Medicaid certified agencies to provide care. Certification is the
accepted standard for ensuring a quality service. VA also examines the
findings of State Health Departments on agencies and reviews the
findings on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Website,
Home Health Compare. While VA does not ``rate'' the quality of care
agencies provide or veteran satisfaction, VA does measure quality
through CMS and the States and seeks veterans' reactions to the
services provided and their satisfaction through telephone interviews
of one-third of those receiving services.

RURAL HEALTH CARE

Your testimony mentioned the expansion of the mental health care
staff and the expansion of the telemental health program in order to
reach additional patients.
How will the VA expand telemental health care to people
who do not live in an area that offers the broadband connection
necessary for delivering these services?
Response. Telemental health services are provided by VA to veteran
patients in two ways in areas where broadband services are an issue.
First, telemental health services are provided between hospitals and
clinics; and second telemental health is provided into the patients'
homes via home telemental health. In terms of services provided between
hospitals and clinics in areas that are under-provisioned with DSL/
broadband connectivity, video devices can be deployed utilizing
integrated switched data network (ISDN) with 256K capacity to interface
to VA ISDN gateways strategically located and consolidated throughout
the VA enterprise network. Improvements in the past several years in
video compression algorithms have provided higher quality video
connection experience utilizing affordable basic rate interface lines
where broadband is not available. In terms of providing home telemental
health services directly into veteran patients' homes, VA is developing
a business plan and service strategy to accomplish this through a range
of telecommunications modalities. At this time, VA does not have the
definitive solution to accomplish this. Legal, technical, and financial
aspects are being further explored and developed as VA endeavors to
extend health care as close to the veteran community as possible.
What does your outreach program advertising these services
entail? Can you provide the committee with some specific examples?
Response. Telemental health expansion is part of VA's overall
mental health expansion. It is one way to allow veterans access to
care; therefore it fits within general activities occurring nationally
and locally to raise awareness among veteran patients about the
availability of mental health services in VA. VA's Office of Care
Coordination and associated staff at the Veteran Integrated Service
Network (VISN) and local facility level market telemental health
services internally to staff to promote the increased use of telemental
health. Nationwide, VISN and facility staff members promote the use of
telemental health services to Veteran Service Organizations.

VISN STRUCTURE

As you are aware, the Veteran Integrated Service Network is the
system that oversees the operation of regional veterans' hospitals and
outpatient service centers.
Please tell the committee your views on the effectiveness
of the VISN structure for providing health care.
What recommendations can you give to the committee to
improve the VISN system?
Response. VA's structural transformation from a hospital system to
a health care system, commonly known as Veterans Integrated Service
Networks (VISN) has been a success. This structural transformation
facilitated the shift from an inpatient hospital based system to an
integrated patient-centered health care system, which provides the most
effective and efficient care for veterans.
The VISNs provide broad and general operational direction and
supervision to medical center field operations, which include fiscal
and personal resource management, information technology, business
operations, canteen service, clinical liaison, planning, quality
management, safety, industrial hygiene, environment management,
emergency management, engineering operations and policy. The span of
control is reasonable and the geographical layout has worked well over
the past 10 years.
HeartMath is a behavioral therapy, with assistive technology, that
helps reduce stress and anxiety. The DOD is using it to help military
personnel returning from combat who may have mental health issues. In
18 VA clinics around the country and 10 DOD facilities doctors are
using HeartMath to assist servicemen and veterans with PTSD and other
mental health issues.
Are you familiar with HeartMath and how it is being employed at VA
sites?
Response. A phone meeting occurred between the Office of Mental
Health Services (OMHS) in the Department of Veterans and the Department
of Defense to review this request. VA had no prior knowledge of the
Heart Math device, other than a review of the website for this device.
DoD has some experience with it. According to DoD, HeartMath provides a
measure of heart rate variability and balance of cardiovascular tone.
DoD has some experience with its use on a trial basis in some settings
that do relaxation training. Relaxation training has various uses, and
DoD has used it as an adjunct to PTSD treatment, although only in a few
sites and not routinely. VA is not aware of any evidence supporting its
use as a treatment for PTSD per se, and DoD has not collected evidence
regarding the efficacy or effectiveness of HeartMath for other
problems.
VA recommends that the vendor for this device be invited to make a
presentation, particularly focusing on the scientific evidence that
would support its efficacy in relation to specific medical or mental
health conditions. VA will contact the vendor and extend an invitation
for a presentation.
In 2006 Congress enacted law that required the VA to add marriage
and family therapists to its list of service providers. To date, the VA
has not done so.
How and when will the VA add marriage and family
therapists to its list of service providers? What is taking so long to
implement the law?
Response. Section 201 of Public Law 109-461 added Marriage and
Family Therapists (MFTs) and Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs) to
section 7401 (3) of title 38, United States Code. This gave the
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) the option of employing
individuals with these credentials under our Hybrid Title 38 employment
system.
For many years, VHA has, and continues to successfully hire
individuals with master's degrees in mental health counseling, marriage
and family counseling, and related fields as readjustment counseling
therapists in our Vet Centers. In accordance with guidelines
established by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, these positions
are properly classified in the GS-101, Social Science series. Qualified
LPCs and MFTs may be hired in this series. VHA is considering the
possibility of utilizing individuals with these credentials in its
medical centers to further enhance mental health staffing needs.
In May 2007, VHA provided a report entitled ``Marriage and Family
Therapy Workload'' to leadership on the Senate and House Committees on
Veterans' Affairs, in accordance with the requirements of section 201
of Public Law 109-461. As a follow-up to that report, a recently
initiated occupational study is assessing the current and future use of
therapists and counselors within VHA. During this endeavor, VHA has
been in contact with key officials at the American Association for
Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the
American Mental Health Counselors Association, and VA professionals in
the areas of mental health, social work and pastoral counseling. The
information we have obtained from these organizations, along with a
survey of facility staffing and health care needs VHA will undertake in
the next few months, will allow us to determine the most appropriate
use of these professionals in our health care system. No changes to
position descriptions or establishment of occupational series specific
to MFTs or LPCs will be made until a complete evaluation of the study
results has been finalized.
The VA operates training and rehab centers to help blinded or
vision-impaired veterans adjust to the loss of vision. The Palo Alto
polytrauma center has one such center.
How many blind/vision training and rehab centers does the
VA operate?
Response. Current blind rehabilitation services are provided
through ten residential Blind Rehabilitation Centers that provide
comprehensive blind rehabilitation training. The locations are noted
below:
West Haven, Connecticut
Augusta, Georgia
Birmingham, Alabama
West Palm Beach, Florida
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Hines, Illinois
Waco, Texas
Tucson, Arizona
American Lake, Washington
Palo Alto, California
Thirty-eight blind rehabilitation outpatient specialists (BROS)
provide blind rehabilitation training to veterans and their families
who may not be able to travel to a Blind Rehabilitation Center. BROS
services are provided to veterans in the most appropriate setting, for
example, home, college, nursing home, work site, and assisted living
environments. BROS are located at VAMC's and outpatient clinics and
serve veterans at the Vet Centers.
One hundred sixty-four visual impairment service team (VIST)
coordinators provide case management for legally blind and severely
visually impaired veterans. VIST coordinator duties include providing
and/or arranging for the provision of appropriate treatment in order to
enhance a blind veteran's functioning. VIST coordinators are located in
VAMC's, outpatient clinics, and CBOCs and serve veterans at the Vet
Centers.
Two Visual Impairment Services Outpatient Rehabilitation (VISOR)
Programs are outpatient, intermediate short-term rehabilitation
programs. They provide safe overnight accommodations for veterans who
are visually impaired and require temporary lodging. The programs are
located in Lebanon, PA, and West Haven, CT.
Do blinded veterans have the right to choose to be sent
to an intensive rehabilitation program outside of the blindness VA
system, and have that vocational Rehabilitation funded by the VA?
Response. Rehabilitation services provided by VA fall into the
categories of ``vocational rehabilitation,'' which is provided by the
Veteran Benefits Administration (VBA), and ``clinical blind
rehabilitation,'' which is provided by the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA). VA continually assesses the unique needs of all
blinded veterans and when this is indicated in an individual patient's
care, engages the private sector to provide care as a complement to the
VA system of care. In circumstances where VA is not able to provide the
needed services, or required services are geographically inaccessible,
title 38 United States Code Sec. 1703 provides authority for VA to
contract or purchase services from non-VA sources for certain
categories of veterans.
If so, how many blind Veterans have been sent for
training outside of the VA, and has the VA funded that rehabilitation?
Response. Since 2003, VHA Blind Rehabilitation Program has referred
228 blind or visually impaired veterans or service members for
Vocational Rehabilitation training outside of the VA system. VA paid
for 3 private Vocational Rehabilitation training programs, while 225
veterans or service members received State Vocational Rehabilitation
training in their home environment at no cost to the veteran.
Can you give me some sense of the kind of training or
rehab that goes on in the VA centers and how that compares to the
rehabilitation blind-centric organizations provide to newly blinded
persons?
Response. VA Blind Rehabilitation Services are provided by
employees who are university-trained professionals in blind
rehabilitation, optometry, psychology, social work, and nursing.
Inpatient VA Blind Rehabilitation Centers (BRC) services are accredited
by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF).
VA BRCs provide assessment, evaluation, rehabilitation planning and
training in the areas of:
Orientation and mobility--orientation to the
environment, spatial awareness, safe movement, travel training, use of
public transportation, effective use of technology such as global
positioning systems.
Communication--the ability to send and read written
materials to self and others, e.g. reading; writing; using
organizational strategies such as notes to self; the use of Braille;
and speech-output technology.
Activities of daily living--personal care, grooming,
health care, care of clothing, household cleaning and management, meal
preparation including shopping, financial management.
Manual skills--sensory integration, household repair,
woodworking, small engine repair.
Computer technology--use of computers for word-
processing, access to Internet, email and other personal uses for
computers.
Vision rehabilitation--provision of optical and
electronic devices that magnify images so that they can be seen by
veterans who retain sufficient vision to use their sight effectively
for daily tasks. Training in the use of vision and devices that allow
veterans to read, write, watch television, access computers, manage
money, etc., using vision.
Counseling--adjustment to blindness, peer-support,
individual counseling by psychologists and social workers.
Health management--lifestyle, fitness, exercise
counseling and regimens, dietary and medication management and
compliance (e.g., diabetes control), oversight for veterans who have
medical conditions that require medical support (e.g., on dialysis,
COPD), mental health services for veterans who require it (e.g., PTSD).
Leisure and recreational activities--participation in
sports, hobbies and outings that provide opportunities to use skills
developed in the classroom, and socialization with fellow veterans in
the program.
Family training programs--Family members are invited to
the program for several days of classes in understanding visual
impairment and blindness, attend classes with their veterans, and
receive counseling and support in understanding issues associated with
the veteran's increased skill and independence.
Blind-centric organizations provide training similar to that
provided by VA Blind Rehabilitation Centers, with a similar philosophy
to provide the milieu of assessment, instruction, and support services
to help individuals regain skills, adjust to blindness, function
independently. The primary differences between VA's program and blind-
centric organizations are:
VA BRC length of stay is determined by the veteran's
goals for training and assessment of the veteran's current level of
ability. Programs are an average of 6-8 weeks, and veterans may return
for additional training. Blind-centric programs require clients to
attend their centers for about 6 months.
VA BRCs hire only university-trained professionals in
specific disciplines that are required for blind rehabilitation. Blind-
centric programs do not require university training for their staff who
provide instruction, and frequently utilize instructors who are blind
as having the requisite training and background to train others who are
blind.
VA BRCs are CARF accredited. Blind-centric programs are
not CARF accredited.
VA BRCs provide medical and nursing care for inpatient
veterans. Blind-centric programs do not provide medical and nursing
care for their clients.
VA BRCs provide vision rehabilitation services for
veterans with limited sight. Blind-centric programs do not provide
vision rehabilitation services, nor do they emphasize the use of vision
in daily life for clients who have useful vision; instead, clients with
vision are blindfolded and taught to use other senses.
VA BRC staff provides incremental training to emphasize
safety. The difficulty of lessons are gradually increased to assure
that veterans are challenged to learn without experiencing
circumstances that could be adverse, particularly for elderly veterans,
or those with traumatic brain injury. Blind-centric programs emphasize
a ``discovery learning method'' that allows clients who are blind to
resolve difficulties on their own; e.g., getting lost on a travel
training lesson.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Farr.]
Tuesday, March 11, 2008.

U.S. NAVY

WITNESSES

ADMIRAL GARY ROUGHEAD, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS GENERAL JAMES T.
CONWAY, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Good afternoon. I want to welcome
everyone to our fiscal year 2009 Navy and Marine Corps hearing
for military construction and family housing.
Admiral Roughead, welcome to our committee.
Admiral Roughead. Thank you very much for having me.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for your lifetime of service.
Admiral Roughead. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. General Conway, welcome back to our
subcommittee. It is good to have you back.
And thank you both, and your families, and all you do for
our families and our country.
This will be another banner year for Navy and Marine Corps
MILCON, especially the Marine Corps. The total request is $3.1
billion, a 41 percent increase over last year's request. For
the Marine Corps alone, the request is over $2 billion. I think
it is safe to say it may be the largest MILCON budget the
Marine Corps has ever requested.
Many of these increases are due to the Marines continuing
efforts to add another 27,000 personnel to its permanent end
strength by 2011. The total request for growing the force in
fiscal year 2009 is $1.4 billion. Much of this money would be
invested in new barracks.
We want to have a series of questions and discuss a range
of issues today, but before we proceed with your opening
comments, I would like to recognize our ranking member, Mr.
Wamp, for any comments he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Admiral, General, it is an honor to even be sitting
here at the table with you. I appreciate very much your service
to our country and the people that you represent sitting here
today.
The chairman and I have a great relationship. We are off to
a very good start. And I am the new kid on the block, but I
admire you, and I look forward to working with him to make sure
that you have everything you need to meet the demands of today
and tomorrow, especially given the changes that we know are
underway with a ramped up force of the United States Marine
Corps.
I have read the background and look forward to today and
then working with you in the months and years ahead to make
sure that you have what you need.
We are grateful for your service, and thank you for your
presence here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, sir.
Admiral Roughead is appearing here before the subcommittee
for the first time as Chief of Naval Operations. Briefly, for
the record, let me say that he has 35 years of active service,
including six operational commands, and is a 1973 graduate of
Annapolis.
He became the Chief of Naval Operations on September 29,
2007 and was previously assigned as commander of Fleet Forces
Command. He also served as the Deputy Commander of the Pacific
Command, Navy Chief of Legislative Affairs--we apologize you
had that responsibility--and commandant of the Naval Academy.
General James T. Conway, before our committee once again,
Commandant of the Marine Corps; has 38 years of service, and
thank you again for that service.
He was commissioned as an infantry officer in 1970. He has
been the Commandant of the Marine Corps since November of 2006.
He commanded the first Marine expeditionary force during two
tours in Iraq. He served as president of the Marine Corps
University at Quantico and commanded a battalion landing team
in Desert Storm. A native of Walnut Ridge, Arkansas. Now, where
is Walnut Ridge, Arkansas.
General Conway. It is up in the northeastern part of the
state, probably closer to Jonesboro.
Mr. Edwards. All right. I used to spend summers in a little
town called Warren, Arkansas, pine and tomato countries.
Without objection, your formal testimony will be submitted
for the record, and I would now like to recognize you, Admiral
Roughead, for any opening comments you would care to make and
then General Conway to follow.

Statement of Admiral Gary Roughead

Admiral Roughead. Chairman Edwards, Representative Wamp, it
is my honor to appear before you today, representing the
dedicated Sailors and civilians of our Navy who are out and
about carrying out our maritime strategy and doing essential
work for our nation around the globe.
For our Sailors to be forward, they must be individually
ready and mission ready, and shore infrastructure is essential
to their success. To support our mission, our bases must have
scalable, agile and adaptive capabilities for our warfighters,
our ships and our aircraft.
For warfighters, that means facilities that provide
innovative and relevant training. For our ships and aircraft,
it means the ability to properly maintain, equip and prepare
today and tomorrow the force structure, the force laydown and
the operational concepts that we are going to use.
To optimize individual readiness, shore installations must
provide an environment which enables two things: A quality of
work and a quality of life that our Sailors and Navy civilians
deserve. Maintaining quality of work means we provide our
Sailors and Navy civilians with the facilities and support to
get the job done efficiently and effectively, such as optimized
maintenance facilities, communications infrastructure and pier
and airfield upgrades.
Sustaining quality of life means that we must address not
only the needs of the Navy Sailor and Navy civilian but those
of our families as well. Those resources include quality
medical facilities, fitness centers for health and physical
readiness, child care facilities and housing where Sailors can
enjoy their time at home and the assurance of safety of their
families when they are far away.
In recent years, our shore facilities deteriorated as our
investments focused on field readiness. This deterioration
impacts our ability to support our Fleet and thereby affects
our Sailors' quality of work. Sailors need the piers and shore
repair facilities to keep the Fleet ready.
It also has a direct effect on our Sailors' standard of
living. Housing is a crucial element to this, but lack of
available, affordable child care is consistently ranked as a
top readiness and retention issue.
To address this need, we have requested funding for an
additional 1,320 spaces at our child development centers and
homes this year. We are grateful for your support of our
public-private ventures, which satisfy critical housing needs.
These and other important initiatives will improve recruiting
and encourage Sailors, Navy civilians and their families to
stay Navy.
To recapitalize our facilities and sustain our operational
requirements today and in the future, we must make the right
investments and the right capabilities and services at the
right installations now. Navy Installation Command has made
progress by leveraging best practices and consolidating budget
development. The Shore Readiness Board of Directors that I
created in November, shortly after I became the Chief of Naval
Operations, will further allocate funds to the appropriate
capabilities.
With the 2009 budget, we will have the necessary resources
to maintain our readiness.
I thank you and the committee again for your time today and
for your continued support of the 600,000 Sailors, Navy
civilians and our families.
I stand ready for your questions.
[Prepared statement of Admiral Gary Roughead follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.097

Mr. Edwards. Thank you for your comments.
General Conway.

Statement of General James T. Conway

General Conway. Chairman Edwards and Congressman Wamp, it
is my pleasure to always provide you with forthright analysis
assessments here at the Marine Corps. I bear that in mind as we
appear before you today.
The Marine Corps retains the mission to provide a
multicapable force for our nation, the two-fisted fighter, if
you will, able to destroy enemy formations with our air and
ground team in major contingencies but also able to fall back
on our--and warfare skills all over decades of conflict.
Our magnificent patriots have been extremely effective in
disrupting insurgents and the Al Qaida in the Al Anbar
province. In the spirit of jointness, I would note that it has
been Marines and soldiers and Sailors in a composite effort
over time that has brought success there.
We are still supporting a surge in Iraq, and we have
already shifted from population protection to transitioning
security responsibilities to Iraqi security forces, and Iraq
will be stepping up to the task. While it may not be our core
competency, Marines have addressed the nation-building aspects
of our duties with enthusiasm and determination.
In answer to the most recent call from the Secretary of
Defense, we are also deploying more than 3,000 Marines to
Afghanistan. There, Marines will assist the joint force in
either gaining or maintaining momentum there. We fall in on our
expeditionary ethos of living hard and fighting well as part of
an air-ground team.
We do, however, have a significant issue with our families,
though the Marines are doing extremely well. Simply put, they
are proud of their contributions to this war, but they are
tired. We owe it to those families to put our family service
programs onto a wartime footing. For too long, our programs
have been borne on the backs of volunteers, perhaps acceptable
during peacetime, but untenable during a protracted conflict.
The Congress has been exceptionally supportive in enabling us
to make good on the promise to do more.
Of course, we look forward to our obligations to the
nation, and we have learned lessons in trying to build a force
as we fight. We are growing our force, but it is more than just
manpower. This growth requires training, infrastructure and
equipment to meet the needs of our country. You have helped us
meet those requirements with steady support and encouragement,
and for that, we certainly thank you.
For our infrastructure, the Marine Corps has dedicated
funding more than eight times our historical average--your
point earlier, sir--for barracks and construction; however,
this increase is the result of more than just our growth. For
the longest time, we placed some of our operational priorities
above these projects. Frankly, we put ourselves in--with
regards to our barracks. We now have a severe backlog of repair
needs and construction requirements.
I think the photos in my written statement will provide you
an appreciation of the conditions of some of our most dire
barracks, some of which were built actually during the Korean
War.
We are committed to providing adequate billeting for all of
our existing, unmarried, junior enlisted Marines and non-
commissioned officers by 2012 and for our increased end
strength by 2014.
On behalf of your Marines, I extend a great appreciation
for your support this year, and I thank you in advance for your
efforts on behalf of our brave Servicemen and women who are in
harm's way.
I assure you that the Marine Corps appreciates the
increasing competition for the nation's discretionary
resources, and we will continue to provide a tangible return on
every dollar spent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Prepared statement of General James T. Conway follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.109

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.113

Mr. Edwards. Great.
Thank you, both.

SINGLE VS. MARRIED SERVICEMEMBERS

Could I ask you, both, just for the record, what percentage
of your personnel are married versus single?
Admiral Roughead. Mr. Chairman, for us, it is in the--I
want to say in the 70 percent range. I can find you the exact
number, but it really is around 70 to 80 percent. And many of
them, as you know, are dual-income families, which really is
the driver behind a lot of the child care initiatives and
family support programs.
General Conway. And for us, it is much less than that. It
is 40 to 45 percent.
Mr. Edwards. Forty to 45 percent? Okay.

INADEQUATE HOUSING

One of the questions that I ask every year, and I want to
establish a track record so we can trace it, is based on DOD
definitions, how many personnel do you have in families living
in inadequate housing and/or inadequate barracks today?
General Conway, you mentioned 2012 and 2014 as the end goal
for having them in housing that meet standards. Could you tell
me, if you have access to that, how many personnel are living
in housing or barracks that don't meet basic DOD standards? And
would you define what those standards are?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. For our family quarters, the
definition of inadequacy is any unit that requires over $50,000
in repair. In the continental United States, we do not have
quarters that fall into that category, but we do have quarters
outside of the continental United States that are considered
inadequate, specifically 46 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 736 in
Sasebo, Japan and six in Guam.
With regard to our single accommodations, single Sailor
accommodations, the requirement for us is a one-plus-one
configuration for our barracks with a 90-square-foot per person
square footage. At the end of this year, we will have
eliminated the inadequate accommodations for our permanent
party Sailors.
As you know, we are working to move our E-3 and below and
E-4, less than four years of service, off of our ships and
provide them with a homeport ashore. At the present time, I
have 9,000 Sailors who do not have accommodations. By the end
of 2010, I will have that number down to 2,100. That does not
mean that they will be in a one-plus-one configuration. My
priority is to give them an option off the ship first, and so
that is what we are continuing.
Mr. Edwards. Admiral, just for the record--and this is now
a DOD-wide definition of adequate family housing, not a Navy
unilateral decision--but, technically, under the definition of
adequate family housing, a family, mother and dad with two
children under the age of 10, could be living in a home, say, a
two or three-bedroom home, and that home might need $49,999
worth of repairs--a leaky roof, dishwasher and dryer don't
work, floors are warped--but for $49,999 you could fix that
home. But even if the Navy had no intention of fixing that
home, that would technically be defined as adequate housing.
I hope there are not many cases like that, but is it
correct that technically that home would be defined as adequate
housing, because for just $50,000 you could fix it and it would
meet standards; is that correct?
Admiral Roughead. That would be the technical definition.
It would technically be under the adequate standard.
Mr. Edwards. I hope we can work with you on this. I just
think for obvious reasons that standard doesn't really give the
services or the Congress the data we need to figure out how
many people are truly living in housing that they shouldn't be
living in. But I think you told me earlier, on average, you are
putting about $8,000----
Admiral Roughead. On average, it is about $8,000, which I
think speaks to the quality and repair of the homes that our
folks are living in.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Admiral Roughead. And also, as we spoke, the authorizations
that we have been given by the Congress to pursue public-
private ventures has, in my entire time in the Navy, which is,
as you so kindly mentioned to be about 35 years, I have never
seen our Sailors live in the kind of housing as they currently
are. And I believe that has been made possible through your
endorsement and approval of the public-private ventures.
Mr. Edwards. That is great news to hear. Thank you.
General Conway?
General Conway. Sure. I will get back to you, if I can,
with the exact numbers, but just to give you an overarching
perspective, let me say that we do have substandard housing in
both the United States and overseas for some of our families
that are based there.
[The information follows:]

As of January 2008, there were 69 families remaining in inadequate
government-owned family housing. There were another 2,915 families
remaining in inadequate privatized housing.
As of the end of Fiscal Year 2007 contracts were in place to
eliminate all inadequate units. As of January 2008, there remained 175
inadequate government-owned family housing units scheduled to be
demolished as part of an FY 2007 MILCON project. As of the end of
January 2008, there remained another 4,349 inadequate homes that are
scheduled to be demolished through privatization.
As of January 2008, there were 2,278 Marines living in inadequate,
ganghead troop energy/surge barracks at Camp Pendleton (Camp Horno) and
Camp Lejeune (French Creek).
As of January 2008, there were 4,233 inadequate barracks spaces.

But I would hasten to say that we are fast overtaking those
issues with the public-private ventures. By this year, we are
at about 96 percent of those public-private ventures that are
effective, and in another couple of years it is going to be at
97 percent. And the few exceptions that we have in the United
States will be conscious exceptions for valid reasons. So this
whole public-private venture concept has just been a tremendous
windfall to us.
When a Marine sergeant with four children can have a 2,300-
square-foot house overlooking the Pacific, you know that things
are definitely looking up.
I would add that I don't know how many Marines I have
talked to overseas who say that they had a level of comfort
leaving their families back on the base now because it is such
a nicer community and a nice place, and the family is not
thinking about going home for the duration of the deployment.
So it really helps reduce the consternation given the tempo
that we are experiencing.
I wish I could say the same about the barracks; I cannot.
We have barracks that were built well before the Korean War and
World War II. I am not proud to say that as an institution we
have done this to ourselves in a very real sense, to the degree
that we have taken available monies and simply not put them
against the housing. We have prioritized other things ahead of
housing now for a long time to the point where we are
currently, as I said in the statement--
Unlike the other Services, we look to billet our young
Marines, E-1 through E-3, in two-man quarters. After they
become an NCO, then they can expect a single room with a head
facility. But until that time, we think it is good for us as an
institution, because we are the youngest of all the Services,
by far, and it is also good for the nation, because we save
some monies in not asking for that single-man kind of
capability.
We have a program that is built through 2012 that will take
care of those billeting concerns. My predecessor finally
slapped the table and said, ``We have got to do something about
this, the time is now,'' and here is a program, certainly, that
is underway.
As you mentioned, sir, in your opening statement, we also
funded now for some of those additional quarters we are going
to have to have by 2012, 2014 as we bring new Marines onboard,
those additional 27,000 Marines.
So we are not out of the woods by any stretch of the
imagination, but I think, comparatively, we are much better off
than we were at one time, and we see some definite lights on
the horizon.
Mr. Edwards. Would you have a ballpark guess as to how many
barracks right now don't meet what you would consider to be
standards for Marines?
General Conway. Sir, I would say it is probably at least
half.
Mr. Edwards. Half. What would that number--in real numbers,
how many barracks would that be?
General Conway. Sir, the program for new barracks is
calling for 30, I think, so I hate to give you a rough
estimation but if you are looking at essentially half of that
being substandard at some point, you are----
Mr. Edwards. 30 barracks?
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Different barracks projects?
General Conway. Different buildings; yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. You meant in terms of the number of
individual Marines that are living in barracks that we don't
believe meets modern standards.
General Conway. Well, part of that would be a distortion
because we have got so many people overseas, and so that would
not be a correct detail. I can get all that for you----
Mr. Edwards. Could you?
General Conway [continuing]. And lay out those that are
deployed and not----
Mr. Edwards. Okay. If you wouldn't mind giving us the hard
numbers, because I think each year we just want to compare how
we are doing this year, and I think we are making progress.
Everybody deserves credit for that, but if you could follow up
with the hard facts, that would be great.
General Conway. Absolutely.
[The information follows:]

As of January 2008, there were 69 families remaining in inadequate
government-owned family housing. There were another 2,915 families
remaining in inadequate privatized housing.
As of the end of Fiscal Year 2007 contracts were in place to
eliminate all inadequate units. As of January 2008, there remained 175
inadequate government-owned family housing units scheduled to be
demolished as part of an FY 2007 MILCON project. As of the end of
January 2008, there remained another 4,349 inadequate homes that are
scheduled to be demolished through privatization.
As of January 2008, there were 2,278 Marines living in inadequate,
ganghead troop emergency/surge barracks at Camp Pendleton (Camp Horno)
and Camp Lejeune (French Creek).
As of January 2008, there were 4,233 inadequate barracks spaces.

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, both.
Mr. Wamp.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, I think the chairman gives us a very good forecast
on things, and I know that last year's bill and the coming
budget request are favorable, but BRAC is still an issue in
terms of meeting our 2011 deadline, and I know that the Navy
shows in the out-years some savings that will be derived from
BRAC, yet in the 2008 budget request versus the actual omnibus
appropriation bill, there was a delta between the request and
the final funding amount.
What does that do to your schedule? Does that put a pinch
on you? And is your 2009 BRAC request actually just trying to
catch up with what you didn't get in 2008?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. Because of the rescission, we
have put in jeopardy being able to fulfill the requirement to
be complete by 2011. And it actually affects two projects: One
for me in Seattle, and then Jim has one in Quantico. So that is
very important to us if that could be restored.
Mr. Wamp. General, do you need to speak to that or just,
``Ditto''?
General Conway. Pretty much the same, sir. We do have one
other BRAC issue. There are only two, really, that affect us.
The one that would bring together various intelligence agencies
in Quantico, with BRAC already being looked at with regards to
that, not the least of which is the traffic, because Quantico
is a pretty busy place already.
But the other thing is that we have a facility in Kansas
City that is getting ready to move from there this year down to
New Orleans ostensibly, but there will need to be construction
started on the federal city in New Orleans or we won't be able
to go there in town. We will wind up moving out.
So both of those issues are BRAC-related and both----

MOVING FROM JAPAN TO GUAM

Mr. Wamp. I am also interested in this Okinawa to Guam
piece of the big transformation, and I say tongue-in-cheek,
make sure that the island of Guam doesn't sink with all this
construction and concrete going into it. Give us an update on
that from your perspective in terms of the transition because
it is a major shift, and a huge investment over the next 5
years.
General Conway. Yes, sir, it really is. And let me start
with the investment aspect of it, sir. The reason, I think,
that our government finds it so unattractive is that there is
estimated to be a bill somewhere between $10 billion and $11
billion, and the Japanese, at this point, are signed on to pay
for $6 billion plus of that, and we would pick up the remaining
$4 billion plus.
What it would entail is, essentially, the movement of about
8,000 Marines from Okinawa onto the island of Guam. Our major
headquarters would go, the--headquarters would go, as would
both the--and division headquarters.
What we consider to be, I think, earnest money is the
Japanese commencing construction on what we call the Futenma
Replacement Facility. The Futenma Airfield right now is in the
middle of a very popular area. It wasn't when it was built, but
it has grown up around there a good deal, so the Japanese want
to move that facility, as a part of the arrangement, off what
we call Camp Schwab on the island, and they are in the process
of, again, doing their own environmental aspects of that
construction.
We had come upon a mild problem--we hope it will be mild--
and that is the discovery of a little mammal called dugong,
which lives in the coral off of Camp Schwab. Now, the Japanese
are aware it is there, and they are not concerned about it,
because there are tens of thousands of other dugongs elsewhere.
It is actually one of our courts in the United States that has
said that the Department did not give the dugong proper
consideration in arriving at our negotiations with the
Japanese. So although we don't have a halt work, we do have
some judicial issues that we have got to get over.
In terms of our spending, sir, and in terms of what is
taking place on Guam, until such time as the Japanese start to
build, we are only in the planning phase. My commander in the
Pacific, Lieutenant General John Goodman, is looking at
developing training opportunities. The Navy is looking at
reinforcing that with some interconnectors, both high-speed
vessels and perhaps some amphibs.
We look at establishing some training bases around the
Pacific region that will help us with engagement but also help
to get the Marines off the island. I think you indicated it is
very small, and there is not a lot of training opportunity
there, so it concerns us some that our forward forces would be
fully trained and ready for whatever might happen.
But I would simply finish, I think, by saying, we are not
going to be spending much of any money until such time as we
see, again, proper investment on the part of the Japanese that
would tell us that their series of governments now agree with
it and support it.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Wamp. General, a question in this round. Last week, we
heard about the need for Marines in Afghanistan from Admiral
Fallon. You are at 184,000 in 2007--184,000 on your ramp up, I
think. What can we look for in 2008 in terms of your continued
recruitment of these new Marines that are needed in the future?
General Conway. Sir, we actually exceeded--our goal was
184,000. We actually beat that by a couple of thousand. We
think we can do that again this year based on every indication
thus far. We think that we can be as high as 194,000 Marines
based on this year's efforts. Our recruiters are just doing
magnificent work out there.
And, of course, I think you know that we are building those
units first that are most highly stressed. And we have built a
couple of infantry battalions. There is a third one that will
be in the rotation soon. Other units, MPs, engineers,
intelligence folks, we are trying to build those units to the
greatest level of OPTEMPO for the--requirements, such as the--
--
Mr. Wamp. Well, a week ago, Friday, my nephew graduated
from boot camp at Parris Island, so my family is doing our part
to help you all.
General Conway. We will take care of him for you.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
As I recognize Mr. Farr, could I just follow up on the BRAC
question, and you can have your staff submit it in writing, a
summary of the negative impacts. You didn't get any of the--
$933 million, as I recall, was the amount that we used for
other priorities, including veterans' health care, and we need
to try to substitute all of it or the vast majority of that. If
you could give us, in writing, what the real consequences are
of the issues you discussed, that would be helpful.
[The information follows:]

Navy's share of the $939 million FY 2008 Congressional BRAC 2005
reduction is $143 million. The lack of appropriations will result in a
delay of awarding two BRAC construction projects totaling $97 million
(Investigative Agencies Consolidation, Quantico VA; Reserve Center,
Fort Lewis, WA) and delay move-related expenditures in the amount of
$46 million (Operations & Maintenance) from FY 2008 to FY 2009. These
delays add uncertainty and hardship for the Navy personnel and families
affected by the move. These delays prevent achieving management
efficiencies and savings that were the basis for the BRAC decisions.
Without the prompt and full restoration of funds, Navy's ability to
accomplish BRAC by the September 15, 2011 statutory deadline will be
jeopardized.
The FY 2009 budget submission does not address nor attempt to
recapture the $143 million FY 2008 reduction.

Mr. Farr?
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend both of you for your outstanding service.
We are really proud that both of you command our military
resources with such great capacity that you do.
I want to just mention, General, that I represent the
Defense Language Institute, and I am----
Mr. Edwards. You do? [Laughter.]
You have done a great, great job.
Mr. Farr. It is all I ever talk about here, that and the
Naval Postgraduate School.
It is just fascinating to walk in and see those classes
in--whatever language of the moment. They are small classes,
but the young people who are there are our Army's best
resource. DLI, which is under Army TRADOC Command, tells me
that the first students to come for a new language are the
Marines. They call up and say, ``We are sending seven Marines
here to learn Pashtu,'' and they say, ``We will be ready for
them,'' and hang up the phone and say, ``We need to better
start a Pashtu class; we don't have one.'' And by the time the
students get there, they have one set up. It is amazing.
And I want to just tell both of you, because the Defense
Department has been so supportive. We passed, last week, a
``crisis corps'' for the State Department and USAID to attract
the most talented people who are interested in serving, much
like your talent in the military. These federal government
civilians would come together in a single command with
training, not defense training, but civil affairs and
humanitarian operations training. I think the Senate is going
to pass H.R. 1084. The president wants it badly, and you really
ought to help him.
General Conway. We need it badly.
Mr. Farr. I appreciate your testimony, Admiral, about
bringing together the Navy Installations Command, the idea of a
one stop for running installations. What you and I talked about
on the phone is you say we leverage the best practices and
successes of individual installations as we provide shore
operations support on a regional level.
And the idea is that the best practices can all be brought
into one common command like you pointed out was a response to
the fires in California. The problem is that a lot of these
installations are much alike, but, as you know, the Naval
Postgraduate School is different. It is an academic
institution.
You are going to go out and talk with the school, I know,
because you are going to address the graduating class. I hope
you get into that issue and where the Installation Command
doesn't follow through, where just small micro decisions don't
get done or the delays are so long. Because it is a real
problem for operating the Naval Postgraduate School.
I also wanted to ask you, as we execute our 2009 budget, to
abide by the following principles. First was aggressively
identify and eliminate infrastructure identified as excess
capacity. Hasn't it always been done internally, for instance
when you got prepared for the last BRAC round? Do you have a
lot of that information or they didn't go into excess capacity?
Admiral Roughead. Actually, Mr. Farr, if I could just start
with the NPS. Coincidentally, Dan Oliver happened to be in the
building yesterday and he and I sat down for about a half an
hour and talked about the school and also some of the things
that I will be able to engage in when I go out there.
But I would say, one of the things that has become apparent
to me since becoming CNO about five months ago is that--and you
point to an aspect of how we are managing and resourcing our
shore installations--is that we still, even though our
Installations Command manages the regions, within those
regions, we still have other activities under different
commands that are in there.
And what we are doing is beginning to, still under
Installations Command, but bringing in all of the issues of all
of the participants and then looking at, what is the best
approach given the different real estate tenants that exist
there, and how do we make sure that we are covering and
providing the types of services to meet the needs of all the
various activities that may be in there. So I think that is
going to help, getting to the point that you raised.
The other aspect is that as we go into the development of
the fiscal year 2010 budget, to be able to look at what I
consider the three key institutions of learning and development
in our Navy, and those are: Where we begin, which is the Naval
Academy, where we then enhance and advance the academic
qualifications, which is the Naval Post Graduate School, and
then the Naval War College, where we then add the higher levels
of operational art and strategic thinking to our officer corps.
And in that 2010 budget, to look at how are we allowing the
tide to lift all boats, if you will. So that is something that
I am very interested in doing.
Mr. Farr. Good. Good.
Admiral Roughead. With regard to the excess infrastructure,
yes, we did get ready for that on BRAC, but I travel around a
bit. I commanded the Pacific Fleet, and then I had the
privilege of then coming east and commanding the Atlantic
Fleet. And we have a lot of bases, and sometimes to clear my
head I go for runs around the bases, and I will run by a
building that is vacant and not being maintained or by some
pier space that is not being used and is beginning to fall down
and create problems.
So that is the type of excess infrastructure that I am
talking about, not necessarily closing bases but how do we
really get the infrastructure within our bases and within our
structures, that which we don't need and it is either in
disrepair and becomes a hazard or doesn't reflect well on the
Navy. What should we do to get rid of that? And then also on
those bases how do we make sure that we have the right type of
infrastructure to the mission?
Mr. Farr. Well, I applaud you for doing that. Because you
mentioned the academic institutions that you have, what I have
learned is that there is some excess capacity within those
classrooms, and there is a demand out there, usually in the
civilian section, or other federal agencies or, in some cases,
in the private sector. I think that is one place the military
has to look into to see where can we get a better bang for the
buck. Can we invite these civilians into the classroom?
It is not like applying to a regular public or private
university. This is space available where there is a decision
made by the Command that this will be an appropriate person to
have in the classroom. Because I think you can get a better
bang for your buck. You may have some Title 10 restrictions on
that, but we may need to make some exceptions to those in the
modern era.
Admiral Roughead. I think, for example, our Chief of Naval
Research estimates that we have a need for about 400 engineers
a year, civilian engineers. And if there is capacity, for
example, at the post-graduate school, he is an advocate of
being able to bring those civilians in. I would say, as you
mentioned, perhaps there needs to be some legislative relief,
but, also, I believe those who are sending those for that
engineering degree need to kick into the pot as well.
Mr. Farr. Well, as we do in the IMET Program, we could do
the same thing for civilian IMET.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. I wanted to thank you, gentlemen, for your
service and all you do for this country. I don't have any
questions.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. He is the smartest one on the
subcommittee. [Laughter.]
Mr. Crenshaw.

DISPERSAL OF ASSETS

Mr. Crenshaw. Well, I have got a couple of questions.
Welcome back, General, and, Admiral, it is great to have
you in front of the subcommittee.
Admiral, as you probably know, I have had a lot of
discussion with senior Navy officials about dispersing our
assets, including your predecessor, Admiral Mullen. And as you
know, right now, on the East Coast, all our nuclear carriers,
which soon will be all the carriers we have, are home ported in
Norfolk, and when you look at dispersing assets, both nuclear
and non-nuclear, that is a lot of eggs in one basket. I think
there are six big amphibs as well in Norfolk.
And then you look at the fact that on the West Coast, the
Pacific fleet, we have got, I guess, six carriers and, counting
Japan, you have got three different home ports.
So you haven't been before the subcommittee before, and I
would like to hear you talk a little bit about your view, what
your perspective is on this whole issue of dispersal of assets,
particularly in today's world of terrorism and all the kinds of
things. You know, it brings back memories of Pearl Harbor. But
I would appreciate your perspective.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. And thank you for that
question, sir, because it leads to something that I charged my
staff to do shortly after I became CNO, and that was for us to
take a look at what I call our force laydown. Where do we have
the ships, where do we have the airplanes, what is the command
structure that we have in place, and do we have it in the right
place? Does it best serve our response requirements? Does it
best serve the presence requirements that we may be called upon
to perform globally? And are we able to support our people in a
way that they are the most competent and then their quality of
life is as good as we can make it? So I have my staff working
on that.
As you know, we also have about ready to be put out for
public comment the Environmental Impact Statement, specifically
focused on the base in Mayport and the 13 options of the
different force packages that we could put down there. That
will be out for public comment with a decision to be made by
the Secretary in January of next year.
So I believe that when those two things come together, it
will really inform us as to, do we have the laydown right and
to be able to base that decision on a strategic underpinning of
it is the best thing for the country and for the Navy if we
position our forces in this way. And I look forward to getting
that from my staff. I am very interested in doing the same in
the Pacific as well.
As General Conway mentioned, with his moving Marines there,
what do we in the Navy have to change to be able to support the
missions that the Navy and Marine Corps have to be performing
in the next couple of decades?

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

Mr. Crenshaw. You mentioned the environmental impact study.
As I understand it, there is a preliminary report that is
supposed to be made public this Friday. Is that still the plan?
Admiral Roughead. Well, my understanding, Mr. Crenshaw, is
we are on track to release it here very, very soon, and I am
not aware of any issue that will be an impediment to that.
Mr. Crenshaw. And as you may know, last year, this
subcommittee added language to the omnibus appropriations bill
that said that the Navy would--as soon as the preliminary
report is released, then the Navy would do a statement of just
how much it would cost in terms of dredging and in terms of
multi-construction if this environmental impact study, which is
about Mayport, once that was completed, there would be a study
to say, ``These are the costs that would be involved to make
the upgrades to make Mayport capable of home porting a
carrier.''
Are you aware of that, and are they getting ready to--I
think it was a 30-day timeframe to begin that study. Is that on
track? I mean, once--is that still----
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. What would be the dredging cost
and impact in the basin to take it down to a depth, and that
process will go forward.
Mr. Crenshaw. And any other military construction. Because
there has been a lot of non-nuclear upgrades done in Mayport--
--
Admiral Roughead. Right.
Mr. Crenshaw [continuing]. But I think everything else--
just last question, Mr. Chairman, and I don't presume to know
what the EIS study is going to show or what the Navy is going
to decide, but a couple of hypothetical questions: If the
decision were made to home port a nuclear carrier at Mayport,
obviously you would have to have the dredging done, but some of
the military construction projects, like the nuclear facility,
I think it is called a nuclear maintenance facility, would it
necessarily have to be in place if a carrier came and wasn't
due for an availability for a couple of years?
Would it be within reason to say, once we have done the
warf upgrades and the dredging upgrades, some of the military
construction that might be nuclear-specific would need to be in
place, not necessarily the day that the home port was announced
but certainly in a reasonable time to do any availability.
I mean, that is a hypothetical question, but, in general,
is that precedent, I mean, when you home port a carrier other
than times when not everything is in place that doesn't need to
be in place until availability takes place.
Admiral Roughead. As you said, Mr. Crenshaw, that is kind
of a hypothetical question, but we, as a matter of routine,
have not homeported nuclear carriers in very many places. I can
say that the work that we are doing, for example, to prepare
the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON's arrival into Japan, the work that
we will have done there will be able to support the maintenance
availability.
As you know, in the Northwest, we have a nuclear certified
shipyard. San Diego already has the infrastructure for nuclear
aircraft carriers and submarines, and then, of course, Norfolk
has significant nuclear repair and maintenance capabilities
there. So that is kind of new ground that we are plowing, and
we have to look at that very, very carefully and the type of
support that would be required.
Mr. Crenshaw. Got you. I mean, the dredging, obviously, and
any kind of warp upgrades, but if there was something that was
controlled maintenance facility that took a year to build that
wasn't going to be needed, that might--again, that is
hypothetical, it is in the realm of possibility.
Admiral Roughead. Sure, but I also would say that it is
very important because of very, very high standards that we
place on the safety of our nuclear-powered warship that we
really have to make sure that the requirement facilities are in
place because of the safety issues that are involved.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Kennedy.

HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Roughead, thank you very much for your service.
General Conway, thank you for your service.
I wanted to ask, sort of, military construction, first on
that. With respect to housing, I know the chairman was
mentioning it earlier, but I wanted to ask for your input on
it, because it seems to be the big challenge in terms of moving
to further accommodate our junior enlisted members with their
barrack situations, and the move toward the privatization has
been successful where it has been done.
And, certainly, dealing with our operation and maintenance
budget, this has been a program that has been quite successful.
And yet because change is involved, there has obviously been a
lot of reticence in the Pentagon to move very quickly toward
expanding it all too far and wide.
But I was wondering whether you could comment on your
perspectives on it, given the fact that so far out there it has
provided a pretty good method of providing quality housing for
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, and
yet it has certainly got a lot of potential for further
application. And what you see is that application, and I know
the Navy has done a great deal with it. Do you think we can
expand it to some of our junior enlisted for their barracks?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. You will have to look far and
wide to find a stronger proponent of public-private venture
housing and barracks.
I have seen the quality of life of our Sailors increase
dramatically since we moved into that program. Personally, I am
about ready to move into my own fourth PPV house, and I think
it is a great success for us.
Most recently, I was struck during a visit in San Diego
with the new Pacific Beacon PPV venture. I would move in there
tomorrow myself, because it really is not only a wonderful
facility but it provides the types of services that young men
and women expect when they come into the Navy, and we are able
to do that through PPV.
I would encourage continued use of the PPV for not only our
married Sailors but also for single Sailors and the
authorizations that we have in place for the three single-
Sailor PPVs--San Diego, Norfolk and Mayport--but then to see if
we could ride on the authorizations in San Diego should we be
able to expand that single-Sailor PPV. In other words, I would
like to see the authorizations that we already have in place to
be the authorizations that allow us to expand it in the future.
It is wonderful, and it is a huge difference in quality of life
for our people.
General Conway Sir, we are watching it carefully. The
concern that we have has to do with occupancy rates.
Mr. Kennedy Right.
General Conway As much as we deploy and as much as we are
forward based right now, we are concerned that we could build
something that would then be unfair to the owners and unfair to
the Marines----
Mr. Kennedy Right.
General Conway [continuing]. In terms of the payment
arrangements.
So we are watching the Navy experiment very closely. I
think there is the potential there for better quality of life.
There is the potential that maybe our supporting establishment,
our bases who are not expected to deploy, could live in
something like that.
Mr. Kennedy Right.
General Conway But those are determinations we are going to
have to make and I think probably maybe even before this year
is out.
Mr. Kennedy Well, we certainly look forward as a committee
to work with you and see that quality housing comes to every
single person wearing a uniform.

DDG 1000

Admiral Roughead, while you are here, if you could comment
on the issue of DDG 1000 and what we see in the future as far
as--and application of this, kind of, one-size-fits-all command
and control that we have managed to finally put in place now,
these new systems, command and control that we are off and
running on but yet, obviously, we are facing this initial bow
wave of costs, and people may look at that and say we should
redo this all over again when all the work has been done to set
us off in this course.
What is your feeling? I know Admiral Mullen was very much a
part of the initial move to get this going.
Admiral Roughead. Well, I am pleased that in the last
couple of weeks we have been able to put two of the DDG 1000s
on a contract and begin moving forward with that ship. Because
unlike previous ships, and particularly combatants, that we
have built in the past, where we would introduce, perhaps, two
new technologies, the DDG 1000 has 10 that we are moving
forward.
The one that I believe is critically important, has the
technology that has allowed us to decrease our staff, I think
that what we will derive from the DDG 1000 is we will clearly
shape the future of how we build the follow-on, for example,
the cruiser follow-on that we have, but getting these ships
going that will allow us to put those technologies into play
and then from that I believe that then just feed future
programs.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, that is encouraging to hear. Obviously,
a lot of constraints in our capital budget for shipbuilding and
so forth, but this is obviously a big program, and we want to
make sure we don't stumble as we get started, because it has
been an investment we have made for years, and it is just about
to pay off, so you have got to keep going.
Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Judge Carter?

FAMILY SERVICES PROGRAM

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, both, for being here. I apologize for being
late. Way too much stuff going on here.
It is my understanding the Marine Corps has expressed a
real desire to increase the family services support for the
Marines and their family members, especially those folks who
are coming back from being deployed and while they are
deployed. How does this budget help to meet that goal?
General Conway. Sir, our family services programs for years
has relied on virtually next to nothing, $5 million a year in
the budget for family programs. Now, to contrast that, we were
spending $50 million a year more for college education
programs, assistance programs, if you will.
So comparing the bases, you can see right away that we
didn't have it right. We relied on the practice of volunteers
to do most of the heavy work, and perhaps in peacetime that
gets you through, but that certainly doesn't get you through a
protracted conflict like this.
So we recently decided to reprogram about $30 million of
our own monies in order to be able to put more against the
requirement that we saw through our family services program and
then probably two weeks after that walked in to see the Deputy
Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, on something entirely
different, and he asked me, could we use--could the Marine
Corps use $100 million of GWOT monies in order to be able to
really jumpstart this family program.
The Army was going to get six or seven times that, although
a lot of theirs was associated with some level of MILCON and
that wasn't our intent. But he said it seemed like a fair
apportionment, and if I could spend it--I assured him we
could--that it would be likely in fact and would really be
appreciated.
Mr. Carter. And is this budget addressing those needs and
as we continue down the road to approve these family services,
are we sending it to them and do we even know how we want to go
forward? Because I think this committee wants those family
services to be there for our Marines.
General Conway. Sure. My officer, my three-star general who
works the programs and resources, said to me just the other
day, you can see that we are creating a level of expectation
here to meet a dependent need. But we are going to need to get
some of this, I think, into the top line. He doesn't think that
even with the, perhaps, GWOT money this year and next that we
can sustain even the efforts with $30 million over the course
of future years. So he feels like we are going to have to ask
for more in that context to be able to support our families.
Mr. Carter. Well, I think we will certainly want to hear
about that as it comes down the pike.
Now, it is my understanding that the Marine Corps has been
pretty successful in the growing the force project; kind of
ahead of schedule.
General Conway. We are being incredibly successful, and I
attribute that to the great young Americans out there who want
to fight for their country. They, I think, have that
expectation when they join the Marine Corps.
Mr. Carter. Well, of course, as we do this, we want to make
sure that we are adequately providing facilities and barracks
and all the other things as we grow the force, because I think
all of us see the necessity to grow the force across the board
is very important.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. And as you have said, and others have said,
these are family folks that are fighting wars for us these
days, and we have to provide this privatization in housing that
we have been talking about and other things. We need to stay
ahead of the curve, not playing catch up. This is my personal
opinion. I think that makes a better corps, it makes a better
fighting force.
General Conway. I agree with you.
Mr. Carter. And so I am hopeful that you will highlight
these things in this budget and other budgets to come, as we
move down this line and growing the force so that when we put
these Marines into fight, we also are giving them the services
and the lifestyle when they get home.
General Conway. Sir, we project that we are going to see
$4.6 billion go into the top line in 2009, and it is about that
same amount on through 2012. Now, there is this concern that we
have got that because of our success that we are seeing, with
the additional 2,000 last year and what we think will be an
additional 2,000 this year, we are getting a little bit ahead
of our planning curve.
Mr. Carter. That is kind of why I asked the question.
General Conway. But, again, my three-star general who
managed that thing is very good, and I think he is doing some
visitations and some of those types of things to make sure that
we are resourcing----
Mr. Carter. Well, I just wanted to express my concern.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

Mr. Edwards. Thank you. And let me just ditto that Judge
Carter speaks for all of us in saying this subcommittee wants
to stay firmly committed to and focused on improving quality of
life for families. No one is more aware than the two of you and
the sacrifices that children are making and the spouses are
making.
That leads me to my question. For the record, could each of
you submit how many child care centers would be needed to meet
100 percent of the need? And also same question, vis-a-vis
youth activity centers.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]

INFORMATION

In addition to the 13 MILCON Child Care Centers that are planned
across the FYDP to meet 80 percent of the child care need, Navy
requires 12 more Centers to meet 100 percent of the need. The extension
and higher threshold limits of the expiring NDAA authority that
increased the minor construction authority for Child Care Centers
(serving ages birth through 12 years of age), in addition to MILCON,
would greatly assist us in meeting expansion goals for our families.
The current OSD goal for all Services is to achieve 35 percent
participation for our Youth programs. Currently the Navy averages
between 19 and 24 percent and we project to meet the OSD goal within
the next two years. Our ongoing Youth program improvements include: (1)
Utilizing our non-appropriated fund construction program, Navy has
successfully funded/completed 22 new Youth Centers since 1997 and we
will continue to do so to meet the needs of our military Youth; (2) our
national partnership contracts with organizations like the Boys and
Girls Clubs of America and 4H that allow our youths to participate in
recreation center in the local communities; and (3) new innovative
programs that capture pre-teen and teenagers interests, as well as
programs that focus on deployment stress and specific related subjects.
Other than our planned non-appropriated fund recapitalization
construction program over upcoming years, we currently assess that no
additional facility infrastructure footprint is required to meet our
goals.
To achieve 100 percent of potential need (the Marine Corps is
currently at 71%), using exclusively Child Development Centers (CDC)
(MILCON), the Marine Corps would need 22 MILCON projects to account for
an additional 6,565 spaces. Of that number, the following projects are
currently being planned:
--In response to the President's State of the Union guidance, we
are advocating for acceleration of six CDC MILCON projects (one at
Marine Corps Base Hawaii, three at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, and
two at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton).
--In addition, four other CDC MILCON projects are also beginning
initial planning (one each at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Marine
Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Marine Corps Air Station New River, and
Marine Corps Base Quantico).
If these MILCON projects are funded, the Marine Corps will need an
additional twelve unplanned MILCON projects in order to achieve 100
percent of the potential need. Plus, in order to properly staff and
operate these 22 facilities, the Marine Corps would require an
additional $48.6M annually, based on an annual per space operating cost
projection of approximately $7,400.
It should be noted, however, CDC construction via MILCON will not
be the exclusive means today to meet the child care needs of Marine
Corps parents. We continue to seek partnerships with public and private
organizations that meet our established standards (e.g., the National
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies) to expand our
off-base care options and contribute to our space and capacity
solutions.
With regard to youth activity centers, in accordance with OSD
Policy, MWR Youth Centers must be constructed with non-appropriated
funds. Marine Corps Youth Centers compete for funding as part of the
larger Marine Corps Community Services Non-appropriated Fund
Construction Program. There are no OSD prescribed potential need
formulas or standards for program capacity as are prescribed for child
development programs. Therefore, facility requirements are identified
by installation commanders based on local assessment of need for
afterschool, evening or weekend recreation needs of the on-base youth
population. It is additionally expected that youth recreational needs
will be supported by off-base community support programs such as YMCAs,
local school programs, community sport programs, etc.

Mr. Edwards. I would like to ask you about inflation. I
don't know if in your MILCON planning process it has changed,
but in years past OMB dictated a 2.4 percent inflation package
per year for military construction, which, frankly, we all know
doesn't even meet the laugh test in the Pacific Northwest, the
Southeast, other parts of the country and the world.
Are you still having to operate under that assumption? Are
you allowed within the Pentagon planning process to make more
realistic assumptions about inflation in the out-years?
Admiral Roughead. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is no question
that inflation is having an effect on what we are able to build
and how quickly we are able to build it. I would see it, and my
staff engineer would reluctantly come in and tell me about the
growth and how it was kind of pricing us out. But we do follow
the templates that are provided. We plan the projects, but we
are feeling the tension with inflation. The growth in some of
the countries around the world in things like steel and the
demands for cement and what have you is producing an inflation
pressure.
Mr. Edwards. Right. Does OMB still demand that you use a
2.4 percent inflation factor?
Admiral Roughead. In our budgeting process, yes, sir, we
follow the standard.
Mr. Edwards. So that basically means the second, third,
fourth and fifth years FYDP are underestimated relative to the
true cost of construction.
Admiral Roughead. If the predictions are accurate.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Conway.
General Conway. I will say I just went to St. Louis this
last week for a presentation, and I saw my brother-in-law there
who is in construction. He said that raw materials are down,
and we talked about it some. He said it runs sideways but,
generally, it is the Northeastern, so your concern is still
correct, sir, but it is seasonal, it is regional and runs
sideways. So there are a lot of variables in all of that.

REPROGRAMMINGS

Mr. Edwards. Okay. Maybe I will finish not with a question
but just a comment to get this on the record. There has been
discussion about seeing that all individually listed projects
be put in the statute, not in the report language of our
appropriations bill. It has a certain ring with the public,
want to hide this in the report language.
The report language is out there to the public and the
press to see anyway, but given you have unexpected inflation in
some parts of the country, if we put these projects in the
statute, then no longer can we and the Senate subcommittee
approve reprogrammings to move money from one project where one
installation will say it came in under budget.
And under the present system, you ask us to move that money
to another project where in the Pacific Northwest you are
facing maybe a 15 percent inflation rate per year. And in order
to please the public out there, we put all this in the statute.
We will no longer have that authority.
So I say that for the record. If that is to be the case for
the 2009 appropriation bills, we need to think seriously about
how we give you the flexibility to be able to handle that.
You could end up with a project that is 90 percent
completed, the day care centers or barracks, but you can't
complete it for an entire year, because we can't sign our name
on the letter and give you that reprogramming authority. So I
hope we will keep that on the table as we move forward this
year.
Mr. Wamp.

AFRICOM

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Admiral, we were fascinated with Admiral Fallon's testimony
last week. I think the AFRICOM proposal is on the table,
investments in Djibouti, I think, in your budget request of $31
million. For a non-permanent facility, that is getting into
some real money, and we know that there is more to follow, but
you talk about securing the maritime assets. What do you
foresee there? What will your role be?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. With regard to AFRICOM, we are
in the process of providing the manpower to man the staff that
is taking place and thinking through what the right command
relationships are for my Naval Component Combatant Commander
and supporting General Ward and the work that he is going to do
down there. We have already had more activity on the African
continent in the last couple of years than probably in the
previous couple of decades.
But with regard to Djibouti, I do believe that Djibouti
will be a point of presence for quite some time. As you know,
we have a lease there, and I think that there will be presence.
It is a critical area and a critical fight that we are involved
in. So the improvements that we are making there are to enable
the joint force--and it is not just Sailors but Marines, Army
and Air Force--to be able to better perform their missions that
I think are important in that very critical area of the world.

JOINT BASING

Mr. Wamp. Let me ask you all both a question about joint
basing. I flew back from China and other ends of the world with
Representative Clyburn in January, and we stopped at Hickam, he
hadn't been there before. But I remember when chief enlisted
men came in here. The Air Force really has a beef with joint
basing. From your perspectives, where is the joint basing
process right now?
Admiral Roughead. I will speak from some experience out in
the Pacific, because I have had responsibility for Pearl
Harbor, and, as you know, Pearl and Hickam are together. Also,
looking out toward Guam. I think at the local level, we have
had some good efforts by the commanders in doing these tabletop
exercises that allow us to identify where some of the issues
would be and how we work our way through the bases.
Particularly, I think it is important to never lose sight of
what the missions of those bases are and can we support that.
OSD has recently issued some guidance that the Services are
taking aboard and working our way through. I do believe that
there are some efficiencies and benefits to the joint basing
process, but each base is going to be different, and it is a
function of mission, it is a function of population, it is a
function of the location, where it is. And so I don't believe
that one size fits all and that we have to look very hard at
that.
Where we are in trying to prejudge what the standards of
living or the core levels will be, I think it is a little
premature to determine whether somebody is going to win or
lose. I think we have to work our way through it. We have to
keep in mind that the objective is to provide the right mission
support for whatever that joint base is there to do and also to
provide the quality of life for our people, whether they be
single or married.
Mr. Wamp. General Conway.
General Conway. Sir, I was just thinking as the CNO was
talking, we have very few of our bases that are joint in any
way. Probably the closest you come to it is on Okinawa where we
share some facilities there with respect to BRAC 2005--Joint
Basing Guidance, the Corps has one participant, HQMC Henderson
Hall. And as you were saying, I think all those factors play,
as well as, sort of, the personalities of the local commanders
and how well they are able to coordinate. Because it is
essentially at that level where joint basing takes place.
Now, I think in the future it is going to be more driven
with us. We are going to be on Guam with Air Force, with Navy
and, most recently, even some Army will be there, and I think
we will look at Guam as one big base in some ways.
And, of course, the Joint Strike Fighter, some of the noise
factors and so forth, some of the closing of certain bases, the
enhancements of others, we may see it more. But I still tend to
think it will be pretty much a local type of thing as opposed
to something of a Service headquarters or even----
Mr. Wamp. General Conway, in closing for my questions, Mr.
Chairman, a new guy like me wanted to see some real needs in
housing and child care and then even see some things that
showed the past and the future of the Marine Corps. I think
your master sergeant recommended Camp Pendleton. Would you say
the same thing, that would be a good place to go to see, kind
of, where we have been and where we need to go?
General Conway. Sir, there are places--yes. If you wanted
to see it all, the whole spectrum, Camp Pendleton is probably
the place to go. If you wanted to see it at its worst, I am not
sure that Camp Pendleton and our major bases aren't the first
to make some fairly major strides forward.
What I have experienced in my travels about the Corps in
just over a year now is that at some of our secondary bases and
stations they really need the most help. When we sent out word
on what the needs were for this $100 million and how it should
be allocated and assigned out, our secondary bases and stations
were the people that really needed help at that point, as
opposed to Pendleton, Lejeune or even being----
But I think Pendleton is still the best.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Crenshaw.

BLOUNT ISLAND

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Conway, let me ask you a little bit about Blount
Island. A lot of hard work went into changing that from a lease
facility now to be owned by the Department of Defense, and some
exciting things are happening there. There are some security
challenges, there are some organizational challenges, but it
seems that has all been--as I understand it, there is going to
be a master plan coming from the Marines.
And then can you share with us a little bit about that, and
how it is--are there any infrastructure needs that are going to
be part of that? The new ship is going to be part of that. Is
it going to change anything that we need to do with Blount
Island? Can you, kind of, just give us an overview of that?
General Conway. Yes, sir, I can. Blount Island is
absolutely critical to us, because even as we speak, they have
got one of our MPS, Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons, in a
rehab kind of role, and they do marvelous work offloading the
ships and starting the equipment and getting everything back up
to speed.
When we offloaded that equipment in 2003, about 95 percent
of it was just ready to go. So they do marvelous work between
them and the squadrons, and so therefore it is an absolutely
critical facility to us and what we do for the nation.
There are 10 major projects that need to be managed to turn
it into the facility that we would like it to be and to keep it
doing what it is going to do now for the long term. That comes
to a total of something around the order of $150 million to
$155 million that at this point is essentially on our unfunded
list. We don't have the money ready and available to do the
things that the commander and his boss--we regionalized all the
bases and stations. He works for the Major General overall, but
both the commander there and General Williams agree that these
are exactly the things that we need to do to bring it up to a
world class kind of facility.
So we are going to work hard to try to find that money in
the future to, again, keep the general--for us.
Mr. Crenshaw. Great.
This one may be, Admiral, more for you. It was mentioned
about the bachelor housing, and I think it was originally going
to be San Diego and Norfolk and Bremerton and now Mayport is
kind of in that mix.
Just a couple of kind of specific, and I don't know if you
have all the details, but as I understand it, it depends on
whether those facilities are going to be on the base or off the
base. I think in San Diego they are on the base--no, they are
off the base, and then in Norfolk, on the base. And issues
about, like, in Mayport it would be on the base, and then there
is some issue about when you sell land, a private entity, on a
military base, you need to have some sort of easement, egress
and ingress, that kind of thing.
Do you know much about--I mean, I would be curious to know
how it is going because some of the housing that was kind of
geared toward the basic housing allowance, and you have got
kind of an income strain where the developer could come in and
say, ``Well, I know the money is coming in,'' but when you have
got some of these younger sailors that probably don't have a
basic housing allowance, how does that impact a developer when
he says, ``I am going to build a facility.'' He doesn't really
have any guaranteed income stream.
Are those questions that you are familiar with? Anybody
that could talk about those things?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. I think with that, I wouldn't
even begin to get into the easement laws and what have you on
that, but as you pointed out, the models are different, and I
think that is what is important as we go in and put in the type
of accommodations for Sailors, is to look again specifically at
the installation, where can it best be placed? And in the case
of San Diego, it is off, but there is very easy access.
So I think each one has to be looked at and we will see how
the--with regard to the public-private for single Sailors,
there is BAH that is provided, and that is why--you know, it is
not a free lunch, because even though the private contractor
picked it up, that now creates a manpower bill because of what
we are doing.
But it is clear to me that the contractors that are
involved and meeting with them seem to be pretty optimistic
about the future. I think it is important that the facilities
that we build are properly sized for the Fleet that we expect
to be there for some time so that we don't get into a period
where there is vacancy. So all those go into the mix, and I
think the two that we have in place now are moving ahead, and
that is why I am very interested in the third one.
Mr. Crenshaw. Are they actually in place? You have got
people living there now?
Admiral Roughead. Well, in San Diego we have Sailors living
in a converted building, the Pacific Beacon, which is the four-
tower complex that is being built. It is still under
construction but moving ahead very, very rapidly. And the
quality of work, the quality of the rooms--every room in those
four towers that a Sailor will live in looks out on San Diego
Bay. Not many people who live in San Diego can see that.
Mr. Crenshaw. Probably a pretty good recruiting tool. I
know I have seen the married housing out in San Diego, and, I
will tell you, it is just magnificent.
But I wonder, with the single sailors, would there ever be,
or have you thought about, issues about discipline and just
kind of cohesion? Because if you are on a ship, obviously, you
are there all the time, and if you are out somewhere, are those
things that you have heard complaints or has there been
discussion about how----
Admiral Roughead. Mr. Crenshaw, so far it has gone very
well, and I give the credit to our young men and women who live
there. When you give them a quality place to live, they will
take care of it. And the contractor has an interest in
maintaining it so that their maintenance costs are down.
I would also say that one of the things that struck me
about the effort that we have on the way in San Diego is the
way the contractor has worked with other providers--phone
providers, Internet providers--that really are tailored to the
types of schedules that our sailors are on. So that, if for
example, they get called away on a mission, that they are not
penalized with trying to terminate a service before they leave.
And that is why I think it is really a program that is
providing quality of life for our people that is very
important, and it is going to be very important to attract
young men and women into--but I think all the Armed Forces. If
they come in and they see a great place to live with the types
of things that are part of their life today, the kind that
could meet with friends and family that is so important to
them, that is huge, and I really appreciate your support and
everything you have done to make that possible.
Mr. Kennedy. If I could add, I have heard stories where the
contractors actually give a smaller stipend to some of the
dorm, if you would say, or some of the guys that are going to
be the, kind of, watch out for everyone else on the floor, and
in exchange they pay half the rent in order to keep everyone
else, kind of, in line. And it's like those kinds of informal
bargains that they make with----
Mr. Crenshaw. It is like a hall monitor. [Laughter.]
Mr. Kennedy. Hall monitor. That kind of stuff they have
figured out works.
Mr. Crenshaw. One quick question: I was looking at this,
Admiral, the right places. It is a chart that shows some East
Coast and it talks about the possible homeport of the LCS and
DDX. It shows a possible homeport at Norfolk, and like other
places, it doesn't say possible homeport. Has any decision been
made about that?
Admiral Roughead. No, sir. That is what I have my staff
working on now is to go out and look at where do we want the
capabilities and the capacity to the numbers to be for the
world that we envision in the next few decades. It is trying to
look into the crystal ball and then saying, ``We believe the
capability that we are going to need.''
Mr. Crenshaw. So you could have put possible homeport in
other places.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Crenshaw. Just checking. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Kennedy.

NAVAL WAR COLLEGE

Mr. Kennedy. Just looking forward to having you up to the
Newport, Rhode Island War College. We have got huge transitions
as a result of BRAC, as you know, a lot of MILCON issues
because of the absorption there for the Marines that are coming
up, 700 Navy and Marine personnel, from supply school, and we
are doing the best we can absorbing them all. But for 40 years
there wasn't an anticipation there that that would be
necessarily the place for quite the hub of activity that it is
going to be now for the next 50.
I knew the War College would always be there as an anchor,
but as far as everything else, the surface warfare and the
naval undersea warfare, NAFs and everything else. That was
never quite a guarantee. So all those old buildings, I mean, we
have still got--our sailors are living in and buildings that
are vintage World War II, so we are going to be working to try
to bring that up to snuff. That is our challenge, so we will be
working with you to try to do that.
Admiral Roughead. Thank you, and thank you for your
support. The War College has just continued to do great work,
not just in our operational and strategic thinking and putting
in place some new courses of instruction that are important to
our future but also really expanding nationally. They are doing
some really good things, and thank you for your support.
Mr. Kennedy. Thanks.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Carter?

INCREMENTAL FUNDING

Mr. Carter. I guess I have got one last question. It just
seems like they have recently changed the rules for having
incremental funding for large MILCON projects. How does that
affect each of your service's planning, both currently and in
the future, as you look down the road, how are we going to plan
these large MILCON projects?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. It is somewhat out of step in
that we fully fund and then when it is incrementally funded and
the change is made to incrementally fund, that is money that we
no longer have available. So in subsequent years, we have to go
ahead and reprogram the other increments. So it is one that, I
believe, of reconciliation of how we budget and move forward
would be very helpful to us, and I think we would be able to
benefit greatly if that were to happen.
General Conway. Same is true, sir, for our Corps. I think
it is true across the Department of the Navy. It caught us a
little unaware. We would like to counter back, if you will, and
see if we can get some things changed.
Mr. Carter. Yes. It seems troublesome to me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all.

GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

Mr. Edwards. Okay. I will just quickly ask one question.
Guantanamo, in this budget, there is a request for $63
million for new family housing and $21 million for a new
fitness center. I don't know who the next president is going to
be, and I don't know what our policy is going to be regarding
the detainees in Guantanamo. Without getting into that debate,
would you make this request even if the policy were to be not
to continue keeping the detainees in Guantanamo?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir, I would, because, to circle
back around, I think that our interests in the Caribbean are
significant. The amount of infrastructure, particularly the
energy infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, and what we have
on Guantanamo and the folks that we have there, I do believe
these investments are worth it for the Navy.
Mr. Edwards. I saw that housing down there last year. It is
pretty questionable.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. I am through, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Well, if not, on behalf of the entire committee, let me
thank you for your service to our country and for being here
today.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the Record Submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Unaccompanied Housing Construction Strategy

Question. The navy has indicated its intention to have ashore
quarters for the roughly 9,000 E1-E3 sailors who currently live aboard
ship while in port. I understand that many of the sailors who are
quartered ashore do not have living arrangements that meet the
Department of Defense standard for 90 square feet of living space per
person, even if the barracks themselves technically meet the 1 + 1
standard. Does the Navy have a construction strategy for completing the
Homeport Ashore initiative and meeting the DoD space standard for
unaccompanied housing?
Answer. Although the Navy intends to provide quarters that meet the
DoD privacy standards (where each member has their own sleeping room),
to get Sailors ashore quickly, we are currently housing Sailors at two
or more per room as an interim step to achieve its Homeport Ashore
initiative. The Navy intends to achieve the Homeport Ashore initiative
through a combination of military construction (MILCON), privatization,
and host country agreements where applicable. The last MILCON project
required as part of the Homeport Ashore initiative (based on current
ship home porting projections) was authorized and appropriated in
Fiscal Year 2008. While this does not meet the full DoD privacy
standards, it does provide housing ashore for the vast majority of our
junior Sailors on sea duty. The Navy is developing a Master Bachelor
Housing Plan which will include a strategy to provide unaccompanied
personnel with housing that meets applicable standards.

Unaccompanied Housing FYDP

Question. What has the Navy programmed for sailors' unaccompanied
housing in the FYDP?
Answer. The Navy has programmed the following projects for Sailors'
unaccompanied housing in the FYDP:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project
Location number Description ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2009
NALF San Clemente IS CA...... 740 Bachelor 34,020
Enlisted
Quarters (BEQ).
NAVSTA Great Lakes IL........ 744 RTC Special 62,940
Programs
Barracks.
NAVMARIANASSUPPACT Guam...... 469 BEQ, Main Base. 62,360
------------
Total FY 2009.......... ........... ............... 159,320
Fy 2010
NAVSUPPACT Bahrain........... 935 Transient 24,700
Quarters III.
NAVSTA Newport............... 451 BEQ Replacement 35,370
------------
Total FY 2010.......... ........... ............... 60,070
FY 2011
NAVSUPPACT Bahrain........... 938 Bachelor 31,800
Enlisted
Quarters III.
NAVSUPPACT Bahrain........... 936 Transient 24,700
Quarters IV.
NAS North Island............. 742 Bachelor 13,760
Enlisted
Quarters.
------------
Total FY2011........... ........... ............... 70,260
FY 2012
NAVSUPPACT Bahrain........... 937 Bachelor 32,273
Enlisted
Quarters II.
NAVSUPPACT Panama City, FL... 379 Joint Diver 10,658
``A'' School
Dormitory.
NAVSTA Newport............... 482 Bldg 1269 SEA 6,500
Improvements.
------------
Total FY 2012.......... ........... ............... 49,431
FY 2013
NAVSUPPACT Bahrain........... 934 Transient 3,420
Quarters II
Addition.
NAVSTA Great Lakes IL........ 713 ``A'' School 36,505
BEQ
Replacement.
NAVUNSEAWARCNDET AUTEC....... 200 Bachelor 9,630
Enlisted
Quarters.
NSS Portsmouth NH............ 285 Construct 9,699
Addition to
CBQ #373.
------------
Total FY 2013.......... ........... ............... 59,254
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barracks PPV

Question. Is the Navy seeking expansion of the barracks PPV
initiative beyond the three pilot projects? If so, will this contribute
to the Homeport Ashore program?
Answer. The Navy has not included a request for the expansion of
the barracks privatization authority in this year's budget submission.
To date, the Navy has executed two of the three projects and is
developing a concept for a third project in the Jacksonville/Mayport,
Florida area.
Given our experience with the pilot authority to date, we believe
the privatization authorities can be a useful and effective tool in
improving housing for our single Sailors, especially as a complement to
the Homeport Ashore program. I would like to see the authority expanded
beyond its pilot status, if the three pilot projects are successful and
financially feasible.

Barracks MILCON

Question. Is the Navy requesting MILCON funding in FY09 for
barracks at any locations that are being considered for barracks PPV?
Answer. No, our only FY 2009 MILCON projects are in Guam; Great
Lakes, IL; and San Clemente Island, CA. The three pilot PPV locations
are Norfolk, VA; San Diego, CA; and the Jacksonville/Mayport, FL area.

Inflation Figures

Question. What has the Navy done to incorporate more realistic,
regionally adjusted inflation figures in its FY09 military construction
and family housing program?
Answer. For projects in the PB09 program, the Navy used the best
available pricing source and did not solely rely on the DoD Facilities
Pricing Guide Guidance Unit Cost. This enabled consideration of the
latest market condition information and DoD direction available at the
time of budget submission. Listed below are the pricing sources
utilized in preferential order from highest to lowest:
--User-Generated based on 100 percent designs or Architectural/
Engineering (A/E) studies and current market conditions.
--User-Generated based on historical cost data from same type of
facility constructed recently.
--User-Generated parametric cost estimates using costing models for
common types of facilities.
--DoD Facilities Pricing Guide Guidance Unit Cost (GUC).
Additionally, through a formalized Cost Consistency Review Board we
have incorporated lessons learned, made adjustments to address recent
trends, and ensured that pricing for key features were appropriately
considered for all projects. Key pricing features included:
--Incorporating adjustments to ensure seismic requirements were
appropriately considered.
--Adding a line item to ensure Leadership in Energy & Environmental
Design (LEED) and Energy Policy Act (EPACT) 2005 compliance was
appropriately considered.
The inflation rate used to escalate projects from program lock to
the program mid-point of construction (average OCT 2009) was 2.2
percent per year which is consistent with the DoD Facilities Pricing
Guide.

Special Weapons Security

Question. Last year, the Navy provided a rough estimate of $1
billion for special weapons security requirements under the Strategic
Systems Program pursuant to Presidential Directive 28. What is the
current estimate?
Answer. The current MILCON requirement for Nuclear Weapons Security
(NWS) in the FYDP (FY09-13) is $495 million of which $477 million is
budgeted in the President's Budget 09 FYDP. The President's Budget for
FY 2009 includes funding for one NWS project, a $51 million increment
to P-973; Limited Area Production and Support Complex. While a number
of projects remain unfunded, the Navy has taken steps to mitigate the
lack of available facilities by implementing interim solutions to
ensure Navy provides security as directed in Presidential Directive 28.
The President's Budget 09 FYDP also includes $1.3 billion budgeted in
other appropriations for both shore side and transit protection NWS.

PPV--Child Development Facilities

Question. Marine Corps has been able to include new schools in some
of its family housing PPV projects. Has either the Navy or Marine Corps
considered the possibility of including child development facilities as
a part of PPV?
Answer. To date, no Navy housing privatization project has included
the construction of child development facilities. The Navy budget
includes a robust program for the construction of child development
centers (CDCs) as part of the overall military construction (MILCON)
program. The inclusion of CDC construction in a military housing
privatization project, as a complement to the MILCON program, may be
considered on a case-by-case basis where it can be supported by project
cash flows without sacrificing quantity or quality of the housing or
other amenities.

Youth Activity Needs--Department of Navy

Question. The Department has set a goal of meeting 35 percent of
youth activity needs by 2009. What are Navy and Marine Corps doing to
meet this goal?
Answer. Current youth participation rates range between 19 percent
and 24 percent. In order to achieve the newly established 35 percent
goal, we must increase availability of programs and services to meet
the emerging needs of our dependent military youth. Our long standing
national partnership with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America has
increased participation in the Department of Navy. The Navy recently
entered into a similar affiliation agreement with the National 4-H
program. Also, we are making numerous improvements to our military
operated programs to attract youth members. These improvements include
technology lab hardware/software upgrades that provide homework
assistance programs, youth fitness program such as the on-line
FitFactor program (navygetfit.com), and increased transportation and
hours of operation for youth programs. Additionally, through an OSD
joint services contract, the Navy is providing on-site counselors to
assist staff members with identifying and assisting youth with
deployment and family separation stress.
This summer, the Navy is coordinating a joint Service Teen Forum
that will bring together military youth from all Services to identify
their top issues and brief our senior leadership so we can continue to
make service delivery improvements that meet their unique needs.

MILCON Requirements Guam

Question. Has the Navy fully scoped the MILCON requirements for all
elements of forward-basing vessels at Guam? What are the total
outstanding (FY09 and beyond) MILCON requirements for the three SSN's,
SSGN, T-AKE, and transient carrier berthing?
Answer. Yes, the Navy has scoped MILCON requirements for all
current berthing needs of forward-basing vessels at Guam as follows:
P-431 Alpha/Bravo Wharf Extension (FY06 Incr 1 [$25.4M]/FY07
Incr 2 [29.8M]) meets SSGN and 3 x SSN berthing requirements
P-502 Kilo Wharf Extension (FY08 Incr 1 [$50.9M]/FY09 Incr 2
[$50.9M] is designed specifically to meet ordnance handling
requirements for the new
T-AKE
P-518 X-Ray Wharf Improvements [$33.4M] (unprogrammed) meets
nonordnance logistics handling requirements for the new T-AKE
P-583 CVN-Capable Wharf [$390.1M] (unprogrammed) meets
transient carrier berthing requirements
The Guam Joint Military Master Plan (GJMMP) and Global Shore
Infrastructure Plans (GSIPs) are currently under development and will
include all Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), Expeditionary Strike Group
(ESG), and CVN infrastructure and berthing requirements. The Navy will
continue to address these requirements in future budget submissions.

Environmental Impact for LCS Homeporting

Question. When will the environmental impact statement for
homeporting of the Littoral Combat Ship be complete? When does Navy
anticipate making final homeporting decisions for LCS?
Answer. The homeporting decision process is deliberate and
balanced. This process takes into account national security
requirements; operational availability; training, total cost and other
programmatic implications such as impacts on Sailors and their
families; the effect on local economies and National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requirements.
The Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
for the initial LCS Flight Zero ships was completed in Dec 2005 and
Naval Station San Diego was selected as the homeport. Lessons learned
from the initial flight zero ships will help determine long-term
requirements and basing. Additional environmental planning efforts are
planned in the upcoming fiscal years pending a finalized LCS
acquisition schedule. The potential homeport locations have not yet
been fully determined. Once initiated, these NEPA efforts will
typically conclude within 12-18 months.

Flag Housing Guam

Question. The family housing request includes $1.695 million to
reconfigure the interior of six flag housing units on Guam, which
equates to a cost of $282,500 per unit. How do you justify this
reconfiguration versus whole house replacement construction?
Answer. The proposed project involves extensive work, encompassing
repairs in addition to reconfiguration, which will result in the
revitalization and modernization of these homes and an extension of
their useful life at a cost that is approximately 25 percent of the
cost to construct a replacement unit. Accordingly, the proposed work is
more cost-effective than replacement.
The area cost factor for Guam is 2.64 which means that construction
costs in Guam would be over 150 percent more than the cost of
comparable construction in Washington, DC. To illustrate this point,
the Guam project cost exclusive of contingency and supervision,
inspection, and overhead is approximately $1.5 million (or $253,000 per
unit). Adjusting for geographic cost differences, the same project in
Washington, DC would cost approximately $100,000 per unit.
Although the units are located at Flag Circle, they are designated
for senior (paygrade 0-6) officers.

Grow the Force--Temporary Facilities

Question. You have noted that the Marine Corps is actually
recruiting beyond its targets to meet the personnel required for
Growing the Force. This will put additional strain on your facilities
until the permanent construction for GTF is completed. I understand
that the Marine Corps intends to rely on approximately $900 million in
temporary facilities for three to seven years until permanent
facilities are finished. To what extent are you relying on facilities
temporarily vacated by deployed units?
Answer. Existing facilities will be utilized to the largest extent
practical. However, the majority of our interim facility solutions will
be temporary and relocatable facilities.

Grow the Force--Reserves

Question. Is there a GTF impact on the Marine Corps Reserve? If so,
is there a milcon requirement.
Answer. The current Marine Corps Reserve end strength of 39,600 is
sufficient. There are no plans to include the Reserves in the Grow the
Force effort.

Grow the Force--Construction

Question. Does your Grow the Force plan fully account for all of
the permanent construction necessary for the end state of growth?
Answer. Our plan fully accounts for the permanent construction
necessary to support Grow the Force.

Grow the Force--Barracks

Question. How many additional permanent party barracks spaces are
needed due to Growing the Force? What is the total military
construction estimate for this requirement?
Answer. Approximately 10,600 additional spaces at a cost of $800
million will be needed to support Grow the Force requirements.

Grow the Force--Barracks Acquisition Strategy

Question. You have requested a large number of barracks projects to
execute in a single year. For example, you have requested 19 projects
at Camp Pendleton alone. What is your acquisition strategy for
barracks?
Answer. These bachelor quarters projects will be packaged into
small and medium-size contracts, attractive to a range of small,
medium, and large contractors. Additional projects will be set aside
for small business concerns to ensure achievement of small business
award goals. To speed the delivery of facilities and simplify facility
sustainment in the future, we are using a consistent design adaptable
to specific sites.

Training Barracks

Question. What is the state of Marine Corps training barracks? Do
you have a program to bring all of these up to current standard?
Both MCRD Parris Island and MCRD San Diego have Military
Construction in FY 2009 for new Recruit Barracks. We also plan
additional recruit barracks to support Grow the Force recruit
throughput. At the completion of these projects, all recruit barracks
should be adequate. However, keeping recruit barracks adequate is an
ongoing process:
In 2007 and 2008 the Marine Corps is investing over $18
million in repair and modernization projects for recruit barracks at
MCRD San Diego that include replacement of toilets/showers, drains,
roof repairs, replacement of floor and wall tile, and installation of
fire sprinkler systems.
Between 2007 and 2009 the Marine Corps invested (or plans
to invest) over $14 million in similar repairs to MCRD Parris Island
recruit barracks.
The Basic School (TBS) at Quantico, which provides training for our
new Marine Corps officers, will be totally recapitalized and replaced
over the next 10+ years. The vast majority of existing facilities are
classified as inadequate and beyond economical repair. This
construction supports the TBS master plan.
The Officer Candidate School barracks at Quantico have been
replaced and refurbished and no other new barracks projects are needed
at this time.

Aged Barracks--Replacement Projects

Question. In written response to the Committee last year, you
provided a table that identified 43 barracks built between 1920 and
1944 and indicated replacement projects for those facilities that had
been programmed. Please provide an updated version of this table.
Answer. Table Attached.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.114

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754B.115

Guam Relocation--Futenma Replacement Facility

Question. What is the impact to the Marine Corps' capabilities on
Okinawa if the Futenma Replacement Facility is not completed?
Answer. If the Futenma Replacement Facility is not completed, the
following will result:
--Japan will have not fulfilled the key provision of the Agreed
Implementation Plan on Okinawa Reorganization that the U.S. concluded
with the Government of Japan (GOJ) in 2006. As a result, the U.S. would
not be obligated to relocate approximately 8,000 Marines off of Okinawa
to Guam.
--II MEF forces could continue to base and operate from the island
of Okinawa as they have for decades.
--The Marine Corps could continue to use MCAS Futenma for air
operations in Okinawa, but the following constraints apply:
The maintenance of facilities at Futenma has been minimal since the
1996 Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) Agreement. This was the
original agreement between the U.S. and Japanese governments to
construct a Futenma Replacement Facility. Since Futenma was to be
replaced, little was invested in maintaining the facility. If the
Futenma Replacement is not built, the existing Futenma facilities will
require substantial investment, or the facility would become unusable
in the near future.
Operating from Futenma, the USMC would still be faced with
opposition on the island to the continued use of Futenma, perpetuating
an on-going source of discontent in the vicinity of the airfield and
with the Okinawa Prefectural Government.
The political viability of continued, long-term use of the airfield
is in question, because the Okinawan population, which encroached on
Futenma Air Station after it was built, is vocally opposed to continued
operation of the facility.

MV-22--Military Construction Cost for Bed Down

Question. What is the total outstanding (FY09 and beyond) Marine
Corps military construction requirement for bed-down of the MV-22?
Answer. The current planning estimate for Marine Corps MILCON
requirements for MV-22 support is approximately $141 million.

[Clerk's note.--End of Questions submitted for the Record
by Chairman Edwards.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Wamp.]

Guam Realignment--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. The budget continues detailed studies, plans, and
environmental analyses for the United States and the Government of
Japan DPRI to relocate about 8,000 marines and dependents from Okinawa
to Guam by 2014. Please tell the Committee what your sense is of the
planning process and the vast number of decisions that would have to be
made, and is 2014 a realistic goal? How much does the budget request
include for studies, plans, and environmental analyses for the Guam
realignment? Is there funding in the Navy budget request for this work
or is the funding elsewhere in the budget?
Answer. The Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO) in the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment) is
coordinating this initiative, as directed by the Deputy Secretary of
Defense. The Master planning process is progressing well. The draft
Master Plan will be available at the end of this month and will show a
conceptual laydown plan. The working-level Guam Joint Military Master
Plan is being developed in parallel with the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and should be available this summer.
Natural and cultural resources and socioeconomic studies are
underway on Guam and in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
Islands (CNMI), and additional studies are set to begin this summer. To
support the final EIS document, the JGPO is coordinating with Federal
and local regulatory agencies in quarterly partnering sessions to
identify and resolve potential hurdles. JGPO is also the champion of a
Lean Six Sigma project that aims to streamline the review process.
These efforts support the approval of the EIS Record of Decision in
January 2010.
The Department of Navy's FY 2009 budget includes $62 million for
the DPRI initiative. Of the $62 million, $28 million is in the Military
Construction Navy appropriation for construction planning and design,
$25 million in Operations and Maintenance, Marine Corps and $9 million
in Operations and Maintenance, Navy accounts for continued master plan
and EIS studies, plans, and analyses for the Guam realignment. Although
programming and budgeting for the Guam realignment program remains a
Service responsibility, JGPO coordinates those Service funding
requirements.
Aside from the costs directly associated with the realignment,
there are many infrastructure needs on Guam that may directly or
indirectly impact the execution of the program. JGPO continues to work
closely with the Government of Guam and other Federal Agencies and
Departments to identify their respective funding requirements. JGPO has
partnered with the Department of the Interior to monitor and address
the Federal response in meeting these funding requirements as part of
an Interagency Work Group.
DoD and the Government of Japan continue to strive toward a
completion date of 2014.

Guam Relocation--Plans, Decisions, Budget--General Conway's Response

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY07 FY08 FY09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction, Navy.................................................... ......... $11.0M $28.1M
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps........................................ ......... $9.0M $24.8M
Operation and Maintenance, Navy................................................ $21.6M $18.8M $8.8M
--------------------------------
Total...................................................................... $21.6M $38.8M $61.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Efforts are proceeding apace to complete the Environmental Impact
Statement and obtain the Record of Decision (ROD) in FY 2010 in order
for the construction of facilities to begin.

BRAC 2005--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. According to your testimony, BRAC 2005 continues the
process of improving efficiencies and reducing footprint, and that the
Navy has started to implement business plans that account for $893
million in annual savings for steady state operations starting in
fiscal year 2012. The Navy budget request includes $871.5 million to
continue implementation of the 2005 BRAC recommendations. How much were
you cut between the fiscal year 2008 request versus the 2008
appropriation, and what type of adjustments is the Navy making due to
the rescission? Does the fiscal year 2009 request try to recapture the
cuts that were made in fiscal year 2008? How do these cuts impact
planning, execution and the 2011 deadline?
Answer. Navy's share of the $939 million FY 2008 Congressional BRAC
2005 reduction is $143 million. The lack of appropriations will result
in a delay of awarding two BRAC construction projects totaling $97
million (Investigative Agencies Consolidation, Quantico, VA; Reserve
Center, Fort Lewis, WA) and delay move-related expenditures in the
amount of $46 million (Operations & Maintenance) from FY 2008 to FY
2009. These delays add uncertainty and hardship for the Navy personnel
and families affected by the move. These delays prevent achieving
management efficiencies and savings that were the basis for the BRAC
decisions. Without the prompt and full restoration of funds, Navy's
ability to accomplish BRAC by the September 15, 2011 statutory deadline
will be jeopardized.
The FY 2009 budget submission does not address nor attempt to
recapture the $143 million FY 2008 reduction.

Marine Corps-Grow the Force (Navy Support)--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. Does this budget request adequately address the fiscal
year 2009 requirements as it relates to the Grow the Force Initiative
in the Marine Corps?
Answer. The Navy has no military construction requirements to
support the Marine Corps' Grow the Force initiative and none are
included in the FY 2009 budget request.

Grow the Force--FY09 Requirements--General Conway's Response

Question. Does this budget request adequately address the fiscal
year 2009 requirements as it relates to the Grow the Force initiative
in the Marine Corps?
Answer: Yes, the FY09 budget request adequately addresses the
funding necessary to implement the Marine Corps' Grow the Force plan.

Camp Lemonier--Budget Request--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. You mentioned the conduct of operations to dissuade and
counter piracy off the West African coast to provide a secure maritime
environment. In the budget request, there is a total of about $31.4
million for three projects at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti. Is the Navy
assuming a larger role there and do you anticipate the transition to
AFRICOM to be moving in the right direction? What kind of impact do you
think your presence will have on your ability to counter piracy off the
West African coast?
Answer. The Navy is not assuming a larger role at Camp Lemonier.
The three projects, an aircraft maintenance hangar, a parking apron for
that maintenance hangar, and a telecom facility, will replace the
inadequate infrastructure (i.e., tents and outdated C4I electronic
systems). These structures will enhance maintenance capabilities for
current aviation forces in Djibouti. While there is no direct link
between these projects and counter-piracy operations off the Horn of
Africa, improved aircraft maintenance and communications will enhance
our maritime capabilities in the area.
The transition to AFRICOM will further our efforts to implement the
new cooperative Maritime Strategy and increase the security and
stability of the surrounding maritime domain. AFRICOM will be
responsible for regional initiatives such as Global Maritime
Partnerships that seek a cooperative approach to maritime security in
the region to counter piracy, terrorism and other illicit activities.
Additionally, Africa Partnership Station is a tailored, routine
presence in West and Central Africa that integrates various entities to
build capability and capacity in partner nations to address common
challenges in the region.

Joint Basing Process--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. Your testimony indicates that there is much work to be
done on the Joint Basing process, but would you give the Committee an
update on the status of the Joint Basing process.
Answer. Over the past few months we have made significant progress
on Joint Basing. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) issued
the Joint Base Implementation Guidance (JBIG) on January 22, 2008,
directing Total Obligation Authority (TOA) and real property assets
transfer from the supported component to the supporting component. OSD,
with full Service participation, is developing specific guidance and
performance standards to enable each Joint Base to develop site
specific Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs). These MOAs will further define
the relationships between components and commit supporting components
to deliver approved output levels.
The JBIG has two implementation phases: Phase I begins January 31,
2009, and Phase II on January 31, 2010. The Navy has the lead on the
following joint bases:
Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, DC
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI
Joint Base Little Creek-Story, VA
Joint Region Marianas, Guam
All actions will be completed by September 2011.

Basic Housing Allowance--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. Currently, sailors have the opportunity to buy or rent
homes if they receive Basic Allowance for Housing. How does a sailor
qualify for a Basic Housing Allowance, and what percentage of sailors
receive a Basic Housing Allowance?
Response. Under the provisions of section 403 of title 37 of the
U.S. Code, any Sailor who is entitled to basic pay and does not
permanently reside in government quarters is entitled to a full Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH) based on his or her pay grade, dependency
status (i.e., a member with, or without dependents), and permanent duty
location. This includes Sailors and their families who reside in
housing built, maintained, and/or operated under a public-private
venture. However, the law also stipulates that members in pay grades
below E-6 without dependents are not entitled to BAH if assigned
afloat. The law goes on to provide that the Secretary concerned may
authorize BAH for these members if they are serving in pay grades E-4
or E-5. Navy policy limits this authority regarding Sailors in pay
grade E-4 to those with at least four years of service. Thus, the
effect of the law and Navy's policy is that members without dependents
in pay grades E-l to E-4 (with less than four years of service) may not
receive a full BAH if they are assigned to a tour of duty aboard a ship
or submarine. As of February 2008, 68.89 percent of Sailors who receive
basic pay also receive BAH.

Family Housing Budget--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. The budget request includes $123 million for family
housing construction, improvements, planning and design. For the
record, please breakout each of these items, by location and dollar
amount.
Answer. The requested information follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation
Location Project No. Description Request ($M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Housing Construction:
NS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............ H-541..................... Replace 38 units.......... $16.5
NS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............ H-543..................... Replace 60 units.......... 23.7
NS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............ H-544..................... Replace 48 units.......... 22.4
----------------
Subtotal........................... .......................... .......................... 62.6
Family Housing Improvements:
NCBC Gulfport, MS.................. H-06-92-2................. Privatization............. $8.4
NB Guam, Marianas Islands.......... H-02-03................... Revitalize 6 units........ 1.7
CFA Sasebo, Japan.................. HD-16-02.................. Revitalize 224 units...... 32.4
CFA Sasebo, Japan.................. HD-15-02-1................ Revitalize 68 units....... 8.8
CFA Sasebo, Japan.................. H-2-02.................... Revitalize 44 units....... 7.2
----------------
Subtotal........................... .......................... .......................... 58.5
Family Housing Planning & Design-- .......................... .......................... 2.0
Various Locations.
Total Family Housing Construction .......................... .......................... $123.1
Request ($M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Family Housing--Construction, Improvements, Planning & Design

Question: The budget request includes funding for family housing
construction, improvements, planning and design. For the record, please
breakout each of these items, by location and dollar amount.
Answer: By location, the budget request included the following
funding for family housing construction, improvements, and planning and
design.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Location ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total USMC Family Housing Construction....................... 0
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC......................................... 81,987
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA.................................. 49,600
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA....................................... 59,026
MCB Hawaii, HI............................................... 60,000
MCAS Iwakuni, JA............................................. 8,910
----------
Total USMC Family Housing Improvements................... 259,523
MCAS Iwakuni, JA............................................. 156
----------
Total USMC Family Housing Planning & Design.................. 156
Total USMC FHCON......................................... 259,679
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Family Housing Budget Overseas Locations--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes funding to
renovate, replace and sustain 7,800 hosing units in foreign/overseas
locations. How much does the budget request include for these
activities? Please provide, for the record, a listing by location and
dollar amount for these units.
Answer. The budget request includes $333 million for these units.
Table below provides breakdown.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY09
Installation FY09 Owned Leased FY09 $K
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marianas Is., Guam.................. 1,505 0 40,967
-----------------------------------
US Overseas totals.............. 1,505 0 40,967
London, UK.......................... 131 0 2,560
Madrid, Spain....................... 0 0 208
Rota, Spain......................... 781 0 16,230
Atsugi, Japan....................... 1,033 0 13,030
Sasebo, Japan....................... 661 0 57,251
CNF Japan HQ/Yokosuka............... 2,940 0 32,694
Chinhae, Korea...................... 50 0 553
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba................ 719 0 83,718
CNR Europe HQ....................... 0 0 2,721
Naples, Italy....................... 1 1,126 38,738
Sigonella, Italy.................... 8 930 34,541
Gaeta, Italy........................ 0 0 428
St Mawgan, UK....................... 0 0 264
Valencia, Spain..................... 0 0 141
Lisbon, Portugal.................... 0 1 342
Larissa, Greece..................... 0 1 610
Souda Bay, Crete.................... 0 1 624
Cairo, Egypt........................ 0 16 1,016
Dubai, UAE.......................... 0 1 59
Hanoi, Vietnam...................... 0 1 50
Hong Kong, China.................... 0 4 509
Jakarta, Indonesia.................. 0 13 1,048
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.............. 0 1 31
Lima, Peru.......................... 0 8 437
Manama, Bahrain..................... 0 2 232
Manila, Phillipines................. 0 4 230
New Dehli, India.................... 0 3 204
Oslo, Norway........................ 0 1 42
Singapore, Singapore................ 0 118 3,827
Tel Aviv, Israel.................... 0 1 37
Vientiane, Laos..................... 0 2 57
Foreign totals.................. 6,324 2,234 292,431
===================================
Navy totals..................... 7,829 2,234 333,398
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Family Housing--Renovate, Replace, Sustain Housing in Overseas
Locations--General Conway's Response

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes funding to
renovate, replace, and sustain housing units in foreign/overseas
locations. How much does the budget request include for these
activities? Please provide, for the record, a listing by location and
dollar amount for these units.
Answer. By location, the Fiscal Year 2009 budget includes the
following funding to renovate, replace, and sustain housing units in
foreign/overseas locations.

Location Amount ($000)
MCB Hawaii, HI (Section 802 units)............................ 15,600
MCAS Iwakuni, JA.............................................. *8,910
Total FHCON Improvements...................................... 24,510

MCAS Iwakuni, JA.............................................. 3,071
Total FHOPS Maintenance....................................... 3,071

Total Family Housing.......................................... 27,581

* Note: The total Hawaii project is $60M. $15.6M to purchase/
improve existing Section 802 units, and $44.4M for PPV seed money to
build additional housing units.

Family Housing--O&M and Leasing Costs--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $339 million
for the operation, maintenance, and leasing of Navy family housing.
Please tell the Committee how much is included for each of these
activities.
Answer. The table below shows line-item detail of the $339 million
dollar request.

[Dollars in millions]

Account FY 2009 Request
Utilities......................................................... 41.9
Operations
Management.................................................... 54.0
Services...................................................... 12.5
Furnishings................................................... 14.2
Miscellaneous................................................. 0.7
Maintenance....................................................... 83.4
Leasing........................................................... 116.7
Privatization Support............................................. 15.5
Navy Totals....................................................... 338.9

Child Development Center Construction--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes funding for
the construction of 5 new child development centers. Please tell the
Committee what the cost to construct for each of these centers and how
many spaces will be created at each of these 5 centers.
Answer. The following Child Development Center MILCON projects were
included in PB09:
NAS Jacksonville (Project Number: 192) at $12.89M
providing 302 total spaces
NS Pearl Harbor (Project Number: P019) at $29.30M
providing 302 total spaces
NAF El Centro (Project Number: P211) at $8.90M
providing 98 total spaces
NAS North Island (Project Number: P503) at $14.27
providing 302 total spaces
NS Norfolk (Project Number: P923) at $10.50M
providing 302 total spaces
Summary: A $75.86 million total investment in Child Development
Centers yielding a total of 1,306 spaces.

Child Development Centers Expansion Plan--Admiral Roughead's Response

Question. According to testimony the Navy has developed an
aggressive child care expansion plan, adding over 4,000 new child care
spaces within the next 18 months. Of these 4,000 spaces within the next
18 months, how many of these spaces are included in the fiscal year
2009 budget request?
Answer. All 4,000 spaces are included in the FY 2009 budget
request. The 4,000 additional spaces will be accomplished through four
expansion initiatives: 1) previously funded minor construction child
development centers (CDCs); 2) military home-care expansion; 3)
temporary modular classrooms; and 4) commercial contract spaces.
1. Minor construction: We are opening 1,300 new spaces.
2. Military home-care expansion: 400 additional subsidized,
military certified home care spaces which will be accomplished through
standardized/increased subsidies Navy-wide.
3. Temporary modular classrooms: 2,150 spaces will be added by
installing temporary units adjacent to existing military CDCs. These
units will be replaced in out-years with additional planned
construction.
4. Commercial contract spaces: Through a national contract, the
budget request resources 150 subsidized contract spaces in nationally
accredited commercial child care centers.)

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Wamp.]

[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Boyd.]

Camp Lejeune Water Contamination

Question. General Conway, my District Office has been
contacted by or advised of 7 different families in my District
that are seeking medical records, birth records, or other
information directly related to the Camp Lejeune Water
Contamination. I am requesting a written response from your
agency to me that addresses the efforts that are being made to
look deeper into the issue, and the overall direction that your
agency is headed in the handling of this issue.
Answer. The Marine Corps remains committed to finding
answers to the many questions surrounding historic water
quality at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC, and providing
this information to the public. Prior to 1987, some of the
drinking water at Camp Lejeune contained unregulated chemicals,
primarily solvents used in dry cleaning and degreasing
operations. Drinking water wells that contained these chemicals
were closed in the early 1980s with the last well closed in
1985.
Exposure to these chemicals in the drinking water at Camp
Lejeune has not been linked to any illnesses, at this time. The
Marine Corps has worked closely with the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the General Accountability Office
(GAO), and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study and
address the issue. Since 2003, the Marine Corps has spent over
$10 million supporting the efforts of these agencies to
determine whether our Marines may have been adversely affected
by the water.
Presently, the ATSDR is attempting to project when the
drinking water was first impacted, who may have consumed the
impacted water, and whether there is any association between
exposure to the chemicals in the drinking water and certain
adverse health conditions in children born to mothers who lived
at Camp Lejeune between 1968 through 1985 (thought to be the
most sensitive population). They estimate that this study will
be completed in mid 2009. In April 2007, the Marine Corps
contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
conduct a comprehensive review of available scientific
literature in order to recommend future actions that could be
taken (estimated completion Oct 2008). Other completed studies
include a review by the GAO, a Department of Justice
investigation, an EPA Criminal Investigation Division
investigation, as well as a panel review commissioned by the
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
The Marine Corps fully supports the efforts of these
agencies, and is providing data, access, and logistical
assistance to them; upon completion of their studies, the
Marine Corps will publicize the results. The Marine Corps has
made it a top priority to identify and contact the potentially
impacted population (individuals who lived or worked at Camp
Lejeune between 1957 and 1987) so that they can be notified of
their potential exposure and updated as additional information
becomes available. Unfortunately, the Marine Corps does not
have complete personnel records covering this entire period.
To this end, in September 2007 the Marine Corps established
a Notification Registry to inform former Camp Lejeune residents
that they may have been exposed to impacted drinking water and
receive additional information when ongoing studies are
complete. The registry can be accessed at www.usmc.mil/clsurvey
or via the toll-free hotline at 1-877-261-9782. Interested
parties can also e-mail questions to [email protected]
To reach former Marines not contained in our records, the
Marine Corps has placed advertisements in internal and military
publications, articles in local newspapers (nationwide) and
radio announcements (nationwide). Additionally the Marine Corps
has funded paid advertisements in National publications such as
``USA Today''. These efforts have enabled the Marine Corps to
identify thousands of individuals and mail over 50,000 letters
notifying them of their potential exposure, informing them of
the issue and providing contact information so they can learn
more.
The Marine Corps and Department of the Navy continue to
clean up environmental contamination aboard the base and fully
cooperate with other state and federal agencies. The drinking
at Camp Lejeune today is safe to drink and is tested more
rigorously than required.

[Clerk's note.--End of Questions for the Record submitted
by Congressman Boyd.]
Wednesday, March 12, 2008.

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND

WITNESSES

ADMIRAL TIMOTHY KEATING, U.S. NAVY COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND
GENERAL B.B. BELL, COMMANDER, REPUBLIC OF KOREA--UNITED STATES COMBINED
FORCES COMMAND, AND COMMANDER, UNITED STATES FORCES KOREA

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Good morning.
Admiral Keating, General Bell, welcome to the committee.
We are here today to discuss the fiscal year 2009 military
construction and family housing request for U.S. Pacific
Command, including U.S. Forces Korea.
The total amount of requested military construction
supporting PACOM is $2.9 billion. This includes $675 million in
overseas construction and $2.2 billion in U.S. construction
supporting PACOM and its components.
Pacific Command's force posture is undergoing what is
perhaps its greatest transition since the early post-war era.
The transition involved a major realignment of bases in Japan,
including the eventual transfer of 8,300 Marines and their
dependents from Okinawa to Guam.
In Korea, the U.S. military has reduced its presence, I
believe, by about one-third. The remaining forces are
relocating and consolidating south of Seoul.
Finally, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are all
realigning forces to increase their presence in the Pacific.
Before we proceed with the opening comments and my
introduction of our witnesses today, I would like to recognize
Mr. Wamp, our ranking member, for any opening comments you
would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just thank you for
your leadership and for these two great military leaders'
presence here today.
It is inspirational to be in your presence. I know you both
now and have great confidence in you.
General Bell and I have known each other for a long time.
He went to school at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga
and is a property owner in my district.
I don't know of a more gung-ho American soldier than
General Bell. I have known a bunch of them, and he is here in
the flesh.
General Bell. I will not get on the table today, I promise.
Mr. Wamp. And, Admiral Keating, your leadership is very
much appreciated.
We have got many challenges ahead, but it is a great
privilege to be a part of this process. And even this morning
there was commentary in the press about the many challenges we
face, trying to spend $14 billion in Guam, and the kind of
support long term that we need.
So that, in and of itself, is earth-changing and paradigm-
shifting for the United States military.
But it is a great time of opportunity for us and I
particularly appreciate PACOM, because I have been through a
lot of this part of the world and I know the importance
historically there and it is as important today as it has ever
been, even just thinking of North Korea and the kind of
presence and consistent leadership we need in your part of the
world.
So it is a privilege to see you here in your nation's
capital and I can't thank you enough for your service. And all
the people sitting behind you, you are their representatives
today.
And we so we compliment you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you----
What is amazing to me is to look at you two great leaders
and think that you represent 76 years of public service to our
country and to our service men and women and their families.
Thanks to you both for that distinguished service.
By way of brief introduction, Admiral Keating assumed
command of PACOM on March 23rd of 2007, nearly 37 years of
service after graduating from the Naval Academy in 1971.
And thank you for every one of those years, 37 years of
service.
He is a naval aviator with over 5,000 flight hours,
probably flew planes faster than my dad in World War II, flew
those PDYs. I am told 100 knots, climbing 100 knots, straight
level, 100 knots, more or less.
He has served as commander of the Northern Command and
NORAD from 2004 to 2007. A native of Dayton, Ohio.
General B.B. Bell is commander of U.S. Forces in Korea, has
been in that post since February 2006. He also was commander of
U.S. Army Europe prior to his current post, 39 years of
service.
He also--and I have always saved the best for last--served
as III Corps commander at the great Fort Hood in Texas.
And, General Bell, let me just tell you, as someone who has
considered myself privileged to be your friend for so many
years now, this will be your last time to testify before our
committee, as you retire in June.
Thank you for your lifetime of service. I have never known
any general officer who has fought harder for our service men
and women and their quality of life to support them than you
have, and you have been a tremendous fighter every step of the
way.
If your troops weren't being treated right, you saw to it
that they would be.
And I can't say enough about your leadership and the
sacrifice that you and Katie have made for our country.
How many moves in all those years of service?
General Bell. Sir, you wouldn't believe it if I told you.
You would conduct an investigation.
We have made 33 moves.
Mr. Edwards. Thirty-three moves in 39 years.
General Bell. It will be 34 here before too long, and that
is it.
Mr. Edwards. Well, I think that underscores the point I
would make. I consider the unsung heroes and heroines in our
nation's defense to be our military spouses and children and
the sacrifices your families make in all those years.
It just makes me proud to be at the same table with you.
Thank you for that service.
General Bell. Thank you, Chairman, I appreciate it. It is
an honor.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Without objection, your full testimony will be submitted
for the record, but I would like to recognize both of you,
beginning with you, Admiral Keating, to present your opening
remarks and then we will go into questions and answers.

Statement of Admiral Timothy J. Keating

Admiral Keating. Thank you very much, Chairman, for the
pleasure and the privilege of appearing before you for my first
opportunity today.
I would like to add, with emphasis, for your record, Mr.
Chairman, the Pacific Command's gratitude and thanks to B.B.
Bell and Katie. It has been my great personal and professional
privilege to work with B.B. on a couple of different occasions
and, as you say, there is no more fierce advocate for our men
and women in uniform than General B.B. Bell.
We will miss him. His kind doesn't come along often.
Behind me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce one
gentleman in particular, our senior enlisted leader for the
United States Forces in the Pacific, Chief Master Sergeant Jim
Roy, United States Air Force.
I am glad that he could join us today. His efforts on
behalf of enlisted men and women in the Pacific Command are of
the same quality as General Bell's have been, as you mentioned.
I am sure you would feel the same sense of pride that I do
as I sit before you representing those 350,000-some men and
women in uniform and the civilians who support our efforts in
Southwest Asia, Southeast Asia, and all throughout the Asia-
Pacific Region.
In a couple of words, Mr. Chairman, our region is stable,
thankfully. Security is improving and it is perhaps best
characterized by the significant economic engine that is
churning, running on all cylinders out in the Asia-Pacific
region.
We have had several elections recently in our area of
responsibility. They have gone well, I believe, for our command
and certainly for our country.
In Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and Thailand,
new governments are in place and, in each case, they are
supportive of our strategy at the United States Pacific
Command.
There is a collaborative mindset amongst all those
countries where we work throughout our region, with a couple of
notable exceptions, most prominent, North Korea and China,
People's Republic of China, of course, and more on those in
just a second.
But all of us in the region agree that we can improve our
security through multi-lateral efforts, trying to leverage
bilateral relations, build on the very solid set of relations
we have in that area, but expand them to a multilateral effort.
We have had 23 chiefs of defense come to our headquarters
and we have been able to visit 21 countries in the year that we
have had the privilege of command.
So we are getting out, we are moving around, and we are
spending time with folks to emphasize maritime security systems
and try to improve the information sharing and collaboration so
as to reduce, if not eliminate our own concern, and that is
violent extremism throughout area of responsibility.
We have had, through your support, the opportunity to
provide humanitarian efforts to tens of thousands of people
throughout the Asia-Pacific region. The United States' Naval
Ship Mercy is coming again this summer, our hospital ship.
She was through two summers ago. Last summer, the USS
Peleliu, an amphibious ship from our United States Navy, who
took most of the Marines off and put a number of doctors and
dentists and nurses on, and they saw about 30,000 people
throughout the Southeast Asia area, over 1,000 major surgeries
performed, and that is where goodwill and humanitarian
assistance, of course, goes a long way to improving peace and
stability in our region.
The money that you give us has been very helpful in our war
on terrorism. In particular, in the countries of Indonesia,
Malaysia, and the Republic of the Philippines have used--it is
not a king's ransom, but it is a significant effort.
It allows them to collaborate in significant ways to
improve maritime security, in particular, through the Strait of
Malacca, a significantly important strategic chokepoint for us
in our theater, and security has been significantly enhanced
because of the money that you have given us to reduce the
movement of terrorists and the flow of the financial support
that they need.
So we are hopeful for progress throughout our region. As
you saw, no doubt, in the paper, Ambassador Chris Hill is
engaged with the North Koreans tomorrow, I think, this time in
Geneva, trying to move that ball a little bit closer to the
goal line for six-party talks, which would--he is, of course,
closer to this problem--we watch with him very carefully as we
strive for peace in the peninsula.
The People's Republic of China, I have been there twice--
it's slow going with them, but we think we are making progress.
We are emphasizing, again, not just transparency, but statement
of intent.
We are not as near where we want to be with them, but I am
encouraged. It is a gradual progress, but I think it is
measurable and it is, in the long run, of significant
importance to the United States----
I am, once again, grateful for your support, Mr. Chairman,
Congressman Wamp. We will be happy to take your questions.
[Prepared statement of Timothy J. Keating follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.012

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Admiral Keating.
General Bell.

Statement of General B.B. Bell

General Bell. I would like to make an opening statement,
and I appreciate it.
Chairman, thank you for letting me be here today.
Congressman Wamp, sir, it is great to see you and I look
forward to seeing you down in and around east Tennessee. It
would be a great honor.
On February 25th, a man named Lee Myung-bak was inaugurated
as the president of the Republic of Korea. It was a landslide
victory.
This is a radically different individual than the
individual we have been dealing with for the past 10 years,
actually, two individuals we have been dealing with for the
past 10 years.
In his inaugural address before international heads of
state, diplomats, dignitaries, they were all there, and 45,000
Koreans assembled in front of him in an outdoor ceremony, he
really spoke eloquently of the United States of America.
He singled us out in front of all these heads of state and
they were a little nervous, because he is talking about one
country instead of perhaps all those countries.
He said, ``We will work to develop and further strengthen
traditional relations with the United States into a future-
oriented partnership based on deep mutual trust that exists
between the two peoples. We will also strengthen our strategic
alliance with the United States.''
Our partnership with the Republic of Korea, which is now a
solid 58 years old, since the beginning of the Korean War, is
entering, in my view, an extremely positive era, wherein the
South Koreans strongly desire to reinvigorate the traditional
alliance with the United States.
In recent State Department polling, and they hire companies
to do this and they are very credible polls, 75 percent of the
South Koreans believe that the American military presence was
important to their national security and they want us to stay
there.
Interestingly, 68 percent of the citizens of the Republic
of Korea believe that the mutual defense treaty between the two
nations should be maintained even if there is resolution with
the North Koreans, and I found that very interesting.
The bottom line is that, today, we are indeed welcome and
wanted and expressed so by the Korean government in the
Republic of Korea. Of course, this alliance is a full
partnership with both nations committing a lot of resources.
Under the 2004 bilateral Yongsan Relocation Plan, and
Yongsan is where we are located right now in the heart of
Seoul, dead center in their city, it is the old Japanese
garrison from 1910 to 1945, and we moved in there at the end of
World War II and had a few fist fights in 1950 to 1951 to stay
there. But we have been there since 1953 now.
But at any rate, South Korea agreed to shoulder the
majority of the infrastructure expenses associated with moving
our forces out of Yongsan garrison, farther south in their
country, down to a place called Garrison Humphreys at
Pyongtaek.
And already, in that physical process, South Korea has
spent about $2 billion in that effort. It is of the magnitude
of the Guam move, but it is local and inside Korea and
certainly not a U.S. possession, and it doesn't get as much
publicity.
For our part, we agreed to do one thing, and this was back
in 2004, and that was to provide the family housing and senior
officer and senior enlisted quarters at Garrison Humphreys
commensurate with those that we already owned and had in
Yongsan.
We estimated that would be a bill, over 15 years, of about
$1.4 billion, over a 15-year lease period.
So that was our going-in position. They were going to pay
the majority of our costs to move from Seoul and we were going
to spend about $1.4 billion, and ours would be amortized over a
15-year period, and both nations signed up to that in 2004 in
an international agreement.
To be honest with you, we have not made any progress in
fulfilling our share of the agreement at this point, because we
have not found a way successfully, either within DOD and
certainly here in Congress, to convince you all of the process
that we were pursuing as being a valid, legitimate process.
In other words, we are dead in the water right now on
executing our responsibilities that we agreed to almost 4 years
ago. The Koreans are moving out smartly, and have been.
I will just leave that on the table, sir, and we might talk
about that a little bit more.
But in addition to their financial commitment to that
Yongsan Relocation Plan, South Korea also provides us with
annual burden sharing dollars to defray large parts of our
labor, maintenance and construction costs.
In 2007, they gave me $770 million cash to put in the bank
and in 2008, this year, $787 million to defray these expenses.
And we use those moneys for labor costs and for maintenance and
sustainment, but, also, military construction, built to
Department of the Army and DOD standards, but with their money,
not appropriated funds out of Congress.
By the way, Congress does approve these projects, but not
for funding. They just have oversight of the projects to make
sure we are not doing something dumb, like building a casino or
something.
I mean, you all have oversight of that process.
But at any rate, in the past year alone, with those burden
sharing moneys, we have funded the construction of an $8.5
million vehicle maintenance facility at the Marine camp in
Mujak, an $8.3 million upgrade to 22 hardened aircraft shelters
at Osan Air Base.
We began construction of a $41.8 million barracks complex
for enlisted personnel at Kunsan Air Base, and we are in the
process of approving the construction of a $35 million
humidity-controlled warehouse to support our prepositioned
combat equipment stocks at Army Garrison Carroll, and a $39.4
million senior NCO dormitory at Osan Air Base.
Our South Korean partner and our ally is funding all of
this at no cost to the United States.
I guess my point is that they are in financial partnership
with us in funding a majority of the bills that we accrue down
there in the Republic of Korea.
I would like to end now, because I know you want to get to
questions, but I would conclude by saying that this partnership
that we have with the new administration over there, only been
in office--quite frankly--has been phenomenal.
I have had personal engagements with the President of the
Republic of Korea since he took office. That was not the case
with the last president. He has sent his national security
advisor to see me at various places, extolling the benefits of
the relationship, and even went so far, in our just completed
very major theater exercise, called Key Resolve/Foal Eagle to
seek me out in an underground bunker and deliver a personal
letter to me from the Republic of Korea, thanking the United
States for running the exercise and helping defend their
country, an extremely positive outreach program.
President Lee Myung-bak will come to the United States in
April. President Bush has already issued an invitation to him
to go up to Camp David so that they can have a good engagement.
I have been a strong advocate for the Congress of the
United States to offer this man a joint session. I don't know
if that will happen, but he would be honored to have that
opportunity.
If the Congress, Senate and the House see fit, it would be
a forum for him to come in here and explain his views and how
different they are than the past administration over there, and
they are radically different to the positive.
Sir, I would like to stop with that and I would be honored
to take your questions.
[Prepared statement of General B.B. Bell follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.037

Mr. Edwards. Great. It will take us about a minute or less
to go up and vote and come back. It is a motion to adjourn. So
we can do that pretty quickly and come back and then start the
Q-and-A, if we could.
General Bell. Great, yes, sir.
[Recess.]
Mr. Edwards. Thank you again for your excellent opening
statements.
I would like to begin the questioning by recognizing Mr.
Wamp, out of respect for the fact that General Bell is going to
be your constituent and your neighbor.
General Bell. Sir, property taxes are too high----
Mr. Wamp. There will be a time and place for that, man. I
am with you. I am with you completely.
General Bell. I have no idea what they are, Congressman. I
am just----
Mr. Wamp. Probably lower than the rest--high quality of
life and low cost of living.
Chairman Edwards and I were just talking, I don't want to
overdo this, but on the way up to the floor and back about who
you all represent and who you are and your incredible
patriotism, and we just can't say enough about it.

SOUTH KOREAN ECONOMY

General Bell, when we think about South Korea, what is the
economy like there? Is this a good time for them to be doing
this? Is this a sacrificial kind of investment or they just
feel real good about the future and are willing to do it?
General Bell. Congressman, the South Korean economy is
bustling. They are the 11th largest economy in the world today.
This new president's goal is to be one of the top 10 and I
would not be surprised if he makes that.
South Korea has come, in just 30 years, from a still third
world, war ravaged country, just 30 years ago, much less 55
years ago, to today to be a modern first world country.
The days of MASH are long gone, to say the least.
I am extremely impressed when I look at the economic
vitality of the Republic of Korea, the way they entered the
world market, and, also, the way they compete in the world
market.
They are world marketeers. Obviously, a small country the
size of Korea, which is about the size of our state of Indiana,
but only about 20 percent of which is habitable, because the
rest of South Korea is mountains.
So when you take 20 percent of Indiana and plop down 50
million people, you get what is going on in South Korea today,
this unbelievable economy. So they are doing very well.
The new president--they are chunking along at about a 4.5
percent annual growth rate, and his goal is 7 percent. He is a
businessman. He ran three Hyundai heavy industry companies. He
was also a national assemblyman, congressman, and he was also
the mayor of Seoul. He has run a large city, 22 million people
in the greater Seoul metropolitan area.
So their focus is totally on the economy. They are a
wealthy nation. They are our seventh largest trading partner
and they produce, along with other countries in that area, both
Japan and China, 25 percent of the world's gross domestic
product, and growing.
So this is a bustling area and they are willing to defray
these costs to ensure that they retain this partnership with
America.
Mr. Wamp. And the person on the street feels the same way,
not just the new leadership?
General Bell. Clearly. I will tell you, this is a--I don't
want to get too longwinded, but this is a maturing democracy.
It started really, real democratic principles, about 30 years
ago.
There were a lot of pretty strong-armed guys before but
world democratic principles began, as we would recognize them,
about 30 years ago.
If you could imagine our country, sir, 30 years after our
founding, it probably wasn't as smoothly running as it is
today, and you all might even ask how smooth it really runs
today.

GUAM

So they have sorted out a lot of schisms in how a democracy
operates in the Republic of Korea, and I think that is why we
have seen some left and right turns amongst the electorate in
terms of the kind of leadership that they want leading it.
Right now, the turn they have made, you cannot describe, in
our terms, like republican and democrat and conservative and
liberal. It doesn't mesh up that way.
But they have gone from being very nationalistic and very
self-centered and very ideological, just recently--to a
realization that if they were going to compete in the real
world and have real friends, they needed to swing back and pick
their partners.
And so they have come back to a point where they want to
partner with their best long-term friend, the United States,
and they are willing to risk a lot to achieve that.
That is radically different than just a year ago, and that
is the electorate. I mean, you look at these polls and that is
the way they spoke. They are not kidding.
Mr. Wamp. Admiral Keating, I want to talk on the next round
about Guam and about terrorism from Indonesia to Malaysia.
But right now I want to follow up, while we are on this
topic, and shift over to China.

CHINA

I read excerpts of your testimony in the Senate here a
couple of days ago and I met with you. But my wife and I and my
chief of staff were with Representative Clyburn and we were in
Shanghai a couple months ago, speaking of a city with 20
million people that doesn't do it right, to be honest with you,
whether it is the environment or just controlled growth.
I think I heard what you said is that the potential
military buildup in China is not as great an imminent threat as
some would have you believe.
I think there is still a lot of chaos in China in terms of
the explosive growth in the major cities and environmental
issues, and the government is not really in command of a lot of
the infrastructure requirements, and so they are not even
capable of putting together, frankly, a full-scale military
buildup.
But I would like for you to pick up on what kind of threat
China really is to us right now in your region.
Admiral Keating. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
We watch China carefully--inspirational wisdom, but I
believe there is no worry about--the number of folks--it must
keep awake at night as much as China, it doesn't. Their
military buildup does not keep me awake at night.
It is a cause of concern. They are developing technologies
that indicate a strategy that goes beyond harmonious
integration and peaceful rise.
Their strategies and their bumper stickers all sound good,
but the commitments they are making in their defense budget are
of concern--weapons. They are fielding missiles that are very
sophisticated technologically, that have range in excess of
1,000 kilometers and have pretty effective countermeasures,
electronic countermeasures.
They have, of course, demonstrated their ability to shoot
down a satellite in space and they are developing submarine
technology that is of concern to us. They have 64 or 65
submarines, about a half a dozen nuclear powered. They are
quiet. They are stretching or they are expanding the areas of
blue water Pacific. They are coming outside their littoral
waters.
So their navy is getting to be more forward deployed. The
air force, they are developing missiles and they have jets that
are very sophisticated technologically.
Their army is about 1.5 million strong. They are finding
out, to their surprise, it costs a lot of money to recruit,
train and equip a first rate military force.
I am not saying they are first rate, but they are finding
out it costs a lot money to do that.
I mentioned Chief Master Sergeant Jim Roy a minute ago.
They do not have a senior noncommissioned officer corps. It
doesn't exist in the People's Liberation Army.
They have asked Jim Roy to come over and talk to them about
our senior noncommissioned corps. When he goes there to meet
his counterparts, he sits down with--they just don't have a
senior NCO corps.
So they are very interested in our military, how we
recruit, train and equip, the moneys you give us. They are
developing appreciation for the costs getting there.
So we are watching them very carefully. We are attempting
to sustain and improve the dialogue. We want more personnel
exchanges. We want them to come see how we do business. We want
to go see how they are developing their capabilities.
We are working closely with all countries in the region so
as to develop an appreciation for the benefits of multilateral
engagement with them.
I am optimistic, but we have a long way to go with it.
Mr. Wamp. I will wait for the next round.

HOUSING

Mr. Edwards. Admiral Keating, let me ask you. Our committee
has tended to focus a lot on quality of life, because there is
no shortage of lobbyists running around on Capitol Hill when
you are fighting for a nuclear aircraft carrier.
But when you are fighting for better housing for your
servicemen and women and their families, daycare centers, youth
activity centers, there are not a lot of lobbyists running
around D.C. fighting for those.
Could you give me an overview of how you think we are doing
in terms of housing and meeting DOD standards for housing in
the area under your command?
Admiral Keating. Thank you, Chairman.
A couple of points come to mind. Our aide, a flight
lieutenant, he and his wife and two daughters just moved into
brand new housing on Oahu. I was the flag lieutenant to Admiral
Crowe in 1985 and the housing, my wife and I chose not to
occupy government housing.
If J.T. were here, he would tell you it is first rate. It
is--and good. It is brand new. The schools that his kids attend
are very good.
Mr. Edwards. Is the housing the new public-private housing?
Admiral Keating. Yes, it is and it is going very well, from
our perspective.
And there are hundreds and hundreds of units. We are
building, even as we speak, on Ford Island. So the young
enlisted member who might have been somewhat reluctant to come
to Hawaii for duty because of the cost of housing and the
quality of education is happier now to get orders to Hawaii.
We have more people wanting to come to our command
headquarters staff than we have billets available.
So it is a--situation for us.
In Japan, we lived in Japan for a couple years. Our son and
our daughter both lived there separately for months. The
barracks were good in Japan. They are good and getting better.
Our daughter lived on the economy for a while and we moved
to housing in Japan and found it to be very comfortable. So we
had firsthand family experience with housing in Japan.
B.B. can speak to Korea.
Throughout the rest of the area, including Alaska, and you
are giving us money this year, we are going to build some 40
new housing units and barracks in Alaska and California, in
particular.
So the improvements that you are going to allow us to make
are significant--quality of life is good in Pacific. With your
support, it is getting better and our bill this year includes
some significant funding for it.
Mr. Edwards. And would you mind following up, after this
hearing, and just answer in writing, with the help of your
staff, the question of how many personnel under your command
are presently living in housing that does not--housing or
barracks that do not meet DOD standards?
And then, secondly, what kind of waiting lists are there
for daycare centers or youth activity centers?
Admiral Keating. We will get back to you.
[The information follows:]

In the USPACOM area of responsibility, approximately 4,500 families
live in housing units that need to be renovated or replaced to meet DoD
standards. 4,500 housing units represent about 6 percent of the total
USPACOM inventory. The number of inadequate homes is down substantially
from a high of 75,000 in 1997. With continued congressional support, we
anticipate eliminating substandard family housing by 2009.
Regarding barracks in the command, approximately 5,200 personnel
reside in spaces that are considered inadequate. All Pacific Air Forces
dormitories met standards in FY07. With approval of the USPACOM FY09
request, USPACOM will make significant progress in reducing the number
of inadequate barracks, to include the elimination of substandard
spaces for U.S. Army Pacific soldiers.
There is an estimated shortfall of 58,000 spaces for day-care DOD-
wide; the DOD goal is to have a childcare wait time of three months or
less. In the USPACOM AOR, wait lists vary by Permanent Change of
Station (PCS) cycles, but DOD childcare goals are met at most bases.
Exceptions are in Hawaii, Alaska and Japan--especially in the infant
and pre-toddler age care.
In Hawaii, waiting time for the Navy, Army, and Air Force is
greater than 6 months for infant care. The Army also has shortfalls in
Hawaii for pre-toddlers and school age care.
In Alaska, Elmendorf AFB has a waiting list over six months for
school age care. Additionally, the Army requires additional spaces for
infant, pre-toddler and school age care in Alaska.
Waiting lists for the Navy at Atsugi, Japan exceed 6 months. There
are also Marine shortfalls in capacity at Iwakuni and Camp Butler for
infant and pre-toddler care. At Camp Zama, there is shortage of Army
slots for school-aged care.
Efforts are ongoing to decrease the waiting time and increase
capacity. The Navy plans to have sufficient spaces by 31 Dec 08 to
achieve the goal of three months or less wait time at all facilities
throughout USPACOM. Planned Marine MILCON projects will expand the
existing Child Development Centers (CDC) in Hawaii by 150 spaces.
Several PACAF bases have received OSD funds to expand their capacities
in their CDCs and School Age programs. Planned Army MILCON projects
will add over 1,500 spaces at Ft. Richardson, Ft. Wainwright,
Schofield, and Ft. Shafter between FY07-FY12.
Staffing challenges, primarily in Japan, are being met by
recruitment and retention initiatives to minimize staff turnover due to
normal PCS. Efforts to increase the number of Child Development Homes
are also on-going in Japan.

Mr. Edwards. We could just follow up on that.
And one comment I will make that I have made in our other
hearings, but just so you know, it is an issue that we are
going to keep pushing.
I understand now that DOD has a DOD-wide policy that says
adequate housing for families, military families, is defined in
a way I find almost ludicrous.
If DOD spent $50,000 to fix the leaky roof, take the old
washer and dryer out that aren't working and fix the warped
floors, if we spent $50,000 and that brought the house up to
standard, then, technically, that family is living in
``adequate'' housing, even if the military never spent a dime
of that $50,000.
It just doesn't pass the common sense test and somehow we
have all got to work together in a responsible way to figure
out how to better--so that you, as commanders, and we, as
members of Congress, can get the data we really need to find
out how many families are truly living in houses or single
troops living in barracks that don't meet standards.
That is not much good for a family, and this wasn't your
decision--say, ``Well, listen, you ought to feel better because
we spent $50,000 so you would be living in adequate housing,
and, therefore, we define your house as adequate.''
We will keep looking at any ideas you have in the future
and how we can work together to get the data we really need to
see that every serviceman and woman and their families are
living in quality housing. I would be deeply grateful to you
for that.
General Bell, I know we have had some deplorable housing
conditions in the Republic of Korea in years past. How are we
doing? What are your thoughts there?
General Bell. Well, Chairman, it is a mixed bag. Obviously,
we are building some new barracks and a couple of new family
housing units with this host nation money.
So whenever we can do that, we build to DOD standards and
these are very fine quarters.
But on balance, I think we are letting our service members
down. I make no bones about that. It is no revelation, sir, for
your committee. I say it to DOD, Department of the Army, and to
all the committees.
There is uncertainty in our government about our future in
the Republic of Korea. That is unfortunate, because, in my
view, it is such a strategic location, given the rise of China
and the resurgence of Russia, the economic powerhouse that is
Japan.
Korea is right in the nexus of all of that. In fact, Seoul
is 100 miles closer to Beijing than it is to Tokyo. This is an
incredibly strategically important location for us.

1-YEAR TOUR

And I argued, not very effectively, but certainly argued
that we need to stop looking at Korea 1 year at a time in view
of the North Koreans as though, when that problem is solved, we
will take our troops and go home.
We need to look beyond North Korea and recognize the
strategic importance of South Korea and form a strategic
partnership with them that normalizes our relationship.
And that one act would allow us then to articulate to you
and others the kinds of family housing that we need and the
kinds of facilities and then you could see why we wanted them
more clearly than the current 1-year-at-a-time notion, next
year we might just leave, because North Korea--we might have a
peace treaty or something and then the war will finally be
over.
The war of democracy versus totalitarianism and free market
economies and peace and security is going to be something this
nation fights forever, and fighting it in South Korea is a good
place for us.
Ten percent of my service members are authorized to bring
their families to Korea. The other 90 percent are not. They are
on 1-year short tours.
Of the 10 percent who can bring them, most live in
substandard quarters provided by our government, and you would
not be proud to walk in them. You would not be proud and you
would not tolerate some of the quarters that I could show you
that good sergeants and young officers are living in today.
We have a chance to turn that around, and I won't belabor
this too long, with this relocation. And with the relocation,
for just those who are currently authorized, not withstanding
my belief that we need to normalize over there--but for those
that are moving, if we do resource the new family quarters,
which I hope that we will eventually, we can ensure that they
are provided to DOD standards and take care of the long-term
problem of inadequate quarters for both senior enlisted,
noncommissioned officers, officers and family members who are
authorized to be in Korea today.
We have a one-time opportunity to do this right. We are 4
years behind the power curve, straight up. We agreed to do this
in 2004 and we have not done it yet.
But we haven't screwed it up yet either, because we still
have options where we can do this correctly.
So I put in my posture statement with some clarity what I
believe needs to be done and how we need to pursue it.
I will say this in conclusion. DOD, in recognizing that we
are unable to get congressional support for the build to lease
options in Korea, has asked for $125 million of military
construction for Army family housing, this year.
The Army is the executive agent for this, even though it is
multi-service housing, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine.
That will build us 216 of the more than 2,000 required
units that we must put up at Garrison Humphreys, about 10
percent. It will start the process.
I strongly recommend and ask for your consideration to go
ahead and ensure that $125 million makes it through the markup
process and is ultimately approved in the next defense
authorization bill and appropriated accordingly.
It will allow us to get started. It will show good faith
with our ally. It will allow us to put up good housing and put
our service members into it.
And then if we have to work different approaches for the
remaining 90 percent, whether it is build to lease, whether it
is additional military construction or even a privatization
approach that the Army is investigating now, and I support
their----
They are looking at getting Korean companies to accept the
privatization approach that we have done in the United States
and assume the risk of the United States leaving, moving or not
showing up.
But that is not stupid. It is worth pursuing and they are
trying that.
So there are three approaches and my recommendation is we
go ahead and fund the $125 million that we have asked for. It
will build three towers. These are all towers, by the way. They
are not like--on the ground.
And we should continue, I believe, the proper approach--I
think that is a right approach. It amortizes costs over a long
period of time.
It allows us to be in control of the standards and we ought
not to walk away from the potential for privatization where
Korean or other international companies assume the risk.
That is kind of where we are, sir. Sorry I was so long.
Mr. Edwards. No, no, I appreciate that. I will follow up in
my second round of questions. Thank you.
Mr. Berry.
Mr. Bishop.

TAIWAN

Mr. Bishop. Welcome. I have got a couple questions.
First of all, in written testimony before the Armed
Services Committee, Admiral Keating--military buildup will
require Taiwan to improve its own defenses to detect potential
aggression from the Chinese mainland.
Do you--of Taiwan by the Chinese as a result of the
buildup? And the follow up question is to what extent do we
have fixed assets in Taiwan and to what extent, if any, will we
need to, if we have them there--military construction to
fortify those?
Admiral Keating. We have no troops stationed in Taiwan,
Congressman. So we do not have any MILCON request for Taiwan.
The threat that China poses is increasing, in my opinion,
for the folks who are our friends in Taiwan. There are hundreds
of surface-to-surface missiles in garrison across the strait
between Taiwan and China.
The Chinese are developing slowly and it is in its very
nascent states and it could be a--capability that could pose a
threat for and there could be an invasion of Taiwan.
So in several respects, the Chinese military are developing
systems and capabilities and technologies that cause us to view
that with concern as it presents itself as a threat to Taiwan.
Mr. Bishop. What is that we are doing to counteract that?
Admiral Keating. We as?
Mr. Bishop. As the U.S.
Admiral Keating. To counteract China's----
Mr. Bishop. As an ally to Taiwan.
Admiral Keating. Several things. We participate in--we
provide trainers for Taiwan's military. We participate in
their--they have a couple of big exercises a year.
We send observers to help them develop the capabilities
that are resident in their systems, and they are becoming much
more well versed in joint operations, not just stovepipe army-
navy operations.
So they are improving there. We are also working----
Mr. Bishop. When you say joint operations, you mean joint
operations with us?
Admiral Keating. No, sir. Just the Taiwan forces
themselves. They had not done much of that and we are
encouraging them to participate in military operations in a
joint fashion, as we do here in the United States.
Mr. Bishop. The strategic agreement that we have with
Taiwan, what does that require us to do? What are our
obligations under that agreement?
Admiral Keating. Our obligations are to provide--to help
Taiwan provide for their own defense. We do not commit forces
on a day-to-day basis in Taiwan, but we help them through the
American Institute, which is an embassy counterpart there in
Taipei, and to help them develop their defensive capabilities.
Mr. Bishop. And do we have any pushback internally on that?
Admiral Keating. Yes, we do, significant.
Mr. Bishop. So how have we responded to that?
Admiral Keating. In our visits, personally, two visits to
China, when we get the Taiwan lecture, and it happens in every
meeting, we cite our longstanding balanced approach to
diffusing tensions in the strait.
We have had since 1979 a policy that recognizes one China.
We emphasize that to the People's Republic of China and to the
folks on the island of Taiwan.
So we have had a constant, steady strategy for Taiwan and
for China.
Mr. Wamp.

OKINAWA TO GUAM TRANSITION

Mr. Wamp. I want to follow up a little bit, looking at
Guam.
I am the new kid on the block here. So explain to me, as we
transition, from Okinawa to Guam, I think 8,300 Marines, 9,000
dependents, what the difference is between the dependents
moving with the Marines versus Seoul, where virtually--or the
vast majority of the soldiers do not have their dependents with
them.
What separates those two paradigms in terms of our presence
in Guam? And I assume that is the way it was in Okinawa, as
well. It is more of a permanent situation where your families--
in Guam.
Admiral Keating. B.B. might be in a better position to
answer that question, Congressman, but I will start, if I
could.
In the early days of our committing troops to Korea, the
likelihood of conflict was much greater there. So it was an
intentional withhold to keep families----
The notion that every morning, in Seoul, they would wake up
with 1,000 long-barreled artilleries facing them, that is not
the situation in Okinawa then nor is it now, and it certainly
isn't the case in Guam.
Mr. Wamp. Right. But it has changed dramatically and it is
more like a Guam situation in South Korea.
General Bell. It certainly is. I don't want to get rambling
here again. My son was born on the east-west German border
facing two Soviet divisions, both equipped with tactical
nuclear weapons, whose mission was to overrun us, kill all of
us and show up at the ocean.
Yet, our nation gladly invited my family over there in a
command sponsored role and wanted us to be with our families
and accepted the risk--accepted the risk. Of course, a family
had to agree to that.
Now, we are moving south in South Korea, out of harm's way
physically, and I believe that it is time to change from that
55-year-ago war footing and recognize that South Korea is a
first world country.
They are, and they know it, they have got a much better
military than North Korea. They can fight North Korea with our
help easily and North Koreans know that. That is why they have
been developing weapons of mass destruction, because they are
trying to seek another way to coerce and influence, because we
are not afraid of their conventional military anymore in terms
of defeat.
They could kill a lot of people, I will admit that and that
is a tragedy, but in terms of defeating the alliance, they
can't do that. It is not going to happen and they know it.
So it is time to, in my view, change the paradigm in Korea
and recognize that the alliance is worth more than just dealing
with North Korea every day.
Mr. Wamp. One word, though, General Bell, as you are having
conversations with your successors in the days ahead, the $125
million request just--I was on this subcommittee 10 years ago
and the change from 10 years ago until now on privatized
housing in this country is significant.
General Bell. And it is for the better.
Mr. Wamp. That is exactly right.
General Bell. No question.
Mr. Wamp. And we hear it every time we have a hearing about
housing.
General Bell. True.
Mr. Wamp. And it can work globally. I mean, again, I just
came from Shanghai. There are investors all around the world
that would like the kind of deal that U.S. developers have on
privatizing military housing.
And if that can be done, just to reduce the appropriations
obligation here is a creative approach, as it can be pursued.
And I don't want to slow it down, but if it can be done at
the same tempo, then we would prefer that.
General Bell. Here is the challenge. By the way, I agree
with you totally. I am open for any innovative thinking and,
believe me, the South Koreans are a wealthy country and they
have got big investors who have lots of money.
They continue to be a growing country. So if you were a
builder and you were concerned that the U.S. might leave and
you had no lease guarantees from any government, you would have
to know, in your mind, that if America leaves, I can fill that
up with Koreans.
And so when you build those, you want, in your heart, to
build them to Korean standards so that Koreans would feel
comfortable in those apartments based on their culture.
Meanwhile, I want to build these things to DOD standards,
including force protection, thickness of walls, kinds of glass,
that go into the glass, green space for our kids, because we
are a green space kind of society and Koreans are different.
So we want to put all these requirements on them in an
overseas environment so that it accommodates our service
members, and my concern is they will say, ``Too expensive for
us to take aboard with no lease guarantee and we just can't go
down this path. We will build them to Korean citizen standards.
If you want to live in them, have a nice day.''
We tried that in Hannam Village in Seoul. I would love to
take you to Hannam Village and show you the results of that.
That is a losing strategy for sergeants and young officers.
But I am still semi-optimistic that there is a pony in here
somewhere, as we say in these things, and I am in no way trying
to stall this out. I am an advocate of it and just gave the
Army another advocacy letter about it.
But I have also given them five hardcore requirements that
must be achieved by these Korean investors to accommodate our
families that will make this a little tougher than to say,
``Well, that is okay, we will take that aboard.''

PACOM GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR EFFORTS

Mr. Wamp. Admiral Keating, I have been to Australia a
couple times, was there in January with the new prime minister,
Kevin Rudd, a personal friend of mine. He will be here the end
of this month to meet with the president.
As we were there and in New Zealand, and there are a lot of
conversations still from Bali bombings forward. The focus is
kind of off the Indonesia to Malaysia, but that is a zone that
we should be concerned about in terms of proliferation of
terror and these groups that are supporting terrorist
activities there.
It is a threat to our country.
Admiral Keating. The threat is lower today than it was at
the time of the Bali bombing, for a couple reasons.
As I said in my opening statement, there have been some
moneys that we were able to direct to Indonesia and to Malaysia
that have provided for an improvement in the maritime security,
and that makes it tougher for some of these terrorists to move
around.
In addition to being able to move around, that is a wide
open area down there and very difficult to patrol, if not
impossible to patrol all the coastline.
So cameras and radars that we have been able to provide to
Indonesia and Malaysia have helped them increase their
security.
The information sharing we--some intelligence, where we
take off the source of--and Australia is a significant ally
with us in this contest.
The information sharing and intelligence gathering has
helped them develop an ability to track and apprehend or
sometimes kill the terrorist leaders who thought they had
sanctuaries in Indonesia, increasingly tough for them in
Malaysia, as well, and so, too, in the southern Philippines.
We have--forces of the United States Pacific Command who
are deployed to the southern Philippines, helping, not doing
the action themselves, but helping the armed forces of these
get better at finding terrorists who are seeking sanctuary in
southern Philippines.
So a number of initiatives underway, better security in the
maritime domain, information sharing, and training their own
counterterrorist forces with our Special Operations forces.
I think we are making it much tougher for terrorists.
Mr. Wamp. Other than what we have talked about here today
with Guam and Marines, are there any other major redeployments
in the PACOM region?
Admiral Keating. One that I would like to mention,
Congressman, and--it is not so much a redeployment, but it is
kind of a watershed for our changed force.
You gave us some money that allows us to--with the Japanese
help, we will bring the United States Ship George Washington, a
nuclear powered aircraft carrier, that will be permanently
homeported in Japan.
Ten years ago, when we were living there, I would have said
that--Japan will allow us to put a nuclear powered aircraft
carrier permanently in Japan. It is underway from Norfolk,
Virginia and it will switch out with the USS Kitty Hawk in
Pearl Harbor this summer.
Kitty Hawk will retire and George Washington will go for a
permanent deployment in Japan.
So about the same number of sailors in the battle group,
but that is a watershed change for us in the Pacific.
Otherwise, absent the movement of Marines from Okinawa to
Guam and those troop situations B.B. described, we are fairly
static.
There are three nuclear submarines that are now home ported
in Guam, attack submarines, and we are deploying the SSGN. It
is an older Trident missile submarine, where the
intercontinental ballistic missiles have been taken out and
Tomahawk missiles have been inserted in their place, and there
are about 150 of those PLAMs and a module of the missile tubes
is now available for Special Forces, and the USS Ohio is on its
maiden deployment as an SSGN in the Pacific as we speak.
General Bell. I just exercised with that ship, had my
Special Forces on board. I went to it, also, as part of an
exercise--capability, phenomenal capability, and it gives me
all kinds of good, warm, fuzzy feelings about a lot of things.
Having that thing sitting in Guam is perfect.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Could I ask staff, would you let us know when
there are 3 minutes left for this vote?

LONG TERM LEASING

Admiral Keating, since we are making improvements in
housing in Hawaii, and I would like to focus on Korea for a
minute and follow up and make sure we get a handle on where we
are and how we break this logjam.
As I understand it from staff, the administration asked
last year for authorizing language to raise the cap on leased
houses----
General Bell. That is correct.
Mr. Edwards. In Korea.
General Bell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. And the House Armed Services Committee did not
put that language in their bill, which meant we have no
authority to appropriate it, since they had not authorized it.
So I understand that the administration did not request
that language this year. Perhaps one of the reasons is the
Congressional Budget Office estimated the first-year cost of
that housing cap increase as $300 million for 1 year.
I don't know what they estimate it would be in the out
years. I don't know if that is a true reflection of the cost of
the U.S. taxpayers or that is just accounting.
General Bell. Sir, it is accounting. It is mostly
accounting. I get very emotional about that.
Mr. Edwards. So the out year leasing costs and pushed those
back to the front year.
General Bell. There are two things at issue, Chairman.
First, these service members are in the military today. They
actually exist. They are in Yongsan Garrison. We are real
people.
And we are paying leases for them now today. Now, I will
admit those leases where they live are certainly not of the--I
mean, for whatever reason, South Korea has become a real major
world power in the last 20 years.
So the last time we did a big lease agreement there, the
cost of living was much lower than it is now. But we are
paying, on average, for leases, about $700 million today over
the lease period of the buildings that we are leasing.
So when you look at what--if we did build to lease down in
Garrison Humphreys, that is not new money. Now, part of it is
new money, because the leases are going to be--if we did
leases--are going to be more expensive than our current leases,
no question about that. I surrender. They will be.
But you have to subtract what we are currently paying for
leases and it is about 50 percent of what these future leases
would be. So half the bill is off the table. It is real money
already being paid by you, by our Congress.
So when CBO and OMB both, CBO starts marking this up as
though it were new money, that is not fair. It is not correct
and it is inappropriate.
I have made this point repeatedly. But, yes, the leases
today are going to cost us more than they did 20 years ago. I
would say that the good news is that these are long-term
leases, 15 years.
We got that language approved several years ago here by
Congress. So that is a 15-year amortization period for about
$750 million of new dollars over a 15-year period.
Well, divide 750 by 15 and you are not breaking the bank.
It is, in my view, almost pennies. And at the end of the 15-
year lease period, the leases are paid up and we retain that
property for as long as we are there, without any lease payment
requirements.
All we have to do is pay for maintenance of the buildings.
So I have always believed, the 2 years that I have been
there, that the lease potential is a good deal for America. It
gives us control of the standards.
In fact, we give the companies our DOD drawings and say
build them this way. It takes care of all these issues about
quality control and what Americans deserve versus perhaps the
way another culture builds their things, and it is amortized
over such a period of time.
If you believe we will be there longer than 15 years--this
is only 10 percent of our force. I mean, I admit, if I wanted
to do them all, we need to start talking some more.
Mr. Edwards. Ten percent of our force in Korea?
General Bell. Right. They are the only ones authorized this
kind of housing right now. So this is simply an agreement that
we signed in 2004 for those who currently have family members
over in Korea in Yongsan and, in some cases, senior enlisted
and senior officers who are not authorized to have their
families, similar lease arrangements for decent quarters for
them, as well.

FAMILY HOUSING IN KOREA

Mr. Edwards. Let me ask you this. And I worked for----
General Bell. And I get pretty emotional.
Mr. Edwards. Well, thanks for getting emotional about the
quality of life for our troops and their families.
I worked for 8 years on this subcommittee at times when it
wasn't a very popular thing to push the public-private housing
partnership program, and I am thrilled to see how well it seems
to have worked around the country.
But if, in Korea, we have got problems on build-to-lease if
we have got privatization difficulties on Korean versus the
U.S. standards there, what would it cost, doing it the old-
fashioned way, just flat-out Congress appropriating the money,
what would it cost to provide enough quality housing so that
every soldier and military family, U.S. military family living
in Korea is living in quality housing?
General Bell. $1.4 billion.
Mr. Edwards. $1.4 billion.
General Bell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. And that would be housing for how many people?
General Bell. This would meet our housing requirements for
about 2,400 families and senior NCOs. The other folks live in
barracks and, by and large, I am going to build those with host
nation moneys.
Remember, I have got $787 million in real dollars. Now, I
am obligated to spend that on local-national employment. I have
to pay--I mean, that is an agreement that we have with the
Koreans, and I am obligated to spend a lot of that money on
maintenance, sustainment and logistics.
But then the rest of it I spend on construction, and you
have oversight of that.
Mr. Edwards. It is the family housing that we have to do.
General Bell. It is the family housing.
Mr. Edwards. In your opinion, there are enough dollars
available to see that the single soldiers and troops are living
in quality barracks.
General Bell. I can't tell you that. To be honest with you,
the movement of the Second Infantry Division from north of
Seoul to Pyongtaek, Garrison Humphreys, which is another
program, not part of the Yongsan Relocation Plan, but it is a
program we want to--it is our initiative.
We are going to end up paying about half of that bill and
the other half, in my view, is going to be paid by the burden
sharing funds. Now, we can spend these burden sharing funds any
way we want to, but that is the general agreement that we have
by the State Department and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, that we will equitably share these costs of sustaining
our troops over there.
So if you look at the cost of moving--which is another
program, I have put in our program in the POM, the program
objective memorandum, in DOD, the moneys that we will need to
move half of 2-ID, based on the assumption that the other half
will be paid for by the Koreans.
That is reliable. That is very reliable. Sir, that bill is
another $1 billion. But that is to move the 2-ID, not just
housing, because those are all--it is also their motor pools,
their headquarters, their command and control facilities, the
whole shooting match for moving a tactical unit, including
barracks for them, because right now, none of them are
authorized to have their families over there.
It is a tactical maneuver unit. If I could change that--but
that is another billion bucks. So $2.4 billion for the whole
shooting match would be more accurate over a period of years.
Mr. Edwards. It sounds like it is time for our subcommittee
to make a trip there and we probably need to get some of our
authorizing colleagues to go with us.
General Bell. It would be wonderful.
Mr. Edwards. Because we can't write the check unless they
authorizes it, whether it is for leased housing or whether it
is for the old-fashioned way.
General Bell. I think it would be worth your trip.
Mr. Edwards. But it just seems like this is a problem that
continues to go on and on.
General Bell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. And we have got to figure out a way to deal
with it.
Why don't we take a break and we can go vote.
One thing you probably need to think about is our
subcommittee taking a trip there and taking a look at it.
General Bell. That would be great. I think it would all be
clear to you when you saw it.
Mr. Edwards. And find a solution.
We will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Just to follow up on that, Congressman Wamp and I were
talking and we ran into Congressman Hunter coming back after
the vote, and we said we need to get the authorizers and the
appropriators together to sit down, come up with a game plan,
talk to CBO and OMB, and just find a way to address this
problem.
Otherwise, we are going to be at a table like this, whether
it is us or somebody else, 10 years from now discussing this.
And I raised this question 3 or 4 years ago.

ACCOMPANIED TOURS

It seems to me that it is terribly unfair that, basically,
because our country is unwilling, including Congress, unwilling
to make a commitment of dollars for housing in Korea, if you
get a young soldier that is coming back from, say, his second
tour of duty in Iraq, goes back to Fort Hood or Fort Drum, and,
a few months later, he or she is reassigned to Korea, and only
one out of 10 married soldiers there has access to accompanied
housing, what we are basically doing is our country, through
our unfairness and unwillingness to make this a priority,
basically forcing great American families to live apart for
another year, and that is just wrong.
It seems to me that families ought to have the option, if
they so choose.
Those that want to shouldn't be forced to live a year apart
from their loved ones because our country is not willing to
support their housing and their children's education and
infrastructure.
General Bell. Can I give you a quick answer?
Mr. Edwards. Please do.
General Bell. Spouses of service members have passports and
the Republic of Korea is an open country. So we have over
there, right now, as many as 1,400 families living all over the
place, in decrepit areas, unauthorized by me--non-command
sponsored, who simply said enough is enough, I am going to stay
with my soldier.
And when you talk to these folks--and by the way, I have
made it law over there--I don't have the authority to make a
law, I just proclaimed it and waited until somebody told me I
couldn't do it, that they will receive medical care.
They are Americans. They will go to our schools. We will
provide them with all the services that they deserve as
patriotic Americans, but I can't put them into housing, because
I don't have any.
So they live here and there, over there, because they want
to stay with their service member, because of the very issue
that you talked about.
It is very common for me in Korea right now to have a
service member show up 5 months after he or she got back from
Iraq. They are then reassigned to Korea on a short tour, with
no family, and that family just follows and they pick a place
on the economy relatively near to that garrison wherever that
service member is, and they just find and they rent an
apartment.
Mr. Edwards. Is the cost very expensive there?
General Bell. Yes sir, they are. They are expensive,
inadequate, and they are not to our standards.
Mr. Edwards. So I assume your successor could--if this
subcommittee took a trip over there, we could go to some of
those houses and see what----
General Bell. And meet the families and understand what
they are going through to stay connected as a family. And by
the way, their attitude is fairly good.
Now, here is what they say to me, and sir, I talk to
hundreds of them. They say, ``Look, it is worth it. It is a lot
better than being separated another year.'' They look at it
positively.
But you look at what we are, by our attitude, forcing them
to do and you just go, ``This is not right. We have got to do
better.''
Mr. Edwards. Where are their children going to school?
General Bell. First, these are mostly--it is amazing--
mostly young people, because they are in new marriages. The old
saying goes, ``Look, pal, it is the fourth tour.'' These are
mostly young marriages and they have infants.
There are infants everywhere across that country, American
infants, 6 months old to 2 or 3 years old. The majority, I
would say 80 percent have non-school aged children with them.
So then you get into, okay, what about pediatricians. Well,
I mean, it is phenomenal. So we have tried to order up more
pediatricians, but against what requirement? I don't have a
requirement, because they are not authorized.
So they hope for the best in many cases and they hope their
kids don't get sick. We don't have a Tricare administrator over
there.
Sir, I could go on for days. I have identified every rat. I
have talked to every rat. I have killed some rats. There are
plenty of rats left.
Our service members are not being treated right in Korea.
You are exactly right. And we need to do better by them and I
am hoping that, with your support, and in DOD--nobody is a bad
guy. I cannot find any bad guy in this.
It is the system that we have that we need to turn around.
Mr. Edwards. We have got to get everybody under the same
roof to sit down together at a table like this and just find a
solution.
General Bell. I have about half as many American families
over there as I have authorized that just say, ``Look, I have
got a passport, you can't stop me,'' and they are right.
Mr. Edwards. If every family had the option of living in
decent housing and their children going to a quality school in
the Republic of Korea, what percent of the married soldiers do
you think would be accompanied?
General Bell. About 50 percent of our service members are
married. So that is the pool. So let's just say I had 25,000
troops. So 12,500 would have the option of coming--our studies
tell us 70 percent of that 12,500--that's 10,000--would bring
their families out of a force of 25,000.
Mr. Edwards. So basically the policy, what we are doing is
we are saying 60 percent of those soldiers and their families,
even though you would like to be together, we are forcing you
to live apart for a year.
General Bell. So what they do, in the states, they go home
and live with mom or whatever and they just take another year.
Mr. Edwards. All right. Well, we will follow up. Sorry we
didn't make it to Korea while you were there, but today will be
a good prompting to get us over there.
General Bell. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. I have no more questions.

SUBSTANDARD HOUSING

Admiral Keating. Mr. Chairman, you asked a great question a
minute ago and I had an answer right in front of me, and we
will amplify this in our response for the record.
You asked us about substandard housing. We are down from
75,000 10 years ago. So less than 10 percent of the homes in
Pacific Command need to be renovated or replaced, and we are on
track to meet our mandated goal to achieve zero substandard
housing by 2009.
So within 1.5 years or 2 years, we will be down to zero. We
are down from 75----
Mr. Edwards. Is that family housing or does that include
barracks?
Admiral Keating. That is family housing. Barracks, we are
not quite as far along on the glide slope. U.S. Army Pacific,
all permanent party barracks will be standard by 2009 and the
Marine Corps will take a little bit longer, but the Pacific has
already done it and the Navy is on track.
So it is a good picture, particularly compared to where we
were 10 years ago and even 2 years ago, we had 12,000 homes
that were substandard.
So we are on glide path and we will give you the specifics.
Mr. Edwards. I will just never forget the time I went to
Fort Hood and I went to the first new family housing unit, as a
result of General Bell's great leadership and the privatization
effort there, and it was a sergeant's family and I went out in
the backyard and had just one-on-one with the wife. They had
several small children.
And I said, ``What does this mean to you? Tell me the
truth. Good, bad, ugly, whatever?'' And she said, and I will
never forget it, she said, ``You know, it is not only a house I
am proud to call home for my family, but it says my country
appreciates my sacrifice and my children's sacrifice to our
nation while my husband is deployed overseas.''
And these great Americans that, with their loved ones in
combat zones, 2 out of the last 4 years or 3 out of the last 5
years, and for any one of those families to be living in
substandard housing is just not right, and I am thrilled to
hear about the improvements being made under your command and
hopefully we can take charge and make some improvements.
Admiral Keating. You are right, sir. Across the military,
save the problem in Korea, the turnaround the last 10 years has
been phenomenal and it is a blessing.
It is a blessing. Our military is being well cared for in
most cases. I am very proud of Congress, I am proud of DOD and
a lot of good people that made this thing--volunteer Army and
facilitated it in a way that--all volunteer military--I am
sorry--and facilitated both the facilities it needed. It is a
blessing.
Mr. Edwards. It just hadn't happened.
Admiral Keating. It just didn't happen.
Mr. Edwards. Chairman Young, we spent quite a bit of time
focusing on the problems of housing. The CBO scoring of housing
for South Korea and hundreds of millions of dollars and
privatization being the debate between do you build those
houses to South Korean standards or to American standards.
What has happened is we have been at an impasse and we
haven't been able to solve that, and we have got to get
authorization from the Armed Services Committee to raise the
lease cap.
So your leadership will be very, very important to us as we
find a way to break through this.
Admiral Keating, if I could just ask one more question. I
want to recognize Chairman Young for any comments and questions
that he might have.

GUAM CONSTRUCTION COSTS

In terms of Guam, we are doing so much there. What are the
inflation factors? Have you been allowed to estimate the true
cost of construction there and true inflation rates?
I know sometimes DOD--under this OMB mandate of 2.4 percent
inflation rate, which, with the kind of construction going on
there, that we have going on in Guam, I can hardly imagine that
would be realistic.
Do you think you have a realistic handle on what the true
construction costs are going to be over the next 4 or 5 years
or so?
Admiral Keating. Chairman, I would like to take that for
the record. My opinion is it has not been brought to attention
as a significant factor, which is a non-answer and nobody has
told me it is a problem.
But we will take that for the record and I will get back to
you very quickly on the inflation in Guam.
[The information follows:]

OSD mandated the use of 2% for inflation in construction cost
estimates for the Guam military buildup. The Air Force recently
commissioned a cost estimate modeling effort for upcoming Guam MILCON
projects. They determined that the anticipated construction costs would
significantly increase due to competition for limited labor/material
with the Marine buildup construction effort. Based on this study,
USPACOM anticipates the actual cost of construction on Guam will exceed
the predetermined inflation factors and area cost factor for Guam.

Mr. Edwards. That would be helpful.
Chairman Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I spoke to the Admiral and the General before the hearing.
In the Defense Committee, we had the Secretary of the Army and
the chief of staff of the Army, and, since I am the ranking
member, I needed to be there. We had a very good hearing.

DMZ

And I will just be very brief. A few years back, Chairman
Edwards and I, our roles were reversed, I was chairman, he was
the ranking member, and we had a very important issue in Korea.
And that was military construction to make--available to
move our troops out of the DMZ area, and I assume you probably
have already discussed this.
Mr. Edwards. I didn't talk about the 3 a.m. call.
Mr. Young. We had overlooked the fact of the time changes
and got your predecessor out of bed to answer the phone, and,
of course, he said, ``No, no, I was up waiting for your call.''
General Bell. I am sure he was, actually.
Mr. Young. But, anyway, we finally took care of our part of
that problem. We appropriated the incremental funding to begin
that project.
And the question I have is: how are we doing, Admiral? Are
we well on the way to having that completed? Are most of our
troops moved out of the immediate DMZ area?
General Bell. Chairman, about half of that work has been
done. One, we have redeployed a lot of those forces to the
United States physically. One of the brigades, a maneuver
brigade, actually went from Korea to Iraq, fought for a year,
and then ended up at Fort Carson, Colorado.
We still have, north of Seoul, in the Second Infantry
Division area, the division headquarters and we also have one
maneuver brigade. We also have some supporting stuff still
there.
That piece is not yet facilitated. In other words, the
follow-on requirements to move that piece south of Seoul, not
to redeploy it, but to move it south of Seoul as part of the
garrisoning at this place called Garrison Humphreys has not--
the funds for that have not yet been appropriated.
Now, I will tell you the funding of that will be borne in
two directions--one, U.S. costs and, the other, host nation
burden-sharing money, our ally, and we talked about that at
some length.
Our agreement is about a 50-50 split. And so what I have
done is taken 50 percent of the cost to move the remaining
force that is north of Seoul to its garrison locations of the
future south of Seoul and I have programmed all those moneys in
the appropriate program objective memorandums for the services,
mostly Army.
So that is accounted for. Now, whether it makes it into the
budget process and is submitted, beginning next year, in the
2010 budget, is problematic. I have got to make sure it is, but
I believe it will be.
The other 50 percent we need to use host nation funds for
and we will. We have a good agreement with the Republic of
Korea. So what you worked with General Leon LaPorte--so well is
culminating and now we are going to go into the next phase and
it is all sequenced pretty well.
That is called the Land Partnership Plan, the LPP, which
has to do with moving the Second Infantry Division to sanctuary
locations. They have either moved or they have come back to the
states, half of them. The other half should be moving over the
next 5 years.
That is where we are, sir.

YONGSAN GARRISON RELOCATION PLAN

Mr. Edwards. If I could interject, because Chairman Young
is such a key player in this whole defense process.
Could you give him a brief summary of the housing
frustrations? You used the word ``dead in the water.''
General Bell. Sir, I used it at the Senate Armed Services
Committee yesterday, as well, because it is fact.
The other program that is ongoing over there is called the
Yongsan Relocation Plan. That is a different issue and it moves
us from our garrison location in downtown Seoul, and it is a
big area, it is about a 500-acre complex, to the same place,
Pyongtaek. We are going to consolidate there as a main hub.
The South Koreans asked us to move and I don't blame them.
You can imagine having a British army still garrisoned in
Washington, and we wouldn't be too excited.
They asked us to move and they said they would pay for the
vast majority of that move and they are.
They have already spent $2 billion in preparing the ground
for that move down to Garrison Humphreys.
So they are rapidly--I mean, you ought to see it, sir. That
is 1,000 trucks a day in and out of this construction area. It
is phenomenal.
We agreed, this was in 2004, General Leon LaPorte, we
agreed to negotiations to take the family members and senior
NCOs and officers that live in the Yongsan Garrison and who
were leasing quarters at the time on Yongsan, government
leases, we agreed to take care of that with our funds, and we
estimated that the new leases in Pyongtaek over a 15-year
period would be about $1.4 billion, amortized over a 15-year
lease payback period.
That has not been favorably considered by Congress in those
four intervening years, and you all know the history of that.
So DOD has now said, ``We surrender.'' We are going to
begin an Army family housing MILCON approach to this to start
the project to show good faith to our ally, because our ally is
getting very nervous about where are the Americans when they
are spending billions and we are just--not one nickel has been
spent by America yet. So we have asked for, in this budget,
$125 million to begin construction of these family housing
quarters of about 216 units in three high-rise apartments, and
we hope that those are appropriated here in Congress and we can
begin this project.
We hope to stop using MILCON and either go back to build-
to-lease or the Army is now pursuing a fully privatized
approach over there to determine if international investors and
the South Korean investors might be interested, without lease
guarantees, but with the powerful housing market that they have
over there, accepting the risks of those leases and doing this
in an RCI manner, fundamentally, with no guarantees.
Those negotiations are ongoing. I wouldn't say I am
optimistic, but I am excited about the possibility and I am a
supporter of that.
So we have three approaches. None of them have produced a
single set of quarters yet from the agreement that we--and we
are 4 years into it.
So this is, in my view, dead in the water, but we are still
floating. We didn't die in the water and then sink. We are
still out there and we can start paddling again, and we need
to.
I wouldn't even mind cranking up an outboard motor engine
and moving along at a rapid pace.
I would like to take all the Guam money and spend it in
Korea. That would take care of it. [Laughter]
Sir, that is where we are.
Mr. Young. It is good to have both of you here.
Admiral Keating, we have had a chance to visit at his
headquarters and we did not get to visit with you in your
headquarters in Korea. However, you are the----
General Bell. We did, we had a great time.
Mr. Young. As your friend, I want to say that in view of
your approaching retirement--the nation is going to miss your
service.
General Bell. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Young. The other is, as your friend, you deserve a good
rest and I send my invitation to come to Florida and let my son
teach you how to catch----
General Bell. Sir, I have an appointment with a trout in
the Smokey Mountains. But as soon as I get through with him or
her, whatever the case may be, I will be down there to take on
your sharks.
Mr. Young. Well, Mr. Wamp will give you maybe some mountain
trout or something----
But in this subcommittee, with Chairman Edwards and Ranking
Member Wamp, you have got strong leadership and they are going
to make good things happen for you.
General Bell. Thank you. It has been an honor.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The additional questions I have I will submit in writing
for the record.
Admiral Keating, perhaps, if we were to start to put
together a trip for the subcommittee to go visit Korea, we
could be in touch with your staff about where in your command
you think you would need for us to----
General Bell. It sounds like Guam to me, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Keating. Guam would be important and Japan and see
the construction projects that are ongoing there and if you can
give us a half a day or a full day in the headquarters at Camp
Smith in Hawaii, preferably on the front end of your trip, but
coming or going, we would be----
General Bell. Guam is only 8 hours from Korea. So it is
close.
Mr. Edwards. We will follow up on that. Thank you both for
your tremendous leadership. It is good to have you here today.
Thank you.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Questions for Admiral Keating

Question. The target date for the bed-down of marines in Guam is
2014. Is the full U.S. share of construction costs for relocating
marines from Okinawa to Guam programmed in the current FYDP?
Answer. The current FYDP (09-13) does not contain the full U.S.
share of construction costs as laid out in the ``Road Map for
Realignment'' agreement with the Government of Japan. The U.S. share is
$4.18B, with the current FYDP programming $1.98B for military
construction/planning. USPACOM, through the Joint Guam Program Office,
continues to advocate for the full U.S. share of Guam construction
costs in FYDP 10-15, currently in development within the Department of
Defense.
Question. Please provide an update on Government of Japan action
regarding appropriations and other funding instruments for the
relocation of marines from Okinawa to Guam.
Answer. The Government of Japan (GOJ) passed the ``Law to Promote
the Realignment for U.S. Forces in Japan'' in May 2007. This law
established the legal framework to obtain funding and initial cost
estimates. We anticipate GOJ funding to begin in 2009 and extend
through 2014. The Joint Guam Program Office is currently coordinating
with the GOJ representatives to finalize the by-year funding stream.
Question. I understand that the relocation to Guam will require
work on training ranges in the Northern Marianas, and that this cost
has not been factored into the total estimates for the Okinawa-Guam
transition. What is the total estimated cost for training ranges? Who
is responsible for developing these cost estimates?
Answer. The agreement to move the Marines from Okinawa to Guam
included $500 million for training facilities/ranges. Marine Forces
Pacific has the responsibility to develop a Marine training concept
study, with costs, for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. The study, with an expected completion date of April
2008, will validate, or update if required, the current $500 million
estimate.
Question. Are there any other non-programmed requirements related
to the cost of the relocation to Guam?
Answer. The Marine training concept study, when complete in April
2008, is likely to identify training requirements which exceed the
current $500 million planning factor. For example, this study may
advocate for additional land acquisition to accommodate firing range
requirements on the island of Guam. Any land acquisition costs would be
a new requirement.
Question. Is PACOM developing a plan to secure the safety of the
increased number of military personnel and family members in the event
of future typhoons impacting Guam?
Answer. USPACOM currently has a Tropical Cyclone Operations
Instruction requiring all commanders in the Area of Responsibility to
establish a Tropical Cyclone Conditions of Readiness program to warn,
secure, and prepare DOD personnel and property in the case of an
approaching tropical cyclone.
Planned Guam construction projects are designed to withstand
tropical cyclones. Upon completion, these facilities will augment
designated evacuation facilities in current plans to accommodate
increased military personnel.
Question. What is the projected total family housing requirement on
Okinawa post consideration and the relocation to Guam, and how does
this compare with the current housing inventory?
Answer. Family housing requirements on Okinawa have not been
finalized. The mix of permanent party to temporary duty Marines based
on Okinawa is under revision in response to ``Grow the Force'' changes
planned for the Marine Corps. The Services are completing a
comprehensive housing market analysis for Okinawa. Once complete
(expected completion in July 2008), this analysis will establish the
housing requirement and allow us to assess the adequacy of the housing
inventory.
Question. According to the U.S.-Japan ``road map,'' the
transformation of Army C2 at Camp Zama was to be complete by FY08. What
is the status of this transformation?
Answer. The U.S. Army activated a cadre at Camp Zama, I Corps
Forward, in December 2007. Due to operational commitments with
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, the final transformation of Army Command and
Control (C2) at Camp Zama will not be fully completed by FY08. I Corps
is scheduled to transfer to Camp Zama upon return from Iraq but the
exact timing for the I Corps Headquarters move is not yet established.
Question. Are there any U.S. milcon requirements for Sagami beyond
the Battle Command Training Center?
Answer. Yes, there are other projects in the FYDP for Sagami. In
FY13 of the U.S. Army's current FYDP (09-13), a $28M Vehicle
Maintenance Shop project is planned. The project will provide a
maintenance facility and organizational parking to support I Corps at
Camp Zama and Sagami General Depot.
Question. The Navy milcon request includes $35.1 million for wharf
upgrades at Diego Garcia to provide a forward operating location for a
submarine tender. Has the decision to provide this forward location
been finalized? Is the U.S. required to obtain the United Kingdom's
consent for this initiative, and if so, has that consent been obtained?
What additional milcon requirements are necessary to provide this
forward operating location?
Answer. With full consent of the United Kingdom, the decision to
upgrade the facilities at Diego Garcia to support a submarine tender
has been finalized. The U.S. is required to notify and obtain consent
from the United Kingdom for all military construction projects planned
for Diego Garcia.
The FY09 request is the second phase of a three phase effort. The
third and final phase is programmed in the FYDP for FY10 at $32.4M.
Question. The Missile Defense Agency milcon request includes $25.5
million for AN/TPY-2 construction in the PACOM AOR. My understanding is
that the final location has not been determined. What is PACOM's role
in this decision? When will that decision be made?
Answer. USPACOM advises the SecDef on all basing decisions in the
AOR. USPACOM is working closely with USSTRATCOM and MDA on possible
future basing locations for a second forward-based AN/TPY-2 radar for
the USPACOM AOR. The site selection timeline for the second radar has
not been established.
Question. The Pacific Warfighting Center at Pearl Harbor was
drastically reduced in scope last year. Is PACOM satisfied that the
current project meets the requirement? Is there any intent to construct
a follow-on phase?
Answer. The 34,300 square foot Pacific Warfighting Center under
construction at Ford Island site will provide USPACOM with sufficient
capacity to accomplish its mission. USPACOM does not anticipate any
requirements for follow-on construction.

Questions for General Bell

Question. Has USFK performed a life-cycle cost analysis comparing
build-to-lease housing versus traditional family housing construction?
If so, what were the results?
Answer. A lifecycle analysis using a straightforward approach
comparing MILCON to Build to-Lease (BTL) for family housing was
completed in July 2007. The analysis shows that over a 17 year interval
(2 years for construction and 15 year lease period) BTL has a Net
Present Value (NPV) of approximately $503K per unit and MILCON has an
NPV of approximately $521K per unit.
Question. You mentioned that USFK currently pays for housing leases
at Yongsan. What is the annual cost for these leases?
Answer. The projected FY08 cost for the 548 Army leased family
homes in the Yongsan area (300 on U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan and 248 in
Hannam Village near Yongsan Garrison) is $26.9M.
Additionally, 510 families reside in individually leased apartments
in the vicinity of Yongsan at an annual Overseas Housing Allowance
(OHA) expenditure of $25.7M. 1096 unaccompanied officers and NCOs
reside in individually leased apartments near Yongsan at an annual OHA
expenditure of $48.5M.
Question. Please provide an updated breakdown of the total
construction costs for the Yongsan Relocation Plan and the Land
Partnership Plan, and further break out these costs among the various
U.S. and ROK funding streams. Also, please indicate how much of these
funds have been provided to date.
Answer. The total planned cost apportioned between both the
Republic of Korea and the United States for construction under the
Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP) and the Land Partnership Plan (LPP) is
currently estimated at approximately $10.68. USFK and the ROK have
contracted a Project Management Consortium (PMC) in accordance with the
YRP agreements to perform program management services. The PMC is
currently evaluating the planned cost and will provide a baseline cost
in July 2008.
Within the current planned cost the ROK contribution is estimated
at $7.47B ($5.84B direct funded and $1.63B USFK executed host nation
funded construction using burden sharing contributions) and USFK is
seeking to resource approximately $3.13B through Service Component U.S.
MILCON, BTL or private investment sources.
Investment to date includes over $lB from the ROK; no money has
been appropriated by Congress to support the execution of either of
these plans. While the US Congress has appropriated approximately $300
Million in MILCON to Garrison Humphreys for Second Infantry Division
requirements, these appropriations are not directly tied to our
national commitments associated with YRP or LPP.
Question. Has USFK performed a full cost analysis of transitioning
to a policy of normal three-year accompanied tours? What would be the
one-time investment costs, and what would be the annual recurring cost
(or savings) after implementation?
Answer. USFK has performed a full analysis of transitioning to a
policy of two-year unaccompanied and three-year accompanied tours as
required by DOD Instruction 1315.18; Procedure for Military Personnel
Assignment dated 12 January 2005. Based on this analysis, we project an
annual Permanent Change of Station cost savings of up to $102M. This
analysis specifies that family support facilities and adequate housing
are available through government owned, government leased, and economy
quarters. Therefore there is no identification of a onetime investment
cost associated with extending tours at current population levels.
USFK is seeking a policy change from OSD to allow the Services to
begin to phase-in fully normalized tours over a ten year period. This
would allow the Services to plan for and program resources to support a
fully normalized Korea.
Question. Would your proposal for three-year accompanied tours
apply to personnel of all services in Korea?
Answer. Yes, this policy change would apply to service members of
all Services programmed for locations that convert to three-year
accompanied tours.
This policy change will amend the Joint Federal Travel Regulation
pertaining to and applied to all Services. This tour normalization
conversion will be phased in over a 10 year period to allow the
Services to plan and program for increased servicemember and family
presence at their garrisons, bases, and other locations.
Question. Has the ROK granted all of the required land at Camp
Humphreys?
Answer. The land grants at U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys are
guaranteed in the Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP) and Land Partnership
Plan (LPP) agreements. However, all land grants have not been
officially granted. We have completed a joint survey of all land that
will be granted. These land grants will be phased in over time as land
fill and facilities are complete and as we begin to occupy new
facilities. Until this happens, the ROK retains responsibility for
security, access control and emergency response services.
Question. Much of the additional land at Camp Humphreys consists of
rice paddies that must be drained and filled before construction
commences. Is there a lag time between this site preparation and
construction at Camp Humphreys to allow for ground settling, and if so,
how long is this lag?
Answer. Construction at U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys can begin 3-4
months after site preparation. Pile foundations for new facilities can
start at that time which will allow construction while the fill
continues to settle. Final settlement is expected 8-12 months after
site preparation, which will allow construction of utilities and
pavement.
Question. Last year, you indicated that negotiations between USFK
and ROK were underway over a railhead in the northwest part of Camp
Humphreys and a civilian highway running along the western perimeter.
Please provide an update on these projects.
Answer. USFK continues to negotiate with the ROK regarding the
synchronization of all on and off installation infrastructure. These
ongoing negotiations will ensure that the planned access control points
and rail-head are tied into existing or planned local infrastructure in
accordance with master plan timelines.
Question. You indicate that a new U.S. joint warfighting command,
known as Korea Command or KORCOM, is expected to reach FOC by March
2012. How would this KORCOM structure be different from the current
U.S. command structure in Korea? Would it replace U.S. Forces Korea?
Would KORCOM remain a sub-unified command under Pacific Command?
Answer. A new U.S. command, provisionally called Korea Command
(KORCOM), will replace U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) and will remain a sub-
unified command under U.S. Pacific Command. While KORCOM will remain a
sub-unified Command under PACOM, its is also projected to retain
national alliance military responsibilities from the Secretary of
Defense as agreed through the Security Consultative Meetings with our
ROK Ally which will be specified in an updated Strategic Directive and
Terms of Reference. KORCOM will consist of a joint headquarters and
subordinate Service and functional component commands. The current U.S.
Forces Korea Headquarters is the U.S. contribution to the ROK-US
Combined Forces Command. There is no separate USFK Headquarters today
as all USFK Headquarters personnel work under the Combined Forces
Command. Once OPCON transfer is complete, the KORCOM headquarters will
be responsible for Title X U.S. Civil Code National Command, as well as
executing wartime battle command of selected U.S. Forces supporting our
Korean ally. The new U.S. joint headquarters in Korea, U.S. Korea
Command (KORCOM), will be a separate U.S. joint headquarters operating
in support of the ROK national warfighting command.
Question. Will 8th Army headquarters be relocated to Hawaii? How
does this impact transformation plan in Korea?
Answer. Eighth U.S. Army headquarters is transforming from its
current legacy Army ServIce Component Command (ASCC) structure to the
Army's new modular, warfighting Operational Command Post (OCP)
structure and will be known as Eighth Army OCP-Korea. At some point in
the future, U.S. Army Pacific will be re-designated as Eighth Army, and
it will establish a Main Command Post (MCP) in Hawaii that will play an
increased role in supporting U.S. forces in Korea. A date for the
potential move of the Eighth Army flag to Hawaii has not been
determined, as we must fully consult and coordinate with our Korean
ally. These actions are synchronized with Department of Defense, USFK,
Department of the Army, and Eighth U.S. Army transformation plans.
Question. You indicated last year that ``Current access to training
ranges in South Korea is insufficient to fully meet the training needs
of U.S. forces.'' Has the ROK completed modernization of the Jik-do
range? Do you regard this modernization as sufficient? Are you seeking
reopening of the Koon-ni range?
Answer. We have made significant progress with our ROK ally in the
last year with respect to range and airspace access as well as range
modernization. The Republic of Korea has completed the instrumentation
of Jik-do range with a Weapons Impact Scoring Set that replaces a
capability we lost with the closure of Koon-ni Range. We now have an
additional scoreable bombing range that has improved our training for
all of our Services.
While the progress made over the past year has improved our
readiness, there still remains work to be done to improve airspace
utilization and range access. We are working closely with the Republic
of Korea to gain access to additional bombing ranges to meet our
training requirements.
We are not seeking the re-opening of Kooni range because the
airspace above the bombing range was needed for expanded operations at
Seoul's Incheon International Airport. The airspace is now used to
ensure adequate safety clearance between arriving and departing
commercial aircraft.
Question. Last year, you expressed concern about the medical care
access for servicemembers in Korea. Have you been assigned a Tricare
manager? Do you have any further concerns regarding medical care?
Answer. Due to decreased clinical providers, clinical support, and
administrative personnel, I have been forced to prioritize care for DoD
beneficiaries--this has resulted in some DoD civilians no longer having
prioritized access to care in some U.S. facilities. Many of these
beneficiaries are now required to receive their care in Korean
hospitals. I have been working this issue through the Department of the
Army on two fronts and if successful will hire 76 new medical and
clinical support personnel in the near term which will enhance clinical
access for my civilians.
Furthermore, I continue in my efforts with DoD to resource a
TRICARE Overseas Contractor responsible for coordinating specialty care
off of our installations, establishing Primary and Specialty Care
networks throughout Korea, and for establishing ``local offices'' in
major population hubs.
Today, we resource our TRICARE Service Center at the U.S. Army
Garrison Yongsan in Seoul for all beneficiaries assigned to Korea--this
office coordinates care in local hospitals for beneficiaries who exceed
the capabilities of the U.S. facilities in Seoul, Osan, and the
geographically dispersed clinics located throughout Korea. This office,
however, cannot process claims for our beneficiaries.
Until a TRICARE Overseas contract is awarded, and a TRICARE Managed
Care Support Contractor is established in Korea, our active duty
Servicemembers and their families will not have adequate access to
TRICARE information and resources, and they will be required to
continue submitting reimbursement claims for allowable medical services
to offices located in the United States.
Question. You intend to close a total of 63 camps and facilities in
Korea. You indicate that to date you have closed 37 and returned 35 of
those. What is the timeframe for closing and returning the balance of
camps and facilities?
Answer. Of the 37 that we have closed, 35 have already been
returned and two (Camp Hialeah and Gimpo Mail Facility) are projected
to be returned this year (2008), along with 7 additional parcels of
land.
The balance of the camps and facilities (26) are all part of the
Land Partnership Plan (LPP) and Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP). They
will be returned once the units located on these camps have relocated
to newly constructed facilities at U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Edwards.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Wamp.]

Question. The budget request includes $125 million to construct
three high-rise, multistory family housing apartment towers at U.S.
Army Garrison-Humphreys. This project is part of the Land Partnership
Plan between the U.S. and the ROK which allows U.S. forces to be
relocated south of the Han River, and smaller army garrisons be turned
over to the host nation. What will be the total U.S. funding
requirement for housing construction as contained in the LPP agreement?
Will the fiscal year 2009 budget request of $125 million meet the total
requirement to move the 2nd Infantry Division?
Answer. The Land Partnership Plan (LPP) is an agreement between the
U.S. and the Republic of Korea (ROK) to relocate the Second Infantry
Division (2ID) to enduring hubs south of Seoul. It does not specify a
provision for family housing. The Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP) is an
agreement between the U.S. and the ROK to relocate U.S. forces from
Seoul to the U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys in Pyongtaek. The YRP
requires the U.S. to provide family housing units for those members of
the command who will be displaced from Yongsan Garrison in Seoul to
Garrison Humphreys. Therefore, the Army's $125 million FY 2009 MILCON
request will only fund construction of the first 216 family housing
units of the approximately 400 total family housing units required for
our future stationing needs mostly associated with he YRP. Additional
funding will be required to complete LPP.

Construction Costs

Question. With the current strength of the South Korean economy,
what impact are you seeing on construction costs/construction
inflation? Would it be in our best interest to fund additional military
construction or housing at a time when the South Korean economy is so
strong?
Answer. The current strength of the South Korean economy has had
minimal impact on the cost of construction. There has been a slight
increase in pricing due to the surge in oil and other commodity prices.
Notwithstanding these commodity price increases, USFK construction
projects have been awarded at or near the estimated project cost over
the past year. To take advantage of this competitive pricing
environment, it is in the best interest of the United States to fund
additional military construction and housing projects now in order to
meet the agreed upon relocation timeline.
The United States and the Republic of Korea signed the Land
Partnership Plan and the Yongsan Relocation Plan in 2004. To date no
money has been appropriated by Congress to support the execution of
either of these plans. Meanwhile our Korean ally is heavily executing
their responsibilities under the plan and they have already invested
well over one billion dollars. It is important that the United States
not lose additional time and begin to execute our agreements with the
Republic of Korea.
The U.S. Congress has appropriated approximately $300 million in
MILCON to Garrison Humphreys for Second Infantry Division requirements
not directly tied to our national commitments associated with YRP or
LPP.

Strategic Culmination Plan

Question. General Bell, according to your testimony we are four
years away from the culmination of the Strategic Culmination Plan that
will be marked with a certification exercise, followed by the
disestablishment of the Combined Forces Command and the establishment
of separate and complementary U.S. and South Korea national military
commands. Your testimony highlights our intention to achieve
operational capability for the new U.S. joint warfighting command, and
its service components, followed by full operational capability prior
to that final certification exercise in March 2012. Give the Committee
your assessment on whether or not you think we will meet this goal.
What resources are you requesting in the fiscal year 2009 budget
request to move towards that goal? Is there adequate funding planned
between now and FY 2012 to meet the goal?
Answer. My assessment is that we will meet our goal to transfer
wartime OPCON to the Republic of Korea (ROK), and establish separate
and complementary U.S. and South Korean national military commands. The
Strategic Transition Plan (STP) specifies 19 task areas for ROK Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and United States Forces Korea (USFK) to action
before OPCON transfer in 2012. On-going review of those task areas
indicates that both nations are currently on plan. The United States
does not view the STP as containing any ``go/no-go gates'' that must be
passed through to achieve OPCON transfer. If we do not accomplish a
component of the STP, it is the United States' intent to ``bridge'' the
potential shortfall while executing ``OPCON transfer'' on time with our
Korean ally, and not later than 17 April 2012.
In FY09 I requested an additional $53.6M from the Army to support
important command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence
(C4I) ($37.6M); intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
($5.6M) and JCS-sponsored theater level exercises ($10.4M) that will
directly facilitate OPCON transfer and establishment of a new, separate
U.S. military command. I am also working with the Army to address our
requirements for the FY10-15 Program Objective Memorandum (POM),
including $1,006.9M in FY10-12 to support required C41 ($760.5M), ISR
($135.6M), JCS-sponsored theater level exercises ($78.8M), and to
develop a joint theater logistics capability ($32M).

Military to Military Engagement/Security Progress

Question. In your testimony you highlighted progress in a number of
security areas, including improved multilateral information sharing,
enhanced the capacity of regional partners to counter transnational
crime and terrorism; changed attitudes in populations at risk for
terrorist exploitation, advanced U.S. and allied ballistic missile
defense capabilities, and mitigated human suffering due to natural
disasters. That is quite a list. Can you tell the Committee more
specifically how you accomplished some of these things, and how does
your fiscal year 2009 budget request allow you to continue to make
progress along these fronts?
Answer. USPACOM has improved regional security by increasing the
number and sophistication of our multilateral, collaborative activities
with allies and partners. The focus on multilateralism extends to all
engagement activities--information sharing, subject matter expert
exchanges, exercise and training evolutions, and cooperative solutions
to security challenges. Two particularly important examples, given the
maritime nature of USPACOM, include exercise MALABAR with India and the
multilateral efforts with ``train and equip'' funding in the triborder
sea area between Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. With
MALABAR, we expanded participation to include Japan, Australia, and
Singapore. Regarding tri-border sea region, and using 1206 ``train and
equip'' funds, we installed a $122M radar/sensor system and provided
watercraft to reduce sanctuary for terrorists and interdict criminal
activities such as drug trafficking or arms smuggling. USPACOM
advocates for continued ``train and equip'' authority and funding in
FY09. Without congressional action, authority for NDAA Sec 1206 funding
expires in FY08.
The USPACOM counter drug program, executed by Joint Interagency
Task Force-West (JIATF-W), has proven extremely successful. Through
information fusion centers, JIATF-W increased information sharing
between national police and other security forces, leading to the
arrest of high value criminals and destruction of drug production
facilities. For FY09, the JIATF-W capacity-building budget of $14.4M
will be focused on increasing partner nation security in Thailand, the
Southern Philippines, and Indonesia.
Assisting those civilian populations at risk to terrorist
exploitation is a continuing USPACOM priority. Working by, with, and
through regional partner nations, USPACOM has emphasized humanitarian
assistance and civil-military operations as a key method to reduce
regional susceptibility to violent extremists. For example, in concert
with the Armed Forces of the Philippines, USP ACOM supported over $3M
in Humanitarian Assistance missions, building schools, wells, and
cisterns as well as providing basic healthcare to thousands of
patients. Additionally, USPACOM provided goodwill through ship-borne
humanitarian assistance deployments, reaching populations rarely
visited by U.S. security forces. Last year, USS PELELIU provided
medical and dental services to more than 35,000 patients and veterinary
services for almost 3,000 animals. USPACOM plans to deploy USNS MERCY
in 2008 for a similar mission.
USPACOM advanced U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities
in theater by increasing both our inventory of U.S. Aegis Standard
Missile-3 interceptors and the number of Aegis destroyers capable of
launching them. Numerous Theater High Altitude Anti-missile Defense
tests demonstrated U.S. commitment to the defense of our partners. The
Japanese Self Defense Force is upgrading BMD capability of their Aegis
cruisers, with one ship already successfully engaging and destroying a
ballistic target in December 2007. To enhance interoperability, USPACOM
exercises and seminars provide a venue for U.S. and Japanese Defense
planners to develop tactics, techniques, and procedures for the
bilateral defense of Japan.
USPACOM forces have quickly responded to disasters within the area
of responsibility. After an earthquake in the Solomon Islands, USPACOM
provided a naval vessel to work with Australia and New Zealand,
assisting in helicopter airlift and humanitarian assistance.
Additionally, USPACOM forces responded to the Bangladesh cyclone SIDR
in November, with embarked U.S. Marine Expeditionary Units delivering
861,000 pounds of supplies, 14,000 gallons of water, and treating over
4,000 patients. In February 2008, USPACOM assisted Chinese citizens
during a period of severe cold by airlifting 16 tons of cold weather
gear, blankets, and humanitarian daily rations.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Wamp.]
Thursday, March 13, 2008.

U.S. AIR FORCE

WITNESSES

GENERAL T. MICHAEL MOSELEY, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. AIR FORCE
MAJOR GENERAL DEL EULBERG, THE AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER, U.S. AIR FORCE

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding.] Let's call the subcommittee to
order.
General Moseley, General Eulberg, welcome back to the
subcommittee. It is great to have you here.
Please accept my apologies for being late. There are
several things happening today. We had a beautiful ceremony for
those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Rotunda of
the Capitol, and also honoring those who have given their lives
in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they had a moment of silence on
the floor.
As I was leaving, the Speaker and I had a brief
conversation about this subcommittee's work.
We are glad you are here. Today, we are here to discuss the
fiscal year 2009 military construction and family housing
request for the Air Force. The Air Force's fiscal year 2009
MILCON request, the active component, is $935 million, a
decrease of about 19 percent compared to the fiscal year 2008
appropriation and a small increase over the fiscal year 2008
request.
The Air National Guard's fiscal year 2009 request is less
than half of last year's request, while the Reserve's request
represents a more than 25 percent decrease from last year's
budget.
The Air Force clearly is facing great pressure on its
budget. I know there are tremendous needs for procurement
funding, and, clearly, this is reflected in this recent year's
MILCON request.
So it is obvious that one of the bill payers for
procurement has to be MILCON, and, General Moseley, that would
certainly be one of the issues we would want to talk about
today so that we keep a handle on what the consequences are for
quality of life and MILCON Air Force programs, as you have to
make those very difficult fiscal priorities.
The family housing construction request is $396 million,
which is an increase of about 9 percent over the fiscal year
2008 request, reflecting the Air Force's commitment to funding
the elimination of all inadequate housing here and overseas by
2009. I salute you for what you have done.
We will discuss these and other issues today, but before we
proceed, I would like to turn to our ranking member, Mr. Wamp,
for any opening comments he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to welcome you, both, and thank you for your
service. Also to say that as we go through some significant
transition with all the branches, the Air Force is unique
because there are so many areas where you are leading and
cutting edge on quality of life in some of these issues with
the environment and, frankly, the condition of your personnel,
and we are grateful for that leadership. And you also have a
different position on some of the new proposals, such as joint
basing, so I particularly welcome you here today.
Thank you for your service and I appreciate your
willingness to work with the transition that is underway with
the other branches, knowing that the world that we live in
requires these changes and that the conflicts of the future are
not like the conflicts of the past, and we all need to go
through this period of change.
And at this subcommittee, we understand that we are a part
of that, and the quality of life issues for the personnel
around the world have to be held up and, frankly, made a focus
so that the people are not lost in the middle of all these
changes.
Thank you, again, for your presence here today and for you,
General Moseley, for coming by and talking with us earlier so I
could get to know you a little bit. As the new kid on the
block, I am grateful to be here and grateful, sir, to you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
General T. Michael Moseley is the Chief of Staff of the
U.S. Air Force, a position he has held since September of 2005.
He previously served as Vice Chief of Staff from August of 2003
to September 2005. He was the Combined Forces Air Component
Commander during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom, a fighter pilot with 2,800 hours of flight time and, I
will save the very best for last, a graduate of Texas A&M
University--a fellow Aggie. It is a thrill to have you here.
At the witness table with General Moseley is Major General
Del Eulberg, the Air Force Civil Engineer who oversees the
construction, maintenance and environmental quality of Air
Force bases around the world.
General Eulberg, thank you for your distinguished service
to our country as well, and it is great to have you back before
the committee.
General Moseley, your full record will, without objection,
be submitted for the record, but we would like to recognize you
now for any opening comments you would care to make, and then
we will proceed with the discussion.
General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.

Statement of General T. Michael Moseley

General Moseley. Chairman Edwards, Congressman Wamp,
distinguished committee members and staff, it is a pleasure for
both of us to be here again this year.
Our Air Force Civil Engineer, Major General Del Eulberg,
and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these very, very
important issues that directly affect our people, our quality
of life and our mission conduct in the United States Air Force
as part of a joint team.
Let me start by, again, thanking the committee and the
staff for consistent and strong support of America's veterans,
our Airmen, our Air Force families but equally our Soldiers,
Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen that are out there today
in harm's way and their families who support them.
Your marks help us maintain and improve Service member
housing and quality of life that are critical to our
warfighting projects. We appreciate your continued support when
you conference with the Senate.
As you know, the Air Force has now been engaged in non-stop
combat for over 17 years. From August of 1990, when we deployed
into the Middle East for Desert Shield, and in January 1991,
when combat operations began for Desert Storm, your United
States Air Force has not redeployed from the Middle East for 17
years, 12 years of no-fly zones plus attendant combat in
Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Mogadishu, Afghanistan and now Iraq.
We find ourselves facing emerging and increasingly
sophisticated threats in all of our three warfighting domains--
in the air, space and cyberspace. In the midst of this
uncertain environment, our priorities remain consistent: Win
today's fight, take care of our people, and prepare for
tomorrow's challenges. And our investments in facilities and
housing and our judicious implementation of BRAC programs are
key to achieving these priorities.
Today, approximately 25,000 of your Airmen are deployed in
the Central Command area of responsibility as part of the
ongoing fights in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.
More than 2,500 of them are engineers.
These Airmen are doing a fabulous job, and our joint and
other federal agency and multinational partners continue to ask
for Airmen when they need these tough jobs to get done well. I
am very proud of them, and I am proud of the Air Force families
that support them.
So it is not surprising that our MILCON, BRAC and housing
investments in the fiscal year 2009 President's Budget request
have carefully balanced the need to care for them today with
the need to also ensure future generations of Airmen are
properly armed, trained, housed and cared for.
I will ask General Eulberg to give you some more details
about plans for funding our MILCON, family housing and BRAC
projects. As he does, please keep in mind that all of these
projects take place in the context of what I am calling a
redefinition of air power for this century.
We see the world beyond our borders fraught with
instability, terrorism, rising peer competitors, rapid
technological advances and proliferation of dangerous
technology, and we are determined to ensure the Air Force's
continued ability to fly, fight and win in that environment.
So we are transforming our organizations and adopting new
concepts of operations and leveraging and exploiting
breakthrough technologies to achieve cross-domain dominance and
maintaining America's asymmetric edge across the spectrum of
combat and continue to provide our nation global vigilance,
global reach and global power.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the Air Force's ability to
wage and win our Nation's wars, now and in the future, depends
heavily on both our Airmen and the state of our operational
infrastructure. The Air Force is distinct in that our bases
serve not only as housing for our families or our peacetime
places of work. They are our ``front lines''--our warfighting
locations, whether here in the United States or abroad, due to
the unique characteristics of air, space and cyberspace power.
That is why our people at our bases are important to us,
and I take pride in the Air Force's reputation for taking the
highest quality care of these installations, because that is
where our people live and work.
I thank you again for this committee's continued help in
making this happen, and I look forward to your questions and
continued work on these important points.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[Prepared statement of General T. Michael Moseley follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.065

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, General Moseley.
General Eulberg.

Statement of Major General Del Eulberg

General Eulberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp and distinguished members of
the committee, I am proud to be here with General Moseley
representing your Air Force.
Investments in our fiscal year 2009 construction programs
are focused on achieving the Air Force priorities to win
today's fight, take care of our people, and prepare for
tomorrow's challenges. These investments are critical in
ensuring our installations continue to serve effectively as
warfighting platforms.
Our fiscal year 2009 President's Budget request of $5.2
billion for MILCON, BRAC, family housing and facility
maintenance is less than our fiscal year 2008 President's
Budget request of $5.6 billion. This is consistent with our
overall strategy of taking acceptable risk in infrastructure as
we move to modernize our aging weapons systems.
The manageable risk we are taking in MILCON will be
mitigated by our requested $168 million increase over last
year's request in our restoration and modernization funding. We
are doing this equitably across the total force as we all
contribute to the central recapitalization of our weapons
systems.
Our housing construction and renovation program continues
to be a good news story for our Air Force families, as you
mentioned, Mr. Chairman.
Airmen and families and commanders continue to provide very
positive feedback. Housing privatization also continues to be a
private and public sector success story. For every dollar we
invest yields the equivalent of $16 invested by the private
sector. Similar strategic leveraging will help find additional
opportunities to quickly bring quality homes to our Airmen.
Consistent with our department's strategic planning
guidance, our fiscal year 2009 request for housing investment
will fully fund our program to eliminate all inadequate housing
overseas. We are asking for $396 million that includes more
than 2,100 housing units at eight overseas installations.
Again, I would like to highlight that with the fiscal year
2009 President's Budget and Congress' support in past budgets,
the Air Force is now funded to eliminate all inadequate family
housing. Thank you for your support.
We must provide quality of life for our Airmen at their
operating and training locations, as well as their homes.
Maintaining proficiency of our battle-tested Airmen who have
been in continuous combat and expeditionary operations for more
than 17 years requires quality training environments.
We have targeted a portion of our program to support this--
for example, the new security force operations and
communications facilities in Burlington, Vermont will provide
Air National Guardsmen in one of our most stressed career
fields with modern facilities to meet training and daily
operational requirements.
To prepare for tomorrow's challenges, our President's
Budget request consists of $491 million for 32 projects. Twelve
of these continue to beddown the F-22 Raptor, our fifth
generation air superiority fighter in Alaska and New Mexico.
The other 20 projects support beddown of the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter, a robust aggressor squadron at Nellis Air Force
Base, a joint air-ground center at Fort Hood to support our
tactical air controllers embedded with the Army and other
critical requirements.
I want to again highlight this year that we remain focused
on facility energy conservation, renewable energy and meeting
or exceeding the President's new energy mandates. For the
fourth year in a row, the Air Force is the number one purchaser
of renewable energy in the federal government. Last year, we
purchased 9.5 percent of our electrical power from renewable
power sources.
I am pleased to say that last December we finalized our
partnership with the state and local governments and private
industry to host North America's largest photovoltaic solar
array, providing 14 megawatts of power at Nellis Air Force
Base, Nevada.
We have also institutionalized the latest green standards
in facilities design and construction. All fiscal year 2009 Air
Force-eligible MILCON projects will meet Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design, or LEED, silver certification
criteria.
The Air Force, like other services, also continues to
experience significant challenges due to the construction
climate, as we testified last year during the hearing. The
producers price index for construction materials has risen 24
percent since December 2003, while the consumer price index
rose 14 percent. This is especially tough in a more competitive
construction market, such as the Gulf Coast region and San
Antonio, Texas.
With our MILCON programming budgetary cycle, the DOD price
models and inflation factors must forecast inflation three
years before construction starts, often resulting in inflation
factors falling short of actual inflation.
In a 2002 to 2007 study, OSD and OMB inflation rates were
one-third lower than the average of industry's most popular
indices. Underestimating inflation rates in our projects drive
reactive solicitation strategies, scope reduction and
workarounds.
To meet this challenge, the Services and OSD are in the
process of submitting a report to Congress which provides
recommendations on how to adjust and deal with the rising costs
that will result in more accurate MILCON development and
execution.
Another example of Service partnership can be found in the
Joint Construction Management Office in San Antonio, Texas,
where we are leveraging the strength of the Army Corps of
Engineers and our newly renamed Air Force Center for
Engineering and Environment. This office will successfully
execute hundreds of millions of dollars of BRAC MILCON in San
Antonio.
Finally, I want to reiterate that we support the Air Force
priority to recapitalize and modernize its weapons systems. To
produce efficiencies and free up funds, we began the most
comprehensive transformation of civil engineering since the
post-Cold War drawdown. We have already restructured our
organizations from top to bottom, centralized all capital
investment execution at the Air Force Center for Engineering
and the Environment, we have rebalanced our manpower to include
increases in high-demand Rapid Engineers Deployable Heavy
Operational Repair Squadron Engineers (RED HORSE) and Explosive
Ordnance Disposal (EOD) combat capability.
Currently, we are reengineering our business process by
enabling information technology around an industry-proven,
portfolio-level asset management approach, one of the key
lessons learned from our strategic partnership with industry
leaders, such as IBM, CB Richard Ellis, Jones Lang LaSalle,
Bank of America, ExxonMobil, Walt Disney and General Motors.
We are developing new strategies to ensure limited funding
is focused on the most critical portions of our physical
plants. Through activity management, incentive-based demolition
and consolidation programs, utilities privatization, enhanced-
use leasing, housing privatization, energy conservation and
other initiatives, we are striving to maintain our warfighting
platform.
I am honored to be here for my second hearing cycle as the
Air Force Civil Engineer, and I am proud to be part of the Air
Force team, ensuring air dominance for the U.S. and our allies.
I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, both, for your opening statements
and also for your lifetime of service to the Air Force.

INADEQUATE HOUSING

Let me begin, and perhaps I could direct this to you,
General Eulberg.
General Moseley, obviously, at any point, if you would care
to comment, I would welcome that as well.
I think one of the untold success stories for the last
decade, between the Bush administration and the Clinton
administration, both supporting the public-private housing
program. We really have made tremendous progress in providing
the kind of quality housing for our service men and women and
their families that they should have had decades ago. And I am
proud of this subcommittee's bipartisan effort and role in that
public-private approach, which is a new approach to providing
quality housing for military families.
But each year, I want to ask each service how many are
still living, whether married or single, are still living in
housing or barracks that don't meet DOD standards.
For the record, General Eulberg, do you know offhand, as of
today, not how many contracts are in place, but how many
people, as of tonight, in the Air Force will be living in
either barracks or in family housing that don't meet basic DOD
housing standards?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir. As we testified last year, we
had 9,400 families in inadequate homes, and this year, we have
4,000 families in inadequate homes. And with the fiscal year
2009 President's budget request, we will eliminate all
inadequate homes, and this year's focus is on the overseas.
So as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, it has been a success
story in leveraging our investments. And we will have built out
all MILCON and family housing privatization by the year 2013.
So Airmen, regardless of where they are stationed around the
world, will have homes that meet today's standards.
Mr. Edwards. Great. And I salute you for that progress.
What are the numbers in terms of single service men and
women living in barracks? Would you have that?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir. Through fiscal year 2009, we
will fund projects to eliminate inadequate dorms, which include
construction of permanent party and pipeline deficits. We have
eliminated all central latrine dorms and all permanent party
Airmen are currently living in private rooms. We will be
addressing our sole remaining pipeline deficit dorm in fiscal
year 2010.
According to the current dorm master plan, approximately
2,700 Airmen live in inadequate dorm rooms. I would like to
highlight that 2,300 are currently funded in fiscal year 2009,
so that remains the delta there. The 400 is the pipeline
dormitory at Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas, which we are
going to be addressing in the fiscal year 2010 President's
budget request.
We will continue to replace and renovate existing
dormitories at the end of their useful life, so you will
continue to see requests from the Air Force as we recapitalize
our dormitory program as the facilities continue to age. And
that will be articulated in our dorm master plan.
General Moseley. Chairman, if I could reinforce, thank you
for your personal touch on this, but thanks to the committee
also for helping us get at this for our youngest Airmen. To be
able to get folks out of those older dorms and into the newer
dorms, especially in overseas locations, is not just a quality
of life issue, it is a safety issue. It is also a discipline
issue, and it also lets the first Sergeant and the squadron
commanders watch over our youngest and most inexperienced
folks.
And, certainly, because of your personal touch in this
committee, we have been able to get to those numbers. So we are
down to 400.
Mr. Edwards. And that is tremendous progress, and I salute
you, both, for your leadership and focus on that.
Let me ask just one follow-up question. It is not an Air
Force policy, it used to be last year, but as I now understand
it, the definition of adequate housing is a DOD policy, and it
doesn't seem to pass the common sense test to me.
Please correct me if I am wrong. The Department of Defense
says an Air Force family is living in an adequate house if the
Air Force would just spend $50,000 to fix the leaky roof,
replace the inoperable washing machine and dryer, fix the
windows that are broken and straighten up the floors that are
warped, regardless of whether the Air Force ever spent one dime
on that home. Is that technically the definition that you are
operating under, according to DOD standards? Is that family
with the leaky room that hadn't been fixed defined as living in
adequate housing?
General Eulberg. Sir, we do not apply that definition to
adequacy standards in our housing. The United States Air Force
uses a housing community profile condition process where we
send out--every three years, we send out teams to all of our
bases to make an assessment of our homes. And these conditions
score one through five, five being a new home.
We make an assessment in 14 different categories. We look
at the size of the home, the functional layout of the home, if
it is meeting current standards that you would provide in the
private sector. And we go through all the utility systems,
playgrounds, tot lots, 14 different categories, and we come up
with a condition score.
And if the condition score is 3.75 or less, then the house
is deemed inadequate and needs investment, regardless of the
amount, Mr. Chairman. So that is how we do it.
Mr. Edwards. I salute you for that.
And it was several years ago the threshold DOD was using
was $15,000, and they raised it to $50,000. It could look like
magically overnight everybody got adequate housing when, in
fact, they just raised the amount of money needed to bring it
up to standards, which moved from $15,000 to $50,000. So I
salute you for the standard that you are using.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to avoid the temptation to talk a lot, because
it is really special to think about even my civilian experience
with the Air Force of having lived on base for 3 months as a
13-year-old with my uncle and my aunt at Howard Air Force Base
in the Panama Canal zone and then just through the years I
could reminisce, and I am going to resist that temptation.
But I do want to say that 3 weeks ago today, particularly
for you, General Eulberg, I was privileged to deliver the
keynote at the United States Air Force Academy on character
day, and they had needs there, because the service academy is
the youngest, and those buildings were built 50 years ago, and
most of them are still standing.
I saw that firsthand while I was there, and I want to raise
that issue, because it is just one inspirational place. And for
2,800 cadets to be in the auditorium, as I shared with them and
listened to them and was inspired by them, it is a sight to
see. It was a top three event in my 14 years of service for me,
personally, and I have told everyone of that experience.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

General Moseley, I have asked all the chiefs in the
services about BRAC because of all the good things that were
done over the last couple of years by the new majority relative
to MILCON and our veterans' needs. The one thing that didn't
happen fully was BRAC. There is a shortfall delta between last
year's budget request and the actual year-end bill. How does
that affect you? Do you just postpone things? The 2011 deadline
is going to be hard to meet. How do you adapt?
General Moseley. Sir, it is hard to adapt. I would request
to the committee to take a hard look at restoring that funding
so we could execute the legislation in the BRAC planning.
Delaying funding till the last minute puts us in a bit of a
bind, because, as you know, sir, it is hard to get things on
contract at the end, and things cost more as we go further. So
the ability to execute and the ability to implement, we are
hamstrung a bit if we can't get that funding and can't execute.
I suspect my other Service Chief brothers said the same
thing, because we talk about this quite a bit, about our
ability to be able to pull this together and execute this in
the timeline that we are asked to.
Mr. Wamp. And I think we just need to hear it and know what
the challenges are we face, because my hat is off to this
committee for what they have done in the past for all these
needs, but we can put it all into the prism as we look forward.

RED HORSE AND PRIME BEEF

Another thing, I thought back to is when I traveled with
the speaker of the House in 1999 through Alaska, and headed
west. We were briefed there on Bosnia and the global operations
at that time. And, boy, the Air Force has changed in intent
because RED HORSE and Prime BEEF are very different from what
we saw the Air Force's lead role in 1999 from Elmendorf.
So just tell us a little bit more about RED HORSE and Prime
BEEF and these people on the ground, in the Middle East, on
behalf of the Air Force and our combined force.
General Moseley. Sir, let me tell you, my perspective is
not only as service chief but my perspective as having
commanded that operation in the Middle East for the two
campaigns.
RED HORSE, for us, and Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force
(BEEF), these are heroes on so many levels, and they are
fundamental to the operation of an expeditionary field. They
not only can build an airfield but they can operate an
airfield, they can renew and restore airfields. We can capture
airfields, and they can bring them up to speed. They are
professionals in every way, and they live in the same culture
for us that the United States Naval Construction Battalions
(SEABEES) have for the Navy. I mean, this is our combat
expeditionary engineering effort, and we do this as a total
force, with a mix of Guard, Reserve and active.
And so, I will tell you, some of my fondest memories are
the first campaign in Afghanistan. We spent time with a
Pennsylvania engineering unit that had been there for six
months. They were asking to stay another six months to finish
the projects that they had started because of the pride that
they had in what they did but also the contribution.
So, sir, this is a big deal for us. We take a lot of pride
in those folks. They wear a different hat. They wear a red hat,
and over time people have asked, ``Do we not let them wear a
different piece of a uniform,'' but I have said over time they
should wear something unique because of who they are and what
they do. So this is a serious effort for us.
General Eulberg is a civil engineer. Let me let him finish.
General Eulberg. Well, sir, I really appreciate the
comments and General Moseley's confidence in his engineering
force that the Air Force has. I get all goose bumpy just
thinking about it.
One of the successes we have is training our young men and
women in Prime BEEF and RED HORSE to go do these missions
around the world. Both Active, Guard and Reserve engineers come
together and seamlessly form a team to be able to accomplish
what is needed in the combat zone. So that is a real tribute to
the training program that we have established over the years
between the total force, as well as with our joint partners.
As you go forward, we have RED HORSE teams that are made up
of all three parts of the total force, and we are very proud of
what they do.
I would like to highlight that there are other key elements
of Air Force engineering capability that are present in the
theater and support the combatant commander. The Air Force is
currently executing $4.6 billion of reconstruction in Iraq by
the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment. We
have constructed or repaired over 4,000 facilities in
reconstructing Iraq, primarily in the justice and security
sector, and have been very successful.
There have been a number of audits and reports done, and I
am proud to say that because of our business model, we have a
very small footprint, we rely very heavily on the Iraqi
workforce. Ninety-one percent of our construction projects
utilize labor from Iraqi citizens. Seventy-two percent of our
professional workforce over there are Iraqis as well.
So we have a very small footprint, and our business model
has been extremely successful in the United States Central
Command Area of Responsibility (AOR), in supporting our
Nation's objectives.
Lastly, I would like to say that, as General Moseley
mentioned at the very beginning, our installations are
warfighting platforms. We have developed, over the years, great
master planners, those skill sets that we bring to the fight
every day in the AOR. The combatant commander utilizes Air
Force engineers to plan these joint warfighting platforms, like
Balad Air Base, Iraq where we do master planning and layouts to
maximize both security as well as the mission capability of the
various units on the installation.
So that is a third dimension that is often overlooked, but
it produces combat power at the end of the day.
So I am proud to be associated with the men and women that
serve over there in all capacities.
General Moseley. Congressman Wamp, I will give you a frame
of reference. In my time as Commander of Central Command Air
Forces, we built or modified 51 airfields all through
Afghanistan and Iraq. At its peak, in Operation Iraqi Freedom,
we were operating out of 38 airfields at once. And those 51
airfields and peaking at 38 couldn't have been done without RED
HORSE and Prime BEEF. They were the ones that go on and build
the airfield up. They put the runway down and set up the
facilities, and operated the base.
Sir, that Pennsylvania unit, one afternoon while I was
talking to them, the ambient air temperature at that location
was 140 degrees, and these guys were telling me--I grew up in a
construction family, so these guys were telling me they can't
lay the hot mix in the day because it won't cure. They have got
to wait and lay it late in the afternoon and let it cure all
night. And so they were operating 24 hours a day on top of
metal buildings, stringing wire and laying hot mix at night so
it could cure when it was 140 degrees outside.
So these are heroes.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I will wait till the next round
since Mr. Crenshaw is here.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. And this is a 15-minute vote, and I
would ask staff to just let us know when we have 3 minutes left
to go.
Mr. Crenshaw.

DECREASE IN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. I apologize for being late. There are a lot of
meetings going on today.
But one question I had was about just the military
construction part and really as it applies to the Reserve, Air
National Guard, things like that. I noticed there is less
request made for military construction, and I didn't know--I
assume, in part, that is due to, kind of, the war against
terror. With the Army and the Marines, there is a lot of budget
pressure there.
So, in general, are you asking for less military
construction money because there are less requirements or is
there some budget pressure that you might have some
requirements that really just because of budget constraints,
they're going to go unfunded?
General Moseley. Congressman, that is a great question.
I would say that the business that we are in, as Service
Chiefs at our Services now, are balancing competing
requirements and competing demands. And these are budgetary
issues and funding issues, and so we are making some hard
choices relative to the four major areas that we have, which
are personnel, infrastructure and MILCON, operations and
maintenance, and investment, and to be able to balance that in
an affordability sense. We are making some hard choices here.
As the 18th Chief of Staff, I am 100 percent committed to
the Guard and Reserve and the Active Duty as a total force and
the ability to deal with this global war on terrorism and
tomorrow's challenges as a total force is the only way I see us
being successful in the future. So I am a big fan of the
National Guard and Reserve, and we include them in everything
that we do as far as building the budget and building the set
of priorities.
So, sir, we are very sensitive to military construction
projects, whether it is active, Guard or Reserve.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, for instance, I know in my district
there is an Air National Guard wing, and under the BRAC process
they ended up with five new aircraft, but there wasn't any
military construction money in BRAC. And, of course, every year
they tell me, ``We need some money because we got the new
aircraft. We need some military construction.''
So, in general, how is it that the BRAC requirements, in
terms of military construction, how does that work? And are
there some requirements that aren't being funded like that just
because of budget constraints?
General Moseley. Sir, I would say there are probably a lot
of requirements out there that are not being funded because of
affordability issues. For specific details, I will let the
civil engineer talk about that, but we try not to let something
go uncovered.
We are very serious about the aviation units and about the
requirements to operate airplanes.
And, sir, I will tell you, as we mentioned before, to be
able to get the BRAC funding restored is a big deal for us. To
be able to execute that and to get all of this done by 2011 is
a serious challenge.
General Eulberg. Yes, sir. And I would just like to add
on--whether it be BRAC or the traditional MILCON funding, as
you mentioned, there is not enough money to invest in our
infrastructure as we would like to because of competing
priorities.
And whenever we go through the BRAC process to determine
what the requirements are, as you know, there are a lot of
recommendations under BRAC, but like the normal budgeting
process, there is a vetting process where you look at every
weapons system move, regardless of the base, and those
requirements have to be validated.
And I would like to say, there is always the push between
what is a new requirement based on mission movement and what is
an existing deficiency. And that debate goes on in all
Services.
And so without specific details on the type of project you
are talking about, sir, I will just tell you that it is a total
force discussion, whether it be BRAC funding or MILCON, and we
prioritize within available resources.
Mr. Crenshaw. Does it affect the daily operations, do you
think, of--I mean, like, there is never enough money, I
understand that, and there are certain things that are more
deficient than the others, but would you say that the lack of
funding, does it impact the day-to-day operations in any of
these projects?
And, Mr. Chairman, maybe one part is, I don't know if it is
appropriate, that some of the--if there is not enough money and
there are some requirements that aren't being funded, maybe do
we have a list of what those might be or should we ask them
just to let us know that there are some--that they are asking
for so much but there are some things that actually are
required but because of budget constraints they really don't
ask for them. I don't know if that would be helpful for us.
Mr. Edwards. That would be appropriate to ask.
General Moseley. Congressman, we do, at the request of the
Congress, forward an unfunded requirements list every year that
is parallel to the budget. And in that unfunded requirements
list, we prioritize that with the initiatives to win today's
fight, take care of our people, and prepare for Tomorrow's
Challenges. And in that, I believe, is about $800 million worth
of MILCON projects that are unfunded.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BRAC FUNDING

Mr. Edwards. Thank you. How much time do we have before the
vote finishes? Five minutes?
Let me just jump in real quickly. I want to thank Mr. Wamp
and Mr. Crenshaw for bringing up the BRAC issue. Clearly, we
have to address that.
In calendar year 2007, we had, as a result of taking money
out of this subcommittee's allocation to fund increases for
veterans' health care, including a lot of the troops coming
back from Iraq and Afghanistan, we underfunded BRAC with the
assumption we would replace that money when we got to the Iraq
war supplemental bill. We replaced 100 percent of the
president's request.
This past year, we did the same thing to fund up additional
MILCON requests and veterans' health care programs. We took
$939 million out of the president's request for BRAC. The BRAC
fund that we approved was a significant increase over the
previous year. It was $939 million short of the president's
request.
My hope, again, is that we can come close to replacing
that, dollar for dollar, just as we did last year.
General Eulberg, for the record, do you have the Air
Force's allocation, the shortfall--that $939 million, how much
of that--if that were to be fully funded, how much of that
would go to the Air Force?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir. If it was fully funded $235
million of the reduction is Air Force, and of that $235
million, $129 million is in direct BRAC MILCON, which going
back to the earlier question on what is the impact, because it
delays our ability to do things like move the mission and
related equipment and personnel from Kulis Air National Guard
Base to Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, it affects the Joint
Strike Fighter at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida and a number of
other quality of life facilities at Shaw Air Force Base, South
Carolina. So there is a direct impact to our personnel as well
as our missions as a result of that.
Mr. Edwards. Could I ask you--you are a step ahead of me--
could I ask you sometime in the next week, General Eulberg, to
send to the committee a written list of some of the
complications if you don't get BRAC funding? I think it would
be important. Because sometimes I know you can't move personnel
from one installation to another in the BRAC process until you
have new housing and facilities, so there is a backlog that is
created.
[The information follows:]

The $939 million Omnibus reduction to the Department of Defense
BRAC 2005 account must be restored. If left unfunded, the reduction
will result in the Air Force receiving $235 million less than required
in Fiscal Year 2008. The Air Force will experience delays and
disruptions in construction and the movement of our people and assets.
Delays will also impact our ability to meet mandated completion
deadlines.
To implement BRAC 2005 and the Commission's recommendations, the
Air Force uses a continuous process to identify, analyze, refine,
coordinate, and validate requirements. Although the Air Force has not
cut any projects due to this reduction, if left unfunded the Air Force
will need to defer BRAC military construction projects, operations and
maintenance requirements, and planning and design. Those deferments are
based on today's planned award dates. The Air Force may further adjust
its strategy and the deferral list in order to maintain the needed
flexibility to execute its program.
Our initial analysis of the reduction indicates the Air Force will
be required to accept risk in the following areas:
--Military Construction: Will defer 21 projects, valued at
$124.2 million (15% of total BRAC military construction,
including a housing project valued at $9 million. All deferred
projects have an estimated award date after June 1, 2008.
--Planning and Design (P&D): Will defer $5.2 million in
requirements (28% of total P&D).
--Operations and Maintenance (O&M): Will defer $96.8 million
in requirements (36% of total O&M).
If the reduction is restored sometime during this fiscal year, we
will figure out a way to get back on track. If it is permanently lost,
we will be hard broke; delays in accomplishing the Fiscal Year 2008
requirements will have ripple effects impacting mission readiness and
our ability to meet the mandated BRAC 2005 completion deadline of
September 2011.

Let me stop there. We have less than 3 minutes left.
To my colleagues, we are going to have a journal vote after
this first vote.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I will come back and I have about
three more questions. So as soon as we vote that second time,
you and I will come and finish.
Mr. Edwards. Sounds good.
[Recess.]
Mr. Edwards. I would like to call the committee back to
order.
Let me just take a couple more minutes, and I think that
will take up my 5 minutes on this round.

INFLATION ASSUMPTION

On the inflation factor issue, I have been concerned that
it seemed the policy in the past that OMB, some genius at OMB
decided that construction inflation was going to be 2.43
percent a year, and then each service has to develop for each
year of MILCON budgets based on that assumption.
General Eulberg, you referenced the inflation issue.
Clearly, we all understand, and you quantified it, but the
difficulty we are facing with construction inflation, whether
it is for roads, military construction or VA facilities. Are
you allowed to--as you develop your future years defense plan
for MILCON, are you allowed to build in what you think within
the Air Force is--assumption or are you given a guideline by
OMB that you can only assume 2.4 or some other ridiculously low
number that doesn't pass----
General Eulberg. Sir, we are given the information we can
use in the out-years, and that is exactly what the TriService
study will report on.
I hope we are successful in convincing OSD and OMB and if
required Congress, for that kind of latitude, because,
ultimately, we have to either cut scope, change our acquisition
strategies, do less quality construction, which becomes more
and more important when you have to start cutting costs. We
begin to trade off things like sustainment, LEED design
criteria that will help to lower the life cycle costs of the
project overall. And so we really save a little money upfront,
and it costs us a lot more over the long haul, because we want
to make sure those features are built into our buildings.
And that is why this year you will see an additional line
on our DD Form 1391 MILCON documentation. We have added a line
item of two percent for sustainability features in every one of
our buildings, as I alluded to in my opening statement.
Why? Because we want it formally part of the project so it
is not traded off due to cost pressures, because that is good,
long life cycle asset management for the United States
taxpayer.
Mr. Edwards. I hope we can work together to change the
process, because we have just got to have realistic data to
allow you to make good decisions rather than assuming.
What is the assumed number right now that comes out of OMB?
General Eulberg. Sir, I will have to give you for the
record.
Mr. Edwards. The last time I saw it, it was 2.43 percent or
something.
General Eulberg. Sir, I think 2.3 percent, but--2.2 to 2.4
percent.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]

The Price Escalation Index (annual rates in percentage) for
military construction and operations and maintenance programs for
Fiscal Years 2009-2013 is a straight line 2.0 percent.

Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

JOINT BASING

General Moseley, another privilege I have had a couple of
times, including 2 months ago, was going through Hickam, and
that is a good example of kind of the woes of joint basing. I
want you to explain the Air Force's concern, which is a
legitimate concern, and is different from the other Services,
on the potentiality of joint basing and what it can do to
places where your base is your operational command in a
conflict.
General Moseley. Sir, thanks for that question.
Let me go back. The staff back here said that they felt
like $100 million is our unfunded. What we said was $12
million.
Sir, we are looking to make joint basing a raging success.
It is rich for us and the ability to look at saving on a joint
base offers us a chance to do some things that we haven't been
able to do before.
So I am a big supporter of joint basing, and I am a big
supporter of the initiatives that we worked very hard coming
out of BRAC.
There are 12 joint bases and the Air Force is the lead
Service for six of those bases. So half of this effort comes to
us, and so you know we take this very seriously.
Sir, we have had a series of continual dialogues on joint
basing and how do we implement it and how do we execute it, and
I am going to defer in a minute to General Eulberg who has been
the guy doing that very work.
Our desires in this process is to ensure that we streamline
all understandings of mission requirements and that we
streamline all understandings of the ability to execute a
mission, whether that is maritime, land, air, space or joint,
and that we understand each other's knots in our ropes as far
as we go through this process about operating port facilities,
operating airfields, and operating training ranges.
And we have gone through a series of tabletop exercises so
we can much better understand each of these in a joint setting.
And we are to the point now where we are looking at memorandums
of agreement at each of the bases to protect those imperatives
and the ability to execute.
There are still some issues out there that we are working
through, but, for the most part, I am in full support of joint
basing and in full support of how we get at this. The concerns
that we have still revolve around execution of command and
those tabletop exercises and those memorandums of agreement
will take us a long way to addressing that.
Mr. Chairman, let me turn it over to our expert who has
been doing that.
General Eulberg. Sir, as General Moseley mentioned, we have
been about this for a couple of years, meeting with OSD as well
as the other Services at the 12 joint bases. It has been a
challenge because of how we do installation support between the
various Services are different, and I will just give you one
example which underscores what General Moseley was talking
about, in that as we go forward with joint basing, the Air
Force has always been particularly concerned about it for a
couple of reasons.
One, they are our warfighting platforms. We launch and
recover aircraft out of our bases. We also deploy from those
airbases, so we are very concerned about our embedded military
at the joint bases.
The engineers take care of our military forces, so . . . we
are very concerned and need to get down to the details through
the memorandum of agreements (MOAs). We must ensure we have the
ability and commanders have the ability to organize, train, and
equip our military members.
Next challenge, after we work our way through the MOAs, we
are funded a little bit differently. Installation support for
the other Services is sometimes coded with mission dollars, and
so we have to work our way through that as well. At the end of
the day, a joint base, regardless of who the lead Service is,
must try to achieve the highest standard for that capability.
When Navy, Army, Air Force, or Marine families, or our
young troops go to a fitness center we must strive to achieve
the highest standard that any of the services have. And we are
working our way through that as we speak, because, ultimately,
we want joint bases to be the places where our young men and
women want to be stationed and preserve our capability.
The last thing that I would like to highlight on the
mission side that we are working with OSD and the other
Services on is, again, they are our warfighting platform.
Airfield operations is a core competency of the United States
Air Force. We do not believe that is an installation support
function. It is warfighting for the United States Air Force,
and we are working that hard with OSD now.
But I believe we will--in fact, I know we will--be
successful.

CYBER COMMAND

Mr. Wamp. General Moseley, earlier you mentioned one of
your primary responsibilities, cyber command. What facilities
or infrastructure needs do you have with the cyber command
mandate?
General Moseley. Congressman, that is a great question. I
can answer some of it but not all of it.
We have a provisional command that we are looking as the
leading edge of trying to get our arms around this new domain.
We have had several discussions in the joint world as well as
amongst ourselves about how best to provide forces for the U.S.
and use the current unified command plan to size the forces and
execute in that domain.
So we are in the process of deciding and determining and
fielding how we recruit and train both Non-Commissioned
Officers (NCOs) and officers to live in that world and operate
and how to develop squadrons, groups and wings to be able to
present forces 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whether it is
in place or virtual, and to be able to operate in that domain.
Our provisional Cyberspace command stood up at Barksdale
Air Force Base, Louisiana. We have a major general in charge of
it, and we are looking to stand up a permanent command later.
Sir, we have had a variety of headquarters locations
offered and offerings to conduct studies and analysis, plus the
environmental assessments at each of those locations.
And, sir, I think it is 18 states who have offered
opportunities to do that, and so we want to get this right, and
we want to understand the pluses and minuses and it is equally
important to understand what synergies--institutions as well as
civilian professional institutions--that are out there living
in these domains.
So it is not just about an Air Force headquarters, it is
about how do you derive the fully synergy of what is possible
in this new warfighting domain?
And so going through the 18 states' offerings will probably
take us through the summer and into the fall before we have
some closure.
So that is the part that I don't know yet, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question left, and
I will hold since Mr. Bishop has shown up, if you need me to
wait for another round.
Mr. Edwards. It is your choice. Okay.
Mr. Bishop.

MOODY AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I just have one area of
questioning related to family housing.
You know that we have had several disruptions in the
housing construction at Moody Air Force Base, particularly when
the prime contractor ran into difficulties and financial
problems. Can you give us an update on where the project is now
and whether a new prime has been identified? And what is the
projected timetable for that project? And how successful has
Air Force been in utilizing local contractors as subs? And the
final question is, have the subs that were working for the
first prime been able to get paid?
General Moseley. Sir, I am going to tell you from our
perspective what I think, then I am going to let the civil
engineer fill in the details.
From our perspective, it has taken way too long, and we
have got people that are disadvantaged from not being able to
move into housing. To me, this is an issue between contractors
that have not been able to deliver, and I understand the
oddities of the court system and there is litigation that is
going on, which is taking time, which is the way litigation
works, but it is also time that we don't have people living in
houses that are new, and we don't have people that are able to
move into houses at four different locations.
I can't get into the litigation business, because it is not
my job, other than to express frustration that it has taken way
too long to get housing built and to get people into quality
homes under this template that we have got now.
So let me get out of the way and let the civil engineer
provide the specific details for you.
General Eulberg. Sir, as you alluded to, and General
Moseley mentioned, privatization of our family housing has been
overall very, very successful across the Air Force. We are
having issues with American Eagle at four bases where they are
the project owners at Hanscom, Patrick, Little Rock and Moody
Air Force Bases.
Where we are at right now is, obviously, the contractor has
failed to perform. They fell behind, as you highlighted, way
behind. We have gone through a number of court actions. The
Moody project is now in Georgia state receivership.
The current project owner is American Eagle, which is made
up of Carabetta as well as Shaw, and those two companies are
right now in discussions with a potential buyer of the four-
base deal. They are meeting and hope to have a letter of intent
in the next 30 days and a sale by this summer, about the July
timeframe. They are working through all those details now, and
we hope that they are successful.
And for purposes of this discussion, we are very optimistic
that we will be able to work through a deal. And, again, that
would be Shaw-Carabetta with the bondholders as well as the
United States Air Force are working together to see if we can't
get a new project owner on board to be successful.
As you highlighted, there are subcontractor liens that are
outstanding. To date, $233,000 in liens have been paid for
subcontracts at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.
Mr. Bishop. How much are unpaid?
General Eulberg. There is a total of $7.1 million in unpaid
subcontractor liens. They have filed liens and claims, and that
is going through the legal process for adjudication at this
time.
Mr. Bishop. You have already paid 200 plus thousand, but
you have got several million outstanding. I receive a lot of
communication about that situation, particularly from folks
that are suffering from lack of payment. And, of course, my
hands are tied, I guess, like yours are, but I appreciate your
updating us on the situation.
General Eulberg. Yes, sir.
General Moseley. Congressman, we are equally frustrated
that we can't move people into those houses. That is a nice
looking community down there, and it is a community that has no
one living in those houses. It is very frustrating to know that
we are going to get quality and full enhancements in military
family housing that meets our criteria and we can't get at it
at those four locations because of what is happening at this
time.
Mr. Bishop. Are you getting any details as to what happened
with the company? Do you have any information on that, what
happened to American Eagle that caused them to get into these
troubles?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir. Well, there are a number of
issues, especially across the board. Not only did we have four
bases involved, which were four separate source selection
authorities, four separate source selection committees that
went through the process, but we would like to highlight that
the Army and Navy also had projects with American Eagle and
experienced exactly the same problem.
American Eagle failed to deliver and manage these projects
appropriately. The bondholders were notified of problems. These
projects began in October of 2003 and 2004, and those were the
dates of the privatization contracts that were let at all four
installations.
Fundamentally, American Eagle fell behind in their
construction schedule; therefore, they fell behind in the Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH) payments that we would be making to
them. And so it became non-sustainable, if you will, and
bondholders were notified. Part of the issue was the
bondholders also did not react when the Air Force notified
them.
So there are a number of lessons learned along the way in
this process, but, fundamentally, American Eagle was unable to
manage a project of this size.
Mr. Bishop. Had they managed projects for the Air Force or
for the other services prior to these particular contracts or
was this the first impression with this particular company?
General Eulberg. In terms of housing, sir?
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
General Eulberg. Yes, this is the first.
Mr. Bishop. Had they done some other contracts?
General Eulberg. They may have done other government work.
I don't know what that is, but it was not associated with the
housing construction for the United States Air Force.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Do you have any way of predicting, since it is
in the legal process, how long this will take to resolve and
get the families in the houses?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir. We predict that if we get a
letter of intent executed by American Eagle and the new project
owner within the next 30 days, we will have a sale agreement by
July of this year, to include new financing. We will
restructure each one of the housing requirements at each one of
the bases and then go forward. And we will be able to move on.
This has been a very complex problem and project, but we are
optimistic that we will have this behind us by this summer.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.

CHILD CARE WAITING LIST

Could I ask you to submit, Chief, for writing to the
committee what the waiting list totals are at various
installations of the Air Force for daycare and whether there
are some unfunded needs for youth activity centers as well? And
I think we will ask this question each year just to see if the
waiting list for daycare is getting longer or shorter. We will
meet with the top non-commissioned officers of the service's
daycare. It is always high on the list of needs.
General Eulberg. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.068

Mr. Edwards. I am proud of what this subcommittee did
together last year to initiate $130 million of unrequested
daycare, unrequested from OMB for daycare centers, much
requested from our military leaders. I applaud the
administration this year to have a huge increase for daycare
funding.
But if we could just get those numbers, that would be
helpful.
General Eulberg. Yes, sir.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Edwards. General Moseley, in your testimony--and I
appreciate your honesty--you said, ``The Air Force has taken
risks in infrastructure.'' It goes back to what you have
already said about you have got to make tough choices, given
the budget and time of war, the needs for new procurement
programs.
Could you take a couple of minutes to further explain what
you mean when you say the Air Force is taking risks in
infrastructure?
General Moseley. Sir, as you know, we have four kinds of
money: Personnel money, infrastructure and MILCON money, O&M
money, and investment. As we work with OSD and the other
Services on the affordability issues of taking care of our
people, winning today's fight and preparing for tomorrow's
challenges, we are having to make hard choices across each of
those portfolios.
In the previous President's Budget request, as we received
our total obligation authority, to be able to pay that bill, we
took additional risk in infrastructure MILCON, we took some
additional risk in O&M, we tried to hold our investment
accounts as constant as we could, and that is where we ended
up, force shaping 40,000 personnel authorizations off the
books.
And so I think we need to increase the floor--and this is
our issue, not your committee's, and are looking now at 330,000
instead of going all the way down to 316,000. But that is an
example of having to make the trades with the obligational
authority that we have.
Sir, I will give you a MILCON example. We accelerated the
F-22 into the Pacific to meet United States Pacific Command's
demands and requirements for deterrence and dissuasion. We have
three squadrons appropriated--two to go to Elmendorf Air Force
Base, Alaska and one to go to Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.
And so we have got the airplanes there at Elmendorf now, but we
are a bit behind on MILCON to the airplane.
So to be able to get the operational piece of this--the
aircraft--into the theater to do the deterrence and dissuasion
missions, we have taken a bit of risk in MILCON, and we are a
bit behind.
And we have that in our Fiscal Year 2009 unfunded
requirements list in order to catch up.
As we beddown the airplane at Holloman Air Force Base, New
Mexico, we can operate immediately with Fort Bliss, Texas and
the brigade combat teams that are there, plus the White Sands
Missile Range and all of that wonderful airspace. We are trying
to catch up with the MILCON again, because these aircraft are
very capable, and to get them at the right place at the right
time, we are lagging a little bit in the MILCON.
So those are two good examples of risk.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. And on your unfunded MILCON list, the
$800 million list, are those in descending order of priority?
Do you rank them? If you could fund one project, what would it
be? If you could fund 10, what would they be?
General Eulberg. They are not.
And I have no idea whether we can find any additional money
for the fiscal year 2009 President's Budget request, but if we
did, we will sit down with your staff and go through what would
be the order of priorities.
General Moseley. Yes, sir.
General Eulberg. Yes, sir.
General Moseley. And that acceptance of risk touches all of
our components--Active, Guard and Reserve--to be able to fight
today's fight, to maintain our operation and maintenance
accounts, our flying hours and our training ranges and to be
able to pay for our people, because not only is it the right
thing to do to pay people who come to work every day but it is
the law. And then the investment accounts, because we have got
such an aging inventory, we have to somehow address that. Those
are the tradeoffs that we are dealing with.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you for that.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. General Moseley, as we close, let me say about
your comment on your actions, that I am glad that Sam Houston
and Davy Crockett understood Texans when they got out there.
Mr. Edwards. I am glad we turned them into heroes.
Mr. Wamp. Yes. They were heroes when they left----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wamp. We do have that in common.

PRIVATE SECTOR

General Eulberg, this is kind of a softball, but I am
actually interested in this. It seems to me that many countries
around the world appreciate our free enterprise system
sometimes more than we do. It also seems like the United States
Air Force appreciates it, and through this core of discovery,
you are trying to leverage the beauty of our free enterprise
system and the knowledge and the cutting-edge advancements into
the military.
And I also understand that is one of your goose bump
things, so give me 2 minutes, as we close here, on the
advantages for our armed services of leverage in the private
sector.
General Eulberg. Sir, thank you very much for that
question. As your staff probably told you, during our Air Force
Fiscal Year 2009 MILCON/Military Family Housing/BRAC staffer
days, I got so excited over this.
As we go about our business of trying to become more
efficient and effective in maintaining our warfighting
platforms, we have to get better as stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars to figure out what we are going to do.
So we set on a path to visit the companies that I
highlighted in the opening statement. We went to every one of
those companies with their C-ring executives, the Chief
Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Procurement
Officer, Head of Human Relations and Information Technology sat
down an entire day with each of these great companies and we
took 10 of our experts there and spent all day talking about,
how do you do business case analysis, how do you flatten your
organization, how do you leverage strategic outsourcing and the
other aspects of the decision-making process.
How do you do portfolio management across the entire
spectrum of managing your real estate, whether it be, how do
you do leasing, what kind of decisions you make to do that,
what type of IT systems do you have in place to roll off to do
a business case analysis? Our aim is to provide our commanders
in the field with good decision-making support.
So instead of repairing a crack in the runway, with that
one dollar and one hour of time, we are actually focused in on
the encroachment issue where we should be spending our one
dollar and our one hour of time. So it allows a much broader
perspective in managing. Also, the private sector has seen
great savings by a portfolio-level management of installations.
Fifteen to 20 percent on utility contracts; service contracts,
15 percent savings; strategic sourcing, savings can be as high
as 40 percent.
So if we can take those lessons learned from the private
sector, roll it into an asset management culture, which is part
of our reorganization, with new IT tools that allow that to
take place, and we will be more effective at managing these
warfighting platforms. We will be able to do the same mission
for less dollars and really leverage the power of our people
who do this every day.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago, when the
privatization in housing began, and you rightly said to me,
``We have got a lot to be proud of there.'' This is the next
10-year mission in terms of transformation of activities. This
is definitely----
General Moseley. Congressman, if I could parallel just for
a moment these business practices.
We take in an amount of information, which are equivalent
to T1 lines, which is about a million bits of information per
second. When everything is up and running, that operations
center brings in over 100 T1 lines at any one time. With that
kind of information, imagine what the future could be with
displays that look a lot like a hologram or displays that look
a lot like a real-time picture of weather.
So when you do time-sensitive targeting on opportunities to
strike things that present themselves very fleeting, how can
you look at the situation and see where the weather is, where
the friendlies are, and where the hostiles are? How can you
bring that together much, much quicker?
In days past, we did it with grease pencils, and we did it
just with mental calculations. We are at a point now where we
know what is out there. The next challenge is to be able to
display it and to be able to put that behind you as a baseline
and then to get into really, really fascinating work.
So this partnership, like cyber that you asked about, how
do you partner with academia, how do you partner with industry
to stay at the leading edge of those technologies? This is
really exciting stuff.
Mr. Wamp. Just for my colleagues, from my old subcommittee
responsibilities before I got promoted, when the new capitol
visitor center opens in November here and you go through it and
you get the tour and you see the video and you see all the
technology, you will go, ``Wow, Disney was consulted on that,''
just like Disney is being leveraged here. So the government
finally realizes the tremendous advantages are out there, if we
will just go seek them out.
General Moseley. Sir, the last thing, which I know that you
will like, is that we have also begun to work very, very
closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
Department of Transportation. Since we do airplanes and
spacecraft and they do airplanes, we are looking to fit how do
we display the future air traffic control system and how do we
look at those sorts of synergies so everyone benefits at the
same time based on what we do and what they do. I mean, for a
guy that flies airplanes, this is pretty exciting stuff.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Chief, I just have one last question. It is
not this subcommittee's jurisdiction and it is not my intention
right now to get involved in the legal questions regarding the
decision on the KC-45 tanker, but I do understand, please
correct me if I am wrong, that the new type of aircraft won't
be significantly larger than the tankers in the current
inventory.
And I would like to ask you if this will require new
infrastructure--hangars, aprons, shops--to replace the
infrastructure used to house the present tankers? And if so, do
you have a----
General Moseley. Mr. Chairman, that is a good question--let
our legal folks prepare an answer for the record, because we
are in a protest now, and want to stay--as much as I can here
without an aggravation.
The military construction comparisons were included in the
assessment of both offers, and the notion that either airplane
will require some new enhancements to infrastructure, whether
one has a bigger wingspan or not, you will still have to do--
just like an F-22, an F-35 or either one of these aircraft, you
will have to do some work. We have got some projections, but
until we know the final answer to this, sir, we would be remiss
in giving you a specific answer, because we don't know that
yet. But the MILCON comparisons against the two were in the
criteria that helps define the selection.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.
General Moseley. And then, sir, there is much more to
follow.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.
General Moseley. Because each base is different. Each
hangar and array is different, each base is different, and so
we take a variety of bases and use those as baselines as we run
through this.
But, sir, to get into detail of your question, some of it I
know, some of it I don't know, but please let us take that for
the record.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Chief.
Questions?
Well, if not, on behalf of the entire subcommittee, let me
thank you, both, for your testimony today and, most
importantly, for your and your families' lifetime of service
and commitment to our country. We are grateful for that
service, and it is great to be with you.
Thank you.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Military Construction and Family Housing

The FY 2009 Unfunded Requirements List included $385 million to
increase active end strength by 13,554 and the reserve by 3,400. My
understanding is that the current military construction and family
housing program is built around the assumption that PBD 720 will be
carried though.
Question. Does the $385 million include any MILCON or family
housing requirements to increase end-strength? If so, what is the
amount? If not, has the Air Force performed a cost estimate of the
MILCON and family housing impact from increasing end strength to this
level?
Answer. The $385 million does not include MILCON or family housing
requirements. While the Air Force has not performed an estimate to
determine the impact of increasing our end strength to this level, any
increased MILCON and family housing requirements will be addressed as
the requirement becomes known at the installation level.
MILCON requirements are determined for each base to support mission
requirements and to enhance quality of life. While an increase in end-
strength at the base level may drive additional requirements, we would
also consider using existing infrastructure to support the increased
requirement.
Family housing requirements are outlined in the Air Force's Family
Housing Master Plan and are based on an assessment of housing in the
local community as well as end-strength.
Therefore, for MILCON and family housing requirements, the impact
of an end-strength adjustment at the installation level would have to
be known before a requirement could be established; in addition, other
available local resources would be considered before a MILCON or family
housing project is developed.

Road Map

Earlier this year, the Air Force published a ``Road Map''
identifying numerous bases in the U.S. and its territories that could
potentially hold a variety of current and future systems. This appears
to be unprecedented.
Questions. (a) Why did the Air Force choose to publish such a list?
(b) Are you currently conducting engineering and environmental
assessments at all of these bases for the systems indicated? (c) How
did the Air Force determine which bases to list?
Answers.
(a) The Air Force published the Roadmap to create a common sight
picture as part of a strategic planning effort to meet one of the
Nation's most pressing needs: recapitalization and modernization of its
aging Air Force fleet. The Roadmap represents a Total Force (Regular
Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve) approach to the
beddown of weapon systems to create a more efficient and flexible force
structure. It outlines where future advanced weapon systems could
potentially be based in the continental U.S., Hawaii, Alaska and the
U.S. territories.
(b) The Air Force has not started environmental assessments on all
the candidate bases mentioned in the Roadmap. Installations that meet
basing requirements will then undergo thorough environmental studies in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA
mandates environmental analyses and impact studies which are critical
factors in determining final beddown bases in the U.S. as suitable
locations for weapon systems. These major studies take time, may
consider either one or several installations in a single study and may
not be initiated at every potential location. The findings of these
environmental studies, and the results of required fiscal and
operational analyses which will be conducted over the next several
years, will determine the final beddown plan and phasing.
(c) The Air Force chose to evaluate installations which currently
house legacy weapon systems forecasted for replacement by future
systems. The Roadmap does not include possible basing initiatives on
foreign soil. Overseas basing of Air Force future weapon systems will
be accomplished in partnership with allies using normal consultative
planning venues.

F-35 Beddown

The total Air Force FY08-13 MILCON program for beddown of the F-35
is $480 million, includes $378 million that is unspecified.
Question. (a) When will the Air Force make a decision on the final
beddown locations for the F-35? (b) What is the total projected MILCON
requirement for F-35 beddown based on the current projected buy, beyond
the amounts programmed in the current FYDP?
Answer. (a) On 16 January 2008, the Air Force released the Future
Weapon System Roadmap of potential beddown locations for the F-35. The
Air Force is in the process of finalizing the basing criteria for F-35
beddown. Once the Air Force has determined the basing criteria and
performed a complete analysis of the potential locations against those
criteria, additional announcements will be made on F-35 beddown
locations.
(b) The Air Force has a requirement of 1,763 F-35s. At current
projected procurement rates, F-35s will still be delivering well into
the 2030's. Although each of the locations on the Future Weapon System
Roadmap currently has a fighter mission, F-35 specific requirements
usually require some amount of new MILCON or alteration of existing
facilities to support F-35 operations. At this time it is too early to
predict the MILCON requirement over the lifecycle of the F-35 until
after site surveys have been conducted, assessments of existing
infrastructure at those locations have been completed and final beddown
locations have been determined.

Combat Search and Research Helicopter

The Air Force has programmed $109 million into the current FYDP,
beginning in FY10, for the new Combat Search and Rescue helicopter. I
understand that you are conducting environmental reviews at several
possible beddown locations.
Question. (a) When will the Air Force make a decision on the final
beddown locations for the CSAR-X? (b) Does the $109 million in the FYDP
reflect the full projected cost?
Answer. (a) Kirtland Air Force Base, NM and Nellis Air Force Base,
NV will be the first two Air Force bases to receive the aircraft. A
decision for the remaining locations will occur no earlier than the
summer of 2008.
(b) No, the funding is initial cost only. The final funding is
dependent upon source selection and weapon system requirements.

Dorms-4-Airmen

Question. How many Airmen are currently living in ``Dorms-4-
Airmen'' standard unaccompanied housing, and how many are living in 1+1
dorms?
Answer. Currently there are 4,018 Airmen living in Dorms-4-Airmen
standard unaccompanied housing, and 15,156 Airmen living in 1+1 dorms.

Permanent Party Dormitories

Question. How many of your permanent party dormitories are more
than 25 years old?
Answer. Of the Air Force's 924 dormitories, 500 permanent party
dormitories are over 25 years old.

Pipeline Dormitories

Question. Does the Air Force use a quality scoring for pipeline
dormitories?
Answer. Yes, all Air Force pipeline dormitories are scored in the
Dormitory Master Plan using a Total Facility Condition Score (TFCS).
The TFCS is based on a five point scale and assesses the condition and
functional deficiencies of the dormitory and its associated
infrastructure. Condition Scores are determined based on estimated
operations and maintenance plus the expected system replacement cost.
Functional scores for pipeline dormitories compare the existing
facilities and room configurations with the Air Force pipeline
standards as presented in the Air Force Dormitory Design Guide.

Guam Military Construction

The Air Force has submitted a MILCON requirement of $1.8 billion
for the bed down of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance/
Strike systems on Guam.
Question. (a) Does the Air Force have a target date for the
completion of this initiative? (b) What will be the impact to Marine
Corps forces if this beddown is not completed concurrently with the
relocation of Okinawa?
Answer. The start of the RQ-4 Global Hawk beddown in late Fiscal
Year 2009/early Fiscal Year 2010 at Andersen AB, GU is on track.
Through joint planning efforts, three of the planned Air Force
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance/Global Strike projects
were identified as having the potential to facilitate the Marine
beddown. However, a full assessment of the impact of the Air Force the
program on Marine beddown capability needs to be coordinated with the
Joint Guam Program Office.

Relocation from Okinawa to Guam

The U.S., with the agreement and assistance of the Japanese
government, plans to relocate 8,300 marines and their dependents from
Okinawa to Guam.
Question. Is the Air Force currently assessing its force laydown on
Okinawa?
Answer. The Air Force force structure on Okinawa will not change
based on the Marine Corps' move to Guam; however, as future
modernization, budget constraints, and global operational requirements
dictate, the Air Force may re-evaluate force structure basing.
The U.S., with the agreement and assistance of the Japanese
government, plans to relocate 8,300 marines and their dependents from
Okinawa to Guam.
Question. Will the Marine Corps relocation have any impact on the
Air Force force structure and footprint on Okinawa?
Answer. The Air Force and Marine Corps on Guam will continue to
work together in order to successfully conduct missions in their
operational environment. However, until the Marine Corps further
defines and determines its requirements for Okinawa, we cannot
accurately assess those impacts to our force structure and footprint.

Training Ranges in Korea

General Bell, Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, has indicated
dissatisfaction with the air-ground training ranges in Korea.
Question. What is your view of this situation and its impact on 7th
Air Force?
Answer. U.S. Air Force and the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF)
are striving to meet training requirements in the face of the Republic
of Korea's extraordinary development. Specifically, the loss of Koon-Ni
range in 2005 (due to encroachment, noise complaints, and conflict with
new Inchon airport), coupled with use of legacy airspace/air-to-ground
range systems, limits training opportunities. The existing air-ground
training ranges no longer accommodate evolving ROKAF and U.S. Air Force
training demands, particularly given Korean economic development and
increased civil aviation traffic.
Currently, two ranges are available to U.S. Korea-based aircraft,
both with significant limitations to include no permanent electronic
warfare training until 2011 and no night scoring:
Pilsung Range is the only range that allows strafe events that have
proven so important in supporting OIF and OEF. All flying wings within
the Republic of Korea (ROK) use this range, which significantly limits
its availability. Weather, terrain, frozen ground in the winter and
fire danger in the summer also limit Pilsung Range's availability for
strafe. In addition, the range is too small for guided bomb units.
Jik-Do Range is unusable if any surface vessels are within a three
nautical mile range (common-access is not restricted). Live munitions
and Mavericks are not authorized due to ROK/US installation of
instrumentation within the weapons footprint. However, Jik-Do Range is
the only range available for night strafe. Also, combined ROK/US inert
precision weapon practice on Jik-Do on March 25, 2008 could pave way
for future joint direct-attack munitions training.
U.S. access to other ROKAF air-to-ground ranges has been restricted
based on civil opposition. Current work-arounds include using the
Kadena ranges and limited off-ROK deployments.

AFSOC Wing at Cannon

Question. What is the timeline for construction associated with the
AFSOC wing at Cannon Air Fore Base and what are the total construction
costs (including both Air Force and SOCOM-funded construction)?
Answer. As identified in the January 18, 2008 Government
Accountability Office audit report, Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico
has an Air Force and Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC)
military construction requirement of $283 million in the current Fiscal
Year 2008-2013 Future Years Defense Program. However, at this time, we
do not have a firm timeline or total construction cost for the facility
requirements to beddown the AFSOC mission at Cannon Air Force Base.
Facility requirements and costs are currently being developed by AFSOC
in conjunction with Headquarters United States Air Force for the Fiscal
Year 2010 President's Budget request.

Personnel Relocations in the National Capital Region

The Air Force has indicated a need to relocate 3,100 personnel from
leased facilities in the National Capital Region (NCR) for the purpose
of complying with Department of Defense force protection standards. Of
these, 804 are being relocated through the BRAC program with a $53
million project scheduled for FY09. This leaves a balance of 2,300
personnel. In the FY09 MILCON request, the Air Force is seeking an
additional $78 million to accommodate 1,200 more of these personnel at
Andrews Air Force Base.
Question. Where are these personnel currently located?
Answer. Currently these personnel are primarily located in
government leased space, at Bolling AFB, and the Pentagon.
Question. Of these personnel, how many are military, how many are
Department civilians, and how many contractors?
Answer. The breakout of the Air Force personnel relocating from
leased space to Andrews, Bolling, and the Pentagon is roughly 1,250
military, 1,150 department civilians, and 700 contractors.
Question. What functions do these personnel perform?
Answer. The functions of the personnel relocating to Andrews Air
Force Base are a cross section of the Air Force staff functions and
their supporting agencies. The functions include personnel, plans and
operations, installations and logistics, financial management,
scientific advisory board, IT support, staff judge advocate, and the
Air Force District of Washington's staff. The functions of the
personnel relocating to Bolling include: acquisition, Office of Special
Investigations, Air Force Reserve command support, plans and operatios,
war fighting integration, intelligence, plans and programming, public
affairs, inspector general, general counsel, international affairs, and
studies and analysis.
Question. Has the Air Force assessed the option of resolving force
protection issues in place at these leased locations?
Answer. Yes, there have been two studies of leased space facilities
conducted and all reach the same-conclusion. None of the current leased
space occupied by the Air Force can meet Department of Defense force
protection standards primarily driven by the set back standards from
thoroughfares and a host of other significant vulnerabilities.
Question. Has the Air Force solicited feedback from civilian
employees to ensure that they will follow the jobs to their new
locations?
Answer. When final plans for personnel relocations in the National
Capital Region have been completed, we will survey as appropriate for
each location--Andrews Air Force Base, Bolling Air Force Base, and the
Pentagon.
Question. Has the Air Force assessed the housing requirements for
the military personnel to be relocated?
Answer. Housing was not specifically studied as the moves are
within the same shared National Capital Region housing market area so
there should not be an impact.
Question. How will the Air Force resolve the question of the
remaining 1,100 personnel?
Answer: The remaining personnel are slated to go to Bolling Air
Force Base. The movement of these personnel is primarily a result of
the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed Pentagon Occupancy and Space
Allocation Study (POSAS). The POSAS reduced the Air Force allocation of
office space by 130,000 square feet which equates to approximately 900
personnel displaced.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Edwards.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Wamp.]

Risk in Infrastructure Funding

Question. General Mosley, not including BRAC, as I look at your
fiscal year 2009 budget request, you are looking at reductions across-
the-board with the exception of the Family Housing Construction
account; that does include an increase of $83.1 million. Beyond that
there are cuts to Military Construction, Air National Guard, Air Force
Reserve, and Family Housing Operations and Maintenance. This is a
challenging budget request for the Air Force. Operational and
maintenance costs are rising, inflation is going up, and personnel
costs are increasing.
The way that you stated it is that the Air Force is ``accepting
manageable risk in facilities and infrastructure funding.'' Can you
provide the Committee with more of a quantitative assessment of this
infrastructure risk?
Answer. Air Force facilities, housing, and Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) programs are vital to our installation infrastructure.
Our installations are weapons systems that serve as power-projection
platforms. These platforms provide the Global Combat Support that
enables the Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power that
underwrite America's security and sovereignty. As the Air Force
continues to modernize and recapitalize, we will continue to wisely
invest our precious military construction funding to win today's fight,
take care of our people, and prepare for tomorrow's challenges. In the
short term this means taking acceptable risk in facilities and
infrastructure funding.
The Air Force assesses risk in facilities and infrastructure by
evaluating the requirements and funding of three related programs:
Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (R&M), and Military
Construction (MILCON). While these requirements are critically
important to supporting our Installation Weapon Systems, we
occasionally take risks in one or two in order to fund other Air Force
priorities. In the Fiscal Year 2009 budget we chose to take increased
risk in facilities and infrastructure in order to put more money toward
modernizing our aging weapon systems.
The greatest risk was taken in the MILCON program, which is
approximately 20% smaller than the Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 budget
submissions. We feel we've managed or mitigated the MILCON risk by
funding Facility Sustainment to 90% of the Department of Defense
requirements model and by reducing the risk in our R&M program by
increasing funding over $160 million compared to Fiscal Year 2008.
While these actions help us to manage risk in Fiscal Year 2009, we will
likely re-invest in infrastructure in Fiscal Year 2010 to ensure we
preserve the capability of our bases--our installation weapon systems.
Question. The Air Force budget request includes $1.2 billion for
BRAC 2005 of which $734 million is for construction. How much were you
cut between the fiscal year 2008 request versus the fiscal year 2008
appropriation, and what type of adjustments is the Air Force making due
to those cuts? Does the fiscal year 2009 request try to recapture the
cuts that were made in fiscal year 2008? How do these cuts impact
planning, execution and the 2011 deadline? Which projects have you had
to cancel or defer?
Answer. The $939 million Omnibus reduction to the Department of
Defense BRAC 2005 account must be restored. If left unfunded, the
reduction will result in the Air Force receiving $235 million less than
required in Fiscal Year 2008. The Air Force will experience delays and
disruptions in construction and the movement of our people and assets.
Delays will impact our ability to meet mandated completion deadlines.
To implement BRAC 2005 and implement the Commission's
recommendations, the Air Force uses a continuous process to identify,
analyze, refine, coordinate, and validate requirements. Although the
Air Force has not cut any projects due to this reduction, it has
deferred BRAC MILCON projects, O&M requirements, and planning and
design. Those deferments are based on today's planned award dates. The
Air Force may further adjust its strategy and the deferral list in
order to maintain the needed flexibility to execute its program.
Our initial analysis of the reduction indicates the Air Force will
be required to accept risk in the following areas:
Military Construction (MILCON): Will defer 21 projects, to
include one housing project, valued at $126.4M (15% of total BRAC
MILCON). All deferred projects have estimated award date after June 1,
2008.
Planning and design (P&D): Will defer $5.2M in
requirements (28% of total P&D).
Operations and Maintenance (O&M): Will defer $97.8M in
requirements (36% of total O&M).
If the reduction is restored sometime during this fiscal year, we
will figure out a way to get back on track. If it is permanently lost,
we will be hard broke; delays in accomplishing the Fiscal Year 2008
requirements will have ripple effects impacting mission readiness and
our ability to meet the mandated BRAC 2005 completion deadline of
September 2011.
(8) The Air Force was unable to request additional funding in the
Fiscal Year 2009 President's Budget request because Service ``fair
share'' costs were not known until after the Fiscal Year 2009 budget
was submitted.

Engineer Shortage

Question. A lot of what we hear is that there is a shortage of
engineers in this country, but then you can always find someone to
counter that argument. Is there a shortage of engineers in the Air
Force and, if so, what are you doing to address the shortage?
Answer. Air Force Civil Engineer career-manning levels are
stressed. Current CSAF guidance directs active-duty personnel to deploy
at a goal of 1:4 dwell (1:2 max) and reserve forces at 1:5 dwell. Air
Force Civil Engineers currently have six active duty Air Force
specialties that do not meet that guidance without relief in the
foreseeable future, and our Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) officer
and senior non-commissioned officer leadership are currently at a 1:1
dwell. Our EOD manning level is 60% for MSgt (E-7) and 74% for SMSgt
(E-8), while our overall retention rates of officers is 50% for
Captains, 75% for Majors, and 87% for Lieutenant Colonels. The Air
Force is working to employ various recruitment/retention incentives to
ensure we attract and keep qualified engineers in the skills and ranks
needed. While we continue to meet both our in-garrison and deployed
Civil Engineer requirements and National Security Strategy (NSS)
requirements with a combined military and civilian workforce, continued
joint-sourcing taskings (often referred to as in-lieu of (ILO)
missions) and manpower cuts are placing increased stress on our
military engineer OPSTEMPO. We continue to review and modify our
requirement for engineers to align with our wartime combatant commander
needs and installation-management organization. This response only
addresses installation engineering support (Civil Engineer specialty)
and does not include the research/development, acquisition or systems
engineer needs of the Air Force.

Renewable Energy

Question. The Air Force is now in its fourth year in a row of
leading the federal government in leadership on energy and the
environment. Your testimony says that the Air Force is number three in
the nation in the purchase of renewable energy to operate its $243
billion physical plant. Can you quantify that for the Committee? What
does it mean that you are number three in the nation?
Answer. The Air Force's green power ranking is from the EPA's Green
Power Partnership. ``Green power,'' a subset of ``renewable power,'' is
electricity generated from environmentally-preferable renewable
resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, low-impact biomass, and low-
impact hydro, but excludes waste-to-energy sources that are included in
the more comprehensive category of ``renewable.'' In Fiscal Year 2007
the Air Force purchased 899,143,000 kWh of ``green power'', up from
467,500,000 kWh in Fiscal Year 2006. We currently rank third nationwide
behind Intel Corporation and PepsiCo.
The Air Force's primary strategy is to expand development of on-
base renewable power generation through public/private partnerships.
One such example is the 14.2 megawatt photovoltaic solar array at
Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, which is the largest photovoltaic
project in the Americas. Although ``renewables'' on Air Force bases are
expanding, we supplement on-base renewable power generation with the
annual purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates. This helps the Air
Force reduce its environmental footprint, meet its federal renewable
energy mandates, and support the development of new commercial
renewable power generation nationwide while assisting power producers
to meet State mandates for renewable energy.
Question. Your testimony says that you are on track to beat by two
years the Department's 2014 goal for environmental restoration. Can you
please quantify that for the Committee? What is the Department's goal
for environmental restoration?
Answer. The Department's goal for environmental restoration is to
either put a remedy in place or complete the response at each cleanup
site by 2014. The Air Force projects that either a remedy will be in
place or the response will be complete at its 6,615 Installation
Restoration Program sites (Active Duty, Guard and Reserve) by 2012, two
years ahead of the Department's 2014 goal.

Family Housing

Question. You plan to have privatized more than 41,500 housing
units by the beginning of fiscal year 2009, and you plan to privatize
an additional 4,300 housing units in fiscal year 2009 with your
request, so that would take you up to 45,800 privatized units. At the
end of fiscal year 2009, how many units would still not be privatized,
and what is the Air Force doing to determine if it is feasible to
privatize those units?
Answer. The Air Force is continuing to evaluate the feasibility of
privatizing housing for all Continental United States installations.
There are 9,400 units at 13 Continental United States installations
under review but a final determination on privatization at these bases
has not yet been made. The Air Force is continuing to conduct Housing
Requirements Market Analyses as well as working various grouping
options at the installations (i.e., financial feasibility studies).

Bachelor Housing

Question. The fiscal year 2009 Air Force requirement for dorm rooms
is 60,200. You noted in your testimony that Phase I, in which you
eliminated central latrine dorms is now complete. Phase II is where you
address permanent party and pipeline dorm room shortages by building
new dormitories.
What is the cost for Phase II, and is the entire $104 million that
is in the FY09 budget request the final funding requirement for Phase
II or does part of that go to Phase III? What is the total cost for
Phase III?.
Answer. With the Fiscal Year 2007-2009 military construction
programs we will be fully funded to complete Phase II except for one
remaining pipeline dormitory deficit at Goodfellow Air Force Base, TX
($14 million), which we will address in the Fiscal Year 2010
President's Budget request.
The $104 million in this year's President's Budget request supports
renovation of a Phase II dormitory at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY
($9 million) and construction of a Phase III dormitory at Lackland Air
Force Base, TX ($76 million), the first of six recruit dormitory
projects. The remaining $19 million is a new mission requirement to
construct a dormitory to support beddown of the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter.
Costs to complete Phase III to recapitalize our dormitories will
continue to be evaluated through our Dormitory Master Plan process as
our existing dormitories reach the end of their useful lives.

Fitness Centers

Question. How much does the fiscal year 2009 budget request include
for the construction of a fitness center at Dover (DE) Air Force Base?
How many of your installations are currently in need of a fitness
center, and what is the total cost to construct those centers?
Answer. The Fiscal Year 2009 President's Budget request includes
$19 million to construct a fitness center at Dover Air Force Base,
Delaware. The Air Force's current Future Years Defense Program includes
10 fitness center projects at $143 million. The total Air Force fitness
center investment requirement includes an additional $683 million at
more than 40 installations.

Child Development Centers

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes funding for
the construction of 1 new child development center. What is the overall
Air Force need for child development centers?
Answer. The current Military Construction (MILCON) program includes
the following projects ($64.5M):
FY09: Columbus AFB, MS--($8.1M).
FY10: Beale AFB, CA--($17.2M).
FY11: Cannon AFB, NM--($7.9).
FY11: Eglin AFB, FL--($11.0M).
FY12: Bolling AFB, DC--($9.0M).
FY12: Spangdahlem AB, Germany--($11.3M).
Additionally, we recently identified the following projects to OSD
P&R in support of an initiative to meet the requirements of the
President's State of the Union address for ``expanding access to child
care'' ($70.7M):
MILCON-eligible Projects: MacDill AFB, FL; Moody AFB, GA; Seymour
Johnson AFB, NC; Nellis AFB, NV; Vandenberg AFB, CA.
Minor Construction-eligible Projects: Davis Monthan AFB, AZ;
Langley AFB, VA; Vogelweh AB, Germany; Spangdahlem AB, Germany; Tyndall
AFB, FL; FE Warren AFB, WY; Malmstrom AFB, MT; Buckley AFB, CO;
Schriever AFB, CO.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Wamp.]
[Clerk's note.--Question for the record submitted by
Congressman Farr.]

BRAC

Question. Onizuka Air Force Station (California) is to be closed as
part of the 2005 BRAC. Does the Air Force plan to sell the Onizuka
parcel outright or will it consider an economic development conveyance
request from the City of Sunnyvale (which is the LRA)?
Answer. As part of the property screening process to determine
other federal agency needs for the property, the Air Force has approved
a request by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the transfer
of about two acres to support Veterans programs. The Air Force cannot
formally announce a plan or make a final decision on the method of
disposing the remainder of the property at Onizuka Air Force Station
until the Air Force has completed the processes required under the base
closure law and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The base
closure law requires a redevelopment authority to prepare and submit a
reuse plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). The plan will balance the homeless assistance requirements (of
which there have been two requests) with other economic and development
needs of the local community. The City has thus far indicated it will
submit a plan by July 31, 2008, which is well before the projected base
closure date of September 15, 2011. After HUD approval of the reuse
plan, the Air Force will use the plan as its proposed action for NEPA
environmental planning purposes, as required by the base closure law.
If the City desires an economic development conveyance (EDC) of the
property, then the City must submit an EDC application to the Air
Force. When the NEPA process is completed, the Air Force will consider
the EDC request and other property disposal options in arriving at its
final property disposal decision.

[Clerk's note.--End of question for the record submitted by
Congressman Farr.]
[Clerk's note.--Question for the record submitted by
Congressman Boyd.]

BRAC

Question. Thank you for taking my question. I am curious about a
parochial issue involving this most recent round of BRAC. The
recommendation in BRAC that I am asking you about is below. My question
is this:
Why is the proposed CRIF for F100 engines located at New Orleans
Air Reserve Station, LA when the only base in the area that still uses
F100 engines is Tyndall AFB? I look forward to hearing from you on this
important issue.
Recommendation: Realign Langley Air Force Base, VA; Tyndall Air
Force Base, FL; and Jacksonville International Airport Air Guard
Station, FL. Establish a Centralized Intermediate Repair Facility
(CIRF) for F100 engines at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, NC by
realigning base-level F100 engine intermediate maintenance from Langley
Air Force Base. Establish a CIRF for F100 engines at New Orleans Air
Reserve Station, LA (Air National Guard unit) by realigning base-level
F100 engine intermediate maintenance from Tyndall Air Force Base and
Jacksonville Air Guard Station.
Answer. This BRAC recommendation, which by law the Air Force must
implement not later than September 15, 2011, accomplishes several
things. First, it produces economies of scale by distilling five F100
engine repair locations into two. It also consolidates dispersed and
random workflows, enhances reliability-centered maintenance, and
improves support to the war fighter. Next, it leverages existing
physical capacity at New Orleans Air Reserve Station keeping the amount
of required military construction to a minimum. Finally, a CIRF at New
Orleans will capitalize on the potential capacity and recruitment of
experienced maintenance technicians left behind when the New Orleans
Reserve A-10 flying mission moves elsewhere under a separate BRAC
recommendation. This BRAC recommendation also helped define the future
state F100 Consolidated Repair Facilities (CRF) network for the Repair
Enterprise for the 21st Century initiative, which has now expanded into
Repair Network Transformation. Under this initiative, 7 CRFs will
repair engines for all F100-powered units. The New Orleans CRF will be
an integral part of the capacity necessary to support these units.
The New Orleans Air Reserve Station CIRF will service F100 engines
for nearly 100 F-15 aircraft assigned to Active Duty and Air National
Guard units located in the Southeastern United States.

[Clerk's note.--End of question for the record submitted by
Congressman Boyd.]
Thursday, March 13, 2008.

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I would like to call the
subcommittee to order.
Congressman Rodriguez, welcome back to our subcommittee. It
is good to have you here.
This afternoon, our subcommittee will hear from members of
Congress and public witnesses representing various
nongovernmental organizations, and I want to thank all of you
for being here and all the good work you do that impacts
directly upon this subcommittee's work.
We have a number of people testifying and, for that reason
and because of time constraints, we will ask each witness to
limit his or her remarks to no more than 5 minutes, but we
will, by unanimous consent, have the full testimony included in
the record.
I would like to begin by recognizing my colleague, Mr.
Wamp, our ranking member, for any comments he would care to
make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is as new for me as it
is for others here. So I look forward to this action-packed
afternoon.
It does remind me of when we were in the majority, and I
was on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and I thought
one day that then Chairman Ralph Regula was just being nice to
me, asking me if I would mind chairing the day that we had
outside witnesses before the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, and, after about the 60th Indian tribe testified
before the committee, I figured it out.
So I figured out why I chairing that day's hearing, because
it was a lot of different people and a lot of different
information over about a 5-hour period of time.
But I do look forward to this this afternoon, and I thank
you very much for your courtesy.
Mr. Edwards. Well, if I start asking so many questions, we
are going to stretch out to 5 hours. Would you cut me off,
please?
Mr. Wamp. Yes, sir, with pleasure.
Mr. Edwards. We are really honored to have Congressman Ciro
Rodriguez, my colleague and friend from Texas, who has been a
real champion for the military, our troops, their families, and
is an outspoken leader for veterans.
Thank you for being here, Congressman, and the time is
yours.
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

WITNESS

HON. CIRO RODRIGUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS

Statement of the Honorable Ciro D. Rodriguez

Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to personally thank you for allowing us the
opportunity to testify, and I hope you will continue to do
this. I hope it works out in a very positive way, and I hope
you take into consideration all of the recommendations, since I
am the first one, that come before you.
I represent the 23rd congressional district in Texas. It is
one of the largest in the country. And I come before you today
to express my concerns with the allocation of funds for the
military construction and for the BRAC process.
Our nation's military care has reached an unprecedented
level of performance never before seen in the history of war.
Advances in medical technology and training have made the
casualties of today into the wounded of tomorrow.
So in this particular situation that we find ourselves, we
see the results of this and having the large number of people
that have been injured during this war, and because of our
technology, thank God, they are still with us.
But that also means that we have a responsibility for them.
We do not have adequate facilities to handle this increase in
population of wounded veterans.
Further, we have had the department of the chief of staff
of the Army testify before the House Armed Services Committee
that the Army is short in doctors, psychiatrists and other
health professionals.
So we are in deep trouble when it comes to the number of
people that we need in health care.
I suggest that we prioritize and make this recommendation,
in the upcoming BRAC appropriations, defense health programs,
to fund before other BRAC constructions, anything that deals
with health care, that that take priority, and that includes
the polytrauma centers in the VA and, if at all possible, to
take that into consideration before anything else.
And if there are any cuts that are to be made, that those
cuts would not be made when it comes to medical facilities that
we are trying to upgrade as much as we can.
Our soldiers, sailors and airmen and the marines deserve
nothing but the finest equipment and the facilities that our
nation can afford. Our nation can ill afford to recruit and
retain volunteer military, yet pass on the huge importance of
neglected facilities and our lack of infrastructure.
So I once again stress the importance of prioritizing the
health care area as one of the issues.
I also have the opportunity to have several bases within my
area and we have inadequate housing for student pilots at
Laughlin Air Force Base. It is their number one MILCON project.
Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio, Texas is the largest
producer of pilots for our nation's Air Force. It is, in
essence, where our Air Force mission begins.
Pilot training is a grueling and ingraining marathon that
tests the will and nerve of not only the future aviators, but
the thousands of support personnel that maintain the aircraft
and the facilities in that area.
And due to those numbers and due to the shortage of
dormitories, our facilities for the pilot training at Laughlin
are of key importance to making sure that a good quality of
life issue for our soldiers is there and to make sure that they
don't reside in those old facilities that they have now.
We have, furthermore, the project at Laughlin--gains in
population at the base will force more family housing units to
be converted, driving military dependants to find housing in
local communities, which is currently shown to be in the short
of 435 units.
Laughlin Air Force Base has a project that is for the
future. We are asking to see if it could come up to year 2009.
That would allow construction of a 64-person unaccompanied
officer's quarters, as well as demolition of 41 units that were
built way back in 1949.
So I ask for that to be taken into consideration.
In addition, Camp Bullis, in my congressional district, is
an integral part of the BRAC mandated consolidation of the
military medical education in San Antonio.
Recent combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have
highlighted a shortfall in military training, especially within
the area of urban operation.
And as you well know, Camp Bullis is within an urban area
and, in this day and age, soldiers and sailors and airmen and
marines are experiencing casualties in urban areas as the norm
rather than the exception.
Camp Bullis has projected also funding for construction for
a live fire exercise shoot house, which will provide a facility
where our medical service members will learn how to move
tactically in a building engaged in targets and practice, and,
also, be able to practice in that area.
So I ask that the committee also seriously review the
prioritization of the project and to move it forward for this
year there at Camp Bullis.
In conclusion, I also hope that you will consider the costs
of deferring long-term infrastructure improvements. The longer
we wait on this, the worse it gets in terms of the cost and the
sooner we go out on bids on some of these items, the lower we
are able to get that done.
So I would hope that you would look at prioritizing those
issues that I have indicated and, that is, when it comes to
health care of our soldiers, when it comes to health care of
our veterans, that you take that as the number one priority and
move on that, and with the consideration of Laughlin Air Force
Base and the need for our pilots.
These are our young pilots that are going to defend our
country. We need to make sure we have facilities that were not
built in 1949, but newer facilities there, with additional
missions there at Laughlin, and, again, with a facility there
at an urban area at Camp Bullis, which is unique and which
almost doesn't exist anywhere else.
So I want to personally thank you for allowing me this
opportunity to be here, and I want to thank you for allowing
for us to be able to have an audience and to be talking to the
cardinal right in front of me in the leadership.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of the Honorable Ciro D. Rodriguez
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.071

Mr. Edwards. Ciro, thank you.
This isn't the first and won't be the last time you will be
an eloquent spokesman for our military troops and their
families and our veterans, and I want to salute you again for
your work last year in seeing that we put money in the VA
budget to create the first polytrauma center in the
southwestern United States, which will be in San Antonio, as a
result of your hard work.
Also, while I don't have any questions, and we will look at
the project-specific requests you made, I want to thank you for
bringing up BRAC.
If you had been here this morning at another meeting we
had, Mr. Wamp, rightfully, talked to the Air Force chief of
staff about what concerns we would have if we don't go back and
fully fund BRAC.
And I know last year, you worked to see that we replaced
100 percent of the money that we had taken out of BRAC to add
to veterans' health care needs, and I hope we can replace, if
not every dollar, the vast majority of the money, $939 million,
I believe, that we used out of BRAC-08 to put into other high
priority military construction and veterans' programs.
And I know that, in fact, not only in the San Antonio area,
but military bases all over the country and I think that it is
important that Mr. Wamp, as our ranking member, and you and
other key members have reminded us that we have got to keep our
eye on BRAC, and try to get that in a supplemental.
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes. And I want to thank you, and I don't
know where you are on this, but I served 8 years on the Armed
Services Committee, and I hope we don't do any more BRACs, and
that is my hope, because there is no doubt that they have been
real costly and there is a tendency to lowball them at the
beginning, but they have been expensive.
But it is something now that we have to fulfill and we have
done it. So we need to make sure we do the right thing and beef
up in those areas where we have to.
And coming from a city where we have the largest base ever
closed, which is Kelly Air Force Base, I am here to tell you
that it has got 14,000 people working in there now and doing
real well.
The other base, the only legislation of its kind in the
country, which was Brooks City Base legislation, where we chose
to BRAC that base ourselves and I don't have to tell you how
hard that was in working with the labor side to assure them
that they would have jobs.
That community is booming at Brooks City Base, but we also
have the other BRACs both at Fort Bliss and downtown at Fort
Sam Houston that we have to beef up on, and those contracts and
those projections that were made earlier are much higher than
what initially were anticipated.
So I would hope that we would come up to that.
Mr. Edwards. You bet. Thank you for your comments.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. I just want to commend Ciro for his initiative.
If we had more members of the House that actually took charge
of things like this, did their research, advocated in this kind
of an effective way, we would be better off.
And I am impressed and I am grateful for your appearance
here today.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you very much. Thank you for having
me.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Rodriguez. And I hope you continue to do this.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Thank you for being here.
We now have Cheryl Beversdorf. Ms. Beversdorf, welcome back
to the subcommittee. It is good to have you back.
By way of introduction, Ms. Beversdorf is president and CEO
of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, representing
over 280 community-based homeless veterans' service providers
in 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.
Ms. Beversdorf is a former Army nurse, and thank you for
that service, and a former staff member of the Senate Veterans'
Affairs Committee, and is a leading authority on homeless
veterans' issues.
Let me just say, before you begin your remarks, we heard
your testimony and that of others last year and that was a
significant part of why we nearly doubled the funding for the
Homeless Grant and Per Diem program.
We know we are just beginning. We hope a lot of the mental
health care dollars we put into the budget will also go to
providing the continuum of care that our homeless veterans
need.
But to you and all those who testified, let me just say it
may seem like a dog-and-pony show today as we run through this,
but a lot of the ideas presented last year really did help us
put together a historic bill for veterans last year.
Ms. Beversdorf. And it paid off.
Mr. Edwards. So welcome back.
Ms. Beversdorf. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. And the 5 minutes is yours.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

NATIONAL COALITION FOR HOMELESS VETERANS

WITNESS

CHERYL BEVERSDORF, PRESIDENT AND CEO

Statement of Cheryl Beversdorf

Ms. Beversdorf. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wamp, the
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans appreciates the
opportunity to submit testimony before this subcommittee
regarding VA appropriations for fiscal year 2009.
VA officials report the partnership between the VA and
community-based organizations has substantially reduced the
number of homeless veterans each night by more than 38 percent
since 2003, a commendable record of achievement that must be
continued if this nation is to provide the supportive services
and housing options necessary to prevent homelessness among the
newest generation of combat veterans from Operations Iraqi
Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
Regarding the appropriations for the VA homeless veteran
programs, Congress has established a number of programs within
the VA to address homelessness among veterans, and the primary
goal for these programs is to return homeless veterans to self-
sufficiency and stable independent living.
Homeless veterans also receive primary medical care, mental
health and substance abuse services at VA medical centers and
community-based outpatient clinics through the health care for
homeless veterans program, and my oral testimony contains
recommendations for appropriations for several of these
homeless veterans assistance initiatives.
Regarding the one that you had mentioned, the Homeless Vet
Provider Grant Per Diem program, it is the nation's largest VA
program to help address the needs of homeless veterans.
And last September, the GAO presented testimony before the
House Veterans' Affairs Health Subcommittee regarding homeless
veterans' programs and reported an additional 11,100
transitional housing beds are necessary to meet the demands of
the estimated number of homeless veterans needing assistance.
And you are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, thanks to the
support of this subcommittee, Public Law 110-161 provided for
$130 million, the fully authorized level, to be expended for
the Grant and Per Diem program.
But based on the GAO's findings and the VA's projected
needs, NCHV believes that $200 million authorization is now
needed. The grant and per diem programs have evolved into a
homelessness prevention network as much as a proven
intervention, care and treatment collaborative partner with the
VA, and an increase in the funding level for the next several
years would help to ensure and expedite VA's program expansion
targets and guarantee continued declines in veterans
homelessness.
Regarding special needs, the VA provides these to VA health
care facilities and existing grant and per diem recipients to
assist them in serving homeless veterans with special needs.
Before these grants, Public Law 109-461 authorized
appropriations of $7 million for fiscal year 2007 through 2011.
And the increased risk of homelessness among these populations,
and I especially want to emphasize women veterans, which is,
frankly, the fastest growing cohort, because of the fact that
women now make up 15 percent of the military, and this warrants
funding for the special needs grant above the currently
authorized level, and additional grant and per diem program
funding would address this need.
Another program, HUD-VASH, which I remember you talked
about last year, that program provides permanent housing and
ongoing treatment services to the harder to serve homeless
veterans with chronic mental health and substance abuse issues.
NCHV was incredibly pleased with Public Law 110-161, which
included $75 million to be used for 7,500 Section 8 vouchers
for homeless and disabled programs. And we are pleased that HUD
has requested an additional $75 million for this program in the
fiscal year 2009 budget.
Under this program, VA must provide funding for the ongoing
treatment services to veterans receiving these rental vouchers.
We believe that the $7.8 million which was proposed in
their budget for fiscal year 2009 was agreed to before the
dramatic increase and the HUD-VASH vouchers became law and
without knowledge of the HUD's fiscal year 2009 proposal.
With each housing voucher requiring approximately $5,700 in
supportive services, we estimate approximately $45 million will
be needed to adequately serve 7,500 or more clients in the HUD-
VASH housing units.
Regarding mental health programs, you are right, virtually
every community-based organization providing assistance to
veterans in crisis depends on the VA for access to
comprehensive health services, including screenings, counseling
and necessary treatment as a matter of course.
The VA's mental health strategic plan has increased the
number of clinical psychologists and other mental health
professionals and VA medical centers, community-based
outpatient clinics, and vets' centers.
We believe the budget's proposed funding would facilitate
further implementation to the plan and urge the subcommittee to
provide adequate funding to support this effort.
One last program, and that is the homeless veterans
reintegration program. I know that this does not fall under
this subcommittee's jurisdiction. However, I would just point
out to this subcommittee that it is actually the only program
wholly dedicated to providing employment assistance to homeless
veterans.
And based on the program's success in terms of employment
outcomes for one of the most difficult populations to serve and
its cost-effectiveness as compared to other employment
placement programs, NCHV believes that this program should be
funded in fiscal year 2009 at its full $50 million
authorization level.
An appropriation of this level would enable HVRP grantees
to reach approximately 3,600 homeless veterans.
NCHV thanks this subcommittee for its service to America's
veterans in crisis and would be happy to answer any questions.
[Prepared statement of Cheryl Beversdorf follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.080

Mr. Edwards. Thank you for your excellent testimony and
always being very specific.
The reintegration program, you said we don't have
responsibility for that. What subcommittee or committees?
Ms. Beversdorf. Labor HHS.
Mr. Edwards. That is Labor HHS.
Ms. Beversdorf. Yes.
Mr. Edwards. All right.
Ms. Beversdorf. And it has actually been authorized for
quite some years already at $50 million and each year, there is
always about a $2 million increase. It is actually now about
$25.6 million.
Mr. Edwards. So let me just say to you, we are going to
stay focused on homeless veterans. I think last year was the
first time, at least to my knowledge, that this subcommittee
had a hearing specifically on the homeless veterans issue and
we are going to stay focused until there is not one homeless
veterans anywhere in America.
Ms. Beversdorf. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Let me ask you just one question about the per
diem program.
I understand that for a veteran to be able to use that,
does the place where they are staying have to have a certain
number of veterans in it or a majority of veterans in it?
Ms. Beversdorf. Seventy-five percent, between 60 percent
and 75 percent, and the grant comes from the VA and it goes to
the organization.
Mr. Edwards. What if you have got a mid-size or a rural
community where there is one homeless veteran in that
community, what would be wrong with them going into some local
homeless shelter and they can prove that that person is a
veteran, then that shelter could get reimbursement?
Is it a quality control issue?
Ms. Beversdorf. We may have to introduce new legislation
for that. I mean, we certainly very much support the fact that,
you are right, sometimes veterans live quite a ways from a VA
medical center or from a community-based organization.
So that would probably require some kind of legislation to
be introduced that would allow reciprocity that that person
could go to a non-grant and per diem program, but then
ultimately get reimbursed.
The one thing that is really very important to know about
the grant and per diem program and the community-based
organizations, it is veterans helping veterans.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Ms. Beversdorf. And the idea is that--and, also, they are
close to a VA medical center. But I do understand what you are
saying and we would even like to see that, for example,
community health centers or mental health centers, perhaps
they, too, could get reimbursed, even if they are not homeless,
but they might be in crisis.
So the idea is if they could go to a civilian facility and
at least get some help rather than say, ``Oh, sorry, you are a
veteran, you will have to go to the VA medical center,'' by
that time, it might be too late.
Mr. Edwards. Would you look into those issues and would you
specifically look at the question of what are the implications
of being, good and bad, for the grant and per diem program, if
we didn't have that requirement?
My hometown of Waco, I am told that one or two homeless
veterans went to a local shelter and I think they received
housing, but I don't know why they shouldn't be able to get
some reimbursement.
Ms. Beversdorf. Did they get supportive services then, too,
do you know?
Mr. Edwards. I don't know. I don't have the details. I will
have to follow up on that.
But I would welcome your coalition evaluating that and
telling us what you think the pluses and minuses would be of
opening up that program.
Obviously, we would need additional money, because we don't
want to take away from the care providers we have. But if we
could get additional money, are there any downsides to allowing
a veteran to go in, whether it is 15 homeless people and they
are one of 15. At least they would have a roof over their
heads.
Ms. Beversdorf. Right. And they would still get the
benefits of the program itself.
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Ms. Beversdorf. I understand what you are saying.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. As a longtime proponent of mental health parity
veterans who are mentally healthy are not near as likely to be
homeless.
And so we are hearing from the psychologists, the
psychiatrists, your organization, this is a huge priority and I
am grateful that there is a coming together in this country
around the criticality of mental health and the fact that if it
is treated as a disease and people have their medications, they
can become functional and operational and successful in our
society, and that is at the heart of this.
I am grateful for your work, but I join the chairman in a
commitment to not leaving any veteran behind.
Thank you.
Ms. Beversdorf. And you are absolutely right. When people
ask why veterans are homeless, it is actually three issues. It
is the health issue, like PTSD, traumatic brain injury,
substance abuse issues, then the employment issues.
That is why HVRP is so important. And then affordable
housing. I mean, all of these are factors which evolve as a
result of their service in the military and they all need to be
addressed in order to help these men and women not be homeless
anymore.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I would just like to thank you for the job that
you do. Thank you for your advocacy and I appreciate very much
your testimony here today, and that is all I have.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for your noble service.
Ms. Beversdorf. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. I would now like to call our next witness,
Terri Weaver, with the American Lung Association.
Ms. Weaver, welcome back to the subcommittee.
Ms. Weaver. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Ms. Weaver is a nurse and a professor and
researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also past
chair of the American Lung Association's board of directors.
We are glad to have you here. Again, your full testimony
will be submitted for the record, but we would like to
recognize you for 5 minutes now, Ms. Weaver.
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION

WITNESS

TERRI WEAVER, PHD, RN, FAAN

Statement of Terri E. Weaver

Dr. Weaver. Thank you, Chairman Edwards, Mr. Wamp, Mr.
Bishop.
As Chairman Edwards introduced me, I am Dr. Terri Weaver. I
am testifying on behalf of the American Lung Association in
support of veterans' medical care and research.
I am a nurse, I am a professor, and I am a researcher, but
I am also past chair of the board of directors of the American
Lung Association, which was founded in 1904, which you might
recall, to fight tuberculosis, and today we still fight to
prevent lung disease and promote lung health through research,
advocacy and education.
And we are very strong in supporting the Department of
Veterans' Affairs in this important fight against respiratory
disease.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs cares for over five
million veterans, one million of which has chronic lung
disease.
First, I want to thank the Chairman and the committee for
their support of our request to increase the VA medical
research funding of $480 million in fiscal year 2008. This
investment will save lives.
We are also, however, pleased to see an increase in the
president's budget for VA medical care. However, when there is
a time when we ask veterans to do so much, we feel that this is
so little and we need to do more.
The American Lung Association supports the nation's leading
veterans' organization's budget request of $42.8 billion for
medical care called for in the Independent Budget.
The American Lung Association is very concerned about the
president's budget proposing cuts in medical research by $38
million. The cut is unacceptable and it really rolls back the
progress that we experienced last year.
As a nurse, I support the urgent need for increased funding
for medical care and research for the newer types of illnesses
we are seeing, some of which you alluded to, but, also, acute
traumatic injuries, central nervous system injuries, as well as
pulmonary injuries.
We are also acutely aware of veterans in Iraq and
Afghanistan who are also potentially exposed to bioterrorism
and avian influenza that also affects the lungs, and we know
there are men and women on the front lines and we have to
really consider that.
The nation has also committed to all veterans--nearly 40
percent are over the age of 65. So along with the existing
illnesses that we see in our younger veterans are illnesses
such as hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
hyperglycemia, which usually affected older individuals, and
now is the time to increase funding for research at the VA to
meet emerging needs and existing disease burdens.
The American Lung Association recommends and supports
increasing VA Medical and Prosthetics Research program to $555
million.
I want to speak briefly about chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, which is on the increase, primarily caused by smoking.
It is composed of both bronchitis and emphysema, and we have a
large human and financial cost within the VA.
And 16 percent of veterans in the Department of Veterans'
Affairs health care system have a diagnosis of COPD. It ranks
fifth in the most prevalent disease in the VA population.
It is the fourth most common cause of death in the United
States and by 2020, it will rise to the third leading cause of
mortality.
We have, however, proven interventions which are effective
and good treatments and rehabilitation that decrease
exacerbations, hospitalizations, and documented improved
quality of life.
In 2001, smoking prevalence was 43 percent higher for VA
patients than the general population. In 2005, however, smoking
prevalence among VA patients dropped to 23 percent, similar to
that for the U.S. population of 21 percent.
Most of this was due to VA smoking cessation programs. This
is commendable and a life-saving achievement and this committee
really should be very proud of this accomplishment.
We urge the committee to continue to support smoking
cessation efforts for all veterans.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, our nation's veterans deserve
excellent care. They are giving the ultimate price and really
sacrificing much.
Research programs funded by the VA have potential to
improve the quality of life and health outcomes for all
Americans, especially our veterans.
The American Lung Association supports increasing the
investment in research to $555 million and funding VA medical
care to $42.8 billion.
And I thank you so much for this opportunity to testify.
[Prepared statement of Terri E. Weaver follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.086

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Dr. Weaver.
Am I correct in understanding that VA medical research
played a key role in coming up with a cure to TB? Are you
familiar with the VA's role in that?
Dr. Weaver. Actually, there are many discoveries that have
been attributed to research that has been conducted at the VA,
TB being one of them. But there is a long list of really
phenomenal discoveries that have come out of the VA medical
system, even to this day, because I think one of the unique
things that the VA medical system has that no other system has
is a unified record of medical care.
And so that electronic medical record enables us to really
use that as a database, which no one else has.
Mr. Edwards. That is great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Smart lady, great testimony. No questions.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your testimony, appreciate it.
Dr. Weaver. You are welcome. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Any questions?
Mr. Farr. Are we going to take care of the air for the
veterans at the Olympics?
Mr. Edwards. We are going to go to China and clean that up.
Dr. Weaver, thank you very much----
Dr. Weaver. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. For your testimony and your
service.
I would like to now call before the subcommittee Dr. John
Maupin. Dr. Maupin is president of Morehouse School of Medicine
and is testifying on behalf of the Association of Minority
Health Profession Schools.
Dr. Maupin, welcome to the subcommittee.
Let me just say, before you begin, the witnesses have done
very well on time.
Dr. Maupin, thank you and the time is yours.
Dr. Maupin. Mr. Chairman, I am just curious why the warning
would come to a college president.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning.
Mr. Edwards. It is great to have you here.
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

THE ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY HEALTH PROFESSIONS SCHOOLS

WITNESS

JOHN E. MAUPIN, JR., PRESIDENT, MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

Statement of John E. Maupin

Dr. Maupin. Mr. Chairman, and to the ranking member, Mr.
Wamp, we have known each other for some time. I am glad to be
here.
And to my own state representative, Congressman Bishop, I
appreciate that, and to Mr. Farr, the vice chairman.
You have my written testimony and I will cut mine short. I
want to go directly to a couple of issues.
I want to be sure that you understand one passionate piece
about me. I am a veteran. I spent over 30 years in the
military, most of which was in the Reserves, active Reserves,
and spent time at Walter Reed and on active duty during Desert
Shield/Desert Storm.
And so I am very passionate about the care. I have been in
the places, I have been at the various posts, and so I do
understand.
What I really want to highlight is that we have a number of
institutions, which I represent, the Association of Minority
Health Profession Schools, 12 of the nation's minority
institutions that represent medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and
veterinary sciences.
We have been, for many years, excluded from full
participation as training opportunities and full participation
in the VA. While today things are better, progress continues to
be very slow.
And I think at a time when we are trying to serve our
veterans and we have institutions which really want to be a
part of this, that it seems somewhat absurd to know that where
there is a VA in a local town, that to have a surgery training
program to be requested to say we can give you an opportunity,
we want you to go from Atlanta to Montgomery, seems a little
strange.
Where we are participating in community-based clinics,
working with people in the various community-based clinics to
provide preventive care, primary care, we still would like to
be a part of the training activity at the local VA in Atlanta,
for example, at Morehouse, my institution, for internal
medicine sub-specialties and surgery activity.
This has gone on for a long time. We have worked with every
administration of the VA to say, ``Let's open this up.''
Progress has been made. There is more progress today than
ever before. At one time, we were actually told, point blank,
that when there is already a medical school in a VA hospital,
there can only be one medical school, and it was, at one time,
a written policy, at one time, an unwritten practice.
And today that has opened up, but it still takes a lot once
you have settled in and anchored in to share.
Now, we share public hospitals across this country in more
than one medical school and to say we can't share a VA
facility. While increased resources are given, we think
priority should be given to the schools and programs that have
been excluded from the participation.
We would like to ensure that language is put into this
bill, your report language would include language that the VA
put together a plan of action that ensures the full integration
of minority health profession schools into the training and
care programs that exist throughout all the VAs, with
especially focusing on those which have programs that are
nearby, that are right across the street.
In Nashville, where I was previously president, Meharry
Medical College went to Murfreesboro. And I know at Morehouse,
we were initially asked to go to and have gone to Tuskegee,
Alabama to participate.
That disruption and that kind of inclusion, distant
inclusion, separate but equal, if you will, has created where
you really don't have the full advantages that the VA offers in
training and experience and exposure, because our students come
from poor backgrounds, want to go into areas and work in areas
that will serve veterans.
Many of them are public health service corps. Many of them
have scholarships to the military service, will be veterans
themselves. It is a great and wonderful experience and it is a
great service we can offer.
It also allows us to participate in research opportunities
and we know that there are barriers in research when it comes
to minorities trusting the research infrastructure and research
enterprise.
And so our participation is critical to a fair delivery of
care, fair training, and an open research environment where
there is a trusting relationship.
So what we encourage is that the VA be encouraged now. They
have removed the language of separation, but they have not been
forceful enough to create a program of action to integrate.
And I think when it is pushed a little harder, goodwill
will come out and we have some people that have been very
supportive of it, but there are others that still are somewhat
resistant.
And the institutions that are there now often will need a
little more push, because they have to give up something, in
their mind, to make room for the other institution to
participate.
So we encourage that language and ask for your support. We
are ready to serve, as I have served over the years in the
military and, most recently, just retired.
So I look forward to my--now that I am 60, I can actually
be a real full-fledged retiree.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of John E. Maupin follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.092

Mr. Edwards. Dr. Maupin, thank you for your excellent
comments and for your 30 years of military service.
Does your full formal testimony have some specific
proposals for the VA that we could work together on?
Dr. Maupin. It has some specific proposals and examples of
the past, opportunities that are there, and, Mr. Chairman, I
will add some.
After reading the proposal, I think there are a couple of
edits that can be put in there for the record and I will get
those immediately back to you.
[The information follows:]

What is needed to put this recommendation into action?
1. The VA--at the highest level--must commit efforts to foster
equitable participation by historically black health professions
schools, including historically black medical schools at the large VA
Medical Centers in Atlanta, Nashville, Washington DC, and Los Angeles.
The VA must also foster a closer collaboration with the HBCU dental,
veterinary, and pharmacy schools in Washington, DC, Nashville,
Tuskegee, Hampton, Tallahassee, New Orleans, and Houston.
2. The VA must initiate efforts to foster collaborative initiatives
between the current health professions school affiliates and
historically black health professions schools to promote historically
black health professions schools participation in inpatient and
outpatient care, resident and student education and research. The VA
efforts must be aligned with the individual efforts of each
historically black health professions school working with its local VA
Medical Center. Each VA medical center must establish an Affiliation
Partnership Committee that includes the leadership of both the
historically black health professions school and the current health
professions school affiliate.
3. HBCU medical schools must have access to VA faculty positions in
all medical specialties and subspecialties.
4. The Committee must get an annual progress report from each of
the major VA Medical Centers in Atlanta, Nashville, Los Angeles and
Washington, DC, on the medical affiliations. The Committee must also
receive a progress report from sites of the other health professions
affiliations in Washington, DC, Nashville, Tuskegee, Hampton,
Tallahassee, New Orleans, and Houston.

Mr. Edwards. If you could, we would welcome that. And it
only seems to be common sense, as the VA is expanding and we
have increased its budget and it is out looking for new
physicians and dentists and others, that we reach out to all of
our health care training facilities and universities and
colleges.
I assume there is a higher percentage who have done a
residency within the VA system--I haven't seen the data, but my
assumption, as a layman, would be that there is a higher
percentage of those students who end up working in the VA
system than those who haven't done a residency in the VA
system.
Dr. Maupin. Many of them who have had exposure end up
coming back. It is pretty true. Once you have been exposed, you
have a desire to want to participate in those, and there are
other new settings, the community-based settings.
When you have the opportunity to go to primary care, but,
also, a hub-and-spoke relationship, which is what they call
super CBOCs or specialty centers to serve the surrounding
community-based centers, and we want to participate in those
and those are great opportunities for people to participate
there.
Mr. Edwards. Could you also send us a list of all of the
schools and colleges and universities in your organization?
[The information follows:]

Institutions which make up the Association of Minority Health
Professions Schools (AMHPS):
Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science
Florida A&M University College of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical
Sciences
Hampton University School of Pharmacy
Howard University College of Medicine, College of Pharmacy,
Nursing, & Allied Health Sciences, & College of Dentistry
Meharry Medical College School of Medicine & School of Dentistry
Morehouse School of Medicine
Texas Southern University College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences
Tuskegee University College of Veterinary Medicine, Nursing, &
Allied Health
Xavier University of Louisiana College of Pharmacy

Dr. Maupin. Yes. It is included in the testimony, and I
will update it.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. I live halfway between Meharry and Morehouse. I
have seen these benefits. I have seen it not work, I have seen
it work.
Dr. Maupin didn't even need notes. He just shared 5 minutes
of very good summary of what we need to consider. And those
specific proposals, I think, Mr. Chairman, are exactly what we
need to do.
This is a big win for the network and the support that the
VA can use and then you can just imagine what it does in these
schools across the country in terms of really stimulating
people.
And if we are going to--there is a lot of talk about
equality and justice, but this is where the rubber meets the
road.
Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir.
I appreciate very much your testimony, Dr. Maupin, and we
have had conversations outside of the committee regarding this
issue, and I would hope that the committee will seriously
consider the language.
There is some suggested language, I think, at the end of
Dr. Maupin's testimony and I think in his testimony, he lists
all of the various members and the kinds of training that they
provide.
I would hope that we would take that seriously and take his
language as a guide and perhaps fine-tune it so that we can try
to get the most that we can from these institutions, so that we
can overall enhance our VA health system.
Dr. Maupin. And given that I have heard the numbers, I
don't know what the exact numbers are, but I have heard the
approximate numbers that one out of three veterans is a
minority.
So those providing health care and working in the VA system
ought to reflect the diversity of the great Americans who have
served our country.
Mr. Bishop. And the other thing that has become so clear to
me is veterans who go to the VA community, the outpatient
clinics, as well as the hospitals, very seldom have access to
enough physicians.
The VA has had a problem getting the trained physicians to
that and it--that established relationships. And so people who
might not ordinarily go to work for the VA when they finish
their residencies would see that as an opportunity and those
relationships would be built early.
Dr. Maupin. You bet.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. I have no questions.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Dr. Maupin.
Have you met with Dr. Kussman since he became secretary?
Dr. Maupin. I have not personally, but many of our
leadership, Dr. Sullivan--and others have met. David
Morehouse--on the blue ribbon panel.
We have people there. We are talking, but I think some of
that needs a little bit more.
Mr. Edwards. We are going to encourage----
Dr. Maupin. I tell my students we have an arm of discipline
and a hug of love. So we need a little arm of discipline while
we are over here hugging with our love.
Mr. Edwards. I understand. We will see if we can't give
love and some encouragement.
Thank you very much, Dr. Maupin.
Dr. Maupin. Appreciate it.
Mr. Edwards. I would now like to recognize our friend, Rick
Jones. Rick, welcome back.
Mr. Jones joined the National Association for Uniformed
Services as legislative director in 2005. Before this position,
he served for 5 years, as we know, as the national legislative
director for AMVETS.
He is an Army veteran, and we thank you for that service,
Rick. He served as a medical specialist during the Vietnam War.
It is a privilege to welcome you back before the
subcommittee, and the time is now yours.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF UNIFORMED SERVICES

WITNESS

RICK JONES, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

Statement of Rick Jones

Mr. Jones. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Ranking Member Wamp, members of the subcommittee.
On behalf of the National Association for Uniformed
Services, thank you for this opportunity to testify, and please
accept our deep gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman and the members
of the subcommittee, for working so hard with House leadership
to provide the largest veterans funding increase in the 77-year
history of the Department of Veterans Affairs, a $6.6 billion
increase in fiscal year 2008, the current fiscal year.
Your attention to VA and military construction reflects
enormously well on the Nation's gratitude for these special
people who serve in uniform and protect and preserve our
liberties.
Thank you.
As we continue our base realignment and closure activities,
it is essential that funding for construction is in place for
housing, barracks, child care centers, medical treatment and
training facilities exactly when they are needed.
We urge you to see that adequate funds for military
construction and quality of life initiatives are in place for
returning troops and their families.
In the National Capital Region, we urge accelerated
construction and development of the Bethesda facilities and we
encourage the subcommittee to make certain that the Walter Reed
and our military medical system is fully funded, to the extent
you have influence there, so that we may fulfill all the
missions that they are required to do.
Together, we really need to work to do the right things so
they have uninterrupted care. These individuals are
catastrophically injured. They need everything we can give them
in these premier medical centers.
The National Association for Uniformed Services is
concerned that VA remain sufficiently funded and we have seen
the President's budget and we believe that it requires $43.7
billion in medical care, which is $2.6 billion more than the
administration's request, $4.6 billion over current year
funding.
The National Association firmly believes that the veterans'
health care system is irreplaceable as a national investment.
It is critical to the nation and its veterans.
Our citizens have benefited from the advances made in
medical care through VA research and through VA innovations, as
well as the electronic health record, which is one example of
those innovations.
We strongly support, as well, the disability claims
benefits. We need to provide timely benefits to those who are
disabled. Benefits help offset the economic effects of their
disability and it is a central function for the Department of
Veterans Affairs. It needs to be funded adequately.
And despite VA's best efforts, they seem to be falling
behind. We call on you all, lawmakers all, to make the VBA a
priority within the upcoming budget.
We know the challenges to provide timely decisions on
claims. We believe the solution is to ensure that VBA has
adequate funding to reduce the backlog and achieve its mission.
We also urge members of the subcommittee to recognize the
growing long-term care needs of American veterans. VA is a
nationally recognized leader in providing quality nursing home
care.
One of the settings for nursing home expenditures is in the
state veterans' nursing home grant program. The association
strongly supports additional funding for state veterans'
nursing homes.
It is projected that the population of veterans aged 75 and
older will increase to 4.5 million from the current 4 million
population over the next 10 years.
We are looking at veterans population in general
decreasing, but this one is increasing. And in the current
year, priority one nursing homes, there are 91 in line, all
validated, submitted by 23 states.
VA pays about one-third the cost of care in these state
veterans' homes. So it is affordable. It is a good way to go to
take care of our elderly veterans.
The administration's request is for $85 million. That will
fund fewer than 25 of those 92 homes that are ready and in
line. We recommend that an increase be made in this area of
$115 million above the administration's request.
We thank you, as well, for your work on the armed forces
retirement home.
[Prepared statement of Rick Jones follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.108

Mr. Edwards. $115 million in addition to the $95 million?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. $85 million is what the administration
has asked for and we would like to see $115 million more. There
are 92 homes in line. Very few of them will be funded, and,
oftentimes, with all due respect, sir, all those fundings go to
the larger states, California, which is wonderful, but there
are also some smaller states, including perhaps Georgia, Utah,
maybe Tennessee.
And Texas is a large state and we are pleased to see some
of the funding go to Texas, as well.
Mr. Edwards. So you want $290 million.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
We are pleased, also, and we thank you very much for your
work on the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
The Gulfport facility is moving well, $240 million you
provided for demolition of the towers and construction of the
buildings. March 3 was the kickoff for the construction of the
Gulfport facility.
Thank you very much for your care and supply of resources
to the Armed Forces Retirement Home and, again, thank you for
all you do to honor our troops and remember our veterans.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Rick. And thank you for your
partnership last year, as in previous years, but working
together, you and your association were an important part of
that historic VA budget.
And as you know, we are addressing many of these and the
new budget we are proposing, you said we needed $4.6 billion
above fiscal year 2008 for the VA discretionary account.
I think the budget before the House will be $4.9 billion
above. So we are listening and all the----
Mr. Jones. Listening and exceeding.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. All the needs you have mentioned,
including the long-term care. That is something we need to
spend, I think, more attention on.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you for your service and your friendship to
all of us.
Mr. Jones. Thank the speaker for this morning's celebration
and remembrance of the 5-year anniversary. It was outstanding.
I really enjoyed being there with families and friends who
grieve for their loved ones lost.
Mr. Edwards. It was a beautiful ceremony, very tastefully
done, I thought.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. I want to echo those thoughts.
You indicated that you wanted $4.6 billion. That would be
the ideal.
Mr. Jones. That is what we believe would be sufficient to
cover the new veterans, the current veterans, who are seeking
care, disabled and sick. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. And I want to point out that because of our
chair, the budget we are voting on right now upstairs has added
$4.9 billion, you said.
Mr. Edwards. About.
Mr. Farr. So the committee is responding to the veteran
community far beyond their expectations, and I want to
attribute that to the leadership of Chet Edwards.
Mr. Edwards. Great partnership.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Farr. I have one question. You are the National
Association of Uniformed Services, and then we have the
sergeants, the Air Force Sergeants, Reserve Association, the
AMVETS Association, Disabled Vets Association, Paralyzed Vets
Association, and Veterans' of Foreign Wars Association.
Mr. Jones. God bless America.
Mr. Farr. There are a lot of association dues.
What exactly is your organization? It sounds like both
veterans and active duty.
Mr. Jones. Some are specific. Air Force Sergeants
Association, for example, you just cited.
Our organization represents all ranks, all grades, all
services. We represent all seven uniformed services, which
include NOAA.
Mr. Farr. Active duty.
Mr. Jones. Yes. Active and retired, sir.
Mr. Farr. And retired.
Mr. Jones. They are survivors, they are orphans, they are
children. We represent as much as we can to advocate the voice
of the veterans and the service members' voice.
We make sure that voice is heard in these corridors, and
that is represented so well, as you are doing. We simply echo
what you are saying, in some respects.
There have been times, however, when it has been important
for education to be made in some of these offices.
Mr. Farr. Is your association bigger than VFW?
Mr. Jones. VFW is one of the larger organizations. They
have perhaps 2 million members. I think the American Legion,
which you will hear from later today, may be the largest
veterans' service organization, somewhere around 3 million.
Ours is somewhat smaller. We have about 200,000 members and
supporters. So we are in that area.
We began our service in 1968, with an effort to fulfill the
promise made to those veterans who had committed a career in
service, and that promise was to fulfill health care for
themselves and their families.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I thank you for your service and thank you for
being an advocate for our veterans.
Appreciate your coming today.
Mr. Jones. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. It is now my privilege to call before the
subcommittee a command sergeant, retired, Jonathan Hake.
Sergeant Hake is the director of military and government
relations for the Air Force Sergeants Association and served
nearly 30 years in the United States Air Force at 14 locations,
and we thank you for that service.
He joined the staff of the Air Force Sergeants Association
this month.
Sergeant Hake, it is great to have you here.
Sergeant Hake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be
retired, 2 weeks and counting now.
Mr. Edwards. But you are like a lot of our military
retirees and veterans. You take the uniform off, but you
continue serving, and thank you for that.

Statement of Jonathan E. Hake

Sergeant Hake. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Sir, it is my honor and privilege to represent the 125,000
members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, and thank you
for this opportunity.
I understand and appreciate the daunting task before you,
as I listen to the testimony. And we also realize that your
trust did the budget wisely, because you're trusted with the
dollars that we contribute, and there are many factors that go
into how you decide what is going to be funded, what is not
going to be funded.
So to address that, I would like to ask that all my written
testimony be put in the record.
Mr. Edwards. Absolutely. Without objection, so ordered.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION

WITNESS

JONATHAN E. HAKE, DIRECTOR, MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
Sergeant Hake. But I would like to focus on three key areas
that are relevant to enlisted men and women.
The first is military construction as it is related to
quality of life, and then VA funding, very briefly, and then
the Montgomery GI bill.
Much attention has been given to the combat capability of
advanced weapons systems, but I would tell you the most
valuable weapons system America has is the men and women who
serve, especially those that have--enlisted men and women of
the Air Force.
If we expect to retain this precious resource, we must
provide them, their families, facilities that reflect the level
of commitment and sacrifice, and these facilities impact their
desire to continue serving through multiple deployments and
extended separations.
We devote significant resources to training and equipping
America's sons and daughters, and that is a long-term
investment, and we believe that the same level of commitment
should be reflected in the facilities in which they live, work
and play.
We caution deferring these costs, as someone mentioned
earlier about infrastructure, especially at installations that
are being on the BRAC list.
We applaud Congress's support for military housing
privatization initiatives, because this is providing housing at
a much faster pace than would have been possible through
military construction alone.
AFSA urges Congress to fully fund appropriate accounts to
ensure all remaining installations eliminate substandard
housing as quickly as possible.
Those who are devoted to serving this nation deserve
nothing less.
Tremendous strides have been made to improve access to
quality of child care and fitness centers at our military
installations, and we are grateful to the Department of Defense
and Congress for working together.
But there is still more work to be done. As was mentioned
by the gentleman that talked about VA care, a fit airman, a fit
soldier, a fit marine, a fit sailor decreases the cost of
medical care.
The demand for child care facilities continues to grow as a
larger percentage of our military are married, have young
children, and, of course, like I said, a fit force is actually
essential to the rigors of service.
The next area I would like to talk about is VA funding,
$4.9 billion, we thank you. We thank you for adding that and we
believe the funding for the Veterans' Affairs should be moved
to mandatory annual spending. It shouldn't be negotiated year
after year after year.
One of our nation's highest obligations is the willingness
to fully fund VA health care, facilities and other programs for
those who have served in the past, those who are serving now,
and those who will serve in the future.
There are many challenges facing veterans and we are
encouraged by the initiatives centered on improving access, on
the continuity of care and addressing scars of wars.
Some of those scars are obvious and others are not so
obvious, such as traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic
stress disorders.
My final key point is the Montgomery GI bill. AFSA, the Air
Force Sergeants Association, is extremely pleased by the
interest by so many in Congress to overhaul the Montgomery GI
bill educational benefits for those that have stepped up to
defend America's interests at home and abroad.
No doubt, making the Montgomery GI bill a more viable
benefit will have an associated cost, and we unequivocally and
respectfully offer the return on that investment is not just
good for the military, it is good for America.
We would like to see the Montgomery GI bill transformed
into something like the post-World War II GI bill. This would
go a long way toward recruiting this nation's best and
brightest to serve.
There are many proposals worthy of consideration, but there
are five key elements that we believe essential in the final
product.
The first, we would ask the committee to fund a program
that pays for all books, tuition fees, and that that be indexed
annually to reflect the actual cost of education.
Second, we would ask you to eliminate the $1,200 user fee
from Montgomery GI. To ask an airman basic, when going through
schooling, to pay $1,200 to get a benefit that they earn
through virtue of their service just seems wrong to me.
The third is to make the Montgomery GI bill transferable to
immediate family members, and I say immediate family members.
Military members should be permitted to spend their benefit
however best fits their situation, including those closest to
them that have sacrificed.
Fourth, give enlisted members who have declined enrollment
in the veterans' educational assistance program, better known
as VEAP, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, an opportunity
to enroll in the Montgomery GI bill.
There are currently about 10,050 airmen remaining on active
duty today in this situation, 5,600 of those----
They passed on that VEAP program because of bad advice,
because they thought it was a bad program, because of lack of
foresight, a lot of different reasons. But wouldn't it be a
travesty, as they have committed their life, decades of
service, to leave without an educational benefit?
Mr. Edwards. Sergeant, I hate to interrupt, but out of
respect to all the witnesses, we are a minute over time.
Can you take about 15 seconds? I want to hear that fifth--
to the GI bill.
Sergeant Hake. Well, fifth and final, sir, is total force
Montgomery GI bill. Members of the Guard and Reserve contribute
to the missions all over the world and they have been
protecting the homeland here since 9/11.
So, sir, I thank you again. I am sorry I ran over.
[Prepared statement of Jonathan E. Hake follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.109

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.113

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.114

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.115

Mr. Edwards. Thank you. We will submit your testimony, very
excellent presentation.
We had the chief of staff of the Air Force sitting in this
chair a couple of hours ago, General Moseley, but we know who
runs the military.
So that is why we are so proud to have you in that chair
right now.
Sergeant Hake. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. And thank you for those years of service and
excellent presentation, and we will follow up on those ideas.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. The good news for your members is, for the most
part, your presentation is the agenda of this subcommittee. So
I think we are going in the same direction.
Sergeant Hake. If you would, please, anything that our
association can do to assist you or your staffs, don't
hesitate.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
You are in such close touch with the people who are really
the backbone of our military and those that may not be making
$100,000 a year in their service.
So please stay in touch with us. Don't just wait to hear
from us. Let us know your ideas, specifically what we can do to
be in support of the men and women you represent so well.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. The only comment I can make is that I appreciate
your testimony. However, I disagree with the idea that we
should have a fixed budget, because if you had a fixed budget,
a steady budget, without this committee's work and the
Congress, it would be $12 billion less than it is going to be
at the end of this year.
So there is some merit in having the political discussion
each year and being able to prioritize.
Sergeant Hake. I understand completely, sir. I certainly
don't want to put you out of work.
Mr. Farr. No, it wouldn't put us out of work. But if we
stuck to the old budget, you would be out of work.
Sergeant Hake. Yes. Yes, sir. I understand.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
I appreciate your testimony, because, although you didn't
dwell on it in your oral presentation, you talk about the base
alignment and closure accounts and the need for attention to be
given to the veterans' health that will surround that, as well
the military health.
But you also talk about the seamless transition between DOD
and the VA. We have had a number of witnesses over the last few
weeks and that is one of the issues that has been raised, that
it is very important to have that seamless transition.
And I am just glad that you referenced it in your testimony
about the budgets. It is what many of us have been seeing--and
the DOD as we talk to the respective communities--of
jurisdictions.
So thank you for highlighting that.
Mr. Edwards. Great.
Sergeant, thank you for being here.
Sergeant Hake. Sir, if I may, before I depart, I would like
to draw attention to five gentlemen and ladies that entered in
blue uniforms behind me.
Mr. Edwards. Please do.
Sergeant Hake. They are men and women of the Air Force
Office of Special Investigations, stationed at Andrews Air
Force Base, all military members, proud to be wearing Air Force
blue.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much for your service. We are
honored to be in your presence today. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Sergeant Hake. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Could I ask staff how much time we have before
the next vote, before this vote finishes? So we could do one
more witness.
I would ask Mr. Davis, Mr. John R. Davis to please come
forward.
Mr. Davis served in the United States Marine Corps Reserve
and as a second lieutenant in the Illinois Army National Guard.
He joined the Fleet Reserve Association in February of 2006 as
director of legislative programs.
Mr. Davis, welcome to the subcommittee and we would like to
recognizes you for 5 minutes now.
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION

WITNESS

JOHN R. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS

Statement of John R. Davis

Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Edwards, Ranking Member Wamp,
Congressman Bishop and Congressman Farr. Thanks for the
opportunity to express FRA's views.
I also want to thank the chairman specifically for his
leadership and sponsorship of H.R. 579 to prohibit Tricare fee
increases.
On a similar note, FRA strongly opposes the VA health care
fees proposed in the budget for category seven and eight.
The association wants to express its sincere gratitude to
the subcommittee for funding in the fiscal year 2008 budget the
largest annual budget increase in the Department of Veterans'
Affairs 77-year history.
The subcommittee sent a clear message last year that there
are no higher funding priorities than to ensure proper
treatment of our wounded warriors and their families, to which
we owe so much.
FRA is also thankful for the fiscal year 2008 defense
authorization bill, which includes the wounded warriors
provision, supported by FRA. These reforms, though, are still a
work in progress and will be successful only with adequate
funding, adequate funding for the wounded warrior resource
center, which is supposed to be a single point of contact for
families, caregivers, and other interested parties; adequate
funding for the joint DOD-VA agency that is going to set up the
electronic health care records, an important step in realizing
a true seamless transition; also, the VA budget, which is $1.7
billion more than last year's, but is $3 billion less than the
Independent Budget, which FRA supports.
FRA is concerned that the Veterans' Benefits
Administration, the VBA, has a backlog of more than 650,000
claims. Over 25 percent of those have been pending for more
than 6 months.
The number of pending claims is actually increasing and the
complexity of those claims is also increasing.
In order to meet the increasing workload, the VA must have
appropriations necessary to increase staffing and training.
The proposed budget only increases VBA by about $50
million, which is less than a 4 percent increase over last
year, which we think is woefully inadequate when you take into
account the number of claims that will increase with the surge
of troops in Iraq, the ongoing operations in Afghanistan and
the aging veterans population.
FRA strongly supports adequate funding for medical research
and the needs for disabled veterans. Noteworthy, however, is
the fact that the proposed VA budget for medical and prosthetic
research reflects a reduction of $38 million, and that is one
of the most successful aspects of all the VA medical programs.
FRA strongly supports the Independent Budget recommendation
to increase the funding for this program by $75 million.
We believe there is strong bipartisan consensus for reform
of the system for evaluating disabilities of wounded service
members and for additional funding and staffing.
The VA can properly deliver benefits to veterans only if it
has adequate resources and staffing to process and adjudicate
claims in a timely and accurate fashion.
Double-digit inflation, education inflation, has
dramatically diminished the value of the MGIB and benefits fall
well short of the actual cost of the college education.
FRA supports enactment of a total force MGIB, with the
integration of active and Reserve MGIB programs under Title 38,
which we think is very important to provide benefits for
services performed and enable improved administration and
better facilitate the purposes intended by the MGIB by
Congress.
The nation's active duty and Reserve components are being
integrated under the total force concept and we think that
education benefits should be restructured and funded
accordingly.
FRA appreciates the administration's call for
transferability of MGIB benefits to family members, but notes
there is no funding to request this in the current budget.
There are also thousands of senior enlisted personnel who
entered military service during the VEAP era and did not have
the opportunity to enroll in that.
The association, FRA, continues to advocate for the
adoption of an open enrollment period and we believe that that
will require some additional funding, as well.
I want to thank the subcommittee for being the only one in
Congress that regularly invites our outstanding senior enlisted
leaders to testify each year on the quality of life issues.
FRA strongly supports funding for the Navy's goal of adding
13 additional child support centers by 2013 and plans to
increase child care capacity by almost 7,000 in this fiscal
year 2009 year coming up.
There are, however, currently more than 8,000 children on
waiting lists and the average waiting time for children is 6
months. In fleet concentration areas, it is more than a year.
FRA also supports funding to support the Marine Corps'
plans to add 10 child care centers by 2013, since it has not
met its DOD goal of providing at least 80 percent of its
potential child care goals.
Currently, the Marine Corps has only achieved 71 percent of
its child care goals.
And the association also supports funding necessary for the
Marine Corps to build 35 new barracks for bachelor housing
for--Marines in fiscal year 2009.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
[Prepared statement of John R. Davis follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.116

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.117

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.118

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.119

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.120

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.121

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.122

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.123

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.124

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Davis, thank you for your comments.
Let me just say thanks for focusing on the backlog. With
the funding that this subcommittee approved last year, the VA
is in the process of hiring 3,100 new claims processors.
I am told that the backlog is actually going down some now.
I want to verify that. But once those are all trained and in
place, I think you will see a significant drop in the wait
time, and we intend to add to what we did last year.
That wasn't just a 1-year----
Mr. Davis. My sense of it is, what I have been told by some
VSOs and other people that are very involved with the VA
budget, is, in effect, that the VA, with its bigger budget, has
sort of been a victim of its own success, that the quicker
adjudication of claims has actually encouraged more people to
file claims and that that actually brings in the workload.
So even though we have added money, we had a 400,000
backlog last year and then we added money, we made it even
bigger, we still ended up with six--right now, I believe it was
last month, it was about 650,000 claims backlogged.
That is according to the Disability Subcommittee for the
House Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Mr. Edwards. I will follow up on that. So the waiting time
period had gone down.
But, of course, I would not want a single veteran not to
apply for a claim because the backlog was so long. So I guess
it is good news if these are veterans that may qualify and have
earned benefits. We want them coming in.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely.
Mr. Edwards. If that means we have to hire more people,
then we will do that.
And your comment about the senior enlisted leaders
testifying, that is one of the highlights of our year and they
always do an outstanding job.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Straightforward and effective. No questions.
Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much.
My colleagues, I think we have got about 3 minutes and
there is a 2-vote program upstairs. The second one is a quorum
call.
So perhaps we could vote quickly on that and come back down
and continue on.
Mr. Wamp. They are swearing in a member between the votes.
Mr. Edwards. Are they?
Mr. Wamp. So if you want to come right back, we can.
Mr. Edwards. I don't mind coming back. So we will go vote,
come back, and then we will get back and vote the second time.
Good suggestion.
We will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Edwards. Could I call forward Mr. James Brown--Dr.
Brown? Dr. Brown is a VA physician scientist at the San
Francisco VA Medical Center. He is testifying on behalf of the
VA Medical Care and Health Research, a coalition of over 90
national academic, medical and scientific societies.
Dr. Brown, we are glad to have you here.
Let me just say, while we have so many groups still
represented here, we have provided a huge infusion of money
into the VA system, both the health care system and VBA, and we
ask you all to be partners with us in helping us exercise
oversight, because it is just critical that we see that the VA
spends this money wisely.
So be our eyes and ears, be our partners. Let's work
together with the VA to see that this money is spent wisely,
because if it is not, then we won't have the opportunities to
have the kinds of increases in VA funding that we saw last year
and that I believe that we will see this year, as well.
With that, Dr. Brown, thank you for your service, your
work, and for being here today.
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

FRIENDS OF VA MEDICAL CARE AND HEALTH RESEARCH

WITNESS

JAMES K. BROWN, VA-PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST, SAN FRANCISCO VA MEDICAL CENTER

Statement of James K. Brown

Dr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you mentioned, I am Jim Brown. I am a lung doctor at the
San Francisco VA and have been since 1981, and a professor of
medicine at UC-San Francisco.
I do appreciate the opportunity to speak about the VA
research program.
As you mentioned, this testimony is on behalf of FOVA,
which is, as you said, a coalition of organizations that are
very committed to the veterans' health programs and, in
particular, to the VA research program.
And FOVA expresses its gratefulness to you for the increase
provided last year in the VA research program.
This year, FOVA recommends that the subcommittee provide
$555 million for the VA research program in fiscal year 2009.
So why support the VA research program?
Because the VA research program helps attract outstanding
physicians to serve our nations veterans. For the young medical
graduate seeking a career exclusively in patient care, private
practice usually pays more than the VA can provide.
For the young physician wishing to do exclusively research,
a university hospital or biotechnology company may be the best
bets.
But for one who aspires to providing care for patients and
to doing research on illnesses, the VA is an extremely
attractive option and, for this group of physicians, the
opportunity to apply for VA research funds makes a career in
the VA health care system particularly desirable.
So as you know, I think, outstanding research within the VA
is of many different types. At my own center, Mike Weiner uses,
for example, magnetic resonance imaging of the brain to study
patients with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress
syndrome, the goals being earlier diagnosis and better
treatment.
This work has, obviously, important implications for
returning veterans from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
Freedom.
The VA research programs across the country have made
important contributions, including invention of implantable
cardiac pacemaker devices, creation of new vaccines, and
development of state-of-the-art prosthetics.
Because the aging constitute an increasingly significant
proportion of patients within the VA, investigators in VA have
made significant advances in Alzheimer's disease, coronary
artery and valvular heart disease, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, as you heard from Terri Weaver, diabetes and
pain management--outstanding research within the VA and clearly
has been good for veterans.
A somewhat dark spot on the shining achievements of the VA
research program is its laboratory space, which is too old and
too small.
As an example, our facility in San Francisco has 220
scientists and an annual research budget of $78 million, under
guidelines provided by the Capital Asset Realignment for
Enhanced Services, or CARES, Commission report.
A research program of this size should be housed in 435,000
square feet of laboratory space, yet we have 131,000 square
feet. We are literally turning bathrooms into offices for young
physicians.
This problem, along with the problem of a strong need to
refurbish existing laboratory space within the VA has made it
increasingly difficult to recruit and retain within the VA the
very best physicians.
FOVA expresses its great appreciation for the
subcommittee's efforts to provide funding for research
laboratories in previous appropriation bills, but feels that
the funds have not yet been available in the amounts needed.
For fiscal year 2009, FOVA recommends that $45 million be
provided specifically for research laboratory space renovation.
So in summary, FOVA recommends $555 million for the VA
research program and $45 million for VA research laboratories
for fiscal year 2009.
And, again, we greatly appreciate your support in the
increase in the research budget last year very, very much.
[Prepared statement of James K. Brown follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.125

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.126

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.127

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.128

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.129

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Dr. Brown.
Let me ask you this, the lab renovation or construction
work, does that money usually come out of VA construction
accounts or does that come out of the VISNs' operating budget?
Are you familiar?
Dr. Brown. I am not as familiar as I should be. But as I
understand it, it is out of so-called minor recurring space or
construction budget. And I think what is happening is because
that is where it is coming from, when there are needs for
patients and clinical programs, appropriately, that is where
the money is going and not for research.
And so what is needed, at least in the view of FOVA, and I
certainly agree, is sort of a dedicated allocation for
laboratory research space.
Mr. Edwards. I appreciate you bringing that to our
attention. That is an important point and we will follow up on
that.
Another quick question. The VA peer review process for
determining who gets VA research dollars, would it stand up to
the test of close scrutiny as being a fair system and based on
logical priorities and going out to the people who really are
truly best qualified to do that research?
Dr. Brown. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree entirely with your
comments. And the peer review system is the appropriate way to
allocate money for research.
I think it is an excellent system, the peer review system
within the VA. So the answer to your question specifically is
yes. I think it is very fair and it is an excellent program.
And I think the reason it is important to sustain the peer
review system is partly because it is very difficult to predict
where the most important research observations are going to be
made.
Sometimes it comes from totally unanticipated lines of
investigation. So funding the very best, brightest
investigators, who are doing relevant research, through a peer
review system is clearly the best way, at least in my opinion,
to fund research, not trying to allocate for specific areas.
Mr. Edwards. Try to withstand the pressure on Capitol
Hill----
Dr. Brown. Appreciate that.
Mr. Edwards. Overshadow the peer review process.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. No questions.
Thank you, Dr. Brown.
Dr. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Dr. Brown, for being here, and very
much for your service, as well.
I would now like to call forward Marcie Granahan. Is that
correct?
Ms. Granahan. Yes, it is. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Granahan is the chief executive officer for the United
States Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association.
Thank you for being here. Clearly, you are doing a lot in
the area of mental health care services and we welcome your
input and your testimony today.
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

U.S. PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION

WITNESS

MARCIE GRANAHAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Statement of Marcie Granahan

Ms. Granahan. Thank you so much. I am so pleased to be here
today and I welcome the opportunity to speak before you here on
a topic of great importance to our members and our
constituencies.
I want to give you a little bit of history about our
organization to put it in context for you.
About 33 years ago, USPRA and its members developed and
designed--to promote the recovery of individuals with
psychiatric disabilities, and that includes our disabled
veterans.
Today's psychiatric rehabilitation services have become an
integral part of the transformation of the mental health
service system, as described by the President's New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health.
Our organization brings together agencies, practitioners,
families, persons living with psychiatric disabilities, leaders
in psychiatric rehabilitation education, and research from
major universities around the world, as well as state and
federal government entities that are dedicated to improving the
outcomes in a cost-effective and efficient way.
So this afternoon, I would like to address the services
available to our returning veterans.
Since 1775, the men and women of our armed services have
been fighting for our freedom and our rights, and that allows
us to enjoy our citizenship here in the United States.
And these soldiers go out and fight for us and they risk
their lives to bravely defend our nation, and, unfortunately,
for some, the potential cost is their mental well-being.
USPRA has enjoyed a longstanding relationship with
Department of Veterans Affairs and many veteran mental health
centers across the country.
The principals and practices of psychiatric rehabilitation
have been incorporated into the treatment that is offered to
our returning veterans.
In fact, we have a grown number of credentialed, certified
psychiatric rehabilitation professionals that are working
within the Veterans' Health Administration and we are very
pleased about that.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of funding to provide
evidence-based rehabilitative programs to our returning vets
and it is our belief that these veterans deserve a
comprehensive range of rehabilitative services to assist them
in fully returning to society and citizenship.
Whether they receive these services as a part of vocational
training through the Veterans' Benefits Administration or
directly through the Veterans' Health Administration, the
system has been unable to sufficiently provide this
comprehensive care.
And without these services, isolation and homelessness are
the most likely results.
Psychiatric rehabilitation services are provided alongside
medical or psychiatric treatment or, when appropriate,
supported employment services in conjunction with vocational
training can successfully assist veterans to achieve the goal
of successful reintegration into society.
Of course, returning veterans, they all share the same
goal, which is to be a constructive and productive member of
society, and psychiatric rehabilitation services provide the
support and the tools for these veterans to be able to reenter
the workforce, engage with their families, and to achieve their
dreams of a long and productive life and citizenship.
In the 1970s, the practice of psychiatric rehabilitation
wasn't as widely acknowledged as it is today. So the returning
veterans weren't given as many options for recovery as they
have today.
For some, this led to homelessness, some unemployment. The
American dream that they fought so hard for, it slipped away
from them and it left them with a very uncertain life, many out
on the streets.
Luckily, today, many returning veterans will make the
journey to reclaim citizenship easily and with pride, however,
for some, struggle. And so those are the ones that we are
really concerned about and those with some sort of psychiatric
disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder.
Without these programs, such as supported employment, which
is a proven model for helping individuals with severe
disabilities reenter the labor force, we are afraid the stories
of the past are going to become the stories of the future.
Supported employment is widely considered as an evidence-
based practice, a position that is supported in both quasi-
experimental studies and, also, randomized control studies, as
well.
According to Dr. Gary Bond, specific targeted efforts
towards competitive employment are the most effective than
indirect strategies. The best means to assist those with
psychiatric disabilities is not only their achieving
employment, but also, in maintaining it.
Assisting consumers of mental health services in managing
their illness or improving their social competencies will have
a spread effect on their vocational effectiveness.
In 2003, a study, called the Employment Intervention
Demonstration program, better known as the EIDP, was funded by
SAMHSA, which is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, to examine new ways of enhancing employment
opportunities and the quality of life for mental illness
consumers.
The EIDP study included eight demonstration sites, as well
as a coordinating center, and it found that a 246 percent
increase in those who engaged in paid work after receiving
supported services for 24 months compared to a similar group of
individuals that have the same disabilities, which was part of
the U.S. census taken in 1994 and 1995.
So they compared the two groups.
The participants of the study included individuals with
head injuries, learning disabilities, chronic mental health
conditions, and those diagnosed with attention deficit
disorder, so a number of the same population.
Mr. Edwards. Could I ask you to just wrap up?
Ms. Granahan. Absolutely. I just wanted to say that I am
here today to ask the committee to increase funding for
psychiatric rehabilitation, especially supported employment
services, within Veterans Affairs.
We also believe that there is a need for research, as well.
There hasn't been a great deal of research on these programs
for, and that we ask that you conduct research for the EIDP, a
similar study to the EIDP for those specifically in the
veterans population.
[Prepared statement of Marcie Granahan follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.130

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.131

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.132

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.133

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.134

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, and for your focus on employment
and the importance of that in the process of rehabilitation for
veterans.
Are your members psychiatrists and social workers with a
range of backgrounds? Give me a little better understanding of
your membership, if you don't mind.
Ms. Granahan. Absolutely. About 20 percent to 30 percent of
our membership are from the Veterans' Administration,
practicing in the Veterans' Health Administration.
About another 30 percent are those that are agencies in the
behavioral health care field that are providing services.
We have maybe about 10 percent that are researchers and
educators in psychiatric rehabilitation and about another 5
percent that are those that are state mental health directors
that are out in the field.
Mr. Edwards. Do you think, in terms of our need in the VA
for psychiatrists, do you think loan forgiveness for student
debt would be an attractive magnet to bring people into the VA
care system?
Ms. Granahan. If you will entertain it, I would like to
introduce Sandy Resnick. She is a researcher and probably has
more expertise in this area than I.
She works at Yale. She does have an affiliation, but is not
here today to represent that.
May I bring her up to answer that question?
Mr. Edwards. Quickly.
Ms. Resnick. Absolutely. I think loan repayment programs
are good for all students, quite frankly. It is certainly a
draw. I know that there are many clinical psychologists, as
well, in particular, who specifically seek out positions for
loan payments.
Mr. Edwards. Because we are in a unique situation right now
where we have more money in medical services than we can spend
in hiring new people and DOD and VA are competing for the same
psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and it is a struggle
out here.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Wamp, any questions?
Mr. Wamp. Well, I could talk with her for an hour. I just
want to say that over 20 years ago, I was starting a
psychosocial rehabilitation center in Chattanooga, Tennessee,
called the Ames Center. And so this piece of taking those that
have gone through finding what medications they need, what
treatments they need, and then trying to reintegrate into
society in a productive way is the piece that was missing for
so long.
And we have seen the Ames Center be incredibly successful.
It is supported by our local governments at every level and
just about everybody, the United Way on over, support it.
This is the piece and this is important that you are
advocating that today. That is the part that I picked up on.
And so, clearly, as we can help fill this need, we will be
able to transition these people into a productive life, not
just Medicaid and treat them, but actually allow them to live
productive lives.
Ms. Granahan. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Farr, do you have any questions?
Mr. Farr. No. I didn't hear the testimony, but I am very
sympathetic.
Ms. Granahan. It was wonderful.
Mr. Edwards. It was outstanding.
Great. Thank you very much, Ms. Granahan.
Mr. Farr. We need a lot of psychiatric rehabilitation right
here in our own institution.
Ms. Granahan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for being here.
I would like to now call forward Dr. Steven Breckler.
Dr. Breckler is the Executive Director for Science at the
American Psychological Association, a scientific and
professional organization of more than 148,000 psychologists
and affiliates.
Dr. Breckler, thank you for being here.
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

WITNESS

STEVEN J. BRECKLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE

Statement of Steven J. Breckler

Dr. Breckler. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me,
members of the subcommittee.
I am Steven Breckler. I am Executive Director for Science
at the American Psychological Association.
APA is a scientific and professional association
representing over 148,000 psychologists and affiliates. Many of
these psychologists work within the Department of Veterans
Affairs both as research scientists and as clinicians, all of
them committed to improving the lives of our nation's veterans.
On behalf of APA, thank you for your continued support of
the VA medical and prosthetic research program.
Yet, despite strong congressional support, the
administration has again proposed to cut the overall VA
research account in fiscal year 2009 by $38 million.
This is an 8-percent cut. The President's budget proposes
significant cuts in funding for eight of the VA's 21 designated
research areas, including mental health, central nervous system
injury, acute and traumatic injury, and substance abuse.
This would be in direct opposition to congressional
language which calls for additional research in the areas of
mental health, especially the causes, prevention, mitigation,
treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, what we call PTSD,
the full spectrum of traumatic brain injury, TBI, and substance
abuse.
A strong VA psychological research program provides the
scientific foundation for high quality care within the VA
system.
VA's psychologists play a dual role, providing care for
veterans and conducting research in all areas of health,
including high priority areas especially relevant to veterans,
including mental health, brain injury, substance abuse, aging-
related disorders, and physical and psychosocial
rehabilitation.
In addition, psychologists often receive specialty training
in rehabilitation psychology or in neuropsychology, which helps
to improve the assessment, the treatment and research on many
conditions affecting veterans of the current conflicts.
This includes PTSD, burns, amputation, blindness, spinal
cord injuries, and polytrauma.
The current conflicts have presented new challenges for VA
psychologists, as many veterans with PTSD have post-concussive
symptoms stemming from blast injuries.
Equally important are the positive impacts of psychological
interventions on the care of veterans who suffer from chronic
illnesses, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, HIV, and
chronic pain.
APA joins the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health
Research, the FOVA coalition, in urging Congress to reserve
another round of cuts and to appropriate $555 million in fiscal
year 2009 for medical and prosthetic research.
This recommendation is echoed in the Independent Budget and
the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs views and estimates.
In addition to stellar scientists, cutting-edge research
requires cutting-edge technologies, equipment, and facilities.
VA's minor construction program has not provided the resources
needed to adequately maintain, upgrade and replace aging
research facilities.
APA again joins FOVA in urging Congress to establish and
appropriate a funding stream specifically for research
facilities, with an annual appropriation of $45 million,
beginning in fiscal year 2009.
The care of veterans suffering psychological wounds as a
result of military service is at the heart of the VA's mandate,
which is to care for him who shall have borne the battle.
We must not risk our ability to serve military personnel
and veterans in this time of war.
This is why we urge the committee and your colleagues in
the Senate to reverse proposed cuts to the fiscal year 2009 VA
research account.
Thank you, as always.
[Prepared statement of Steven J. Breckler follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.135

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.136

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.137

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.138

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.139

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.140

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.141

Mr. Edwards. Dr. Breckler, thank you. And let me say that I
applaud the administration for using the new baseline, taking
the emergency funding, that was technically emergency funding
for the 2008 year of $3.6 billion above the president's request
and use that as a new baseline and then added to medical
services.
So they set priorities in medical services, but I think you
will see Congress--I hate to predict, but I think you will see
Congress trying to maintain the increase in VA medical research
passed last year.
We don't do much good to plus up in 1 year and then cut
back by $38 million in the next year.
So we thank you.
I have one question. Is the VA competitive when it comes to
salaries for psychologists, competitive with the private
market?
Dr. Breckler. You know, I don't know the answer. I can
provide the information.
[The information follows:]

APA Response:
For entry level positions in psychology, the VA remains competitive
with the private market. As psychologists within the VA system become
more senior and accomplished, however, the VA becomes increasingly less
competitive with the private sector both in terms of actual salaries
and number of senior grade positions available. This has created a
serious problem for recruiting and retaining psychologists, as many
will see VA as a ``dead-end'' for their careers and will be attracted
to other career options that offer more potential for advancement.
In late 2003, the Hybrid Title 38 system was statutorily expanded
to provide psychologists and a wide range of other non-physician
disciplines some of the same personnel and pay considerations as their
physician counterparts. The Title 38 Hybrid is a combination of Title
38 and Title 5 provisions for non-physician health care professionals
at the VA. Historically, Title 38 was created to alleviate severe
shortages of health care personnel, especially for physicians in VA, by
reducing the bureaucratic red tape of the civil service recruiting and
hiring system and the restrictive compensation practices inherent in
Title 5.
Psychologists remain the only health care providers requiring the
doctorate who are not included in Title 38. The Title 38 Hybrid was
created to provide a middle ground solution for health care
professionals who needed some of the same considerations as their
physician counterparts. The hybrid model requires Professional
Standards Boards to make recommendations on employment, promotion and
grade for psychologists, and is still more subjective than a pure Title
38 program, in which professionals are hired, promoted and retained
based solely on their qualifications.
The implementation of the new Title 38 Hybrid boarding process on
the number of GS-14 and -15 psychologists is currently very mixed. Many
psychologist leaders from facilities throughout the country have
reported that their facilities and Veterans Integrated Service Networks
(VISN) have denied GS-14 and -15 promotions that have been recommended
by the national boarding process.
To address this issue, APA recommends that VACO field instructions
be modified to eliminate any reference to ceilings or restrictions on
the number of GS-15 psychologists within VISNs and facilities. Instead,
VISNs and facilities should be directed to the national psychology
boarding process to determine the appropriate number of GS-14 and -15
psychologists at their locations. VACO Human Resources, Office of
Mental Health Services, and the National Psychology Professional
Standards Board must collaborate on providing clear guidelines for the
preparation of psychologist boarding packets and for proper
construction of documentation.

Dr. Breckler. I think that the private marketplace is
always the competitor, it is the draw for talent and staffing,
and that is true across federal agencies.
So anything that can be done to make it an attractive
option for psychologists and medical professionals and so on to
work is always appreciated.
Mr. Edwards. I am told that for psychiatrists, we are
actually competitive in terms of the salary caps, where it is
hard for orthopedic surgeons and radiologists and others who
are making $400,000 and $500,000 in the private marketplace.
But if you have any data in terms of how competitive we are
on the salaries for psychologists.
Dr. Breckler. We can provide that.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Mental health issues for veterans is very much in
the news today. We never know motives behind the
administration, but sometimes they under-fund areas they think
the Congress believes in.
Again, I think the chairman is right not to speak ahead of
time, but you saw the Congress speak very loudly last week on
mental health parity in a bipartisan way.
I am on that team. I think you will see the Congress band
together on increasing these accounts. To what level, we don't
know. But I think the advocacy and the attention on these
issues now is keen.
So thank you for your testimony. I think it will help us.
Mr. Edwards. It is appreciated. Thank you.
Sam.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Do you represent the whole American Psychological
Association or just those association members that are in VA
employment?
Dr. Breckler. Somewhere in between. APA represents a large
body of psychologists, clinicians, researchers, educators and
so on. We represent far more than just those who are employed
within the VA.
A large portion of our membership works in the VA and some
of those as clinicians and some as researchers.
Mr. Farr. So I thought their number one issue this year was
being able to get authorized as private clinicians to handle
PTSD cases.
These are not VA employees. These are private clinicians.
Dr. Breckler. I don't know much about that particular
issue, if it is the issue of private clinicians as opposed to
those who are working within the VA.
The practice community----
Mr. Farr. But that is what the association came here and
asked for.
Dr. Breckler. Yes, and that is an issue on the practice
side of psychology, the delivery of mental health services, and
it is not something I am prepared to speak to, although I am
happy to----
Mr. Farr. You talked about the--and I am very interested in
this--the medical and prosthetic research.
Are you aware of what DARPA is doing in that area?
Dr. Breckler. I am not aware of the details of the program.
I am aware that research is taking place in many branches of
DOD and DARPA and other segments of the federal infrastructure,
at NIH and so on.
They tend to complement one another. But the issues that
surround the delivery of mental health services to veterans in
particular and the challenges that face veterans in particular
is what the VA is in the best position to address, because that
is where returning vets are seen, that is where the delivery is
provided, and that is where the research is taking place on the
issues that face them in particular.
Mr. Farr. I guess what I missed here is what is missing.
The money?
I didn't know until last year, but I am very impressed that
DARPA is doing incredible kind of breakthrough technology
advancement, but then the problem with prosthetics is that
there is not a lot of market out there, so there is not a lot
of ventured capital into those.
You have got to have this research subsidy by the Federal
Government.
What is missing? Because you asked that there be more money
put into it.
Dr. Breckler. What is missing, sir, is in taking the basic
advances in research and technology and materials and devices
and so on and learning how to translate those advances into
practice, into the delivery to people who need it.
And so when you have basic research devoted to things like
material development and so on, it is sometimes very difficult
to make the leap, to make the step from there to the delivery
of devices and rehabilitation on the front line and actually
delivering that care.
And so you will find branches of research where investments
are being made in really the foundation----
Mr. Farr. Yes, but I am specifically interested in the
prosthetic issue. If you could check in with where that missing
link is, because DARPA was here and the people they were here
with are all veterans.
So there is something going on and I am curious.
If there is something missing, I would like to see if we
can fix it. Sometimes, it just needs collaboration. If you have
any knowledge of that, please let me know.
Dr. Breckler. I appreciate the interest. I will look into
it and get back to you on it.
[The information follows:]

APA Response:
Both the VA and DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, have active research programs seeking to advance the science
and technology related to prosthetic devices. It is APA's understanding
that the VA and DARPA, along with the National Institutes of Health,
maintain collaboration between scientists working in this area to
leverage funding and key developments while avoiding duplication.

Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much.
Let me ask staff. Do I understand we have a single vote?
Rather than push the next witness, why don't we just go vote
and come back?
We are in recess for about 2 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Abate, good to have you here, sir.
Mr. Abate. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Is that the correct pronunciation, Abate?
Mr. Abate. Yes.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Paul Abate is Vice President of Government Services and
Business Development of Champion Homes, and we appreciate, Mr.
Abate, your being here and I recognize you for 5 minutes.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

CHAMPION HOMES

WITNESS

PAUL ABATE, Vice President of Gov't Services and Business Dev.,
Champion Homes

Statement of Paul Abate

Mr. Abate. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Paul
Abate. I am Vice President of Government Services and Business
Development for Champion Homes.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on
behalf of Champion and the modular building industry.
Tom Hardiman, Executive Director of the Modular Building
Industry, is in the audience today and joins me in support of
this testimony.
To be clear, we are not here before you today in search of
funds for any particular project.
Rather, we hope to educate members of the committee as to
the benefits and advances in modular construction and offer our
industry as a solution for the complicated future facing
military housing and other mission-related facility
requirements.
As the military attempts to update its fighting style and
organizational structure, the impact on housing, operational
facilities and infrastructure cannot be overemphasized.
As this committee knows all too well, annual funding
uncertainties make the process of construction planning and
implementation even more complicated.
For these reasons, modular construction can be an important
part of the solution due to its ability to deliver quality
products in unprecedented timelines.
Unfortunately, certain military branches have been slow to
embrace modern modular technology. We recognize that change
takes time and our military leaders are appropriately focused
on fighting wars abroad.
However, the challenges associated with the mission
facility as it relates to BRAC, global re-basing, and grow-the-
force require strategic planning.
After several years of educating leaders in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, our industry has recently seen improvement
in opportunities with the Army. The Air Force and the Navy have
not yet favored the modular approach to date and even with
recent improvements within the Army, much more can be done to
incorporate modular construction.
We are not seeking extraordinary treatment during the
contracting process. Conventional construction may very well be
the best option in many instances. We do, however, seek a level
playing field between the modular and onsite construction
industries in future construction efforts.
In short, we encourage branches of the military to remove
certain impediments to modular construction, ensure that the
modular solution is viewed as a viable alternative when
establishing the future standards via the U.S. Army Corps
Centers of Standardization and/or any other military agency
standards and to include the modular industry as an early entry
partner in planning, discussions, meetings and events.
The stereotype of modular construction as a trailer park is
dated and completely inaccurate.
Today's modular building solutions are models of efficiency
and quality. New technology has allowed modular manufacturers
to build almost any style of home from a simple rancher to a
highly customized contemporary mansion or to build commercial
buildings such as banks, schools, hotels, condominiums, and
even foreign embassies.
Modular construction can meet these demanding timeframes
and provide quality homes and facilities for soldiers and their
families that are indistinguishable from those built onsite.
Time is the single biggest advantage of modular
construction over site-built construction. Building
construction can begin at the same time or even before site
work is completed, reducing construction schedules by as much
as 50 percent.
While it is hard to determine theoretical cost savings
without specific plans, the old adage, time is money, is
certainly true.
In previous discussions, with military leaders, we have
been asked about the strength and durability of modular
construction. Modular buildings are built to the same codes and
from the same materials as permanent site-built construction
and they offer the same features as site-built construction.
We also believe that utilizing modular construction methods
is more environmentally friendly than site-built. We are
quantifying specific environmental benefits of modular
construction and we will be happy to share the results with
this committee as soon as those reports become available.
In short, modular construction is much different than it
was 15 years ago and we continue to evolve. The products are
better. Fabrication technology has improved and we are faster
than conventional construction.
All we seek is a level playing field during future military
construction opportunities and we stand ready to assist our
troops, their families and the nation.
In conclusion, we appreciate the committee's time and
attention to this issue. We have submitted potential report
language for consideration and look forward to working with you
as the 2009 appropriations bill is assembled.
We would be happy to answer any questions.
And this is Tom Hardiman behind me from the MBI, if there
are any questions from an industry standpoint.
[Prepared statement of Paul Abate follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.142

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.143

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.144

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Abate, and you, too, Mr.
Hardiman, for being here.
Could I just ask, do you have any kind of list of how many
different Army installations you are building homes or other
facilities for?
Mr. Abate. I don't have a written list. We can get one. We
have completed projects at Fort Bliss. There is some work going
on right now at Fort Carson.
Mr. Edwards. Housing at Bliss?
Mr. Abate. Barracks work, both temporary and permanent, was
done at Bliss.
Carson, Fort Sam, Fort Knox, all have either temporary or
permanent barracks right now.
We at Champion have completed a large privatization effort
up at Fort Lewis. So that was for off-base housing through a
developer.
Those are the ones that come to mind right now. But, again,
we can put a list together and get that to the committee.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.145

Mr. Edwards. I have got to ask this question. What was the
formaldehyde problem with the homes tied into Katrina?
Mr. Abate. Tom, do you want to----
Mr. Hardiman. I knew that was going to come up.
Mr. Edwards. For the record, if you would identify yourself
and who you represent.
Mr. Farr. The reason it is an issue is this committee asked
the Department of Veterans' Affairs to look into FEMA to see if
we could take the excess trailers and use them for housing. We
had 250,000 vets who were sleeping in the streets.
And if the government owns a lot of excess trailers that
aren't full of formaldehyde, we wanted to use them.
Mr. Edwards. We were talking about this literally as we
were walking back down from the last vote.
Mr. Hardiman. Again, my name is Tom Hardiman, and I am the
director of the Modular Building Institute. We are the trade
association that represents the non-residential side of the
modular industry.
And I know the modular industry is a very small niche as it
is, but there is a residential side and a non-residential side,
and there are two or three associations running around
representing those.
We, as an industry, have been up on the Hill a few times
trying to educate members, particularly in Louisiana, the
Louisiana delegation, about the formaldehyde issue.
On the non-residential side of the equation, there is no
HUD code equivalent building code. It has to be built to
whatever the local building codes are. Wherever that building
is going, it has to meet those local building codes, no
different than any school or any bank or any church that is
built there.
On the residential side, there is a HUD code standard for
the manufactured housing and they do have--it is my
understanding that they do have acceptable levels of
formaldehyde that are allowed to be in those buildings.
I think the problem with the FEMA travel-trailers was that
a lot of those are travel-trailers and RVs and were never
intended to be lived in and do not have--were not built to a
building code.
So there is no formaldehyde requirement or limit in those
types of products, and, unfortunately, people have been living
in those for far too long.
Mr. Abate. Back as far as 1980, if I could interject, the
modular industry does comply with the reduced formaldehyde
standard in all products that go into--the various components
that go into the buildings.
That is not true, as far as I understand, with the RV
industry.
A lot of times, when the word ``trailers'' flashes up on
``CNN'' at the bottom of the screen, we kind of all get lumped
together. But we do have specific requirements on our side of
the industry that we adhere to as opposed to the RV side of the
industry.
Mr. Edwards. That helps. Thank you for that answer.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. The diligence wasn't done by the Department of
Homeland Security then ahead of moving those trailers into the
Katrina zone, bottom line.
Mr. Abate. Well, I guess a lot of that was basically due to
the speed of the need.
Mr. Wamp. And that is when mistakes are made. We have done
it a bunch of times just while the three of us have been here.
Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. I have a lot of interest in this, because I agree
with you on all the things you said about the advantages.
This is a suggestion. When I was a county supervisor in
California, the pressure was to prevent trailer parks from
coming in, first, because they were classified as a mobile home
and didn't have to pay property taxes.
Secondly, they were not built that well and, as you know,
over time, would deteriorate. And the park owners had the
problem of getting rid of these things and, obviously, also
pressuring people out so that a new unit would come in. And so
you were sort of displacing elderly people.
So you had a social issue and a tax issue.
And it seems to me what we have really seen in the modular
industry take off is in this commercial use for school
classrooms, for, obviously, office space, and I know we have
used them in the military where they are usually used for
office or storage space, not a living space.
You are talking about getting into the RCI projects, the
housing construction.
Do you have any modular home developments that are just
state-of-the-art? Because I think that is where the sales have
to come.
Fighting up through local government is going to be very
difficult for the reasons I talked about. It is going to be
hard to change them and their codes are changing faster than
you can adopt them.
I think that this is an image issue that has got to be
overcome.
Mr. Abate. I think there are two aspects that you are
touching on. Stigma is definitely a word that we--when people
see trailer, they think of construction trailer. They think of
that single-wide that sits in the mobile home park.
The modular industry has evolved quite a bit in technology
over the last 10-15 years. A lot of the stuff that we are doing
today is IBC coded. So it is not HUD. It is a business code
rather than a residential code.
The technology to move to two-story and three-story office
buildings, very common now. Part of the work that we have done
in the industry for the military has involved battalion and
brigade headquarters buildings as part of some of the BCTs down
at Fort Bliss, VMS administration storage buildings have been
part of that, as well.
So there has been commercial application that has also
already been done for the military.
We at Champion have been a residential company for most of
our history, with a scattering now of commercial, and we are
now moving more toward that more commercial element to
basically diversify the buildings.
In single-wide, you are talking about, as far as HUD code
and buildings, a drop in quantity. I think 397,000--produced
about 4 or 5 years ago--are down to 97,000 produced last year.
Part of that is the housing market in general and the
condition of--for that. Financing, obviously, is part of it.
But I think there is also a move more toward the modular
home that you are basically describing as the house that you
live in.
It is a more sophisticated product. And these are some of
the pictures of modular facilities that we have in a handout
and we will be happy to hand you a copy.
Technology is getting to the point now where we have an
operation in the U.K. that is actually doing 17-story high-rise
modular buildings, and we hope to introduce that technology in
the U.S. within the next 12 months.
So the industry itself is definitely evolving more toward
the modular concept and, I think, away from the trailer park,
away from HUD, and more toward IBC and IRC coded buildings.
And you don't have as much play with that local inspector
anymore now, because most of the states have adopted the
international codes, which gives you a little more uniformity,
gives you a much better inspection and QC----
Mr. Farr. Do you have any military residential housing that
is in that?
Mr. Abate. Fort Lewis is actually a 2.5 year project that
we have done in conjunction with a developer and the Fort Bragg
project was actually two-story barracks units. There were 63
buildings done last year by Champion.
Tom, I don't know if you have any of the other industry
numbers that have also----
Mr. Hardiman. I do. If you would like, I have a copy of our
collection of modular construction, our annual report, and it
has representative pictures and it, as well, has a lot of the
statistics about the non-residential side of the business.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.146

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.147

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.148

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.149

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.150

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.151

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.152

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.153

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.154

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.155

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.156

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.157

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.158

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.159

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.160

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.161

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.162

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.163

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.164

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.165

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.166

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.167

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.168

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.169

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.170

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.171

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.172

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.173

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.174

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.175

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.176

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.177

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.178

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.179

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.180

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.181

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.182

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.183

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.184

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.185

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.186

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.187

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.188

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.189

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.190

Mr. Hardiman. There are any number of multi, concrete
buildings that are out there. It is not a new technology. In
fact, there is a 19-story hotel in San Antonio that was built
in the 1960s using modular construction.
Virtually every other industry in our country has already,
to some degree, except construction and--a lot of it is the
stigma and an image issue, but we are trying to break through
that stigma and make some agencies realize, if time is a
concern, this is certainly a viable option.
Mr. Farr. And it is getting the military away from that
idea of build this way because we always have. And that seems
to be a lot of the feedback that we get from some of the
military agencies.
Mr. Hardiman. The devil we know.
Mr. Edwards. We have seen that inertia.
Sam, any additional questions?
Mr. Farr. No. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. If not, thank you both for your testimony.
Thank you for being here.
Members, we now have our friend, Steve Robertson, who we
know has been director of the national legislative division of
the American Legion since 1993.
He served in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 as a military
policeman and, prior to this, he served 12 years in the Air
Force.
We thank you for that service. But we all know him as a
tremendous leader and voice for veterans.
Steve, it is good to have you here. Thank you for your
partnership over the years, but, in particular, last year, as
we were working together to try to get the kind of historic
increase in funding that our veterans deserved.
The American Legion and you, representing the Legion, were
a terribly important part of that partnership. Thank you for
that effort.
It is good to have you here today. Your full testimony will
be put into the record and I would like to recognize you now.

Statement of Steve Robertson

Mr. Robertson. Thank you, sir. And, gentlemen, before I
even start the testimony, I want to thank both of you for the
ceremony today in remembrance of the war.
For me, it was very personal. I lost a cousin last year. He
is buried in Waco, Staff Sergeant Chris Higgin. And then my son
is over there right now. Matter of fact, my son landed on May
22nd in Iraq for his second tour. That was the day our cousin
was killed, and my son is due back in May. So we are hoping for
a speedy return.
Mr. Edwards. Both he and you are in our prayers.
Mr. Robertson. Thank you. And please pass on to the
leadership that we appreciate it very much.
Mr. Edwards. We will do that.
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

THE AMERICAN LEGION

WITNESS

STEVE ROBERTSON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION
Mr. Robertson. First of all, I want to thank you for
allowing me to testify today. Last year, you guys did a
tremendous job. We really appreciate the appropriations package
that you put together.
The final appropriation was the numbers we were looking
for. We greatly appreciate that.
Clearly, for decades, this was the first time, at least in
my memory, that the VA budget met or exceeded what the American
Legion and many of the other veterans' organizations had asked
for and it is because of your leadership that VA now faces a
paradigm change, a significant paradigm change.
For years, they have been asked to do more with less. And
now they are being asked to do more with the resources they
need, and we greatly appreciate that.
This change in philosophy about the resources is very, very
critical. The American Legion has a team that goes out and
visits VA facilities around the country and we kept hearing the
same things every time we would visit--we are short of people,
we are waiting for replacement of equipment or new equipment,
we are waiting in renovations.
I think Dr. Brown spoke to that today in his testimony. And
it was always the demand for services just seems to overtake
us. We have the inability to meet the demand.
Historically, VA leadership was asked to achieve management
efficiencies that were never specifically identified. As a
result of that, when we went to the field, we saw things like
hiring delays. They weren't hiring freezes, but they were
delays or there were equipment backlogs that were very
noticeable, delay in maintenance, the manipulation of
appointments, making appointments and then canceling them, then
making them and then canceling them, then making them and
canceling them, and other decisions that we believe were driven
by limited resources and not sound management practices.
In fact, many of these were peacetime decisions that have
had their ramifications in this wartime environment, that the
patient population has changed significantly.
The transformation of the VA health care system is very,
very impressive. Two decades ago, when I joined the staff of
the American Legion, most of the complaints we got were about
the quality of care.
Today, the complaints we are getting are ``Why can't I get
into the system?'' It is the veterans that are locked out
because of their income level, not because of their service.
The VA claims adjudication process, on the other hand,
needs a similar transformation that the health care industry
has gone through, but it can't be achieved without the
resources.
Recently, various commissions have made recommendations on
how to improve the process. Some of these recommendations can
be achieved administratively and then the others are going to
require some congressional action.
However, all of these changes are going to require the
resources to aggressively attack the backlog problem.
The American Legion believes the solution rests in
additional staffing, in training, both the initial and the
continuing education, and technology.
Mr. Chairman, the American Legion understands the budget
process and greatly appreciates the efforts of you and your
colleagues, but I must stress the importance of three necessary
elements in the VA budget--sufficiency, timeliness and
predictability.
We understand that the federal budget process is more
complicated than explained in the civics textbooks, but these
three aspects are critical for proper management of the VA
system, especially the VA health care system.
I wanted to bring up two specific things. The System Worth
Saving Task Force, the team that we have that goes out and
visits facilities, this year, are going to focus primarily on
long-term care.
Last year, we put a lot of emphasis on VA outpatient or the
vets' centers, but this year, we are going to look at the long-
term care. Mr. Jones with NAUS brought up the comment about the
extended care facilities and the amount of money they were
asking for.
One thing that people forget is this is a joint agreement
between the states and VA. VA builds the facility, but the
state assumes the responsibility for it after that point.
Well, right now, a lot of states are going through
budgetary shortfalls and the money that has been said, ``Yes,
we will commit this to a state veterans' home,'' if it is
delayed year after year after year after year, it is very tough
to convince those states to keep that money in the lock for us.
So that is one thing we are really concerned about.
When I was talking about the additional staff hiring for
the VBA, one of the things we have really been trying to push
is that they look to hire some of our veterans that are coming
off of active duty, especially the ones that have serious
disabilities that are going through vocational rehabilitation.
They just seem like logical candidates to be working in the
claims adjudication process.
Mr. Chairman, the American Legion continues to work with
you and your colleagues to make sure that the veterans of this
nation, past, present and the ones that we are going to be
getting, receive the earned benefits from a grateful nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Prepared statement of Steve Robertson follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.191

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.192

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.193

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.194

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.195

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.196

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.197

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.198

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.199

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.200

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.201

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.202

Mr. Edwards. Steve, thank you very, very much.
We hear the message about sufficiency. We have done pretty
well on that. Timeliness and predictability, we have got to be
sure we do a better job on those and we are going to push for
that.
I had a conversation with some people today about the
timeliness of the fiscal year 2009 VA Military Construction
budget. So if the other subcommittee budgets get caught up and
fight to the White House, I am, one, going to push very hard to
see if we can't get the VA Appropriation Bill passed on a
bipartisan basis and down to the president and hopefully
signed.
We understand that not getting the money in a timely manner
makes it more difficult to spend it as efficiently as we
otherwise could.
Mr. Robertson. There is one other area that I think maybe
it is time to take a look at, and that is the VERA formula. I
think there were a couple of comments made about VERA today,
the way that the money is distributed out to the facilities,
because the formula works to get the money to the VISN
director.
Once it gets to the VISN director, then it is subjective as
to where the money goes.
With the offsets of third-party collections, a lot of
times, facilities that do a good job collecting third-party
reimbursements, they are rewarded with a reduction in the
amount of discretionary money they are getting and they get an
increase in the amount that they have got to collect through
third-party reimbursements.
And that is kind of like you do a good job and you get
slapped around. What we would really encourage is to think
about this offset. The money that is coming in from third-party
reimbursements is really money above and beyond what we need to
take care of, the patients that VA is focused on, i.e., the
ones that are entitled to care, the priorities one through six.
One year, they didn't even calculate the sevens and eights
at all in their budgets and we were short of money.
Well, now they are counting the sevens and they are really
not counting the eights. Many of the eights are Medicare
eligible. So you can't collect from Medicare.
So you are already working at a deficit that you will never
be able to achieve that money from.
So I guess our concern is if we give them the discretionary
money and then give them the goal of collecting, at least you
are not penalizing them for what they do collect and it should
be a surplus that they are going to get.
Mr. Farr. What would you do with the surplus?
Mr. Robertson. I would plough it back into the system.
Mr. Farr. But not deduct it from the next budget?
Mr. Robertson. No, sir. Again, the money that--the priority
group veterans one through six are the ones that the government
says we are going to take care of your health care and we also
took on the obligation, and justifiably so, of all the new
recently separated veterans from 2 years to 5 years.
The recently separated veterans are now getting access to
health care.
So that is an additional obligation.
Mr. Farr. Regardless of income.
Mr. Robertson. Regardless of income. And after their 5
years is up, they are going to be reassigned to whatever
priority group they belong to. So some of them will go into
eights, which brings up another very controversial issue.
Of the recently separated kids that are--are being able to
go into the system. A guy that fought at the Battle of the
Bulge, landed at Normandy, liberated the concentration camps
can't enroll today because of his income.
So we are telling one guy that ``We thank you for your
service because you fought in Iraq and Afghanistan,'' and then
we are looking at the greatest generation and saying, ``Sorry,
buddy, you made a successful transition, you are worth money
now, you can't even come to the system,'' which is a travesty.
Some of these guys, they have paid their debt to the
country many, many times not only through their military
service, but as a taxpayer. They have paid Medicare all their
life and now they want to come to the VA because they know the
reputation of VA's quality of care, and we are saying, ``Sorry,
see you later, go someplace else,'' and that is wrong.
Mr. Edwards. Steve, if your schedule permits, I would like
you to stay here, let the VSOs that are part of the Independent
Budget make their presentation, and then I would like to ask
you to then come back up so we can ask questions.
We have held you guys until last so that we didn't have to
keep you just to 5 minutes and one question, because you guys
are such an important partner in this whole effort together
with our subcommittee.
So would you mind?
Mr. Robertson. We are actually friends.
Mr. Edwards. I know you are. I know you are.
Thank you, and we will have you come back up.
We have got Ray Kelley, Kerry Baker, Carl Blake, and
Christopher Needham.
Do I understand Dennis did not want to come before this
subcommittee, that he decided to get pneumonia? So tell him we
have had people go to a lot of trouble not to have to talk to
us, but he is the first pneumonia case.
Mr. Robertson. Well, Mr. Chairman, if it is any
consolation--was just hit in a car wreck last week and--his kid
and his wife are at home sick, too. So he probably couldn't be
here either.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you all for being here.
We all know you and have had the privilege of working with
you, but, for the record, let me read the brief bios.
Ray Kelley is the National Legislative Director for AMVETS,
served 6 years in the Marine Corps and continues to serve in
the Army Reserve.
Kerry Baker, Disabled American Veterans, was appointed
Associate National Legislative Director of the DAV in 2007. He
is a service-connected disabled veteran of the Persian Gulf
War.
Carl Blake, with Paralyzed Veterans of America, is the
National Legislative Director of that organization and has
appeared before the subcommittee in that capacity several
times.
And then Christopher Needham is Senior Legislative
Associate for the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
We thank you all for being here.
I would like you to make your presentations. If you would
identify yourself before you speak, so we can transcribe that
testimony accurately.
And as you have heard, we will accept all of your testimony
into the record.
So if you could keep each of your remarks to 5 minutes, we
would appreciate that, and then we will ask Steve to come back
up and we will have an ongoing discussion here.
Carl, are you going to start?
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

WITNESS

CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

Statement of Carl Blake

Mr. Blake. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Farr, Mr. Wamp, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today.
I was one of the four co-authors of the Independent Budget.
PVA is pleased to be here to present our views on the fiscal
year 2009 Department of Veterans' Affairs health care budget.
PVA, along with AMVETS, DAV, Veterans of Foreign Wars, is
proud to come before you this year to present the 22nd edition
of the Independent Budget.
I would first like to extend a sincere thanks to all the
members of the subcommittee for the outstanding achievements
that you recognized last year in providing record funding
levels for the VA that, without the cooperation of everyone on
this subcommittee, would never have been achieved.
Your actions certainly give us hope that the VA will
continue to receive an adequate budget in the future and be
able to truly meet the needs of the veterans who are returning
from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who have served in
the past, as well.
For fiscal year 2009, the administration requests $41.2
billion for veterans' health care. This includes approximately
$2.5 billion for medical care collections.
Although this represents another step forward in achieving
adequate funding for the VA, it still falls short of the
recommendations of the Independent Budget.
For fiscal year 2009, the Independent Budget recommends
approximately $42.8 billion for total medical care budget
authority, an increase of about $3.7 billion over the 2008
appropriated level and approximately $1.6 billion above the
administration's requested level for fiscal year 2009.
Perhaps the single biggest difference between our health
care recommendation and the VA's is the projected increase in
new users for fiscal year 2009. We are particularly concerned
that the VA's budget might underestimate the number of OIF/OEF
users once again.
The administration projects that only 39,000 new OIF/OEF
users will enter the system in fiscal year 2009. The
Independent Budget projects about 85,000.
Our policy initiatives include $325 million for improvement
of mental health services and TBI care, $250 million for long-
term care services, $325 million for funding the force mission,
that includes emergency preparedness and homeland security, and
about $100 million to support centralized prosthetics funding.
For medical facilities, the Independent Budget recommends
approximately $4.6 billion. This amount includes an additional
$250 million for nonrecurring maintenance for the VA to begin
addressing the massive backlog of infrastructure needs.
Again, I would like to thank the subcommittee for
recognizing this need last year and adding a lot of additional
funding to the nonrecurring maintenance accounts.
We are also pleased that the administration this year chose
to request a more adequate level of funding for nonrecurring
maintenance initiatives.
Although not proposed to have a direct impact on veterans'
health care, we are deeply disappointed the administration once
again recommends the index enrollment fee and the increase in
the prescription drug co-payments.
Although the VA does not overtly explain this proposal in
its budget submission, past estimates have included about
200,000 veterans that would leave the system and more than a
million who would choose not to enroll.
We would hope that Congress would once again reject this,
as you have done in the past.
For medical and prosthetic research, the Independent Budget
is recommending $555 million. This represents a $75 million
increase over the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level and about
$113 million over the administration's request for fiscal year
2009.
We are certainly concerned that the administration deeply
slashes the funding level that the appropriations committee
provided for for medical and prosthetic research last year.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as you know, the whole community of
VSOs has been working on improved funding mechanisms for VA
health care. However, we know that there is not necessarily the
kind of support we would like for mandatory funding for VA
health care, but there are alternatives that we believe could
meet our goals of timely, sufficient and predictable funding.
We are working on a proposal right now that would change
VA's medical care appropriation to an advanced appropriation,
which would provide approval 1 year in advance, thereby
guaranteeing its timeliness.
Furthermore, by adding transparency to VA's health care
projection enrollee model, we can focus a debate on the most
actuarially sound projection of veterans' health care costs to
ensure sufficiency.
Under this proposal, Congress would retain its discretion
to approve appropriations, retain all of its oversight
authority, and, most importantly, there would be no PAYGO
implications.
We ask the subcommittee to consider language in its
committee report that would call for either mandatory funding
or this new advanced appropriations approach to take the
uncertainties out of the health care for our nation's disabled
veterans.
We look forward to the opportunity to discuss this proposal
further with the committee staff.
Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I would be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
[Prepared statement of Carl Blake follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.203

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.204

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.205

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.206

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.207

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.208

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.209

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.210

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.211

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.212

Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

WITNESS

KERRY BAKER, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

Statement of Kerry Baker

Mr. Baker. My name is Kerry Baker, for the record, with the
DAV.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
I will focus my testimony on understaffing and the VBA
claims backlog.
Without a doubt, the claims backlog is growing. Rather than
making headway and overcoming the delays in the claims
processing, VA continues to lose ground on its claims backlog.
According to VA's weekly workload report as of January 26,
2008, just prior to us submitting similar testimony to the
House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs, there were
over 816,000 pending claims, which include appeals.
By February 22, 2008, there were over 831,000 pending
claims in VA, an increase of over 15,000 claims in less than 1
month.
In the 3 years from the end of 2004 to the end of 2007, the
total number of pending claims rose by over 188,000, for an
average of 63,000 additional pending claims per year.
VA's pending claims rose by over 21,500 just from the end
of 2007 to February 22, 2008, in less than 2 months.
At this rate, VA's caseload will pass one million claims in
3 years.
With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still raging,
together with the mass exodus from military service that
usually occurs following cessation of combat operations, new
and reopened claims are likely--claims received by VA are more
likely to increase than decrease.
VBA's new claims per year also continue to increase from
one year to the next.
VA's 2009 budget submission reveals that VA added 277,000
new beneficiaries to its C&P rolls in 2007. The significance of
these new beneficiaries is that a large portion of VA's
workload increase via new claims each year are reopened claims
rather than claims from veterans who have never filed for VA
benefits.
Therefore, the increase in brand new beneficiaries into the
system will inevitably increase further the number of reopened
claims, ultimately causing the total number of claims received
by VA each year to continue growing at faster rates.
The complexity of VA's workload also continues to grow.
Veterans are claiming a greater number of disabilities and the
nature of those disabilities, such as post-traumatic stress
disorder, complex traumatic brain injuries, diabetes and
related conditions, and environmental diseases, are becoming
more complex.
For example, the number of cases with eight or more
disabilities increased by 135 percent from under 22,000 in 2000
and over 51,000 in 2006. Such complex cases will only further
slow down VBA's claims process.
Based on our estimated receipt of 920,000 claims in fiscal
year 2009, Congress should authorize 12,184 FTE for fiscal year
2009. That number equates to 83 cases per year per each direct
program FTE.
We realize that 83 claims per FTE is below VA's historical
projections per FTE. Nonetheless, an infusion of new personnel
into VBA's workforce will certainly result in a reduced output
per FTE for a significant length of time.
These newly allotted employees will be unable to process
claims at rates equal to experienced employees. Additionally,
senior staff within VBA will be forced to frequently halt
production of their own workload in order to provide the
necessary training to inexperienced employees.
Therefore, the reduction in workload per FTE is
unavoidable.
Mr. Chairman, I have only highlighted a few of the many
important issues contained in our Independent Budget for fiscal
year 2009. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or
the committee may have.
[Prepared statement of Kerry Baker follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.213

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.214

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.215

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.216

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.217

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.218

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.219

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.220

Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
We will defer the questions until you are all finished with
the testimony.
Chris, do you want to go next?
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

WITNESS

CHRISTOPHER NEEDHAM, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT

Statement of Chris Needham

Mr. Needham. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my
name is Chris Needham. I am with the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
And on behalf of the 2.3 million men and women of the VFW,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
The administration's fiscal year 2009 budget request for
major and minor construction will not meet the needs of
America's veterans.
The VA budget is about half of what last year's funded
level was. The president's request for major construction is
$581.6 million for fiscal year 2009. This is a dramatic cut
from last year's level of $1.1 billion. The total level of
funding that the IB is recommending is about $1.257 billion,
and we feel that would allow VA to fill in some of the large
construction backlog that is building up.
While the eight major construction projects called for in
the budget request may seem like a lot, the funding levels
requested for them are just a tiny blip in the overall cost. If
the president's budget is enacted as is, there will be a
backlog of over $2 billion when VA begins the planning process
for next year's budget.
Fully funding construction is necessary to ensure that VA
properly reinvests in its aging physical infrastructure, where
the average age of a VA facility is well over 50 years.
On minor construction, we are also concerned with the
proposed slashing of the budget there, as well. For fiscal year
2009, the recommendation is just $329 million, which is over
$300 billion below last year's funding level. The Independent
Budget requested $621 million.
In its 5-year capital plan, VA has a list of 145 minor
construction projects targeted for fiscal year 2009. Based on
the average project cost for minor construction projects from
past years, VHA would require a budget of over $800 million--
requested.
Minor construction is important because part of that goes
to filling some of the maintenance needs. Every year, VA
performs a facilities condition assessment which looks at the
maintenance projects that are needed to keep the buildings up
and running and provide health care in clean, safe and
efficient places.
VA has identified a backlog of between $4 billion and $5
billion in its FCA maintenance needs and a portion of the minor
construction goes to fund those. But the main way in which the
FCA backlog is funded is through nonrecurring maintenance.
As Carl mentioned earlier, we are pleased to see that the
administration has requested $802 million for nonrecurring
maintenance, but that is just the first step.
It is certainly in line with what we have asked for, but
the $800 million is basically a minimum of what is needed to
fund current levels. If VA really needs to dip into that
backlog, they are going to need an increase in that account, as
well.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Veterans of Foreign Wars follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.221

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.222

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.223

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.224

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.225

Mr. Edwards. Chris, thank you.
Ray.
----------

Thursday, March 13, 2008.

AMVETS

WITNESS

RAYMOND C. KELLEY, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

Statement of Raymond C. Kelley

Mr. Kelley. Ray Kelley from AMVETS. Mr. Chairman, thank you
for holding this hearing today.
As a co-author of the Independent Budget, AMVETS is pleased
to give our best estimates of resources necessary to carry out
the responsibilities of the National Cemetery Administration.
The administration has requested approximately $181 million
in discretionary funding for operations and maintenance of NCA.
Of that number, $105 million is dedicated for major
construction, $25 million for minor construction, as well as
$32 million for state cemetery grants program.
In contrast, the Independent Budget recommends Congress
provide $251.9 million for the operational requirements of the
NCA, a figure that includes $50 million toward the national
shrine initiative.
In total, our funding recommendations represent a $71
million increase over the administration's request.
The national cemetery system continues to be seriously
challenged. Adequate resources in developed acreage must keep
pace with the increasing workload.
Currently, there are 13 national cemeteries in some phase
of development or expansion. The administration's budget
provides funding for only three of these, while the NCA expects
to perform nearly 115,000 interments in 2009, an 8.7 percent
increase from this current year.
Congress must also address the needs of gravesite
renovation and upkeep. Though there has been noteworthy
progress made over the years, the NCA is still struggling to
remove decades of blemishes and scars from military burial
grounds across the country.
To date, $99 million has been invested in restoring the
appearance of our national cemeteries, completing nearly 300 of
the 928 deficiencies identified in 2002.
Therefore, the Independent Budget recommends a $50 million
commitment in fiscal year 2009, and we continue to recommend
that Congress establish a 5-year $250 million plan for the
national shrine, so NCA can fully restore the appearance of the
national cemeteries to reflect the utmost dignity and respect
for those who are interred.
The state cemetery grant program is an important component
of NCA. It has greatly assisted states in increasing burial
services to veterans, especially those living in areas where
national cemeteries are underserved.
NCA admits only 80 percent of those requesting interment
meet the 170,000 veteran within a 75-mile radius threshold that
they have set for themselves. This reemphasizes the importance
of state grant program.
Since 1978, the VA has more than doubled the acreage
available to accommodate more than a 100 percent increase in
the burials through these grants that the states have
established.
And states have identified that they want to establish 14
new cemeteries over the next 4 years.
Therefore, to provide for these cemeteries and to reach
NCA's threshold goal, the Independent Budget requests $42
million for State Grant Cemetery Program in fiscal year 2009.
Also, the Independent Budget strongly recommends Congress
review the current burial benefits that have seriously eroded
in value over the years.
While these benefits were never intended to cover the full
cost of burial, they now pay for just 6 percent of what they
covered when the program was established in 1973.
The Independent Budget requests that plot allowance be
increased from $300 to $750, to increase the allowance for
service-connected deaths from $2,000 to $4,100, and increase
the non-service-connected burial benefits from $300 to $1,270.
These increases would proportionately bring the benefits
back to their original value.
The NCA honors more than 2.8 million veterans with a final
resting place that commemorates their service to this nation.
Our national cemeteries are more than a final resting place.
They are a memorial to those who died in our defense and
hallowed ground for those who survived.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I am willing
to take any questions at this time.
[Prepared statement of Raymond C. Kelley follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.226

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.227

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.228

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.229

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.230

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.231

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.232

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.233

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754C.234

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Ray.
Thank you all for your excellent testimony.
Steve, why don't you come back up?
As we ask questions, for the transcriber, if you would just
mention your name once again so they can associate your name in
the record with your comments.
Let me just quickly say one of the things we have got to do
in the immediate short run is try to get $17 million into the
American Battle Monuments Commission budget for fiscal year
2008.
With the drop in the value of the dollar, they have no
reserve funds. They literally have to take $17 million, I
believe that is the correct number, out of their budget in
maintaining the cemeteries that they have responsibility for.
So I hope we can do something quickly on that.
Let me start out by asking one question and then I want to
recognize Mr. Wamp and then Mr. Farr.
On the claims backlog, Kerry, you focused on that. What is
your projection? The number, I am told, is that our
appropriation for fiscal year 2008 and the supplemental for the
Iraq war that was passed last year allows for the hiring of
3,100 additional claims processors.
I don't know where the VA is in that process, although
Admiral Cooper had told me that they were moving ahead
aggressively.
Once those 3,100 are hired, do we then begin to bring down
the backlog or is the increased number of claims going up so
dramatically that we are on a treadmill here?
Mr. Baker. Without that increase in staffing, I think that
we will see exponential increases in claims, for a multitude of
reasons.
Without the increase in additional staffing, we are going
to see exponential increases in claims. The staffing is not
going to help us probably immediately, because in the claims
business in the VA, you literally have--once you set foot in
the shoes of a rating specialist, you don't come in the door in
VA as a ratings specialist.
There is a couple of year's process of training to get up
to the point where you can really start handling cases in a
sufficient manner.
So that number of staff is initially going to draw away
from the resources, but that is not going to be a permanent
situation and I think you are going to start seeing this claims
backlog going down a little bit more and faster as these guys
get up to speed.
I think the things that we don't know is how many new
claims we are going to keep getting into the system. Most of
the reopened claims you have each year are people that are
already in the system.
So each year we are adding 250,000, 300,000 brand new
people into the system. How that is going to affect the overall
level of new claims filed each year on people currently in the
system, I don't think we can tell. But I think----
Mr. Farr. There are several steps to the claims process.
There is one step that is just filing the claim for the first
time.
Mr. Baker. Exactly.
Mr. Farr. And I have just been told that that actually
processes very fast.
Mr. Baker. That doesn't take----
Mr. Farr. A couple days or something or a week.
Mr. Baker. Not even that. It depends on if you have a
representative or if you have everything that you need for
that----
Mr. Farr. But then it is getting the rating, right?
Mr. Baker. The vast majority of the time spent in claims is
not--I will say the shortest is filing the claim and then once
that claim is actually ready to rate, all the evidence is
developed, rating it. Those are the two fastest things in the
process.
Everything in between is where you get the backlog.
Mr. Farr. So the rating comes pretty fast. You have got to
have a lot of information and sometimes that is a problem.
Mr. Baker. Exactly. For a gentleman coming out of the
service now, all the evidence is going to be there. That goes
straight to the VA.
Any examination that they might need that they didn't get
while in the service, which most of them are being done while
they are in the service, you are going to have those claims
filed fairly quickly.
But if you have a Vietnam vet that can get the service
records, any private treatment records, any verification of
military records for stress or--incidents and things like that.
That is where the time is eaten up in the initial rating
decision is getting better----
So we have had a lot of hearings on IT development,
artificial intelligence, things like that, to develop some type
of rules-based decision-making process.
Those resources would be put to good use by speeding up the
development process and I think VA would agree with that, as
well, because you can only do so much on----
Mr. Farr. The committee has been told, with all these 3,100
new claims processors, that it is going to be really quick. But
you are saying that the delay is really between these levels.
It is getting the file from the opening claim to the rating
process.
Mr. Baker. The new staff is absolutely going to help. None
of this would work without additional staff at this point. At
what point in time would that new staff be able to make a
difference?
It is hard to tell.
Mr. Farr. You file a claim essentially in your district,
right? The rating is done somewhere else?
Mr. Baker. It is usually done within that state and
regional offices within that state.
Mr. Farr. So it has to go from the local to the regional.
And then what?
Mr. Baker. Well, in most circumstances. I mean, most of the
time, if you can fill out the application at home yourself, you
can just mail it to the regional office. But a lot of times,
you are going to go see a claims representative in the field at
the regional office.
People that go right to the regional office, they just go
from one room to the next and they have got the claim.
But it is all the evidence developing that is where time is
eaten up.
Now, there are some things that VA can't do anything about.
If it is private treatment records they need, if a claim is for
post-traumatic stress disorder and the veteran doesn't have a
Purple Heart or a combat badge, they have to wait for people
like the Center for Research of Unit Records to verify through
official military records.
So how do you go about speeding those processes up? That is
a good question.
Mr. Robertson. Mr. Chairman, if I may add. Steve Robertson
from American Legion. If I may add.
Several years ago, we were allowed to hire a tremendous
number of new claims adjudicators under the Exceptional Student
Program. It was kids right out of college that were
academically pretty bright kids.
But there was a tremendous attrition rate. Once they got
into the payroll, then got into the job, they realized, ``This
isn't what I want to do'' and there was an attrition rate that
was pretty high, and that, coupled with the normal attrition
rate of people getting older and retiring, et cetera.
This is not an occupation that you put a notice out on the
street saying, ``Hey, we are looking to hire you guys.'' I
mean, it is a very concentrated science and the claims
development is a very, very critical part of that.
If you don't put your package together properly, it is
going to run into a series of ``We need this documentation.''
So it goes back to the veteran and then it goes forward and
``we need this documentation'' and that is one of the things
that I think VA has gotten better at over the years.
Used to, they would identify one thing and send it to you
and say, ``We need this,'' and then they would go down the list
and find the second thing. Now they are at least saying, ``We
need these following documents to be able to develop the
case.''
But just because we are going to be able to hire them, that
attrition is what is the real key thing that we are concerned
about, and that is why I mentioned we think that if they would
focus on trying to hire veterans that are coming out of the
military that see this as a career path that they are
interested in doing, veterans helping veterans, that their
learning curve will probably be a lot higher, because they
don't have to look in a book to figure out what an M-1-51A was,
because they already are familiar with the terminology and they
will know exactly, I think, how to communicate better with the
veterans when they are looking for specific items.
Mr. Edwards. Is the VA not doing that?
Mr. Robertson. I can't answer that question, because we
keep asking it and I don't get an answer. I think that that is
something that--we have got so many guys that are going through
voc rehab that are really not certain what career path they
want to take, that this may be something that VA might want to
think about, saying, ``Son, have we got a deal for you.''
And if you are going to spend money on training somebody
for a vocation, why not train them to fill a vocation that you
need people in?
Mr. Baker. I think they are looking at something like that.
I can't give you the details on it.
But put the people to use, I think, to get to the point of
your question, there has to be a lot of things that happen.
One, you have to get them, and, two, you have to improve
the training process. Right now, they are so short on
resources, they cannot implement any additional policy
initiatives, because it just takes people away from critical
areas and they can't afford any new changes.
These extra people will allow them to do that, I think, but
then those changes have to be implemented and training has to
be improved. It absolutely has to be improved or we are going
to keep making mistakes--appeals right back to day one.
Accountability has to be improved. Right now, an average
size regional office--their quality assurance program, we will
leave it at that.
They look at 10 to 12 cases per month for an average size
regional office. That doesn't even come to 1 percent. You
can't--problems are in the rating process when your people are
1 percent of analysis.
So there are a lot of things that need to be done.
Mr. Farr. I think the question is we originally got all
this feedback that everything was hunky-dory, all this new
staff, it was going to work well.
You come in and say the claims backlog is a big problem.
And it seems we are not talking apples to apples here, because
there was a breakdown in different aspects of the process,
maybe a breakdown in training, maybe a breakdown on
qualifications.
But once you get into the system----
Mr. Baker. It is not as cut-and-dry as hiring new people,
but nothing can be done to improve the system without hiring
new people. But if you do a combination, in my opinion, I think
all of our opinion, of various improvements at all levels, once
you have got the people in place to do it--veterans' appeals
level, at the regional office level.
When you have the personnel to put those initiatives in
place, you are going to see improvements just in the new people
that you have allocated funds for. But there are also the
changes that you make that you really start putting those
people to use in the most beneficial way.
I had offered a lot of different numbers in the claims
backlog, 400,000, here earlier today. I am not sure where all
those numbers come from. We get ours straight from the VA's own
Website that they put out weekly.
Those include appeals and claims, but a pending claim is a
pending claim----
Mr. Blake. Mr. Farr, Carl Blake. One other suggestion I
would make, too, is kind of an oversight function. I would
suggest that maybe late in summer, as you get close to the end
of this current fiscal year, you bring the VA in and you ask
them, ``How many of the people did you actually hire that we
gave you the funding to hire? Did you hire the 1,800 or the
3,100'' or whatever the number is that is out there.
And if they tell you, ``No, we only hired 1,000,'' well,
that changes the game a little bit, too.
It is easy to sit here and say, ``We gave you the money to
hire them'' and the VA to say ``We are going to hire them,''
well, let's see if you follow through on it and then their feet
have to be held to the fire to do it or else I am not so
certain they will do it.
Mr. Edwards. That is a good suggestion. You guys have got
to be partners with us in this oversight process. We don't have
enough staff to exercise the kind of oversight we would ideally
like to have.
But we have got great partners and I know you guys are out
there in the hospitals and the field and help us with that.
Mr. Robertson. And I just want to add one other thing. Our
organization is really focusing on the case development that
our service officers assist the veteran to make sure that we
put together a package, in the final package, so that it is not
being kicked back looking for more information.
And we are doing--we have re-certifications every year of
our people to make sure that they are up on the latest changes
and make sure that they are doing it right, and then we also
have our own inspection team that inspects our own people to
make sure we are doing it right.
All these little changes, as they are saying, once all the
dominos start falling into place, then I think you will see a
dramatic change. But it is not a light-switch fix, I mean, just
because we have got the money and we have got the people, that
it is all going to get well overnight, because it is a very
interesting process.
Mr. Blake. And as an example with the training, all of the
organizations have their own service officer staff. We have
very complex training programs that each of the organizations
puts their own service officers through.
Just from DVA's perspective, we bring in a new hire as a
service officer, they spend 18 months doing work where they are
working hand-in-hand with an experienced service officer, where
they never, at any point in time, have their hands only on a
claim file for the veteran.
So they are always being held step-by-step and there are
constant reviews of their performance as they do this. And even
after that point, they are only kind of halfway released and
then there is a continued follow up so that, at another 18
months, they are reevaluated and tested, and then this testing
and training regime continues on throughout their career at
every step as they go through the service officer levels in our
own organization.
Mr. Robertson. And I think that is one of the mistakes that
VBA has made, because once guys get certified and blessed,
their recurring training is almost nonexistent. And that was
one of the biggest complaints that we heard.
If a guy keeps making the same mistake over and over and
over for 10 years, it is going to add to the backlog.
Mr. Edwards. Good point.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. At our first veterans hearing of the year, the
first concern was record funding, new baseline, all good news,
tons of money, but we are going to really mess ourselves up if
we don't demand accountability coming with the money, if we
don't measure our progress.
If we have any Walter Reed related type inefficiencies or
scandals in this new money, it will kick back on us and
veterans will be the victims.
He is exactly right. You all are like deputies for us. But
I can tell you what the members of your organizations in
southeast Tennessee and north Georgia, the 18,000 that use CBOC
in Chattanooga tell me is that they still want to be empowered
with more options on how to use that veterans' health care
money.
They would like to have a voucher in their hand where they
can use the VA facility if they choose. But, see, our hospital
is 2 hours from where they live, in some cases, 3.5 hours from
where they live.
They are not satisfied. They would like to have the option
of going to the local hospital and using that Medicare
reimbursed voucher that Medicare rates to use a local hospital,
so their family can come see them, so that they don't have to
be transported in a dangerous van, where veterans died 2 years
ago going across the mountains to the hospital.
They also don't want to have to wait. So I think we have
got to be careful. Our job here is twofold, in my view, to make
sure the resources are there, but it is not just a money thing,
and I will give you an example.
Your Independent Budget advocates an increase. Well,
ranking members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee here put
forth a proposal to trump that, raise the independent request
across the board, and it is incorporated in the Republican
budget up on the floor right this minute, making room for $2.1
billion more than you all asked for.
So before we just have a high stakes poker game and
everybody raises everybody, our second responsibility, besides
making sure the resources are there and actually determining
how much can be expended in an official way over the next 12
months, is what reforms are in place to make sure that we are
holding the people accountable for spending the money.
The inspector general comes in here from the VA and says,
``Very problematic financial management practices at the VA.''
Whoa, big red flag. How can the organization with state-of-the-
art medical records, best in the world, also have weak and poor
financial management? It is there.
So those are the challenges we face and we do need the
input and we need the input not just got to have more, got to
have more, got to have more, because, again, there is a contest
here on how much is more, how much is enough.
But I will guarantee you you are right on a whole lot of
fronts, because I sit and listen and I see.
In our federal national cemetery in Chattanooga, we have an
opportunity to pick up land, because it runs out of space in a
few years. And why in the world the cemetery division of the VA
doesn't go ahead and take the land on these facilities when it
is available, I don't know.
I hope this committee will move on that in some places,
because otherwise you are going to end up--they don't exactly
respond quickly when it is time.
So if you don't plan ahead to 10 years from now, based on
veterans' interments, there is not going to be places to bury
these people, and that is unfortunate.
So we want to do this work in a bipartisan way. I think it
is up to this subcommittee. The chairman is incredibly fair and
bipartisan. It is up to us to cut through some of the noise out
there and get to the facts with a surgical knife, and that is
where we need you all to tell us exactly what is not happening
and needs to happen on behalf of your members.
Mr. Robertson. Mr. Wamp, if I may point out something about
vouchers.
There are doctors that won't accept Medicare patients
because Medicare's reimbursement rates are too low. There are
Tricare veterans, veterans who are eligible under Tricare that
doctors refuse to take Tricare patients because the
reimbursements rates are too low.
Mr. Wamp. Let me tell you that we set up a demonstration
for 2 years for the money in place for veterans to go to our
full-service, $500 million a year public hospital and the VA
wouldn't refer people to them, because the mindset is, at the
VA, if you don't get the health care at the VA, it is not
acceptable.
So the flipside of what you are saying is there are
veterans without the options that they want from providers that
will accept Medicare.
I am not saying go in that direction. I am saying if the
veteran chooses and the provider will do it, don't deny that
option. That is what I am saying.
Mr. Robertson. And you are exactly right. VA has the
authority now to contract out services.
Mr. Wamp. They won't do it even when you put the money in a
pot and say here it is. It is not the money that would come
away from your benefits. This is for this purpose. They
wouldn't do it. They wouldn't do it for 2 years. They won't do
it in other parts of the country.
They need to do it. I mean, Sam and I have talked about it.
In no way should this take away from the current system. This
should be in addition to the current system, where it is
appropriate, where it is acceptable, where there is an
agreement.
Mr. Robertson. We have advocated that on rural health care
initiatives.
Mr. Wamp. Right. We are not going to build a new hospital
in my service area. I wish we would. I wouldn't have this
problem.
But we are in the top five in the country in degraded
service the VA studies. In Las Vegas, they were in the top five
with us. They got a hospital. We are not going to get a
hospital, not a fast-growing area like Las Vegas.
So there are areas, like pockets of pain, where more
options are better than less.
Mr. Robertson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Blake. Mr. Wamp, just a couple of comments.
I don't disagree with the fact that if you give that as an
option for something like a voucher, that they wouldn't take
it.
Our concern is we believe there are far greater unintended
consequences, taken on the whole. Kind of to Steve's point, we
have fully advocated for the fact that VA has the authority
under circumstances like a lot of your veterans face about
access to care, they have the authority to make sure those
veterans get the care and they just don't use it properly.
That is the purpose of fee-basis care. I think the idea of
vouchering has a far more dangerous consequence, potentially,
because, I hate to say, but veterans might--I think the
convenience of being able to go wherever, while, on its face,
sounds like a good thing, the VA does rely on a critical mass
of patients.
And if you give veterans the option to go somewhere, I
think they will just go because they think, ``Well, it works
out better for me in this case,'' and I don't think you want to
put the VA in a situation where now they don't have the
facilities, doesn't have the critical mass of patients it
requires to continue to operate, and that creates a little bit
of a slippery slope for maybe a facility.
But I think the VA has the authority to address exactly
what your concern is.
Your point about the financial management of the VA, I
couldn't agree more. And one of our concerns, I think all the
organizations have had since the record funding level was put
in place for 2008 is can the VA efficiently and properly handle
that kind of money and spend it wisely.
The one kind of passing comment I would make in defense of
the VA is let's not forget that that was provided in January-
February. So a third of the fiscal year has gone by and, yet,
they still have to get that money spent by October 1, in
theory, with some authority for carryover.
But the vast majority of that money has to be spent in a
substantially shortened amount of time and while I think they
could do it if they had the mechanisms in place and did it
right, I am not sure that I am entirely confident that they
can, and it is going to definitely be incumbent on all of us to
hold the VA's feet to the fire to make sure they spend it
wisely.
Mr. Wamp. Unfortunately, we are headed for another year
like that in the coming year, if we are honest with ourselves,
because of the situation we find ourselves in.
I was talking with Mr. Murtha about that today. We are
probably headed for another half a year C.R. kind of a
scenario, which is going to cause a pinch for even the hiring
that we are talking about holding them accountable for.
If you don't have the money until 6 months before the end
of the fiscal year and you have got measurements for new hires,
it is hard to do all that in a shorter period of time.
Mr. Blake. The other thing to think about, too, is while
the appropriations bill was enacted in January, by the time
that gets to the level where that money is spent, the year is
almost entirely gone.
By the time the medical facilities, and even filter down to
the individual CBOCs, get that money, we are already looking at
October 1. It is summertime usually by the time that money is
doled out to the people that spend the money. That is just
crazy.
Mr. Robertson. And it is a hell of a ripple effect. It
impacts construction, it impacts medical research, because the
timetable on when research projects come along, if there is not
money there to grant the next continuation, you lose it.
Employees, you are talking about how hard it is to bring in
a psychiatrist or an orthopedic surgeon. If there is no
security that, ``Hey, my job is going to be there next year or
I am not going to be released because there is not funding or
they are going to have to, for whatever reason, curtail my
staff,'' that is not what people want to do.
They want to be able to go someplace and practice their
medicine and know that they are going to have full staffing and
be able to do the things that they need to do.
Mr. Wamp. One final note, and I am done, too.
This idea that the VA is not hiring a certain percentage of
veterans for these positions is terrible. We ought to all
mandate that that is the number one mantra of the VA, so that
we all know always that that is their top priority.
I mean, my gosh, that is like the biggest no-brainer that I
have heard in the 2 months that I have been coming to these
hearings. If they are not doing that as number one priority and
we have got people trying to reintegrate into our society in a
productive way from war, what in the world do they exist for?
So that needs to be right up at the very front of their
mission statement that they stand for that and can report to us
on that progress.
Mr. Blake. And as a perfect example, there is a federal
goal established for contracting that says that any federal
agency should contract with 3 percent of veteran-owned and
service-disabled veterans on small businesses, and the VA does
not meet that 3 percent goal.
Mr. Edwards. The VA doesn't.
Mr. Blake. The VA does not.
Mr. Edwards. The VA ought to have job counselors going out
there to the military installation where troops are retiring
and say, ``Hey, come to work for VBA or VHA,'' and get people
for whom it would be a labor of love.
Mr. Baker. I was going to suggest some of the hiring in
DVA--for VHA is not that they won't do it----
Mr. Edwards. Sam?
Mr. Farr. I wanted to ask you, Carl, are you working on my
little issue of getting specialty golf carts on all the
courses?
Mr. Blake. I don't know that I would be handling that, but
I could take that back to some of our government relations
folks and ask about it.
Mr. Farr. Well, we won the battle with DOD. They now
realize that they have to do it under the ADA. They are going
to go out and buy two golf carts.
Then I predict they are going to come back and say, ``But
they are never used, because nobody who is disabled plays
golf.''
Mr. Blake. I would have to take that back. I am sure
between our force folks and----
Mr. Farr. You ought to be very involved in that.
Mr. Blake. Between our sports and recreation folks and our
advocacy people who deal with the ADA, I will be glad to talk
to them about that.
Mr. Farr. Would you look into that?
Mr. Blake. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. And the second, I guess, is with Ray. Maybe you
could help me.
California has decided, as a state policy, that they won't
build any more state veterans' cemeteries.
We have property at Fort Ord that is still in DOD's
ownership, and what we have had to do is go to a third party
process. We are doing a feasibility study, about a $250,000
feasibility study that the local governments are paying for on
how to bring in a developer to develop a veteran's cemetary on
the property.
We have enough land there to develop a full-scale veterans'
cemetery and enough land to do something else, perhaps another
civilian cemetery, private cemetery.
Because of the cost, the state refuses to participate in
it. They don't want the ongoing administrative costs.
The state will actually make the application, but they
won't have any skin in the game.
I would be very interested in how you might be able to work
with us, because the VA is going to accept the state's
application and they are going to reimburse what is
reimbursable.
But you have still got this big gap. How do you bring the
private sector in?
If you know how to do that, I would appreciate hearing from
you.
Mr. Kelley. I will take that back and I will work with--I
have got a fairly good relationship with the people at the
cemetery administration.
Mr. Farr. They are not opposing this. They can understand
why California doesn't want to do it, but we have tried for 5
years to change the politics and we can't.
The last thing I want to ask all of you, is for help
spreading the word about the Veterans History Project. Congress
authorized the Library of Congress to set up a depository for
all of the histories of veterans that can be gathered.
I did one about a week ago--you have to be trained on how
to ask questions. But they have a kit that shows what kind of
questions to ask because the veterans have to talk.
And what we are finding is we need to get the outreach
where the veterans are. The American Legion ought to take it on
as sort of their mantra.
Mr. Robertson. Sir, just to let you know----
Mr. Farr. Every chapter could be the recorder who sits down
with a vet and asks questions. You can tape it on any kind of
recording device, either a video camera or if the vet doesn't
want video, you can just do it with voice.
The benefit is, that a lot of the old vets who have never
wanted to tell their story are talking now.
High school teachers want this as a project for students,
for writing projects and for learning how to put together
papers.
The teachers are asking the students if they will go out
and interview their grandparents. And these vets will say,
``You know what? I am at an age now where I want to tell that
story.'' And it is really tear-jerking, it is incredible.
Then these will all be sent to the Library of Congress.
Senator Lugar has done the best job of this in the United
States. He has collected 7,000 of them. But what we find is
that when I go talk to veterans' organizations, they have heard
about it, but they don't know what to do about it.
And I think that you, as Washington connections, ought to
encourage all of your members to engage in this project and
find out how to get it done all over the country, because
Congress wants to get every one of those stories down.
Mr. Wamp. Will you yield on that?
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Mr. Wamp. I was involved 7 years on leg branch with
Representative Hoyer in setting that up and in Chattanooga,
where I live, I was actually able to recruit one of the network
television stations, the same hospital that we did the demo in,
$500 million hospital, and the largest bank in our state, to
sponsor the Veterans' History Project every week for 3 years on
network television.
And the stories that were told and the videos that were
drawn and the outreach that the TV stations did to our World
War II era veterans was the most emotional thing you have seen.
I have been to multiple funerals of my constituents where
videos were played at the veteran's funeral of their telling
the story that they wouldn't have told had it not been for the
Veterans' History Project.
You are talking about the crowning moment for the family is
that not only did they finally draw it out, but they were
actually able to honor them with that at their funeral.
Mr. Farr. But we are having still a little difficulty with
the outreach.
Mr. Wamp. No doubt, no doubt.
Mr. Farr. A lot of paper without anything on it.
Mr. Robertson. At our national conventions, where we draw
about 15,000 each year, we have had the national history or the
Veterans' History Project to come in and they actually put up a
booth and they distribute the material and information.
We have no authorization over our individual posts. I mean,
they are basically on their own. We are the national
organization. We can't give directions.
But we have been encouraging. We have had articles in our
magazine, which has a circulation of over 3 million.
So as far as getting the word out, I think we are doing a
good job of that.
Now, the execution at the local level, we can try to put
some more emphasis on that.
But I agree with you, it is an outstanding program and I
have seen several of the productions that have been done and it
is really something that needs to be captured.
Mr. Baker. I was going to say I ran our New Orleans office
for a couple of years and it was among the various offices I
have worked at.
By nine in the morning, that is when we opened the doors,
we probably had about 25 veterans waiting in the hall to see us
and we would run through 35 to 40 sometimes a day of--that went
on 5 days a week.
You hear some amazing things and this is at the local
level. So the information is there.
Mr. Farr. There is no funding for the professional
collection, like you would normally have some like an oral
history project that was funded and somebody professionally
trained.
The training is voluntary and it would be interesting, in
each of these chapters, if somebody would step up and say,
``You know, I don't mind doing that. I will go around and do
this. I will collect them from everybody.''
And all they need is a little digital tape recorder. Others
have done it as a TV station did, which probably even is a
better way, with a video camera.
Mr. Wamp. Sam, will you yield again?
Mr. Farr. But it is getting that volunteer, somebody
saying, ``I will collect the information and I will put it
together,'' and then putting it into a kit and sending it to
the Library of Congress.
They don't have to worry about any of the cataloging
problem.
Mr. Wamp. Sam, one final note, if you will yield, please.
The Library of Congress honored that station because they did
over 400 interviews for this show and one photographer shot
almost all of them and he wept at the Library of Congress and
said that it was the greatest blessing of his life to be able
to actually videotape all those interviews.
Mr. Farr. Well, I am going to go talk to my TV station.
Could I get a little information from your office on that?
Mr. Edwards. ``PBS'' in Waco did a program for 30 minutes
prior to the Ken Burns story and the veterans they interviewed,
it was very, very powerful.
Let me ask. I know we have a vote coming up very soon,
actually a series of votes. So we will wrap up pretty quickly
here.
We are going to be working with you formally and informally
multiple times this year and the years ahead.
Let me just ask one last question, because it goes back to
the oversight issue that Zach and Sam and I have mentioned. I
just think we have all got to feel a burden. It is our
responsibility to see that the new money the VA has gotten and
will get this year is spent wisely.
That is one of the reasons we plused up significantly the
Office of Inspector General at the VA this past year, and I
think the administration's budget request brings that back
down. We are not going to do that.
But let me ask your general opinion of the Office of
Inspector General, given the limited resources they have.
Do you review their reports? Have you found them to be well
researched and credible? Do they have the independence that an
office of inspector general needs to have or do they have a
heavy hammer somehow over their head, they can't be too rough
on reviewing a VA hospital?
What are your general impressions of OIG?
Mr. Baker. I will take a shot at it. They are not here.
Mr. Edwards. Kerry, go ahead.
Mr. Baker. I think you absolutely did the right thing by
increasing it. I can't, I don't think, justify decreasing that
staff in the budget. I think I mentioned in one of the previous
hearings the incidences in Marion, Illinois VA Medical Center
as a good example.
How much that happens elsewhere, we won't know if staff is
reduced.
As far as them being overly generous in their reports or
not firm enough, I don't think they are too firm, that is for
sure. But how much are they influenced because they have to
report their bosses to their bosses? I guess you could look at
it that way.
Do they hold back a little bit? It is hard to say. I think
it would be nice to have an independent counsel or inspector
general. I think you would have more independence.
Now, I don't know what kind of difference you would come up
with. I mean, I have my own personal opinion. I have been
involved in some litigation, when I was in the court before I
came to legislative staff, that deals with some medical issues
that I probably can't get into.
But it would fall under their shoes and it is probably for
an informal conversation, but I think you have to increase
their staff--decrease it, I think probably more of the things
that happened such as Marion that we don't know about, just on
a smaller scale.
Although I am not knocking the VA health care, but you are
always going to have things that----
Mr. Edwards. There are always going to be imperfections and
we need to identify them and weed them out.
Mr. Baker. They need to have the staff to look at those
little, small incidents, whether it is one or two incidents at
a medical center. I don't think they can probably do that to
the degree they need to.
Mr. Edwards. We have never had them testify before, at
least not in my time on this subcommittee, and we had them
testify recently and these are the four assistant OIGs, they
are inspector generals, because we wanted people with their
boots on the ground, and I was impressed with them.
But I was shocked when the inspector general, assistant
inspector general for health said that they don't have any
resources to go out to a single clinic.
Mr. Robertson. I think they have been, historically, at
least in my opinion, they have been more as validation of
things that have been identified rather than being the one that
identified the problems and said--blowing the whistle, saying,
``Here is what needs to be looked at.''
Like if you had something that occurred in any facility,
yes, they may go and investigate it and say, ``Yes, GAO was
right or the veteran that filed the lawsuit was right.''
And in my mind's eye, an inspector general is supposed to
be the guy that discovers, with boots on the ground experience,
investigating and identifying and ringing the bell.
And I think most of the reports that I have ever witnessed,
it was more validating what problem we all knew was there was
actually there.
Mr. Edwards. Do they send each of your organizations a copy
of their reports?
Mr. Robertson. The ones I have seen I have had passed to me
by----
Mr. Blake. Most of the time, you have to ask for them
politely and hope you get them.
Mr. Edwards. I think I would like to ask our staff to ask
them to send out to the VSOs their report for the next year and
then let you guys review those and give us some feedback on
what you think, because I just think oversight, oversight,
oversight.
We will work on sufficiency and timeliness and defendable
budgets, but oversight, oversight, oversight I think has got to
be something we take seriously, and Zach and Sam and I are
going to work very, very hard on that with our staff, but we
need you all's help.
Mr. Blake. And we also have to lean on the authorizers,
too, because they have an oversight function, as well.
Mr. Edwards. You bet.
Mr. Blake. That is not suggesting--because they did a lot
of hearings on a lot of issues last year, but they have to
continue to look and hopefully we can help steer them to look
at certain things that need to be investigated or looked into.
Mr. Robertson. I would encourage your colleagues to have
veterans' town hall meetings. I know that your schedules are
pretty tight, but I think that maybe it might benefit you to
say let's have veteran town hall meetings, where we are going
to talk about the status of health care in the VA system.
That way, you are getting it up close and personal from the
folks.
Mr. Farr. We can do that electronically now with our
telephones. We can call our constituents at home and they don't
have to get up and go anywhere. We can put every one of them on
one conference call.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add that I think the
IG has all the reports up online in terms of access now to
them.
I really appreciate all of you for what you do, who you
represent, and the way you come before us here, because this is
good collaboration. This has been one of the best opportunities
we have had to come together.
Also, though, you had a comment about the authorization
committee. The best part about serving where we serve is that
our bills have to become law and a whole lot of times, those
guys, they will go here and there and yawn and back and forth
between the two bodies, but a lot of it never becomes law.
All of our bills become law. And so this is where the
action is and wherever we can make changes, respecting their
jurisdiction and their authorization, our bills can move things
quicker than sometimes theirs can.
Mr. Edwards. And please don't wait to hear a formal request
from us. As you are having your meetings with VA officials and
veterans out there in the real world, give us your constant
feedback so that we can keep on being a partner with and be a
hawk overlooking VA to see how they are doing.
I hope your members understand the important role you
played this past year in putting together that historic VA
budget. I feel if a truck ran over all of us tomorrow, we have
raised the bar. We are going to raise it again this year.
So after we are gone, that bar will never go down. It is
going to have to go up. Whether we can sustain the kind of
increases we have had the last 2 years every 2 years, I don't
know. But whatever happens, the bar is set higher and that is
going to benefit veterans for a long time, and it wouldn't have
happened without your organizations' tremendous leadership.
The Independent Budget and the American Legion budget were
really a fundamental building block we used to put that budget
together, and thank you for that and your continued work.
And if there are no additional questions--Sam, any
additional comments?
Mr. Farr. No. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. If not, thank you for being here.
Thursday, April 3, 2008.

VETERANS AFFAIRS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

WITNESSES

ROBERT T. HOWARD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY
PAUL A. TIBBITS, DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER FOR INFORMATION AND
TECHNOLOGY
STEPHEN W. WARREN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION
AND TECHNOLOGY

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I would like to call the
subcommittee to order. Secretary Howard, welcome to the
subcommittee.
This afternoon the subcommittee will hear testimony in
support of the budget request for information technology
programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The budget
request for fiscal year 2009 is more than $2.4 billion, about
$475 million more than the fiscal year 2008 appropriation.
Our witness this afternoon is Mr. Robert T. Howard,
Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology and Chief
Information Officer. Secretary Howard, again welcome to the
committee.
Mr. Howard. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Starting in fiscal year 2006, the Congress
directed the department to reform its information technology
budget to provide the chief information officer with
centralized management and responsibility for the development
and operations of all the IT functions. We know and respect the
fact this has been a complicated and somewhat disruptive
process for the department to undertake, but prior to this
centralization there was absolutely no way to know what the
department was proposing to spend on its IT programs, and there
was no meaningful oversight control within the department.
With the increased control that centralized management can
provide, we hope that the expensive mistakes of the past will
not be repeated and that the department can move forward in
developing and implementing information technology systems to
provide necessary services for the veterans and value to the
taxpayer alike.
At this time, before I introduce Secretary Howard, I would
like to recognize our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any
comments he would care to make.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the new guy here,
but we have had a host of hearings, and I have actually been
out and seen a major VA facility in the state of Tennessee. I
now understand the challenges that we face. Thank you for your
service and I look forward to your testimony. I don't really
have any further comments, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. For the record, Secretary Howard was confirmed
as Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology on
September 30, 2006. I imagine it has been a busy time since
then, Mr. Secretary. We want to thank you genuinely and deeply
for your 33 years of active duty service in the United States
Army. You culminated that service in your last assignment as
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Army for Budget.
Always saving the very best for last, his civil engineering
education includes a graduate degree from Texas A&M University.
[Laughter.]
As an Aggie, Mr. Secretary, I am proud to welcome you
before our subcommittee.
Without objection, your full testimony will be submitted
for the record, but we would like to begin by recognizing you
for 5 minutes for any comments you care to make, and then we
will go into questions and answers.
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir. I might add, I did a lot better down
there than I did at Northeastern in Boston.
Mr. Edwards. Well, you are prepared, and I know they made
you work hard at Texas A&M.
Mr. Howard. Maybe they couldn't understand me. I don't
know.
Mr. Edwards. It is great to have you here.

Statement of the Honorable Robert T. Howard

Mr. Howard. Sir, Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wamp,
good afternoon. Thank you for your invitation to discuss the
president's fiscal year 2009 information technology budget
proposal for the Department of Veterans Affairs. With me today,
my Principal Deputy, Stephen Warren, and my Deputy for
Enterprise Development, Dr. Paul Tibbits.
As we look forward to the upcoming year, we remain focused
on VA's primary mission, the health and well being of our
nation's veterans. To assure that we succeed in our mission, it
is imperative that we employ all of our resources, including
IT, in the most effective way possible.
Let me begin this afternoon by discussing the IT
reorganization and some of our experience to date. From fiscal
year 2006 to fiscal year 2007, and continuing on into fiscal
year 2008, the Office of Information and Technology began the
transition to a new centralized organization by detailing IT
personnel outside of OI&T and combining them with the original
OI&T staff. This transition has led to the president's budget
request of 6,780 FTE for fiscal year 2009.
Through this consolidation, we are discovering activities
that need improvement and enhancement, especially in the area
of data security, privacy and infrastructure improvements. We
have increased our emphasis on certification and accreditation,
and are developing better procedures for asset management.
Progress is being made, but there is still much to be done in
establishing the organization and providing the IT support that
VA and veterans deserve.
One of the most critical changes in OI&T was the
establishment of the new IT appropriation in fiscal year 2006.
In that regard, we continue to focus our efforts in structuring
and funding the IT appropriation along programmatic lines,
relating IT to the principal missions of VA. Since this is a
line-item appropriation, prior planning is critically important
and establishing the funding correctly up front is essential.
VA is requesting $2.442 billion to support IT development
and operational expenses, including payroll, for fiscal year
2009, an 18.9 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 level.
This request reflects the consolidation of VA IT into one
appropriation, with certain exceptions such as non-payroll IT
for credit reform programs and insurance benefit programs.
In fiscal year 2009, the majority of increases represent
program priorities to enhance the support to veterans, both
directly and indirectly, especially in the area of medical
care. Placing all IT staffing, equipment and budgetary
resources under the VA chief information officer has provided
an objective capability with visibility over all IT activity
across the department.
This capability will also provide for a more standardized
approach to our critical developmental efforts. An example is
the urgent need to accelerate the design and implementation of
our electronic health record, which will meet the national
health IT standards and improve interoperability with DOD.
The non-pay portion of the fiscal year 2009 budget has been
realigned from previous submissions to focus on two major
classifications: veteran-facing IT systems and internal-facing
IT systems. This has been done to better link the appropriation
to the missions of VA. Veteran-facing IT systems enable support
of VA programs for veterans such as medical care, compensation
and pension benefits, vocational rehabilitation, employment
services, and burial services. Veteran-facing programs account
for $1.295 billion of our request.
Internal-facing IT systems are those that provide the
capability to work more effectively in managing IT resources,
such as corporate management, financial management, asset
management, human capital management, IT infrastructure, and
information protection. The internal-facing programs account
for $418 million.
Finally, the pay portion of our fiscal year 2009 budget
request accounts for $729 million.
The total of $2.442 billion for fiscal year 2009 reflects a
sizable increase, as I mentioned before, over fiscal year 2008.
Over the past several years, VA IT has had a fairly level
budget, yet the organizations we support have increased in
size, both in facilities and people. To sustain our efforts, VA
must apply the necessary IT talent and tools required. The
increase will allow us to accelerate some programs and begin a
concerted effort to enhance our IT infrastructure.
In closing, VA IT is committed to providing effective and
efficient support to veterans, and in turn the VA community at
large. Over the past year, we have made progress and have
experienced challenges, so much remains to be accomplished.
I appreciate having this opportunity to discuss this with
you and will gladly respond to your questions, sir.
[Prepared statement of the Honorable Robert T. Howard
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.013

SECURITY BREACH DEVELOPMENTS

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Let me begin by asking you about the latest security. We
are all aware of the breaches that occurred over the last
several years and all of the national attention regarding that.
Can you tell me what steps we have taken to see that doesn't
happen again? How confident are you, given what we have done,
that it will not happen again?
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir. We have done a lot, quite frankly,
but I will say right up front there is an awful lot remaining
to be done. This is an enormously difficult problem,
particularly in an organization like VA that deals with a lot
of information. We are basically an information organization,
whether it is health or private information.
Starting right at the beginning, we fabricated or we put
together a very extensive action plan to address a lot of
things. It has over 400 tasks in it--all sorts of things from
encryption to background investigations to training programs
and what have you. We have put a lot of effort in, and so we
have tried to approach this from a people process and tools
standpoint.
The people issue is the most critical, and that is making
sure that we embed the organization with cultural awareness,
awareness of our problem, because if every employee did what
they were supposed to do, we wouldn't have the difficulty. That
really is the central focus. We have a long way to go on that.
We really do, in spite of the communications efforts we have
had and the training programs.
Our processes have been improved. An example of that would
be incident reporting processes. We are infinitely better than
we were back in May of 2006. We have very good processes put in
place. Of course, unfortunately we see a lot of incidents
because people report them. They don't hold them back, and we
encourage that. We say, don't even think twice. If you have
one, we want to see it. And we send that immediately to the
U.S.-CERT. We don't even think hardly about it, because we want
to make sure it gets registered. And then we go in and analyze
it.
Mr. Edwards. Who would report that? I take a laptop home
that I should not have taken home. Who would know about that?
And who would report it?
Mr. Howard. Sir, many times it is actually the individual
who had the incident. You know, they put the laptop in their
car and it was stolen or whatever, and we have many incidents
that are actually reported by employees who realize they have
made a mistake. Although we have had some disciplinary action,
it hasn't been extensive. We have to be very careful about
that, because as soon as you go overboard, you just shut that
right down.
We also have information security offices throughout the
organization, whose job it is to monitor activity. If they find
paper folders in the trash somewhere, they will report that as
an incident. So it can come from any source. It can also come
from my oversight and compliance capability I have put in
place. They go around and do assessments, and every once in a
while they discover things that should be reported as
incidents. So the processes are important.
The other area that is extremely important, sir, is to
provide the tools necessary--encryption for the laptops. We
have mandated full hard-drive encryption on VA laptops. We have
mandated the use of encrypted thumb drives. The young docs
running around with their medical information, it is like your
kids. It is hard to keep them disciplined so that they keep
thinking about that. So we use encrypted thumb drives. If you
lose it, no problem. Nobody is going to be able to get in
there.
Monitoring software--we now have the capability. We are
starting to implement that, where if you hook into the VA
network, we can view the computer. If it doesn't pass scrutiny
in terms of the correct software, if it has things on it that
we don't particularly like, shut it off. You can't get in. We
have just started implementing that.
So there are a number of software tools that we have put
out, if that answers your question, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Howard. There are many, many things.
Mr. Edwards. When was the largest incident? Was it in May
of 2006?
Mr. Howard. I remember it well, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. That employee had access to a massive
amount of data.
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Would that same employee today, or a similar
employee, another person in that same position today, be able
to put that much information on their laptop?
Mr. Howard. Sir, the rules are in place where they should
not do that. Now, you know, if you are really bent to do that
and you work hard enough, you can figure out a way to do it.
But the access controls are much better than they were before.
We also have completed Handbook 6500, which is our physical
security program, with very clear instructions on what you can
do and what you can't do.
But you did hit on a very critical area, and that is any
activity that by nature of the activity deals with large
amounts of information. Research is a good example of that. The
individual that had that laptop stolen and the hard-drive
stolen back in May of 2006 was an analyst in the policy and
planning organization. They deal with actuarial analysis and
things like that, so they have to deal with large amounts of
information. But no way should he have removed that from the VA
premises, or taken it out of a protected environment. He never
should have done that.
Mr. Edwards. Is there anything in the system in place today
that if somebody purposely did that when they were not supposed
to that a red flag would show up on somebody's computer
somewhere?
Mr. Howard. Sir, we don't have a system that is fool-proof
and across the board, but what we do do is we monitor network
activity. In other words, we can tell, at least at the network
level. We haven't quite gotten all the way down to the hospital
level yet. But we can monitor that. We can see masses of
information being downloaded. But we haven't completed rolling
all that out.
One of the reasons it has taken us time, you have to be
real careful because these things could disrupt day-to-day
operations. We are very concerned about that. For example, the
software I mentioned to you, we can shut off a laptop that is
hooked in from your kitchen or whatever. It could be some
doctor analyzing some imaging or whatever. So we have to be
sure that that is done correctly.
We have completed that rollout in region IV, which is the
Northeast, and now we are moving into regions II and III. We
have already got it set up in region II, but we haven't turned
on all the locking parts of it yet as we gradually move into
that because it could be disruptive and we want to be sure that
that does not happen.
Mr. Edwards. One more follow up. Do you have an outside
entity to review what you have put in place to then determine
from the security standpoint how well you are doing?
Mr. Howard. Sir, we have our own oversight and compliance
capability, which is very robust. They go around and they
assess all this stuff. It has proven to be one of the better
things that we have done. This was established right after May
of 2006 in fact. The other thing is we have the IG who goes
out. We also have a certification and accreditation program in
fact that is well underway right now that involves an outside
contractor to review. We do the work and they review to see
what we are doing, but we don't have an outside contractor
whose sole job is to do what the IG does, if you know what I
mean.
Mr. Edwards. Right. Okay. Well, thank you for the progress
you have made, and thank you for your honesty in saying there
is no fool-proof system. I respect that.
Mr. Wamp.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, this is part of our responsibility that we
probably know the least amount about, when you are talking
about IT systems and technical-type stuff. This is a very
sophisticated system, obviously, with 24 million veterans and
you have to keep up with everything and comply with all the
laws. But you have a $2.444 billion budget request, a $475
million increase, which is like a 25 percent increase all in 1
year.
You made the case for why, but the inspector general was
here and said ``VA cannot effectively manage its contracting
activities because it has no corporate database that provides
national visibility over procurement activities or identifies
contract awards, individual purchase orders, credit card
purchases, or the amount of money spent on goods and
services.''
We told him that it was fascinating that the VA's medical
records were the best in the world, yet their financial
management was not acceptable. That is a real irony at the same
organization. So just from your perspective in the IT
portfolio, what is being done about this problem?
Mr. Howard. Sir, you homed in on a major problem the VA
has. Maybe it is typical of organizations that are as large as
ours--you know, inadequate focus on the day-to-day running of
the operation--the financial systems, the logistics systems. I
actually saw some of that in the Pentagon during my days over
there.
You are right. The IG is right. The contracting program
that is being put in place will help us. It is now being
implemented or being designed, really. It has not been
implemented fully, but the intent is to begin to capture some
of that information. So contracting is a problem. The financial
programs, the FLITE program--the financial and logistics
integrated technology enterprise program--is also underway.
That is going to take a while.
We have the logistics part of it beginning to be
implemented, but the financial side we have not even selected
the contractor yet. We are going to do that in the beginning of
the next fiscal year. We are already under the RFP development
standpoint. Again, the experience we had with Core FLS. We
should not need to repeat that--that happened several years
ago.
If we had we done Core FLS correctly, we would have had a
good financial logistics system already, right now, but we
didn't. I don't know if you remember that one or not, but that
was the program that was killed back in 2005, I believe, or
2004 and 2005, as you may know, somewhere in that background
where Secretary Principi killed the program because he was very
upset with the way it was being managed. The FLITE program is
not the replacement for it, but the step to try to get it right
this time.
So in answer to your question, sir, it is a correct
observation. We do not have adequate IT applications in place
to help us do that kind of work. I will add a third one. The
third one is human resource management. In fact, that is in the
budget--the HRIS program, Human Resources Information System.
That is going to be a line of business when we purchase the
service from OPM. That is the approach we are taking on the HR
system.

STAFFING REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Wamp. Speaking of the HR side, I think you have a
reprogramming request for $294 million to hire 1,590 people by
August under the 2008 mandate. How do you do that? What steps
are you taking to hire 1,590 people between here and August?
Mr. Howard. Sir, if you are talking about the IT transfer
request, the amount I believe will handle a little over about
170 FTEs. Is that the $20 million?
Mr. Wamp. It is $294 million from Veterans Health
Administration to VA IT. It is my understanding that there is a
reprogramming request to meet the 2008 staffing requirement,
which means there are 1,590 people who have to be hired by
August of 2008. That is a tremendous amount.
Mr. Howard. Sir, that amount is actually for about 197
FTEs. There is $20 million in there.
Mr. Wamp. Okay. My information is inaccurate. Let me ask
you this----
Mr. Howard. Of that $294 million, $20 million is associated
with FTEs. To just comment a bit on that, IT staffing levels
throughout the VA are a great concern to us right now. We are
seeing a lot of that right now. That is an additional effort to
begin to ramp up to what we believe to be the correct amount of
FTEs. So that is what that is, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Okay. When I was at the Alvin York facility last
week in Tennessee, I was very encouraged to see several recent
veterans that have gone to work there. How successful in your
ramp-up of the staffing requirements are you at actually hiring
veterans to take these positions?
Mr. Howard. Sir, we do that. I couldn't give you a precise
answer right now. I could get back to you on that.
Mr. Wamp. Do you make a conscious effort to try and do
that?
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. That is one of the kind of no-brainers that we
come across as we have these hearings, that that needs to be
done, and everything possible needs to be done to see that we
are hiring veterans, and even preparing them training-wise for
these jobs as much as possible so that they can take these
jobs.
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir. There are programs underway and we
can give you some numbers on it.
Mr. Tibbits. I can add one additional thought on that on
the contracting side as well. We are very good at exercising
the full prerogatives that are offered before we testified to
Congress to use services to enable veteran-owned small
businesses. We are also very committed to pursue that. It is a
substantial benefit to us----
Mr. Howard. And the IT community has a very good record on
what Paul just mentioned, sir. We are doing very well there.

COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINICS

Mr. Wamp. One other quick question in this round, I think
the 2008 budget requires 53 new CBOCs. Your IT funding request
amounts to about $500,000 per new CBOC. OI&T now contends that
the VHA did not inform them of the funding requirement and the
IT money is still in VHA's medical discretionary budget and
should therefore be transferred to OI&T. Has this issue been
settled?
Mr. Howard. Sir, we intend to fund those CBOCs, even if we
have to take it from somewhere else. Obviously, those have to
be stood up. We did get a $10 million increment in the
emergency supplemental in 2008, specifically earmarked for
CBOCs, and that is going to help.
The other good story part of that is that we are now
communicating. In the past, there was no planning for IT for
new facilities. It was just not there. And now we see that not
only for CBOCs and major hospitals, but for Vet centers. You
build almost anything and you put one person in it, you have an
IT problem, or at least a computer or something. Now, that is
recognized and there is much better communication. In fact, in
the 2009 budget, that was a major discussion point. We
definitely are doing much better in that regard, but we intend
to fund those facilities.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. With Mr. Wamp's permission, could I follow up
on that?
You got $10.2 million in the fiscal year 2008 appropriation
for the CBOCs and their IT needs. How much more do you need?
Mr. Howard. I believe the number is 63 CBOCs in fiscal year
2009.
Mr. Edwards. How about the new CBOCs for fiscal year 2008?
Mr. Howard. Sir, that is covered.
Mr. Edwards. For 2008, it is now covered, 2008 is covered.
So the 14 new CBOCs that were just announced by the secretary
last week, the IT costs for those are covered?
Mr. Howard. Sir, as far as I know we are okay up to now, as
long as there aren't more thrown on the table, and we don't
expect that.
Mr. Edwards. All right. And for 2009, was the money you
needed requested via the IT budget? Or is there where you are
having a discussion with VHA?
Mr. Howard. This is IT. This is IT money.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. It is in the request?
Mr. Howard. Right.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Great.
We have been joined by Mr. Berry and Mr. Bishop, which we
appreciate given the House is out of session until next week.
Thank you both for being here.
Mr. Berry, do you have any questions you would like to ask,
or comments you care to make?

DATA EXCHANGE

Mr. Berry. I probably should know the answer to this, but
it won't be the first question that I ever asked that I didn't
know the answer to. In our office as we try to help veterans
get the benefits that they are entitled to, over and over we
run into the problem of being able to get their military
records made available to the VA, so that they can conclude
whatever process has to take place. Has that always been that
way? Is it something that we are not doing right or the
veterans are not doing right when they leave active duty?
We have even been told by the VA that they can't get that
information because it belongs to the (INAUDIBLE) for instance.
Should we expect that to stay that way? It seems to me that
with the ability to handle information that we have today, it
should be a simple thing. Maybe there is a good reason for it
not being that way, but for the VA to be able to access the
military records of these people.
Mr. Howard. Sir, it was that way in the past. I can tell
you that there have been very, very significant improvements in
that area. We are not completely there yet. You know, there is
still a lot more that needs to be done. For example, through
our electronic health record system, you can access
information. In fact, DOD can as well. There are programs in
place to continue to enhance the sharing of information between
VA and DOD. In fact, I will let Paul talk to this in just a
moment because he is intimately involved in all of this.
In answer to your question, sir, there may be individual
cases where veterans are having difficulty, but I can tell you
for a fact it has improved substantially over the last couple
of years, and there is a major push underway particularly with
standardization of information--you know, in exchange between
VA and DOD--and also to come closer in terms of the
applications used to actually access the information.
Paul, you may want to speak to that.
Mr. Tibbits. Yes, sir. Thank you.
We do have miles to go before we sleep, but we have made
substantial progress with the current exchange, both with
regard to health information and the other information
necessary to establish a veteran's eligibility for all other
kinds of----
On the health side, let me just stay with the electronic.
From the electronic perspective, we are today exchanging
information between both departments, which would cover about I
will say 95 percent of the (INAUDIBLE) primary care doctor to
deliver health care. On the benefits side, there is again a
high percentage. I don't know the benefits side quite as well,
but could potentially guess there, but I will tell you that you
are probably familiar with the DEER system at the Department of
Defense. VA has now stood up an analog to that called BADIR.
We have many data interchanges between both departments, 31
of them in fact from DOD to VA, and 11 back from VA to DOD,
which are point-to-point and which are all being compressed
into a single data-feed with some quality assurances on top of
those to improve (INAUDIBLE) information. All of those data-
feeds, the 31 and the 11 back and forth, are to support the
compensation and pension determination in terms of GI bill
benefits for both rehab, home loan guarantees, et cetera, et
cetera.
Those data-feeds, both on the health and benefits side, are
not a complete representation of what we at the VA need,
however, to comprehensively serve all of the eligibilities that
a veteran has. So to supplement that, we have now just as of
the end of March created a draft plan which is going through
vetting right now. We call it the VA-DOD information
interoperability plan. That information interoperability plan
will be suitable for let's say public consumption probably by
the end of the summer, in August.
It is to supplement the data exchanges. It is to define the
pathway and create requirements to supplement the data
exchanges that I am currently describing to you to add the data
we are missing. On the DD-214, for example, what exactly is the
plan to get all the military awards. We don't get military
awards today on (INAUDIBLE). That, in turn, is some benefit to
the eligibility (INAUDIBLE). To get the DD-214 in its entirety
(INAUDIBLE) format will be part of that new plan.
If a neurologist needs the electro-encephalogram to treat
traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, yes
or no, that will be part of the follow-on plan that I just
described. So there is a big bucket of stuff we have done now,
and then we are putting this plan in place to acquire what
remains (INAUDIBLE).
Mr. Berry. I applaud what you are doing. It makes a whole
lot of sense to me. I personally have gotten involved with some
of these cases and experienced it. I think one thing that could
help, and this may not be your area of responsibility, but we
have run from time to time into personnel at the VA that just
simply, for whatever reason there is, find it more to their
liking to just say we can't find it, than to try to help these
veterans that supposedly we are all here to try to help. I
think if you could do anything you could do to try to improve
the attitude of those folks, it would also be helpful. I know
you all haven't got a wire hooked up to all of them.
Mr. Tibbits. That is a great comment. Yes. That is a very
good comment. Part of that actually does fall in our arena and
part of it does not. Some of the things we are doing to
ameliorate that--first of all for example, to further empower
the veteran, him- or herself, so they know actually what they
can get. We are improving our electronic face to the veteran.
We are developing a portal strategy.
We are standing up the My e-Benefits portal, which turn out
to be a tailored way that a veteran can say if I am missing my
left leg, if I have to be a resident of the state of West
Virginia, if I have to be (INAUDIBLE), whatever it is, if all
those conditions (INAUDIBLE), I am eligible for all these
possible claims from the Department of Labor, from the
government of West Virginia, where in fact (INAUDIBLE). So that
will give them some--
Next, we have outreach activities underway where our
secretary (INAUDIBLE) beyond what I just said, from looking at
our databases, there are indicators in there and is there
enough data to where we could identify a subset of veterans who
should have applied for some veterans benefit and who have not.
So we are launching an outreach activity to try to make them
aware of the fact that they are eligible for more things than
they are currently asking for.
Okay. The last one that does fall in our area that I want
to mention is, for example with these information exchanges,
they are coming on so fast that there are a substantial number
of let's say physicians or nurse practitioners who at some of
our medical facilities don't know that that data is in there
three clicks behind that front screening, even though it is
there. So with (INAUDIBLE) in our arena is also some sort of
(INAUDIBLE) internal outreach program, internal to the VA to
make sure all of our (INAUDIBLE) know that that stuff is there.
So the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs and myself have now, in addition to trying to
take some programmatic means of outreach, are going on a road
show around the country to have meetings with the senior
leadership of the VA and the senior leadership of a military
treatment facility together--we just did Central Texas--to say
here is all the stuff, and then the people and go ahead and
say, gee, when is that going to be available. And we say, well,
it is now--just click through your screen here, three clicks in
and there it is.
So there is an awareness piece that does fall upon us, that
we need to put more energy into to make sure the staff out
there are aware of what actually technically is already up and
running.
Mr. Howard. Sir, adding to that, it is a unique situation.
The IT organization is centralized. The VA, as you know, is
decentralized. So what we are discovering is we can actually
serve as a catalyst in some of these areas because
communication is a difficult thing anyway. In a decentralized
organization, it is extremely difficult.
We know that this communication issue that Paul is
describing is one of our challenges. We believe in the IT world
we may have a better shot at trying to improve that because we
have folks all the way down to the facility level. But even
with what I said, it is a major challenge to get the word out
so that folks understand what Paul is describing.
Mr. Berry. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop.

TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
I was very interested in a lot of what Mr. Berry was
exploring. I appreciate the efforts. I think last year we were
told we were well on the way; we were making progress. My
caseworkers are still frustrated because they say it takes too
long to process the claims.
And then on a more personal basis, I have a brother-in-law
who is a veteran. He had a heart attack--in fact, he had two or
three. He has to go into the civilian hospital. As soon as he
gets out, he has to get medication. He takes his medical
records from the hospital directly to the VA community clinic.
He leaves them there. The information doesn't get inputted into
whatever database the VA has.
The person who has to authorize his medication that has
been prescribed from his hospitalization is over at Tuskegee
and is on vacation for 2 or 3 days, so there is no pharmacist
there to fill it, so it can't be sent by pony express mail from
Tuskegee-Montgomery back over to Columbus, Georgia. He is
supposed to be taking the medication immediately.
These kinds of things seem to be problematic. It seems as
if there ought to be--and I don't know, maybe it is an input
problem in getting whatever the hospital records were from into
the VA system once he hand-delivers them, and having somebody
that can respond quickly.
Mr. Tibbits. Yes, sir. Okay. That is another excellent
question, and it is definitely an area of weakness. The example
you are describing, if you will permit me to dwell on it a
little bit because it is a big issue that you have touched on,
and that is the ability of us as a federal agency in health
care to communicate information with the private sector
doctors, who do not belong to the Federal Government.
Mr. Bishop. Right.
Mr. Tibbits. That has been an issue. My background, by the
way, I have been here in VA since 2006. Before that, I had 26
years-plus in DOD. That communication of clinical information
with the care that we purchase from the private sector has been
a probably 2\1/2\ decade problem at the Department of Defense,
and it is an equally obstinate problem in the Department of
Veterans Affairs. It happens to be a little bit smaller problem
here because we purchase a little bit less care outside than
DOD does, but nonetheless for those who are getting the care,
there is a problem.
Okay. In order to deal with that transmission of electronic
health records, there are several things we can do. First of
all, VA is very interested and fully participative in the HHS
initiative, which is called the AHIC, the American Health
Information Community, and the standard-setting that Secretary
Leavitt is trying to accomplish with respect to information
exchange among many health care entities.
It sets sort of a standard-based approach to all of this,
with some sort of a medium- to long-term flavor to that.
Nonetheless, we are fully engaged in it at the top level and
have (INAUDIBLE) people from VHA in the standard-setting
committee to try to move that forward. We are very interested
in that.
Number two, through that HHS initiative and what I
described, we are moving forward to link ourselves as fast as
HHS looks like they are getting ready, to link ourselves to the
national health information network, and through the national
health information network, to these RIOs that are distributed
around the country.
Well, the RIOs are a very interesting entity, because they
represent--if I can use the term--a coalition of the willing,
of physicians who raised their hand and said I am willing to go
electronic. So we have a self-declared subset of physicians who
are willing to go electronic and they are hooking themselves up
to these RIOs, so you don't need to do a sales job on them.
Right? They are already there. So as that grows and matures, we
will have at least that much connectivity out there to those
who declare themselves willing.
I am the co-chair for one of the lines of action in VA--the
cooperation, we can talk about later. But anyway, I mentioned
my partner in crime, the principal deputy assistant secretary
for health care. He and I work very closely together. One of
the things we are working through that collaborative network is
also trying to understand better what the information exchange
needs are for the Guard and Reserve. And so the Guard and
Reserve represents a special subset which you just mentioned.
The (INAUDIBLE) care issue becomes especially important for
them.
Mr. Bishop. And the (INAUDIBLE) issue, too.
Mr. Tibbits. Exactly right. They demobilize and go out to
see their doctor in Kansas, and how do we know when that person
comes back what the doctor in Kansas did and how does the
doctor in Kansas know what we did. So we are trying to work out
with the Guard and Reserve exactly an understanding of what
their requirements are.
Mr. Bishop. They don't have medical records either--
electronic medical records.
Mr. Tibbits. Well, it depends. When they are mobilized,
when they are on active duty, you couldn't differentiate
someone who came from the Guard and Reserve from someone who
wasn't----
Mr. Bishop. Except their records are not updated.
Mr. Tibbits. When they are on active duty, they are all
treated the same. The issue becomes when they separate.
Mr. Howard. But their private records----
Mr. Bishop. What I am saying, before they get deployed,
their records at their unit, at the National Guard armory or at
the Reserve unit station. And then they are deployed, they
physically carry a folder that may or may not be current with
them.
Mr. Tibbits. Right.
Mr. Bishop. Or they may not carry a folder at all. The only
thing that they will have is, once they are deployed, they are
into the DOD system prospectively.
Mr. Tibbits. That is right.
Mr. Bishop. But not retroactively.
Mr. Tibbits. That is exactly correct.
Mr. Bishop. That is a problem also.
Mr. Tibbits. It is definitely a problem, and that is part
of the understanding on the front and back end that we are
trying to develop better understanding with DOD of what that
is. You can say, why are we interested in that. Well, we are
interested in that because those Guard and Reserve members
become veterans, so we want a complete record on both the front
end and the back end as much as DOD does.
But to go do a (INAUDIBLE) on that, you really would have
to ask questions directly of DOD as to what the funding profile
is they can lay down to put their electronic medical system and
other connectivity out to the Guard and Reserve. I don't have
those details to tell you. But I can tell you this for sure, it
is one of the high priority focus areas for the senior
oversight committee that DOD (INAUDIBLE).
Mr. Bishop. Just the interoperability between VA and DOD is
the basic that you have to get established. What is the
timeline on that? How long is it going to take to get that done
so you have the DD-214, so you have a common database that the
military people will have from discharges and medical
conditions and all of that, so that it is already there so that
when somebody walks in the Veterans office, all they have to do
is click, as you say, and they can pull out all the necessary
information from DOD in terms of their discharge, where they
were located, if they had any kind of exposures.
Mr. Tibbits. Yes, sir. To reach that level of completeness
is what I mentioned earlier. We have this activity underway to
create this information interoperability plan. The first draft
of that now became available at the end of March. We are going
through vetting and a critique of it right now. It will be
finished in August. In August, we should have the timeline and
the specific data on this to answer your question. So by the
end of the summer, we should have it all about laid out,
whatever it is that DOD is willing to commit to by way of
automating all those inputs that they currently don't.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. If I could just have one other question?
Mr. Edwards. If you make it quick.
Mr. Bishop. I will be brief. Spina bifida. I have had some
veterans come to see me recently about the fact that they are
having a great deal of difficulty because I think Congress
passed a law that made the kids eligible for assistance, but
not from the time of birth, only from the date that the law was
passed. These families are suffering with these kids who were
born with spina bifida, who because their parents were exposed
to Agent Orange in Vietnam and subsequent exposures.
Now, these kids are getting some help, but it is not
retroactive to the dates of their birth, which is a problem. Is
VA taking that into account now?
Mr. Tibbits. I don't know that that is an IT issue per se,
so I think I would have to (INAUDIBLE) off on that question.
Mr. Bishop. You don't have any information on that?
Mr. Tibbits. I don't have any information on it.
Mr. Bishop. Okay.
Mr. Tibbits. No, sir.
Mr. Edwards. You have to ask someone medical.
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir. We can ask----
Mr. Edwards. Or the benefits administration----
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. We will start on round two.
Secretary Howard, let me ask you, we all understand and
respect the need to have centralized IT for the VA and you have
outlined some of the benefits of that. I have heard
anecdotally, and I have heard it now from enough sources that I
think it is more than just an isolated case, where when you
have long lead time, you know, there are enough communications
going to VHA employees and your employees to get systems in
place.
But you know, at a time when we have hired I think in the
last year 1,335 new doctors, 4,986 new nurses. We have added
well over $1 billion for new construction in hospitals. The
times when one doctor just needs one work station computer, and
one researcher needs one computer--and I know first-hand there
are some cases where a researcher, a probably $100,000-plus VA
employee, couldn't do this person's work simply because they
didn't have a $1,500 computer.
Has this problem come to your attention? I am not here to
lay blame on whether it is VHA or IT. It is just a fact and I
can understand how this could come up as you are looking at a
big system and long-term issues. Any thoughts about how we can
streamline this process?
We have these just minuscule purchases, but it makes a huge
difference in terms of some key people being able to--doctors,
nurses and researchers--being able to do the work the taxpayers
are paying them to do. Any thoughts on that?
Mr. Howard. Sir, first of all, if an individual like that
shows up in the VA and needs a computer, they can get a
computer. They don't have to come to E-10 to get approval for
that. Now, with that said----
Mr. Edwards. Do they know that? I have talked to people.
Mr. Howard. That is the point. There is confusion. Where
there is smoke, there is fire. You are exactly right. These
things have come to my attention. In order to be sure that we
are able to overcome those issues, we have in fact established
a line. In fact, it is actually in the budget called IT
allocation--you know, facility allocation. Our intent is to
provide a pot of money that is available to the facility CIO
down there at that hospital, and the hospital director, to use
where they want.
Unfortunately, we were not able to put much against that in
fiscal year 2008. We are still struggling to try to find a way
to do that. There is an amount in the transfer request that
came over to begin to infuse some money down at the facility
level. I think it is $35 million. If I am not mistaken, it is
in there somewhere. And that will be allocated together with us
and VHA, depending on the size of the facility and what have
you. But the intent of that money is to do exactly what you
just described. If they need a mouse or a keyboard or screen or
whatever, they can go get it. It is not a problem.
Now, we are introducing--what I don't like them to do is go
buy six servers. That is a different story there.
Mr. Edwards. I understand.
Mr. Howard. But just normal day-to-day expenses is what we
are trying to overcome. This will help us a lot. We actually
put a line in the 2009 budget that is zero right now. We hope
to be able to figure out how to back-need depending on what the
final appropriation is. We definitely believe we need to do
that. We definitely believe the CIO at the facility, and the
hospital director, if you will, needs to have that authority,
within reason, of course. We don't want them establishing their
own network or whatever, but they are not going to do that
because we can control that to some degree.
So you are right. It is a problem. We have heard it and we
intend to fix it.
Mr. Edwards. And when you said not much in the 2008 budget
to put on that line, how much?
Mr. Howard. Sir, right now it is zero, but I have given
instructions to my infrastructure guys. If you give us the $35
million, that is great. It will help a lot. But if you don't, I
will try to find some money somewhere to solve it, because it
is a problem. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Edwards. We will work with you on this. I just think,
you know, Mr. Wamp and I and members of the committee have
talked about with this historic increase in funding for the VA,
it is just critical that we use every dollar efficiently and
wisely, or we are going to end up on some 20/20 program and we
will never be able to have the kind of raising of the bar that
we have been able to historically do over these past 1\1/2\
years. We have a good mark in the budget resolution for the
2009 year.
And you said they can get it right now. I am a researcher.
I have just been hired today. No, I was hired 3 weeks ago, so I
have been working at a VA hospital as a researcher for 3 weeks.
Something has happened and I just haven't been able to get a
work station. What do I do? Do I go to the VA medical director
up there at the hospital?
Mr. Howard. There is a CIO at the facility, sir. There is
an IT staff at each medical facility. They are right there.
Mr. Edwards. At each medical facility, they are supposed to
be able to get that done.
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Howard. And if he still can't get it done, most of them
know my e-mail address.
Mr. Edwards. All right. I am going to follow up on one of
the cases I am aware of. But most importantly, I am thrilled
you recognize there were some issues. You have made a request
to get some resources to change it and to address those
problems, and I salute you.
Mr. Howard. Yes, sir. The one thing I will add, though, is
the communications is important. Like, for example, if 3,000
doctors are going to be hired, you know, we kind of need to
know. It was especially a problem from 2005 to 2008, which has
been pretty much flatlined--you know, the IT budget. The 2009
is very, very helpful in terms of the increase, as well as the
transfer. Dr. Kussman agreed to transfer that money because
they recognized VHA was growing and the IT appropriation was
not able to support it. So there is a communication issue that
we are also solving. Talk to us. Tell us. These guys are coming
in and they need computers.
Mr. Edwards. And one of the things that we asked the
secretary this year, and he has apparently in the last 48 hours
responded to that, is don't wait until August to send us
reprogramming requests. If the VA knows right now there are
some needs where you can spend money by moving it around more
efficiently to help more veterans, we want to hear it now. I
think we got that officially, or it is about to come
officially.
Mr. Howard. Sir, it is here officially. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. So it is here officially. Good.
Mr. Wamp.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with
your comments, especially because I am almost stunned today
that the budget for IT at the VA rivals the entire budget for
the legislative branch of the United States government. I just
came from that subcommittee, and just the IT piece of this
budget is very comparable to the entire budget of all the
staff, all the functions of the entire legislative branch of
our government.
This increase, at 25 percent, is a large number. These are
important investments, but I have heard today this is a
weakness in the system. I have heard you are exactly right that
these systems are problematic. The IG is right. And this is an
example where the money is not enough. The reforms, the new
systems, the accountability--changes are as or more important
than the resources. The resources are important. I don't want
to take anything away from them, but we need to really think
long and hard about that so that we are good stewards.

RESCHEDULING PROJECTS

Now, two questions--rescheduling projects. I am learning as
I go, but it was established to improve the access, decrease
wait times and increase provider availability. I think the
first rollout is in Muskogee, Oklahoma and in 2011 it is going
to be a national program. Are we on schedule, total costs, how
will this impact wait times? Mr. Bishop talked about that. In
the news today, we see a lot about wait times and
responsiveness, and this is kind of a demo. Give us an update
on it.
Mr. Howard. Sir, the alpha test this summer will happen. We
don't anticipate a problem there. The beta test can follow in
Texas and we should hit that okay. We are dealing with a couple
of problems right now. One of them is the infrastructure. As we
roll out, this particular application will go everywhere.
Unlike some that will be sort of at a central location, this
one will be implemented throughout the VHA.
There are some infrastructure issues that we are
addressing, so that should not slow things down. There was a
delay previously, but right now we seem to be on track.
I am going to let Paul elaborate on the timeline, but I
will say one thing to pick up on what you said. For example,
associated with that transfer, as we were going through
debating what to even ask for, one of the criteria we laid down
is we have to be able to do it.
You know, this is not just money. You can't just throw a
pile of money on it. You have to be able to manage it properly.
So we are very sensitive to that, particularly in the project
management of large, complex programs. Scheduling is one of
them. It is an issue that we are dealing with, because you need
skilled people that know what they are doing so that we don't
waste the money you provide us.
But on the timeline, Paul, do you want to elaborate on
that--the scheduling package?
Mr. Tibbits. Yes. The timeline, we would anticipate a
planned finish in 2011, as you said. That is correct. The total
life-cycle costs we have for that right now, as best we can
estimate for both software and hardware and infrastructure, et
cetera--about $180 million, total life-cycle costs to deploy
and run it.
With respect to wait times, I don't have exact percentages
here for you. I would have to follow up with you.
But the reason they are doing this is two reasons, really,
is not only to improve the wait times for veterans, but also to
improve the measurement of those wait times so when someone
asks how many are on the waiting list, how long have they been
on the waiting list, we have a consistent measurement of that
across VHA, so that actually those numbers can be more
effectively managed.
Mr. Howard. Do you want to pick up on that?
Mr. Warren. Sir, if I could go back to your original point
about given the IG's concerns about how you manage these
dollars and the size of the budget (INAUDIBLE). One of the
things that we have done over the last year, and I think the
investigative survey validated it, one of the fundamental
changes that has happened between pre-centralization and
centralization, we actually have a plan of what we are going to
do.
One of the things that I spend a lot of time on is why did
it cost so much money. Just to give you some numbers, our must-
pay bills, if we do no other development, no infrastructure
investments, just to pay what we have in fiscal year 2008 is
$942 million (INAUDIBLE). We have 154 medical centers, 1,000
(INAUDIBLE), regional offices, so if you add all those things
on, it takes a lot to keep that going.
Are we satisfied that that is the right number? No. As we
get our arms around it, where are some of the efficiencies,
where can we consolidate things into a national contract versus
everybody doing it, which then gets into the concern about to
do that you need a contracting force to allow you to do that.
So we are working with them on that.
When we have laid out this budget plan, it is to try and
find the balance among the three areas. What do you have to
pay? The mortgage, the phone bill--you have to pay that. You
have no choice. What does our customer--the health
organization, the benefits organization, the staff
organizations--need to do their job? So there is about $270
million in 2008 just to pay that.
The area that hadn't been funded in the past is you need to
keep your infrastructure fresh. You can't drive the same car
for 20 years if you don't do maintenance on it and you don't
change the oil, and you don't replace the brakes.
Mr. Howard. And this is not just computers. These are the
servers, the whole network that supports what we are trying to
do.
Mr. Warren. And if you had asked the question 2 years ago,
give me a lay-down; where are you spending the money. We
couldn't do it. Today, sir, we can lay down month by month,
contract by contract, and we have monthly meetings with the
leadership. Okay, this contract is due in this month. Are you
done? Where is it? Is it in contracting? Do you have a
statement of work?
So yes, it is a large increase, but it is an increase that
we are going to manage to execution. It is not just a bunch of
money we are throwing away. (INAUDIBLE) concern. We can't wait
for a cost-computerized system. You have to use manual
processes and we are spending time, a lot of time in the senior
leadership to make sure we have control of this budget and we
are managing it.

IT SYSTEMS

Mr. Wamp. Okay. Tell me the difference between veteran-
facing IT systems and internal-facing IT systems, and then tell
the lady sitting behind me of the $1.295 billion request for
veteran-facing IT systems and the $418 million request for
internal-facing IT systems, how much of it is maintenance and
how much of it is new procurement.
Mr. Howard. Sir, first of all, in the budget book, there
are some excellent tables. I know you don't have time to look
at this, but I use them all the time. They are right in the
back of our budget book. It is very helpful in terms of seeing
where the money goes. For example, the veteran-facing are
things you can think of right way--you know, medical care,
vocational rehabilitation--things that the veterans touch
directly. Although our role continues to be an indirect role,
what we are working on in that particular application
definitely is a front-facing application to help the veteran.
The internal-facing ones, as I mentioned earlier, are those
that we need to manage the enterprise. For example, the program
and financial logistics modernization--that is an example of an
internal program. The veteran may not see it, but yet it is
very important to just running the operation. Your contract
management issue that you mentioned earlier is an internal kind
of program, as is cyber-security and telecommunications--the
phones and all that sort of thing. Those are internal-facing
systems.
Now, we have in fact for the first time in fiscal year
2008, we have broken out that portion of the infrastructure,
for example, that really should be more in a veteran-facing
kind of activity. For example, on this table I was showing you,
here is the medical breakdown. You see VistA, imaging, and all
the things that help the medical arena. But right down there at
the bottom is medical program IT support. Read that. That is
the infrastructure piece that we can directly relate to these
medical programs that we are supporting.
The other infrastructure that is sort of across the
enterprise is on a separate sheet. It is on the internal-facing
programs. We have just started this kind of a relationship in
fiscal year 2008 that we have continued into fiscal year 2009.
And we will continue to improve it, because one of the attempts
here is to tie the money to what you are supporting. What is it
really buying you here? And hopefully we will continue to help
in that regard.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Howard. But these are helpful sheets. Tim has them
memorized. [Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Berry.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I have no questions.

DATA EXCHANGE

Mr. Edwards. I just have one other line of questions. Dr.
Tibbits, in coming into this hearing, one of the most important
things I wanted to ask about was the interoperability of our
electronic record systems between DOD and VA. I just want to be
sure I am clear where we are when we leave today.
Do I understand you to say that in August of this year, a
plan will be laid out that will be accessible to Congress and
others that will have a specific recommendation of what kind of
system it would be? A timeline on when Private Smith will be
able to have someone push a button and have his or her records
sent to the VA? Give me a little more detail about what will be
available in August.
Mr. Tibbits. Yes, sir. What we are expecting is a
requirement that says what is the data exchange that is
necessary over and above what we currently do, and a timeline
on which our clinicians and VA clinicians both need that data.
So I would expect that in this plan.
What I would not expect in this plan yet is specific detail
on which particular set of computer systems or which software
or what will accomplish that yet. So I don't think we are going
to go that far. But so far, we don't have a good needs
statement of what the next phase is. This should fill that
hole. So we are then going to stand up--we are now standing up
a program office under the--you are probably familiar with the
Joint Executive Council of the Health Executive Committee--the
(INAUDIBLE) executive committee. We are standing up a joint
program office under that structure, whose job it will be to
continue to oversee the implementation activities that that
plan requires.
So I would think that plan should give you the answer of
when it is (INAUDIBLE) you share across both departments, not
necessarily how.
Mr. Edwards. Just intuitively, when you are talking two of
the largest, not the largest, federal agencies we have, the
Department of Defense and the VA. VA will have its prejudices
about what kind of system we want for records for VA purposes,
and DOD will have their idiosyncrasies and the Army will differ
from the Navy, which will differ from the Air Force, which will
differ from the Marines.
I could very well see some group of individuals sitting at
this very same table 10 years from now and saying, well, when
are we going to get an interoperable electronic medical system
between DOD and the VA. Tell me, you know, we need some
standard by which we judge both VA and DOD on how they are
doing. It may take push from a president or a Secretary of
Defense and the secretary of the VA together, or from Congress.
What should be a time? What should be a reasonable date for
when Sergeant Smith or Private Smith can have their records
transferred when they leave Fort Hood, Texas and they move to
Marion Berry's hometown in Arkansas, before they move to
Tennessee, and they can have those records moved from the
Department of Defense to the VA, and have it accessible from
many of those places.
Mr. Tibbits. Right. So let me work through your question
here because there is a lot in it, so I am going to try to
tease it apart. There is today electronic information. Some of
it is computable, some of it is viewable, and other (INAUDIBLE)
I can skip to later if you want to come back to it. (INAUDIBLE)
information exchange between both departments today are already
happening, that would meet 95 percent of the needs of a primary
care doctor to deliver primary care today--already, as of about
December of the last calendar year, December 2007. That
information is going back and forth now.
Mr. Edwards. What DOD medical records are electronic?
Mr. Tibbits. All of the laboratory work, all of the
pharmacy work, all of the radiology work, a good portion of
doctor notes based on the system they call (INAUDIBLE). Well,
it is a combination of (INAUDIBLE) plus what they call CHES and
(INAUDIBLE) together. So a very large percentage on the
outpatient side.
On the in-patient side, I think it is at 14 facilities, I
believe is the right number. They have a system on the in-
patient side running a commercial system called DISENTIS, I
believe is the name, which in electronic form captures a good
portion of the in-patient data, discharge summary being the
most important. These (INAUDIBLE) patient looked when they left
the hospital.
Where that exists, in those 14 places, that also is
included in the electronic transmissions to us. DOD itself has
to go through its own (INAUDIBLE) and budget process, which I
am sure you are all familiar with. So with respect to spurring
that in-patient capability in electronic form across the rest
of the DOD, they go through their own prioritization
activities.
However, to ameliorate the costs and schedule (INAUDIBLE)
of that in-patient thing on both sides--really on their side to
do it for the first time; on our side to re-do it, which is
what we are doing with HealtheVet. You all are probably
familiar with the joint study that VA and DOD have already
launched to look at joint development of the in-patient module
of the electronic health record and hospital information
system. Phase one of that has already been reported out. Phase
one was the requirements and feasibility phase, which looked at
the commonality of requirements between both departments.
Other than that, we have long-term care. The Department of
Defense has pediatric care and from a (INAUDIBLE) perspective,
the Department of Defense has to operate in-theater, in combat.
By and large with those caveats, 95 percent, some very high
percentage of commonality of in-patient requirements exists
between VA and DOD. So from a feasibility perspective, joint
development makes sense, so that was phase one.
Phase two has now started. Phase two is I think best
described as the technical analysis of alternatives. So phase
two is to look at potential solutions to development--potential
solution number one, potential solution number two, potential
solution number three, et cetera; pros, cons, costs, schedules,
risks, et cetera, et cetera--and see what might be the best way
to go about jointly doing that in-patient piece.
What I want to emphasize is with respect to a common
system, just as all of you in this room in your private lives
probably use email on your own private systems at home. I will
bet none of you in this room know which email system each other
of you uses at home, nor what telecommunication provider each
of you have at home. It doesn't matter to you because you all
speak English and because your respective systems all follow a
standard set of protocols for messaging. You can exchange
information among yourselves without having any idea of what
system is running on the other side.
I am saying this because we want to be careful about not
letting the great get in the way of the good. Information
interoperability to serve the needs of active duty service
members and veterans today is what is of paramount importance.
The sending and receiving software for that purpose is
irrelevant. The sending and receiving software is irrelevant.
We want to look at joint development of the in-patient
records and reduce costs and schedule risks, so perhaps the
Department of Defense can get it faster, and perhaps we can get
it a little bit faster, but in the meantime we don't want to
look back or get in front of the information exchange
requirements that we are defining in this information
interoperability plan, because that is what is meeting the
needs of veterans and service members today, and will continue
to do so next year and the year after and the year after, while
we are going forward with (INAUDIBLE) alternatives to figure
out what is the best way to jointly develop stuff.
If all of you in this room had to come to agreement with
everybody on a new address book as to what e-mail system you
were going to use before you sent the first message, you
wouldn't be sending messages today. So the key to meeting the
needs of those members is that information interoperability
plan first and foremost, and then the joint development thing
secondary.
Mr. Edwards. Are you saying that every Army soldier that
leaves the Army today, and say they move from Fort Drum, New
York to Seattle, Washington, and are about to go see a private
doctor in Seattle, Washington. Are you saying the Department of
Defense health care records are electronic and they could have
those transferred electronically to their family physician in
Seattle, Washington?
Mr. Tibbits. No. About 80 percent of what you said is true.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Tibbits. If they move from Florida to Washington----
Mr. Edwards. That is pretty good for a politician.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tibbits. If they move from Florida to Washington state,
and they go from treatment at the VA Florida to treatment at a
VA in Washington state, absolutely their records are available
out there. So yes to that. For every piece of electronic
information, there is a caveat. This is a trick statement I am
about to make. Every piece of electronic information that the
DOD has is transferred to us at the time of separation. Every
electron on that program. That doesn't mean it is everything.
It gets back to the information interoperability plan to
make sure what may not be there electronically today is
represented in that plan, so he gets it. And we have both
deputy secretaries--Secretary England and Secretary Mansfield--
on the top of that senior oversight committee who are signed up
to do that plan by August.
The private doctor in Washington state--we have My
HealtheVet--that is a Web site. My HealtheVet is a viewport
that the veteran can use to both upload data about him-or
herself. I checked my blood pressure last night and it was
such-and-such. Okay? It also represents a viewport into certain
selected elements right now, and growing, but anyway certain
selected items of their electronic medical record at the VA.
Very soon, and I will need to say for the sake of
discussion, this calendar year, but I don't remember the exact
month--but anyway, this year--delegation authority will be
built into My HealtheVet as a function. So today the veteran
could to his doctor in Kansas in the office say, let me sit at
your browser for a minute, type in the URL, boom, up comes My
HealtheVet, and as long as the veteran is doing it, the doctor
can come over and look at the screen and hit the print button
and print it out in the doctor's office. So yes, that can be
done today.
With that delegation authority, if that veteran wishes his
wife to do that or his brother to do that, with delegation
authority, the veteran could actually say, brother, you can do
that for me in case I am incapacitated, unconscious, whatever
happens to me, and you can call up that information on my
behalf and show it to the doctor in the emergency room who
wishes to treat me. So it is delegation authority. So that will
be there soon--the delegation authority.
And then, of course, what My HealtheVet itself can view is
going to continue to grow in time as well, so (INAUDIBLE)
expand over time. And I will say, as a close, as an analogous
system--and I can't tell you exactly functionally how analogous
it is--but it is analogous in general terms on the DOD side,
which is TRICARE online. There is a very close working
relationship, also I might add, between our team, My
HealtheVet, and the DOD team, TRICARE online, to collaborate as
much as possible and doing the same sort of things we need the
capabilities connecting to each other, et cetera, et cetera.
And lastly, just for a little bit of advertising here, this
accreditation body called EURAC just had an awards competition
for consumer empowerment in various categories. My HealtheVet
was nominated, and it turned out at the ceremony, My HealtheVet
wound up getting the top honors in the IT category for consumer
empowerment.
Mr. Edwards. Congratulations. That is great news. Thank
you.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. No further questions.
Mr. Edwards. If not, I am sure there will be a lot of
continuing questions and discussions in the months ahead. You
have a lot of responsibility in building a relatively new
organization. I know it is a challenge. Thank you, Secretary
Howard, for taking on the challenge. Thank you very much, Dr.
Tibbits. Thank you for your work, and we look forward to
working with you.
One last thought. This $35 million, if we get that to you
in reprogramming, what are the probabilities that that will
cover 100 percent of your needs in fiscal year 2008 so that
researchers, doctors and nurses don't lack work stations.
Mr. Howard. Those kinds of needs, sir, it is going to
handle those kinds of needs.
Mr. Edwards. All right. That will take care of that.
Mr. Howard. Again, the allocation will be worked with VHA
as we decide which hospital gets how much.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

1. Proposed Legislative Language

Mr. Howard, in the FY 2010 legislation submitted to the Congress,
you propose to delete the requirement that the Department of Veterans
Affairs submit a detailed expenditure plan to the Committees on
Appropriations. This expenditure plan must meet the capital planning
and investment control review requirements established by OMB and
comply with the Department's enterprise architecture.
Why is the Department proposing this change in legislation and what
assurance would the Committee have that you are meeting basic
acquisition benchmarks if we were to agree to this proposal?
Response. VA is proposing to eliminate this appropriation language
because the process we have in place for IT planning is mature and our
normal business operations comply with requirements of the language for
capital planning review, enterprise architecture review, life cycle
review and follow appropriate acquisition rules.

2. Office of Information and Technology

The Appropriation Committee's Surveys and Investigations staff has
recently completed a review of the Department's information and
technology programs and reports that the Office of Information and
Technology has a staffing requirement of 6,680 full-time equivalent
employees. However, to satisfy this requirement in FY 2009 you would
need to hire 1,990 additional people.
Does your budget include the necessary funding to hire almost 2,000
people in one year? And do you feel you can realistically find
qualified applicants to satisfy this requirement? Is this shortfall in
personnel the result of other Department organizations failing to
identify and transfer existing information and technology personnel to
your organization?
Response. As of March 29, 2008, the Office of Information and
Technology (OI&T) has 6,439 staff on-board. We only need to hire an
additional 247 staff in FY 2008 to reach our 6,686 staffing level
entering into FY 2009. In addition, the FY 2009 budget provides
sufficient payroll funding to support 6,686 FTE as well as an
additional 94 FTE for a total of 6,780 FTE.
The ability to recruit and employ qualified applicants is, in large
part, dependent on the duty station the employee is assigned to. At
present, hiring has been constrained--OI&T organizations have been
instructed to phase hiring to remain within current FY 2008 available
funds, The need for an additional $20 million in payroll funds in FY
2008 is due to a number of factors. For example, the initial cost at
the time of the transfers for the reorganization assumed a lower
average salary for the IT staff than actually existed and required and
leasing costs (which must be paid from the ``pay'' portion of the
appropriation) were higher than anticipated. These additional payroll
funds are included in the appropriation transfer request submitted to
Congress on April 2, 2008.
The impact on IT related tasks previously performed by individuals
on a part time basis (part time program Administration support/part
time IT support), has been difficult to determine. However, we are
reassessing this impact currently to refine additional IT resource
needs due to this split function that may not have been captured in the
first transfer. In addition, we are also examining the operational
impact on OIT of staffing retained in other VA organizations for
business requirements determination work. OI&T is developing a staffing
model relative to field operations and development, which will provide
a more accurate estimate of the number of IT FTE required to support
VA's IT needs.

3. VistA Contracting

The Appropriation Committee's Surveys and Investigations staff has
recently completed a review of the Department's information and
technology programs and reports that HealtheVet program offices are not
able to obtain the skilled contractor support they require using the
Department's VistA Contracting Services (VCS) and, as a consequence,
staffing problems are negatively impacting program schedules. The staff
reports that the VCS process takes too long and that multiple contract
modifications are required when labor hours change because of the
multiple labor categories and contractors involved. As a result, VCS
currently has a significant backlog of modifications it is trying to
process.
Would you agree that the VCS process takes too long and is having a
negative impact on program schedules, and what steps are you taking to
address the problem?
Response. The VistA Contracting Services (VCS) is not so much a
process but a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with eight contractors
for VistA Contractor support (VCS). Generally, orders competed against
a BPA are the most efficient and timesaving way to acquiring goods and
services. However, the delays we are experiencing are with acquisitions
taking too long and having a negative impact on program schedules. It
is important to note the VCS contract is focused primarily on the
ongoing support to the VistA system and only Block I of the HealtheVet
program. (See Attachment A.) To resolve the significant acquisition
issues we are facing in OI&T, the Office of Enterprise Development
(OED) and acquisitions staff are working very closely together. While
an end-to-end acquisition strategy for the multi-phased HealtheVet
program is not yet established, a jointly-chaired OED/Acquisitions
HealtheVet Acquisition Strategy Integrated Project Team is now in place
to work consistently on the plan. A critical aspect of this
collaboration is the establishment of HealtheVet-dedicated ``cells''
within the Offices of the General Counsel (OGC) and Acquisition, a step
that will be accomplished within the next few months. Additionally, OED
management meets regularly with the Corporate Franchise Data Center in
Austin, Texas to provide the contracting professionals working on the
HealtheVet acquisition vehicles (contracting mechanisms) with an
orientation to the transition from VistA to HealtheVet. These efforts
will build a staff of acquisition and OGC professionals intimately
familiar with the challenges of such a complex transition of
applications.

4. VistA Foundations Modernization Program

The VistA Foundations Modernization program is the capital
investment program that provides the architecture and foundational
elements to the new HealtheVet effort. The budget for this program is
$95 million, an increase of about 45 percent compared to the FY 2008
estimate. In a review of this program, the Appropriation Committee's
Surveys and Investigations staff found there is not yet a thorough
integration plan for this program. In addition, they found the program
is not able to hire qualified IT staff, and there is a lack of
flexibility in existing contracting vehicles, both of which indicate it
is unlikely this program will remain on schedule.
What is the status of completing a thorough integration plan for
this program? And would you comment on the efforts of the program to
hire qualified staff?
Response. HealtheVet, like VistA, is an extremely complex system
requiring highly-developed integration. The dependencies inherent in a
system like HealtheVet have become clearer as a result of the recent IT
consolidation at VA and, in conjunction with this clarity, a
recognition that a dedicated technical system integrator is required to
provide the extensive oversight to make this program successful. This
function is currently being served by multiple individuals and
organizations. As a result, the Office of Enterprise Development is
establishing a consolidated and collaborative system integration team
led by an authoritative technical and architectural integration
manager. This team will be comprised not only of health care-focused
system engineers, but also system engineers from benefits and memorial
affairs to provide a global perspective of HealtheVet within the VA
architecture. The early form of this team will meet in May/June 2008 to
establish a high-level service-oriented architecture-centered plan for
HealtheVet.
In the interim, the health care-focused team of systems engineers
and architects is working toward several milestones that will assist in
expanding the existing integration plan:
System engineers continue to be embedded into Veterans
Health IT portfolios and programs in order to provide real-time,
matrixed support to application development and architecture. These
individuals have cross-cutting contacts in both their assigned programs
and the rest of the systems engineering team to ensure better
understanding of integration challenges.
The team responsible for the integrated master schedule
and plan presents weekly to the Veterans Health IT Change Control Board
to apprise senior management of schedule changes.
A new work plan, process definition plan, and process flow
documentation for a release management technical working group was
created. The release management team provides integration between
development, program management, and senior management in order to
ensure software is correctly and appropriately released to the field.
With respect to hiring the necessary qualified staff to ensure the
management of the HealtheVet systems, OED is presently completing
organizational streamlining to eliminate redundancies that existed when
there were at least four different development organizations at VA,
prior to the recent consolidation. As part of this streamlining, we are
evaluating the required staffing skills and abilities mix required for
HealtheVet as well as the other critical development projects presently
underway at VA. We have had difficulties in hiring program/project
leadership and as a result have reached out to the Space and Naval
Systems Warfare Center (SPAWAR), with expertise in systems engineering
and systems integration, to support our efforts in this area. In
addition, we are developing the appropriate mix of Federal and
contractor staff necessary to successfully develop and deploy
HealtheVet.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Edwards.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Farr.]

5. Lost Data

In 2006, it was well publicized that VA laptops with personal
information of thousands of veterans were stolen from a VA employee.
Fortunately, we avoided an even bigger problem when the laptops were
recovered with the sensitive information in tact.
What safeguards has VA put in place to prevent a similar incident
in the future?
As VA moves more and more towards a complete electronic records
system, what steps are being taken to prevent a similar theft of
information through a breach of electronic security?
How will the VA participate in the new Presidential Cyber Center?
Response. Safeguards: In September 2007, VA published the
Department's information security policy--VA Handbook 6500. This
document contains the primary cyber security procedural and operational
requirements of the Department. It also includes the National Rules of
Behavior--a document that all employes must sign before they are given
access to our computer systems and sensitive information. In addition,
VA
Is centrally managing implementation, enforcement and
remediation of IT security controls throughout the Department via the
Data Security--Assessment and Strengthening of Controls Program (DS-
ASC) and the Secrity Management and Reporting Tool (SMART) database.
Has established the OI&T Office of IT Oversight &
Compliance (ITOC) which consolidates existing IT security inspection
and compliance program activities into one office to assist in
centralized enforcement of VA IT security controls.
Has conducted risk assessments of its information systems
and has incorporated the Formal Event Review Evaluation Tool (FERET)
into VA's incident reporting capability to provide a VA-wide risk
analysis tool for the identification of data breach-related events as
incidents.
Has provided security awareness training to 95 percent of
its employees and specialized training to 100% of its employees with
significant security responsibilities in FY 2007.
Steps to prevent a similar theft of information throuqh a breach of
electronic security. The VA National Security Operations Center (NSOC)
audits and monitors:
Incident Management (initial report, information
collection, follow up, closure)
Firewalls (monitor for known threats and anomalies)
Network Intrusion Prevention System (monitor for
known threats and implementing blocks of new threats (policy
tuning))
Host-base Intrusion Prevention System (monitor for
known threats and policy tuning) and
Anti-Virus (monitor definition updates and viral
infections)
Encryption is being implemented throughout VA in an expeditious yet
cautious manner as to not halt business operations. VA has deployed
several technologies to encrypt data in storage and in transit. VA has
encrypted over 18,000 laptops and continues to encrypt new laptops as
they are acquired. VA is in the process of deploying technology,
Attachmate Reflections, which will encrypt data that is sent via File
Transfer Protocol (FTP) and Telnet. Data from applications such as the
Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS), Veterans Health Information
System and Technology Architecture (VistA) and Integrated Funds
Distribution, Control Point Activity, Accounting and Procurement
(IFCAP) will be encrypted using Attachmate Reflections.
Also, the new VA remote access solution, the remote enterprise
security compliance update environment (RESCUE), will encrypt data
using Secure Socket Layer (SSL). VA has also turned on password and
``content protection'' on blackberry devices which encrypts blackberrys
when they're locked. VA has procured and deployed Trust Digital to
encrypt SmartPhones. The VA Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) solution
has been operational for several years and is used to encrypt email and
for Web-authentication. Recently, VA deployed a Microsoft Rights
Management Service (RMS) technology that compliments VA PKI, and can be
used to encrypt emails, documents and files of VA information. VA is in
the midst of pilot testing an extension of the RMS capability to mobile
devices and business partners.
VA is currently developing an enterprise level Identity and Access
Management (IDAM) strategy. A cross-Departmental Tiger Team was created
to perform data collection and analysis and provide recommendations to
VA management on a One VA approach for IDAM. The Tiger Team has
concluded its efforts and is drafting an executive report which will
provide findings, recommendations and next steps.
Presidential Cyber Center. The Presidential Cyber Center is a new
initiative. VA will offer any support required for this important
initiative.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Farr.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Wamp.]

6. Reprogramming Letter

The Committee received a reprogramming request from the VA for $294
million from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to go toward VA IT.
VA Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) needs to hire 1,590
people by this August in order to meet the FY 2008 staffing
requirement. Are these reprogramming funds going toward this staffing
requirement? Where is VA looking to find and hire 1,600 people in the
next 5 months? Is VA actively trying to hire vets to fill this staffing
requirement?
With the reprogramming, has VHA also moved its IT staff over to
OI&T?
Response. Of the $294 million transfer request from VHA to OI&T,
$20 million is to enable us to hire an additional 247 staff up to the
planned level of 6,686, so that we are positioned to start FY 2009 to
achieve the budgeted staffing level.
VA is planning on hiring 247 IT staff by the end of FY 2008. OI&T
is an active supporter of the Department's goal to hire veterans. The
April transfer request does not propose to realign staff from VHA to
OI&T.

7. Surveys and Investigations Report

Based on the most recent Appropriation Committee's Surveys and
Investigations (S&I) report of VA IT, the Veterans Health
Administration (which previously controlled 90 percent of VA's IT
funding) has been uncooperative with the VA OI&T and has continued to
retain IT personnel as well as continued to purchase IT equipment
without consulting with OI&T. In addition, Secretary James Peake has
thus far not publicly expressed support for a strong, centralized IT
management program which has caused concern that VHA will be able to
persuade Secretary Peake that they should again control discretion
about how best to allocate IT funding. Based on past performance by
VHA, VHA's ability to use IT funding in the most prudent way is
questionable. According to the S&I report this internal struggle for
control over IT funds between OI&T and VHA may jeopardize the initial
success of VA's centralized IT system. Are there concerns at the VA
that the centralized IT system will become destabilized by internal
struggle between VHA and OI&T?
Response. Secretary Peake is a strong supporter of information and
technology and its ability to enhance the Department's capability to
provide quality services to our veterans. As a result of the recent
consolidation OI&T has put in place a disciplined process to plan and
manage the execution of the IT appropriation at VA. In conjunction with
this we have also established a multi-year planning process to ensure
we are planning for the future. The Chief Information Officer is
actively working with VHA leadership to resolve any concerns at the
staff level with the consolidation of IT functions.

8. Rescheduling Project

The goals of the Scheduling Rescheduling project are to improve
access to care for veterans, decrease wait times for appointments, and
increase provider availability. The first version of the project will
be placed in production at the VA medical center in Muskogee, Oklahoma,
during June 2008, followed by ``several activities'' in FY 2009 in
preparation for completion of a national rollout in FY 2011.
According to the testimony the first version of the Scheduling
Replacement project will be placed in production at the Muskogee,
Oklahoma, VA medical center in June 2008. Are you on schedule to put
that in place in June?
Tell the Committee what has to be done to get that in place? What
activities will take place for the remainder of fiscal year 2008 on the
Scheduling Replacement project? Has the Scheduling Replacement Project
been tested and validated?
Please tell the Committee how this initial deployment was tested
and validated? What other locations are included in the initial
installation of the project? What application is being used for the
project? What type of improvements do you anticipate having to make in
fiscal year 2009? What type of hardware and software will have to be
purchased, and at what cost? What is the total cost to implement the
Scheduling Replacement Project? What are the projected annual costs to
maintain this system?
How will you know access to care has been improved? How will you
know that wait times for appointments have decreased?
How will you know that provider availability has increased?
Response. Are you on schedule to put that in place in June? Tell
the Committee what has to be done to qet that in place?
The application is now scheduled to be in production in August
2008. Delays in vendor repairs to the application as well as the
reintegration and retesting of new versions of external components
required for deployment resulted in this delay. VA will continue with
the product certification process and instituted weekly defect
deliveries that will be tested by the business users for approval of
operational readiness in order to mitigate any future time issues.
What activities will take place for the remainder of fiscal year
2008 on the Scheduling Replacement project?
The remainder of FY 2008 will be devoted to certification of the
application for production, preparation for training activities at
Muskogee and ensuring the support structure is in place for both
technical and business issues that may arise during deployment. The
testing and validation of the application is in process with
certification expected in July 2008.
Has the Scheduling Replacement Project been tested and validated?
In order to prepare for initial deployment, the application
undergoes several phases of testing, including functional testing,
performance testing, integration testing, and disaster recovery testing
prior to deployment. In addition, several levels of approval are
required to field the application, including Independent Validation and
Verification certification, user acceptance testing and approval,
milestone review (operational readiness) by VA senior management, and
formal agreement with the Muskogee VA Medical Center Director. Only one
site (Muskogee VA Medical Center) will be included in the initial
installation. The second site for the next phase is anticipated to be
the Central Texas Healthcare System, which is a much larger and more
complex medical center.
The application being deployed is the Replacement Scheduling
Application (RSA). In addition, commercial products such as Oracle,
Linux, Weblogic and Crystal Reports are utilized as part of the overall
system architecture.
In FY 2009, the application will include additional enhancements
such as group management of patients, improved ad hoc reporting
capabilities, and local management of several files and tables. Also
included will be upgraded versions of supporting components as part of
the overall HealtheVet infrastructure. Expected business improvements
include improved access to care, inter-facility scheduling, and new
metrics designed to more accurately capture patient waiting times at
any level of VHA.
What are the projected annual costs to maintain this system?
Two application servers and supporting operating systems for each
site must be purchased. This provides a primary server and a failover
system in the event of failure to ensure continuity of operations.
Other purchases for deployment are software licenses (Crystal Clear and
Oranxo), Linux, Weblogic server licenses, and data storage at the
Corporate Data Center in Austin, Texas. Estimated cost for the
procurement of software and hardware is $12 million over FY 2009 and FY
2010 phased in through the deployment schedule. The total cost to
complete is estimated at $180 million for FY 2001 through FY 2011.
Annual maintenance costs are approximately $13 million per year. Those
costs include planned license renewals, planned equipment refreshes,
operational support at the Corporate Data Center, and ongoing
maintenance and support of the application.
How will you know access to care has been improved?
The deployment plan includes metrics that baseline the current
access to care and wait times in order to verify improvement of care.
This will be measured at each site prior to the installation of the
application. Metrics will be gathered weekly to determine the
improvement from the baseline in the areas of access to care
(availability of appointment slots), provider availability, same day
care, special appointment availability (such as compensation and
pension and service connected), and overall improvement in the
management of outpatient care.
How will you know that wait times for appointments have decreased?
Wait time statistics are historically available and will be used
as the initial baseline for performance improvement. With the
implementation of the business process reengineering and supporting
application, the new metrics will be compared to the baseline to
determine the percentage of improvement. The new wait lists also
include long term and short term pending lists that send reminders for
appointment scheduling, thus ensuring that future availability for care
is not compromised or used as wait lists in lieu of a better solution.
How will you know that provider availability has increased?
Provider availability is historically available in VistA and will
be used as the initial baseline for performance improvement. With the
implementation of single calendars for every provider, the restriction
of care is lifted that is currently imposed by the outdated clinic
structure in place today. The single calendar will allow for the
clinician to provide any type of health care, and also track provider
availability in 5 minute increments.

9. Encryption/Privacy of Mobile Service Delivery

The testimony says portable IT equipment for benefit counselors is
encrypted to protect veterans' privacy. Are you facing challenges doing
this? If so, what are some of the challenges you are facing to ensure
the encryption of data? If you are not facing challenges in this
regard, tell the Committee what you are doing to ensure the privacy of
our veterans as it relates to delivering mobile services?
Response. Are you facing challenges doing this?
VA, OI&T Field Operations has taken a number of steps to ensure the
privacy of our veterans when using portable IT media. Portable IT
equipment for benefit counselors may include laptops and USB storage
devices (thumb drives). All laptops that are issued to any VBA employee
have been encrypted using the Guardian Edge software. This software
package encrypts the entire hard drive so that no data is left
unencrypted.
The transmission of data over the Internet between field computers
and the VA network is also encrypted. All laptops are registered to a
specific user who is required to connect the laptop to the VA network
at least every 90 days to ensure security updates occur. All laptops
connect to the VA network via secure Virtual Private Network (VPN).
Through this secure VPN connection, users can perform all necessary
tasks within the VA network so that data is saved on the internal VA
centralized system and not on the portable laptop.
If a VBA employee requires a thumb drive to perform duties, only
encrypted VA-approved thumb drives are authorized. These thumb drives
contain a small amount of space that contains the encryption software.
This space cannot be encrypted. This is a minor challenge for our
organization that is being addressed by educating users of these
devices.
If so, what are some of the challenges you are facing to ensure the
encryption of data?
These security processes require significant effort on the part of
IT staffs to enable encryption and train the users. This challenge
applies to both laptop and thumb drive encryption. Additionally, the
use of encrypted devices reduces response time. Most users have noted
time delays when using encrypted laptops and thumb drives, especially
when working with large amounts of data. Although this has presented
some challenges, everyone agrees that this is the best solution
available.

10. Veteran Facing Information Technology (IT) Systems

Veteran facing IT systems support VA programs such as medical care,
delivering compensation benefits, providing pension benefits, enhancing
educational opportunities, delivering vocational rehabilitation and
employment services, promoting homeownership, providing insurance
service, and delivering burial services. Veteran facing programs
account for $1.295 million of the IT request. The payroll portion of IT
is an additional $729.2 million.
Response. Of the $1.295 billion for veteran facing IT systems, how
much of that is maintenance of current systems and how much of that is
for new procurement?
Out of the $1.295 billion for veteran facing, $401 million
represents the development projects (new procurement) and $893 million
represents the maintenance and operations accounts.
Of the payroll portion of your veteran facing IT systems, how much
of that is for maintaining the personnel you have on board, how much of
that is the fiscal year 2009 pay raise, and how much is for hiring new
personnel? What is the attrition rate of your VA IT staff?
In FY 2009, the salary and other pay related costs for the 94
additional FTE is slightly over $10.8 million on top of maintaining the
FY 2008 base of $699.1 million. Overhead costs such as travel,
training, supplies, leases, and other support requirements are
calculated to be approximately $19.3 million in FY 2009 for a total pay
request of $729.2 million. The FY 2009 pay raise is calculated to be
$21.1 million. The attrition rate for OI&T is currently planned at
approximately 5 percent of the total workforce annually.

11. Internal Facing IT Systems

Internal facing IT systems are those systems that provide
capability to more effectively manage IT resources such as corporate
management, financial resources management, asset management, human
capital management, IT infrastructure, and information protection.
Of the $418 million for internal facing IT systems, how much of
that is maintenance of current systems and how much of that is for new
procurement?
Response. Out of the $418 million for internal facing, $128.2
million represents the development projects (new procurement) and
$289.8 million represents the maintenance and operations accounts.

12. Electronic Health Record DE

The testimony says VA is working hard to support the President's
vision to have electronic health record capability for most Americans
by 2014 and to implement the associated Executive Order. Please provide
a copy of that Executive Order for the record. Tell the Committee
specifically what VA is doing to support electronic health record
capability implementation by 2014. How much is VA spending in fiscal
year 2008 for this activity? How much is in the fiscal year 2009 budget
for this activity?
Response. Executive Order: Incentives for the Use of Health
Information Technology and Establishing the Position of the National
Health Information Technology Coordinator http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2004/04/20040427-4.html (See Attachment B.)
Tell the Committee specifically what the VA is doing to support
electronic health record capability implementation by 2014.
VA plans to achieve the core elements of HealtheVet by 2012 with
full operating capability of the major components targeted for 2014.
Primary components and capability planned for this next generation
include:
Scheduling Replacement:
New/improved capability includes resource scheduling
(provider, room, equipment) and coordination of those resources
to improve patient scheduling
Inter-facility scheduling between VA medical centers
(VAMC)
Ability to make/cancel/reschedule/check in/out
appointments, etc.
Ability to track utilization and determine resource
requirements
Improved reporting of patient wait times by
specialty and services
CPRS Reengineering:
Personalized (individual patient) decision support
incorporating medical knowledge, genomic information, and
patient specific information
Enhancements to meeting accreditation requirement
such as the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations and the legal health record requirements
Provides access to clinical information and decision
support information from other VAMC and Department of Defense
(DoD) sites through VistAWeb and remote data interoperability
LAB Reengineering:
Improved support of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
Services, meets accreditation standards
Auto-Verification of results, automated Specimen ID
and tracking
Improved support for Emerging Lab Technologies
Reduced/eliminated patient and sample identification
errors, enhanced data/info interoperability leading to improved
decision support
Pharmacy Reengineering:
Reduced risk of medication errors and adverse events
through enhanced medical management decision support tools;
Inpatient and outpatient integrated pharmacy order processing
system that supports Bar Code Management Application (BCMA)
Increases number of prescriptions to be filled
within the same time frame, provides better formulary
management, supports interoperability and ePharmacy claims
processing
Health Data Repository (HDR):
Enables providers to obtain integrated data views
and acquire the patient, specific clinical information needed
to support treatment decisions--reduces patient safety issues
by providing a consolidated national view (across all VA
facilities and DoD) of the patient's clinical data
Reduces costs by reducing redundant procedures,
increasing data quality, promoting standards, and enhancing
research, performance reviews and decision support. Note: HDR
is also the lynchpin of VA/DoD sharing/interoperability
Other major efforts ongoing include:
Storing the health records for all veterans served by
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care facilities and making them
available in electronic form, including both text and image records.
The records are available both at local facilities and at any remote
VHA facility.
Facilitating the electronic transfer of laboratory and
pharmacy orders not only among VHA facilities, but DoD and commercial
vendors as well. VHA can also exchange some health records for active
duty and veteran personnel between DoD and VA sharing facilities.
Establishing remote order of medical procedures (inter-
facility consults) and telemedicine for specialty care through
electronic technologies.
Providing secure information for veterans to manage their
own health records via MyHealtheVet. This Web site not only provides
veterans with their VA-based clinical records but also allow veterans
to report/record their own data, such as blood pressures and
information from private physicians. It also provides the capability
for veterans to refill prescriptions if they so choose.
Modifying VistA in conjunction with Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) to provide a physician office system for rural
health care providers. VHA also shares VistA with the Indian Health
Services to further its effort in electronic health record.
Future activities in this area include:
Continuous improvement of interoperability with DoD and
other government or civilian health care entities via programs and
projects that ensure timely information transfer and the expansion of
the types of data sent.
Continuous effort in health care record standardization.
Data standards will allow VHA, other governmental health care entities
and the rest of the health care industry to achieve interoperability in
the near future.
System and network security improvement to ensure privacy
and security of electronic health records. For example, the identity
service to manage system access and continuous monitoring for
appropriate record access.
How much is the VA spending in fiscal year 2008 for this activity?
How much is in the fiscal year 2009 budget for this activity?
VA considers the pursuit of an electronic health record integral to
nearly all of its activities. For this reason, VA's budget data does
not excerpt electronic health record capability as a separate line
item. As presented here and in question 13, you will find more detailed
information regarding budget requests and a number of the programs
listed provide support to the ultimate goal of an electronic health
record.
The budget information below includes non-pay data (dollars in
millions):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiative FY 2008 FY 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VistA Application Development................... $64.290 $116.721
VistA Foundations Modernization................. 65.728 94.966
Scheduling Replacement.......................... 20.600 29.909
Laboratory Systems Reengineering................ 7.000 29.057
Health Data Repository.......................... 25.000 24.830
My HealtheVet................................... 12.740 18.427
Pharmacy Reengineering.......................... 9.360 17.234
Enrollment Enhancements......................... 13.418 15.637
------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. IT Initiatives

VA has at least eight IT initiatives in veteran facing medical
programs. Those initiatives include: VistA Application Development;
VistA Foundations Modernization; Scheduling Replacement; VistA
Laboratory Information Systems Reengineering; Health Data Repository;
MyHealtheVet; Pharmacy Reengineering; and Enrollment Enhancements; as
well as maintaining VistA Legacy system. Do you believe that you have
the necessary leadership in key positions to effectively carry out
these initiatives? Do you believe that you have the support at the
highest levels in the Department to carry out these initiatives? How
much are you spending on each of these initiatives in fiscal year 2008,
and how much is in the fiscal year 2009 request for each of these
items? How do you rank these initiatives in order of importance?
Response. Do you believe that you have the necessary leadership in
key positions to effectively carry out these initiatives?
Leadership positions for some of these programs have not been
filled on a permanent basis. We are actively working to fill these key
leadership positions.
Do you believe that you have the support at the highest levels in
the Department to carry out these initiatives?
Yes.
How much are you spending on each of these initiatives in fiscal
year 2008, and how much is in the fiscal year 2009 request for each of
these items? How do you rank these initiatives in order of importance?
It is extremely difficult to rank these items in order of
importance as each is a critical aspect of the migration from VistA to
HealtheVet. Aspects of each are dependent on the others, and often a
delay in one of the programs results in delay of future HealtheVet
applications. The budget information below includes non-pay data
(dollars in millions):

14. VistA Legacy System

According to the budget, VA is planning to spend $99 million for
VistA Legacy system in fiscal year 2009. How many years do you project
that you will have to be maintaining the VistA Legacy, and at what
annual cost?
Response. Costs associated with the VistA Legacy system will
continue until VistA HealtheVet is fully deployed. Completion for VistA
HealtheVet is anticipated in 2018. The annual cost associated with
VistA Legacy maintenance will depend on the speed of development and
the replacement with VistA HealtheVet components. We must maintain the
existing VistA Legacy systems until the replacement is complete. It is
not possible to predict costs involving all functions supporting the
electronic medical record that are particular to VistA Legacy in this
dynamic environment of transition toward VistA HealtheVet. We currently
have recurring contract costs to specifically support the VistA Legacy
Equipment of $51.4 million annually and this requirement will continue
until the full transition to the VistA HealtheVet platform.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Wamp.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Bishop.]

15. District Case Work Overload

My District staff continues to tell me that it routinely takes up
to two years or more for disability or related claims to be resolved by
VA. I raised this issue with the former Secretary and others for the
past two years, and every year we continue to be assured that this
situation is being addressed and rectified. However, based on my
experience, at least in Southwest Georgia, this is not the case, and
frankly, I don't have very much confidence in this Administration's
capacity to get its arms around this issue.
I continue to see year after year where the Inspector General's
Office reviews this issue, and makes recommendations on how to improve
the system, but I frankly still don't see any measurable improvement in
my area of the country. With all the investments we're making to
improve the Department's technological resources, I would have expected
this situation to be improved. Would you please to comment?
Response. VA is committed to providing veterans and their families
with more timely claims decisions. The Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA) has developed a comprehensive plan to address the continuing
growth in the volume of incoming claims nationwide. The cornerstone of
our plan is the development of a well-trained workforce that is sized
commensurate with current and projected claims workload.
Last year VBA began an aggressive hiring program that will add an
unprecedented 3,100 additional employees by September 2008. Under this
national hiring program, the Atlanta VA Regional Office actively
recruited additional claims processors, increasing the number of
Service Center employees from 232 in January 2007 to 285 as of March
2008.
The training process for new claims processors can take up to two
years; therefore, our newest employees do not have an immediate impact
on decision output. We have modified our centralized and local training
curricula to enable new employees to become more productive earlier in
their training program by focusing initial training on simpler types of
claims, such as dependency changes and burial benefits claims. This
frees our more experienced staff to focus on more complex disability
claims processing. We anticipate significantly increased productivity
over the next two to three years as our newest employees complete their
training and gain experience in all aspects of disability claims
processing.
We also use a workload brokering strategy to help balance the
claims inventory across the nation. Claims are sent from VA regional
offices that are challenged by high inventories to other offices with
capacity to process additional work. Because of the heavy workload at
the Atlanta VA Regional Office, over 11,000 disability rating claims
were brokered from Atlanta to other VA regional offices last year, and
brokering of Atlanta's work continues this year.
We have focused our efforts on completing VETSNET, the replacement
system for the Benefits Delivery Network. There are many reasons why
the completion of the VETSNET system is important. VETSNET will ensure
continuity of benefit payments to veterans and beneficiaries, and there
are other advantages as well. With full implementation of VETSNET, VA
will be able to readily make software modifications to support improved
work processes, legislative mandates, and security enhancements. It
will also be possible to incorporate and enhance decision-support and
``expert system'' applications.
We have made significant progress in the implementation of VETSNET
over the past two years. Approximately 98 percent of all original
compensation claims are being processed end-to-end in VETSNET, and we
are now paying monthly compensation benefits to more than 850,000
veterans--or approximately one out of every three compensation
recipients--using this modernized platform. With our next conversion of
records from the legacy Benefits Delivery Network, scheduled for April,
VETSNET will be the primary payment system for compensation and pension
benefits.
We are currently developing a comprehensive strategy to integrate
various information technology initiatives to improve claims
processing. At the core of our strategy is the implementation of a
business model for compensation and pension claim processing that is
less reliant on paper documents. Initial pilot efforts have
demonstrated the feasibility of using imaging technology and computable
data to support claims processing in the compensation and pension
programs.
In addition to use of imaging and computable data, we are
incorporating enhanced electronic workflow capabilities, enterprise
content and correspondence management services, and integration with
our modernized payment system, VETSNET. Further, we are exploring the
utility of business rules engine software for both workflow management
and to potentially support improved decision-making by claims
processing personnel.

16. VA/DoD Coordination on Disability Claims

Are you aware that veterans are required to prove to the military
medical that they are combat injured and disabled, as well as proving
the same condition to the Veteran Affairs, but they must also prove to
the CRSC program that the have combat related injuries.
What is being done to improve coordination with DoD, including the
possibility of a one-stop clearing house for the veterans as well as
all claims processed at one Federal location? And, what is the status
of DoD/NA technology integration efforts with respect to health records
and disability claims?
Response. What is being done to improve coordination with DoD,
including the possibility of a one-stop clearing house for the veterans
as well as all claims processed at one Federal location?
The military service Departments make disability determinations
based on the service member's service treatment records in conjunction
with other accumulated evidence. VA uses these same records in making
disability determinations, adding in any post-service medical evidence
that has been accumulated. Administration of the CRSC program relies
heavily on disability data that VA has made a high priority to provide
to DoD.
One initiative to streamline and integrate the disability
evaluation process is the Joint Disability Evaluation System (DES),
which began in November 2007. This is a pilot project to modernize and
improve the way disabilities are evaluated and compensation is awarded
to injured servicemembers. The pilot focuses on a single comprehensive
medical examination and a single disability evaluation provided by VA.
The goals of the pilot program are to simplify the DES process, conduct
one examination, make one disability evaluation, and reduce the overall
time it takes a service member to progress from referral to a Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) to receipt of VA benefits. In most instances
where a service member is found unfit for continued active service, the
rating evaluation provided by VA will serve as the foundation for VA
disability compensation. The DES pilot is scheduled to conclude in
November 2008, and the final report/recommendations are to be delivered
in February 2009.
The DES pilot is supported by a number of IT initiatives targeted
to provide access to the health record. Currently, claims examiners are
able to view through the CAPRI application, all medical records in VA's
VistA system including the records made available through VA/DoD's bi-
directional interfaces.
Additionally, the Defense Personnel Record Information System
(DPRIS) Web application provides direct on-line access to veterans'
official military personnel records that are maintained by DoD. The
application provides electronic images of DD-214s, medical evaluations/
findings, and other administrative records which are retrievable and
can assist in the processing of PTSD claims, asbestos claims, and
Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) claims.
Responses from the Army, Navy, and Air Force are received within 20 to
30 minutes, and responses from the Marine Corps are received within 24
hours. VBA is in the process of devising a national plan to deploy the
application to all VA regional offices.
VA and DoD are also involved in collaborative efforts to resolve
issues and improve military paper health treatment record (HTR)
processes and facilitate their seamless transfer from DoD to VA for
benefits processing in support of service members, veterans, and
deployed National Guard and Reserve personnel. This is part of the
Military Records Working Group initiative of the VA/DoD Benefits
Executive Council.
And, what is the status of DoD/NA technology integration efforts
with respect to health records and disability claims?
VA and DoD are in currently engaged in conducting a pilot in the
national capital region for the purpose of determining efficiencies
that can be applied to the coordination of disability claims through
joint operations. The pilot will be a service member-centric initiative
designed to eliminate the duplicative and often confusing elements of
the two current disability processes of the Departments. Key features
of the pilot program include one medical examination and a single-
sourced disability rating. One goal of the pilot is to enable service
members to more effectively transition to veteran status and provide
them with their VA benefits and compensation. The pilot is scheduled to
conclude in November 2008 and the final report/recommendations are to
be delivered in February 2009. In addition to the new requirements that
are expected as the result of the pilot report/recommendations, the
disability claims evaluation system is supported by a number of IT
initiatives targeted to provide access to the health record.

17. Consolidated IT Operations

VA is requesting $2.442 billion to support IT development,
operations, and maintenance expenses including payroll for FY 2009, an
18.9 percent increase over the FY 2008 level. This request reflects the
consolidation of VA IT into one appropriation, with certain exceptions
such as non-payroll IT for credit reform programs and insurance
benefits programs. What would you say are the key challenges you've
faced thus far in the consolidated environment and how can the
Subcommittee assist in relieving and/or supporting the Department in
achieving its goals in this area.
Response. The IT consolidation has given VA the opportunity to look
at all aspects of the ``State of VA IT'' and to support efforts to
provide improved, standardized IT services, leading to consistency and
dependability across the Department. In some cases, this will involve
shoring up areas which have suffered from neglect in the past. One of
the critical areas is staffing. We have discovered, as a result of the
reorganization, there are certain skill sets, such as information
security officers and certain areas, such as tracking IT assets, which
were not properly staffed in the past. We are attempting to rectify
these omissions to fully support those functions. Additionally, OI&T is
developing a staffing model, which will provide a more accurate
estimate of the number of IT FTE required to support VA.

18. FY 2009 IT Budget Request

In FY 2009, the majority of increases represent program priorities
to enhance the support to veterans both directly and indirectly--
especially in the area of medical care. The move toward a centralized
IT Management System has been challenging, but it has also served to
reinvigorate IT capability within VA.
According to previous testimony, you've indicated that placing all
IT staffing, equipment, and budgetary resources under the VA Chief
Information Officer (CIO) has provided an objective capability with
visibility over all IT activities across the Department.
However, have we ``materially'' improved the delivery of services
to the Department's clients, our veterans? I am not sure these changes
have filtered down to my constituents!
Response. As a result of the single IT leadership authority, we are
in a better position to discover and fix problems. Additionally, we are
better postured in the area of information protection to secure the
sensitive information of veterans and employees. Also, we have improved
resource management (money and people) and have much better visibility
in those areas, as desired by Congress.

19. Lost Records

It is my understanding that when a veteran's service or medical
records are lost or misplaced, through NO FAULT of the veteran, they
are denied approval of benefits until such time the records are found
(if they are ever found). This even applies when VA states they have
lost the records. This is not fair to the men and women that have
served. Shouldn't the process allow for unique mitigating factors in
such instances?
Where is the Department in addressing this issue, and what role
will the resources we've invested in technology improvements play in
addressing this issue?
Response. VA's policy of assisting veterans with obtaining evidence
to support their claims reflects the principles of the Veterans Claims
Assistance Act of 2000, Public Law 106-475. The duty to assist a
veteran with prosecution of his or her claim is clarified in 38 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 3.159 and the claims processing manual, M21-
1MR, Part I, Chapter 1, Duty to Assist.
Although loss of records is rare, VA has specific procedures in
place to trace missing records. If VA cannot locate a claims folder, it
searches the local office, the Records Management Center, and any other
office that might have reason to have the claims folder. If all these
attempts fail, VA then rebuilds the folder and attempts to obtain, with
the veteran's help, any available secondary evidence to support the
claim.
If a claims folder is misplaced, or if VA is unable to obtain
important evidence such as a veteran's service medical record, VA
requests alternative documents to support the claim for benefits. For
example, VA can request a search of military unit sick logs, morning
reports, or Surgeon General Office reports for records of military
hospitalization. Additionally, VA will ask the veteran for any
alternative records that may contain some evidence to support the claim
for benefits. Such evidence may include statements from other service
members, letters written during service, photographs taken during
service, state or local accident reports, private medical reports,
prescription records, or insurance examination records.
When resolving any claim, and especially a claim in which records
are missing, VA is governed by 38 CFR 3.102, in which a broad
interpretation of available facts will be applied and any reasonable
doubt resolved in favor of the veteran. This is particularly true in
the absence of official records and when a claimed disability allegedly
arose under combat or similarly strenuous conditions. Claims examiners
are required to apply the benefit of the doubt in any case when records
are missing. After a decision on a claim, the veteran must be notified
of the application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule and told how VA
weighed the positive and negative aspects of the available evidence.
VA's modern technology infrastructure is playing an important role
in providing access to claim documentation. For example, over the past
year, every disability rating decision and notification letter has been
saved in an electronic file. Virtually every veteran getting disability
benefits today has some documentation in an eFile, as a variety of
correspondence is automatically captured into that file. Additionally,
VETSNET contains a library of claim development letters sent to a
veteran and a complete record of past claim authorization decisions. VA
has complete eFiles on over 3,000 veterans, a number which grows
everyday with the continued expansion of our Paperless Delivery of
Veterans Benefits initiative.

20. VA Communications System

I'm also concerned that the Department's communication capabilities
and response times are not what they should be. What is the average
wait time for vets calling into the VA centers? Callers often cannot
get in touch with VA reps--frequently, the voice attendant says due to
high volume you should call back later.
Vets can only reach VA counselors at the state offices during
normal business hours. This is not always going to work for many vets
who have jobs during the day. If the vet is lucky enough to talk to VA
rep on the phone it is someone in another region because the calls are
routed to Kansas. How can technology assist in improving and addressing
this issue?
Response. The Department has several voice based systems where
veterans can access VA. Primarily, there is the Nationwide Automated
Response System (NARS), which is focused on general veteran's benefits,
and the Health Revenue Center (HRC), which is focused on health care
benefits. NARS is a voice based automated response system designed to
provide veterans general benefits information. HRC is a call center
organization designed to provide veterans comprehensive information on
their health care benefits and eligibility. From each system, a veteran
can be redirected to the appropriate organization. Calls are only
routed to the Kansas-based HRC if a NARS user requests information on
health benefits.
Data: The table below describes the average call volume and wait
time for both of these systems:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call volume Average wait time
System (calls/month) (Minutes:seconds) Hours of operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HRC.................................... 297,092 2:16 0600*-1900 (CT)
*Part of operation opens at 0700.
NARS................................... 2,263,167 1:10 0700-1600* (Local Time to
Veteran).
*Expanding to 1900 in FY 2008).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Role of technology
From a technology standpoint, there are three potential tracks that
can be run in parallel and, to varying extents, are in use in VA
already--online access to certain resources, state of the art call
center technology and the strategic application of other communications
technologies.
For many years, VA has had automation systems in place--primarily
telephonic with voice menus--that allow our veterans the ability to
perform certain functions, such as prescription refills and appointment
cancellations, directly, at all hours and without the aid of live VA
staff. With the veteran population being increasingly more comfortable
with and adept at the use of e-commerce and self service via the
Internet, more of those types of self service options could be provided
online. Live customer service can also be provided interactively
online. This would potentially improve flexibility in terms of the
hours during which the veteran can access services. The shifting of
some things to online self service can also, in some ways, improve how
rapidly the response is to the veteran in some aspects of their care
and benefits.
For instances where the veteran wants or needs to speak directly to
a live contact, call centers can be a very effective option. There are
still staffing strategies and processes that must accompany the call
centers in an effective way. Call center technologies and architectures
decrease response times, lengthen the hours a veteran can access a
representative, and improve system/employee flexibility.
Routing of calls can be facilitated by various communication
technologies. A modern architecture could include enterprise wide
deployment of voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and would be based on
a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). This technology combined with a
SOA will result in call volume to be more evenly and intelligently
distributed over multiple call centers. For instance, if a veteran
needs to speak to a specific individual or a subject matter expert,
call routing technologies--including those linked to wireless
networks--can be employed as can be ``unified communications''
technologies to efficiently route messages for call back if
appropriate.
It must be stressed that technology can only facilitate the
business processes and must still be accompanied by an effective
quality management program and appropriate resources provided by the
business owner to meet identified target metrics.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) answered over 17 million
calls in FY 2007. VBA calls are handled by our call centers, which are
designed by business line. We have call centers for general benefits
information and claims assistance; direct deposit of benefit payments;
pension; various specialty missions; education; insurance; and the home
loan guaranty program. Our general benefits call center handles the
largest call volume, receiving approximately 11 million calls in FY
2007. VBA's average waiting time to speak with a representative was 70
seconds in FY 2007. In March 2008, our average waiting time was 18
seconds.
Service hours on our general information and claims assistance
telephone lines are being expanded to a 12-hour period from 7 a.m. to 7
p.m. over the next few months. We are also expanding our call agent
capabilities, while improving quality and efficiency of service, by
acquiring current information technology for our call centers.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.017

Wednesday, April 2, 2008.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

WITNESSES

TINA W. JONAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER
WAYNE ARNY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I will call the subcommittee to
order.
Good afternoon to everyone. Secretary Arny, Secretary
Jonas, welcome back. It is good to have you both here before
the subcommittee again. Our hearing today is an overview of the
fiscal year 2009 Department of Defense budget request. This
year's total request for military construction, family housing,
BRAC, chemical demilitarization, and the NATO security
investment program is $24.4 billion, an increase of 15 percent
over last year's request.
Every year, we seem to be setting a new record for military
construction. If current trends hold, we are in the middle of
the longest sustained period of high military construction
spending in U.S. history. In terms of constant dollars, the
only period since World War II that rivals the present is the
early 1950s, when the U.S. fought the Korean War and rearmed to
contain the Soviet Union.
The major initiatives, as we know, driving this spending
are BRAC, growing the Army and Marine Corps by more than
100,000 troops, and the biggest shift in the global posture of
the armed forces in decades. There are numerous smaller factors
driving more MILCON and family housing requirements in the
foreseeable future.
The requirements will be great, but as we are all aware
there are growing pressures on the defense budget across the
board. Military construction will be an increasingly tempting
target for those who are looking for savings at the Pentagon in
the coming years. We therefore need to ensure that the
priorities are set and the initiatives do not outrun our
ability to pay.
Before I proceed, I would like to turn to our ranking
member, Mr. Wamp, and give him whatever time he would like to
make an opening statement.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, if I tried to improve on your
opening statement, I would surely say it. [Laughter.]
Sometimes, you recognize me right out of the box, but I do
agree with everything you just said, and I appreciate their
service and their appearance before our subcommittee today. Any
inquiries I have will come during the questions, but thank you
both. I look forward to a good couple of hours.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. The witnesses today are no newcomers to this
subcommittee, but for the record let me just say that the under
secretary of Defense, the Comptroller, Tina Jonas, has been the
Chief Financial Officer of Defense since July of 2004, but I
bet it seems longer than that to you. [Laughter.]
Ms. Jonas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. She formerly served as Assistant Director and
Chief Financial Officer of the FBI and as Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Financial Management. She is a former
staff member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee
from 1995 to 2000. She is a graduate of Arizona State and
Georgetown University. Again, welcome back.
Ms. Jonas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment is Mr. Wayne Arny, who was
appointed to the current post in February of this year.
Congratulations on that appointment and thank you for taking on
that responsibility, as well as your past leadership.
He previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Installations and Facilities. He is a 1964 graduate of
the Naval Academy and on active duty as a naval aviator until
1981. What kind of plane did you fly?
Mr. Arny. F-4s.
Mr. Edwards. F-4s--a little faster than the TBYs my dad
flew in World War II.
He achieved the rank of commander and was a staff member of
the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1981 to 1984. We will
forgive him for having served on the other side of the Capitol.
Mr. Arny. It gave me balance.
Mr. Edwards. That is right.
He was Program Associate Director for Financial Security
and International Affairs at OMB from 1986 to 1989. And of
great note, Secretary Arny has two sons, both serving as naval
flight officers. We congratulate you and thank you for the kind
of family that has made such a deep commitment to defend our
country, Secretary Arny.
It is great to have you both here. I would like to say that
without objection, your full statements will be submitted for
the record. We would like to recognize each of you to make an
opening presentation of about 5 minutes, and then we will go
into questions and answers.

Statement of Tina Jonas

Ms. Jonas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief
statement, and I will submit it for the record. Mr. Arny has a
lengthier statement for the record, so I will keep it brief.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to discuss the military construction component
of President Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the
Department of Defense. On behalf of the men and women of the
department, both service members and civilians, I want to thank
this committee for its continued support of America's armed
forces. We look forward to working with you to ensure that our
military men and women have everything they need to carry out
their vital mission.
Mr. Chairman, the president's base budget for defense in
total is $515.4 billion in discretionary authority for fiscal
year 2009. That is an increase of $35.9 billion or 7.5 percent
over the enacted level for fiscal year 2008. Taking inflation
into account, the real growth in this request is 5.4 percent,
so we are very well pleased with that in the department.
The base budget sustains the president's commitment to
ensure a high state of readiness and ground force strength;
enhance the combat capabilities of the U.S. armed forces;
continue the development and implementation of capabilities to
maintain U.S. superiority against future threats; and continue
the department's strong support for service members and their
families.
The military construction portion of that request, which
supports those strategic objectives, is $21.2 billion, an
increase of $3.4 billion or approximately 19 percent over the
prior year. It funds the department's most pressing priorities
and facilities requirements, including new construction,
replacement of troop housing, and facilities to support the
increase of 92,000 soldiers and Marines over a 5-year period.
Also included in that amount is $9.1 billion to implement
the Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, 2005 Commission
recommendations. This is the peak year for investment in BRAC,
and these funds are critical if we are to successfully complete
those projects by the deadline of 2011. We are also looking
forward to reaping the savings from the anticipated BRAC, but
we can't realize these savings unless we are able to be
successful in defense appropriations.
In addition to the $21.2 billion needed for facilities, the
department is also requesting $3.2 billion for family housing.
This funding is vital for quality of life programs and will
enable the department to privatize an additional 12,324 units
and to eliminate inadequate housing units overseas. The
requested amount is approximately $300 million or just over 10
percent higher than the prior year. A big portion of that is
the grow-the-force initiative that we are pursuing.
So on behalf of the department and the men and women of the
armed services, I want to thank the committee for letting us
appear here today, and I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Tina Jonas follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.020

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Secretary Jonas.
Secretary Arny.

Statement of Wayne Arny

Mr. Arny. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that I am very proud of
my two sons, and the mother of those two sons is here today.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. I will say this and have said it
repeatedly, I consider military spouses to be--and moms and
dads--to be the unsung heroes and heroines of our nation's
defense. We are honored to have you here today.
Mr. Arny. And her friend Allison Lewis, whose husband
served with me. His son is a Marine pilot serving.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. It is great to have you both here.
Thank you.
Mr. Arny. Chairman Edwards and Congressman Wamp, thank you,
and distinguished members of the committee. It is a pleasure to
join my long-time friend and now colleague in my new position,
Tina Jonas, to testify before you on the MILCON budget.
As you said, I have submitted formal testimony for the
record, but I would like to make just a couple of short
remarks, and then answer a couple of questions that you all
have raised in the meetings we had.
To recap our request, we believe, as I know you do, that
military installations are the foundation of our entire
military program. Without the installations, with their basing,
admin, maintenance and repair facilities, our combat forces
could not operate; without the housing, entertainment,
personnel support facilities on and around those bases, our
military members and their families would not have the quality
of life we believe they deserve.
For the MILCON bases, we are continuing to recalibrate our
bases overseas and in the U.S. through global basing and BRAC.
In the budget, we requested $9.2 billion for BRAC 2005
implementation and $393.4 million for prior BRAC cleanup
efforts. This represents $1.1 billion more than our 2008
request. I need to note that this $9.2 billion assumes that the
$939 million cut to last year's appropriations is restored. I
am asking you all to help us with that. We have talked about
that before. We believe that if it is not restored, it will be
extremely difficult to meet the September 15, 2011 statutory
BRAC deadline.
For recap, sustainment and modernization, we have higher
requests in this year's budget than last. I know that no one
likes our recap metric, including me, but it is better than
nothing, which is what we had before. We are working with the
services to introduce a far better one for the fiscal year 2010
program.
Our housing and MILCON programs are higher this year than
last, as you mentioned, and the Navy in particular is leading
the way on bachelor housing privatization. All of these
programs and others are discussed in much greater depth.
Let me try to answer two of the questions that, Mr.
Chairman, you and Congressman Wamp asked during my courtesy
calls. One is the $50,000 level and the other is on joint
basing.
With regard to housing, the Chairman asked me why we used
the metric of $50,000 as a measure of adequacy or inadequacy of
our housing. I have to admit that I have been using it for the
past 6 years, and have thought about it much myself, but I
couldn't give him a good explanation. So I went back and tried
to learn more about it and where it comes from, what it tells
us, and what needs to be changed.
First, part of the confusion I think both he and I labored
under is that the level of inadequacy is not intended to
measure the state of repair of housing. It is a measure of
whether the house is adequate enough to fulfill what we believe
is a service member's need for a home.
As examples, a member may be living in a house that is
adequate, but is in disrepair. Indeed, it may have over $50,000
in repair needs--we hope not, but it might--but that house is
still adequate. We just need to repair it. But a member can be
living in a house that is in wonderful repair, with good
carpet, roof, appliances et cetera, but it is inadequate
because it is not big enough or doesn't have enough bathrooms
or has no garage, et cetera, or other things that we believe
are standards for our service members today.
So you could have a two-bedroom, one-bath house that is in
beautiful condition, but it is not adequate because we have
determined that under today's standards, gearing mostly toward
enlisted members with families, that a two-bedroom, one-bath is
not adequate to fulfill today's needs, but it may be in great
shape.
Consequently, the level of adequacy is used to determine if
a home should be upgraded or replaced. As I found out, each of
the three services do measure it differently, but OSD chose not
to meddle with the culture and try and make them do the same.
They do all use an engineering basis.
In the end, we did adopt what is now a congressional
reporting threshold of $50,000 as a yardstick. Let me explain
it. The services use an engineering base standard to measure
the condition of housing. The Army has what it calls the ISR,
Installation Status Report. You go through the house and
measure all sorts of conditions, including the neighborhood and
supporting facilities. Then they rate it red, green or yellow.
If is it red, it is inadequate.
The Air Force has a five-point housing community profile.
They go through the houses, assess, add points up, and if the
score is 3.75 or lower, under their standard it becomes
inadequate. The Navy goes through its homes and does the same
sort of process. I think the $50,000 is, for instance, like I
said, you have a two-bedroom and one-bath house, and you say,
okay, three bedrooms and two baths is standard. It needs a
garage, and it doesn't have a garage.
So if it would cost more than $50,000 to add another
bedroom, add another bathroom, then it is not adequate by that
standard. It may be perfectly habitable, but it is not
adequate. And then if you come up and you say it is less than
$50,000--say you have room in there. It is a four-bedroom, one-
bath, and for less than $50,000 I could add a bathroom, and get
rid of a bedroom, then you would do it under repair O&M and
that would then become adequate. So it is a measure of am I
going to renovate it or replace it.
Now, as to whether we need to change the metric, I think
probably we don't. The services all understand it. Plus that
fact, as we have talked about, in case of domestic housing in
the continental U.S., we will be down to almost zero, and the
market under privatized housing will drive whether the homes
are adequate or not. If the houses are inadequate and there is
other housing out in the community, the members will have a
choice and they will make that choice for us.
For the housing that we still do own in the U.S. and
overseas, as you can see in this year's budget, still using
those measures, we have put in money to renovate or replace
inadequate housing. So I think the measure, while I think it is
sometimes difficult to explain, has worked and we have reached
our goal.
In the course of my conversation with Congressman Wamp, he
asked where we were with regard to joint basing, and
Congressman Edwards asked this as well. I am very happy to
report that we have made tremendous progress. In January,
Deputy Secretary England signed the Joint Basing Implementation
Guidance, and since then we have been meeting on a weekly basis
at my level, and weekly or greater at the working group level.
The key to joint basing is that all four services are
agreeing for the first time to a given level of service output
for 49 different support functions across a base. The 49
functions are further broken down into over 200 measurable
performance standards. We have never done this before.
Individual services over the past 10 years have come to realize
that they need to measure these things, especially if we are
going to better utilize the funding that the Congress and the
taxpayers give us. Now, we are trying to do it across the whole
department.
We have agreement on every one of the standards at the
working level and at my level, and we are staffing it up to the
most senior levels of the services at DOD now. At every joint
base, the real property and funding for the installation
facility will transfer to the lead service, who is called the
supporting component and who will have the joint base command.
At Pearl Harbor-Hickham, the joint base commander will be a
naval officer, and all the property at Hickham will transfer to
the Navy. That service will then be responsible for the
maintenance, repair and replacement over time of all those
facilities to the standard we have all agreed to.
If the follow-on service or the supporting component brings
a new mission onto that base--for instance, if the Air Force at
Hickham decides they are bringing a new squadron and there is
not a facility on base to house that squadron, then it is their
responsibility to put the MILCON in their budget to build the
hangar or admin or whatever is needed. Then, when it is
complete, it then is turned over to the Navy and the Navy will
maintain and repair it for the rest of its life.
Now, the one issue that is probably the one final issue
that we overcame this week was airfield operations. To the
Army, Navy and Marine Corps, airfield operations have always
been installation functions. The naval aviator, you know, as
long as there was a runway there and somebody took care of the
fuel--I was never an air wing commander, but the air wing
commander, that was done by the base.
The Air Force is different. We acknowledge the difference.
In the Air Force, the wing commander runs the airfield
operations. So what we decided, in the joint base where the Air
Force is in the lead, like at McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, the Navy
and the Army will turn over airfield ops to the Air Force.
Where the issue rose was where the Air Force was the supportive
component, to them airfield operations is a mission
requirement, and their wing commander has to do that.
So for the three bases where the Air Force is the follow-
on, the supportive component, and that is Guam, Pearl Harbor-
Hickham, and Lewis-McChord, what we have agreed to is that they
will retain airfield ops. They will transfer real property and
budget TOA to the lead service, the supporting components, for
all of the physical facility, all the real property. That will
all transfer. But the operations of airfield ops will be under
the Air Force wing commander, and he will integrate with the
joint base commander. We have worked it out. If there is an
emergency on the field, the joint base commander is in charge,
and they work together. So we have worked out that linkage.
We have made tremendous progress, and we are rolling this
out. It is going to roll out next week to the Vice Chiefs, the
senior members of the service. We have a VTC to all the base
commanders in the next week or two. At the end of June, we are
going out to Congressman Dicks's neighborhood. We are going to
have a joint base conference at Lewis-McChord.
Mr. Dicks. Good. I think that is really important. There
has been a lot of consternation about this.
Mr. Arny. We decided to take down the iron curtain between
us.
Mr. Dicks. That is good. I think it is terrific.
Mr. Arny. And they have the facilities.
So with that, I hope it helps answer your two questions,
and thank you for your patience. We are ready for questions.
[Prepared statement of Wayne Arny follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.056

Mr. Edwards. Great.
Thank you both for your testimony. Let me express apologies
to everyone for my coughing. I don't know if it is the cherry
blossoms or what, but something is going on.
We have so many members here and this is important
testimony today. What I would like to do, other than the
ranking member, who I would like to give as much time as he
wants--and I am going to recognize Mr. Wamp to start out with
questions--what I am going to do is just rap the gavel once
when we hit 5 minutes, and then if you are in the middle of an
answer, if you would try to wrap it up within 30 seconds or so,
please do that. I will rap twice when we need to cut it off.
That way, we hopefully will do two or three rounds of
questions.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me kind of make an announcement. We have a very well-
attended hearing today. People must have found out that our
witnesses were just really stellar today. We even have two
cardinals sitting at the table. But Mrs. Granger is out, and I
wanted to, as the ranking Republican member, say that she had
successful surgery over the break. She will be out for a couple
of weeks, but I wanted to let the full subcommittee know that
we are all thinking of her, and in her absence here today, lift
her name up. We will all be sensitive to that until she
returns.
I also welcome Mrs. Arny--Sydney--that is my favorite city
in the world, an excellent name. Secretary Arny, you did give
in my office the best explanation of joint basing that I have
heard, and I appreciate you reiterating some of that today,
because there was some consternation. However, you pulled it
all together. There shouldn't be so much consternation,
particularly at Hickham-Pearl Harbor Base, which I have been to
twice, and I understand the Air Force is concerned. But under
this arrangement, they really shouldn't have that concern
because the flight ops and all will continue.
Chairman Dicks, it is always an honor to be in your
presence, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp. This is my first MILCON subcommittee hearing that
you have been able to come to because of your other
responsibilities. I just wanted to make that point. I have been
sucking up to him for a long time. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dicks. You were right. Ms. Jonas and Mr. Arny, they are
stellar witnesses and long-time friends.
Mr. Wamp. And with the chairman here, now we do have the
most well-attended subcommittee meeting of the year. The
chairman has been so good to me, that I will go as far as to
say, with tongue in cheek, that I hope in the near future that
a story to come out of this subcommittee is that Chet and Zach
helped to get BRAC back on track. [Laughter.]

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

And with that said, Secretary Arny, when you talked about
BRAC, I think you could even further and say it would be
extremely difficult to meet the September 15, 2011 date. The
truth is, you just plainly are not going to meet it without
this money. That is probably the way we should report that. And
then, what are the problems if in this fiscal year, we don't
get some money to BRAC that wasn't there, it is like a domino
effect, is it not?
Mr. Arny. It is. I will never say we won't make it, because
we have tried to look back, and as a service member myself, if
you tell me what the time of the target it, I am going to be
there. So if you tell them to finish, they will finish, and
they will get there. It may not be pretty getting there. That
is the problem. Being part of the culture myself, it is hard to
measure that because they will never say never, and they will
be out there at midnight working on the building to make sure
it is ready to open.
Mr. Wamp. So much good came out of the 2008 bill, and the
baseline already. The veterans are so much better off. There is
so much to be grateful for, but if we can get this money back
where it belongs, then the mission will be complete. I am
grateful that the chairman thinks the same way that we do on
this issue.

AFRICOM

Either of all can answer this question. I heard at another
briefing yesterday on the Hill, General Zinni--who I don't
agree with everything he says, but he has some interesting
input--said that Iraq would have been much better for us had
AFRICOM been set up prior to Iraq, which is a fascinating kind
of analysis from a guy who has not been very supportive of
Iraq.
We had General Ward here yesterday, and the chairman and I
yesterday with General Casey, we were just telling him how
swept away--well, I was, anyway--with this whole new AFRICOM
mission, even though I know we have to be careful as we go into
any kind of perceived presence permanently in Africa. It is
just a forward station there. But what is your perspective on
AFRICOM and the development and the flow of funds, from a
business standpoint, what it really means to our unified
command?
Ms. Jonas. Mr. Wamp, if I can just start, and I will let my
colleague talk to the concerns relative to the potential
construction, I think as the secretary has laid out on many
occasions--and I did not hear General Zinni's comments
yesterday--but this is an important area of the world. We have
concluded over the last several years that we need to have as a
department a more active and positive engagement with the
continent.
I am not the policy expert here, but I do know that it is
very important to the secretary. I know it is high on the
chairman of the Joint Chief's mind. Kip Ward, who is the new
commander there, is an extremely competent Army general. I
think he will do a terrific job.
In our shop and in Wayne's shop, what we are doing is
trying to make sure that they have the resources that they need
to be successful. I think with the Congress's help and
understanding, we will support this and get this underway and I
think it will make a big difference for our positive engagement
in that area of the world.
Mr. Wamp. Secretary Arny, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir, I do, actually. I will say that I can't
say that General Zinni is wrong. I was working for Senator
Tower back in the early 1980s on the SASC, when we helped
create CENTCOM. So I understand a little bit about what we are
trying to do. It would have been better, and that is going back
and saying you can change history, because back then PACOM
thought that they could handle all of CENTOM as well. Congress
disagreed and you ended up with CENTCOM.
My older son was the aid to the lieutenant commander,
General Wald, when he was deputy EUCOM for 1\1/2\ years or 2
years. They were--just listening to my son talk about it, the
importance of the region opened my eyes as to what needed to be
done. I think from an installation point, we are moving very
slowly--I won't say slowly. We are doing it cautiously and with
due regard for the sensitivity of the people in the region, to
establish a presence to be able to assist. We are not there to
build huge bases and all the rest of it. We are working with
our colleagues at the State Department and other agencies to
establish a presence and go one step at a time to make sure
that we are doing it right.
I think ordinarily people say, well, why not base it out of
EUCOM? Given that my son was stationed at EUCOM and the deputy
EUCOM was probably the most active in the African region. Jim
Jones is a good friend, and he would talk about it as well,
too. He and Chuck Wald were very close on this issue and
understood the importance of it before many other people did.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve until the next
round. Thank you.

CONSTRUCTION INFLATION

Mr. Edwards. Let me ask you about construction inflation.
It is a serious challenge. It is not the fault of the DOD or
any federal agency, but it is a reality. I think it is
important we use real numbers, particularly in putting together
the out-year numbers.
The Department of Veterans Affairs used an inflation rate
for construction of between 12 percent and 17 percent for their
fiscal year 2009 budget. If I am correct, the Department of
Defense used a 2 percent inflation factor. I am not sure if
anyone in the construction industry would take that 2 percent
inflation factor seriously. The record would show that from
2003 to 2008, while OMB was dictating a 15 percent cumulative
inflation factor for defense construction, the Associated
General Contractors' more accurate inflation rate is double
that.
If we are not using realistic inflation factors, we are
undercutting future military construction projects or under-
estimating the budgets required to accurately fund them. Can
either one of you address whether you think 2 percent is an
accurate projection of construction inflation for this coming
fiscal year? If not, do you have any kind of real flexibility
to adjust it more realistically and use more realistic numbers?
Mr. Arny. As you and I have discussed in the past, when I
worked on the Navy staff, we faced this 3 or 4 or 5 years ago.
What I realized is that from the period from 5 years ago to 15
years ago--that 10-year period--the issue probably never came
up because the market was always getting better. Prices were
going down. So if we estimated the project would be $10, it
would come in at $9 or $9.50. So we always had a little extra
money to play with.
Right about the time we started to do BRAC, around 2005,
which meant we started to bring in more--we got hit with a
couple of hurricanes in the southeast. We in the Navy
understood that inflation was going up. When we look at MILCON,
it is very important to us. When I did CPAC with the SASC, I
sat next to the MILCON guy. I was pushing $3 billion ships down
the hallway one after another, and no senator ever came to see
me. But the MILCON guy sat next to him, and I would watch
powerful chairmen walk in begging for a $3 million project. And
I didn't quite understand it.
Mr. Dicks. Chet understands that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Arny. So to put it in perspective, while it is very
important to us, MILCON is still a very small portion of what
the defense budget is. Again, having spent 3\1/2\ years at
OMB--and I had all of defense, and MILCON never bubbled up to
my level as a PAD--so while it is important to us, it was not
as important to them.
It wasn't until we started to get hit with overruns and
having to come up to you on it seemed like a monthly basis with
cost overruns, some of which were self-imposed, some of which
we had to go back with NAVFAC and sit down and tell the
engineers to go start being engineers again, because they were
just using models. They weren't going out and sinking enough
holes in the ground to find that there were rocks and stuff
there that they didn't know about. That is one portion of it.
But you are right. Construction inflation in the country is
varied. At first, I thought it was the Facilities Pricing Guide
which mandated certain inflation rates. What I have discovered
is that that isn't the problem. We are allowed to use
parametric measures. We are allowed to go down and design these
buildings parametrically, go out and see what other buildings
in the area are going for.
So absent the BRAC problem, when a building gets to you, or
gets close to you in the budget, it should be fairly close. We
can do a better job of making it closer, but where we really
get hammered is in the time that we lock that design down until
it finally gets passed. That is where the construction
inflation hurts us. What we discovered in our testing is it
isn't nationwide. It is area-wide. It is regional.
We had the famous LAPZIG, the storage facility in the
northwest. We discovered, much to our amazement, inflation in
the Seattle area was 15 percent a year. Most people blame it on
the Vancouver Olympics. So we have gone to OMB to ask them to
work with us--and I have started to work with the OMB
comptroller--and let us all agree on some standard. A state
standard I think is probably where we will come up, because the
states do much more military construction than we do, and they
do keep track of it. It will never be perfect.
Mr. Edwards. But it could be better.
Mr. Arny. Much better. And I would hope at some point,
every 6 months or every year, we could come to you while you
have the budget and update it. When it comes to the Navy and
OSD Headquarters, we update it then. When it goes to OMB, we
update it there. When it goes to the Congress, we update it.
Also, the other problem is, on the down, like in that
period from 5 years to 15 years ago, while it made it easier on
the engineers, and we didn't see any problems, we were leaving
money on the table. We were not building things we could have
built because we were over-pricing projects when they got to
you.
So we want to do it on both ends so that if the $10
project, when the construction engineer opens the bids, it is a
$10 bid.
Mr. Edwards. Do you think OMB will come up with an
agreement by the end of this calendar year?
Mr. Arny. I will try. They want to. It is a matter of
timing. Do we have the time to do it? Because they understand
now. There are no MILCON people over there. So again, I have
worked with them. Some of the folks I have worked with are
still there. They now understand. We are not coming over to rob
the Treasury. We are coming over to make sure that each project
that goes through is right.
Because the other problem on funding on a project, what I
found, is the engineers rather than coming to me and saying,
okay, Mr. Arny, that $10 project, I need $12 for it. I say,
what happened to the $10 project? I built it. Well, the guy
just complained it is an $8 building. Well, I had to shrink it.
So they will reduce scope. They will take things away. If we
have a requirement for a building of this size, and it costs
$10, and it is going to cost $12, we better come up with the
$12.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. If you could report back to us at say
mid-July and end of the year where we are? It would be nice to
be basing these projects on realistic numbers and inflation.
Ms. Jonas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add, I will lend
my full support to trying to get OMB to give us a more
favorable factor here. As we have discussed before, this isn't
the only area where we have difficulty, particularly if we are
beginning to execute a budget. Fuel is the most difficult one
for us now. In fact, we are far from where we budgeted. Thus,
it is not unusual that we would have differences when we
actually execute a budget. I commit to making sure that I am
fully behind that.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
We are now going to recognize members in the order in which
they were here when we started, based on seniority if they were
here when we gaveled the meeting open.
Mr. Bishop.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome our witnesses today.
Last year, we provided $500 million in BRAC money for Fort
Benning. Can you talk about the projects for which those funds
were spent, and whether or not all of the funding is committed
to the various projects under that BRAC appropriation from last
year?
Mr. Arny. Sir, I am brand new. If it were a naval air
station----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Arny [continuing]. I might be able to answer your
question.
We will have to get back to you. I know the Army is better
than the Navy on executing their budget, so I suspect that
everything they put in is obligated, but I will get back to you
on that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.057

Mr. Bishop. All right.
Mr. Arny. And you do need a coastline. [Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Can you also get back to us with the BRAC
offsets? What, in fact is the BRAC plan providing for the cost
savings with regard to BRAC? In other words, have you been able
to determine if there are cost savings as a result of the
process so far in the BRAC? Do you have a priority list for the
BRAC?
Mr. Arny. On savings, we can give you specifics on the
savings, but those savings are rolled back into our general
budget to offset other things. So we aren't putting them
against specific projects.
Mr. Bishop. I guess overall looking forward, just for the
committee's sake, we would like to have a sense of how BRAC is
going to be cost-effective in the long run as we spend the
taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. Arny. We can get you the specifics on that.
[The information follows:]

The Department acknowledges that BRAC 2005 implementation will
generate significant savings. As reflected in the FY 2009 President's
Budget justification material submitted in February 2008, the
Department estimates that implementation of the BRAC 2005
recommendations would generate approximately $15 billion in total
savings through the fiscal year 2006-2011 implementation period.
Additionally, the BRAC 2005 recommendations could generate
approximately $4 billion in annual recurring savings beyond the
implementation period.
Because of the challenges associated with implementing many complex
recommendations, the Department initiated a process to develop business
plans that establish the requisite actions, timing of those actions,
and the costs and savings associated with implementing each
recommendation. Each plan contains its own priority of actions to
ensure all actions are accomplished by the statutory completion date of
September 15, 2011. The Department reviews each plan twice annually to
ensure that it is in compliance with the BRAC law. Each of those
reviews provides an opportunity to direct corrective action.
Additionally, the OSD Office of the General Counsel is a key player in
reviewing these plans to ensure that they are legally sufficient and to
verify that the Department is meeting its legal obligations.

Mr. Bishop. The other thing, we had a raids from ICE, the
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at Fort Benning of
illegal workers. I was just wondering whether or not other
installations have experienced those kinds of raids from ICE
also?
Mr. Arny. I have not had that pop up on my radar screen,
but I could ask about it.
Mr. Edwards. You are not encouraging them, are you?
Mr. Bishop. No. I was just wondering. We were a little bit
surprised and concerned. We didn't want any delays, and of
course I am sure others wouldn't want more delays either. But
we did have some unexpected visitors.
Mr. Kennedy. If I could, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Edwards. Yes, Mr. Kennedy?
Mr. Kennedy. It is really important that we get better
credentialing on these bases for those who are doing
contracting, because the subcontractors of the contractors on
these bases are often hiring those who are undocumented workers
to do the work on these bases. We have found that out in my
state, and we identified undocumented workers who were working
on our base. I am not surprised to hear that.
Mr. Bishop. Right. I was just wondering if you could
perhaps look and see whether or not that is a frequent
occurrence across your construction projects.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I think that
there is record attendance today because you have a smart woman
with a lot of money, and a man in charge of all DOD real
estate, with all the appropriators. [Laughter.]
It is a perfect storm of financial interests.

DIRECTIVE 3005

I have two questions. I want to get into the BRAC issues,
but first I want to say a passion that I have, and Mr. Wamp
mentioned it, is a directive was issued by the department,
Directive 3005, which essentially structures what DOD's
programs and mission requirements have established to be
prepared for language and area studies and all of that. The
question is, who has the primary responsibility for
implementation of that directive?
Ms. Jonas. Mr. Farr, I believe that is under Dr. David Chu,
who is the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness.
Mr. Farr. So it sits at OSD?
Ms. Jonas. Yes, I believe so.
Mr. Farr. On the joint staff or combatant command?
Ms. Jonas. It may be. I will have to check for the record,
sir. My staff is telling me this.
Mr. Farr. So it is in OSD?
Ms. Jonas. Yes.
Mr. Farr. Okay. A recent Washington Post article
highlighted the challenges of getting interagency cooperation
for stabilization and reconstruction. The House just passed, a
week or so ago, H.R. 1084, which is legislation I authored to
create a reserve corp for first responders in the State
Department, USAID. I am told that General Petraeus actually
called on that bill to try to get it moving in the Senate. I am
very appreciative of that.
I think that the Department of Defense really understands
what is at stake here. I am very supportive of it. But I am
also distressed because I am hearing that there are new
directives being drafted that essentially replaces the
stability operations with irregular warfare. Is that true?
Ms. Jonas. I will have to take a look at that. I don't know
that for sure. I know that the general concept, as the
secretary has stated, is soft power is very important and
stabilization is absolutely critical. We have to engage, and
continue to engage, with our interagency partners in engaging
around the world. But I am not familiar with the specific
there. My understanding would be this is an issue for the Under
Secretary for Policy.
Mr. Farr. What I am concerned about here is a conflict of
directives, from stability ops to irregular warfare, and then
replacing stability ops? How does this affect the management
and does it contradict the testimony of the secretary? It is
just very peculiar and I would like you to get back to me.
Ms. Jonas. Yes, I would be very happy to do that, Mr. Farr.
[The information follows:]

The development of a new directive for Irregular warfare (IW) is
not intended to replace existing guidance for Stability Operations.
Rather, IW policies are intended to augment existing policies in order
to enhance capabilities. Irregular warfare will likely be the dominant
form of conflict for the foreseeable future. Both special operations
and general purpose forces must increase their capabilities for key IW
mission sets. To that end, the IW directive will reinforce the QDR's
conclusion that IW is as important as traditional warfare, or warfare
between the armed forces of adversary states. It will direct the DoD
Components to develop capabilities for counterterrorism, unconventional
warfare, counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense, and stability
operations--which share common requirements, like cross-cultural
communications and language skills, enhanced intelligence through the
use of social science expertise, use of indirect approaches, etc.--with
the same priority given to the development of capabilities for major
combat operations.
We're incorporating the core capabilities and principles from DoDD
3000.05 into the new directive. However, we're expanding its aperture
by adding policies to coordinate capability development across a wider
range of operational environments--permissive, contested, and denied--
to help the Department maintain readiness for a broader range of
contingencies. This approach will facilitate more efficient use of DoD
resources for training and educating personnel, and in identifying and
fielding required capabilities.
We believe that revising DoD policy for capability development will
have no adverse impact on interagency unity of effort. Rather, our
efforts to streamline internal DoD processes and capability development
will enhance our ability to support whole-of-government efforts with
improved capabilities and enhanced joint force capacity. The policies
set under various authorities, such as NSPD-44, will continue to
provide the framework by which interagency operations will be
conducted.

Mr. Farr. The Naval Postgraduate School that I represent in
Monterey was recently designated by OSD as the Global Center
for Security Cooperation. DOD has recognized a requirement to
assist the House Democracy Assistance Commission. It is a
bipartisan House organization dedicated to developing member-
to-member partnerships in emerging democratic legislatures,
essentially legislators and parliamentarians.

GLOBAL CENTER FOR SECURITY COOPERATION

By tasking the Security Cooperation to support the HDAC,
and we are trying to work with DOD on this, and the Naval
Postgraduate School, I would like to know including how DOD can
provide funding to support HDAC thru the DOD Global Center for
Security Cooperation, or as the Civil-military Affairs Center
at the Naval Postgraduate School.
Ms. Jonas. I would be happy to talk about it. I believe
Ryan Henry would be involved with that in policy, so I have not
had a conversation with him on this topic, but I would be
delighted to do that. I know it is an important topic.
Mr. Farr. Yes, we see some directives here and
responsibilities, but no sign of where the money is coming
from.
Ms. Jonas. I would be happy to do that. Obviously, if it is
important to the department, and it is an important priority
for you, we will make sure that we look into that and get back
to you.
[The information follows:]

Thank you for your continuing support of the Department of
Defense's (DoD) international education programs. As you know, Mr. Ryan
Henry and his staff worked with the House Democracy Assistance
Commission (HDAC) last year to identify opportunities for the DoD
international partner education institutions to support HDAC
activities.
As a result, the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS)
is partnering with HDAC to strengthen democratic governance of the
security sector in Indonesia and Mongolia. A dozen parliamentarians
from those countries will convene at the APCSS in Hawaii on April 23;
will discuss governance issues presented by the APCSS staff; and will
travel to Washington, D.C., through May 1, to meet with members of
Congress and their staffs to gain first-hand insights into the U.S.
system. A similar event is planned for mid-June by the Near East-South
Asia Center for Strategic Studies (NESA), hosting parliamentarians from
Afghanistan. FY 2009 funding support will be determined after a review
of those two current efforts. That assessment will be coordinated with
the HDAC.
At the April 2nd hearing of the Military Construction, Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies subcommittee, you expressed an interest
in how DoD could provide funding for HDAC support to the DoD Global
Center for Security Cooperation such as that provided in the military-
civil affairs programs at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). Based on
your concern, the Global Center for Security Cooperation is helping OSD
identify opportunities where NPS can integrate its cabilities into DoD
support to HDAC.
The Administration greatly appreciates your backing of these key
efforts, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Mr. Farr. Mr. Arny, congratulations on your appointment.
You are stepping into big shoes. You know, your predecessor
worked for us, so he was an inside family member that went over
to DOD, so you are following in big footsteps.
Mr. Arny. I was going to say, when I went to work for the
Senate, I had come right out of the Navy and I went over there,
and I had to be led down to the floor the first time. So then
after a couple of months, I went over and took one peek at the
House floor and I thought as crazy as the Senate was, it was
saner, and I went back and I didn't come back until this
Congress.
Mr. Edwards. Right. We understand.
Mr. Dicks, and then after Mr. Dicks will be Mr. Carter.

JOINT BASING

Mr. Dicks. We are glad to have both of you here today.
Secretary Arny, going back to this joint basing, is there going
to be kind of a model? Or are you going to do each one of these
a little differently? How is it going to work in terms of, the
airfield operations for example? How did you work that out?
Mr. Arny. The actual runway and all that real property--
land, concrete, the hangars--everything that is real property
goes to the supporting component. So in the case of Lewis-
McChord, just to pick a base----
Mr. Dicks. Just to pick one. [Laughter.]
Mr. Arny [continuing]. It just came to mind. That would all
go under Army. The airfield operations--the operation of the
people and the equipment there, that would be under the mission
commander.
Mr. Dicks. How did you work that out? It makes sense to me.
I think that's good.
Mr. Arny. The key splitter on that is, is it installation
or is it mission? For instance, in the Army and Marine Corps
installations in particular, right off the bat, ranges don't
transfer to the installation because the ranges are run in the
Army and the Marine Corps by the mission commander, not by the
installation. Remember, this isn't a service thing. Is the
installation commander doing it or is the mission commander
doing it?
Mr. Dicks. I have you.
Mr. Arny. Okay? And so that was the key difference. And
with the Air Force, while I might disagree with that
philosophy--I come from a different culture where like I said,
as long as the concrete was there and I could find somebody to
fuel me, I didn't care whether they worked for me or worked for
somebody else, because what I performed in my squadron, we
would go aboard a ship. And guess what? They would fuel me
there and they would take care of me and they would feed me, so
I didn't worry about it.
So when the Air Force deploys, they deploy as the whole
group. They don't just deploy as a squadron. So they have a
training mission within their fuelers that is integral to the
operation of that wing, that isn't in the Navy or the Marine
Corps. That is not integral to the Marine Corps air wing or a
Navy air wing. Same with the Army.
So once we understood it, it took a lot of sitting down and
talking. We spend our time on our own problems telling each
other. So I think it has worked out very well.
Mr. Dicks. So do you see this problem now going away? I
mean, there is still a question, as you and I discussed
privately, that the Air Force has been resisting this when they
were not the lead entity.
Mr. Arny. I am shocked and appalled. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dicks. Yes.
Mr. Arny. But again, when the Secretary made his decision
in January to transfer two (INAUDIBLE) properties to the
supporting component, they jumped onboard then. The engineers
understood it, and the operators are starting to understand it.
But then we had this one glitch--and they have been active in
all of our working groups in working at it. Air Force wasn't
the only one. We had security people in. We had the chaplains
who wanted to opt out for various sundry reasons I won't go
into here.
But we have gotten them all on board. That is why in our
rollout in the units we are going to have VTC with the base
commanders in the next couple of weeks. At the end of June, we
are going to have all the base commanders and the supported
component commanders at one location in which they will start
to put their memoranda.
Now, each phase will now start to put together a memorandum
of agreement between the supporting and the supported
components. We are going to bang them out. There are going to
be other bridges to cross, but these are the big ones, and once
we get the framework in place, we will publish the JBIG. We are
going to publish supplemental guidance to all the commands. And
then a MOA, memorandum of agreement template, will go out, and
then any variances.
So we still have a lot of work to do, but I think the
initial hurdles, we have crossed them.
Mr. Dicks. So what is your objective date to get this
accomplished?
Mr. Arny. Off the top of my head, we want the signed MOAs
this fall, with an IOC 6 months later of spring of 2009 for the
phase one bases. Right now, we have five bases in phase one and
seven in phase two, and we are discussing that. Lewis-McChord
is more complex. That is in phase two.
Let me back step. Everybody starts working on their MOA
next month, when we get it out. Everybody starts working on it
together. Five of the bases have to be done by spring of next
year, and the other seven in the spring of the following year.
So the FOC is 6 months, so October 1 of 2009 is FOC for the
first five, and October 1, 2010 is the FOC for the last. That
is the plan.
Mr. Dicks. Okay.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Carter.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for being here today. I am trying to find
some missing soldiers that we are looking for in my district.
So I have been looking at some confusion that I don't
understand. Back in BRAC, it seemed to be the indication that
we were going to reduce the force in Germany by two first AV
brigades, and send them to Fort Bliss, Texas. That is what were
told under the BRAC.
The Army has now delayed this movement to 2012 at least,
but we have already spent significant money to bring this BRAC
transfer into Fort Bliss. Now, we are going to be spending
Global Force money to prepare for the arrival of two new VCTs
announced for Bliss.
If the goal of BRAC is to reduce the force in Europe, has
the decision been made to change that? And now we are talking
about two new VCTs? Or does this delay and the construction
that has already been there, how does that affect the MILCON
budget?
It seems like we are spending this money twice for two
different outfits, or two different sets of brigades. I am
wondering about some numbers at my base, so I am always looking
for missing soldiers. So I want to find out what is going on.
Mr. Arny. So this is Naval Air Station Bliss, correct?
[Laughter.]
I could answer it more readily.
What I can tell is technically the BRAC move of 2005 were
only internal to the continental U.S. Now, what the Army did is
they fell on that with moves from overseas. I will have to get
you the details of the specifics on Fort Bliss, because I know
Fort Bliss is one of the major receivers of BRAC and MILCON
funding. So I will have to get you the specifics on those, but
we are not paying for anything twice. We are very careful to
make sure that we have the space we need and no more.
[The information follows:]

The Army has an aggressive, carefully synchronized stationing plan
for Fort Bliss that links Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005,
Global Defense Posture Realignment, and Grow the Force initiative. The
Army's plan supports these major stationing initiatives and is designed
to meet the September 15, 2011 statutory BRACE implementation deadline
without duplicating space requirements.
As a result of Grow the Army stationing decisions, the Fort Bliss
end state will include six brigade combat teams. We are not spending
money twice on their supporting facilities. Three brigade facility sets
are being funded through BRAC, and three will be funded with Military
Construction, Army (MCA). Of the facility sets funded with MCA, two are
for Grow the Army infantry brigades, with the final set supporting the
heavy brigade returning from Germany in FY 2012.

Again, BRAC and the global re-basing was complicated, to
use probably the wrong word, it was made more complex by the
fact that at the same time we were going to reduce these bases
overseas, we decided to increase the Marine Corps and the Army.
We would grow the Army and grow the Marine Corps.
Mr. Carter. I am for all those things. The reason I am
asking the question is because if you just say we decided not
to reduce the forces in Germany, then that makes sense to me.
Otherwise, in Three Corps, as we looked at shuffling around of
what was going to go in Three Corps, my concern is Fort Hood.
Fort Hood was supposed to receive, according to me, the
chairman and others, it was reported to us 49,000 soldiers. All
of a sudden, we were back down to 42,000 soldiers, with the
story that we never told you that. I am very concerned about
that.
So when I look out here and see what looks like a change of
position for the Army, I don't know what that change of
position means. That is why I asked the question.
Mr. Arny. We will get you that answer.

PRIVATIZATION

Mr. Carter. If I have time for another question, I have one
more question I would like to know. Barracks privatization--I
have a great interest in barracks privatization. Over 3 years
ago, I asked a question about barracks privatization as it
related to the two Navy projects that were experimental at that
time--how successful they were, where they were going, and what
were the changes that the Army was going to be able to
participate in barracks privatization.
The report that I am looking at here now says that they are
now going to participate in barracks privatization. At that
time, I was assured that probably the first place they would
try it would be Fort Hood. Now, we are not in the mix. Do you
know any reason why we are not in the mix?
Mr. Arny. No, sir, but I will check. I do know, and I could
bore you to tears on BQ privatization because it has been a big
success. There are problems for us to overcome, but I have
heard that the Army is starting to look at it. I will get back
to you on your specific question about Fort Hood.
[The information follows:]

The Army is using the privatization authorities to provide
unaccompanied personnel housing (UPH) for senior enlisted personnel
(pay grade E6 and above) and officers at the locations shown
below.These members currently receive a housing allowance.
Fort Irwin, CA.
Fort Drum, NY.
Fort Bragg, NC.
Fort Steward, GA.
Fort Bliss, TX.
These new housing projects, which will include a mixture of 1 and 2
bedroom apartments, are being implemented as additions to existing
family housing privatization partnerships. The Army apartments are
being built to market standards and the rents will reflect the market
value of the apartment. No Government equity contributions will be
required. Other installations, including Fort Hood, were considered for
similar unaccompanied senior enlisted/officer housing but did not show
sufficient occupancy demand to make the projects as attractive as the
ones underway. The Army leadership is deferring consideration of UPH
privatization for Soldiers who are required to live in barracks (pay
grades E1 to E5 and without dependents) until they can fully assess the
Navy's experience with their pilot UPH privatization projects.

Mr. Carter. Okay. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
I want to ask you a couple of questions about
privatization, particularly the bachelor privatization. I know
about 5 years ago, we authorized Norfolk and San Diego and
Mayport. As I understand it, San Diego is off-base, right?
Mr. Arny. No. San Diego is on-base.
Mr. Crenshaw. And Norfolk?
Mr. Arny. Norfolk is on-base as well.
Mr. Crenshaw. Okay, so they are both on-base.
Mr. Arny. They are both on-base.
Mr. Crenshaw. And they are up and running, as I understand
it.
Mr. Arny. Well, it is a little more complicated. In San
Diego, that was our lead project. Norfolk was supposed to be,
but San Diego came in first. We took a large 15-story existing
one-plus-one (e) and privatized that. And the privatization
contractor is building four 18-story towers right next to it,
because land is more dear in San Diego, so they went vertical.
While we haven't moved anybody into the towers yet--the new
construction--resident satisfaction went from 70 percent to 90
percent after the private sector manager took over the existing
BQ. Okay? So we were authorized three piles. So we picked the
second one at Hampton Roads. Hampton Roads is all E-3 and
below. San Diego is E-3 and below and E-4 and E-5 and above. So
that project, we have broken ground, but we don't have anything
up and running yet. We have just started the takeover of some
of the old BQs, because we are not only building new buildings
for E-3s and below, but the contractor is taking over some of
the old one.
I had asked the Navy staff to look around. Initially, we
were going to do Bremerton, but we discovered that there you
have one carrier and four or five escorts. When that carrier
leaves, the BQ is empty. So it didn't work out. We had to use a
different model.
We ended up at Mayport and Jacksonville as the model. Those
folks are doing that now, and that should be rolling out in the
next year or so.
Mr. Crenshaw. Because one of the questions I have, when
they are on-base, as I understand it, if you have a developer,
you have to give him an easement to the main gate.
Mr. Arny. In both Mayport and Jackson, I have been down
there and walked the ground. I forget which one it is, but you
don't have to. You need a balance. To satisfy OMB and GAO, you
need a balance between people that are close enough to the
edge. The premise is that if the Navy went away from Mayport-
JAX, that there would be a use for these buildings. Or if the
Navy shrank down and had no more enlisted men at the base--why
that would happen--but if it did, the financier look at this
and says, can I get civilians into those barracks, because they
are going to be apartments. I am going to rent them out. It is
private. It is his. It is not ours anymore. I have it. Rent it.
So is it close enough to the fence? When I say San Diego,
it is on-base. It is right on-base, and there is fence-line
where you could bring that fence around and now that building
is outside the fence-line. So I believe that when I looked at
both Mayport and Jackson, there are ways to move the fence-
line.
Now, you may move it--I think it is at Mayport--you may
move the fence-line up towards close to where the base is,
which would mean the family housing is actually outside the
fence-line, but in most of our places, a lot of our family
housing is outside the fence-line.
Mr. Crenshaw. I think in Mayport it is pretty much the land
is right in the middle. It is kind of in the middle of the
base. It would be problematic, it seems to me, to give an
easement all the way----
Mr. Arny. You don't have to give an easement, but what you
may have to do is move that old fence, because as I recall from
the back gate or the south gate up to where the bachelor
housing is is family housing.
Mr. Crenshaw. So that is not a problem that is
insurmountable?
Mr. Arny. No, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. What about when you finance these things, if
there is no basic housing allowance to some of these guys that
have home port ashore, how do they finance those? What kind of
income stream do you pledge to the developer?
Mr. Arny. They all get--all E-4s and above--could get BAH.
So in San Diego, we had a huge mix because even though these
guys were getting BAH, they wouldn't go out into town because
it was too expensive. So in order to get the E-3--remember, the
Navy had a problem where before the homeport ashore, we had
enough barracks for everybody. They may be crummy, but we had
one. When we dumped 30,000 more E-3 and below on there, we had
a problem. So we had to move them in and get the E-4s out.
In Mayport, we don't have that problem. In Mayport, what we
will do is we will pay partial BAH to the shipboard sailors. It
depends. Where there are two to a room, it is about 35 percent.
If it is one to a room, it is about 70 percent. Now, they still
have a choice. We have to give everybody a choice. The homeport
sailor has a choice. He can either stay on the ship or move to
the barracks. So it is not much of a choice for him. But then
he will get his BAH, and that is the income stream.
Mr. Crenshaw. And that hasn't been a problem in terms of
the financing of those?
Mr. Arny. No, sir. Our M-1 folks, the personnel people
complained, but frankly in the long term, it is less expensive
because we are getting better barracks and they are better
maintained.
Mr. Crenshaw. Do you ever hear issues about cohesion or
discipline when people are letting go?
Mr. Arny. No, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. I got you. And can you tell what the
occupancy is for San Diego yet? They aren't all really up and
running.
Mr. Arny. Not really all, but it is grand, and I saw a
videoclip of an E-5, a female second-class bay officer, she was
just raving about it. It was the same barracks she was living
in before, but with better management, she was just raving
about it.

NAVAL STATION NEWPORT

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
Welcome. As you know, in Newport, Rhode Island with BRAC,
we obviously absorbed an enormous change in the new BRAC
process. With our GMH property, there has been a concern among
our Newport council members that they came in and acquired the
military housing, and then flipped it, with a huge profit,
without putting any money into the properties. I want to know
whether there is any truth to that speculation or not, if you
could find out for us.
Mr. Arny. Sure. We had some initial growing pains with GMH
at Newport, but I think you will find they put a lot of money
into that project. I know there has been new construction. What
we found at all these locations, even if they don't build new
housing, they are far more efficient at putting the right
amount of money into a house--new carpets, appliances, things
like that--to make a house that you wouldn't like to be in much
more comfortable. But I will be looking into this, because I
think there is more to that than meets the eye.
[The information follows:]

There is no truth to the speculation that the private partner
flipped the Newport property for a huge profit without putting any
money into the properties.
As with all of its military family housing privatization projects,
the Navy conveyed housing units (and leased the underlying land) to GMH
Military Housing for purposes of renovating or replacing existing
housing and constructing additional housing to meet Navy housing needs
in the Northeast Region. GMH contributed over $10 million in equity and
secured private debt for the Northeast project, which includes Newport.
In Newport, the GMH will renovate or replace 375 homes during the
initial development period, and will sustain and recapitalize close to
900 homes as needed over the next 50 years. This will ensure the
provision of quality housing for Navy families assigned to Newport for
years to come.
Renovations and replacement construction at Newport have progressed
ahead of schedule, with 80 percent of the planned renovations and 100
percents of the planned replacement construction at Newport completed
to date.

Mr. Kennedy. And then also about the new company taking it
over from GMH.
Mr. Arny. Balfour?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Get us some more information about them
and what expertise they have in the area.
[The information follows:]

Balfour Beatty is an international engineering, construction,
investment and services group established in 1909 in England. The firm
was ranked one of the top 50 international design (engineering--
construction) companies in 2007 by Engineering News-Record and has
significant public private partnership experience. Balfour Beatty has
constructed military housing in the United Kingdom for the British Navy
and the Royal Air Force. Balfour Beatty is a partner firm in the
upgrade and replacement of U.S. Air Force family housing at RAF
Lakenheath, the largest U.S. Air Force operated base in England.

Also, obviously we have about 350 acres accessed under BRAC
for Naval Station Newport. Obviously, we would like to work
with the Navy on how to access this. Our chamber of commerce
has been working to try to develop a plan whereby we develop
some of it for marine trade, and some of it for construction,
housing and so forth. We want to develop a comprehensive
development plan.
So we want to know how much flexibility the Navy will allow
us in the acquisition of the property and whether it could be
done in parcels or whether it has to be done in one lump sum of
350 acres.
Mr. Arny. I know that particular property has three
different communities that come into it. I was doing a little
bit of that before I came over, but the Navy will work with the
three communities and you to figure out what is best.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay, that would be great.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

You know, last year we had as a committee, we funded 60 new
childcare centers. Obviously, this was a real investment in
quality of life. One thing that we should also be doing, which
is the youth centers, because of the demands for after-care,
after-school programs and so forth, for Navy families. Could
you comment a little bit about with these extended deployments,
whether you think our kids need these after-care and after-
school centers, and whether they are helpful in the quality of
life issues that you are seeing?
Mr. Arny. They are definitely helpful on the quality of
life. I haven't had a chance to concentrate on those, but I did
see a paper just the other day that said in one particular
look, that we are not short of the youth centers. But I will
check on that, because we are adding lots of childcare centers.
I will get back to you on that.
[The information follows:]

Yes, the care of children in before and after school programs is an
important quality of life issues for military families. Today, the
Department of Defense provides dynamic youth programs at more than 350
locations worldwide. The before and after school programs are a work
force issue with direct impact on mission readiness and mobilization
preparedness, especially in today's higher operations tempo. In this
year's State of the Union Address, the President, in an unprecedented
call for support for military families, asked that Congress support
military families' need for more child care.

Mr. Kennedy. Okay. Well, we have found that that is very
important. We can expend the after-school centers, and it would
be good to double-check to make sure we have enough of those.
The backlog in Rhode Island is obviously enormous on BRAC
because for many years no one really anticipated that we were
going to necessarily keep all of the facilities there. It was
king of a waiting game to see how much of Rhode Island was
going to remain. So we have quite a backlog that was put off.
So I just would call your attention to that.
Mr. Arny. I know that CNIC is working a base master plan on
the home base. Admiral Conway is very high on that. We not only
have some building to do, we also have some demolition that
should have been done a long time ago. Newport is about the
only place--well, we have a lot of places. A hurricane in
Pensacola exposed the fact that we had lots of buildings down.
We had three power plants down there that haven't been used in
decades, and thanks to a hurricane, we got them demolished.
Mr. Kennedy. I look forward to having you up and touring
the base, because I am sure you will find a lot.
Mr. Arny. My second son is stationed there right now.
Mr. Kennedy. Oh, terrific. Well, there is a good excuse,
sir. [Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Jonas and Secretary Arny, thanks for your
service.

CAMP LEJEUNE WAR CONTAMINATION

I want to start, Secretary Arny, by complimenting your shop
and some of the folks in the Air Force installation shop that
work under you, particularly Secretary Bill Anderson and the
gentleman that preceded him, Fred Hume, who I came to greatly
admire and respect in his service----
Have you heard of the Lynn Haven fuel depot project at the
Kendall Air Force Base?
Mr. Arny. No, I haven't heard of it, but I will.
Mr. Boyd. They have been working on it. You don't really
need to do anything, except be made aware that the team that
you have working on it, led by Hillary Yarborough of the Air
Force shop, is doing a great job. We want to keep that on
schedule to bring it in for a landing by this fall. Again, this
is the Lynn Haven fuel depot, a World War II fuel depot which
is excess. We are working to dispose of it, and I want to thank
you for that.
My question relates to a different subject. Secretary Arny,
are you aware of the Camp Lejeune war contamination issues?
Mr. Arny. From many years back, yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Boyd. Yes. For the last 10 months, my office has been
involved working with some constituents, and now that caseload
is up to about eight or nine families, folks who have been
involved in that. That is a pretty serious, complex issue, as
you know.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyd. There are two reports that I have been advised
that the Navy has in their possession that will not be
released. One is the 1999 litigation report pertaining to that
Camp Lejeune war contamination and its potential liability. I
personally have asked for it and the Energy and Commerce
Committee has asked for that report to be released to Congress.
To this point, it has not been released.
I really have two questions. Why would it not be released
to the Energy and Commerce Committee? And what is in that
report that the Navy or the Pentagon does not want to share
concerning the Camp Lejeune war contamination issue?
The second report is a 1985 confirmation study of Camp
Lejeune, performed by the Navy of the assessment and control of
installation pollutants program on that war contamination
issue. The Navy has also refused to supply a recent study as
well for Congress. What I would like to do is ask you, sir, if
you would, to check into that and supply those reports to us
and the congressional delegation.
Mr. Arny. I will check into it, and if I can, I will. I
know the Navy has been very open in terms of trying to
identify--and it is difficult after many years--to identify who
was there and who was affected, because it only affected
certain portions of the base. It didn't affect the entire base.
There were only certain wells. I know that they have been
reaching out. It wasn't an issue I worked directly on, but I
sat with Mr. Shigard over the last 6 years, and I know it came
up periodically. I will check on that for you.
[The information follows:]

The 1999 Litigation Report was prepared by Government attorneys in
anticipation of litigation relating to the possible effects of water
contamination at Camp Lejeune. Both at the time of the original request
for the Litigation Report in June of 2007 from the House Energy and
Commerce Committee and presently, the United States is actively
litigating tort cases relating to this matter. After careful review of
the Litigation Report, the Department of the Navy determined the
majority of the enclosures were factual in nature, and were already
publicly available or otherwise releasable; those enclosures were
provided without restriction to the House Energy and Commerce Committee
by letter, dated June 25,2007. The remainder of the Litigation Report,
consisting of the Findings of Fact, Opinions, and Recommendations, as
well as four of the enclosures is attorney-work product, relates to on-
going litigation, and was withheld from release. However, the
Department of the Navy offered to make the Findings of Fact portion of
the Report available to members of the Committee or its professional
staff for review.
It is our understanding that the 1985 Confirmation Study report
that was referred to is titled, ``EVALUATION OF DATA FROM FIRST ROUND
OF VERIFICATION SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS, CONFIRMATION NON STUDY
TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE AND POSSIBLE MIGRATION OF SPECIFIC CHEMICALS IN-
SITU''. In late 1992, this document was made available to the public
and placed in the Onslow County Public Library located at 58 Doris
Avenue East, Jacksonville, NC, 28540, as part of the administrative
record. In April 2000, the administrative record was placed on the
internet where it remains available today at: https://www.bakerenv.com/
camplejeune_irp/default_frameset.htm.
In addition to this report, there are two other reports related to
the Confirmation Study, which are also available in the administrative
record:
(1) EVALUATION OF DATA FROM SECOND ROUND OF VERIFICATION STEP
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS, CONFIRMATION STUDY TO DETERMINE
EXISTENCE AND POSSIBLE MIGRATION OF SPECIFIC CHEMICALS IN SITU, ESE, 7/
1/87.
(2) FINAL SITE SUMMARY REPORT, ESE, 9/1/90. This report appears to
be a compilation of verification and collected confirmation study
information. Apparently, no formal interim or draft final Confirmation
Study was written; only verification sampling and analysis was
performed.

Mr. Boyd. I had previously submitted, Mr. Chairman, a
written request to General Conway for this, and some questions.
This was back in January, and those have not yet been answered.
So it would be great, Mr. Secretary, if we could bring this
into a conclusion.
Mr. Arny. I will do what I can.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. If we can do anything to help you on that, let
us know. Any other questions? Okay.
Mr. Wamp.

REBALANCING THE ARMY

Mr. Wamp. Thank you. Round two.
Secretary Jonas, shortly after General Casey became chief,
he said that the Army was out of balance. What is Secretary
Gates and yourself doing, and what can this subcommittee
specifically do to rebalance the United States Army?
Ms. Jonas. First of all, the budget that we put in front of
the Congress does a significant amount regarding balancing the
mix of the force, of active versus guard and reserve. As an
example, in the guard accounts, we have over $45 billion that
we have added from the period of 2007 to 2013 in programs. That
is an area where we are working to get them the equipment they
need to do the missions we believe they are able to do.
Obviously, what this committee is doing is enormously
important, in what you stated at the outset, to do your best to
provide the resources that are needed to keep the BRAC moving
successfully. This is important because of the basing issues we
have all been discussing here this afternoon.
The chairman and I were discussing the other day what the
committee has done on childcare centers. We are very grateful
for what you are doing. It is very important to support the
force and the composition of those who are now serving trying
to maintain family life in a way that is consistent with their
assigned mission. It has gotten to be very complex.
The supplemental requests also are very important. Those
are another way the Congress and this committee can support
General Casey's efforts.

GUAM

Mr. Wamp. Secretary Arny, you gave some unique insights
into Guam. That is one of the big-ticket items on the horizon
for this subcommittee. I was fascinated by what you shared with
me. Can you share just a little bit of specificity even of
Saipan and the other area around Guam that I didn't know very
much about, and I learned a lot just listening to you--in
brief, just the importance of Guam and the transition of Guam
and how unique that whole situation is.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir. I would be glad to. As I mentioned to
you, I had the good fortune of representing the Government of
Guam for a period of 10 years as a consultant, and worked on
privatization of the bus company. BRAC was actually was one of
the few communities to seek the closure of an air base, because
Guam had no international airport, and it was on the corner of
the naval air station.
Guam is a unique place. It is, in my opinion, one of the
most strategic assets that the country has. It is U.S.-flag,
within 3 hours by air of almost every part of the Pacific Rim.
We always hear about the tyranny of distance in the Pacific,
but you don't experience it until you sail across it like I did
one time in a carrier, and every 2 or 3 months I would fly out
there.
As I was telling you, I took a couple of guys out to do
some work for me out there. We would go on a 3-hour flight from
here to Houston, walk out of the gate, get to the next plane,
do 7\1/2\ hours to Hawaii, get out of the gate and get on to
the next plane to Guam. One fellow looked exhausted. I have
learned to sleep on airplanes. He said, ``God, this is awful.''
How much more do we have? Do we have a couple of hours left? I
said, no, you have another 7\1/2\ hours. Guam is 7\1/2\ hours
on the other side of Hawaii by 747.
It has a unique history. We came in in 1898. We took it
from the Spanish. As a matter of fact, when you come into the
harbor there, there is a breakwater. It is called the Glass
breakwater. I never understood why you would name a breakwater
that is supposed to be strong, after something that is
breakable. Well, it turns out it was Captain Glass. He was sent
by Dewey up to capture Guam, which was a Spanish possession and
had been in Spanish hands for 350 years. He comes rolling into
the harbor, and the way the story is told, he lets loose with a
broadside. The commander of the fort comes out and says thank
you very much for your salute, but we don't have any
ammunition, so we can't return it for you. [Laughter.]
So that was the sum total of the conquering of Guam. And
from that moment forward, it was governed by Navy captains. I
was a Navy captain, okay? I was no more set to be the governor
of a group of people than anybody else, especially in the Navy.
But from 1898 until World War II, we had a Navy captain
governing the island.
And so when people complain about infrastructure in Guam,
when you trace that back, when you scratch the surface, you
discover that it is Navy public works. So if you get upset, it
all goes back to Navy public works. I have to remind my
colleagues in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, most of
whom are too young to remember all this, that a lot of the
problems that we have discussing things with Guam is because we
never let them be a nation. We never let them be an independent
political body.
It was the only American community captured by the
Japanese. The wife of the second governor I dealt with,
Governor Carl Gutierrez, his wife Jerri, her mother--when the
Japanese came in at the end of the war, they became much more
brutal. They brought in troops from the Manchurian campaign.
The first troops to capture Guam were naval troops and they
were much more benign. Then they had labor camps, and she
watched her mother rifle-butted to death in front of her eyes.
One of the legislator's wives was a young girl who was brought
in with a bunch of other students to witness the beheading of
Father Duenas, who was a Roman Catholic priest Chamorro, who
was on the island.
So they have a unique perspective. The other thing, too, is
that we never really, when we took Guam from the Spaniards, we
had a chance to buy the rest of it from the Germans, the rest
of the Marianas chain. We didn't do it, so the Japanese had the
Marianas chain. The island Chamorros are related to each other,
but after the war there were a lot of hard feelings between the
Saipanese and the Guamanians, because the Saipanese were used
as guards, and in some cases were brutal to their Chamorro
neighbors. The current chief of staff, George Bomba, to the
governor is a good friend. His parents were both legislators.
They tried to introduce a provision in the Congress, in the
legislature, to bring Saipan and Guam back together. He was
defeated because the feelings are still there.
It is a very interesting place. We have a large presence
there, and an even larger one during Vietnam. We had 150 B-52s
and their tankers all stationed at the hangars there. So Guam
can handle a load. It is strategic. They have infrastructure
problems that we can work together and figure out how to do.
It is unique because it is an island, so if you think of
electric power--around here, when we generate electric power,
you have to cover a certain load, and then you have a rolling
reserve on top of that, and you have to have a peak in the
summer and winter, and you do your maintenance in the spring
and fall. Okay? Because you have to staff off-line. But if it
all fails, you can plug into West Virginia or Pennsylvania. You
have places to go. On islands, you don't have that, but even
Hawaii has peaks and valleys. Guam is 80 percent year-round and
it is small. It is 150,000 people.
We asked them to do--and 150,000 is maybe Fairfax or
something--but we asked that community to act not only as a
city, but also as a county and a state, and they even have to
have immigration issues. So we pile a lot on them, so sometimes
the abilities aren't as deep as you would like because the
bench is shallow. It is only 150,000 people.
But strategically for the Navy and for the country as a
whole, it is absolutely the right place to be. We may not get
there in the time we are all talking about, but I think it is
essential for us strategically to build that facility after
working with the Chamorros.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Mr. Farr and then Mr. Crenshaw.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONVEYANCE

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to get into base closure and local reuse
authorities. As you know, I have experienced the large base
closure in the United States, and probably every single thing
you could possibly face in a BRAC. You and I have had
differences from the Navy's standpoint and the Army's
standpoint about the laws. I am very appreciative of the
comments that you have made about wanting to work with the
local reuse authorities.
You mentioned tools in the tool box by which DOD and OEA
have to help with the base reuse process, including the public
benefit transfers, the economic development conveyances at cost
and at no-cost, negotiated sales to state and local government,
and conservation conveyances and public sales.
My question is, what happens if the LRA in their
redevelopment plan relies on one of these tools as a way to do
their economic development, no-cost EDC--what is an EDC? An
economic development conveyance, a free conveyance--but you--
the service--wants to sell the property. How do you resolve
that issue?
Mr. Arny. The problems that we have seen in EDC, especially
the no-cost EDCs, is that the Department still operates under
set rules that you all have laid out for us and we put out
about four economic development conveyances. They are for
economic development. The problem we saw in the early years,
and I came in obviously in 2002 and saw a lot of stuff going
on, and nobody got anywhere. A lot of consultants made a lot of
money, and yet none of the land was transferred in a lot of
cases.
What was happening is that people in order to fit their
programs through that knothole of no-cost EDCs, they were
pulling it through the knothole. So let's say, what do we need
for the base? What is it we want to develop? Okay? In many
cases, in early 2000, it was housing that they needed, not
manufacturing operations.
In Alameda, they were going to put in a huge number of
stores and malls and commercial enterprise, until they were
sued by Oakland because--I hadn't thought about this--but guess
where all the traffic has to go through to get there? It had to
go through Oakland. Another one was South Weymouth,
Massachusetts.
Mr. Farr. So each one of these--you are not ruling out no-
cost EDC's?
Mr. Arny. Absolutely not. My only warning to everybody is,
and now South Weymouth is an EDC. It started out as a no-cost
EDC, and by the time it got to me in 2003 or 2004, it was
clearly a hoax. The Mills Corporation had backed out because
the locals had voted against the road improvements they needed.
The LRA was going on with this facade, and some of the folks
were ready to transfer.
Mr. Farr. Well, I am only interested in an EDC if there is
a public benefit, because I think real estate is very
expensive, particularly on the coast and for the Navy where a
lot of their properties are. We have members of this committee
whose communities could really benefit from no-cost EDC's, but
there must be a public benefit out of this.
Mr. Arny. Absolutely. And the problem with the no-cost EDC,
to make it no-cost, they were doing all sorts of strange
manipulations to get it there. Whereas, with Alameda, we still
have an EDC, but it is a cost-EDC. We have said, okay, and we
struck a deal with them.
Mr. Farr. I am interested in Onizuka--that one that is----
Mr. Arny. I have heard about it. I don't know----
Mr. Farr. It is not in my district, but because I know a
little bit about base closure. They are really unique. There is
one block right on a freeway.
Mr. Arny. It was on an Air Force base?
Mr. Farr. Yes, it had a lot of air force instrumentation.
Mr. Arny. Right. Okay.
Mr. Farr. It is right in the middle of Silicon Valley. The
city had all kinds of issues. Anyway, I appreciate your
clarification. This committee has initiated, with the
Department of Defense, the RCI, which is housing privatization,
with a private developer building housing on military land. It
is government land. There is no cost for the land. That is why
they can build this incredibly beautiful housing at affordable
rates. The RCI on the Monterey Peninsula where those houses the
RCI built would all sell on the market for over $1 million.
They are renting them for $1,100 a month--brand new houses,
beautiful houses--to the men and women in uniform. It is
incredible. It is fantastic.
The whole economics work because of the land. You can
provide these people with affordable housing, and these things
that Patrick was talking about--youth centers, treatment
centers, many kinds of community facilities are affordable--as
long as you don't have to pay the expensive land costs.
I just want to make sure that there is some accountability
here. We put the value in it, therefore we have to get value
out. But remember, it is all the same taxpayer, whether it is a
local person in that city who is paying federal, state and
local taxes, and he wants that land to be used.
Mr. Arny. Especially if we are staying there. If we are not
staying--if we are excessing--then it is different.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Members, we have three votes. The first
one is a 15-minute vote, then there is a 10-minute debate on
the motion to recommit, and a 15-minute vote. So Mr. Crenshaw,
if you would like to be recognized, I would go up and vote, and
come on back down and maybe we could kind of rotate and
continue on with some questions.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. I just have a couple of questions. One is
just about BRAC. I don't know if you know the schedule. In one
of the bases in my district, there is a new hangar being built
for all the P-3s that are coming. Ground was broken. I assume
that is on schedule. I don't know. Is it on schedule? Is it
going to ready in time for all the P-3s?
Mr. Arny. I will double-check, but I would know if it
wasn't going to be on schedule. The last time I heard, I think
it was on-time.
[The information follows:]

There are currently three BRAC construction contracts underway at
NAS Jacksonville. Their status is as follows:
P-3 Hangar and Parking Apron (BRACON P-302V): This project will
provide over 277,000 square feet (SF) of hangar space with 23 acres of
aircraft parking apron and taxiways for aircraft relocating from Naval
Air Station (NAS) Brunswick, Maine. Project awarded September 29, 2006
with contract value of approximately $125 million. Work is on schedule
for June 2009 completion. Structural steel is nearing completion and
interior work is in progress. Concrete work on the aircraft parking
apron scheduled to begin in early May 2008.
Fleet Support Facility (BRACON P-333V): This facility will provide
equipment maintenance support to aircraft moving down from NAS
Brunswick, Maine. Project was awarded on June 29, 2007 with a contract
value of approximately $4 million. Work is on schedule for. October
2008 completion despite being delayed by five months due to an award
protest. GAO denied the protest and the contractor started work in
October 2007. Construction and erection of the exterior have been
completed as well as the new vehicle parking lot.
Engineering Ops Center (BRACON P-305V): This building will provide
61,323 SF for Naval Facilities Engineering Command functions relocating
from Charleston, South Carolina. Project was awarded on January 30,
2007 with a contract value of approximately $14 million. Work is
slightly behind the required August 2008 completion date, but the
contractor expects to complete on schedule. This project is
administrative and any delays will not impact the P-3 aircraft
relocating from NAS Brunswick.

Mr. Crenshaw. Yes. I heard maybe that there is like 23
acres of new aprons they are going to build, and maybe there
are some issues. I would appreciate having an update because
there was also an office building that they were going to
build. I know some things have been slowed down. I know the
hangars are on-track. I would be curious just--there are two or
three projects that, assuming they are on the original
schedule.
Mr. Arny. Okay.

PLAN FOR CUBA

Mr. Crenshaw. The other question, the bigger question, is
just in terms of making our committee aware of any needs that
we might need to be aware of. You know, they just went through
kind of a transition of power in Cuba. It was peaceful, with
Fidel and his brother Raul. I think everybody hopes there will
be a day when this stranglehold will be released and there is a
free and open democratic society. If that happens, I know that
you all at the Department of Defense have a plan in place.
There are probably going to be a lot of people leaving Cuba and
coming to the United States.
So just maybe give us an overview of where some of the
emergency housing might be and how much that is going to cost,
and how quickly. I know that is something you have to plan for.
We hope it is sooner than later, but we don't know for sure how
quickly that could happen. Is there anything we need to be
doing in that regard?
Ms. Jonas. Mr. Crenshaw, I have been down to the area. I
was down at Fort Ashley at the site, where there is a concern
on mass immigration. The Deputy Secretary has been (INAUDIBLE)
SOUTHCOM worked very hard. We have basically invested about $18
million in that area--about 10,000. Edmund Steparides actually
sent me a note the other day and wants to discuss it further.
But I think he is doing the best that he can to plan. I
know the concern has been part of our planning process, and I
think we are in fairly good shape.
Mr. Crenshaw. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.

CLEANUP OF BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE SITES

Going back to Mr. Farr's question, a lot of that excess
land we have is really polluted. It is World War II, an old
tank farm, so a lot of it needs to be cleaned up. It is a
really bad environment of contamination. So I don't know if the
Navy would ever get around to doing much in terms of cleanup.
Mr. Arny. That is a good point. Let me comment on that,
because I know that those tank farms have been excessed for 10
or 15 years. We took advantage of the BRAC law in the case of
Newport to be able to use the BRAC process, because Newport was
not a BRAC closure. It was BRAC realignment.
So the way the law was structured, we could go in there,
because things are coming into Newport now, so it gave us the
opportunity to say, okay, are there pieces of Newport--and we
knew there were--that are excess and able to be disposed of
using the BRAC process? Because it is not just a straight go to
GSA. You set up a local reuse authority. You may be dealing
with three local reuse authorities--Portsmouth, Middletown, and
Newport.
In terms of the tank farms, I never did get an answer on
the cost to complete on the cleanup, but you are right. That
wasn't particularly high on anybody's list of places that need
to be cleaned up. But Congressman Farr is right, the Navy is
always obligated to clean that up.
Now, what we could do, if that property--again, the local
community always has control of the zoning. If you zone it for
a waste land, we will get rid of it as a waste land. It you
zone it as high-rise apartments, that is what it will be
disposed of as. If you want to do an economic development
conveyance, cost or no-cost, that is within your rights. We
will advise you. You will have plenty of consultants knocking
at your door to tell you to do other things. Check their hourly
rates. Don't tell them I told you.
Mr. Kennedy. They are all free.
Mr. Arny. They are all free. Right. [Laughter.]
But if that land is valuable, and I don't know what the
value is, but if that land is valuable, we work closely with
EPA. It would be to our advantage to sell it. If the community
decides for a public sale and lets that land be developed by a
developer, then that land can be sold within the environmental
cleanup, with the responsibility to do it transferring to the
developer, but the oversight responsibility always remains with
us. But rather than us doing it, the builder could do it.
In many cases, we believe, and in places where it hasn't
worked out and we don't do it. But if you are coming in, and
say you have to dig out three feet of soil and replace it with
three feet of soil, why pay company A to come in and dig that
soil out, haul it off to Utah, and then put three feet of clean
soil in, when the developer is going to come in and take three
feet of soil out and put in a foundation. It doesn't make
sense. So why not save the money?
Plus, a developer generally is more highly motivated to get
the buy-off from state and federal EPA than the feds are. We
have been around for 250 years and we are (INAUDIBLE). So it is
motivation. On the other hand, take El Toro for instance, that
property was put up for sale, but the Navy retained the cleanup
responsibilities.
What we did is we sold the land, much of it in (INAUDIBLE)
acres. Probably 80 percent of it was deedable--fausible as we
call it. The rest of it we leased to the seller. It was a life-
lock lease (INAUDIBLE) of conveyance, but they knew all the
rules. We had established the rules so they could build on that
leased land, and the moment it is clean, we go and have a
little ceremony and hand them the deed.
So there are lots of ways to do it. We never give up the
responsibility for that cleanup, but now frankly under the BRAC
program, you have more oversight, more people looking at it,
and there is more motivation to get it cleaned up. Because
frankly, those tank farms, as you said, as you know, have been
sitting there for decades.
Mr. Kennedy. You also have the sewer system there that we
can really use to tap into for our development there, which we
would do.
Mr. Arny. (OFF MIKE)
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Arny. As long as you will take the road. [Laughter.]
Mr. Kennedy. And if you could look into that, this would be
something when you come up at some point and visit your son,
and we can talk about it and show you around. But the pier, I
don't know to what extent you have talked to the Coast Guard
about sharing.
Mr. Arny. The Coast Guard is my favorite service. My father
was in the Coast Guard. That notwithstanding, at some point the
Navy needs to do something with that whole pier and beach area.
There is talk of leasing it out to somebody who can use it,
because it is of no use to the Navy. The two piers and my old
carrier sitting out there. Those are going to go someplace,
sometime. And you have the periscope facilities sitting on top
of the pier. That is absolutely the worst place for that to be.
So we are working hard to get MILCON projects in one way or
the other, either to take the proceeds from the sale of the
land and move it, or actually just move it up on land, at which
point we can tear those piers down. The Coast Guard needs to
belly up to the bar and find out what they can do, just to find
some money to pay for their own way. They are getting the land
for next to nothing now, and thanks to Senator Reed and your
help in the House, we got them $9.9 million to fix the seawall
there. They need to be partners and not dependents.
Mr. Kennedy. Can I do one more? The Azores--are you going
to do anything on the Azores to help the runway and rebuild
the--refurbish the Air Force base over in the Azores?
Mr. Arny. I have no idea. I will get back to you on that.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

There are no Military Construction projects for Azores in the FY
2009 President's Budget. The Air Force will continue to review facility
requirements of all Air Force bases worldwide, including the Azores,
and determine priorities to ensure resources are programmed and
budgeted to accomplish their mission.

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Kennedy, I would also think you have about
3 minutes left to vote.
Mr. Kennedy. Thanks.
Mr. Edwards. Let me talk about housing and barracks. I
think there is a great story to be told about housing. I am not
sure the public knows it. The military families living in
improved housing, particularly the public-private partnership
housing certainly know it.
One of my goals is to see that we have metrics each year,
so we can judge each year how we are doing on barracks; how are
we doing on housing. That is why I have in our previous
meetings talked about wanting to get a definition, a standard
definition of what is adequate housing.

OVERSEAS HOUSING

Let's begin with just the overseas housing. Secretary
Jonas, I will start with you. In your written testimony--and
let me get the exact quote--you talked about, ``we are asking
for $3.2 billion for family housing. Funding for this vital
quality of life program will enable the department to privatize
an additional 12,324 units and to eliminate inadequate housing
units overseas.''
When you say ``to eliminate inadequate housing units
overseas,'' are you talking about in the fiscal year 2009 year?
Ms. Jonas. I think it may take us all a little bit longer
period to do that. So I don't know, I think the date is a
little bit off there.
Mr. Arny. The date--let me give you the specifics. We will
have the money in place in this budget. We have nothing in
2010. So we will have it all, domestic and foreign adequate, by
those standards that the services measure, by the end of 2009.
It may not all be done by then, but the contracts will be in
place.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. That is a little bit surprising to me
because we had General Bell here just recently. He said that we
are letting our service members down in Korea. We know we are
in a process of transition there, but does that statement apply
to Korea?
Ms. Jonas. I have had many conversations with General Bell.
The Secretary and I have had discussions with Chairman Levin
regarding the housing in Korea. The Secretary is concerned
about the situation, and Chairman Levin has expressed his
concerns about the price tag of the Build to Lease Proposal in
Korea. We have requested the money in the MILCON budget to try
to address the complicated issue.
Mr. Edwards. But when you say just a moment ago that by
fiscal year 2009 you will have the money in hand to see that we
have no inadequate housing for families overseas----
Mr. Arny. Of those that we own.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Of those we own.
Mr. Arny. Okay. Now, as I understand Korea, and I am
learning as I go, because it is not Naval Station Korea, so as
I understand Korea, you have two problems. One is the good
news--we are moving out from underneath the DMZ further south,
so there is going to be a need in the future for more family
housing down near the bases in the south that we are
developing. And the way the Army was going to do that was
build-to-lease. There are a lot of reasons why the bill was too
high on that.
So we have MILCON in this year's budget, aside from this
inadequate housing, to build--I forget----
Ms. Jonas. It is 216 units, and we have requested $125
million.
Mr. Edwards. That is 2,000 units that are needed in Korea,
as I understand.
Mr. Arny. And that may be a period of time. We want to do
that build-to-lease. What Assistant Secretary Easton is looking
at is a semi-private-public partnership with the Korean
construction firms on the land that currently exists for that
on one of the bases that we are moving to. You know, as it gets
detailed, we will get more back to you.
The other issue I think that General Bell and others have
is they want to bring more dependents. They want to have more
accompanied tours that we currently have now, so they may be
counting those numbers in. That has not been approved. Part of
the problem that the Army has, and may others--the Marines
especially--with unaccompanied tours is they are short. They
are only 12 months. So when you bring accompanied, then there
are 2-year to 3-year tours, but now you have the added expense
of dependents and housing and things that you don't need when
you have unaccompanied tours. So it is a balancing act for us.
Mr. Edwards. So we need to quantify our statements when we
say we are going to have the money in place this year to see
that we have every family living overseas in adequate housing.
I just want to get consistency from year to year to year. If we
are consistent with a qualifier, if we are consistent with the
definitions, so we can measure where we are going. That allows
us to tell the great story of improvements, but still be
realistic about the needs that are still out there.
Mr. Arny. I did think about what you and I were talking
before, but I think part of it is we had this inventory that
was inadequate, and we modified it, and we are getting rid of
that, but there is a future inventory perhaps out there as we
consolidate forces into more southern areas in Korea.
Mr. Edwards. Right. Okay. Let me ask you about fairness.
And by the way, on Korea, let me go back just for a moment. In
the past, we have had a lot of troops up near the DMZ in places
that might not have been safe for children and spouses. But now
that we are consolidating outside of the DMZ area, I hope we
will look at a policy of trying to say that every family that
wants to stay together, particularly if they have come from
Iraq or a first or second or third tour of duty in Iraq, and
then they are assigned to Korea.
We asked General Bell, if you had enough housing and
adequate schools, decent quality of life, what percent of the
married soldiers would probably want to have their families
come with them. He said about 70 percent. So by policy,
basically, we are saying--Congress and the administration
together are guilty of this--we are saying by policy, a lack of
commitment to fund the housing needed there. We are forcing
families to live apart that have already lived apart, but many
of them because of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the past, that has been understandable because we were
dispersed in small little camps in local places in the Republic
of Korea, but I just hope we will take a second look now that
we are consolidating, do we want to make it a policy of the
United States to say because we are not going to commit the
resources needed to build the housing, you are going to have to
be apart for another year, even when you have already been
apart when your loved one was serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?
So if you could look at that and see where we are going.
Mr. Arny. As you well understand, when you change that
policy, you are doing two things. You are bringing those troops
in and you are building those bases up, and then you change
them and you are doing two things at the same time. You have to
look at the cost and the time it takes to do it.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Arny. I think your goal is the same as everybody
else's.
Mr. Edwards. You bet. Our goal is the same. We all want
every soldier, sailor, airman and marine and their families
living in quality housing that they have a right to be proud
of.

INADEQUATE HOUSING

On barracks, is there a number today--can we say to the
taxpayers how many servicemen and -women are living in barracks
that don't meet DOD standards?
Mr. Arny. I can give you the--we will get that for you. I
know in the Navy, we had I think in the Navy budget there is
one barracks left for permanent party that is not adequate. In
barracks, the measure for inadequate was getting rid of gang
heads, and the Marine Corps, the same thing. We have one
barracks, and I think it was on San Clemente Island, and we
finally in this budget have it there. So I think within the
Navy it is done, but within the Marine Corps--
That is not to say there are not barracks with gang heads
still out there, but they are being used as swing barracks, as
transient barracks, things like that. For permanent party
enlisted barracks, I think the Navy is there now, as long as
you include San Clemente Island. The Marine Corps, they may
have slipped a year or two because of growing the force, they
had to keep some of the barracks around there.
I will check with you. You know, given that the Air Force
has never had the problem, I don't think, they probably don't
have one. And the Army, I will have to check on that for you.
[The information follows:]

According to the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation
Report, Volume I, Cash Compensation, February 2008, page 91, there are
approximately 65,000 junior enlisted service members without dependents
who are being housed in quarters that are considered below the DoD 1+1
new construction barracks standard (private bedroom, both shared with
no more than one other, and a service area/kitchenette shared with no
more than one other). The breakdown is 20,000 for the Army, 35,000 for
the Navy and Marine Corps, and 10,000 for the Air Force.

Mr. Edwards. What I would like to do is work with you and
your staff and our subcommittee staff to sometime in the next
month or so give us a list of how many servicemen and -women
are living in inadequate housing; how many single soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines are living in inadequate housing;
and then give us the definition you are using for how you
define it.
And then a year from now I want to ask the exact same
question, and I would like to see the same definitions and the
numbers on the same assumptions, same definitions, so we can
measure the success and we can talk about it, and when we have
successes we ought to talk about them. The administration and
the Congress ought to be proud of some of these successes.
But at the same time, we have seen the definitions change
from $15,000 to upgrade a house, to $50,000--that things have
changed so much, I don't think there is a clear standard from
year to year to year to see where we have come and where we are
going.
Mr. Arny. I don't think we have given you the year-by-year
on family housing, but I believe it is $50,000. I asked, and we
have been using $50,000 since I think 2003. Again, the services
have their own standard, but we could give you that year-to-
year, and also into the future. I think the barracks is a
(INAUDIBLE), getting rid of it.
Mr. Edwards. Sure. And on the housing, I would like to try
to get that data based on not only the $50,000 definition, but
if it is in a state of disrepair, then that is inadequate
housing.
Mr. Arny. Agreed.
Mr. Edwards. So those families living in inadequate housing
that is in a state of disrepair differs from those who are
living in housing that if we spent $50,000, whether you spend
it or not, it would meet the standards. And then let's try to
get a standard by which we can judge this year to year to see
exactly where we are going.
I think we were told a couple of years ago that in 2007 we
would have all the money in place to have everybody living in
adequate housing. Definitions change, and we have had BRAC and
we have had growing the force--all of that. I would like to
measure that. Is it your definition that we are going to have
everybody in CONUS living in adequate housing? Does that apply
to the families associated with growing the force?
Mr. Arny. Yes.
Mr. Edwards. How about global repositioning?
Mr. Arny. It is all of the troops.
Mr. Edwards. All of them.
Mr. Arny. All of them. For instance, I know the Marine
Corps, where we are--now remember, 75 percent of the Navy--and
I suspect it is the same for others--are living on the outside,
are living off the base. We are not providing housing for them.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. Arny. But again, with the Marine Corps, it is like 99
percent of their housing will be privatized. The way they are
handling the growth at Camp Lejeune--and Camp Lejeune is the
primary growth--the way they are handling it there is with our
privatization contracts have options that we can add to them.
So in certain cases, we are putting some funds in and we are
getting increased housing out of the privatization contractors
in anticipation of that grow-the-force.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. I want to ask you about health in a
moment, but I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp for any
additional questions he has.
Let me just make a comment. It won't be as poetic as Mr.
Wamp was on BRAC, but I do appreciate his focus on the
importance of fully funding BRAC. I want to say on the record
to both of you, that this subcommittee is going to do its very
best to see that we replace the money that was used to support
some worthwhile initiatives, everything from significant
increases in veterans' health care and benefits administration,
to additional daycare centers, which is something we felt in
this subcommittee was desperately needed. I salute the
administration in the 2009 budget year for requesting a
significant increase in daycare.
But we do understand the importance of the BRAC. I
appreciate your comments on that. Those comments were heard and
I think we have a good chance of coming up with a solid number
on replacing them.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.

HEALTH CARE

Let me then just ask you about health care. It is
anecdotal, but as I go out now to face this, I am starting to
hear more and more about problems with health care. Daycare
centers had been the number one concern we had heard for
several years. Going back a number of years, it was family
housing. We have made great progress there.
We are hearing a lot about health care. As I understand it,
the Army alone has identified about $5 billion in medical
MILCON that is needed.
Ms. Jonas. Five billion dollars?
Mr. Edwards. Five billion dollars. Do you know what is the
source of that? I mean, is that an official Army document or is
that conversations with officials?
Also, I think it is a fact to say that the average age of
all the medical facilities across the Department of Defense is
about 33 years of age. Many hospitals, as you know, are 50
years old or older. It is my intuition that basically we have
just punted on this one. It is understandable. We are at a time
of war. We are funding BRAC. We have a lot of demands on the
Department of Defense funds. But frankly, I am very concerned
about where we are in terms of not keeping up with the
modernization needs of our medical facilities.
I am also concerned that at bases such as Fort Riley, we
are going to have a huge increase as a result of the BRAC and/
or growing the force and/or global repositioning. You are going
to have a huge increase in the number of soldiers there. They
are almost doubling the number of soldiers there. In that case,
you are not in an urban area where you have a lot of private or
nonprofit hospitals you can depend on.
Does the Pentagon have on paper a 5-year or 10-year plan
for modernizing and recapitalizing the DoD health care
facilities?
Ms. Jonas. Wayne will talk to some of the facilities piece,
but let me say on that point, this is the first time I have
ever heard the number--$5 billion--for the Army. I meet
regularly, with General Cody. We talk frequently about the
things on his mind, and there is no better advocate for the
soldiers in this nation than General Cody.
I will directly ask him about that, and talk to General
Casey as well. I don't know if it was (INAUDIBLE) over a
several-year period, but as you know, we have put a lot of
money into the wounded warrior complex. We appreciate your
expeditious work on the second portion of the 2008 supplemental
because it includes funds to enhance the world-class facility
at Bethesda and to consolidate Walter Reed. It has been very
clear that these facilities are of the highest priority to the
Secretary.
I will personally look into this issue.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.060

Mr. Edwards. Let me ask you this, then. While the $5
billion number might not be a number that you are familiar
with, it is not a surprise to you that there are a lot of needs
out there in terms of modernizing hospitals. In a day and age
where just within, as you know better than I, within the last
15 years, the health care system has changed dramatically. In
some cases, a 50-year-old well-kept building can be very
accommodating and very efficient in this day and age, since we
shifted to outpatient care. And a 50-year-old hospital or a 70-
year-old hospital at Fort Benning, Georgia can create
tremendous inefficiencies and hurt quality of care to our
troops. Generally, the issue itself isn't a surprise.
Ms. Jonas. Oh, absolutely no. In fact, the need to continue
to provide quality care to our men and women in uniform is
always on our mind. We have had lots of conversations about it.
We have done a lot. We have about $41.6 billion in this defense
budget that your fellow committee will be acting on we hope,
and they have always been terrific.
Mr. Edwards. On defense health, not on hospital
construction.
Ms. Jonas. That is for the entire amount. I am speaking to
the amount required for defense health and for the people
associated.
I agree we should continue to look at it. Every weekend I
am on Fort Belvoir, as it is within my military (INAUDIBLE).
For years I have gone past that hospital and said, boy, I am
glad I am not a young mother having a baby out there, because
it is clear the military population needs a better working
facility. We have broken ground on the new hospital which is an
important step in modernization.
Mr. Edwards. Do you know the numbers in terms of what the
administration has asked for in terms of DoD, outside of, say,
Bethesda and Fort Belvoir, which are tied into BRAC.
Mr. Arny. For Bethesda and Fort Belvoir, we are doing lots
in BRAC, and down in San Antonio.
Mr. Edwards. But how about beyond those? Do we know for
construction?
Mr. Arny. For non-BRAC, $452 million; Fort Richardson----
Mr. Edwards. That is worldwide for DoD healthcare? What do
you show at Fort Riley? How much is your request?
Mr. Arny. At Fort Riley, $52 million, for hospital addition
and alterations.
Remember, too, when you talk to the--and I am learning this
myself--when you talk to the services, medical was taken away
from the services. Okay? Medical is under defense health. So
the services rely on them to bring that budget together. Now,
they will make their inputs, but it is really defense health
system that has to provide it.
Now, it is under stress now more than it was before. But
again, I think BRAC is important because we are putting a lot
of facilities at the BRAC places. I mean, obviously Bethesda--
there is a lot of money going into Bethesda, and I think being
done right now down at San Antonio. It is a huge consolidation
down there, not only the medical itself, but the training for
it as well.
Mr. Edwards. I guess my concern is more that the active
duty military bases--Fort Benning, Fort Riley, Fort Hood and
others--is there a 5-year or 10-year capitalization plan for
defense health care?
Ms. Jonas. I am certain Ward Casscells, who is the
Assistant Secretary for Defense Health, could help us get you a
plan. Health care is very much on the minds of the deputy
secretary and secretary and myself and other leaders in the
department. I will look into the existence or development if
necessary, of such a plan.
Mr. Arny. Let me hit you with just a couple of numbers, and
this is the BRAC side: medical center at Fort Sam Houston, $294
million; Fort Belvoir, $198 million; Bethesda, $200 million
just this year; Fort Sam Houston, $96 million; Fort Benning
Medical Center, $80 million; Dover Air Force Base, $52 million.
Mr. Edwards. How much at Fort Benning?
Mr. Arny. About $80 million.
Fort Campbell Military Care Center in Lackland, $51
million; Keesler, $67.7 million.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. I have seen some numbers that suggest
what the private health care system assumes in terms of how
much they have to reinvest in their capital structures. I don't
know if it is 5 percent or what the number is, but I have seen
some comparisons that showed DoD is far below what the private
sector feels it needs to reinvest to keep its facilities
modernized.
I am not here to criticize. We have all been part of this
process. I just think it is one of those issues that we focused
on other areas understandably during a time of war. I have not
see a capital plan for DoD health care modernization.
Mr. Arny. We will get you one. If there isn't one, we will
get it for you.
Ms. Jonas. Yes.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Okay. And one of the things I would like
to know is in that planning, have we assumed the growing the
force and the additional troops that will need health care as a
result of that.
I think those are the main issues. We have talked about a
lot of issues. We appreciate your time today and your service
to our country over the years. There may be some additional
questions that Mr. Wamp and I might want to submit for the
record.
Mr. Arny. But no questions from staff, right?
Mr. Edwards. I don't know. [Laughter.]
Mr. Wamp, do you have any other additional questions? If
not, thank you both for being with us today. We appreciate it.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Question. The 2004 Installations Strategic Plan set a goal of
funding 95 percent of sustainment in fiscal years 2005 through 2007,
and 100 percent by FY 2008. In each year the Department has fallen
short of the goal by an average of about 9 percent according to the
Government Accountability Office. As Mr. Arny notes in his testimony,
the FY 2009 budget request funds sustainment at 90 percent. The 2007
Installations Strategic Plan includes only a vague goal to ``fund to
the current facilities sustainment requirement generated by the
Facilities Sustainment Model.'' Has the Department set a funding target
for sustainment for future budget years?
Answer. The Department's minimum funding target for sustainment for
future budget years is to fund sustainment at 90 percent.
Question. The Contingency Construction Authority (CCA) provided
under the FY08 National Defense Authorization Act is not allowed for us
at installations ``where the United States is reasonably expected to
have a long-term presence''. Since the Department now views Bagram Air
Base in Afghanistan as an ``enduring'' base with a long-term purpose,
does the Department believe that CCA is applicable at Bagram?
Answer. No. Based on the authority provided in the FY 2008 National
Defense Authorization Act, we will not be able to use CCA at Bagram
because we expect to have a long-term presence there. However, we have
requested the authority be modified in FY 2009 to permit waivers of the
``long-term presence'' clause for bases in Afghanistan.
Question. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental request includes $138
million for the Army Medical Action Program, specifically for the
construction of Warrior in Transition complexes and Soldier Family
Assistance Centers. Army has identified the need to establish similar
facilities at 35 different locations at a cost of $1.4 billion. I
understand that no funds for this program have been incorporated in the
regular budget, and that the Department plans to continue seeking funds
for this program through supplemental requests, even though this is
considered by Army as a permanent change to the treatment and care of
wounded personnel. Will you seek to include Army Medical Action Program
costs in future regular budget requests?
Answer. The Army Medical Action Plan is under review within the
Department and no final decisions have been made.
Question. I understand that the Department recently changed its
policy regarding funding sources for Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality (NAFI) facilities. Please explain how the current
policy differs from the previous policy, and the impact that this will
have on the military construction budget.
Answer. The Department's policy regarding funding sources for NAFI
facilities is that appropriations shall fund construction required to
establish, activate or expand a military installation, including Base
Realignment and Closure and global re-stationing requirements;
relocation of facilities for convenience of the Government; replacement
of facilities denied by country-to-country agreements; and restoration
of facilities and improvements destroyed by acts of God, fire or
terrorism. Expansion must be the result of a mission change or influx
of new units or systems and result in a 25 percent increase in
authorized personnel strength within a two-year time span.
Appropriations are the authorized source for construction and
modernization for all NAFI Program Groups to correct life-safety
deficiencies.
The Department did not change the policy, but instead directed the
Services to examine the application of the policy based on the unique
nature of BRAC and global re-stationing factors. The distinct
challenges of BRAC and global re-stationing scope and timing present a
challenge to the Services as they review and prioritize MWR facilities,
exchange stores, and commissary stores competing against mission-based
facilities. By systematically applying the existing policy, the
Department ensures Service members should not bear the financial burden
for Service or DoD directed changes.
Question. The Future Years Defense Plan indicates a total cost of
$837 million for the Missile Defense Agency's proposed ``third site''
basing in Europe. I understand that this does not include the costs
associated with the personnel who would be required to actually operate
and maintain the interceptor and radar sites (barracks, dining
facilities, etc.). Has the Department estimated this cost? Why is this
not included in the FYDP?
Answer. The $837 million does not cover the cost to construct
personnel support facilities, such as barracks, dining facilities, etc.
for the proposed third site. The Department needs to refine the long-
term plan for the third site. The Department will do this, and further
develop the associated support facilities costs estimates, during the
development of the FY 2010 President's Budget request.
Question. You state that BRAC 2005 has a total projected cost of
$33.2 billion over the 2006-11 implementation period. The budget
submission shows that $32.0 billion will be paid for through the BRAC
2005 account. What costs are being paid outside the account, and where
are these costs accounted for in the Department's FY09 budget request?
Does your total include the $416 million in the FY08 supplemental
request for Bethesda and Fort Belvoir?
Answer. The total projected Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
implementation cost is $33.2B. As reflected in the BRAC 2005 budget
submission materials, $32.1B in one-time implementation costs is to be
financed from within the BRAC Account (that assumes full restoration of
the FY 2008 Congressional $938.7M decrement).
In addition, approximately $407M is financed from outside the BRAC
Account, of which, $400M is being financed by the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency and $7M by the Missile Defense Agency.
Additionally, included in the total estimated BRAC implementation
costs is $416M in the FY 2008 supplemental request and $263M in
additional funds the Department intends to seek for separate expansion
projects at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center at
Bethesda.
Question. With regards to environmental cleanup costs under BRAC,
you state that such costs ``were not included in the original COBRA
estimates by design,'' and that if these costs had been included, ``the
process would have had an artificial bias to close only `clean'
bases.'' By the same token, doesn't the exclusion of these costs make
the closings of ``dirty'' bases appear more cost-effective than they
really are? Did the Department make any effort at all to gauge
environmental remediation costs at bases under consideration for
closure or realignment prior to issuing its BRAC 2005 recommendations?
Answer. Using certified cost-to-complete data for known
contamination sites, the Department did consider the impact of
environmental restoration costs for each candidate closure and
realignment scenario evaluated. The certified data considered by
decision makers were the FY 2003 cost-to-complete estimates for all
installation restoration sites managed and reported under the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP).
The Department calculates these costs on a ``clean-to-current-use''
clean-up standard. The cost of environmental restoration did not
dictate any installation closure decision, but the Department noted
these costs in documentation supporting the recommendations provided to
the Commission.
The location and number of restoration sites also may have been
considered as a land use constraint for installations receiving
missions as a result of a realignment decision. Because the Department
of Defense has a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration
regardless of whether a base is closed, realigned, or remains open,
environmental restoration costs at closing bases were not included in
the cost-of-closure calculations.
From an overall DoD budget perspective, environmental remediation
costs do not affect the overall cost-effectiveness of implementing
recommendations because the costs are a zero sum transfer within the
Department. Environmental restoration costs are budgeted in the Defense
Environmental Restoration Account. Once on the closure list, the base's
restoration costs are budgeted in the BRAC account. Therefore, the
costs to remediate the base do not change--only where they are
accounted.
Question. The BRAC Commission recommendation on Joint Basing
required ``relocating the installation management functions'' for each
Joint Base to be established. How does the Department interpret this
phrase for the purpose of complying with the BRAC mandate?
Answer. The Department has the legal obligation to transfer
installation management functions from 26 locations onto 12 joint
bases. The Deputy Secretary of Defense issued Joint Basing
Implementation Guidance on January 22, 2008, which defines the
installation management functions and timing for implementing the Joint
Basing recommendation.
Question. You stated that under the new Joint Base construct, the
``supporting'' service will be responsible for budgeting and executing
``current mission'' military construction, while the ``supported''
service will be responsible for ``new mission'' milcon. Is there an
agreed upon definition of ``current mission'' and ``new mission''? What
will happen if the ``supporting'' and ``supported'' services in a Joint
Base disagree on whether a project is current or new mission? What is
to prevent a service from declaring projects ``new mission'' simply in
order to retain control?
Answer. The Department is now in the process of finishing its
guidance on facilities investment that addresses funding
responsibilities between supporting and supported components. The
question of ``who pays'' for various types of investment is fundamental
to Joint Basing, as you have recognized, and a major focus of the
supplemental guidance. We expect this to be completed imminently and
will be pleased to address any committee questions related to it.
Question. The ``supporting'' and ``supported'' services at a Joint
Base may also have disagreements about the funding priorities for
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) and Base
Operating Services (BOS). How will such disputes be resolved?
Answer. A Joint Management Oversight Structure (JMOS), comprised of
representatives from each Component, will be established for each Joint
Base. The structure will be used to ensure fairness; provide oversight
of dispute resolution and equitable allocation of funding requirements
to the responsible entities; and resolve other issues as required. The
JMOS process includes an appeal structure to adjudicate conflicts that
can not be resolved by the Joint Base Partnership Council. The JMOS
appeal structure includes the installation management echelon
immediately above the Joint Base installations; Component headquarters
elements; Service Vice Chiefs of Staff; and the Deputy Secretary of
Defense.
Question. You expressed dissatisfaction with the current
recapitalization measure. Explain what is wrong with the current
measure, and what you are seeking in developing a new measure.
Answer. We used the current facilities recapitalization metric
since 2002 to assess the adequacy of the investment in modernizing and
restoring our inventory of facilities. The metric is based upon the
premise that the investment should be sufficient to replace the
facilities inventory at a rate equal to its expected service life,
estimated at 67 years using a ``weighted average'' calculation of plant
replacement value (PRV) about ten years ago. The metric divides the PRY
of the inventory by the annual investment in recapitalization, yielding
a recapitalization rate expressed in years.
While the recapitalization metric has served the department well,
it has several limitations that the department now seeks to reduce or
eliminate for the FY 2010 budget submission. These limitations include
the following:
1. The investment target, expressed as a funding rate
necessary to replace the facilities inventory every 67 years,
was calculated using plant replacement value and inventory from
the late 1990s that is no longer current.
2. The investment target is an overall DoD average and does
not represent the facilities inventory for each DoD component
that can vary significantly from one Component to the next.
3. The investment target is based upon preliminary DoD rough
estimates of expected service life values for various facility
types that have since been refined by various published
industry sources.
4. The recapitalization metric does not differentiate between
costs to renovate facilities versus costs to replace
facilities, both of which are ``recapitalization.'' This
difference can equate to approximately 40% of a facility's
calculated plant replacement value.
The department is transforming the recapitalization metric to
address each of these limitations in support of the FY 2010 budget
submission. There are three aspects to this transformation:
1. The format of the new metric will change from a rate
expressed in ``number of years'' to a rate expressed as a
percent of the investment target that is funded. This will
parallel the facilities sustainment metric (and others) and
provide a common funding expression between Components, even
those with significant differences in facilities inventory and
resultant differences in ``average'' inventory service lives.
2. The investment target will change from the ``67-year
average'' target to specific target values for each Component
based upon current Component-specific inventory and published
parameters for facility service lives and depreciation. The DoD
Facilities Modernization Model performs this function.
3. Finally, the method of identifying and accounting for
recapitalization investments is being refined to differentiate
between types of recapitalization methods (specifically,
between renovation and replacement).
Since its inception, the facilities recapitalization metric has
served as an important tool to evaluate the adequacy of the
Department's aggregate investment to counter facility obsolescence. The
improvements planned for the FY 2010 budget and Future Year Defense
Plan are expected to significantly improve its accuracy and usefulness
for this purpose.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Edwards.]
Wednesday, April 9, 2008.

ARMY BUDGET

WITNESSES

GENERAL GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. ARMY
KEITH EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT,
U.S. ARMY

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I would like to call the
subcommittee to order.
General Casey, Secretary Eastin, welcome. It is good to
have you back to the subcommittee. Thank you both for your
distinguished service to the Army and to our nation. We are
very grateful for that service.
We are here today to discuss the fiscal year 2009 military
construction and family housing request for the Department of
the Army. The 2009 MILCON request for the Army is $4.6 billion,
which would be an increase of nearly $700 million over the
fiscal year 2008 level. To put that in perspective, the fiscal
year 2004 budget for Army MILCON was less than $1.5 billion.
The primary factor driving these huge Army MILCON budgets
is the initiative to grow the permanent end-strength of the
active Army to 65,000 by 2010. The 2009 MILCON request includes
about $3.5 billion for Grow-the-Army. In family housing
construction, the request is for $679 million, an increase of
$259 million over 2008. This increase is entirely due to the
$334 million included for Grow-the-Army, more than offsetting
reductions resulting from the family housing privatization
program.
The Guard and Reserve MILCON budget request also represents
a healthy increase, again due to Grow-the-Army, which will add
about 9,200 Guardsmen and Reserves to the total force.
Last, but not least, the Army has the greatest stake in
BRAC. The Army's share of BRAC represents more than 50 percent
of the total estimated costs. About three-fourths of the Army's
estimated $17.3 billion share is for construction. Let me say
on that, chief, Mr. Wamp and this subcommittee have been
outspoken in our belief that we need to adequately fund BRAC. I
am very optimistic that when we have the supplemental
appropriation markup soon that we will have very strong backing
on that, and we look forward to hearing your comments on the
importance of that funding.
The Army MILCON program is obviously reflective of the
tremendous changes underway in the Army currently. Let me just
say that, General Casey, while we will focus a lot on MILCON
issues today, obviously this subcommittee has responsibility
for a lot of installation construction that deals with quality
of life. It is a special niche of this subcommittee.
I can think of no time where we owed more to our soldiers
and their families than now, given the op tempo, the demands on
them, the emotional strains of the constant deployments to Iraq
and/or Afghanistan. This committee stands ready and committed
to work on a bipartisan basis to support that quality of life
in the Army. Thank you, from your position as chief, for making
quality of life the particular focus that you and Secretary
Geren have been working on.
At this point, I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp if he has
any comments that he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me comment that I am grateful for your
commitment to BRAC. I think this is the first public commentary
that you have made on the supplemental and the fact that the
majority is making every effort to include the necessary BRAC
funding in the supplemental.
Secretary Eastin, welcome.
General Casey, it is an honor to be in your presence.
Having been born in the United States Army at Fort Benning, to
sit before the Chief, or to have the Chief sit with us, of the
greatest Army in the history of the world is indeed a
privilege. Thank you for your service and every man and woman
that you represent, especially as we are growing the Army and
making the necessary changes to meet today's and tomorrow's
challenges around the world. We are grateful for the United
States Army and especially grateful for you, General Casey.
Your name is renowned around the world now, and we are grateful
that you are here in this little small room with us in our
nation's Capitol today. Thank you, sir.
General Casey. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. General, I am going to forego the long and
distinguished and deserved resume because we know that you
wouldn't be in your present position without a long and
distinguished record of service to our country. But I do want
to thank you for your 38 years. Is that correct, 38 years?
General Casey. Yes, 38 years in June.
Mr. Edwards. Your service to the country.
General Casey. What was I thinking? [Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. I imagine you never guessed you would be
sitting someday as Chief of Staff, but we are honored that you
are, as Mr. Wamp said, and we are thrilled to have you. It was
also a privilege to get to know you when you were down at Fort
Bragg.
Secretary Eastin, thank you also for your service to our
country. We are glad you are here as well.
At this point, without objection, chief, your entire
testimony will be submitted for the record, and we will
recognize you for any opening comments you would care to make.

Statement of General George W. Casey, Jr.

General Casey. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be
here with you, and to talk about the military construction
budget, which is so much a part of everything we are doing
right now as we try to put ourselves back in balance.
Congressman Wamp, as someone, who has a sister and a son
born in that same hospital, I have some attachment to Fort
Benning myself.
What I would like to do is provide a little context, if I
could, for our discussions on the budget--a couple of things.
First of all, we have been at war for over 6 years, and that
has stretched and stressed the all-volunteer force. We wouldn't
be where we are today, we wouldn't have been as resilient as we
have been without the support of Congress. So right up front,
we thank you for that.
Second point, as we look to the future, we see a future of
what I call persistent conflict. I define that as a period of
protracted confrontation among state, non-state, individual
actors who are increasingly willing to use violence to
accomplish their political and ideological objectives. That is
what we are up against. So as we have this discussion, I think
we need to keep in mind that we are in for another decade or so
of similar activity, maybe not on the scope or the scale of
Iraq and Afghanistan, but periods of protracted confrontation.
I think this proclivity for persistent conflicts is going
to be exacerbated by some global trends that people generally
agree on, but it could cause things to go in the wrong
direction. Globalization has a positive effect for sure,
prosperity around the global. The negative effect is it is
unevenly distributed. If you look at the have and have-not
conditions it can create, terrorists can take advantage of that
for recruitment.
Technology is another double-edged sword. The same
technology that is being used to bring knowledge to anyone with
a laptop and a hookup is being used to export terror around the
world.
Population growth, the demographics are going in the wrong
direction. The populations of some of these developing
countries are expected to double by 2020. Estimates are that by
2030, 60 percent of the population of the world is going to
live in cities. That bears a lot on the bases that can fight.
The two things that worry me the most are weapons of mass
destruction and terrorists. There are about 1,200 known
terrorist groups that are out there now, and they are seeking
weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that if they get
them, they will use them against the developed countries.
Hello congressman, how are you?
And then second, safe havens. Ungoverned spaces in parts of
countries that either can't or won't police their own territory
can be used as bases for terrorists to plan and conduct their
missions.
We believe that for that environment, we need a campaign-
quality expeditionary force that is capable of supporting
combat commanders across the spectrum. Pete Schoomaker laid
that plan down based on the intellectual foundations that Eric
Shinseki put in place and we are executing that now. With your
continued support, we will execute that.
I would just like to say a couple of words about the state
of the Army today. I think some of you have heard me say that
it is out of balance. I will tell you, I wrestled hard to find
the right words to describe it because it is by no means a
hollow or broken force. In fact, it is the most resilient,
competent, professional force that I have seen in my 38 years.
But we all know we are not where we need to be. The current
demand for our forces is not sustainable. We can't do the
things that we know we need to do elsewhere as fast as we would
like to. We can't sustain the all-volunteer force at the pace
that we are going on right now.
We have a plan to put ourselves back in balance, and it is
centered around four imperatives. Interestingly, military
construction plays a key role in each of those imperatives. The
imperatives are sustain, repair, reset and transform.
The first is sustain. We must sustain our soldiers,
families and civilians. They are the heart and soul of the
Army. They are the reason why we are the best force in the
world. The environment where the soldiers train, where the
civilians work and the families live is key to attracting and
retaining the quality men and women that make up this great
force.
At the core of our strategy to sustain our soldiers,
families and civilians, congressman, are two programs: first,
the soldier family action plan and the second is the Army
medical action plan. The first is designed to support what we
call the Army family covenant. It is a restatement of our
commitment to soldiers and families. It centers on five key
variables, and all these variables were gleaned from family
members during my initial months on the job as Sheila and I
went around and talked to them.
First, they said standardize and fund the programs that you
have. We don't need new programs. Just standardize and fund the
installations. Second, they want improved access to quality
medical care. Third, they want better housing. Fourth, they
want better facilities and activities for their children. And
lastly, they want better employment opportunities and education
opportunities for their family members and themselves.
As you can see, some of the facilities that this budget
funds are key to our implementation of that strategy.
The second one is the Army medical action plan. That is a
program basically to develop integrated comprehensive care for
soldiers. We have made great strides on that. It is primarily
paid for out of supplementals because of the immediacy of the
need, and I thank you for your support on that.
Second imperative is prepare. Now, we have to continue to
prepare our soldiers for success in the current conflict. They
are going in harm's way every day. We can't flinch on that
commitment. We are trying to give them an asymmetric advantage
over any enemy that they are in contact with.
To set the conditions for their continued success, we are
establishing realistic training facilities at installation. We
have to ensure that they are trained and deployable for any
mission that the nation requires. There are about $850 million
in the military construction budget this year for new range and
training facilities on our installations.
Third is reset. Reset is about returning soldiers and
equipment to states where they are ready for additional
missions. Congress has been very supportive of this, and as a
result we have made significant strides in steadying the force.
This MILCON budget really impacts on the quality of
installations. It is the ability of the installations to take
these units coming back, reorganize them, fix the equipment,
give them facilities and quality opportunities for the soldiers
and families to get to know each other, get them to unwind,
that is a key element of the MILCON budget here.
Lastly, transform--and I bring this Field Manual 3.0--our
new doctrinal manual. We published it a month or so ago. It
talks about how the Army intends to fight in the 21st century.
It raises stability operations to the level of offense and
defense, and that is a big step forward for us. There is a lot
of good stuff in here, but that is the foundation for our
transformation.
As you mentioned, most directly related to this hearing,
there is an awful lot going on with our basing. For us,
transformation is a holistic effort. It affects everything that
we do, and basing is a key element of this. The scope of the
MILCON and BRAC effort over the next several years is hugely
significant. We will re-station one-third of the Army by the
end of 2011. That will impact 380,000 soldiers and family
members and affect 304 installations.
So as Tony LaRusso says when he is watching baseball, it
may not look like much is going on, but there is a lot
happening out there. [Laughter.]
So that is our plan: sustain, prepare, reset and transform.
The $11.4 billion total between MILCON and BRAC plays a
critical role in allowing us to put the Army back in balance to
sustain the current fight and to confront the future.
I would like just to say a couple more things here about,
one, continuing resolutions have had a gradual, but negative
impact over time in the last couple of years. We figure that we
have lost about 4 to 6 months of processing time under MILCON
because of the continuing resolutions. I believe there is a
provision in this budget that has come up here that will give
us additional flexibility. We have such a tightly wound
schedule with bringing folks back from overseas, moving
installations with the BRAC, that any delay has a cumulative
effect.
And then the second thing is the $560 million of the BRAC
that was not funded. If we don't get that, we won't be able to
meet the timelines that have been laid out in the BRAC.
Mr. Dicks. Is that in the supplemental?
General Casey. No. It was in the 2008 Presidents Budget.
Mr. Edwards. We are working on it. I think there is a very
good chance we are going to strongly fund the BRAC. We used
$939 million out of BRAC to fund initiatives in military
construction for the Army and the other services, and then we
used some of that to fund health care initiatives for veterans,
but with the general intention of taking a look at the
supplemental to replace those.
General Casey. So with that, I just wanted to give you a
little context of where we are going and how important getting
the timely funding that is in this year's 2009 budget is to
accomplishing our objectives. So thank you all very much.
[Prepared statement of General George W. Casey, Jr.
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.070

Mr. Edwards. Chief, thank you. Again, I just reiterate on
BRAC, I think this subcommittee has been out front for a long
time, and I appreciate Mr. Wamp's work on this. It has been a
bipartisan effort to push that funding.
I want to get in a round two and round three on some
specific MILCON questions. But I want to basically understand
the context in which we are working. While we do a lot of
construction funding because the training facilities from
division headquarters to gate headquarters and other factors
like that, we do focus, as I mentioned earlier, on quality of
life, as you know.

STRESS

Tell me, you say the Army is not broken or hollow, just out
of balance. Clearly, you talked about the stress, and we are
all aware generally of the stress that has been put on our
soldiers and their spouses and children as a result of this
incredible op tempo they are facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. As
the chief, what factors do you look at to determine just how
stressed the Army soldier and his or her family is? Is it
divorce rates? Is it child abuse? Is it suicide rates? Is it a
combination? Would you give me the criteria that you use and
then tell me what are those. And if you need to follow up with
more data later in writing, that is okay.
General Casey. Sure.
Mr. Edwards. Tell me what they are telling you.
General Casey. First, I will tell you there is no one
thing. We track probably 35 to 50 different indicators from all
across the force.
Mr. Edwards. On stress?
General Casey. On stress on the soldiers and families. We
measure it monthly. But I will tell you, that has to be
combined with direct contact with soldiers and families. My
wife and I do an awful lot of getting out and talking to them,
and listening to the leaders that are out there with the
soldiers and families every day. A lot of times I hear, well,
you know, the anecdotal things I get from soldiers and families
aren't matched by the data. For example, our retention rates
are through the roof. It is going exactly the opposite
direction than you would have thought it is.
What are the key indicators of a force that is stressed?
Interestingly, divorce rates are fairly stable. We had a spike
in 2004, but they have been relatively stable ever since. The
only element of the force that is kind of above the norm right
now are female officers and female soldiers. Their divorce
rates are slightly higher than the norm.
Desertions are up. AWOLs are up. Again, it is an upward
trend. It is not at the point where we are overly concerned
about it, but it is an indicator. Enrollment in alcohol
counseling is up. Now, that is an indicator of stress, but it
is also a positive thing in that the soldiers are getting the
help that they need. Drugs are relatively stable to down,
especially in-theater. There is not a drug problem that we see
in-theater.
As I said, there is a whole range of issues. Recruiting is
another thing that we look at, and we think we are going to be
able to recruit about 80,000 for the next several years in the
active force, and it is a very difficult recruiting
environment. In 2007, 297,000 men and women enlisted or
reenlisted in the Army, Guard and Reserve. Now, that is a heck
of a lot of patriots. They are doing that in a time that they
know that they are going to go to combat. That says an awful
lot about the young men and women of the Army.
So it is something that we watch very carefully and very
closely, and we supplement it with discussions and anecdotes
with people.
Mr. Edwards. I have heard anecdotally from majors and
captains that in their subjective judgment, we are losing some
of the best and brightest of our young officers, particularly
at the major and captain level. I know that requires subjective
judgment, but based on combat--and I would assume combat
experience would be critical to the kind of officer you want to
retain--are there any numbers there that suggest that we are
either doing well or we are hurting?
General Casey. The numbers suggest that we are pretty
steady. It is interesting. I had the Center for Military
History take a look at the captains losses, which compared 1966
to 1970 during Vietnam, with 2001 to 2007. What you see is, it
starts off about the same. It is around 12 percent is the norm.
In 1967 when we started involuntary second tours in Vietnam, it
goes like that--the Vietnam line goes like that or stays fairly
steady. So we have not seen a great protubation in the losses
of our young leaders.
Now, that said, we have just sent a team under a brigadier
general to talk to all these brigades coming back from 15-month
deployments. Three things, and none of them surprising: 15-
month deployments are too long, especially when it is the
second or third deployment. The effects of these deployments
are cumulative.
Second, 12 months home after a 15-month deployment is too
short. And the third thing they say is you have to show us some
daylight. You have to show us that we are going to get a little
more time at home, or we are not going to be doing this ad
infinitum. And so we are working very hard on that.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, chief.
Mr. Wamp.

RESTORING BALANCE

Mr. Wamp. Secretary Eastin, when General Casey said
rebalance the Army, the first question is, is the Defense
Department completely committed to General Casey's plan to
rebalance the Army?
And then for you, General Casey, how will we know when it
is in balance? Is there anything new in this year's budget
request that is needed to get the Army back in balance, either
in the future or this year?
Mr. Eastin. From an installations perspective, OSD has been
very supportive of us in what we need, as has the committee,
and we thank you for that. Without you, we just couldn't do
this. I look at it with another facet, that we are an all-
volunteer force and we are in the market competing for these
soldiers every day, whether it be enlisting them in the first
place or retaining them, because industry offers opportunities
for them that are similar to ours. If they can go out and get a
house and a job, and live better with their families, have a
better quality of life than we have, it is not going to be long
before that is felt in our ability to retain people or to get
them in the first place.
So it all goes to our installations. This is where their
home is. It is where they live, where they raise their
families, where the church and school is, where they deploy
from and train. This is really their life, so what we put
together here helps us compete in the marketplace, not only
supporting our soldiers, but getting them to stay in.
General Casey. I would say I have had great support from
Defense, particularly the Secretary of Defense. There is clear
recognition. We see the state of the force about the same, and
so I have had great support from them.
What does it look like when we are back in balance? First
of all, we are back on a sustainable deployment-to-dwell ratio.
Right now, we actually are spending more time in-theater than
we are spending at home--15 months in-theater, 12 months at
home. That is not sustainable. We want to get over the next
couple of years to a point where we are about double the time
at home from the time in the field.
Now, that is not sustainable over the long haul. We would
like to get to a one-out, three-back, and that we can sustain
indefinitely. As I said, we are building an expeditionary
force. To sustain an expeditionary profile, you need to get to
about a one-to-three ratio. So at least a one-to-two--that is
part of the balance.
Second, we want to complete our modular reorganization. I
think you know that over the past several years we have been
converting the entire Army into modular organizations that are
tailorable and that can deploy rapidly. I have seen the power
of these organizations on the streets of Iraq. I am telling
you, they are the right way to go for the 21st century.
We are about 70 percent of the way through that already,
and that has huge basing considerations, as you mentioned some
of that, Mr. Chairman, in your opening statement. The old
brigade headquarters used to have about 70 people in it. The
new ones have double that, so you need a bigger headquarters
just to put the guys in.
We are on track to complete that by 2011. That is when we
are looking to get ourselves back in balance. We have also been
rebalancing capabilities inside the Army, taking Cold War
skills like artillery and air defense, and converting them into
skills more relevant in the 21st century. There are about
120,000 folks that are changing roles. We will get that done by
2011.
And lastly, completing our BRAC moves by September 15,
2011. When we get all that done and the dust settles, we will
kind of look and see where everybody wound up, but that will be
done. So that is an Army that is back in balance and ready for
whatever comes next.
Mr. Wamp. Is anything not in this budget you need?
General Casey. Between this budget request, the balance of
the 2008 and the 2009 it is coming.

TRAINING FACILITIES

Mr. Wamp. One other question on this round, Mr. Chairman,
and that is on this issue of the persistent conflict and
asymmetrical warfare which you speak to very eloquently in your
testimony. Most of this is Mr. Murtha's committee, Mr. Dicks's
committee, but from a facilities standpoint, what are the
future needs for training your troops for these threats and
persistent conflicts and asymmetrical warfare?
General Casey. This doctrine talks about how to conduct
full-spectrum warfare in a 21st century environment. We have
had several sessions in the last 2 months about how we
reconfigure our training facilities to train for full-spectrum
operations. We have a pretty good program for irregular warfare
now, and we need to adapt that so that we can do major
conventional operations full-spectrum. That will involve some
significant costs, I believe, but we are still in the process
of developing it.
The other thing we have to do is get smarter at how we use
our home station training facilities, because you don't want to
take these guys who have just come back from 15 months and then
shoot them out to Fort Irwin for a month or two. You want to do
as much as you can at home station. So we are part of the way
through that. That will come right out of this.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Farr.

QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, General Casey and Secretary Eastin,
for your public service. It is really a delight to have you
come before the Congress and be part of this incredible team
that makes up American democracy.
I couldn't help but think in your remarks that this
committee has a lot to do with recruitment and retention.
General Casey. It sure does.
Mr. Farr. We are dealing with the quality of life. I would
argue that what you have done in the RCI project on housing
cannot be matched in the private sector. I don't know of any
private sector job that can offer housing to their employees
like the Army can. That housing on the Monterey peninsula is
worth $1 million a house, and it is the only housing on the
Monterey peninsula that has neighborhood centers, child care
centers. There is no other private development that has
incredible modern neighborhoods and city center growth.
I think that the Department of Defense is way ahead of the
private sector on that. I would argue that your access for
young people to health facilities, to medical care, often is
way above the private sector's. The salary may not be the same,
but the benefits are better. I think that we ought to try to
promote those more for families, that you ought not leave or
think about leaving and thinking that the grass is greener. I
know my daughter is trying to buy a house, and there is no way
that she could; but, if she were in the military, she could get
some really nice quarters.

CONSTRUCTION INFLATION ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

I wanted to ask, because there are some budget
implications, in Grow-the-Army, is there an impact on the
MILCON projects in the FYDP? It seems like it hasn't been
addressed within the FYDP.
General Casey. Again, between the BRAC, global re-basing
and the money we have received for the growth, we believe we
are going to be fairly well settled by 2011. The money is in
fact there. I am sure there are odds and ends that aren't
there, but we are in pretty good shape.
Mr. Farr. Here is what is happening on the ground. The
explosion in student population at the Defense Language
Institute and at the Naval Postgraduate School, and the fact is
that there are more families, so you have increased military
dependent health care needs. We are working with all the
communities and the VA to address that issue.
But the first thing we are finding is that the increased
construction costs are now requiring that the project be built
down--just shrink them--to stay within budget. Is that the way
we are going to handle this higher cost of construction and
higher cost of steel and cement and so on, and just shrink
buildings that are now not meeting the purpose for which they
are intended, and not meeting their design criteria? We are
growing the people, but shrinking the buildings because of
construction costs?
Mr. Eastin. In order to continue, we would like to stay
within our budget for construction costs. Inflation, as you
know, is a factor. We see it moderating a bit right now.
Mr. Farr. We adjust for fuel prices. Shouldn't we adjust
for those costs, too--for construction costs? We are always
coming in here and giving supplemental money for all the fuel
costs for the Air Force and for the Defense Department. Perhaps
we ought to think about that, rather than just building down.
Mr. Eastin. Congressman, I don't think this is a problem
throughout the Army. It may be specific to DLI. But throughout
the Army, we have found pockets of problems like that, but
nothing overall that we can't engineer around without doing any
drastic reductions.
Mr. Farr. I would be interested in hearing how we might
address that out in California.
[Clerk's note.--The Army did not provide Congressman Farr
with a response.]

COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC AT FORMER FORT ORD

Secretary Eastin, you talked about sustaining the Army and
the commitment to soldiers and their families. I am working
with the DLI and the Naval Postgraduate School, and the whole
military community out there, and the VA, to build a community-
based outpatient clinic, a CBOC. The Army Presidio and the VA
at Palo Alto have signed a memorandum of understanding this
last July to construct the facility. It is my understanding the
Army Medical Command Madigan intends to provide medical staff
for the new clinic. I just wanted to confirm on the record that
that is correct.
General Casey. I don't know. We would have to get back with
you on that.
[The information follows:]

Staffing New Medical Clinic in Monterey

The Veterans Affairs (VA) Palo Alto Health Care System and the
Department of the Army, Western Regional Medical Command (WRMC) at Fort
Lewis, Washington, have discussed collaborative initiatives to enhance
the delivery of healthcare services for VA and DoD beneficiaries who
reside in Monterey, California. To that end, both organizations
expressed interest in exploring innovative approaches to delivering
healthcare for the 77,300 eligible beneficiaries who live in the
Monterey/Santa Cruz area. The WRMC Command fully supports a rapid study
and analysis of the Presidio of Monterey market which may lead to the
planning and design of a Joint Use Clinic. WRMC would support the joint
staffing of a proposed DoD-VA Outpatient Clinic in the Presidio of
Monterey area.

Can I just pick up on something you said at the beginning
and relate it back to what the chairman said? We get questions
all the time about why are people leaving. Maybe about 12
percent of the captains might leave. The real question for all
of us is why are they staying. One, they are staying because of
some of the health benefits. They are staying because of some
of the facilities. But primarily they are staying because they
believe in the values and ideals that the country stands for,
and they believe we are at war and they are making a
difference, and they are defending this country. So the
facilities and the amenities, it is an important part of it.
Mr. Dicks. Would you yield just on that for a brief second?
How do you know that? Do you go out and really talk to them?
General Casey. Talk to them. Right.
Mr. Dicks. And find out why they are staying in? I think
that would be very interesting.
General Casey. I do. I talk to them all the time. Now, we
are doing a survey here to kind of get a little more
granularity to it.
Mr. Dicks. I think that would be a good idea.
Sorry, Sam.
Mr. Farr. No, that is a good point.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop.

FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, can you kind of talk about the Grow-the-Army
initiative, which requires a corresponding increase in
barracks, operations facilities, training ranges, family
housing, child care, dining halls and the other facilities like
hospitals. I was interested in your comments about health care.
I, too, am very concerned that our warriors and their families
have the best possible medical care available.
I was wondering whether or not you have or if you will add
to your supplemental request for the medical health of the
military, which I have a particular interest in at Fort
Benning, which is being plussed-up by BRAC, and also you have
returning soldiers coming there, as well as with the Grow-the-
Army, because it is a training base, as well as the other
training that is already there and that will be expanding.
Of course, the hospital there is the oldest hospital in the
inventory, and the construction of a new hospital was moved
from there to Aberdeen Proving Ground several years ago. So
they are in bad straits. Can we expect a request from the Army
to accelerate that at Fort Benning, as well as the other
military medical facilities that are in great need of
upgrading?
General Casey. We are still working the 2009 construction
budget, so I wouldn't want to comment on that right now.
However, you raise a good point. There is $157 million or so
allocated in BRAC for the addition to the hospital, an addition
to a 50-year-old hospital, and there is something to be said
for getting about twice that much money and building a new
hospital.
Mr. Bishop. Exactly.
General Casey. So that is something that we are thinking
about. Before you came, we were talking about--Mr. Wamp and
myself--he was born at Fort Benning Hospital. I have a sister
and a son born at Fort Benning Hospital.
Mr. Bishop. My wife was born at Fort Benning, too.
General Casey. So there is some affinity. [Laughter.]
The other thing you mentioned, and it kind of gets to the
point that I said about there is a lot going on out there,
because it is not just barracks. It is not just child
development centers. It is not just headquarters. We are re-
basing one-third of the Army and it is all those things that
you mentioned coming together in a holistic way. We have been
working this very closely. The places I have been, I am very
impressed with the way that communities are tying into the
installations and working things like road networks and schools
and things like that. But you are exactly right, it is a
holistic effort here to do what we are going to do.
Mr. Bishop. You brought a good segue in that to schools.
General Casey. I am just trying to work with you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. That was a good segue because we have a number
of facilities across the country that will have a great need
for schools during BRAC implementation, and of course the Fort
Benning area is one, but there are others across the spectrum.
We have to deliver because the BRAC account is not really large
enough to accommodate that, and the impact aid which comes out
of Education is not big enough to accommodate it. We have a
tall order and we are expecting those families to start
arriving in the very near future.
The communities want to be ready, and we don't want our men
and women to be concerned about the quality of education that
their families will be able to get. So is there anything you
can tell us that will encourage us about the commitment and the
impetus to try to put that additional money in and make it
available? Maybe it is the economic adjustment fund?
Mr. Dicks. We have impact aid that we put in the Defense
bill, Sanford. We put $35 million in last year. This year, we
are requesting $50 million for impact aid. This is not
Department of Education. This is in the Defense bill. So that
is the place where you want to add that if we can do it.
Mr. Bishop. Right. The $50 million is probably, if you look
at all the----
Mr. Dicks. A drop in the bucket.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. Yes, just a drop in the bucket.
Mr. Edwards. That is not all construction, I don't think,
is it?
Mr. Bishop. It is not all construction, no. That is
everything.
Mr. Edwards. I was involved when we put that in and I don't
think that is construction.
Mr. Bishop. It is not.
Mr. Edwards. I could be wrong.
Mr. Farr. We don't have any DoD construction dollars. We
have been asking for them for years.
Mr. Bishop. That is what I know. That is why I am prodding
the chief of staff here if he would help us to try to raise the
urgency of more funds to deal with these impacted communities.
They are going to have a real big need, much larger than the
impact aid account and much larger than the heretofore BRAC
account. And we probably are going to have to try to work some
kind of cooperation with all of the committees of jurisdiction
to see if we can't try to address this pressing need.
General Casey. What we have been doing----
I am sorry.
Mr. Farr. I asked the gentleman to yield.
What they need is a special bond or revenue bond that they
can go out and borrow, because they have to do a lot of
construction. They have to gear up in a hurry, and these are
the public school systems. It is not in their state planning
budget because this decision to redeploy was a federal
decision. So it is an emergency issue that the school district
needs, and there is no way. The impact aid goes just for the
ongoing operations and replacement of property taxes.
Mr. Eastin. There are a couple of programs available out
there in terms of basically government tax-free bonds that the
private sector can put together to build the schools and lease
them to school districts over a 20- or 30-year period. That
would not help the ultimate payment of it, but it sure spreads
it out.
What we have looked at, and Congressman, we were in this
meeting with various Benning area schools officials a couple of
months ago, and they had needs for about $160 million. It is
not all Defense, not all Army children. The real surprise for
me is the disparate way that impact aid is calculated. If we go
up to Carson, for example, it is $2,400 per student. If you go
over to Phoenix City, it is $77 per student. Now, there is
something missing here.
What we need to do in having some responsibility for our
families and the children, is to get with your local people who
must apply for this, and perhaps get together and figure out
how to write these applications so that they are all treated
fairly. Somewhere in Colorado Springs, they figured this out.
We need to get down there and help you get that impact aid from
the Department of Education.
Mr. Edwards. Members, in order of members who showed up
after we began the hearing, it will be Mr. Dicks, Mr. Crenshaw,
Mr. Berry and then Mr. Carter.
Mr. Dicks.

FULL SPECTRUM OPERATIONS

Mr. Dicks. I was reading about this debate within the Army
about full spectrum operations. You have this colonel up at
West Point who is saying the only thing the Army can do now is
counterinsurgency. We are not training people to fight a
conventional war. Have you entered this debate, general? Are
you on one side or the other?
General Casey. I talked about this, and this talks about
full spectrum operations, about the need to be able to do
anything.
Mr. Dicks. Right. But we are not training people right now
to do that, are we?
General Casey. In the short term, no, we are not. But what
I have said here, as units are home for at least 18 months,
they will begin doing training in major conventional
operations.
Mr. Dicks. When do you think that will be? As you look at
the buildup of the forces, when do you think we will start to
train people in the full spectrum of warfare?
General Casey. Just so you know, out at Fort Lewis, I Corps
has just come back from Korea after they went out and practiced
an exercise counterattack. So there are elements in the Army,
particularly Korea and the Pacific, that are still doing full
spectrum operations training.
Mr. Dicks. Good.
General Casey. I think you are going to see as we get down
the 15 brigades that have been promised in Iraq, what you will
see is that the time at home will gradually increase. At the
end of this year and first part of next year, you are going to
see more and more units having time to re-tweak their
conventional skills, and over time it will get to the point
that by 2011 we will have almost as many brigades trained full
spectrum as you do training to do irregular warfare. So it will
be a gradual improvement.
Now, am I concerned about that? Well, yes. But I will tell
you, I grew up in an Army that never had to fight, so we didn't
know how to fight. These young men and women out there now,
they know combat. So the skills to man a howitzer, they will
come back pretty quickly. That is crew drill. They know how to
target. We didn't. We had to use long exercises to figure out
how you target. There are a lot of skills that are readily
transferable. But that said, we will get this combat-seasoned
force back in shape for full spectrum operations relatively
quickly.
Mr. Dicks. You mentioned the re-set. I was really impressed
out at Fort Lewis. I was just out there, and saw them doing the
repair work and fixing the Strykers. They have set up their own
operation right there to do that, and I didn't realize that. I
thought they were going to some depot somewhere, but they are
doing it right at Fort Lewis. I think that is a very valid
concept if they can do it.
One idea that came up when we were out there is that maybe
you need to have a center, maybe do this regionally, where you
could have a facility to do the re-setting of the Stryker
vehicles. So that was one idea that came up.
Another thing I just wanted to mention to you that we did
out there in terms of quality of life, and this was one of the
dreaded earmarks I did a couple of years ago. We created a
computer training program for the youth at Fort Lewis, not just
the young soldiers, but actually for the children. I went out
there with General Soriano and also with General Dubik, who
wrote me a wonderful letter saying this was one of the best
things he had ever seen. This program trains young kids on how
to use computers. I think we should do it everywhere if we can
afford to.
I visited Fort Lewis, and the parents said to me this is
the best thing we have ever seen; our kids have improved in
school dramatically because they now have computer training.
This was a very small program to get started. It was like $1
million, and you have sustained it at Fort Lewis, at least, but
I don't think it is being done anywhere else that I know of in
the country.
General Casey. I don't think there is an Army program, but
I think it is probably being done at other bases based on
individual initiatives like yours, but it is a great program.
Mr. Dicks. When you get out there, I will show it to you.
General Casey. I will. I walked in on my 8-year-old
grandson and he was making corrections on his paper on the
computer.
Mr. Dicks. We didn't have that. We used to have to take it
back to the class.
General Casey. I know. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GUARD AND RESERVE

Thank you, general. It is great to see you again. You
mentioned in those four--sustain, prepare, transform and then
the reset part--I wanted to ask you about that because
obviously that is very important particularly as it relates to
the National Guard because I think the National Guard is being
utilized a lot more than anybody ever really imagined. They
have to have equipment. And then you take a place like Florida
where if it hadn't been for the National Guard during, I guess
it was 2004 we had some pretty severe hurricanes, and the Army
National Guard was on the scene doing a great job.
So you worry about the equipment. In things that I have
read, there was a time when maybe the equipment was 40 percent
of what they really needed. I know we funded some of the
equipment and it is back up, but even today I am told that in
Florida it is probably 60 percent of what they probably need,
and I know the different reasons.
But I guess my first question is, how do you decide when
you sit down and say here is the money, or this is how much
money we need, how do you decide where the Reserve component
fits into your overall prioritization?
General Casey. Well, to go back to your point that we are
using the Guard and the Reserve in a much different way than we
had planned to use them in the past. In the past, we thought of
them as a strategic reserve that they would be called up and
have 3 to 6 months to get ready to go, and they would all go.
And so they didn't need much equipment. We would be able to
fill them up in that interim period.
That is not what is happening right now, as you know. They
are a much more operational force. We, in an active Army of
547,000 which is where we will be in 2010 when we have finished
our growth, an Army that size will need to continue to rely on
the Guard and Reserve for the future.
So to do that, they have to be equipped and trained almost
to the same level as the active force. Now, we have been
looking very closely at the equipment of the Guard and Reserve.
As you say, Florida is about 60 percent. What we see is the
Guard as a whole is about just under 80 percent of the
equipment, but there is stuff deployed with their units. There
is stuff deployed on other missions. So the governors have
about 60 percent of the equipment.
So we established a category of equipment called dual-use
equipment. I think there are 10 to 13 items that we tracked--
trucks and things that can be used for a wartime mission but
could also be used in the event of a natural disaster. We have
put $17 billion over the next 2 years into buying equipment
that the Guard needs. So that equipment will come in here to
the Guard and Reserve over the next 2 years.
And you know that once you get the money, it takes you 2
years to get equipment in the hands of the unit. So that
happened several years ago and we should see the deliverance
here over the next several years. I think we are moving in the
right direction on this, and we are committed to giving the
Guard soldiers the equipment they need to succeed.
The other thing that I think you know, when they go to
combat, they are going with the best stuff. We made a decision
back when I was the vice chief to make sure that they had the
same stuff and the new equipment first. I went out to
Washington to see the 81st Brigade, and we were in the big
warehouse the night they were getting it, and they were all
kind of looking around going, if the active is giving us the
good stuff, this must be really bad. [Laughter.]
So we are fully committed.
Mr. Dicks. You really said it. It is not just that you are
saying here is a little something, for the Reserve. It is part
of the Army's priorities. And it sounds like you are even
talking to the states and the governors.
General Casey. Very much so.
Mr. Dicks. Because different states have different needs,
and you are taking all that into consideration. That is
encouraging to hear that, that they are not kind of just
getting what is left over.
General Casey. No, we just can't get there fast enough.
Mr. Crenshaw. Let me ask on that same, I read somewhere
that we are going to give 8,000 up-armored HUMVEEs to the
Iraqis. I sit on Foreign Ops of this committee as well, and we
are always talking about whether we can loan them stuff, give
them stuff, whatever. What goes into a decision like that? Are
they too expensive to bring them back? Are they worn out? What
goes into that?
General Casey. I was on the periphery of this as it came
through the department, but all those things play into it. We
have equipment that is over there--to get it refurbished and
bring it home, all has a cost to it. But probably the
overriding consideration is the better equipment they have, the
sooner they will be able to take over and do the jobs
themselves. So as we worked our way through this, that seemed
like the best thing to do. I think it was a good call.
Mr. Crenshaw. And one last question, in terms of all the
resets, right now we are bringing some of the troops home and
we have pre-positioning that is going on, but I read somewhere
we are kind of cutting back, and I don't know if we would call
that a reset or a re-stock, but we have always kind of relied
on the pre-positioning equipment to be somewhere and then
people can come back to the U.S. and----
But if we are going to slow down the re-stocking of those
pre-positioning units or equipment, does that delay in any way
our effort to some of the forward-deployed people, bringing
them home? Are we still on track?
General Casey. No, it doesn't impact on our ability to
bring those folks home.
Mr. Dicks. But is that going on a little bit? Is that being
slowed down? Is that an issue of money?
General Casey. It is not being slowed down. It is all an
issue of money. You only have so much to use, and in effect you
spread it out. We have plans to replenish the pre-positioned
stocks around the world, and I believe the timelines that we
are on are appropriate.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Carter.

IMPACT AID

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, I thank you for being here. I had a bunch of
questions, but the question on impact aid is one I would like
to go back to. The issue of construction dollars on impact aid
since I have been in the Congress, and I have been trying to
get construction dollars for impact aid, and I have been told
no, no, and hell no.
So I want to know how you feel about that. In light of the
fact that the Army is so (INAUDIBLE) today. I will use an
example, and you know how upset I am about the fact that I
thought we were supposed to have 49,000 troops at Fort Hood and
we are only going to have 42,000, but we will actually build
schools for 49,000.
General Casey. Congressman, we are planning to have 49,000
by 2013.
Mr. Carter. No, 49,000 civilians and troops. I don't want
to get into that debate. I am not getting there. The point is
that if you are a school district and you are trying to stay
ahead of the game, which I will say that Killeen and Copisco
School Districts have done, they are ahead of the game, had the
schools in place when the troops got there. You have to go to
your people and you have to get a bond issue passed, and you
have to build that school, and you have to build it in record
time most of the time.
Now, they need some help on that. That puts such a burden
upon their taxpayers it grows and grows and grows. They know
the benefits for the community so they don't complain, but if
the Army then cuts back and you have schools that don't have a
use, the saddest thing for a school district is to be a
declining school district. Talk to Spring Branch in Houston, to
where the children population have moved out of your district
and now you have your major capital investments with nobody in
them. You have to dispose of them and they are worthless.
The Army should not be in a position of putting these
communities around there in that particular for a seesaw. I am
not saying you should (INAUDIBLE) the whole plan, but there
ought to be a creative package, and I will look into this
suggestion that you have. I know that we have done housing
creative packages both in the military and in low-income
housing because I worked at this for half my life. We could
come up with a package that would secure this, and I would like
for us at least to start thinking about it.
That is all I want to say about that, but he is right.
Impact aid is necessary for construction and we don't have it,
and we need it.
[The information follows:]

Impact Aid

Impact Aid funds are an important source of revenue for school
districts that educate federally connected children. Managed by the
Department of Education, Impact Aid is used by local education agencies
to compensate for the loss of local property tax revenue due to the
presence of tax-exempt Federal property or to offset increased
expenditures due to enrollment of federally connected children.
The Army in coordination with the Department of Defense Office of
Economic Adjustment and Department of Education conducted a series of
installation visits to provide Impact Aid stakeholders with on-the-
ground knowledge of issues surrounding mission growth, improve
communications among all partners, and identify gaps/lags in
capacities. In December 2007, there was a growth summit held in St.
Louis, Missouri, where participants shared local growth experiences,
including techniques or services that would help affected communities
respond better to anticipated growth.
The Army does not build schools for its school-aged dependents;
however, it shares lessons learned from communities helping themselves
to find creative funding opportunities for school construction. The
Army is providing projections of school-aged dependents to surrounding
communities for planning required facilities. The Army will continue to
work with local schools and partner organizations to find creative
solutions for the often-unique school transition and education issues
that mobile military dependent children face.

MORTGAGES

Now, has anybody looked into what is going on with the
mortgages? Has the Army been considering this mortgage crisis
that we seem to have in this country right now? Because I am
concerned about our soldiers. It is bad enough. There may be
some of our soldiers that purchased some of these houses that
we got for them with these ARMs.
I don't know what kind of financing they used, but it is
bad enough to be a guy with an ARM mortgage living in the
United States right now, but to be over in the middle of a war
and having mama face the possibility of foreclosure has got to
be a real crisis on the family. Is the Army doing anything on
the issue of the mortgages as it relates to the housing that we
have so effectively created for our soldiers and we are so
proud of, because we don't want these guys foreclosed on.
General Casey. I started hearing stories about this a
couple of months ago. I have asked our personnel director to
see what abilities we have, or what we might do to help them
out. I have not heard back yet.
Mr. Carter. It would be great if we would start trying to
put our heads together and coming up with a program
specifically driven for the Army, because they have certain
flexibility they could deal with, but then sometimes the
(INAUDIBLE) and one of them is being deployed.
General Casey. The other thing I have to do is try to get
arms around the scope of the problem. We have anecdotal
reports, but I can't really say----
Mr. Carter. And I know there are some who say the relief
act is out there and that is some relief temporarily, but it
ultimately catches up with you. So I am raising that flag and I
am glad that you are on top of it because that is important.
[The information follows:]

The Army is not proposing any legislation for mortgage relief;
however, Senator Kerry introduced S. 2764, as an amendment to the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, to enhance protections for
servicemembers relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosures, and for
other purposes.

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Carter.

HEALTH CARE

We will start round two.
Chief and Secretary Eastin, I would like to talk about
health care, and just to follow up on Mr. Carter's comments, I
will just say for the record that I was surprised, as was Mr.
Carter, as was the local community, as were a lot of people, to
find out that the end-strength for Fort Hood, which we all
thought we had been told was going to be 49,000, is actually
only going to be 42,000. What happened is they took 6,000 or
7,000 civilian employees that I think are already there and
threw that into the mix. That was never made clear to the
public, to the congressman that represents Fort Hood, Mr.
Carter, the congressman who represented it for 14 years in the
House----
Mr. Carter. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment?
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Mr. Carter. I just got handed a note that said that we are
now projecting maybe 45,000 or 46,000.
Mr. Edwards. So the numbers could be changed.
Mr. Carter. Yes.
Mr. Edwards. It is not inconsequential to military
construction, because if you do have a major installation that
in BRAC was listed as the number one installation for potential
expansion, it is not fully utilized, and that means we are
spending more elsewhere. But we will follow up on the details
on that.
Mr. Eastin. Incidentally, we looked into this, where this
came from, and our number is still 49,600.
Mr. Edwards. For soldiers?
Mr. Eastin. Yes, soldiers. So we need to get our heads
together and figure out where the heck this came from.
Mr. Edwards. We talked to General Cody.
Mr. Carter. I talked to General Cody on the phone less than
a week ago, 2 weeks ago.
Mr. Eastin. We will look into this thing.
Mr. Edwards. If we are not careful, Congressman Dicks will
take any extras out at Fort Lewis, so we have to get that
resolved.
Mr. Dicks. If they need a home, we will take care of them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Let me ask you, and I will stick to the 5-
minute rule here in the second around, on defense health care
in terms of long-term planning, it seems to me that neither the
previous administration or this one has put together a long-
term plan for recapitalizing the hospitals, particularly given
growing the force, BRAC, and global repositioning.
You have installations such as Fort Benning that has an
ancient hospital. You have Fort Riley and others where you are
going to have nearly double the number of soldiers there, and
yet it is in a relatively rural area so the local health care
providers don't have the capacity to absorb that increased
demand.
Is there a long-term capital investment plan for
recapitalizing and modernizing the Army health care system? I
think we may be talking about literally billions of dollars,
not an earmark we can take care of, but literally $2 billion,
$3 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion or more. Is there a plan
on paper anywhere for the future of recapitalization and
modernization of the Army hospital system?
Mr. Eastin. The construction budget that Defense Health
Affairs runs, which is not the Army, though they have some
interest in it, is give or take about $350 million a year.
Mr. Edwards. We will never catch up at that rate.
Mr. Eastin. Well, tell me how long it takes to get to the
$4 billion or $5 billion doing it $350 million at a time. It
needs I think a re-looking right now, but I don't know what it
is. There is a heck of a lot of recapitalization to be done out
there.
Mr. Edwards. It reminds me a lot of the situation a decade
or so ago when this Subcommittee on Military Construction
looked at the military housing situation and saw we would never
dig out of the hole. We were getting deeper and deeper, and
that is where this subcommittee was very involved in the RCI
program.
Mr. Eastin. The good thing about is that while the
facilities are old, they are all in good shape and first-rate
health care is delivered.
Mr. Edwards. Right. Each year, we hear from the top
noncommissioned officers and for 2 or 3 years running, child
care was the number one quality-of-life concern unmet need.
This year, it seems like health care maybe beat out child care.
So anecdotally and also listening to these great leaders, the
health care issue is becoming more difficult, and we would like
to work with you and the DOD health folks.
General Casey. One-third of our hospitals are over 50 years
old. One-third are between 25 years old and 50 years old, and
the rest are relatively new. So you are right, and we know what
we need. I think I am like Secretary Eastin, to say that there
is a recapitalization plan is probably too strong.
Mr. Edwards. What are you going to do at Fort Riley? And I
will stop with that. With such a relatively rural area and
nearly doubling the number of soldiers there, how are you going
to take care of the health care needs at Riley?
General Casey. I don't know of specific plans.
Mr. Eastin. I don't either, other than I know that Defense
Health Affairs is working with our surgeon general on these
very issues. I don't know the numbers specifically, but I could
follow up with you on that.
[The information follows:]

Health Care Needs at Fort Riley

We recognize that the Fort Riley military community will grow
beyond its current medical support capability. The Army is working
closely with all stakeholders to develop both infrastructure and
staffing solutions that will ensure Soldiers and family members at Fort
Riley receive timely, high-quality care that meets or exceeds the
Military Health System standard. Facility planning projects have been
developed and are being submitted as part of the medical military
construction program development. These projects include new
construction as well as Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization
projects that will keep the current structure operating safely and as
efficiently as possible until a new facility is completed.
The biggest challenge we face is finding and retaining health care
providers who either work at Irwin Army Community Hospital or join the
managed care support network as a network provider in that area of
Kansas. Additionally, as a result of both the continued frequency of
deployments of military providers and the enhanced emphasis on staffing
Wounded Warrior care organizations, military health care providers are
becoming less available to assign to our military treatment facilities.
A range of options will be used to complement and enhance Fort
Riley's need for additional health care providers. We are working very
closely with the TRICARE Management Activity and the local medical
community to address Fort Riley's medical staffing issues. As of April
9, 2008, we have contracts in place to locally hire nine additional
providers and 27 providers across the Great Plains Regional Medical
Command to address the health needs of Soldiers and their Families. We
are reviewing manning and staffing policies to determine if more
military providers can be assigned permanently to Fort Riley. We are
consulting with the Managed Care Support Contractors to improve the
availability of care in the network. We are meeting with local
community leaders to explore potential partnerships with civilian
provider groups and hospitals to make more care available locally. We
will temporarily assign providers to Fort Riley until a permanent
solution is found.

Mr. Bishop. Would the chairman yield?
Mr. Edwards. Gladly. I know the gentleman has been very
involved in defense health issues.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. You acknowledge there is a need, but what
we want you to do is to ask us and tell us. You just kind of
keep pushing it off into the future and you are very indefinite
about it. If you have a need and you need several billion
dollars, say, hey, we need this, and then it becomes incumbent
on us to try to help you get your need satisfied. But if you
just sort of mumble and push it off, and say, well, it is
something that we are going to look at and we will talk about
later, well, we are talking about next year and the end of this
year.
We are talking about these (INAUDIBLE) under BRAC. And we
are talking about the return in the next couple of years of a
lot of these soldiers that are deployed. Of course, their
families have the needs in the communities where these bases
are located. We don't get to do this but once a year, and we
need you to help us.
Mr. Eastin. I don't want to be mumbling and pushing it off,
but it is under defense health care, who are the people who ask
for this sort of thing. We can tell you we need these things,
and it is fairly obvious that we do.
Mr. Bishop. So you can tell them that you need it, too. So
we need to talk to defense health care, is what you are saying.
Mr. Eastin. But I am good at mumbling and putting it off.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Chief, any comments?
General Casey. The issue is how fast we recapitalize the
facilities because the facilities are well maintained. They are
accredited by the joint commission. They are good facilities,
but they are old facilities. So that is the fight that we have
inside the building about when do we need a new facility and
when do we need to refurbish an old one.
Mr. Bishop. Well, sir, they have a good plan at Fort
Benning, for example, but when they have to shut down the
operation of a hospital for 2 days for them to repair leaky
pipes and all of the water has to be shut off, and they have to
have an emergency plan to deal with the 2 days that they are
repairing those pipes because they are 50 years old, we have a
problem. While they perform well in terms of providing the care
under those circumstances, we need something done soon to try
to address that because it just doesn't make sense when we have
all these people that are going to be coming there, to have to
shut down the hospital for 24 hours or 36 hours to repair the
water pipes.
[The information follows:]

Martin Army Community Hospital Replacement, Fort Benning, GA

Recapitalization of Martin Army Community Hospital is a priority
for the Army Medical Department and has been included in the Department
of Defense Medical Military Construction (MILCON) Future Years Defense
Plan for the past five years. One of the oldest hospitals in the Army
medical inventory, it is representative of facilities constructed in
the 1950s that now require modernization and replacement. The projected
population increase at Fort Benning, as a result of the 2005 Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC)-directed relocation of the Armor School,
puts a tremendous burden on that facility's capability and its
infrastructure.
The Army's FY09 BRAC program includes the construction of expanded
capabilities for the hospital, and plans are being developed to meet
that need.
Although complete replacement at a new site is the ideal solution,
funding in the DoD Medical MILCON program is limited and competes with
other important priorities. This present two-phased approach is first
to add to the existing medical complex structure with the President's
requested FY09 BRAC funds, followed later with replacement and
demolition of the original Martin Army Community Hospital using Defense
Medical MILCON funding. This phased plan results in total facility
replacement by 2015 or later. The construction cost for complete
replacement at a new site is estimated at $505 million. If additional
DoD Medical MILCON resources were made available in FY09 (including $32
million of Planning and Design funds), the currently programmed $157
million of BRAC funding could be redirected against the cost of total
replacement, and a full replacement project could be under contract by
June 2009. The soonest a new hospital could be operational, assuming
all funds were provided in FY 2009, is 2012.
Relocating Martin Army Community Hospital to a new site is the best
solution. Not only will it provide a premier facility for a critical
population of Army trainees, cadre, and Family members, it will also
create the opportunity to provide services to deserving veterans. Space
on the campus or within the facility could be offered to the Department
of Veterans Affairs to establish a Community Based Outpatient Clinic
for their beneficiaries, leveraging the many capabilities that a new
Martin Army Community Hospital will offer.

Mr. Edwards. We need a long-term plan, and we would like to
work with you and the defense health folks to see if we can put
one in place and then work hard to get it and find the funding,
because clearly there is a need there, and we need to do that.
Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.

RECRUITMENT GOALS

Mr. Wamp. General Casey, I put little stock in media
accounts, especially on matters of war and peace, but USA Today
wrote a piece on Monday about these conduct waivers in order to
meet recruitment goals, and whether or not we are lowering
standards. I want you just to speak to that issue. Are there
any tools or incentives that Congress can use to help you meet
recruitment goals and maintain your standards?
General Casey. The funding that is included in the
supplementals in the base program is sufficient for us to meet
our recruiting needs, and we are meeting them. In this fiscal
year, we are over our objectives for the year and we fully
expect to meet all objectives for the Army and the Guard and
the Reserves. So that is going on well.
The question of quality always comes up. We are meeting all
of our quality standards, with the exception of high school
diploma graduates. The standard that we want to be at is 90
percent, and we are probably in the low 80s right now and we
will continue to work on that.
You mentioned the waivers. The waivers are something that
we look very, very carefully at. For a soldier to get a waiver,
he is looked at and his file is looked at by about 10 different
people. So it is scrutinized. What we have found is that once a
soldier goes through that process--and we have studies that
back this up--he is more likely than a soldier without a waiver
to get a valorous award, to get promoted, and they stay longer.
Now, they do have a slightly higher discipline rate, but
they are good soldiers, so it is a good process and we are
satisfied with the quality of young men and women that are
coming into the Army.
Mr. Wamp. Good. That wasn't in the story that I read.

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Now, I will throw you a curve ball, which is just an
interest I have. We have been concerned at this subcommittee--
the chairman and myself and others--about the increase in
funding out of this subcommittee, particularly as it goes to
the VA and the accountability that follows. Actually, there are
some news stories out about the lack of accountability, and
frankly, misuse of credit cards and accounting, and the
inspector general writes up the VA. So the VA is going to have
to answer to that, and we need to do all we can to hold them
more accountable.
The Pentagon, especially at a time of war, receives a whole
lot of money without much accountability because we trust the
men and women in uniform, and rightly so, but General Casey--37
years, a brilliant career--what can you tell this subcommittee
that you think needs to be done prospectively to try to get
more bang for our buck, to be more efficient, to be more
accountable at the Pentagon to reduce waste?
Most of the books I read, I want to read, but I read that
book 3 years ago about inside the Green Zone, and it was an
ugly expose of the way we procured and spent money early in
Iraq. I know we have learned a lot of lessons, but actually
anybody here would be reticent to fund big increases for the
military going into that theater if they had read that book and
thought half of it was true. What can you say to that after 37
years of seeing this up close and personal?
General Casey. Well, first of all, we all work very hard to
be good stewards of the resources that we get from Congress and
the American people. What I have seen and experienced is that
as a country, as a nation, this war on terror has caused us to
have to adapt the regulations and the policies and the
procedures that really drove us through the decades of the Cold
War. The stuff is just different.
As I in my former position, looking at trying to apply
peacetime contracts regulations in a war zone, it was
difficult, if not time-consuming. So we have adapted and grown
over time, and we had some contact with correcting challenges
that we discovered in the Army and Kuwait. We have stood up a
contracting command and put a two-star general in charge, and
we organized that. But it is a long-term fix because we have to
train sergeants and warrant officers and leaders to manage
these huge contracts.
The other piece of it is I have watched large institutions
when they are faced with incremental change tend to try to do
the same thing, increasing the mission with the same number of
people and resources. That doesn't always work. It usually
backs up until it breaks. So we are trying to be proactive and
identify where we are seeing increasing missions and getting
the resources out there before there is a problem.
But with what we are doing, and as I said, we are stressed,
it is a constant fight. But we all go in with the commitment
that we need to be good stewards.
Mr. Wamp. General, I thought about you a minute ago when
the secretary was talking about the hospitals that had been
around for a long time, but were still in really good shape. So
I thought of you when he said that. [Laughter.]
General Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

STABILITY, SECURITY, TRANSITION AND RECONSTRUCTION

General Casey, last week we had General Ward in here
talking about the whole structure of setting up AFRICOM. I
reminded him of General Abizaid who was here sitting in the
chair many years back, indicating that from his command post
and from his background and cross-cultural training and
learning Arabic, that America really couldn't establish peace
until America could cross the cultural divide.
I was impressed by the fact that OSD issued a directive
back in 2005 called the Military Support for Stability,
Security, Transition and Reconstruction. In that directive,
they make stabilization and reconstruction operations a core
competency equal to that of combat operations. In the QDR, it
talks about the military's increased emphasis on collaborative
and collective capability to plan and conduct stabilization,
security and transition and reconstruction operations.
The Army's posture statement says the Army is promoting
stability and supporting reconstruction. How are you
implementing this directive?
General Casey. I think this is a prime example of how we
have taken that directive to heart. I mentioned this earlier in
my testimony, but the core sentence in this whole document lays
out the operational concept. It says Army forces combine
offense, defense and stability operations simultaneously as
part of an interdependent joint force to seize and retain and
exploit initiatives and achieve decisive results.
Mr. Farr. How do you implement it? How do you change your
training programs? What are you utilizing to do that?
General Casey. I mentioned that earlier. This is a start
point. I have just had two recent conferences about how we
adapt our training centers to do that. This is already being
taught in our schools at the captain level, at the major level,
and at the lieutenant colonel level, because it is an education
process.
Now, it is interesting. Someone mentioned the debate that
is going on. I hear a lot about there is a debate going on
within the Army about the old generals who want to go on
fighting the Cold War and the young bucks that are coming out
of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have to tell you, I don't see it.
Nobody talks to me about that. You know, people understand, and
most of the generals that have been there, we get it. It is in
here in writing and we are moving out to implement it.
This doctrine here will cause us to change our
organizations, our materiel, our training, our leader
development--everything we do.
Mr. Farr. What was interesting about the AFRICOM briefing
is that General Ward talked about that the new approach to
security issues, including non-DOD officials in the senior
chain of command--I think this is really on target. I lived
overseas and learned to live as a minority in another land,
learning their language and culture. It was an eye-opener
because it really allows you to have a different lens from what
you think the solution to the problem is.

NATIONAL GUARD EQUIPMENT

I represent Fort Hunter Liggett, which is a big Army
Reserve training base. The Guard uses it a lot, too. One of the
questions I keep getting from them is about the equipment
readiness for the Guard and Reserve. You talked about rehabbing
the equipment, but the concern there is that we are leaving an
awful lot of our equipment in-theater, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I watched base closures and you left a lot of material behind
in base closures that didn't make any cost-effective sense to
move it to another place, and that was to the benefit of the
local community. I am sure that some of this equipment needs to
be left for Iraq and Afghanistan forces.
But what do you do to replenish that equipment in the
shortfall? And how can that shortfall effect respond to the
Guard's need, particularly whether they have enough equipment
to respond to domestic emergencies.
General Casey. A couple of things on that, Congressman. You
may have some specific unit in mind, but by and large the
perception that the Guard, particularly, left a lot of their
equipment in Iraq and that is why they are short----
Mr. Farr. No, the Army is, not the Guard.
General Casey. That the Army is short?
Mr. Farr. Yes. Well, don't they get a lot of used equipment
from the Army, right?
General Casey. We have really changed that. As the mission
of the Guard has gone from being a strategic reserve called on
when the boom goes up for the big one, and they got a lot of
hand-me-downs. But now we are using them as an operational
force. They are deploying right now about once every 3\1/2\
years. That is more than they can stand, too.
But we shifted our equipment strategy back in probably
2003, to ensure----
Mr. Farr. Why are they so short, then, at the local level?
Why is the equipment not there?
General Casey. Because it takes 2 years from the time we
get the money from Congress until equipment is in the unit, and
there is $17 billion worth of equipment in 2008 and 2009 that
is going into these Guard and Reserve units. Right now, the
Guard has 80 percent of their equipment, but between stuff that
is deployed with their units and deployed on other missions,
only about 60 percent of that equipment is available to the
governors if there is a problem.
I wish I could get it there faster, but the money is there,
the equipment is bought----
Mr. Farr. So you think this is a gap that is going to be--?
General Casey. I do. I think it is going get substantially
addressed here in the next 2 years.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Farr. A lot of us get those
questions.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Pass.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Carter.

REDUCED TOUR LENGTHS

Mr. Carter. We expect, I think tomorrow, an announcement on
this going back to a 12-month deployment. I was wondering if
you had any information about that plan and how it would affect
the units that are already in-theater? Do you have any idea
what that is going to do?
General Casey. I am not exactly sure what the plans are to
announce the change. However, we would say that once there is a
return (INAUDIBLE) in July, that then we (INAUDIBLE). We will
see how the policy is announced, but after that (INAUDIBLE) we
should be able to go to 12 months, but I don't want to pre-
judge anything.
Mr. Carter. It just has been on the radio and television up
here in Washington that tomorrow President Bush is going to
announce that they are going back to 12-month deployments. Now,
maybe that is not true. Maybe that is speculation, but that is
what they said. I was just trying to figure out, we have people
in transit going over right now. We have people already in the
fight over there right now, and of course they want to know. Or
is everybody still on 15 months? Are the new guys deployed and
going in at 12 months, and the other guys staying at 15 months?
I just thought you might know.
General Casey. I would suggest to you that if that is
announced, it would probably be anyone deploying after a
certain date.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PRIVATIZATION

Mr. Carter. Okay. Conversations with ACSIM, Mr. Eastin, his
approach led us to believe that Fort Hood would be a location
for a BRAC privatization project--in fact, right here in this
room. However, we see now that Fort Hood was ultimately not
selected for this program. What is the basis for that decision
and how much of it came from the BRAC-related recommendations?
Or can you expound upon why they were ultimately not selected?
Mr. Eastin. We put this privatization into three groups,
and I believe Fort Hood is in the second group.
Mr. Carter. I just saw the names last time we had a
hearing.
Mr. Eastin. It doesn't have anything to do with BRAC. This
is just a program we are putting together. So you will be up
there soon.

ARMY FOOTPRINT IN EUROPE

Mr. Carter. One more question, if I have time, Mr.
Chairman.
What are the long-term plans for the Army footprint in
Europe? With the expected draw-down from Germany being
reversed, are there any MILCON needs that we need to address
quickly in light of the decision to extend our presence in
Europe?
General Casey. I think you know that those two brigades
have been delayed, but it is a delay, it is not a halt, and we
expect them to return sometime in 2012 or 2013.
Mr. Carter. The reason I asked is, when I went over with
Chairman Walsh a couple of years ago, we went and looked at
needs in Europe, and there were needs, but because we were
going to have draw-down in Europe, they weren't addressed. I
just wondered if there is anything this committee needs to know
about in Europe since those brigades are going to be there, now
it looks like a couple more years.
General Casey. I don't have any specific issues from the
USAREUR commander there about what he needs, but I can tell you
as a division commander there myself, I had a hard time getting
money to fix my facilities because they were always going to
close. I don't have anything specific----
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. You bet. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Mr. Berry.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

Mr. Edwards. Chief, let me ask, this committee took the
initiative last year to add a significant amount of money for
day care centers because repeatedly, as I addressed earlier,
that has been a top priority mentioned by the noncommissioned
officer leaders and others as well.
Again, I know you and Secretary Geren have carved out
quality--as one of the areas that you want to really make a
lasting push over this last year. I see what the administration
has asked for a significant increase in the number of day care
centers in this budget, and I assume that came from your
offices. If we build more day care centers, does the Army have
the means and the manpower and the funding to open up those and
to operate them? Do you have enough personnel? If we build more
day care centers, can you run them?
General Casey. It is location. We have to take a look at
it. By and large, I think the answer probably would be yes, but
depending on where you are and having qualified folks to run
the facilities can be a challenge.
But I would just thank you for what you have done. We have
had a noticeable, noticeable by families, improvement in the
number of child care facilities that are out there. I have to
say we are in pretty good shape.
Mr. Edwards. Especially in times of such high deployment
rates, there are a lot of single moms or dads back home here in
the United States and they need that extra care.
General Casey. And part of this family covenant and the
money and additional resources we put against it, we have been
able to waive the registration fees. It doesn't sound like
much, but it makes a big difference for a young parent.
Mr. Edwards. Is day care funded? Do the troops get
subsidized?
General Casey. We don't subsidize the troops. We subsidize
the facility. The charges are based on the amount of money the
family has. We cap the lowest level at about just under $200 at
the lowest level. That is the most they can pay a month.
Mr. Edwards. What would a sergeant pay? Do you have any
idea?
General Casey. I think they are the next level, and it
probably gets around $300 a month. I better check that.
[The information follows:]

Child Care Fees for an E-5

The Army is committed to making child care affordable for Soldiers
and their Families. Each year the Department of Defense provides
guidance on child care based on total family income, not rank. Fifty
percent of married E-5s, with a working spouse, pay an average of $354
for one child per month. A single E-5 with one child typically pays
$295 per month, while a married E-5 with two children and a working
spouse may pay as much as $830 per month, depending on the Soldier's
time in grade and their combined income. Local command options to
further address affordability include multiple child discounts up to 20
percent, and case-by-case fee reductions for financial hardships.

Mr. Edwards. Okay. Let me also ask, do you know, or could
you tell us your best estimate of when all the global force
BCTs will have been stood up?
General Casey. In fiscal year 2011.
Mr. Edwards. In fiscal year 2011.
General Casey. That is when we are planning to be done. And
that is a big component of getting us back in balance, because
that will give us a total of 48 brigades for a total increase
of 74,000 soldiers and that is a pretty potent force.

KOREA

Mr. Edwards. Okay. And one last comment to you, chief and
Secretary Eastin, let us know if we can work with you vis-a-vis
Korea. We had General Bell in recently and we had a long
discussion about the problems of housing in Korea. It is not a
new story. We were aware of that before General Bell came. But
it has just bothered me for several years about the policy. We
made the decision about not investing more resources in the
Republic of Korea, and only 10 percent of our married soldiers
are accompanied there.
I do understand in the years when we were at small and
remote outposts, and within the range of artillery in the DMZ
area, it might not have made sense bringing families. But as we
are consolidating farther away from the DMZ, especially given
some of these soldiers who may have just come back from a
second deployment in Iraq, and they get sent to Korea, it just
seems to me that more than 10 percent of them ought to have the
right to have their families accompany them.
We asked General Bell, what would be your best estimate? If
we had all the facilities--education and housing there--what
percent would want to bring their families to Korea? He
estimated 70 percent. So if that is approximately correct, by
policy, by lack of investment in housing and quality of life in
the Republic of Korea, we are basically forcing 60 percent of
the married soldiers going to Korea to live apart from their
families. That just doesn't seem right to me.
I know this isn't easily solved, but it has been something
that has been around for a long time, and any thoughts you have
about what we can do now, today, or in the months ahead, we
would sure like to work with you on it.
Mr. Eastin. We have $125 million in MILCON to build
basically 216 units. That is give or take, 9 percent or 10
percent of what we need there. We are working on a program now.
Mr. Edwards. When you say 9 percent or 10 percent of what
we need, does that assume what percent would be accompanied?
Mr. Eastin. General Bell had asked us for 2,400 units to
solve his immediate needs.
Mr. Edwards. What percent of accompanied families would
that have assumed? Any idea?
Mr. Eastin. I think that is somewhere in the 60 percent
range as planned, because at one time he talked about 2,800 and
then 4,000--the numbers move. Some of our families live off-
post right now by choice. They are not accompanied tours, but
they are living in Korea.
But our goal at Humphreys is right now to build about 2,400
additional units. What we are trying to do is encourage the
private sector to do that for us, and we would then support
them with overseas housing allowance. We have I think a fairly
decent response. We had a forum over there 6 weeks or so ago.
It was attended by 550 people, all of whom, I might add, stayed
after my speech, so it couldn't have been that bad. [Laughter.]
But there is a tremendous amount of interest and a
tremendous amount of interest of the financial community, which
is how this transaction is going to be made. You can't build $1
billion worth of construction if you don't have the $1 billion.
With that kind of money out there, we have gotten an
exceptionally large amount of interest in this. We intend to go
out with a request for proposals probably in mid-May. We will
know at that time where we stand, but it would be my goal to
get this thing awarded, sometime either late in this fiscal
year or early next fiscal year. But it will be a different way
of doing things over there.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for your efforts, and let's continue
working together on this.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. I have one suggestion and observation and then
one question.

SECURITY, STABILITY, TRANSITION AND RECONSTRUCTION

I really appreciate your response to that last line of
questions about this stabilization and reconstruction training.
The Naval Postgraduate School has created the first course in
the United States. The Navy is following the Army's lead in
creating foreign area officers, and is doing that training at
the Naval Postgraduate School now, because of the DLI, the
Defense Language Institute which the Army operates.
What is evolving in the military community there is this
whole new curriculum and training. I just urge you sometime to
take a look at all this. It is really coming together. It all
starts somewhere. The curriculum, it has been testing it for
several years now. NPS also has a Center for Stabilization and
Reconstruction studies, and a lot of peace operations gaming
takes place.
The Navy has sent several officers to get master's degrees
in that area. One of the complaints has been--and you might
want to look into this--is that there is no MOS. When they come
out with these new skills, where do you take them to? The jobs
for those skills haven't yet been defined. I think there needs
to be some work on that. In order to get people really desirous
to get the training, they are going to want to know, hey, what
is the way to get there and where am I going.
There is a lot of desire. In fact, I found talking to
soldiers coming back from Iraq, this is one thing they really
got engaged in. They have been studying the cultures and living
among them, and they are really fascinated in learning more
about how to do civil affairs, and to try to prevent conflicts.
And I have a bill that just passed the House and is pending in
the Senate. General Petraeus even urged support for it. It is
called the Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilan Management
Act of 2008, for setting up what you do in Special Ops to set
up in the State Department and the USAID a reservist/civilian
corps of people who are specialists in languages and area
studies and civil society skills who can go in and do the ounce
of prevention in failed states, rather than have to rely on
calling up the Defense Department when, maybe, diplomacy would
have worked.
So I just encourage you to look into that.

CACTF

My question is more specific, and I don't know if you have
the answer, but maybe you can get it for me. My staff noted
that in the MILCON budget, there is a new training facility
that is listed in both the National Guard's budget and also in
the Army Reserve. The Army Reserve has Fort Hunter Liggett, and
next door--well 30 miles away--is Camp Roberts. The question
is, is this going to be built at Camp Roberts or is it going to
be built at Fort Hunter Liggett?
General Casey. You got me on that one.
Mr. Farr. Well, it is in both budgets.
[The information follows:]

Army Reserve Training Facility

The Army Reserve project is no longer valid. The Army Reserve
Combined Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTF) project at Fort
Hunter Liggett, California, was programmed for fiscal year 2012.
However, the Army removed that project due to a duplicate CACTF project
at Camp Roberts, California, programmed by the Army National Guard for
fiscal year 2011. Camp Roberts is considered a better training location
for this project than Fort Hunter Liggett.

Mr. Edwards. I was proud to know it was going to be in
California. [Laughter.]
General Casey. We will get you the answer on that.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your
testimony today.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. No, sir.
Mr. Edwards. If not, General Casey, Secretary Eastin, thank
you for being here today, for your testimony, and for your
life-long service to the Army and our country.

Question. No. 17 You indicated in your testimony that more training
will be done at home stations in the future. How will this impact the
use of Army training centers such as those at Fort Irwin and Fort Polk?
Answer. The Combat Training Centers (CTCs) are the core of the
Army's collective training strategy and have dedicated resources beyond
those available at home station training sites. The Army's objective is
to provide units the ability to train rigorously at home station and
prepare for their high fidelity training events at the CTC.
The CTCs have the capability to meet the high level of use for
essential training requirements of deploying units. However, as the
Army grows to 76 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), the CTC structure, in its
current state, will not be able to support all training events
envisioned in Objective Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) training
strategies. Accordingly, the Army plans to add CTC capacity in the FYI
10-15 programmed objective memorandum and will work to resource
additional requirements.
Army leadership has approved several initiatives designed to ensure
the CTCs can support ARFORGEN and the transformed, modular Army. These
initiatives include establishing overseas- and stateside-based
Exportable Training Capability (ETC). The ETC moves to a designated
training site, in accordance with the ARFORGEN Training Synchronization
Schedule, and provides training support in accordance with the CTC
methodology to increase readiness.
With 76 BCTs, the Army's annual CTC requirement will be 40-41
rotations. The current CTC capability of 33-36 annual rotations depends
on establishing ETC capability in the Continental United States (CONUS)
and at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center, Germany, by FY10; the
Army is currently assessing whether to establish a second CONUS ETC in
FY12

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Edwards.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Army Medical Action Plan (AMAP) and the Soldier Family Assistance Plan
(SFAP)

Question No. 1. The Army has estimated a total MILCON requirement
of approximately $1.4 billion to implement the Army Medical Action
Plan/Soldier Family Assistance Plan. The fiscal year 2008 supplemental
request includes $138 million for AMAP/SFAP, but I understand that none
of the remaining funds have been programmed into the FYDP. Will Army
program these funds into future regular budget requests, or do you
intend to rely on supplemental appropriations beyond FY08?
Answer. The Army has initiated both the Army Medical Action Plan
(AMAP) and the Soldier Family Assistance Plan (SFAP) specifically in
response to the current conflict and operational tempo. The programs
are designed to alleviate stress for our Soldiers, Wounded Warriors,
and their Families. As many of these requirements are related to the
Global War on Terror, the Army has requested supplemental funding in
the past to support these programs. The Army submitted the remainder of
the AMAP construction requirements to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense for FY09 supplemental funding. While it is the Army's intent to
put as much as possible in the base funding, decisions regarding base
vs. supplemental funding requests for AMAP and SFAP are pending for
FY10 and beyond.

THE ARMY DID NOT RESPOND TO QUESTION NO. 2

THE ARMY DID NOT RESPOND TO QUESTION NO. 3.

THE ARMY DID NOT RESPOND TO QUESTION NO. 4.

Grow-the-Army Stationing Plan/Integrated Global Posture and Basing
Strategy

Question No. 5. Why does the Army need to transfer the positions
from the converted IBCT at Fort Stewart to stand up the second HBCT in
Germany? Why can't Army stand up the second HBCT using existing
positions in Germany?
Answer. Some of the Soldiers currently assigned to the converting
Heavy Brigade Combat Team (HBCT) at Fort Stewart will be assigned to
the Germany-based HBCT, based on military occupational specialty. While
there are obvious differences in personnel requirements between a HBCT
and an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), there are also many common
requirements i.e., infantrymen, wheeled vehicle mechanics, supply, and
administrative personnel. Those personnel common to both organizations
(who are ineligible to execute a permanent change of station (PCS))
will remain with the BCT as it converts. Those HBCT Soldiers not
required in the IBCT (i.e., armored crewman) who are also ineligible to
PCS will migrate to one of the two HBCTs remaining at Fort Stewart.
Those Soldiers eligible for PCS will be assigned to Fort Stewart based
on the needs of the Army. The Germany-based HBCT will retain its
existing personnel and will continue to receive replacement personnel
under the individual replacement system.

THE ARMY DID NOT RESPOND TO QUESTION NO. 6

Question No. 7. What is the estimated date for a record of decision
on the environmental impact statements that are required for the final
restationing of the two temporary HBCTs in Germany at Fort Bliss/White
Sands?
Answer. The Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact
Statement to support final restationing of a Heavy Brigade Combat Team
(HBCT) to Fort Bliss is tentatively scheduled for November 2009, and
the Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement for
restationing of a HBCT to White Sands is tentatively scheduled for May
2009.
Question No. 8. One of the six BCTs to be formed under the GTA
Stationing Plan derives from cancelling the inactivation of the 43rd
BCT at Fort Carson. Prior to GTA, when did the Army expect to
inactivate this BCT? What is the impact of this decision on the MILCON
program at Fort Carson? Were 43rd BCT facilities initially designated
to receive another unit after inactivation?
Answer. In December 2006, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
directed the Army to reduce one active component Brigade Combat Team
(BCT) and grow to a total of 42 active component BCTs in the program
vice 43 as planned. Originally, the 43rd BCT was scheduled to activate
in FY07. Due to the increasing demand and persistent shortfalls for
BCTs in FY07, the Army delayed the decision to identify the brigade and
location affected by the reduction; hence no facilities were earmarked
for transfer to another organization. In January 2007, the President
approved the growth of six additional BCTs in the active component as
part of the Grow the Army plan. The 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division
was designated as the 43rd BCT and earmarked as the first of the six
additional BCTs under that plan. This decision had no adverse impact on
Fort Carson facilities.
Question No. 9. When does Army expect to make a decision regarding
the last 3,500 of the 12,500 soldiers to be relocated from Korea?
Answer. President Bush and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak
agreed to a pause in the drawdown of U.S. troops from Korea during
their April 2008, meeting at Camp David. Approximately 28,000 U.S.
troops will remain in Korea for the foreseeable future.

Barracks Privatization

Question No. 10. How many ``groups'' of installations are under
consideration for barracks privatization, which installations are in
each group, and what is the stage or status of planning and execution
for each group?
Answer. Barracks are constructed, modernized, operated, and
maintained under traditional appropriated-fund programs. However, the
Army does have five unaccompanied personnel housing privatization
projects, which were designed after the Residential Communities
Initiative (RCI) Family housing privatization program. These projects
provide apartments for single senior Soldiers at locations where
adequate or affordable off-post accommodations are not available and
consist of unaccompanied senior enlisted quarters and unaccompanied
officer quarters at five sites for staff sergeants and above. The five
sites are Fort Irwin, California; Fort Drum, New York; Fort Stewart,
Georgia; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Fort Bliss, Texas. Each of the
five projects was made a part of the respective installation's RCI
Family housing project, and did not require any additional government
contribution.
The Fort Irwin privatization project agreement closed (i.e., went
to financial settlement) in March 2004, and 125 accommodations were
transferred to the RCI project. These accommodations will be replaced
by 200 one-bedroom apartments. The Fort Drum project agreement closed
in July 2007, and will build 192 one- and two-bedroom apartments. The
Fort Bragg project agreement closed in December 2007, and will build
312 one- and two-bedroom apartments. The Fort Stewart project agreement
closed in January 2008, and will build 334 one- and two-bedroom
apartments. The Fort Bliss project agreement will close in 2008, and
include 358 one- and two-bedroom apartments.

Modularity

Question No. 11. What is the estimated outstanding MILCON cost for
the Army's transformation to modular units of action, excluding those
costs already included in the BRAC/IGPBS and GT A programs? How many
additional brigade complexes need to be constructed at what locations,
and in what year of the FYDP are these complexes programmed?
Answer. Currently, the Army has requested and programmed $8 billion
for Military Construction in Fiscal Years 2009-2013, to support Army
transformation. This includes funding for Military Construction, Army;
Military Construction, Army Reserve; Military Construction, National
Guard; and Army Family Housing.
There are eight additional brigade complexes that are programmed in
the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). Years and locations of
construction are:
Fiscal year 2010--Fort Stewart, Georgia;
Fiscal year 2011--Fort Richardson, Alaska; Fort Campbell,
Kentucky; and Fort Drum, New York;
Fiscal year 2012--Schofield Barracks, Hawaii and Fort Bliss,
Texas;
Fiscal year 2013--Fort Wainwright, Alaska and Fort Lewis,
Washington.

Impact of Grow the Army on Family Housing

Question No. 12. How many additional dependents are expected due to
Grow the Army? Please provide a breakout by each GTA location.
Answer. The accompanying table represents the dependent increases
expected at Grow the Army (GTA) locations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GTA End State
State Installation GTA strength dependent
change * increases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska..................................... Fort Richardson.............. 613 932
Alaska..................................... Fort Wainwright.............. 229 348
Colorado................................... Fort Carson.................. 4,877 7,413
Georgia.................................... Fort Benning................. 45 68
Georgia.................................... Fort Gordon.................. 192 292
Georgia.................................... Fort Stewart/Hunter AAF...... 3,899 5,926
Hawaii..................................... Schofield Barracks/Wheeler 1,058 1,608
AAF.
Kansas..................................... Fort Leavenworth............. 274 416
Kansas..................................... Fort Riley................... 1,315 1,999
Kentucky................................... Fort Campbell................ 748 1,137
Kentucky................................... Fort Knox.................... 546 830
Louisiana.................................. Fort Polk.................... 1,283 1,950
New Mexico................................. White Sands Missile Range.... 191 290
New York................................... Fort Drum.................... 900 1,368
North Carolina............................. Fort Bragg................... 1,405 2,136
Texas...................................... Fort Bliss................... 9,227 14,025
Texas...................................... Fort Hood.................... 3,273 4,975
Texas...................................... Fort Sam Houston............. 60 91
Virginia................................... Fort Lee..................... 179 272
Washington................................. Fort Lewis................... 1,878 2,855
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dependent increases are based on the GTA population increases published in the GTA Stationing Plan, 19
December 2007. Dependent population was calculated using the DoD ratio of 1.52 (includes spouses and
children).

Question No. 13. How many additional family housing units will be
needed for GTA, including both government-owned quarters and units
built through RCI? Please provide a breakout by each GTA location.
Answer. The Army works continuously with its Residential
Communities Initiative (RCI) partners and the local community to ensure
that adequate housing is available for Soldiers and Families. All of
the Army's deficit housing requirements in the United States are at
installations that have privatized Family housing.
The Army relies on the ``community first'' principle with
approximately two-thirds of Army Families living off-post.
Installations with gaining populations work with local communities to
ensure development plans factor in Army growth. On-post housing is
relied upon to meet mission requirements, shortfalls in available
community housing stocks, or to maintain a viable military community.
In support of Grow the Army, Congress approved $266 million in
fiscal year (FY) 2008 Army Family Housing Construction (AFHC) to pay
for government equity contributions for additional housing at Fort
Bliss, Texas (214 units); Fort Bragg, North Carolina (446 units); Fort
Carson, Colorado (570 units); and Fort Lewis, Washington (520 units).
The Army has requested $333.8 million in FY09 AFHC to pay
government equity contributions for additional housing at Fort Bliss,
Texas (763 units); Fort Carson, Colorado (530 units); and Fort Stewart,
Georgia (932 units).
The Army plans to program additional funds in FY10 if updated
housing market analyses identify community housing shortfalls at other
gaining installations.

Temporary Facilities and Interim Capacity

Question No. 14. Army has indicated its intent to use additional
temporary facilities for GTA. Current data shows that Army has an
inventory of over 10.2 million square feet of temporary facilities. Of
this inventory, 73 percent is currently programmed for replacement with
permanent construction. Of the remaining 27 percent, how much does Army
need to replace with permanent construction, and when will Army fund
and complete such construction?
Answer. The Army uses relocatable buildings as a last resort. When
no other solutions are available, relocatable buildings provide
urgently needed temporary facilities to meet peak surge missions or
pending completion of regularly programmed Military Construction
(MILCON) projects.
The Army is programming MILCON projects to construct permanent
facilities to replace the approximately 10 million square feet of
existing relocatable building inventory. Seventy-three percent of
existing relocatables currently have permanent facility projects
prioritized in the 2009-2013 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). We
will program projects for the remaining relocatables that require
permanent facilities during the FY 2010-2015 MILCON program
development.
Question No. 15. Army has also indicated that a ``facility gap'',
representing the difference in combined interim square footage capacity
and the permanent facilities requirement, through at least FY14. When
does Army expect to have the entire permanent facility requirement
funded and in place?
Answer. Currently, the Army is assessing the permanent construction
program requirements for fiscal year 2014 and beyond and will strive to
replace its combined interim square footage capacity with permanent
facilities as soon as possible. A portion of the interim capacity will
not receive permanent replacement projects because they serve temporary
mission requirements.

Range and Training Land Strategy

Question No. 16. Has Army updated its 2004 estimate of the
shortfall in range and training land to account for GTA? If so, what is
the current estimated shortfall?
Answer. Yes, the Army considered training land shortfalls at all
Grow-the-Army (GTA) candidate locations. Training land was actually one
of the four optimized capabilities that the Army used to determine the
GTA Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) stationing locations. The Army
Range and Training Land Strategy is currently being updated to reflect
all GTA growth. The Army anticipates that an updated Range and Training
Land Strategy will be released in September 2008.

[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Wamp.]

Grow-the-Army (GTA)

Question No. 1. The Grow the Army allows for an increase of 74,200
in Army end-strength across Active, Guard, and Reserve components. The
Army will grow Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT), Support Brigades,
Combat Support, and Combat Service Support Units.
I understand that the permanent end-strength increase of 65,000 for
the Army may be met by 2010. What kind of impact is this having on
current training facilities, support, and housing? What is the Army
doing to address those issues?
Answer. The Army held a growth summit in December 2007 to discuss
experiences, techniques and services to help affected installations and
communities better respond to anticipated growth. Army quality of life
requirements have been programmed into the Military Construction
(MILCON) program in the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2013.
MILCON projects are underway, to include: installation and community
based child development centers to achieve 80% of anticipated childcare
demand; Army-wide construction and renovation of support facilities;
and privatization efforts for 89,295 homes by FY10.
Question No. 2. With the additional troops, how many new Infantry
Brigade Combat Teams, and related brigade complexes and support
facilities have been added to the force? How many new IBCTs will you
have when you meet your end-strength numbers? When do you project to
have all MILCON and Housing Construction completed to support these new
Brigade Combat Teams?
Answer. The Army will have two new Infantry Brigade Combat Teams
(BCTs) to meets its end strength numbers at the end of FY10. The four
additional Infantry BCTs will be operational by the end of FY11. The
Army FY09 Military Construction Budget request was built to synchronize
delivery of permanent construction for four BCTs on a timeline that
meets the effective date for activation of all six Grow the Army BCTs.
As part of its plan, the Army is using temporary facilities at Fort
Bliss, Texas through FY14 to accommodate troops returning from Europe.

Sustainment

Question No. 3. You say that first and foremost, Soldiers,
Families, and Civilians have to be sustained, as they are the heart and
soul of the Army. I couldn't agree with you more. At the core of this,
are two programs that have been developed: one is the Army Soldier and
Family Action Plan, and the second is the Army Medical Plan.
Please talk to the Committee about each of these initiatives. How
were they developed? What kind of feedback are you getting on these?
Answer. The Soldier and Family Action Plan (SFAP) is the
cornerstone of one of seven Army initiatives designed to examine,
analyze, and develop processes to better support the All-Volunteer
Force.
The SFAP identifies and monitors progress in five focus areas: (1)
standardizing and funding existing Family programs and services; (2)
increasing accessibility and quality of health care; (3) improving
Soldier and Family housing; (4) ensuring excellence in schools, youth
services, and child care; and (5) expanding education and employment
opportunities for Family members.
The Army Medical Action Plan (AMAP) is the Army's initiative to
establish an integrated and comprehensive continuum of care and
services for Warriors and their Families. The purpose is to provide
world-class care to Warriors and their Families that match the quality
of the service they provide to the Nation. There are nearly 2,700
individuals assigned or attached as cadre to the 35 Warrior Transition
Units (WTUs) that have been established at installations Army-wide and
are caring for 10,000 Warriors in Transition (WTs). The cadre are
trained specifically for this mission, and every WT is supported by a
triad of care consisting of a Primary Care Manager who is a physician,
a Nurse Case Manager, and a Squad Leader. Dedicated Ombudsmen are also
available who provide Soldiers and Families an extra resource and
problem-solver. Since September 2007, they have handled over 3,200
cases.
The Army also established a 24-hour hotline (the Wounded Soldier
and Family Hotline) to provide an additional mechanism for WTs and
Families to obtain assistance. Since its inception in March 2007, the
hotline has received and responded to more than 11,000 calls. Soldier
Family Assistance Centers (SFACs) have been established at
installations with WTUs to serve as a single entry point for many
services, including:
1. Military personnel processing assistance
2. Child care and school transition services
3. Education services
4. Transition and employment assistance
5. Legal assistance
6. Financial counseling
7. Stress management and Exceptional Family Member support
8. Substance abuse information and referral for Family
Members
9. Installation access and vehicle registration
10. Management of donations made on behalf of Service Members
11. Coordination of federal, state, and local services
12. Pastoral care
13. Coordination for translator services
14. Renewal and issuance of identification cards
15. Lodging assistance
Since its inception in April 2007, the AMAP has shown a steady
improvement in Soldier and Family satisfaction. A command climate
survey conducted January 10, 2008, indicated an overall satisfaction
level among WTs of 83 percent. We anticipate this satisfaction level
will continue to increase with continuing efforts to transform Soldier
and Family care and support.
Question No. 4. You say that these initiatives will integrate
programs spanning a range of Army budget accounts. Which accounts are
you referring to, and how are the programs being integrated?
Answer. The Army Soldier and Family Action Plan receives funding
from Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA); Operation and Maintenance,
Army National Guard (OMNG); and Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
(OMAR) to support Child and Youth Services, Family Programs, Community
Support, Housing, Education, and Health Care.
Warrior Transition Units (WTUs) are the centerpiece of the Army
Medical Action Plan (AMAP). Sustainment, restoration, and modernization
of existing structures to support these units are funded through OMA.
Additional base operations support incident to the advent of WTUs is
also covered by OMA. Our Military Construction accounts provide for new
construction of WTU facilities, while military pay accounts and
accruals from the Defense Health Program fund the cadre positions in
these units.
The Soldier and Family Action Plan (SFAP) and the Army Medical
Action Plan (AMAP) initiatives are integrated by means of bi-weekly
Integrated Process Team meetings with program representatives. This
effort coordinates implementation of the various programs and services,
and assesses progress towards meeting Soldier and Family member needs.
The overarching goal is to provide comprehensive care through an
integrated and seamless approach.

Prepare

Question No. 5. The testimony says that Soldiers must have tools
they need to be successful, and they ``must have an asymmetric
advantage over any enemy they face''. Some of the training facilities
that are highlighted in the testimony for construction funds are:
military operations urban terrain site, tracked vehicle driver's
course, automated anti-armor range, stationary tank range, modified
record firing ranges, and digital multipurpose training ranges at a
total cost of $242 million.
Your testimony points out two things that I want to explore. You
say that national security experts agree that there will be persistent
conflict over the next several decades, and that some of our
adversaries will avoid our proven advantages by adopting asymmetric
techniques and indirect approaches.
How do you train for asymmetric warfare? How do these training
facilities differ from the traditional training facility?
Answer. To enable the most effective training for our Soldiers, the
Army continually assesses range capabilities, range designs, and
training tasks. The Army designs its training facilities and enablers
to reflect changing threat conditions. The Army uses these tools in
innovative ways to address the tactics, techniques and procedures of
asymmetric warfare.
The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command integrates lessons
learned from Army global operations along with doctrinal innovations
from proponent schools to keep our ranges world-class, cutting edge
training facilities. While there is no home-station range that is
specifically designed as an asymmetric facility, all Army ranges are
designed and built for the future and full spectrum of operations that
the Army will conduct. In particular, Army Military Operations in Urban
Terrain (MOUT) sites are constantly adapted to provide training that is
directly relevant in addressing asymmetric threats. Virtual trainers,
such as the Virtual Convoy Tactical Trainer and the Combined Arms
Tactical Trainer have been both fielded and/or adapted to reflect the
conditions of asymmetric warfare. The Engagement Skills Trainer was
adapted to train rules of engagement, which is particularly critical to
today's operations. Constructive simulations have also been adapted to
reflect the fluid conditions of asymmetric combat by moving away from
opposing conventional forces and introducing populations and
unconventional threats. Additionally, unique simulations, such as the
Medical simulation training centers, have been fielded with realistic
training mannequins and instructors to address the effects of injuries
from Improvised Explosive Devices and other battlefield injuries.

BRAC 2005

Question No. 6. Chairman Edwards and I have voiced our concern
about the FY '08 funding situation for the latest BRAC round, and how
we are going to do whatever we can to get as much of the funding to the
Department as we can as we move the supplemental spending bill.
Having said that, how did the Army go about prioritizing BRAC
funding for FY '08, to date?
Answer. The army prioritized its FY08 BRAC funding by the projects'
relative critical impact on the Army's compliance with BRAC law. The
project list was divided into five bands: operational, institutional,
Reserve Component (RC), training, and quality of life. The top three
bands were all considered time-critical to BRAC compliance, but the
available funding only allowed us to include 80 percent of the RC
projects. None of the training or qualify of life projects were funded
from the available FY 08 BRAC funding.
Question No. 7. Give the Committee some sense of projects that were
not funded. If those funds are not restored, how does it impact
planning and execution against the 2011 deadline?
Answer. BRAC is an integral component of our stationing plan, and
our complex Military Construction program is interdependent with BRAC.
Delays or cuts to either of these interrelated programs put our ability
to grow and restore balance at risk. We are at a crucial juncture in
the BRAC program. Fiscal year 2010 is our last BRAC construction year
in order to meet the BRAC deadline of September 2011, as required by
law. To successfully execute BRAC, we carefully synchronized 1,300
actions. And without full and timely funding, 31 of 90 fiscal year 2008
BRAC directed projects will not be completed, including 10 Armed Forces
Reserve Centers, 9 training and readiness projects, and 12 quality of
life projects.
Question No. 8. Finally, is there a date that even if these funds
do get restored that meeting the deadline becomes an insurmountable
challenge for the Army?
Answer. If the $560 million cut to the Army's FY08 BRAC funding is
not restored this year, the Army will not meet all of its requirements
in accordance with BRAC Law.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Wamp.]
Thursday, April 10, 2008.

EUROPEAN COMMAND

WITNESS

GENERAL BANTZ J. CRADDOCK, COMMANDER, U.S. EUROPEAN COMMAND

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I would like to call the
subcommittee to order.
General Craddock, welcome. Welcome to our subcommittee.
Thank you for your many years of distinguished service to the
Army and to the country. It is a privilege to have you here
today.
There is a possibility there could be a series of votes, so
in case there is a series of votes Mr. Wamp and I thought we
would go ahead and start the committee.
The subject of today's hearing is the fiscal year 2009
military construction and family housing request for the
European Command. EUCOM's total fiscal year 2009 request is
$783 million, an increase of $265 million over the fiscal year
2008 enacted level of $519 million.
This request supports the transformation of EUCOM in
furtherance of the Integrated Global Posture and Basing
Strategy adopted in 2004. The strategy, as initially presented,
called for the reduction of U.S. troop presence from 114,000 to
less than 66,000 by 2012, including the relocation of two Army
brigades from Germany back to the United States.
Last year Secretary of Defense Bob Gates decided to at
least temporarily keep two heavy brigade combat teams in
Germany, apparently in response to concerns expressed by
General Craddock and possibly others. The reasoning behind this
decision and its impact on the global restationing plan will be
among the numerous topics that we would like to discuss today.
But before I turn it over to you, General Craddock, I would
like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any opening
comments he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome General Craddock and say what a privilege
it is to sit across the table from you today. Your job is one
of the most critical we have in the world.
I think Chairman Edwards has had this experience, but if
you stand, as I have, above Omaha Beach in Normandy, you feel
the commitment and sacrifices that our country has made to
freedom in Europe. It has caused me to monitor a lot of what is
said today in the world out of the European countries about the
United States of America, so that we can hope that they
remember constantly the sacrifices that we have made on their
behalf.
And then our long-term presence there following the
Marshall Plan and your very command there has genuinely made
permanent contributions to that region, and, therefore, the
changes that we are to consider resourcing are so very critical
to their long-term interest and, indeed, freedom in the world.
The great challenge that I am very interested in is the
transition that is under way, clearly, and then, of course,
this new AFRICOM command and how that will work, albeit
difficult to take that portion of that command and establish a
new command without a permanent presence in Africa and all of
the conflicts that are associated with that.
We had a tremendous briefing with General Ward regarding
his responsibilities.
So, welcome here today. I look forward to your testimony
and, also, look forward to a very productive working
relationship with you in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much.
By way of introduction, and this will be brief, but since
it is his first appearance before the committee, again, it is a
privilege to introduce General John Craddock, who is not only
Commander of the European Command but is the Supreme Allied
Commander for Europe.
He has been the EUCOM Commander since December of 2006.
Previously served as the SOUTHCOM Commander from 2004 to 2006.
Nearly 37 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Army.
Again, we thank you and salute you for that.
I won't go through all of his previous assignments, but he
commanded the 1st Infantry Division, commander of U.S. forces
during initial operations in Kosovo, Joint Staff--doesn't get
any better than this--assistant chief of staff of 3 Corps.
General Craddock. Indeed.
Mr. Edwards. And also battalion commander with 24th
Infantry Division, and is a graduate of West Virginia
University.
General Craddock, without objection, your full statement
will be submitted for the record. We would like to recognize
you now for any opening statements you would care to make
before we get into questions.

Statement of General Bantz J. Craddock

General Craddock. Great. Chairman Edwards, Ranking Member
Wamp, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
the committee today as the Commander of the United States
European Command.
I have had the honor since December of 2006 to command the
European Command, the great men and women who serve there. I am
here to report that they remain absolutely committed to their
mission. The nation is extremely well-served by these
remarkably talented, dedicated and enthusiastic Soldiers,
Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen, and definitely
the families and the civilians that support them.
If you would permit me, I would like to provide an overview
of our activities, highlighting the vital role of the EUCOM
service members in this vast theater.
I know you know this, but every day EUCOM forces are
deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and also in
Afghanistan in support of the International Security and
Assistance Force under NATO, the ISAF. Service members that are
assigned to EUCOM are included in our global force pool and, as
such, stand available for any missions so required.
Our support for the global war on terror, our overarching
priority, demonstrates the value of a robust European
infrastructure. Continuing to invest in our strategically
located bases ensures we maintain critical mobility routes for
U.S. forces and the ability to expand as required in the
future. Our forward-based and rotational forces are powerful
and visible instruments of our national influence and
international commitment.
Central to EUCOM's efforts is the completion of our
Strategic Theater Transformation plan. Our transformation plan
is synchronized with the Department of Defense, the Joint
Staff, individual services, and NATO to ensure that global
efforts of other combatant commands, NATO, and the results of
the Base Realignment and Closure Commission process are all
mutually supportive.
The fiscal year 2009 president's budget, as you said, Mr.
Chairman, requests a total of $783 million in MILCON funds for
EUCOM. This investment will enable us to continue to eliminate
substandard housing, includes projects that divest nonenduring
bases, consolidates our forces into more efficient
organizations, and provides defenses against ballistic missile
threats from southwest Asia.
Quality of life within the European theater continues to be
a prime focus and continues to improve by all comparisons, both
absolute and relative. However, our service members and their
families are having to continue with the reality of deployments
in support of the war on terrorism.
And while we have made herculean efforts to ensure the best
quality of life possible for our service members and families,
we are ever mindful that we cannot rest on our laurels. We must
aggressively look for the downsides and quickly reverse them
and the effects that they may create.
Family housing investments for construction, renovation and
replacement projects will ensure EUCOM meets the Defense
planning guidance requirement to eliminate all inadequate
housing by fiscal year 2009. EUCOM has also approved its
housing inventory through the Build-to-Lease programs and will
continue to explore Build-to-Lease housing opportunities
throughout Europe to our advantage.
One of the biggest areas that needs attention is the
condition of our dependent schools that educate 36,500 students
in 90 schools across Europe. Many of our schools are at least
50 years old. Forty-five percent of the Department of Defense
schools and 43 percent of the Department of Defense students
are in the EUCOM theater.
The health of the Department of Defense Education Activity,
DODEA, budget is essential to the well-being of our students,
who need both quality infrastructure and quality teachers to
realize their full potential. We look forward to working with
the DODEA and Congress to address our European educational
infrastructure needs.
In additional to MILCON, the NATO Security Investment
Program continues to play an important role in broadening
NATO's military capabilities, both in Europe and Afghanistan.
This year's budget request of $240 million represents the U.S.
share of the program and will support current operations in
Afghanistan and Kosovo. Your ongoing support for this program
is greatly appreciated, as we continue to build these critical
partnerships and increase the alliance's capacity for future
engagement.
In summary, the dedicated men and women of the United
States European Command remain steadfast in their commitments
to our nation and our mission.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing. I look forward to
the committee's questions.
[Prepared statement of General Bantz J. Craddock follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754D.097

FORCE POSTURE IN GERMANY

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, General. And, again, it is good to
have you here.
Let me just begin on the issue of the decision to delay, at
least until 2012 or 2013, the movement of two heavy brigade
combat teams back to the United States. I know Secretary Gates
basically put on temporary hold a decision made in the 2004
Global Defense Posture.
In 2004, in that posture statement, it said, ``Peace in
Europe has no longer threatened the large-scale conventional
force position to move into the continent. There is no longer a
strategic need for heavy maneuver forces as a central element
of U.S. defense posture.''
General Craddock, would you think that premise has changed,
or are there other circumstances that have changed, or both,
that have caused us to put on hold the movement of those
soldiers back to CONUS? And, if so, if conditions have changed,
is there a possibility that those two brigade combat teams
might end up permanently in Germany and not be brought home?
General Craddock. Thank you, Chairman. I think there are
two factors at work here.
The first is the growth of the Army and where the Army
plans to put that growth. There were plans made for the four
brigades in Europe now, and there were plans made to leave two
as the objective end-state, with the two heavy brigades going
back to the States.
I think the reason for delay was due to the fact that the
growth was not planned for, the enlargement of the Army. The
BRAC adjustments set an unbalanced condition. And the Army
looked at it and decided, as I was informed by the Army
secretary, that rather than bring those brigades back on time,
on schedule--and the Army would have to build considerable
temporary facilities for a period of time, and then build
permanent facilities--it would be better for the families,
first, and more cost-effective to leave them for an additional
3 years in Europe.
So, that is a Title X decision the Army made.
Now, the second issue, at this point, was when I took over
in December of 2006, and as I went around and met the chiefs of
defense, my counterparts, many of whom I have known from
previous assignments, I kept hearing over and over again, ``Why
aren't you guys out here in exercises where there are exchanges
of companies and platoons? Where are you? We don't see you
anymore.'' And the answer is, our forces were in the global
force pool, rotating to Iraq and Afghanistan.
So I looked at the--I remembered some exercises we have
done, and had the staff get me that. And over the last 5 years,
it has been precipitously down. Fair enough. We are at war, and
we understand that.
But I then looked at the guidance I had got from the
chairman, which says that to offset our strategic risk, we are
going to build more organizational capability, we are going to
work with our Allies and pump up their abilities. And I looked
at our forces available, and I said, ``Mr. Chairman, I don't
think I can do that with what I have right now.''
So I went back to my staff and said, ``Do a study. Tell me
what you think we need to do, what we are told to do.'' We
looked at our task assignment and our missions. They came back
a few months later, said, ``You need about five brigades.'' And
I said, ``I will take the risk and do it with four.'' And I
sent a request to the secretary, saying, ``I think, for the
future, this is about right.''
I am still working with the department, because the Title X
decision to leave the two brigades 2 extra years offset the
near-term shortfall. It appears that the final decision has
been kicked down the road for a while until a later date. So I
don't have an official response, other than, ``You have got two
more brigades, to give you the four you want, for 3 more
years.''
Now, we, EUCOM, we will go back, we will continue to
update, assess, and see if our recommendations previously holds
or changes. If conditions change, the war on terror ends, we
prevail; if the NATO transformation takes a faster track, if
you will, there may well be significantly different needs,
either lower or higher. And this is dynamic.
But I think the fundamental issue is when the decisions
were made to go to this objective force--and I was there in the
Department at the Office of Secretary of Defense--the
assumptions were about a different world. And we were not at
war, with 15 to 20 brigades for a long period of time. And we
weren't depending on partner nations to carry a lot of that
load. And now, they, quite frankly, NATO allies, NATO partners
and other nations look to the United States always for how to
do it and how to help them.
Mr. Edwards. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would follow up a little bit, to say then--because the
2012/2013 date caused me to wonder what is any different? Is
this just a postponement of the realities of this type of
transformation?
And I think what you are saying is that it gives us time to
see what the world looks like after more progress is made in
Iraq and Afghanistan before we make these changes permanent
that were derived prior to the time the conflict and engagement
and the surge and the investments that we are having were made.
General Craddock. I think that is fair. I would agree with
that.

FLUCTUATION OF THE DOLLAR

Mr. Wamp. The Battle Monuments Commission told us that a
big problem in Europe is the value of the dollar. And you have
shared a little of this with the chairman and I, but I would
like for the record for you to explain exactly what kind of a
burden that puts on your budget.
General Craddock. Well, everything costs a little more
based upon--we budget against a number, and generally
speaking--and, again, these services normally do this, so I
will give you a general perspective.
There is a hedge factor there, an expectation, a prediction
that the dollar's value will rise or fall. So if the dollar is
falling and the expectations will continue, then the programmer
estimates are normally done against a value that is lesser than
the date on which we put it all together.
Then that leads you to how fast is the dollar falling? What
it means is that, when it comes time for the project to start,
then there either has to be new estimates--and where projects
did not occur or projects came in under budget, that money is
moved across to take the offset of where the cost growth occurs
due to the devaluation.
So that factors into everything we do. That factors in
construction. It factors in O&M. Because the cost of anything
you buy on the economy, as opposed to shipping in, in Europe is
going to go up. And it has been significant here in the last
year for sure.
And also, as I mentioned earlier, it transcends to the cost
of living for our service members and their families. So these
prices all go up.
Now, I checked with one of my experts about, if we don't
get this budget estimate right, and the cost of construction in
Europe is higher than we planned, what do we do about it? And
the answer is, there is a set-aside fund that whatever comes in
under-budget or gets rolled over into this set-aside can be
used then to offset these cost growths.
And it is regional in nature, but we can also go back to
the larger pool, I think, inside of the component budgets,
whether it is Army or Navy or whatever. So there is a little
bit of a capability there.
Now, the problem becomes when, across the board, if all of
these costs do not come in under, then that premise is going to
cause a situation where we won't be able to start or we come
back for reprogramming.
Mr. Wamp. So from a MILCON perspective, you would advocate
some way for this committee to fund an overflow fund, if you
want to call it that, so that if nothing came in under-budget
to save the resources to pay for the wild fluctuation of the
dollar in today's world because of the unstable economy
globally. There has to be some kind of a fund from the
Congress, in terms of resources, to compensate for a year where
you might be without any relief on this problem.
The second piece--and then I will yield back for other
members--is this quality-of-life issue. Frankly, this new
majority got off to a great start here last year with enhancing
child-care facilities and housing and quality-of-life issues.
And a quality-of-life issue that would work its way back to
the conversation in the general public from anyone stationed in
Europe today would be, because of the devaluing of the dollar,
the quality of life for our troops in the field and their
families is not near as high as it used to be or as it should
be in order for us to retain and recruit that next-generation
fighter, which we have to have.
Correct?
General Craddock. Yes, Congressman. With the first part, I
would agree, there needs to be some flexibility to fund
precipitous drops in the dollar value in the MILCON account.
Secondly, the impact on service members and families,
indeed. Now, there is a cost-of-living allowance that is
provided from the department. It is very difficult to
understand how it works. The mechanism is proprietary in
nature. I have had, repeatedly, representatives from the
department to try to explain it to us. You have to be a PhD. in
economics. And over and over again, we have tried to understand
it. Even those of us that think we understand it discover,
every time a new situation comes up, we didn't get the full
answer.
And I will guarantee you that the service members, the
young enlisted, don't think they are getting adequate
compensation for the drop in the dollar.
And the impacts will be: One, we are in the global force
pool. So soldiers, sailors, airmen, particularly soldiers, 15-
month deployments, are gone with their families left in Europe.
And they are away, and the dollar is dropping. And if it gets
to be more and more difficult for a mom when she is back there,
or a dad if it is a female soldier, they are likely to opt out
and go back to the United States. And then we have got a more
difficult situation.
The other thing is relative to where they were before. In
days past, they would throw the kids in the car, and they would
go to visit a castle, they would go to the Rhine River, they
would go to the amusement park in Mannheim, whatever the case
may be. They don't do that today, is what I am being told,
because they just can't afford the cost for mom, dad and two
kids' lunch, $200. Can't do it.
Mr. Wamp. I will yield until round two, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. Good questions.
Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. General, I want to thank-you for the wonderful
evening at your residence in Europe and your great briefings
and all the efforts you made on our recent CODEL.

MISSILE DEFENSE

Regarding missile defense, can you explain a little more
about the status of the third site and what the Czech Republic
and Poland are going to do in terms of their contribution to
this?
General Craddock. Well, I know that there are ongoing
negotiations. I think they are just about ready to sign with
the Czech Republic, in terms of what is going to happen.
Quite frankly, Congressman, I read in the paper today that
the Czechs expect 250 U.S. personnel to be there on the site,
which is the first I have heard of that.
So I don't know the cost-share with regard to the Czech
participation, other than the European Command commitment once
the agreement is made, the bilateral agreement, then we will
see that, and we will have to put together the implementing
instructions between the Czech Republic and the European
Command, representing the U.S. government, in terms of the
specifics based upon the general agreement that will be
reached.
So the Czech Republic is for the radar facility. Again, the
modalities of that, to be determined. Because the Missile
Defense Agency and OSD policy right now--even though I have a
rep there, my rep is a note-taker with very little input, other
than monitor and come back so we can start to see the extent of
what we will have to do. I do not know what the Czech
Republic's level of participation or investment will be.
With Poland, it is the same thing. And I think it is less
farther along with Poland, at this point.
Mr. Dicks. But there will be an ongoing commitment, isn't
that correct?
We have it here that the increase over last year's budget--
$241.2 million requested by Missile Defense Agency--is to
establish the third site for the ballistic missile defense for
the radar site in the Czech Republic, interceptors in Poland.
The FYOP includes a total of $837 million in MILCON for
these two sites, although the cost does not actually include
any facilities that would be required for personnel to actually
operate the site.
General Craddock. Right.
Mr. Dicks. So there are some issues here.
General Craddock. Well, until the agreements are reached,
where the government will decide who is going to do what, we
won't know how many facilities we have to build for the future.
Mr. Dicks. And we don't know what the commitments are, that
we have committed ourselves to.
And these other two heavy divisions, they were going back
to Fort Bliss and Fort Riley, and that is deferred for how
long?
General Craddock. Three years, 2012/2013.
Mr. Dicks. And is there a decision to then do it, then
bring them back?
General Craddock. The decision is made, they will go back.
They are just delayed. But they will return to the United
States between 2012 and 2013.
Mr. Dicks. And that is basically because of the growth in
the Army; we didn't know where we were going to put everybody.
And also, I would assume, there are some substantive reasons
why keeping them for the next 3 years there is a good idea.
General Craddock. There were two issues. One was the BRAC,
growth of the Army, Title X. That is an Army issue, where are
you going to put everybody. They decided, rather than build
temporary facilities and then permanents, leave them in Europe
and build just permanents, save $750 million as well. That is
the Title X.
Now, my mission is, do I have what I need to do my job? And
my judgment is no, that I need four brigades. I have four now,
until 2012 and 2013. But we are going to have to continue to
assess and see, when we get up to 2012 and 2013, do we still
need four, or has the world changed enough that we can do it
with the two that we are programmed for.
Mr. Dicks. Oh, these aren't divisions; they are brigades.
General Craddock. Brigades, right.
Mr. Dicks. Okay, so that is a lot less.
General Craddock. Exactly.
Mr. Dicks. Could they rotate other brigades?
General Craddock. They could do it on a rotational.
Mr. Dicks. To bring them into Europe.
General Craddock. I am not specifying which ones. I just
think right now we need----
Mr. Dicks. We have done that before.
General Craddock. Yes, sure.
Mr. Dicks. Yes.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Berry.
Okay.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, General.
Let me ask you a follow up on Mr. Dicks's questions about
missile defense. I think there is $240 million for the defense
sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. And last year, there
was some discussion, I think, in the Armed Services Committee
about some of those funds, that since everything hadn't been
signed, that maybe you didn't need all those funds. And I think
about $60 million was taken out.
And I guess maybe 3 months ago, I was in Poland and the
Czech Republic, and they didn't seem that concerned. I mean,
they kind of had the insurances in it for money. You know, if
they adopted everything, the money would be there.
But I just wonder, from our side, you know, what kind of
delay might incur if we don't have all the money when we need
it? I mean, all this specialized missile--things change. I
mean, is that something that maybe we ought to think about, in
terms of--you know, we are not providing all the funds, but we
are providing the funds to begin. I mean, it takes a while to
get the funds, it takes a while to implement the things.
Can you comment on that, you know, in terms of what that
might create from our side, in terms of delaying any kind of
structures and missiles that we might need? It seems like it
might be better to make sure we have all the money there,
appropriated, so that we can spend it as soon as we need it.
General Craddock. Thank you.
This is really complex. There are a lot of moving parts on
this one, and there are a lot of agencies involved.
From the European Command perspective, our requirement will
be to initiate the implementing agreements, to contract, to
probably pull in the shovels, turn the dirt, and start the
work. When we do that, generally it has to be pegged against
the development and the acceleration of the threat, the
missiles in Iran. How are they coming along, whether they are
nuclear or conventionally armed, and do they develop or do they
buy from North Korea, or whatever that may be.
So I think MDA and the intel community has a timeline, and
we are now programming against that timeline. If that
accelerates and we don't, obviously the risk goes up. So that
is part of it.
The second part, then, is, is the technical gear, the
mission gear--radar, all the pieces and parts--available, so
that when the brick-and-mortar is done, it can be bolted on,
plugged in, wired up and turned on?
And then, secondly, in Poland, are the interceptors through
testing--because they are a two-stage, not three-stage, a
little different configuration--and all that ready to go and
synchronized then when, again, the brick-and-mortar is done and
everything is ready to drop in? So that is the complexity here.
So, you know, I am in a little bit of a difficult position.
We are going to be the guys on the receiving end after the
negotiations. The longer it takes for negotiations to draw out
what our nation and those nations agree to, and then they sign
that, and then we have to work to do the implementing, and then
put the physical plant in there, the physical layout, so that
you can bolt in the mission load. We are like the man in the
middle here.
So that is the uncertainty that I have. And I think--two
things. The longer it takes for us, if there is no delay in
what the intel community says the threat development is, risk
would go up; or the faster that we could do this, then one
could argue that you are way ahead of the threat, so,
therefore, you are countering something that is not there.
Striking the balance between the two is the hard part here, and
that is the art, not the science.
So, you know, we are going to have to take our tasking,
which is the bilateral agreement signed; you guys, EUCOM, go do
the implementing agreements, start to dig up the dirt and put
in the buildings; and then, I think, at that point, we will see
probably finer and finer resolution, in terms of the threat and
when the radars and the darts, the big darts, are in the
ground.
Mr. Crenshaw. So we ought to be careful, in terms of making
sure that you have got what you need to get in and implement
the act.
General Craddock. Yes, sir.

EGYPT

Mr. Crenshaw. Another broader question, too. I know Israel
is under your command, and I know that you could spend a long
time talking about that whole situation. But one of the things
that came up last year in the appropriations process was--I
know Egypt is not in your command, but there were some Egypt
and how much it is doing to prevent some of the smuggling that
goes into Gaza. So there were some restrictions put on the
appropriations for Egypt.
I just wonder, do you see enough, in terms of what is
coming through the tunnels and what Egypt is doing or not
doing? You see the results, I guess, of that in Israel. Can you
tell whether things are getting better, changing less? Where
else do weapons come from? Things like that?
General Craddock. Congressman, I don't see enough to make
that judgment on any basis that I would be comfortable in doing
that. I see anecdotal information and obviously the results
based upon the attacks in the settlements. But, no, I couldn't
tell you if there has been a change in terms of cause/effect
with what was done with the restrictions.
Mr. Crenshaw. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, I understand you have already
asked about the two BCTs from Europe, and that was the question
I really wanted to ask you.
Mr. Edwards. Then follow up, if you want.
Mr. Carter. Well, I am still worried about exactly what is
going to happen on the delay on the two BCTs that were supposed
to come out. And as we look at global force, I understand what
the general conversation has been. I apologize for being late.
But it is a real concern for us, because we are trying to
figure out some things at Fort Hood as to why we are not going
to have 49,000 soldiers, as promised, at Fort Hood. And it is
part of a mix. So I am still curious about that question.
General Craddock. Congressman, largely an Army issue. All I
know is that in conversations with the Army chief and the Army
commander in Europe, those two brigades are designated for a
return. And that is a Title X issue.
Now, where they go, how that factors into the movement of
brigades or battalion flags around the continental United
States based upon if Army grow the forces, I just don't have
any visibility on that.
The two issues here, from my perspective, were: One, there
was a Title X issue of where the Army was going to put
everybody. BRAC reduces things. Grow the Army with six more
brigade combat teams. So how do you do that? The Army said, we
will leave them here a little longer, so we save some money and
don't jerk the families around. That solved my problem.
I think, come 2012 and 2013, that they are going to go, and
either by then there is a decision that we still need four or
two is going to be enough, and there will be other ways to
scratch the itch, such as rotation of brigades and things like
that. That is to be determined, at this point.
Mr. Carter. Another question you were answering but I
couldn't hear the answer, on this missile defense system that
you were talking about over there. There doesn't seem to be any
money in this particular appropriations bill for barracks and
dining facilities and that type of things that would service
them.
And you were talking in a direction that I couldn't hear
the answers. Because we are waiting on the countries we are
negotiating with, to see what they will and won't provide; is
that the answer?
General Craddock. As I understand it, that is correct. The
2009 was looking for brick and mortar to build the facility for
the radar and the interceptors. Then in the 2010, 2011, 2012
budgets, we would come in; then we would know the agreements on
how many U.S. forces, how many U.S. contractors, how many
Czechs or Poles would be there, so we could size the facilities
to accommodate how many of our forces would we need to be
there.
Mr. Carter. That is what I thought you said. I couldn't
quite hear you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

FORCE POSTURE IN GERMANY

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
Let me follow up. I want to be sure I am clear. It seems to
me you are making a common-sense position that, as of today,
the decision has been made that in 2013 we will have those two
brigade combat teams brought from Europe back to CONUS.
But what you are also saying is that the next
administration might be left with a decision to say
circumstances changed. Perhaps a decision might be made in a
future administration to leave more troops there than the two
brigades scheduled to stay after that.
And I don't want to read too much into your testimony, but
you talked about an ever-changing security landscape. You talk
about the Balkans remaining somewhat volatile, Kosovo due to
its controversial nature. You talk about the ability of the
United States, understandably, to shape factors. You spoke in
your oral testimony a few moments ago about some of our
European allies saying that we don't see American forces out
training with us, and we need a partnership there.
Basically, am I clear in understanding what you are saying
is that, technically, as of this moment, the decision has been
made, but circumstances change and a future Secretary of
Defense or commander in chief might decide to leave more forces
than were suggested in the 2004 global repositioning?
General Craddock. Yes and no, Chairman. It may not be a
matter of leaving those forces. It could be that the decisions
are made to take those heavy forces back to locations that
support heavy forces.
And I have not specified whether I want heavy or light. I
just need four brigade combat teams.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Craddock. We have got one Stryker already, so that
is fine.
And it could be, in the future, if the situation as we see
it, the assessment we make strategically still says we need
four brigades--and we continue to re-evaluate and re-assess--
that I would continue to ask the Secretary, and he may continue
to say no. But I think I am compelled over time to prevent the
case that, ``Here is what you and the Chairman have told me to
do. Here is the ability we have to do it. I can't do everything
you said. I need this much more.'' He may say no. Fair enough,
and we accept risk. He may say, ``We are going to bring those
guys home, and we will look at it in 2015.'' Fair enough. But
it is a matter of risk.
So I am not looking at specific ``keep those guys.'' I am
just looking at two separate issues: What do I need to do the
job? Now, he may say, ``We are going to send you two brigades
on a rotational basis all the time. Every 6 months, you will
get it.'' Okay. We will look at that and say, ``Fair enough,''
or ``Here is what we look like.''
Mr. Edwards. The reason I wanted to follow up on that is
that it has direct implications for this subcommittee, Military
Construction, obviously. If the future decision were to be
made, regardless of which brigade combat teams might stay, if
the decision were to be more than two brigades, then that needs
to be made in such a timely fashion that we will help fill
barracks back CONUS that are going to remain empty.
General Craddock. I fully appreciate that, and you are
absolutely right.
My staff has been directed, at this point: Stand down. We
will look at this beginning of 2009. We will go through it, do
another assessment, see if the same assessment holds. It may
well be that, with a reduction in Iraq, and we have more of our
forces at home, then we have different perspective.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.

INADEQUATE HOUSING

One other question on this round for me, and this is a
question I am going to ask every commander that comes before
our committee, including General Casey and others who have been
here prior to your testimony today. And I want to get a metric
so we can compare year to year to year. If you can't answer
this orally now, if you could following up in writing.
But the question would specifically be, how many service
men and women and their families under your command are living
in housing that does not meet basic DoD standards?
Do you have a ballpark guess what that number might be? And
if not, then you could follow up.
General Craddock. I think we can get that, but I think it
is somewhere around 28, 29 percent.
[The information follows:]

Currently, we have 7,000 Families and 9,500 Single Service Members
residing in inadequate housing and barracks. Of this total,
approximately 7,200 Families and Service Members are aligned with units
that will be relocated as part of our Strategic Theater Transformation.
We have focused our investment in housing and barracks at enduring
installations, and this investment continues to reap benefits as those
units are constructed reducing the inadequate inventory.
Your continued support in ensuring funding for the request to
eliminate inadequate housing and barracks is essential to continue to
reduce these numbers. In FY09 the request for $291M in Family Housing
construction and renovation projects will eliminate inadequate housing
at enduring installations within theater. As we assess the needs in
theater for the stand-up of the Africa Command and pursue the Strategic
Theater Transformation objectives, we will continue to focus on
ensuring the investment in housing and barracks is completed at the
right locations.

Okay, 91 percent meets standards; 9 percent is less than
the DOD standards.
Now, that is barracks and family housing or just barracks?
Both, okay.
Mr. Edwards. That is barracks and family housing. If you
wouldn't mind following up in writing to us and letting us
know----
General Craddock. For the record.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Where those troops are. We just
want to monitor that each year. And we made a lot of progress
in quality of housing----
General Craddock. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. In the last decade. It has been a
great achievement; Pentagon, Congress working together. But I
want to be able to compare numbers year to year to year. Thank
you.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AFRICOM

As I briefly mentioned, General Craddock, in my opening
statement, I am very interested, as is Mr. Farr, who is not
here today, in the establishment of AFRICOM.
And General Ward's testimony here really sparked a whole
lot of creative thinking about, how we reach out to the world
in a cooperative way without taking up a permanent presence or
scaring the countries that we are trying to help.
And so, just from your view, how do you see that going, and
how does the transition work and your relationship with General
Ward as we head into AFRICOM?
And then kind of a follow up on that, because I was
interested in how he explained Djibouti, the part that we can
talk about, and it being I think like a forward-operating base.
Explain, too, the progress on the forward-operating sites
in Bulgaria and Romania in Eastern Europe and how that is
going.
General Craddock. In AFRICOM, I think we are making
progress, but it is probably a little slower than we had
anticipated, from a couple perspectives.
One is receptivity in country. The strategic messages that
were sent, and we didn't get them received, in my judgment, by
the right people and in the right fashion. We crafted them up
to satisfy ourselves, but we didn't craft them up to satisfy
the people who were listening. And so we have had to re-engage.
And that is what, right now, the AFRICOM leaders--Kip Ward;
Mary Yates, one of the deputies; and Bob Moeller, the other
deputy--are doing, in terms of engaging directly at the right
level, ministerial level, not sub-ministerial, which
unfortunately is I think what occurred.
So now I think we are seeing a little reversal of this
early trend of skepticism and thinking that we were going to
come in and overload them with a lot of military people. That
is not the case.
I am sure with General Ward being here, you know, we have
discussed this. This is not about flooding Africa with military
forces, to train military forces. This is about using the
organizational energy, organizational brilliance maybe, of DoD
to be able to pull together lots of functionality that exists
and resides in our government. There are many talented people
in Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, to deal
with the problems of Africa.
It is to assist the chiefs of mission to enable them to
provide capacity and wherewithal. You know, we can do lift
across vast distances in a very austere, immature country with
no infrastructure. We can provide lots of things with others
doing the task but we enable it through our capabilities to
organize and deliver and move things around.
So that is the intent here. This is what I think is well-
understood inside of our government. We are seeing more and
more of the departments and agencies signing up with their
people to participate. And that is a good thing. I know Kip
probably told you, half of this organization is going to be
civilian.
Now, having said that, now we have to, I think, start the
process of deeds, not words, on the continent, where we have to
go in and, working with chiefs of mission in regions and
countries, using the Horn of Africa construct where we are out
doing projects all the time: building a school, building a
community center, turning it over, inoculating children,
vaccinating them, deworming them for the first time in their
life. Those are the types of things that make a difference. So
that is where I think the first effort goes.
Over time, I am convinced that there will be a greater and
greater receptivity, and we will figure out then where we
should put a headquarters there or a presence; where we should
augment regions. Because I am not sure we have to be in every
country, but if we could do it regionally--because a lot of
these countries have the same regional problems. West Africa is
different from North Africa, and things like that.
And then we have got to ultimately work with those who
don't want us there and are influential in that judgment--in
the south, South Africa; north, I think Egypt; and there are a
few others--to convince them that, look, we are not a threat,
we want to work with you. This is not about who is in charge;
it is about how best to deliver help to those who need it.
So I think there is some good opportunity there. And it is
going to take a little while, and it is going to--we are going
to have to push hard for, again, the people to get there. My
Command, we have identified 421 people we are transferring.
There will be more than that, but that is the number right now.
We will see this summer, I think, a big input of people,
because summer moves will take--once the kids get out of
school.
And then I think the 1st of October it is to stand up on
its own. It probably won't do all of the functions on its own.
We will retain some of those. Potentially CENTCOM in the Horn
will retain a few. But we will transfer that as soon as
possible. And the AFRICOM folks are working out now the
transfer of what may be delayed a bit.
But we are coming along. And the key here is a measured
approach to the right people to explain we are not a threat and
we are there to augment where they need help, to give them a
hand, and hopefully train and teach so that they can do it on
their own sooner rather than later.
If I could go to Romania and Bulgaria and the progress
there, I believe that the MILCON for 2008 finishes out those
two programs for building infrastructure for Joint Task Force
East. We have already done a pilot rotation there out of U.S.
Army-Europe, with some help from the Navy and the Air Force
forces.
We do not have identified from the Department rotating
brigades yet, because the force commitment to the global force
pool will not support a rotation of brigades from the States
right now. They are all either going to Afghanistan or to Iraq.
So we are rotating forces available out of EUCOM to, one,
prove the principle; two, to work with the Bulgarians and the
Romanians; and three, to entice others to come in and train
with us also.
So it is more of a pilot now than an actuality, but I think
that we are proving the principle. And the first rotation this
past summer, in 2007, was very powerful.
Mr. Wamp. Just one follow up, Mr. Chairman.
I was interested--Mr. Crenshaw just mentioned that Egypt is
in a unique position. And I remember, last year, our full
committee conversations when Mr. Wicker was Chairman Edwards's
ranking member. There was a lot of commentary about Egypt and
how important Egypt is to us.
Yet I would be interested in your perspective with the
October 1 stand-up of AFRICOM and Egypt still being under
CENTCOM yet it being in the African continent. Does that help
or hurt Egypt?
It seems like there would be some advantages to it becoming
almost its own entity. While it is under CENTCOM, it is
separate and very, very strategic and important. But, then
again, I would be concerned that there may be some overlap
there, in terms of territories.
What do you say?
General Craddock. I think your last statement is spot-on;
there is some overlap there, with regard to Egypt. Egypt is a
schizophrenic country, quite frankly. And that is not bad.
Now, Egypt is one of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue
countries. They come to our meetings, defense ministerials, and
every time they do they are the most active of the North
African Mediterranean Dialogue countries wanting to
participate.
I was asked, ``Come down to Egypt. Tell us what you need in
Afghanistan. We might be able to give you some trainers.''
Now, set that aside. They also want to be a part of the
African continent, so they are interested in, ``How do we fit
in Africa? We don't want to be excluded from that.'' And then
there is the Arab-Israeli issues with CENTCOM that pull them
that way, into Gaza and elsewhere.
So they, indeed, have some partitions there that they are
going to have to, I think, work to solve it, and we are going
to probably have to engage and help them do that.
But there is, without question, overlap that is causing us
to try to figure out what is the most powerful approach to
reduce friction points? How can we reduce the friction points?
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
On AFRICOM, to stand that up, what kind of impact does that
have on your mission or in the dynamics? And then, for
instance, of the--does it change the force structure at all?
Are there any military construction needs that that brings up?
General Craddock. The impact of the stand-up of AFRICOM is
the transfer of missions, activities, programs, exercises and
personnel. And that is in process. We have got a big AFRICOM
transition team doing a wonderful job of identifying all that.
I reviewed it. I was impressed with the level of detail. We are
working through that document. And it is a very rigid,
disciplined approach. So that is a work in progress, and that
is ongoing.
The delaying factor in that is the arrival of personnel to
fill the AFRICOM billets. We can't transfer a mission or an
activity without someone being there. And they are behind
schedule. So that is why we are a little bit behind schedule in
the transfer. But we understand the cause/effect. They will
come in this summer; we will get them ready to go by fall.
As far as then the next step, there are not going to be
additional troop formations, organizations, flags on the
continent. We looked at it and said, maybe the best approach is
regional--regional integration teams, where it may be 25 or 30
guys go into a mission, embassy, in a country, in a region, and
then instead of having this Office of Defense Cooperation,
where we have around the world--the Department of Defense has
five or 10 guys in every country, and they do security
assistance and Foreign Military Financing and International
Military Education Training--we have these 25, 30 guys do it
for the entire region.
So that is the next step, is to organize and put in some
regional integration teams.
Mr. Crenshaw. Does it affect, kind of, what you are doing?
Or is it just--your dynamics in your mission, it will just--you
will be doing it. That will be a kind of separate thing, but
there wouldn't be an impact on what you are doing.
General Craddock. The biggest impact for us will be
heretofore our special operations commands, SOCEUR, has been
doing the work in Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara,
Northern Africa, against the Al Qaida affiliates, AQIM. That
will transfer to SOCAFRICOM, Special Operations Command-
AFRICOM, when they stand up.
That will be a significant transfer, because that is a big
effort for training, building partner-nation capacity, and
having our special forces there countering the Al Qaida located
there. That is the big change.

EDUCATION

Mr. Crenshaw. Just one last question, Mr. Chairman.
You mentioned in your opening statement about education.
And we had talked about this. And I know this committee is
awfully interested in quality-of-life issues. And I know Mr.
Wamp and I have talked about the dollar devaluation and the
impact that has had on our soldiers.
Can you talk a little more, because I found it kind of
astounding, I can't remember the numbers, but I think almost
half the educational needs are there in his command, and yet
they get about a third of the money they really need. Can you,
kind of, talk about what impact that has, in terms of the
families and the kids?
Because I think, in terms of quality of life, sometimes we
miss that in overseas. We think about housing and health care
and all that stuff, and child care. But when you are overseas
and you are not getting the right kind of education, you are
really setting people back.
General Craddock. Thank you. Indeed, I can. And it is
important, and it is one of my special emphasis areas.
We have about 45 percent of the schools and school children
that are administered under the Department of Defense
Educational Activity. Now, that includes the Pacific, Europe
and continental United States, because there are now some
vestigial schools here that are run by Department of Defense.
We get 15 percent of the O&M budget and the military--not
military--construction budget. So we are under-resourced there
by about a factor of a third, and we should be getting much
more than that.
The DODEA is under-resourced in terms of what they need to
operate their system. So it is a double hit, if you will. They
don't have what they need, and then we get, I think, I know, a
smaller share than we should based on what they are doing.
Now, the question that ought to be asked--and I have asked
it, and I don't know the answer because it wasn't provided--is,
who is getting the bigger share? The answer is, here in the
United States. The United States has a choice. If you don't
want to send your child to a school on the base, you can send
your child to a local school. We don't have a choice.
So the question is, how does the allocation get made? And
it is based upon a committee system that is very arcane and
maybe a bit achronistic.
So that is the point. Here is the effect: If you come down
and you have children, then the question is--young children,
okay, probably enough flexibility, doesn't make too much
difference. The next question is, if you have middle-school- or
high-school-aged children, which our mid- to senior-level
officers will have, okay, where are we going? What is the
school like? How close is it? How long is the bus ride? And do
they offer A.P. courses or extracurriculars?
And I think what we are seeing, starting to see here, is
the danger of--and I don't have the numbers, but I am pretty
sure, anecdotally, it is happening--instead of coming as a
family unit, mom and the kids stay home because they know,
where they are, what they have, and they don't want to take a
chance that the children are handicapped where they are going.
And, look, in all fairness, DODEA has done a very good job,
DODDS-Europe, Department of Defense Schools--Europe, over these
last several years of faculty enrichment. They have pretty good
teachers. My kids went there over the years and it was up and
down. Today I am pretty confident, I feel much better. Because
we have shrunk the number of schools, they have kept hold of
the best teachers and administrators.
You can't have that world-class and substandard facilities,
because that also will keep the kids away, and mom and the kids
stay in the States. If you do that, you break up the family
unit, you have got a 2-year tour instead of a 3-year tour, you
have got much more turnover, and you have got the continual
possibility of something happening back home so dad or mom
better go back and take care of this thing. It is more
friction.
And we need to make sure we don't penalize the kids, we
give them good opportunities, and that when they come back and
they are competing for college entrance they compete fairly.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

NATO

Mr. Edwards. Thanks for raising that issue.
General, let me ask you about NATO. To be effective,
clearly it has to be a two-way street. As member nations get
the protection of the alliance, they also have responsibilities
to participate when the alliance makes a decision to take an
action.
Could you give us a summary of what the problems are with
some of the NATO members in Afghanistan and what does that
suggest about the future of NATO and its effectiveness?
General Craddock. I think we are in a transformation of
NATO. We still have a NATO that is by and large organized,
arranged, processed for a 20th-century situation, a Cold War
situation. They have not come to the reality of transnational
threats and new situations that are not planning and preparing,
as we did throughout the decades of the Cold War, but having to
operate, make decisions.
Their sons and daughters of the nations that send their
forces forward are in harm's way. And we can't wait forever to
get decisions and processes in place to avoid that.
So the fact is we are operating right now off of a
strategic guidance from 1999. And the world has changed
significantly since 1999. So that is one of the things that,
between now and next year's 60th summit, I think that there is
going to be some significant energy to try to get a new
strategic document.
Secondly, all the countries, 26 of them, know that the
benchmark for contributions for their defense establishment is
2 percent of GDP. That is what NATO has said. ``You guys,
members, need to commit 2 percent of your GDP.'' By my
calculation, six of 26 meet that today. The trends are down for
those that don't meet, they are mostly going further away from
meeting. And for the six that do, four of the six have got
negative trends.
So, now, this is the choice. The choice is, do you put that
money against collective security, or do you put it into social
services and 32-hour workweeks and other things like that? But
fair enough, those are national decisions.
However, the realization, I think, has failed to hit home
that it is not anymore about sovereign states are the problem;
it is about transnational threats, for which there is very
little we can do diplomatically or politically. Who will you
negotiate with if it is time to do a diplomatic effort with a
transnational threat like Al Qaida, AQIM, PKK, Hezbollah? I
don't know. They aren't there. They don't exist. So the new
paradigms have to be, I think, recognized and acknowledged.
European countries, by and large, consider terrorism a
public security issue that is only going to be dealt with by
the police when the problem is visited on their people. I think
the Brits have got it now, that it is bigger than that, because
they have been attacked. The Spanish have been attacked. I
thought they had it; they have lost it. They are back to public
security. And I think maybe some of the other countries--the
Germans found out that they had some bad guys, and they did
some good work. The Belgians have done some good work. The
Danes have done some work.
There is starting to be a realization, but it has not
reached all of the nations. That is what we have to do, is
continue to work with them to make them understand that.
Now, in Afghanistan, the fact of the matter is that I think
the level of ambition in NATO has exceeded its political will.
They said, go provide a safe and secure environment in
Afghanistan, tell us what it is going to take. My command did
that. We said, here is what it is going to take to do what you
told us to do. They have yet to give us those forces.
Mr. Edwards. How many forces? Can you say publicly, in this
setting, how many forces?
General Craddock. We really deal with capability, but it is
a matter of a few battalions. The key are the enablers--rotary
wing lift--heavy and light helicopters--intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance. These are the key enablers
that we need that we don't have, in addition to a handful of
battalions.
Does NATO have it? They do. The problem is, the political
decisions have yet to commit to doing it.
So what that does is a couple things. One, it limits us--
and some of the forces they have provided have restraints,
caveats. Either functionally, they can't do certain functions;
or geographically, they can't go certain places. They can only
stay in their own little area.
So what is the sum total of this? This has then limited the
ISAF commanders' flexibility to use forces around the country.
It constrains the regional commanders' ability to use forces
inside of his region, different provinces. And it puts every
Soldier, Marine and Airman at great risk because of these
inflexible conditions. And it is going to prolong the conflict,
and it is going to get more people banged up, either wounded or
killed.
Now, the space we give them, the bad guys, the insurgents,
is the space between what we need and what we have. And that is
their operating space. If we could take that away, we will see
progress faster.
Mr. Edwards. Is there anything we can do in the next 12
months to change that situation?
General Craddock. The issue becomes one, I think, of
European constituents and the ability for leaders of nations
who have skeptical constituents to convince them that it is
just, it is winnable, and if they don't do this, the likelihood
of having the terrorist visit them is higher.
The parliamentarians, the NATO parliamentarians, of which
there are several in Congress, can be very helpful when they
meet with their counterparts and engage to carry the message
and to push them to ask questions, to go to NATO, to find out
the realities of what is happening on the ground.
Mr. Edwards. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.

EUROPEAN COMMAND AREA OF OPERATION

Mr. Wamp. General, in the last hour, we have covered a lot
of ground and a lot of issues, but you have a vast area of
responsibility (AOR). Are there any other concerns that you
have that we haven't discussed today that are under your AOR?
General Craddock. Well, I think the ever-present threat of
weapons of mass destruction is a concern I have, from a couple
perspectives.
One, if you look at my area of responsibility, I have more
nations with nuclear capability than anywhere else in the
world.
Secondly, the Eurasian area, the Transcaucasus, the
Balkans, eastern, western, have been traditionally crossroads
for smugglers throughout history, whether it is contraband, it
is people, weapons, explosives, drugs. And I think because
those routes, channels, linkages, cells, networks, are present
in today's world, they could be easily co-opted into the
movement of a weapon of mass destruction, whether it be nuclear
or chemical or biological.
So that is a concern.
Third, I have a concern about energy security. That is my
NATO hat and my EUCOM hat. And my concern is that the ability
to use energy, whether it be natural gas or oil, as a political
bargaining chip is now beginning to be more and more a reality.
That when nations or a nation controls not only the reserves,
the production and, most important, the distribution means,
pipelines, to their advantage, then I think that it could be
very onerous acts occur and there is very little we can do.
Today we have seen already valves shut down which affected
a nation, but, downstream, other countries were affected. So
there was some political pressure, cumulative, collective
pressure, and the situation resolved.
The more the control of the pipelines occurs, the buy-up of
those distribution means, the greater the likelihood of a very
precise shutdown. In a cold, northern European winter, if the
natural gas is shut off and 3,000 people lose their lives, is
that a weapon of mass destruction?
So I think energy security has to be a focal area for NATO,
I think for sure the European Union, because they have enormous
opportunity to push back and resolve that, not only from not
letting it get to a policy determinant, but to find alternative
means to deliver in the event that these specific pipelines are
threatened.
Mr. Wamp. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Mr. Edwards. Just a couple of other questions from me,
General Craddock.

KOSOVO

Kosovo--we plan and hope for the best-case scenario, but we
have to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. Not to say
this is likely to happen, but could you outline what would be
the worst-case scenario in Kosovo?
General Craddock. Well, we have definitely a unique
situation where this coordinated declaration of independence 34
nations have recognized, I think is the number, which is a bit
disappointing.
We have the U.N. now operating, and NATO, under Resolution
No. 1244, which we have for several years. That is our
authority.
There will be a constitution, it appears now. A draft has
been approved. It will go to file and be implemented mid-June.
We understand from the U.N. when that occurs that the
United Nations will leave Kosovo and that the European Union
will come in, and they will bring in a policing force. And they
will bring in an international coordinator, who is from a
European Union nation. He will be the international
coordinator, but not a European Union coordinator. So it is a
little bit unique.
We say--``we,'' NATO--as the international military force.
Now, the question becomes authorities. If 1244 is still in
place, we have authority. Does the European Union's delegation
of police have 1244 as their authority? If not, the Serbs won't
recognize them. If they do, the Serbs likely will. They say
they won't recognize it because it doesn't fit.
So there are incredibly complex legal decisions and
judgments being made all the time. Worst case? Worst case is
that mid-June, if not earlier, the Serbs say, we have had
enough of this, and they try to take a hard partition north of
the Ibar River and say that is now part of Serbia. And at the
same time, the Kosovar Albanians say, we have had enough of
this, and they go back to try to take it back. And then we,
NATO, with a U.N. police force that is leaving, a European
force that has yet to come in, are caught in the middle.
I think there has been considerable constraint, restraint,
on the part of the Kosovar Albanians, and I applaud them for
that. I think we have had some mischief out of Belgrade.
On the 17th of March, there was a situation in Mitrovica
that crossed a line for the first time, where the U.N. took a
stand to ask NATO to help them take the stand. We took that
stand. And it was not a demonstration by the people against it.
It was a specific, war-like act of street combat by
paramilitaries against both the U.N. force and the NATO force.
The U.N. police had 35 Ukrainian policemen wounded, one killed.
NATO had 50 French soldiers wounded. Fourteen required
hospitalization.
So that was a line that was crossed. So this has changed
now this equation. I think that Belgrade was surprised that the
U.N. and NATO stood up and said, no more. These paramilitary
structures have been developed over time in the Serbian
enclaves. Right or wrong, they developed. Now, our challenge is
not to let them go hard and become a partition. So we have to
stand our ground.
And I think there has to be political engagement with
Belgrade, and there has to be by the European Union, by the
U.N., by NATO, to convince them their future is not east; it is
west and the E.U. and Europe.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, General.
Let me say, finally, before my last question, I appreciate
your addressing these broad issues. We will have staff follow
up on some of the specific MILCON issues. But, you know, it is
such an important opportunity for us to get a big-picture view
of your perspectives in order for us to make rational MILCON
decisions.

MILITARY PRESENCE IN EUROPE

So let me finish by going backward to the most basic of
questions. For those who would say our presence in Europe is no
longer needed, the Soviet Union has broken apart, let's bring
all the troops home--I know there is no serious effort to bring
all of our forces home--but would you just outline for the
record what are the positive military, security, economic,
relationship benefits of our military presence in Europe?
General Craddock. Well, the world is changing faster now,
obviously, in this post-Cold War period than during the 50
years or so, or 45 years, that we had that. I think that the
first thing I would say is this is not about posturing against
a rising Russia; that is not what this is about.
This is about creating partners and allies. It is about
helping them help themselves, build their capability to ensure
that they have the capability to, one, secure their own
countries; and then, two, if they desire and when asked, be
able to help NATO, United Nations, whomever, to project forces
for security operations anywhere in the world.
And I will tell you that many of the new nations want to do
that. They don't have much capacity, they don't have much
capability, but they are trying very hard. So we are grateful
for that.
There is still instability in the Caucasus, frozen
conflicts. There is still enormous distrust between those
countries, many of them, or factions of those countries and
Russia.
Russia is concerned that NATO is threatening them. At the
Bucharest summit, I think President Putin talked about the
western bloc. It is not a bloc. That term is old-think, it is
Cold War. These are all democratic nations. These are all
nations that have met certain criteria. They have stable
governments, they are democracies. I can't imagine being
threatened when you have democracies on your borders unless
there is something else at work.
So I think that, to those who say, ``Bring them all home,''
we have brought a lot of them home. You know, I got to Europe,
the first time, 1972. It was 780,000 active-duty forces. We are
going down to 66,000.
But the fact that we are there and that we are the gold
standard for military efficiency, effectiveness, how to
operate, everybody wants us on their team. And we have to have
somebody there to do that.
And the subtle part of this is, sure, we could rotate
forces from the States every 6 months. But I found this out
when I was down in Latin America, and we did that in Colombia
with special forces. We were rotating the same guys. And over
30 years, they spoke Spanish. It was perfect. And then they
went to Iraq, and we brought in a new team, and it was like,
``Who are these guys? And they don't speak our language. They
don't know us.''
We have got to have--I call it the ``Cheers'' complex. You
have got to go where everybody knows your name. Okay? And if
you are there, and every few months you are dealing with those
people, and pretty soon they trust you, they know you, and you
will push up the relationship and their capabilities much
faster than if you push it up for 6 months and then they are
gone, new guys come in, get it up a little bit, then new guys
come in, and you are always in a sine wave.
So I think we do need some forward-deployed for that very
purpose, of being able to engage every day. And secondly, all
of our service members are diplomats. You know, when they are
out there, that is a good thing.
So I think that is important. So that is the answer I would
give to the skeptics, that because, you know, we are the gold
standard and everybody wants to be like us, and we have got to
be there to show them what ``us'' looks like.
Mr. Edwards. Do you do much training of foreign military
officers in Europe? Or is that done more----
General Craddock. The IMET, international military
education and training, brings them back. Great program, most
important thing we do.
Secondly, oh, we absolutely--we do exercises, even though
they are reduced. We do exchanges, platoon and company,
reduced. We bring them to our training area--Grafenwoehr,
Hohenfels--to our NCO academy at Grafenwoehr. Oh, absolutely.
And we can't do enough of it, quite frankly.
Mr. Edwards. I was at Leavenworth not too long ago, and I
was amazed to see how many foreign officers were there on a
regular basis.
General Craddock. Absolutely.
Mr. Edwards. What a great thing.
General Craddock. Very good.
So those are the things that--not so much, maybe, Western
Europe countries, because we have been there a long time, had a
relationship, but it is the outreach to the Caucasus and to the
Balkans. We are seeing more and more--I said in this
Mediterranean Dialogue, North Africa is trying to reach out,
both north and south. But AFRICOM will be looking there also.
Mr. Edwards. Great. Great. Thank you.
Zach, would you like the last word?
Mr. Wamp. I am through.
But I thank you, sir.
General Craddock. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Great. General Craddock, thank you very much.
General Craddock. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. We look forward to working with you and your
staff.
General Craddock. Come visit us. Come visit us.
Mr. Edwards. We will do that.
General Craddock. All right. Thank you, sir.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Question. The September 2004 Global Defense Posture Report to
Congress stated that ``the United States will strengthen its deployable
military capabilities in Europe.'' As commander of EUCOM, do you
believe that your deployable military capabilities are as strong, or
stronger, than they were in 2004?
Answer. U.S. European Command's (EUCOM) deployable military
capability has increased since the development of the Strengthening
U.S. Global Defense Posture (GDP) Report to Congress in 2004 and will
continue to strengthen over the next five years until GDP goals are
met. Prior to 2004, EUCOM capabilities consisted of heavy division
centric, massed forces with robust infrastructure. Today's forces,
which may not have the same end strength capability of those five years
ago, are tailored to be much more deployable to meet the needs for out
of area operations.
To date, the following GDP achievements have helped EUCOM attain a
lighter, more agile and deployable fighting force:
Modularization of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat
Team
Partial Modularization of two remaining heavy
Brigade Combat Teams to allow them to participate in Operation
IRAQI FREEDOM
Integration of a Stryker Brigade Combat Team
Consolidation of U.S. Army, Europe and 5th Corps
into 7th Army to form flatter command and control support
functions
Merging of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and 6th Fleet
Headquarters at Naples, Italy, to create a single Joint Task
Force-capable headquarters
EUCOM's transforming posture continues to be characterized by more
deployable capabilities as well as leaner command and support
structures strengthening deployable military capability. Currently,
EUCOM has two U.S. Army Europe Joint Task Force-capable headquarters,
one 6th Fleet Joint Task Force-capable headquarters, one 3rd Air Force
Joint Task Force-capable headquarters, and improved headquarters staffs
across the components, providing a leaner command and support
structure. EUCOM forces are more deployable than 2004. At the same
time, EUCOM has fewer forces to deploy than in 2004.
Question. Has EUCOM conducted any sort of infrastructure review to
determine what the facility requirements would be if the two
temporarily stationed Heavy Brigade Combat Teams were kept in Germany
beyond 2013?
Answer. The two Heavy Brigade Combat Teams have been stationed at
non-enduring installations as reported in the 2004 Department of
Defense Master Plan. The Operations and Maintenance funding accounts of
these installations have been maintained to ensure current operations
capabilities, but no Military Construction investments have been made
to recapitalize the infrastructure for long-term use.
In 2007, U.S. European Command staff conducted a study to identify
the force structure requirements needed to accomplish theater
objectives. During this study a general comparative assessment of the
stationing options and capacity to retain the currently assigned four
Brigade Combat Teams was completed. The study determined that
operational and housing capacity exists; however, there has been an
investment pause at non-enduring installations. Should two Heavy
Brigade Combat Teams be retained, the normal modernization and
recapitalization planning would need to be initiated for retained
infrastructure.
Question. How many permanent U.S. military personnel do you
currently have within the EUCOM AOR, and what is the year-by-year
schedule for completing the drawdown by 2013?
Answer. There are currently 86,560 permanent military personnel in
the EUCOM AOR. This number will decrease at a nonlinear rate to 62,800
military personnel in 2013. The preponderance of the drawdown of forces
will include U.S. Army and USAF personnel, of which the majority will
be U.S. Army personnel during the return of the 2 Brigade Combat Teams
and supporting units in 2012 and 2013.
The current 2008 personnel footprint is as follows: U.S. Army--
46,800; U.S. Navy--6,200; U.S. Air Force--30,700; U.S. Marine--1,060;
SOF--1,800; Total: 86,560.
The 2010 personnel footprint is as follows: U.S. Army--44,300; U.S.
Navy--6,200; U.S. Air Force--28,200; U.S. Marine--1,060; SOF--1,800;
Total: 81,560.
The 2013 personnel footprint is as follows: U.S. Army--28,000; U.S.
Navy--6,200; U.S. Air Force--25,700; U.S. Marine--1,060; SOF--1,800;
Total: 62,760.
Question. Will EUCOM play any role in determining the personnel
requirements for operating the ``third site'' missile defense
facilities?
Answer. It is EUCOM's understanding that we will have the
opportunity to review and comment on lead service proposals, but will
not have approval authority.
Question. When do you plan to complete construction on facilities
programmed for the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team at Dal Molin?
Answer. The 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team is currently the
only split-based combat brigade in the U.S. Army with four of its six
battalions stationed in Schweinfurt and Bamberg, Germany. In order to
reduce the operating inefficiencies and meet Strategic Theater
Transformation timelines the Military Construction is scheduled for
completion by early calendar year 2012 to enable the consolidation of
the Brigade by the summer of 2012.
The Dal Molin Complex at Vicenza was originally programmed for
$479M ($306M in Fiscal Year 2007 and $173M in FY08) to provide
facilities for locating the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. While
the project is fully authorized, the Fiscal Year 2008 request was
incrementally appropriated. Of the $352M appropriated to date, $80M has
been expended. In addition, a design/build contract was awarded for the
entire Dal Molin complex on 28 March 2008 to a construction company
with a proven track record of early completion. It is reasonable to
expect this company will finish the project in advance of the projected
completion in early calendar year 2012.
Question. When do you expect to achieve initial operating
capability and full operating capability for the consolidated 173rd
ABCT at Vicenza?
Answer. The 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) is currently
the only split-based combat brigade in the U.S. Army with four of its
six battalions stationed in Schweinfurt and Bamberg, Germany and the
remaining forces stationed in Vicenza, Italy. EUCOM does not draw a
distinction between Initial Operating Capabilities (IOC) and Full
Operating Capabilities (FOC); The 173rd ABCT will be fully operational
in Vicenza when all of the new facilities are ready and the brigade has
consolidated in Vincenza. Based on current construction timelines, and
assuming continued annual Congressional appropriations, the
consolidation and FOC of the 173rd ABCT are scheduled for summer 2012.
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget included a $7 million fuel
pipeline project at Souda Bay Naval Station. This project was
ultimately cancelled, at least partially due to obstruction by local
government authorities. The FY09 request includes $27.8 million for a
similar project at Souda Bay. What has changed between FY06 and FY09
that led to this project's revival? Why has the cost of the project
increased from $7 million to nearly $28 million? Is this project
eligible for NATO Security Investment Program funding? Is EUCOM
confident that the Government of Greece fully supports the continued
use and recapitalization of Souda Bay for both U.S. and NATO missions?
Answer. This military construction project will ensure continued
ability of Naval Support Activity Souda Bay to provide theater tanker
support. In FY06 the project was programmed to replace an existing 4-
inch fuel transfer line between the Marathi Fuel Depot and Naval
Support Activity Souda Bay with a 6-inch line. The existing pipeline
was constructed in 1971 and has heavy corrosion, no cathodic protection
and no leak monitoring system. This project has remained a priority due
to the pipeline's fragile condition and reduced operating capacity.
However, due to problems securing local easement rights the project was
delayed and funds reprogrammed. Continued engagement with the local
government and Hellenic Defense staff recently secured approval for the
project.
The current project combines the original FY06 project with a
previously planned FY09 project to construct two new 12,000-barrel fuel
tanks at the airfield. These two projects together account for the
difference in cost from the original $7 million requested in FY06 to
the $27.8 million requested in FY09 for the combined project.
The project is potentially eligible for NATO Security Investment
Program funding, however there is no current NATO capability package
supporting this project. European Command staff is actively engaged
with the host nation and with NATO to develop a viable means for common
funding. A pre-financing package for the original pipeline project was
submitted to NATO for the future recoupment of funds from the NATO
Security Investment Program. A separate pre-financing package will be
submitted for the full project, pipeline and tanks, in the near future.
The Hellenic Defense General Staff has expressed support for
operations at Souda Bay, to include support for both U.S. operations
and the NATO maritime capability. There is currently no NATO mission
related to the development of airfield capabilities.
If this project is not funded, Souda Bay will not only continue to
have inadequate fuel storage capacity to meet mission requirements for
assigned and transient aircraft, but the pipeline capacity and
condition will continue to adversely impact mission capability and pose
a significant environmental risk.
Question. A large portion of EUCOM's AOR will be shifted to Africa
Command. Have you reviewed your posture and infrastructure requirements
in light of this development, and have you determined that any changes
are necessary?
Answer. The recommended U.S. Africa Command posture is based on a
distributed command and control model that will leverage existing
infrastructure. In carrying out its missions, Africa Command will
consolidate the efforts of three commands into a single command focused
solely on Africa. The command strategy for the continent relies on
using security cooperation and leveraging multinational partnerships to
build African security capacity.
U.S. European Command and Africa Command theater posture planners
are currently working the transfer of responsibility for the African
AOR to the Africa Command. U.S. European Command will continue to
review and update theater posture and infrastructure requirements
through the U.S. European Command Master Plan and the Global Defense
Posture Plan. EUCOM infrastructure will experience little change and
only a minimum of new infrastructure will be required off the continent
of Africa (in Europe) to enhance headquarters and component
capabilities in support of Africa Command.
Question. How will the ``seam'' between AFRICOM and EUCOM affect
operations in the Mediterranean?
Answer. The ``seam'' will affect our operations for the Navy very
little. USEUCOM will continue to be responsible for all the water in
the Mediterranean except for the territorial waters (out to 12 nautical
miles) on the northern coast of North Africa. When naval units transit
the Mediterranean and are tasked to pull into North African ports for
Theater Security Cooperation engagements or logistics requirements,
USEUCOM will shop Tactical Control for Force Protection to USAFRICOM
and the engagement will proceed. This type of Combatant Command
coordination occurs frequently.
Question. What is the status of appropriated construction projects
in Romania and Bulgaria to establish forward operating sites for Joint
Task Force--East? How many exercises have been conducted at these
sites?
Answer. The Military Construction (MILCON) projects (phase 1 and 2)
in Romania have been awarded for contract with completion scheduled for
June 2009. Phase 1 is currently under construction and Phase 2 will
begin construction within two months.
In Bulgaria the Military Construction project site has been
approved. Contract award is to be not later than September 2008 with a
projected completion of May 2011. Until these projects are complete,
all exercises are being conducted at temporary forward operating sites
in the vicinity of the MILCON construction projects.
While current force commitments do not support a rotation of
brigades from the States, U.S. European Command has provided available
forces on a rotational basis to: (1) further develop proof of
principle; (2) enhance relationships with Bulgaria and Romania; and (3)
develop future partners. Once the permanent facilities are constructed,
we will utilize those facilities to support exercises similar to the
engagement outlined below:
The U.S. Air Force conducted three Flying Training Detachments
(FTD) during Fiscal Year 2007. A FTD typically consists of a deployment
of 4-12 aircraft and 250 crew and support personnel for two to three
weeks duration.
U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR) conducted the Joint Task Force--East
(JTF-E) Proof of Principle (PoP) exercise in Romania and Bulgaria from
July to November 2007. Most of the training event was conducted at MK
Airbase.
During the peak training periods, there were approximately 250
Romanian soldiers and 800 U.S. soldiers conducting combined training.
The FY08 rotations will more than double this loading.
U.S. Navy Europe maintains a Seabee Detachment on six month
rotations at MK Airbase. The Seabees conducted facility maintenance and
renovation work, as well as U.S. European Command (USEUCOM)-directed
Humanitarian Assistance projects in the vicinity of the airbase.
USAREUR maintains a 27-man military/civilian Mission Support
Element (MSE) staff on MK Airbase year round to monitor the progress of
MILCON projects, ensure facilities' operational readiness, and conduct
Host Nation military coordination in support of JTF-East operations, to
include supporting planning conferences with Romanian and Bulgarian
Armed Forces.
In addition to the events listed above, the JTF-E MSE Staff
supported the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit Support
(U.S. and U.K. Air Force direct support) and the U.S. Presidential
visit to Constanta, Romania to meet with the Romanian President.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Edwards.]
Tuesday, April 15, 2008.

U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND

WITNESS

ADMIRAL JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, COMMANDER, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I would like to call the meeting
to order. Admiral Stravridis, welcome to the subcommittee and
thank you for your distinguished military service to the
country.
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. I have been asked if we would ask everyone to
speak as directly into the microphones as you can. Sometimes
the transcription effort is a little more difficult. If you
will just wave or stand up or jump or do this if you can't hear
us, let us know. It is bad enough when people quote us
accurately, but even more difficult if they quote us
inaccurately.
The subject of our hearing today is the fiscal year 2009
military construction and family housing request in support of
Southern Command. Going back at least to the Monroe Doctrine of
1823, the security of the Western Hemisphere has been a vital
interest of the United States. SOUTHCOM's mission is to
guarantee that security.
Although SOUTHCOM's fiscal year 2009 request of $164.8
million is relatively small compared to other combatant
commands, there are issues within its responsibility--many
issues within its responsibility--that merit this
subcommittee's attention. I am pleased to have Admiral
Stavridis with us today to discuss these issues.
Before we proceed with the testimony, I would like to
recognize our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any opening
comments he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, if my calculation is right, this is
the next-to-last hearing of our regularly scheduled hearings
before this subcommittee.
Mr. Edwards. We save the best, Mr. Wamp, for the last.
Mr. Wamp. And if somebody could help me, what number
hearing is----
Mr. Edwards. A dozen or more.
Mr. Wamp. I just wanted to say that my eyes are not yet
crossed and I am not dizzy, regardless of what my wife says
about me, but this has been an unbelievable experience, a
learning experience, an exhilarating patriotic experience to
meet these heroes and these defenders of our way of life. The
admiral came to see me and we hit it off from the very
beginning because I am going to echo your opening comments
briefly by saying that as we are able to expand our values and,
for all the right reasons, our influence in the Western
Hemisphere, we will secure our very freedom. It is so important
for us to fend off the elements that are counter to our way of
life within our hemisphere, which frankly in South America we
have a few of those players today.
I think we do that, though, by bringing people together, by
helping with basic needs, by not exerting our military
strength, sometimes as much as by just reaching out to people
and establishing communications, dialogue, and understanding.
The admiral understands the cultures in SOUTHCOM. That is such
an important first step to making the progress that we need.
We can help them with their security and very much help
ourselves with our security in this hemisphere. If we are going
to be competitive in this world, I think we have to build more
alliances within the Western Hemisphere to compete with other
parts of the world. That is why frankly our military presence
is so important. SOUTHCOM, while it is a relatively small
command financially, it is a very strategic command.
I hope at some point maybe we could go with the admiral
into his command because just talking it through with him
today, there are some really strategic places that we really
need to go into with him.
I thank you for your leadership and your courtesy today,
Admiral, and for your service. I look forward to this
testimony.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. Very well said. As a
Texan born not too far away from the border with Mexico, I have
always felt our nation's government often overlooks the
importance of Latin America and its role in our nation's
security and its future.
Admiral, again it is great to have you before this
committee.
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. I am going to go through your very long and
distinguished career. But just as a matter of a few basics,
Admiral Stavridis has been SOUTHCOM commander since October of
2006. He is the first Navy officer to command SOUTHCOM. He
previously served as senior military assistant to the Secretary
of Defense; was commander of the Enterprise Carrier Strike
Group from 2002 to 2004, including operations in the Persian
Gulf. He was commander of the destroyer USS Barry from 1993 to
1995. If I went through all the list of the words of leadership
in the Navy, we wouldn't have time to complete the hearing.
He holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Admiral, without objection, your full written testimony
will be submitted, along with any addendums you might have to
offer. We would like to recognize you for your opening
comments, and then we will continue on at that point with
questions and answers.

Statement of Admiral James G. Stavridis

Admiral Stavridis. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Representative Ander
Crenshaw I must start by saying is not only on the committee
overseeing me, but he is also literally my congressman. I am
from his district in North Florida, so it is a pleasure to
appear in front of this committee particularly on not only a
professional basis, but a personal basis with my congressman,
and he represents our district extremely well.
Mr. Edwards. We will give him personal credit for
championing your headquarters. [Laughter.]
Admiral Stavridis. I do want to say--I want to echo your
comments, Mr. Chairman, and those of the ranking member, that I
believe, and I think many of us who are focusing on this region
believe this is an important place in the world for the United
States. Our job at Southern Command is to look out, to report
to the secretary of defense, and to look out over some 36
nations to the south of us in Central America and the Caribbean
and South America, and try and affect not only security
cooperation, but also in an interagency spirit to work with our
partners, particularly the Department of State and to try and
secure a positive frame of reference for overseeing this vital
part of the world.
This committee and this particular subcommittee looks at
military construction. I want to first and foremost say thank
you to this committee for your support of our headquarters.
This command moved from Panama 10 years ago to Miami, Florida,
where there is no DOD base. There is no military base there. So
we have been in a rented essentially converted warehouse for 10
years. Our command is spread over nine buildings in the area.
Due to your support and allocating us funding for a
headquarters building, we will be able over the next 2\1/2\
years to construct a facility that will bring all of those
parts of our commands together.
It will, most importantly, help address some of the
quality-of-life issues because with that headquarters building,
we will be able to put in a small medical clinic, a small
commissary, a small exchange, none of which exist for our
people today. So I want to thank this committee for the superb
support you have given Southern Command, sir.
I am happy to take any questions about the region, about
the security situation there; anything the committee would like
to discuss. And of course I can address the MILCON projects
that are up in front of you.
I want to close by doing two things, the first of which is
to echo what the ranking member said, and to invite you, Mr.
Chairman, and the ranking member and other members who are
interested in traveling. Representative Farr was just down with
us in Colombia recently. I encourage you to come to this
region. There is a great deal to see, and there is no
substitute for the tactile feeling of traveling in this region
to understand it.
And then secondly, I would like to close by simply saying
thank you to the members of my command, the enlisted men and
women in particular who serve this country so well. I am proud
to stand with them at SOUTHCOM and to work with them.
So, sir, with that I am open for any and all questions that
you would want to pose.
[Prepared statement of Admiral James G. Stavridis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.006

Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Admiral, thank you very much again
for your distinguished service and the service of all those
that you represent with your presence here today.
I think Mr. Wamp will approve if Mr. Crenshaw, given the
strategic location of your home state, if we began by
recognizing you to start off the questions and comments.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, thank you.
I want to thank the admiral for his kind words. I don't
have that many constituents that come up here and testify
before----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Crenshaw [continuing]. I don't have any admirals.
But it has been great to get to know the admiral over the
years. One of the reasons has been that I represent him.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wamp. That needs to be on the record. [Laughter.]

Military Construction in the Region

Mr. Crenshaw. Well, we do thank you for your service.
A couple of things, I would like to hear you comment on the
military construction aspect. There are some dollars in here.
As you may or may not know, this committee has been awfully
sensitive to quality-of-life issues and housing and things like
that. There is always controversy about getting--in terms of
the----
Admiral Stavridis. Sure.
Mr. Crenshaw. But just tell us those military construction
dollars, where do they go to?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, as you know, we have several
construction projects at Naval Station Guantanamo. That is
distinct from Joint Task Force Guantanamo. The JTF is where the
detainees are housed. These projects would all be in front of
you even if there weren't a single detainee on the island.
These are projects that will rebuild really a 50-year-old naval
station that is of extreme strategic importance to us because
of its location, as it is our furthest southern U.S. military
installation in this region.
So the projects there will be exactly what Representative
Crenshaw just said. They will be the quality-of-life things
that will support our people. We build family housing complexes
because our families are down there. They will create an
appropriate fitness center for our people. Again, they are
distinct from the JTF detainee operation.
So I think it is a prudent investment. I think it brings
the naval station up to the standards that we hope for for our
young men and women. I thank the committee for considering that
request.

FOURTH FLEET

Mr. Crenshaw. And the other question I wanted to ask you,
there has been a lot of discussion in the Navy about
reestablishing the Fourth Fleet. And then from a parochial
standpoint, there has been discussion about making the
headquarters at Mayport in my congressional district.
So I would like to hear your views. You would be very
directly affected by that. What do you think about that
concept? I don't know if you have an opinion as to where the
headquarters are. You are in Miami, as you pointed out. You
don't have a lot of facilities down there in Mayport, which is
kind of a up-and-running operation. But comment on where you
think it might be headquartered, but more importantly just how
it would fit in and how it would make your life a little bit
easier and probably better in your----
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, I would be glad to. I started
talking with CNO Mullen back when Admiral Mullin was the CNO
and I had just taken over at SOUTHCOM, and then continued that
dialogue with CNO Roughead, Admiral Roughead. Both have been
incredibly supportive of the idea of a Fourth Fleet. What
Fourth Fleet does for us as a nation is it puts in place a
naval near-time organization that is focused on Latin America
and the Caribbean, where I think we can all agree there are
important U.S. interests.
So secondly, it would bring together in one location close
to the area of operations--the ability to command and control
ships and naval responses to things like a mass migration out
of Cuba, to help us stop the flow of narcotics into the United
States, to conduct security exercises of a maritime nature with
our partners, both in the Caribbean and all around South
America and Central America.
There is no substitute for location. You know, having a
numbered fleet commander close to the area of operations is
critical. Now, as to where that location would be,
Representative Crenshaw sir, that would really be a CNO
decision. He is the--organizer.
As the combatant commander, I am telling him that I need
that level of support and he is going forward with it. I am
fully supportive of it. I anticipate that it will be approved
sometime in the near future. And as to the precise location, I
leave that to the chief of naval operations.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Wamp.

CUBA

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, you spoke in my office about your three greatest
concerns. I would like for you to walk back through those for
the subcommittee, and then talk specifically about Venezuela
and Bolivia and Ecuador, and the alliances that we should be
concerned about in SOUTHCOM.
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, I would be glad to. First, I would
say particularly given our location in Miami, Florida, we watch
Cuba very closely. We are concerned about Cuba, particularly
from the SOUTHCOM perspective for the potential for mass
migration out of the island. Historically, of course, we have
had two large migrations from Cuba in the last 30 years, one in
1980, the so-called Mariel boatlift, and one in 1994. Both of
those resulted from political decisions that were made by the
Castro dictator in Cuba.
So we are very concerned, and one of our jobs is to work
with the Department of Homeland Security to respond if we had
en masse migration. So we follow events there very closely. At
the moment in Cuba, we see Fidel Castro stepping back. He has
turned over the presidency in an unelected dictatorial fashion
to his brother, Raul. Raul is making some very small economic
openings, so we are simply watching events very closely there
with our partners in the State Department and our other
partners in the interagency to try and get ahead of a potential
situation which might lead to a mass migration. So we watch
Cuba very closely.

COUNTER-NARCOTICS EFFORT

Secondly, we are very concerned about the flow of narcotics
through the region, notably cocaine, which comes from the
Andean ridge from Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. So we put a high
degree of effort into finding and stopping cocaine shipments
that are moving through the Caribbean. Over the last 2 years,
we stopped on average 240 tons of cocaine through the region.
That means there is a lot that gets through to the United
States. Of course, stopping drug use is a big national problem.
There is a demand side to that here in the states. There is a
supply side in the countries of the region. Our job is the
interdiction portion of it. We spend a lot of time on that.
Sir, it is not just the drugs. I worry that the pathways
that allow drugs to flow through could then be used to move a
weapon of mass destruction, move a terrorist. So I think there
is a real homeland defense component to this counter-narcotics
effort. So that is kind of the second thing that we focus on--
Cuba and counter-narcotics.

COLOMBIA

The third place where we are focusing a great deal is the
situation in Colombia. Colombia is a success story. Colombia
has come an enormous distance in 10 years from a period of time
in which our Secretary of State, Secretary Rice--said Colombia
in 1997 to 2000 was almost a failed state. Today, Colombia by
any accountable measure has improved vastly. They have reduced
homicides 40 percent. They have reduced kidnappings 80 percent.
They have reduced killings of labor union leaders 65 percent
over the last 10 years.
President Uribe enjoys an 80 percent approval rating. The
insurgent group, the FARC, has an approval rating less than 2
percent. I mean, this is not a popular insurgency. The number
of fighters in FARC has declined from 18,000 to less than 9,000
today. There is Colombian presence in 1,098 municipalities
throughout the region. So the Colombians have looked a
difficult insurgency in the face and they have walked their
country back from it with a moderate level of bipartisan
support from the United States.
Plan Colombia started under the Clinton Administration. It
has continued under the Bush Administration. Together, that
level of support has been very, very salutary for events in
Colombia. That is important for the United States because
Colombia is our strongest friend and ally in the region. So as
we look at the other countries in the region, they follow
events there in Colombia very closely, and they are looking for
continued U.S. support.
So the Southern Command will do--military-to-military with
our Colombian partners to help them train, equip and organize
their military to operate in accordance with human rights,
tactically effectively against the FARC, and in a way that is
strategically supportable in a counterinsurgency role.
So those are my three highest-focused areas. I do a lot of
other things, but I put those three at the top of the list.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. Wamp. One more question in this round, Admiral. As I
have shared with you, I turned 13 living on the Howard Air
Force Base in the Panama Canal Zone, spending a few months with
my aunt and uncle, when my uncle was stationed there. BRAC and
changes in our military construction facilities around the
world obviously changed many commands. What do you foresee in
SOUTHCOM in terms of changes? Are there other bases that might
be realigned or do you see a need for us longer-term than just
this budget request, do you see other needs out in the future?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir--SOUTHCOM, we have a very light
and lean infrastructure in the region. We have Guantanamo Naval
Station, very important to us, and we have a request up in
front of you for that. We have three of what are called forward
operating locations, and these are really nothing more than a
couple of hangars, a maintenance building, and access to an air
strip. There are three of those right now, sir. One is in El
Salvador, one is on the Dutch-owned island of Curacao, and one
is in Manta, Ecuador.
They are operated under 10-year leases. The one I am
concerned about is the one in Manta, Ecuador. It is under a 10-
year lease. The current president of Ecuador, President Correa,
has said on several occasions that he does not intend to renew
that lease. That lease is up in November of 2009.
Now, we and the Department of Defense are working very
closely with the Department of State, who have the lead on any
kind of arrangement like this. We are attempting to convince
our partners in Ecuador to renew the lease. If they do not, I
would anticipate in this next budget cycle coming back to this
committee for additional funds to establish an alternate
forward-operating location. In terms of scale, that will not be
a huge project, probably in the $30 million to $45 million
range.
Mr. Wamp. Do you mean in Ecuador?
Admiral Stavridis. No, sir. We will probably need to go
elsewhere because President Correa evidently, at least in his
public statements, has indicated a lack of support. So we are
talking to some of our other friends and allies in the region.
I can provide a classified addendum because such discussions
are sensitive, but I have every reason to believe that other
friends and allies in the region will provide us support. So I
will then come back to this committee in the next budget cycle
for, again, a modest level of support to replicate that
facility.
Mr. Wamp. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CUBA AND GUANTANAMO

Admiral, I want to compliment you on your public service,
and secondly, on your leadership. I was very impressed reading
about the Southern Command engaging in what you call the battle
of ideas, not the battle of missiles and bombs in the Western
Hemisphere. I lived in Colombia for many years as a Peace Corps
volunteer. I found a new meaning to the phrase I am proud to be
an American! Well, all of Central and South America says the
same thing. They all consider themselves a part of the
Americas.
Admiral Stavridis. Representative Farr, you have no idea
how often I make that point to my people. Seriously. We have
appropriated that term to ourselves, but when I hear somebody
use it down south, I am always corrected. I associate myself
with your remarks.
Mr. Farr. Yes, we have never as a country officially
embraced--though I think we ought to--have a whole hemispheric
strategy on energy, and a whole hemispheric strategy. It is the
only way to go. I appreciate your speaking out about that and
leading in that direction.
There are a lot of issues and a lot of details, and I want
to get to some of the details on some of these issues. I happen
to disagree with our administration on the matter of Cuba. I
have been to Cuba five times. One of the conferences I attended
in Cuba concerned international narcotics enforcement. One
participant there was a Coast Guard officer who was in civilian
uniform. His impression was that Cubans are doing a great job
on the drug war front. They don't want drugs and in this area
the U.S. has a great collaboration with Cuba.
I wish we could employ that kind of collaboration in the
military. It seems to me that it is in our best interests to
begin creating a more established professional relationship
with the Cuban military. If they are willing to help us on drug
interdiction and things like that, we have the building blocks
for regional or hemispheric stability.
I think it is just a matter of time before we start
changing our policy about Cuba. I just don't believe it is a
terrorist country or capable of being a terrorist country. You
mentioned preparing for the boatlift. If we just told the
Cubans that if they come here they are going to have to pay for
their education and pay for health care, and not have
affordable housing, not have universal access to health care, I
don't know if they would want to come at all.
It would be a lot easier to do the ounce of prevention,
which I think is what your mission about ideas is, and that of
the secretary, on this whole new--AFRICOM briefing, this whole
intergovernmental relationship. Congress has just passed a bill
which the Defense Department is supporting on setting up a
Crisis Corps, so that we can on the civilian end, through the
State Department and the USAID, can respond like the military
does with special ops that put people with special abilities
in-country.
So one of the things that the candidates have all called
for is for Guantanamo to be closed. Is there a plan if that--if
they get in the presidency, whoever is elected president,
follows through, do we have a strategy for that, knowing what
the cost-benefits of it would be?
Admiral Stavridis. No, sir, not to my knowledge. Again, at
SOUTHCOM, our job at SOUTHCOM is not the legal policy part of
that package. Our job is to provide----
Mr. Farr. But you do provide for contingencies, don't you?
Admiral Stavridis. Well, we provide for humane treatment of
the detainees and contingencies within the island, but in terms
of a national decision to close the detention facility, we are
not doing planning of that nature at SOUTHCOM.
Mr. Farr. Your responsibility?
Admiral Stavridis. No, sir. That would be appropriately
vested at the level of the deputy secretary of defense because
it is a policy matter.

COLOMBIA

Mr. Farr. Well--it would be helpful to get the information
on what those cost-benefits would be. Since all the candidates
have indicated that closing Guantanamo is likely, it is
probably something we ought to look at.
Another issue, you have been very good with our Andean
assistance to Colombia and other Andean countries, but
particularly Colombia, and working to upgrade their military to
be a professional military. Many times the Washington Post
reports that the Colombian security forces heavily rely on body
counts to prove their effectiveness. Recently the Colombian
Commission found that 287 civilians were allegedly slain by
military and then dressed up to look like FARC or others had
committed the deed.
If you are going to use the body count as a success story,
are we doing anything to end these extra-judicial killings? Is
there a responsibility for the DOD in Colombia to vet all their
military with a background check to see if they have a history
of human rights violations? Does the military have a role in
that, in helping civilian investigations of these crimes and
things like that? Could you just brief me on what is the DOD
and SOUTHCOM responsibility?
Admiral Stavridis. Sure. Let me do a couple of things. Let
me start. You were very gracious to thank me for my service and
I want to thank you for yours, as a Peace Corps volunteer. I
spent a fair amount of time over the last 18 months throughout
this region, and come in contact with many Peace Corps
volunteers. It is an integral part of what the United States
needs to do in the region.
I had a chance to talk to Senator Dodd a couple of days
ago. I told him the same thing.
Mr. Farr. Yes, the Peace Corps was taken out of Colombia in
1981. The violence got so bad. Today there is consideration to
return the Peace Corps back to Colombia.
Admiral Stavridis. I think it is time, because I think that
side of the equation in Colombia is vitally important, working
with the Afro-Colombian population, working with the agrarian
sector to find alternatives to the production of coca. So first
let me thank you for your service.
Second, let me thank you for coming and visiting Colombia
recently. I again want to encourage all the members of the
committee to travel in the region.
Mr. Farr. A good place--to visit.
Admiral Stavridis. Indeed. Your questions are right on
point. I have said personally to the chief of defense, General
Freddy Padilla, the chief of the army, General Mario Montoya,
that the center of gravity in this insurgency for the Colombian
military is human rights, and they have to get off this body-
count strategy. They acknowledge that. I believe they are
moving away from that. I know that General Montoya has recently
spoken against the body-count philosophy. They are in the
process, Representative Farr, of causing that to be penetrated
down to the lowest levels of their military. They recognize
that they have got to sort that out.
Now, what we do at SOUTHCOM, besides just me talking to my
four-star interlocutors eye-to-eye, is we have a whole
structure of people who do human rights training for the
Colombians, and we do an awful lot of it. We are working that
very hard. I would love to come and talk to you specifically
about that.
Mr. Farr. That would be very interesting.
Admiral Stavridis. Okay. And secondly----
Mr. Farr. They don't come to SOUTHCOM.
Admiral Stavridis. That would be terrific. Come to Miami
and we will give you the whole thing.
The other thing, and this may surprise you given the
antecedents of this place, but it is the so-called WHINSEC, the
Western Hemisphere Institute for National Security, which used
to be called the School of the Americas. Today, the curriculum
at WHINSEC is over 35 percent devoted to human rights. I would
love to take you to Fort Benning and have you sit in a
classroom there with representatives of the militaries of the
entire region, including many Colombians, and see how our
professional military is trying to inculcate those kinds of
positive values in our mid-grade and junior officers, and that
is what is so important.
So I think there is a lot of good to show you there. That
is not to say all these problems are solved by any means, but
it is the center of gravity. They are moving away from body
counts. I would like to talk to you some more about that. And I
will submit something for the record.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS IN LATIN AMERICA

Mr. Edwards. No, no. Very well said. Thank you.
Admiral, let me ask a broad question follow-on from Mr.
Wamp. One of the benefits of being on this subcommittee is
getting to hear the overview of our combatant commanders about
the economic and political situations in their regions of the
world. Could you tell us what has happened over the last decade
or so? It seems like in the 1990s there as a trend toward
democracies and a lot of hope toward Latin America, and now it
seems to be going in the opposite direction.
Tell us, just in general, what is going on politically and
economically in Latin America? And then if you wouldn't mind,
tell us the good, the bad and the ugly in terms of their
perceptions of the people in the United States and our
government. Those that dislike us, what do they dislike the
most about us, and what can we do over the next decade to bring
about positive change in terms of our image in Latin America
and the Caribbean?
Admiral Stavridis. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could, you mentioned the 1990s. Let me actually take
you back to the 1970s. If you looked at a map of the region in
the 1970s and you put the color red on any country that was a
dictatorship, you would see that essentially from Mexico south
everything was a military dictatorship, with the exception at
the time of three countries. So that was 1977.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Admiral Stavridis. Now, flash forward to 2007. If you
looked at that map today and you put green on every democracy,
there would be green everywhere on the map except for Cuba.
Cuba is the only remaining non-democracy in the region. Now, do
we get along with all our fellow democracies on every point?
Absolutely not. I mean, that is the beauty of democracy, right?
Countries, like people, that are democracies get to have
opinions about things that aren't tied to an individual.
So I would say that there is enormous progress in the
region in driving out the human rights violations that came
with the military dictatorships, in instituting democracy, in
by and large observing liberty on bills of rights kinds of
things, although that is the harder challenge than simply
having a democracy. But I think there has been enormous
progress on the political front in that sense.
Economically, I think the region since the 1970s has
neither gone up tremendously nor down tremendously. Poverty
still afflicts this region and is the most salient fact one
needs to understand. Today, 36.5 percent of the people live on
less than two dollars a day in the region to the south of the
United States.
Mr. Edwards. Wow, 36.5 percent?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
In Haiti, for example, 80 percent of the people live on
less than two dollars a day, but throughout the region as a
whole, poverty is still the most fundamental fact that one
needs to understand. So economically, it is a commodities-
driven environment. It has had a bit of a run-up over the last
4 years--about 5 percent growth--but like all commodity-driven
economies, it is at risk of reversing itself if there is a
global slow-down. So economically, I would say it has been a
bit of a roller-coaster. It is on an up-curve at the moment,
but I am concerned about the potential for a commodity drop-
off.
I think in terms of--with the United States, which is what
you asked me to address next, there are places in the region
where the United States is still very well regarded. I use as
my statistic here the Latino Barometer, which is a well
regarded poll that is conducted throughout all the nations of
this region. Our ratings, if you will, kind of run from 90
percent positive in places like the Dominican Republic and El
Salvador and other parts of Central America, to as low as 10
percent in Argentina, which ought to cause us to pause and say
why would a country like Argentina be concerned about the
United States and have less of an approval rating.
Mr. Edwards. What is the answer?
Admiral Stavridis. I don't know the answer to that exactly.
I think there are some remaining resentments about the way the
financial crisis was handled in Argentina in the early 2000's.
But I believe we are in the process of rebuilding a stronger
relationship with Argentina today.
My point is, our relationships in the region run a gamut
from very positive and very favorable to very low. I would
argue, and Representative Farr was saying, I don't believe in a
war of ideas, and I do not. I do not think we are in a war of
ideas in this region. I think we are in a marketplace. We have
to compete. We have to go down there and show that the ideas
the United States stands for--democracy, liberty, free
economies, free trade, human rights--that those are the right
ideas for a society to move forward into a positive future.
I think we have to do that in intelligent ways. We have to
do it as an interagency working together. We have to do it with
visits from important figures in U.S. life like all of you. We
have to do it in a way that is not patronizing and not
condescending. We have to do it in a way that looks at our
partners to the south as equals.
Let me close by saying, as I travel around people often say
to me, you know, Admiral, what you are doing is really
important because that is America's backyard. That is a
terrible expression if you stop and think about it--America's
backyard. It is patronizing. It is condescending. Think how it
translates into Spanish. It is the wrong expression.
What I say to people is, it is not our backyard. It is not
our front porch. It is a home that we share together, the
Americas. The sooner we recognize it as a home and look with an
eye toward equality toward our partners, and move toward
communication that is sensible and comes not just from DOD or
not just from State or not from Commerce, but holistically
approaches those, I think we will have a better opportunity to
raise the bar of our national approval in the region.
Mr. Edwards. And I will just conclude with an observation
before we go back to Mr. Crenshaw. I will never forget when
General Jim Jones, who was our European commander----
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, I know him well.
Mr. Edwards. He sat in that very chair and after testifying
about MILCON projects, at the end, and this was as he was
retiring, he said, you know, we have to do more in Africa to
get in and prevent wars and prevent terrorist havens from being
created. He talked about the need for business relationships
and military and other relationships. And now we had General
Ward testify about the Africa Command plans, and as you try to
involve the State Department and other agencies in our efforts,
it may be a model that works and hopefully will work in some
parts of the world.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir. Two officers who I look up to
in a lot of ways are both Marines, and they are General Zinni,
who is a former commander of U.S. Central Command, and General
Jones, a former U.S. European Command. And they both fully get
it on the ideas of interagency and how we need to approach the
world. Because the prevention is really a far better place to
be than trying to solve a problem when it is at the far end of
the spectrum.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.

HOSPITAL SHIP ``COMFORT''

I just have one other question. It is kind of along the
line of what we were talking about--the marketplace of ideas
and what we are trying to do in Africa. I know last year, the
Navy sent a hospital ship called the Comfort. There is
something called a global fleet station we are doing. And those
sound like the kind of humanitarian visible perceptive things
that we can do to kind of follow through on what we are talking
about. Can you maybe just kind of describe both the operational
and the diplomatic successes that that brought? And is that
something that you see us doing more of in the future?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir, I sure can. The hospital ship
Comfort sailed for 4 months last summer and did 400,000 patient
encounters throughout the region, 12 different ports. We
measured public opinion in the wake of that particular voyage
and we really had a positive response to that. We don't want to
be just a one-trick pony. We have two large-deck amphibious
ships that are going to come down this summer and essentially
replicate that voyage. We will bring the Comfort back again in
the summer of 2009.
So our object is every year to try and do a large package
of care from the sea. Now, this complements the medical
diplomacy that is done by the Army and the Air Force ashore in
a series of small clinics all over Central America and South
America. I make that sound small, and you picture a few hundred
people. It is actually one million patients treated over the
last 4 years. That is on-shore.
And then when we add to that what is coming from the sea,
it is a very visible signal to the region of the compassion and
the care of the United States. I think it is an important
approach to take. It is one part of launching ideas, not
missiles, into this region.
Mr. Crenshaw. Are there any restrictions on draft or port
conditions or anything that limit us to where we can go?
Admiral Stavridis. There are with the big-deck hospital
ship. So what I have asked Admiral Roughead to do, and he has
agreed to do, is to purchase some high-speed vessels which are
dual-hull catamarans that have a draft of only eight feet.
Those can go almost anywhere. We are breaking down the large
medical cruises into short-hitters that we can go into places
like Suriname and Guyana, where there is an alluvial plain and
it is hard to get in there with a big hospital ship.
Mr. Crenshaw. Right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Admiral, not to draw a contrast, but I was just
interested. How many Ph.D. admirals with four stars on their
shoulder are there?
Admiral Stavridis. I think I am the sole specimen at the
moment. [Laughter.]
Mr. Wamp. That is admirable, Admiral.
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you.
Mr. Crenshaw. He lives in my district. [Laughter.]
Mr. Wamp. How many Ph.D. admirals with four stars live in
Ander Crenshaw's district? [Laughter.]

COLOMBIA

I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but I do think
this is important. You mentioned in terms of those things in
our hemisphere that we need to promote, and you said free trade
and it went right by. It is important that we have a free trade
agreement with Colombia at this critical moment, isn't it?
Admiral Stavridis. Sir, we talked about it in your office.
I am going to leave aside any political component to the
answer, and I am going to leave aside any economic component,
because those are not my lane. But I will tell you, from a
security perspective, I think that having a free trade
agreement with Colombia is an important thing to do. I think
that is because it enables their economy to produce a better
level of productivity. It allows them to feel geopolitically
and geo-strategically attached to the United States. And I
believe that others in the region are watching closely for that
signal from a security perspective. I will leave aside the
political or the economic issues to others.

CUBA

Mr. Wamp. And then to take the conversation we are having,
as Ander said, a little further. I know from studying a little
history that Castro, for instance, wanted to reach out to
people in the Western Hemisphere and he sent doctors all
throughout South America to try to make friends and influence
people.
Admiral Stavridis. He is still doing it.
Mr. Wamp. That was a very shrewd move on his part, but his
ideology was wrong. Today, we have some wrongheaded thinking in
the southern part of the Western Hemisphere and that is
somewhat a threat to our way of life. And so when we look at
ways to reach out and build bridges and make friends, frankly,
and influence people for the good, you are thinking even beyond
the extensions of the government, I understand, with public-
private partnerships, NGOs, ways to kind of take all of the
resources available and try to mobilize them through your
command.
We also talked in my office about this Os Guinness quote,
``the power to convene is greater than the power to
legislate,'' and then we took it a step further and came up
with ``the power to convene is greater than the power to
annihilate.'' And our military strength clearly can take out
enemies, but it is far more effective, frankly, for us to
empower people to be our friends through our military. How are
you leveraging these other resources for that purpose?
Admiral Stavridis. What we are trying to do is to be a
supporting platform for good works in the region. We are doing
that, for example, on the hospital ship, the Comfort. We threw
that open to volunteers and we were able to get a wide variety
of nongovernmental organizations and medical international
organizations to come on that cruise and be part of that. We
are trying to provide the logistic support because we have that
capability. We have the ability to move large amounts of people
and materiel. So that is one example on the hospital ship.
Secondly, we are working with the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of State to fund something called
the Caribbean Support Tender. ``Tender'' is a Navy word for a
ship that goes from port to port and is helpful in rebuilding
maritime capability. We are hopeful that we can have an
international crew on that, have NGOs on it, and use that as a
ship that would sail around the Caribbean doing not only the
kind of medical clinic work that we are talking about, but also
be able to go in and repair fishing boats, repair Coast Guard
boats, work on a dock, provide maritime capability.
So I think it is one of these cases, sir, where the sum is
so much greater than the individual parts. If we at SOUTHCOM
can be part of the team, and we don't want to take over, we
don't want to be in charge. We want to be a facilitator and
create a logistical platform, if you will, that others can hook
onto. Therefore, we can get everybody's efforts at a higher
level and try and promote these kind of activities.
Mr. Wamp. Back to Cuba, do your personnel have the
capability of leaving the base in Cuba?
Admiral Stavridis. No, sir.
Mr. Wamp. So everything is self-sustained right there
within the base?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir. The only contact at the base
itself is once a month the base commander has a very amicable
conversation with the local Cuban military commander, the so-
called fence-line talks. It is a conversation about logistics,
waterspace management, air management. But no, our people don't
go off the base at all.
Mr. Farr. Do any civilians go off base?
Admiral Stavridis. There are a very small handful of Cuban
civilians who come and work on the base and then go back every
day. They are effectively grandfathered in. When the last few
of those pass away, then that will be shut off because the
Cuban government doesn't want to send any more after that.
Mr. Wamp. Admiral, I am not where Mr. Farr is in
disagreeing, but I am open-minded to the thought of more
travel, maybe some trade, religious freedom, openness. But my
question for you is, does Raul Castro seem to have a different
attitude than Fidel?
Admiral Stavridis. I think it is too early to tell, but the
early indications would be that he does have a different
approach, simply judging by the fact that he has opened up some
small economic changes on the island, notably allowing Cubans
to purchase cell phones. There are lines around the block today
in Havana of people trying to buy cell phones and buy the
ability to speak on those.
He has opened up tourism, hotels that he did not previously
permit Cubans to go to. Now, those are open to them. He is
allowing for the first time Cubans--and this is complicated--
but perhaps even buy the houses they live in from the
government. In the past, they haven't been allowed to do that.
So we are at the very first stages of what Raul is going to do
and we are watching that closely.
To Mr. Farr's point, I think this is a time when there may
be change and we should be alert to changes and see what
changes that brings from our perspective.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Farr.

CRISIS CORPS RESPONSE

Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to follow up on Mr. Wamp's comment. We passed last
month a bill that I sponsored, and you might even have been a
cosponsor of it, it was H.R. 1084. It is in the Senate. It is a
bill that creates within the State Department a Crisis Corps.
It is strongly supported by DOD because civilians have
different response capabilities than the military has.
But I think what you are going to see is that the first
instance of training for this new corps is all going to fall on
the military because you have the institutions to do it. And
right now, the first two schools of training for the State
Department and USAID and others in this first cadre of first-
responders has been designated at the Naval Postgraduate School
in Monterey and the NDU.
From what you are saying and your interest and your agency
organization, it seems to me that the new direction for
response strategy is in your mission of ideas which I think is
very exciting. I think even with regard to Cuba, we are going
to end up being a friend of Cuba or vice-versa over the years.
That little island cannot just be without our support, and I
think it is foolish for us to try not to open up doors down
there, travel and so on.
But does SOUTHCOM currently make use of the Center for
Stabilization and Reconstruction at the Naval Postgraduate
School? Do you know of any SOUTHCOM officers there? NPS has an
FEO program now. Originally the Navy didn't have MOS's for
people who got a master's degree, but now leadership is
screaming this is what we need to do.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir. First of all, I agree
completely with the overall direction that we need to go is
much more of an interagency approach. You have identified two
premier programs that are moving in that direction at the
Postgraduate School in Monterey and at NDU here. We do make use
of those. We have a center at NDU, the so-called Center for
Hemispheric Defense Studies. It is focused on this region and
works very closely with the Stabilization and Reconstruction
Center, both at Monterey and its counterpart in the INSS at
NDU.
There is no question that--in fact today, in front of the
HASC, Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice sat side by side. I
think that is the first time there has been a hearing, at least
in front of the HASC, of both the secretary of state and the
secretary of defense. And they talked about these exact issues
in the context of where we need to go in the government to
approach this interagency process more intelligently and more
cohesively.
I think in this region of the world and in AFRICOM, I think
are the two places where we should try that first. We should
move out on it. Again, we are not launching Tomahawk missiles
down here. We are launching ideas.
Mr. Farr. It seems to me this hemisphere, if any hemisphere
on the planet can be pulled together, we are closer to and more
capable of doing it than any other place on the planet.
Admiral Stavridis. Absolutely. And I would add to that the
demographics. I mean, demographics are destiny, and the latest
statistics released by the Census Bureau are that by the middle
of this century, 30 percent of citizens of the United States
will be of Latino descent. So the demographic pull between the
United States and the rest of this region is profound and will
continue to be profound.
Today, the United States is the second-largest Spanish-
speaking country in the world, after Mexico. More people speak
Spanish here than speak Spanish in Spain or in Argentina or in
Colombia. Almost 50 million people speak Spanish here, who
speak Spanish and are of Latino descent, to say nothing of
people like you and Senator Dodd who speak Spanish because you
learned it and because you studied abroad.
Mr. Farr. You wouldn't want to hear our Spanish.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Stavridis. Anyway, I think that for all the reasons
you state, as well as the demographics, as well as the
geography, as well as the economic linkages, 40 percent of the
trade of the United States runs north and south. That is more
than runs east and more than runs west. Today, we get 50
percent of our oil from this hemisphere. If you ask the average
American, where does the United States get its oil, they would
say, oh, the Middle East. Well, we get 22 percent of our oil
from the Middle East. We get 50 percent from this hemisphere.
Mr. Farr. Mexico and Venezuela?
Admiral Stavridis. Correct, and Canada, and Brazil just
discovered at least eight billion barrels of oil off its
northeast coast. There are reports as of yesterday that
Petrobras may be about to announce double that in discoveries.
So the energy sufficiency in the region, you mentioned a policy
of energy connection.
Mr. Farr. Wait a second. One thing I would hope that you
might just keep in mind is that energy is the one issue that
might totally unify the Americas. If we had a hemispheric
energy policy that we would be independent of any foreign oil
from any other place it gets away from the politics of Hugo
Chavez or Morales or anyone else because they need all the
technical alternatives that we bring. And we need to better
utilize and manage our systems. We can do this. And what a
great spirit to bring these two continents together.
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, sir. I agree.

MILITARY/ARMED FORCES IN SOUTHCOM

Mr. Edwards. Admiral, let me ask about the long-term
military challenges or potential threats. While the
probabilities might be low, what would be some of the scenarios
that might cause a military conflict? I don't even know what
size militaries various countries in Latin America have. Could
you talk about the size of the militaries, their capabilities?
What would be some scenarios that could lead to military
conflict?
Admiral Stavridis. Well, first let me start by saying
military conflicts state-to-state I believe is very unlikely in
this region. It is good. I will provide you for the record a
break-down of each of the militaries. None of them are
overwhelming. None of them are designed in any way to attack a
neighbor.
[The information follows:]

Military/Armed Forces in USSOUTHCOM Area are:
1. Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force: Army--86; Navy--29 (Coast
Guard).
2. Bahamas Defence Force: Naval/Marine--1200 (Includes air wing).
3. Barbados Defence Force: Army--800 (Includes reserves); Air
Force--(Part of the Army); Navy--100.
4. Belize Defence Force: Army--1000 (includes all forces under the
Ministry of National Security).
5. Costa Rica = NA; Police Force only; Coast Guard--285 (Security
Cooperation Activities only).
6. Dominica = NA; Police Force only; Coast Guard--22 (Security
Cooperation Activities only).
7. Dom Rep Mil Total: Army--8K; Air Force--8.5K; Navy--5.5K.
8. El Salvador Armed Forces: Army--9600; Air Force--1400; Navy--
1000.
9. Grenada = NA; Police Forces only; Coast Guard--18 (Security
Cooperation Activities only).
10. Guatemala Mil Total: Army--13.2K; AF--700; Navy--860.
11. Guyana Defence Force: Army--1500; Air Force--100; Navy--30.
12. Haiti = NA: Police Force only; Coast Guard--92 (Security
Cooperation Activities only).
13. Honduras: Army--7113; Air Force--1527; Navy--1140.
14. Jamaica Defence Force: Army--2500; Air Force--140; Coast
Guard--190.
15. Nicaragua Mil Total: Army--12.8K; Air Force--855; Navy--1.1K.
16. Panama = NA: Police Force Only; National Maritime Service--800
(Security Cooperation Activities only).
17. Saint Kitts & Nevis Defence Force: Army--98; Air Force--NA;
Coast Guard--33.
18. Saint Lucia = NA: Police Forces Only; Coast Guard--50 (Security
Cooperation Activities only).
19. St. Vincent & the Grenadines = NA: Police Forces Only; Coast
Guard--74 (Security Cooperation Activities only).
20. Suriname Armed Forces: Army--1800; Air Force--70; Navy--220.
21. Trinidad & Tobago Defence Force: Army--2500; Air Force--150;
Navy--1200.
22. Argentina: Army--40,000; Air Force--13,000; Navy--19,000.
23. Bolivia: Army--25,000; Air Force--4,000; Navy--2,700; Marines--
1,800.
24. Brazil: Army--204,000; Air Force--51,000; Navy--33,900;
Marines--14,600.
25. Colombia: Army--218,000; Air Force--11,926; Navy--5,502;
Marines--22,000; Police--133,000.
26. Ecuador: Army--46,300; Air Force--8,150; Navy--10,500.
27. Paraguay: Army--7,000; Air Force--1,700; Navy--2,000.
28. Uruguay: Army--16,500; Air Force--6,000; Navy--3,000.
29. Peru: Army--75,000; Air Force--20,000; Navy--27,000.
30. Venezuela: Army--38,500; Air Force--13,500; Navy--15,000;
(National and Reserve) Guard--180,000.
31. Chile: Army--45,000; Air Force--26,500; Navy--13,000.

I think that the most recent close point of concern was
actually about a month ago when there was a border incursion
apparently--it is under investigation--but a Colombian
aircraft, according to the Ecuadoran government, killed a
Colombian terrorist inside the border of Ecuador. That led
President Chavez of Venezuela to move tanks to the border of
Colombia in support of Ecuador. The Ecuadorans also moved some
troops to the Colombian border.
Then an interesting thing happened, which is where I ground
myself in my view that a real conflict in the region is
unlikely. At that point, the governments in the region took the
conflict to a summit meeting that coincidentally was occurring
in the Dominican Republic. They had a conversation about it and
the situation was defused. It also was helped by turning to the
OAS that had a conversation about it, promised an
investigation, which is ongoing now. And thirdly, President
Lula of Brazil, President Bachelet of Chile stepped up, offered
their good offices. And together, the countries of the region
worked out what could have been a potentially dangerous
situation.
So there is an example, Mr. Chairman, of democracies and
all those countries are democracies, disagreeing about an
event, but then taking a deep breath, talking to each other,
and defusing the tension. Now, is there continuing tension?
Yes, but I think that is a good example of how I would foresee
state-to-state conflict working out in the region. So I do not
think it is a region where we could logically expect to see
military activity.
Mr. Edwards. Does Mr. Chavez have much of a military force?
Admiral Stavridis. He has a capable military. It is much
smaller than the Colombian military. It is much smaller than
the Brazilian military. Senor Chavez has recently decided to
purchase some advanced weapons from Russia. He has bought 30
advanced fighter aircraft. He has bought about 50 attack
helicopters. He has bought 100,000 AK-103 rifles. He is signing
contracts to buy diesel submarines.
I am concerned about that. I wouldn't want to overstate
that. I simply wonder what is the threat that he sees, because
I don't see it. I don't see the logic of state-to-state warfare
in the region.
Mr. Edwards. What would be the purpose of these diesel
submarines? What kind of weapons would they be?
Admiral Stavridis. I would refer you to the ambassador of
Venezuela to answer the question. I cannot as a professional
military officer come up with a scenario that those would be
useful, and that is why I wonder about the purchase.
Mr. Farr. Historically, Venezuela----

NEW HEADQUARTERS

Mr. Edwards. All right. There is longstanding tension.
Let me just ask quickly about a couple of MILCON projects.
The new Southern Command headquarters, we appropriated $100
million last year. There is a request in for $82 million. I
think originally I had seen where the total cost was supposed
to be $237 million. Where are we? Has inflation outstripped the
appropriations?
Admiral Stavridis. No, sir. We are right there. We have
sent it out for contract. We have a contract that is within
that number. We will work extremely hard to keep it inside that
number. I am very cognizant of this. This will happen on my
watch and I will deliver this for the committee at the price
that you have so generously supported.
Mr. Edwards. I compliment you for that, because
construction inflation has been difficult, if you can do this
without having to cut corners and scale down dramatically.
Admiral Stavridis. As of this minute, I am very confident
that I will be able to do that, sir. I have an excellent
command engineer who is with me who briefs me essentially daily
on the project. It has my full scrutiny and will continue to
have, sir.
Mr. Edwards. How about the status of the Guantanamo legal
complex?
Admiral Stavridis. Done.
Mr. Edwards. It is done?
Admiral Stavridis. Done and built.
Mr. Edwards. How about the Guantanamo mass migration, the
initial step to be able to deal with up to 10,000?
Admiral Stavridis. Yes, 10,000. I think it is a very
prudent investment. We are 70 percent complete with it, and we
will finish it before the hurricane season starts. It is on
schedule and on-budget.

PANAMA

Mr. Edwards. Okay. And then finally, any sense of what the
strategic implications are, and perhaps any military
implications, of the enhanced Panama Canal? And what is the
timetable for that?
Admiral Stavridis. It is a very impressive project by the
Panamanians. I always say this when I talk about the canal. We,
the United States, went through a big debate about whether to
turn the canal over to the Panamanians. One of the things you
heard in those days was, well, the Panamanians won't be able to
run it very well.
I have sailed the canal under U.S. auspices and I have
sailed the canal under Panamanian auspices. It runs better
today under the Panamanians. They have run it in a professional
manner. They are safeguarding it. They are up to speed on the
security issues tantamount to running it. They take very
seriously their responsibility. It is a well run, and from what
I can see, corruption-free enterprise, and that is very
impressive in that part of the world.
As to the canal expansion project, the Panamanian
government went to their people and asked for a $5.3 billion
funding stream to expand the canal so it could handle larger
ships. That was approved by over 60 percent of the Panamanian
people. They are generating it out of revenues they garner from
the canal itself, from bonds they are floating in the
international bond market, and a small tax they are placing on
themselves.
They have the money. They are letting contracts. They are
starting the project now. Senor Aleman, who runs the Canal
Authority, has briefed me on it. It is a very impressive
project. It will be good for the economy of the United States.
It will be good for the economy of that region. I am very, very
impressed with the Panamanian management of it.
Mr. Edwards. It is going to be great for Florida and
Texas--in California--that is an exciting project.
Mr. Berry, any questions?
Mr. Berry. No, I was late.
Mr. Edwards. No, we appreciate your attendance. Thank you.
He is the smartest one on the committee, in essence. Thank you,
Marion.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. I don't have any questions.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, it is really just a comment, and no
more questions. I am really taken aback that if many of the
people at our State Department had the diplomatic skills and
the approach that you have we'd be better off, and that is so
counter to many people's perceptions of our military leadership
in this country. You are to be commended for having the
approach that you have. I think it is the most effective
approach. It puts all of the men and women in uniform under
your command in a very favorable light in a region and in the
world.
Yet security is still your serious business. And so I am
grateful for that. I think it really bodes well for us, and I
think the State Department can learn a lot from your diplomatic
skills.
I yield back.
Admiral Stavridis. You are too kind.
Mr. Berry. Those remarks.
Mr. Edwards. Well said.
Mr. Farr.

LATIN AMERICAN MILITARY AID

Mr. Farr. I would, too. In fact, it gives me great
confidence that regardless of administrations, our regional
commanders have just been outstanding people.
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Farr. If we had people like yourself the U.S. would be
a lot healthier around the world.
I want to ask just one question. I see a nascent arms race
in Latin America. I remember when Kennedy was president, there
was a big issue about whether we should support military aid to
Chile to buy U.S. fighter planes, and some said, well, if they
don't buy them from us, they will buy them from the French and
it is good for U.S. business.
There are some obviously lobbying for all this equipment to
make sure that they buy American armament. On the other hand,
you have Argentina upset that Chile is getting better
equipment, and then Argentina has to have it. If we get into
this arms race in Latin America where one-third of the people
are poor as mice, we are spending limited resources on
modernizing their military instead of on helping uplift the
people.
Admiral Stavridis. I agree.
Mr. Farr. I think that is the problem between Venezuela and
Colombia. Colombia has gotten all this aid through the Andean
initiative and the Colombia Plan. Colombia has a much better
military now which is contributing to this historical silly
little border war.
After the recent incident between Colombia and Ecuador the
two countries brought people from both countries together for a
rock concert, showing that maybe a little cultural get-together
could calm things down.
I am worried about where Guatemala has gotten too. The
Merida initiative gives the Guatemala military and police
significant increases in assistance to fight narco-trafficking.
Their military forces are going to get modernized.
Do you have concerns about the integrity of their forces to
be able to handle this and do it properly? I mean, this is a
country that historically has not gone along with us.
Admiral Stavridis. Guatemala has had a history.
Mr. Farr. Going on.
Admiral Stavridis. Right. My own personal view, having
traveled several times to Guatemala and having just had the new
Guatemalan minister of defense at my Headquarters. As you know,
there is a new president of Guatemala who has stepped away from
mano duro, and is taking a much more human rights-oriented
approach. I think it is time to look and give them a chance and
see how it comes out.
Mr. Farr. But you will be----
Admiral Stavridis. With the Merida, oh, absolutely,
absolutely.
Mr. Farr. Okay. If you have any suggestions as we go on
supplying these funds for any conditions we ought to put on
them, we would appreciate it.
Admiral Stavridis. I will. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. And thank you for your service.
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Admiral Stavridis, I don't have any additional
questions. There might be some follow-up written questions.
Admiral Stavridis. Sure.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for being here and for your service,
and for reminding us all of the importance of the Western
Hemisphere to our country's future.
Admiral Stavridis. Thank you, sir.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Counterdrug Operating Locations

Question. Explain why the Manta site in Ecuador was originally
chosen as one of the three forward operating locations under Plan
Colombia, and the potential impact on operations of losing access to
this site.
Answer. The Ecuadorian Air Force Base at Manta, Ecuador was chosen
as one of three locations required to offset the loss of access to
major drug trafficking routes resulting from the closure of Howard Air
Force Base in Panama in 1999. Plan Colombia, a Government of Colombia
plan to counter the internal unrest fueled in part by counternarcotics
trafficking, was not related directly to selection of the airbase at
Manta. Colombia is, however, a focal point for cocaine and heroin
trafficking from the Source Zone with most trafficking routes beginning
there. In addition, over 2/3 of the narcotics bound for the United
States from the Source Zone transit the Eastern Pacific. The location
of Manta is strategic for Detection and Monitoring of the Eastern
Pacific departure corridors and provides access for aircraft supporting
the Air Bridge Denial program in Colombian airspace.
Question. Please describe the facilities that have been constructed
with U.S. funds at Manta. What is the residual value of these
facilities? Does the lease agreement with Ecuador allow the U.S. to
recover any of its infrastructure investment costs at the Manta site?
Answer. 1. The following facilities were constructed at Manta,
total MILCON cost was $75M: Installation infrastructure (sewer,
electrical, water, roads, communications, etc.) airstrip upgrades and
parking aprons; administrative facilities; billeting; dining facility;
aircraft hanger and maintenance shop; four warehouses; and tank
unloading facilities (no permanent tanks were installed).
2. The legal arrangement for U.S. use of Eloy Alfaro Airbase at
Manta is the Agreement of Cooperation between Ecuador and the U.S.
dated November 12, 1999. Under the terms of the Agreement, the U.S.
does not pay for access to Eloy Alfaro Airbase. Article XXI addresses
construction at the Airbase. There is no explicit provision in the
agreement that allows the U.S. to recover any infrastructure investment
costs. While a formal evaluation of residual value has not been made,
the estimate to rebuild the facilities in kind, in the same spot, in
today's market, would cost approximately $100 million.
Applicable provisions from the Article XII (Construction) of the
agreement are:
a. ``With prior authorization from the Ecuadorian Air Force, the
United States may undertake new construction or improve, modify,
remove, or repair the existing structures and areas at the Ecuadorian
Air Force Base in Manta, in order to meet needs in connection with this
agreement.''
b. ``At the termination of use of installations constructed or
modified in connection with this agreement, the United States shall,
after due consultations between the Parties transfer such installations
to the Republic of Ecuador.''
Question. What are the lease expiration dates for the forward
operating locations in El Salvador, Aruba, and Curacao? Have the
responsible governments indicated their intentions regarding renewal of
those leases?
Answer. There are no leases for the Forward Operating Locations
(FOLs) at which the U.S. Government operates. Instead, the U.S. has
negotiated Agreements of Cooperation that allow the U.S. access to the
partner nation bases for the purpose of aerial counternarcotics
operations. The status of our FOL agreements are as follows:
Comalapa, El Salvador: Current agreement expires on August 22,
2010. The Government of El Salvador has indicated it will renegotiate
and is currently assessing a U.S. proposal to extend the initial term
of the agreement until 2015 after which it will remain in force until
terminated by either side.
Aruba and Curacao: Current agreement expires on November 1, 2011.
The U.S. Defense Attache to The Hague and the U.S. Consul General in
Curacao have assessed that the Kingdom of the Netherlands will extend
the agreement. Neither negotiations nor discussions with the Dutch
government have begun.

Guantanamo

Question. How many permanently assigned military personnel and
families do you have stationed currently at Naval Station Guantanamo?
Answer. According to Naval Station Guantanamo and Joint Task
Force--GTMO there are: 1,797 military members in Bachelor Housing; 197
military members with families in Family Housing; 1,994 Total military
personnel.
Note: Additional information: 66 DoD Civilians in Bachelor Housing;
122 DoD Civilians with families in Family Housing; 188 Total DoD
Civilians.
2182 Total military & DoD civilians (319 of them with families).
Question. How many juvenile dependents do you have at NS
Guantanamo? If child care services are provided, do you have a wait
list?
Answer. According to Naval Station Guantanamo and Joint Task
Force--GTMO, the following is a breakdown of the number of juvenile
dependents currently at Naval Station Guantanamo: 300 High School &
Elementary School; 37 Child Development Center; 16 Child Development
Home (Home care); 35 Other (newborns, etc.); 388 Total.
One pre-toddler is on the waiting list for Child Care Services.
Question. Other than housing and fitness, are there any other
quality of life issues at NS Guantanamo that can be addressed through
military construction?
Answer. A consolidated fitness center and the family housing are
our only GTMO projects requiring MILCON in FY09.

Southcom Hq

Question. When do you anticipate contract award, groundbreaking,
and construction completion on the new SOUTHCOM headquarters facility?
Answer. The Award date was March 31, 2008, the notice to proceed
was April 15, 2008, the groundbreaking is scheduled for June 6, 2008,
and, the facility is scheduled to be completed on September 30, 2010.

Soto Cano

Question. Please describe the state of the facilities at Soto Cano
Air Base in Honduras, and the challenges of maintaining these
facilities in the climate.
Answer. Many of the facilities at Soto Cano Air Base are over 20
years old and require constant maintenance/repair to mitigate the
effects of the weather and termite infestation. The Soto Cano Joint
Task Force-Bravo (JTF-B) Master Plan provides for the required number
of facilities at Soto Cano. Currently, we have two projects to complete
the housing requirements for JTF-B; Phase one, Enlisted Barracks in
FYDP for FY11 at a cost of $11.2M and Phase two, Enlisted Barracks in
the FYDP for FY12 at a cost of $15.5M.
Many of the facilities at JTF-B are temporary facilities that are
now 20-25 years old. To combat the effects of weathering and termite
infestation, JTF-B must commit significant resources to maintenance and
repair. Rapid degradation necessitates the replacement of the exterior
components every 2-4 years. These temporary facilities do not meet DOD
standards: they are wooden structures that do not meet current building
codes, do not provide sufficient living space or interior bathrooms,
and are insufficient given the often-severe weather (e.g. no central
air conditioning and not hurricane rated).
The extensive maintenance and repair effort costs JTF-B
approximately $700,000 plus $100,000 to replace and repair air
conditioners each year. Moreover, this figure does not include the cost
of cooling these temporary facilities, and has driven up the annual
power bills by 35% since 1996.
Question. What are the terms of U.S. access to Soto Cano AB? Does
the U.S. pay the Honduran government rent or provide in-kind
consideration for use of the site?
Answer. The U.S. operates Joint Task Force--Bravo at Soto Cano
Airbase, Honduras, under the umbrella of the Bilateral Military
Assistance Agreement between the Government of the United States and
the Government of Honduras effective May 20, 1954, and the May 07, 1982
addendum to such agreement. The agreement establishes conditions for
U.S. operations and presence in Honduras, but does not specifically
address Soto Cano Airbase. The U.S. does not pay rent or provide in-
kind consideration for the use of the site.

SOCSOUTH

Question. How long has Special Operations Command--South been
located at Homestead Air Reserve Base? What is the state of the
facilities currently used by SOCSOUTH?
Answer. Special Operations Command--South completed their move from
Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico on March 31, 2004.
The current facility, originally built in 2004, consists of 38 re-
locatable assembled modular units. In February 2008, the Chief,
Facilities Policy Division, Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management purchased the re-locatable facilities for $2.3M using (OPA)
funds. The re-locatable trailers may be retained for a period not to
exceed six years.
These trailers, originally designed for 150 personnel in 2004,
currently provide workspace for 274 personnel, an 82% increase in
occupancy. Based upon this increase, the current structure is
particularly deficient in the following areas:
--Air Quality (The building's heating ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) system designed for 150 occupants is inadequate and
overburdened)
--Sanitation (does not meet standards established by 29 CFR 1910
Occupational Safety and Health Standards
A new SOCSOUTH HQ's construction project for $32M will provide a
permanent Command and Control HQ's facility for SOCSOUTH and
accommodate all personnel within established standards. Currently $20M
is included for this facility in the FYDP and is listed as HAB,
administrative building. The updated DD1391 for $32M is currently at
OSD.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Edwards.]
Wednesday, April 16, 2008.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

WITNESS

ADMIRAL ERIC T. OLSON, COMMANDER, SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I will call the committee to
order. Thank you all for being here.
Admiral Olson, it is an honor to have you here, and thank
you for your distinguished service for so many years to our
country.
We are here today to review the fiscal year 2009 military
construction budget request for Special Operations Command.
SOCOM, which marked its 20th anniversary last year, is the
designated lead command for the Global War on Terrorism. As
such, SOCOM intends to transform and grow by 13,000 personnel
by 2013, pursuant to the policy laid out in the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review.
SOCOM is not a command that ordinarily appears before our
subcommittee, but there are two very good reasons why we
requested Admiral Olson to be here and why we are grateful he
is here today. First, SOCOM itself has called MILCON ``the
enabler'' of its expansion. Secondly, Special Operations
forces, much like the rest of the military, has been heavily
deployed since September 11, 2001.
One of this committee's main priorities is quality of life,
so I know we will be interested in hearing about the rate of
deployments and the impact that has had on the forces, as well
as the families.
Admiral, before we proceed, I would like to recognize our
ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any opening comments he would
care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say at
the end of 19 hearings this year through the regular order of
hearing from all of the different commands and all of the
different parties that this subcommittee funds, at a total of
more than $70 billion a year around the world, and all the men
and women in uniform, it is an honor for us to serve those who
serve and have served. We do understand the extraordinary
history of the Special Operations Command, so we can say with
confidence that we saved the best for last, Admiral Olson.
We are grateful for your presence here today. You are
bringing up the rear, but you are doing it from the top. So
thank you for your presence. I look forward to your testimony
today.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
To follow up on those comments, let me also thank the staff
of the subcommittee, Mary Arnold, and all the staff, for the
tremendous work you have done in setting up these 19 hearings.
They have gone smoothly--and all of your support from both
sides of the aisle, for this staff work.
By way of very brief introduction, because if I talk about
his entire distinguished career, I would take all the
committee's time this morning, but by way of brief introduction
for Admiral Olson, he was appointed SOCOM commander in July of
2007. He has served for 35 years, having graduated from the
Naval Academy in 1973. He qualified as a naval special warfare
officer in 1974, and previously served as deputy commander of
SOCOM.
How long, Admiral, were you in that position?
Admiral Olson. For 3 years and 10 months, sir. I can't go
into the days and hours.
Mr. Edwards. For 3 years and 10 months, and the----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Among his many distinctions, he
is the first Navy SEAL to reach both the three- and the four-
star rank.
Admiral, again, we are honored to have you here. By
unanimous consent your written testimony or anything you might
want to include will be submitted for the record. We would like
to recognize you now for any opening comments you care to make,
and then we will go into discussion and questions and answers
after that.

Statement of Admiral Eric T. Olson

Admiral Olson. Chairman Edwards, thank you very much for
the opportunity to be here. Congressman Wamp, Chairman Dicks,
it is a pleasure to appear before you. I am honored to be the
19th of 19, and I hope this wraps up your ordeal in a positive
way.
Mr. Edwards. I am sure it will.
Admiral Olson. I appreciate the opportunity to submit my
written statement for the record, but I would like to highlight
a couple of things. One of them you mentioned, we did celebrate
our 20th anniversary as a command last year. We are actually
celebrating our 21st birthday today.
Mr. Edwards. That is tremendous.
Admiral Olson. And we are unique among the combatant
commands. I know you have had the opportunity to speak with all
of them. But we were created by this body, by the National
Defense Authorization Act Amendments of 1986. We were created
to be different from the other combatant commands. In fact, we
have a significant number of service-like authorities and
responsibilities. We are represented in many of the Pentagon-
OSD-level discussions in a service-like capacity.
Unlike most of the combatant commands, SOCOM is more like a
service. I do have people assigned to me full-time that I am
responsible for their care and feeding, training, education,
and equipping throughout the course of their service in Special
Operations Command. And the expectation of the requirement is
that the budget that I am provided be utilized to answer
Special Operations-peculiar requirements. I am obliged to spend
those funds on Special Operations-unique equipment, material,
supplies, and services.
That makes me heavily dependent on the other services for
much of what it is we have. We don't own or operate bases. We
only go to buildings and range facilities, and then once those
are completed, we actually turn title over to the owner of the
base, and he becomes responsible for the majority of the
maintenance to sustain them--the facilities that we--we don't
build barracks. We don't build dining halls. We don't build
bowling alleys. We don't build family support facilities. So we
are very dependent on the services, and what is good for the
service MILCON budgets is generally very good for Special
Operations Command personnel as well.
So what I will address today are really the Special
Operations-peculiar aspects of military construction. We are in
a growth period. You mentioned 13,000 growth. That is largely
the result of the last QDR, but it was also before and after in
terms of the POM cycle. We are on track with that growth. It
was front-loaded heavily in fiscal year 2008, so we are seeing
those people come in rapidly. About 40 percent of the 5-year
growth is in the first year. But we are on-pace with and in
some areas exceeding even our optimistic estimates of how
rapidly we could grow.
I will say that we are growing at about the maximum rate we
can absorb the growth in any sense, so any idea that we can
sort of instantly double the size of the community or create
this goodness at a more rapid pace is probably not right. Our
2009 budget request does include 14 projects for a relatively
small dollar item. Of these 14 projects, 13 of them are in the
United States and one is overseas to accommodate one of our
permanently deployed units. The total value is $254.9 million.
This is $230.4 in major construction and $16.8 million in the
planning and design, and then $7.7 million in unspecified minor
construction.
Of the $230.4 million that is major construction, about
three-fourths of that is operations and maintenance and about
one-fourth of that is training. The operations and maintenance
largely is to accommodate our growth and sustainment. These are
new buildings for new units that have been provided to us
through the 13,000 person growth plan. Approximately $50
million in training facilities mostly has to do with ranges and
facilities that will enable our people to train closer to home.
The pace of operational deployment is high enough that we
are very concerned that when they are not deployed, they ought
to be home and not away from home training someplace else.
Because we compete for service ranges on our big bases and
because we are located in some of the areas where it has just
been hard to develop ranges, this MILCON for about $50 million
this program does chip away in order to keep our people home,
so that they can train during the day and sleep in their own
bed that night, instead of having to travel too much to train.
I would say the themes of our program are to keep
facilities in sync with our overall growth and keep our
recapitalization rate at a very reasonable level, and again to
construct training facilities that are closer to home.
Our fiscal year 2009 request is down significantly from
fiscal year 2008 at $255 million. But 2008 was a surge year and
much of the front-loading of the people in the first year of
the cycle also front-loaded the MILCON in the front year of the
cycle. And so the fact that we are down from last year is not
an item of real concern for me.
We did prioritize within our top line fiscal guidance that
was provided to us by the department, and that fiscal guidance
was actually down slightly from fiscal year 2008 for the same
reason. Fiscal year 2008 had been a surge year for us. Except
for the surge in 2008 and to a lesser extent in 2007, our
fiscal year 2009 program is higher than any previous year. It
is on-pace with the general growth trend that we are
experiencing across the Special Operations community.
So I thank this committee for your support. Our MILCON
request for fiscal year 2009, if approved, will sustain our
current and programmed growth at a reasonable level and with
your continued support, I think that Special Operations will
continue to meet the high expectations of the American people.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Admiral Eric T. Olson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.015

Mr. Edwards. Admiral Olson, thank you very much.
I think we are going to turn first to Mr. Dicks. He is, as
you know, senior member of the Defense Appropriations
Committee, and with his love and commitment to Fort Lewis, I
know he has had a special hand in supporting the Special
Operations Command over the years.
Mr. Dicks, I would like to recognize you.

GROWTH OF SOCOM

Mr. Dicks. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I also want to welcome Eric Olson here. I know Eric Olson.
He was born and raised in my district and is a graduate of
Stadium High School, then the Naval Academy. His mother was my
first office manager in my district office in 1976 and is still
a very close friend. We are very proud, obviously, of the work
that Eric has done in all his assignments, but the fact that he
has reached three stars and now four stars, and is the head of
SOCOM, we are very proud of his accomplishments.
And also, his good work. He has an amazing record and we
are proud of what you are doing, and the fact that SOCOM is
growing so fast. Since we didn't have a hearing in Defense,
maybe we could wander a little bit, Mr. Chairman, just to talk
a little bit about your overall growth of SOCOM. As I have it,
you are up to 55,895 civilian and military personnel, of which
43,745 will be active duty.
Tell us about where you see this going and then we will
talk about the $38 million. [Laughter.]
Admiral Olson. Thank you, sir. The world has changed and I
think there is a realization that Special Operations is more of
a solution in the future world than it may have been in the
past. It is simply that the work for us is very steady now.
There used to be a sense that Special Operations forces were
sort of a spot application force, in case of war, break glass.
But in this totally different environment in which we live now,
there is a much higher expectation that Special Operations
forces will be everywhere all the time.
Our own little mantra is that we may pride ourselves on
running to the sound of guns, but if we are always running to
the sound of guns, then we are always too late, that we need to
be out ahead of the sound of guns. In fact, we woke up this
morning in about 68 countries of the world in a variety of
activities, mostly having to do with enabling national
sovereignty, so that other nations can protect their borders
and care for their people, that will prevent us from maybe
having to do that at some future point.
I mentioned that we are growing 13,000. You mentioned
55,000-plus today. Those are accurate numbers, with 43,000
active duty and a much smaller reserve component. Our reserve
component is mostly in Green Beret Special Forces capability
and they are highly qualified and full members of the force.
Of those 43,000 active duty, about 16,000 are what you
would call the operators of Special Operations--the volunteers
who have been selected to go through some sort of advanced
training, generally with a demanding training with a relatively
high attrition rate in order to earn the badge or the beret or
the boots or the tab or the wings, or whatever it is that may
identify them as an operator of Special Operations.
The others are the full range of enablers--administrative,
intelligence, logistics--that permit Special Operations forces
to do their job. They are also highly qualified. They are also
usually volunteers. They also try to stay with us as long as
they can, and that is in our interest to keep them.
So this is a force that really operates at a different
level. On average, we are much older than the rest of the
military. On average, we are married at a higher rate. We are
more stable in the places that we live. We are more engaged in
our communities because we do tend to regionally orient,
particularly in the Army Special Forces where language
qualification is a requirement and one's first assignment is to
a Special Forces group based on that group's regional
orientation.
The First Special Forces Group at Fort Lewis is aimed at
the Pacific. The Special Forces Group in Colorado is aimed at
Europe. The Third Special Forces Group is aimed at Africa and
parts of the Middle East; the Fifth Group at the rest of the
Middle East; the Seventh Group at South America. So that with
that orientation, they have a growing expertise in the course
of their careers, and that contributes then to the stability.
Mr. Edwards. You just mentioned language, Admiral. And that
is why Mr. Farr just came in. He is our expert on language
training for our military personnel.
Please go ahead.
Admiral Olson. So, the nature of the force is that we are
now in demand, not just in response to, but especially in order
to prevent, as a preemptive force with the language ability and
cultural skills, and the engagement that we do over time. Our
measure of linguistic success, for example, is not 75 percent
accuracy in machine translation. It is exchanging photos of our
families, because of the relationships that we build through
that sort of orientation.
But in specific answer, our ability to grow tops out at
about 5 percent per year. That is about what we are programmed
to do now.
Mr. Dicks. Through 2013?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. The 2008 plan has us growing. We
are a little bit front-loaded. It is kind of 6 percent in the
early years and 3 percent to 4 percent in the later years of
the 2008 to 2013 plan, but that is about what we can do, the
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, with the Marine Corps
component just having celebrated its second birthday here in
February.
Mr. Dicks. What are they going to do--2,500 Marines, what
will be unique about them?
Admiral Olson. Sir, the force is really split in thirds.
They are both trainers on the order of Special Forces
regionally. They are culturally attuned, language-skilled and
they will deploy in 14-man teams, not just to the same country,
but ultimately to the same zip code within that country over
and over and over again to maintain relationships. And they are
going to go some of the places where we have always wanted more
presence and just haven't had the force to do it. The Marines
are giving us that capability--Chad, Mauritania, Kenya, some of
those. They are already doing that, and that is a significant
portion of the force.
Another significant part of the force is direct action
strategic reconnaissance company-level--100-man companies who
are going to fight where there is a fight. Right now, they are
in Afghanistan. They are in a fairly remote section of Helmand
Province, and they have been heavily engaged in the fight
against the Taliban in Helmand Province.
The third category is the enablers, the military working
dogs, air-to-ground call-for-fire experts, counterintelligence,
linguists and interrogators, explosive ordnance disposal--all
those supportive skills that enable the rest of it to occur.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you. I have exceeded my time. I will be
glad to wait until the next round.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Wow. We do a lot of talking about the buildings
and facilities and childcare centers and all those type of
things, and this is different. You talked about the average age
being older. I was interested in that. Do we get people to
fight or serve in Desert Storm and Desert Shield and then come
back because they are under your command, and they have a
specialty or they are the kind of soldier or Marine that you
need in the situation like this? You are talking about the
average age. They have obviously done things. Did they leave
and come back? Or do they pretty much stay and they are still
in this game?
Admiral Olson. They pretty much stay, sir. In each of the
services now, there is an opportunity to serve for an extended
period of time in Special Operations, and there is some
opportunity to stay forever if they continue to meet our
standards and we continue to meet theirs. So we do have
careerists within each of our Special Operations branches. The
Marines are too new to see exactly how that is going to play
out, but the discussion is that they will model their career
activity after the other three services.
Mr. Wamp. When General Ward came in to brief us on AFRICOM
and talked about Djibouti being a forward operating base, I
assume then that your guys work out of any of these facilities
around the globe. That is like their home away from home, and
they have access to any of these type places to do whatever is
necessary.
Admiral Olson. That is correct, sir. We do have some
permanently forward-based, but most of our forces are
expeditionary and they go where they are needed.
Mr. Wamp. Well, let me ask one other question. I am new and
I am still learning. It has been a great privilege. But I
assume then that the average person under your command would
know more about the quest to capture the Osama bin Laden-types,
the bad guys, than the average man or woman in uniform in our
armed forces. Is that a good sense of it?
Admiral Olson. That is a fair statement. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. You mentioned when meeting with Chairman Edwards
and I about the nine principles that guide your organization.
Can you kind of go through at least those three general
parameters here?

MISSION, PEOPLE AND ACQUISITION PRIORITIES

Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. The three categories are mission,
people, and acquisition priorities. I call them mission,
people, and stuff. The mission priorities are to plan and
conduct special operations at an ever-increasing level. We
believe that nobody has ever done it quite like this in
history, and we are reinventing that capacity and capability
every day. Included within that category as well is
international engagement and interagency engagement, which we
understand is absolutely essential to success.
We understand that we are not going to kill our way or talk
our way to success in--war on terror. We are going to behave
our way to success, and much of the opportunity to exhibit that
behavior is through the interagency and international--people,
and it is about training and educating them. It is about
ensuring that they are properly cared for both responsibly and
proactively and preemptively--ensuring that they get the
attention and the care that they need to stay with us for as
long as we need them and beyond.
And the third is the acquisition priorities, which have to
do with personal equipment, mobility and situational awareness.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, thank you for your service to our country. We
appreciate that. Thank you for being here today.

NPS FIELD EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM

I want to direct some questions on special ops and some
training that is going on today at the Naval Postgraduate
School. I received a memo from General Hassim expressing his
strong support for the field experimentation program for
Special Operations Command. I just wondered if you could
comment on the value of that program. As you know, the school
that I represent, the Naval Postgraduate School, has a program
and has significant infrastructure--at Camp Roberts and Camp
Hunter Liggett--to support field experiments and to provide
real value to the USSOCOM. And other government agencies and
laboratories, industries and universities work collaboratively
and innovatively with you on this.
I have heard some good comments, and was wondering what you
thought about it. Is the continuing involvement of the Naval
Postgraduate students a good investment strategy for us?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. We are committed to supporting
that the best we can, and thank you for your support. We have a
very strong relationship with the Naval Postgraduate School,
and it is certainly not because I am Navy. In fact, most of the
students that we put through the Naval Postgraduate School are
not Navy. There is a Special Operations low-intensity conflict
curriculum within their National Security Affairs Department,
and we have 50 Army students in that at any one time, and fewer
than 10 Navy and Air Force students. This is really a program
that is strongly supported by the Army.
The project you are talking about has mostly to do with
situational awareness in a battlefield environment. It is how
to collect, process, analyze, disseminate information from a
wide variety of sensors, headed up by a retired professor named
Dave Netzer, who has been kept on to work that project. He has
been extraordinary in his energy and support for that. So the
short answer is two thumbs up. We are very high on that
program, sir.
Mr. Farr. It is my understanding that you are working
towards getting FEPSO into the fiscal year 2010 budget so that
it will not have to be earmarked all the time?
Admiral Olson. It has been proposed to my headquarters as a
fiscal year 2010 initiative. We are actually having those
meetings this week and next to reconcile the priorities for
fiscal year 2010.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. All right. I will have to do my
homework. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Olson, you have a naturally very low voice.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. I hope this is on.
Mr. Edwards. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Admiral Olson. All right, sir. [Laughter.]
Mr. Boyd. A couple of questions, Admiral. Thank you for
your service to our country.
Mr. Edwards. Would you mind pulling that microphone up?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Boyd. I thought I would speak loudly enough.
Your fiscal year 2009 MILCON request includes $40 million
for a Special Forces complex at Eglin Air Force Base.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir.

SPECIAL FORCES COMPLEX AT EGLIN AFB

Mr. Boyd. The fiscal year 2009 BRAC request contained $148
million for a Special Forces complex at Eglin also, to comply
with the mandate to move the Seventh Special Forces to Eglin.
Admiral Olson. Correct.
Mr. Boyd. Is the MILCON project a new requirement since the
BRAC request? Or was it missed in the BRAC submission? Or is it
a redundant request? That was somewhat confusing to us.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. It is a new requirement. The
background is that the BRAC decision was to move the Seventh
Special Forces Group from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to Eglin
Air Force Base. At the time that decision was made, the Seventh
Special Forces Group consisted of three operational battalions
and a support battalion. Since that BRAC decision was made, we
have achieved this Special Operations community-wide growth,
which includes one additional battalion for each of our Special
Forces groups. So the Seventh Special Forces Group has four
operational battalions now, not three, or is programmed to
have. So this is specific to that.
The Army was responsible for funding through their MILCON
program the original BRAC-directed move, but because this is a
Special Operations initiative to grow the additional battalion,
that is why it is in our budget.
Mr. Boyd. And that $40 million will be for housing?
Admiral Olson. It doesn't include housing. It includes the
operational-related facilities, headquarters, training
capability, motor pool--those sorts of things--dive blocker,
parachute loft--those things that are peculiar to Special
Operations. Army and Air Force, because this is at Eglin Air
Force Base, they are responsible for the service-common items.

AL UDEID AIR BASE

Mr. Boyd. Let me shift gears slightly and go across the
water to Al Udeid, which is a very critical location to our
activities in the Central Command.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyd. There is a $9 million request for a project
inside the CENTCOM AOR at Al Udeid Air Base. This is in
addition to funding in 2007 and 2008, and the 2008 supplemental
which totaled about $115 million. Can you speak to the long-
term return on this investment in this specific region? Has
that been carefully considered and does it support an
investment this large?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir, it does. This facility is a
training facility. It is going to be essential to support SOF
training in theater for forward-stationed special forces in
support of U.S. central command.
We see the demand for Special Operations forces in CENTCOM
increasing over time, not decreasing. As the environment shifts
from one of occupy and high-intensity combat to one of train
and assist, that is a forte of Special Operations. So I believe
that this project has an enduring value for us.
Mr. Boyd. So it has to do with communications facilities?
Admiral Olson. It is a training facility. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyd. Okay. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one more
quick question?
Mr. Edwards. Sure.

CANNON AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. Boyd. Let's come back to Florida, to Hurlburt Field.
Cannon Air Force Base is being converted from a fighter wing to
a Special Operations forces wing under the BRAC decision.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyd. Currently, we are aware of only one project being
requested, and that is to construct a hangar. Are there other
base infrastructure requirements that might be needed that are
not included here?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. Just for the record, the BRAC
decision was actually to close Cannon Air Force Base in New
Mexico unless another user was identified. At the same time, we
in Special Operations were looking for a western base to
accommodate the growing Air Force component within Special
Operations. The Air Force offered us Cannon. We accepted the
offer and that then became the reason for transferring this
from a fighter wing to a Special Operations base. That actual
transfer occurred last October and now the owners-occupiers of
Cannon Air Force Base are the Special Operations component of
USSOCOM.
This is a phased growth. It was not quite a turnkey
operation, but it was an up and running base. It had
maintenance facilities. It had people. It had barracks. It had
chow halls. It had all the rest of it. So the MILCON demands,
although significant, were not urgent. We can grow into that
base at the rate our assets are moving in. This is a phased
period across time. So we will see more projects at Cannon
beyond 2009, but in 2009 the right level was as we have
requested it.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. We would all like to thank you and everyone here
for this hearing. I am new on this committee and I don't know
enough to ask you a question that would make any sense. But I
know enough to appreciate what you do and to know that this
committee does its best to provide you with what you need. We
hope that you do and expect that you will--they do know
something about this stuff. I am appreciative of that.
So we thank you again for your service.
Admiral Olson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Just don't believe one thing he said, and that
is he doesn't know enough to ask tough questions. [Laughter.]
He is as sharp as a tack.
Thank you, Mr. Berry.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Sir, welcome.
Admiral Olson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Could you pull up the microphone for
transcription purposes. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Special Forces kind of--mission involves extensive contact
with the region's military and police, and much of it is
through training. The Special Forces teams deploy frequently to
Latin America to train foreign units in counter-narcotics often
with joint training activities. Do we have adequate training
facilities for the operations in Latin America?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. We don't own any of our own
facilities there. We just use the facilities of the countries
with which we are training. It typically amounts to a few
hundred people on any given day spread across five to nine
Latin and South American countries.

GROWTH OF SOCOM

Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir. Our understanding is that you
are responsible for growing the size of the Special Operations
forces and that it takes almost 2 years to train a Special
Operations force servicemember. The baseline for recruiting
folks with the right mental and physical background is
extremely high and most of the ones who start training don't
complete it. How are you progressing in increasing your
numbers?
In addition, the thought is that quality is better than
quantity. Have you been required to lower your standards? Or
will it just take more time to get the right people? Do you
have adequate facilities for training the folks that you need
to train in this growth spurt?
Admiral Olson. There are several questions in there, sir. I
will try to answer them all.
First of all, we are not sacrificing quality at all. In
fact, I think because we are getting smarter about our
training, our quality is actually improving as we are able to
tailor it better to the needs of the force. Recruiting is good.
It has been fairly steady for a couple of decades, but now we
have better capacity in our school houses so that we can accept
more volunteers, and therefore we are turning more out.
So our growth is pretty much on-pace. Through most of our
specialties, we are on our expected growth slope. We are
falling behind in a couple of areas, but ahead in a couple of
others. But as an example, in preparation for our growth, we
increased the capacity of our Special Forces school house.
These are the Green Berets who are most of our operational
force, at least the largest single segment.
Five years ago, we had never graduated more than 300 Green
Berets in a year. Last year, we graduated 820. So we are in
fact increasing by the strength of a battalion per year in Army
Special Forces. Everybody will tell you that the quality is as
good or better than it has ever been.
In terms of training facilities, I think we are very okay
with that. Our program addresses that, but it is not so much in
terms of our basic training facilities to create Navy SEALs and
create Green Berets and create Army Rangers. It is more to
sustain their training by keeping them closer to home when they
are not deployed. It is very important to us to have facilities
that are within commuting range of where people live and work,
so that when they finish training they can go home at night.
The operational demands keep them away from home far too much
as it is. So we are looking for some relief from the
requirement to travel to train.

QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES

Mr. Bishop. Well, I guess as a segue then, are there any
other issues related to quality of life--training facilities
that we need to be aware of for your folks?
Admiral Olson. Sir, I like the way a former chief of naval
operations used to term it. He called it quality of service.
Quality of service equals quality of life plus quality of work.
I think that the great interest in recent years for improving
the quality of housing for all of our servicemembers of all the
services is paying huge dividends. At least in the force that I
have responsibility for, I am not hearing complaints about
inadequate housing. Often the commute is further than they
would like it to be, but that is because sometimes Special
Forces are in very desirable places. Our headquarters is in
Coronado, California and Virginia Beach, Virginia and Fort
Lewis, Washington, and these are places where people need to
just buy a little bit further away, where the on-base housing
isn't sufficient or they choose not to live on-base.
The quality of all that is very high, and that is a service
responsibility, not a Special Operations responsibility. So we
are focused on improving the quality of work, which we can do
largely by improving the headquarters facilities, the
maintenance facilities, and the training facilities for our
forces.
Mr. Bishop. I was concerned about whether or not you had
any problems with morale and with retention because of family
problems related to the commute or related to the requirements
on the Special Operations forces person which separates them
from family--family problems with children, with divorces, with
family violence, any of those types of issues.
Admiral Olson. Sir, I am concerned about a future fragility
in the force. We are not seeing it in the data yet, but we are
on a quest to determine how predictive and preemptive we can be
in our family care programs. Again, those are largely the
responsibility of the services to provide those family support,
child care kinds of activities. The services are good about
talking to us to see whether or not what they are doing will
meet our needs. And so that is a good healthy relationship. So
I am not seeing that sort of stress in the force at this point.
Mr. Dicks. Would you yield just briefly?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Does the fact that you have shorter deployments,
6 months to 7 months, do you think that makes a big difference
between what is happening with Special Forces and the rest of
the military, especially the Army and the Marine Corps?
Admiral Olson. Sir, that is huge. We have great flexibility
in how we deploy our force and almost none of our forces are
gone more than 7 months at a shot. In some cases, they are gone
90 days or 120 days. That is much more sustainable over the
long haul.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Edwards. Admiral, let me ask you, what percent of your
troops or your servicemen are married under your command?
Admiral Olson. Sir, it is between 60 percent and 70 percent
married.
Mr. Edwards. Between 60 and 70 percent. When you said on
average older age than the services, that was a real surprise
to me. I guess I would have had the image of these tough single
guys, young tough single guys out there without families.
In regard to the families----
Mr. Farr. Like the Rambo movies.
Mr. Edwards. Yes, you are right. You are right. That leads
to one of my other questions later.
But in terms of housing, since you are dependent upon the
services, and human nature being what it is, one of my concerns
would be that sometimes maybe you are not at the top of the
priority list for each installation commander. Do you have any
kind of numbers that would show what numbers of forces under
your command are living in housing, either barracks or family
housing, that don't meet basic DOD standards?
Admiral Olson. Sir, I am going to have to take that
question for the record. I don't have those numbers. I don't
have any evidence that that is occurring at this point. But I
would like to put a plug in, if I might, for the public-private
venture housing program. I know there were a couple of rocky
starts to that, but I think that program is up and running
fully now and overall it has been a very good thing for our
people. Those who are living in public-private venture housing
are very satisfied with it.
[The information follows:]

USSOCOM relies on the Services for service-common support to
include unaccompanied and accompanied housing. The following chart
depicts the percentage of barracks and housing that currently do not
meet DOD standards:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barracks
Component (%) Housing (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARSOC........................................ 0 0
AFSOC......................................... 75 55
JSOC.......................................... 0 0
USASOC........................................ 14 0
NSWC.......................................... 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC): The United
States Marine Corps has a permanent 2 + 0 waiver of the 1 + 1 module
DOD standard for junior personnel (Lance Corporal and below/E1-E3).
Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC): Barracks will require
significant investment to meet DOD standards. All Air Force owned
housing is approved for privatization. AFSOC housing will be brought up
to standards within a 5-year development period.
United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC): The Army
Barracks Improvement Program continues to progress with 1,278 barracks
projects programmed from now to FY13.

Mr. Edwards. That is great to hear, because this
subcommittee played a key role in that when a lot of people
didn't want to try something in a different way.
Admiral Olson. Sir, I thank you.
Mr. Edwards. But if you could give us those numbers. What
we want to do is have a metric where each year we ask that same
question of each of the services, but we would also like to ask
it of you, how many under our leaders' commands are living in
housing that doesn't meet DOD standards for adequacy. So we
want to see that coming down.
I think in family housing, we have made great progress. In
barracks, I am not quite sure, but we would like to keep a
special eye on Special Operations folks as well.

OPERATIONAL TEMPO

Could I ask about the op tempo? While the deployments are
for a shorter period of time relative to the 12 month to 15
month deployment for Army soldiers, do you have a number in
terms of the average how much time away from home and family
have your forces been away since September 11 of 2001?
Admiral Olson. Sir, the forces in our operational units--
our SEAL platoons, our Special Forces Operational Detachments,
what we call A-teams, our aviation crews both fixed-wing and
helicopter, they have been between sort of a one-to-one
deployment ratio and a 1.5 home for one forward kind of ratio.
Where we suffer our highest operational tempo is actually in
our headquarters because we have more flexibility to rotate out
the tactical elements where the headquarters have to go. So we
are at just a little bit under one back for one over,
particularly with our Special Forces group command at the O-6
level.
Mr. Edwards. General Casey recently testified to our
subcommittee that ideally in the long term the ratio he would
want for time away from home would be 1 year deployed and 3
years at home. What would be your long-term goal? Would it be
similar to that?
Admiral Olson. We subscribe to that ratio. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Is your present op tempo sustainable? Or if
you can continue this level of op tempo of approximately 1-to-1
for the next 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years, do you start to see a loss
of your key leaders and problems in the families?
Admiral Olson. Sir, I think we do. We don't have the data
that shows that yet because everybody is still doing exactly
what they signed up to do. But I don't know how long that is
sustainable. I do believe that 1-to-1 is not sustainable. I
think that 2 back and 1 over, we could probably hold for some
period of time, probably not for the entire course of a career;
3 over and 1 forward, and we are sustainable for the long haul.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.
I would like to go to the ranking member, and then we will
go to Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well, Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Dicks is here
again, I wanted to comment that if Admiral Olson's mother
worked in your office, then Mr. Dicks you obviously are older
than you look. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dicks. Thank you. That is, I think, a compliment.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Olson. I am not sure what that says about my
mother. [Laughter.]

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

Mr. Wamp. I have a couple of things I might talk about
here. I know you may have to be careful in how you respond. But
one of the things that I believe you said was under your area
of responsibility to assert and extend is nuclear
nonproliferation. There is an article out this morning that
says threat of nuclear attack in the United States said to have
grown in recent years. In my 14 years in the House, I don't
think anyone has spent more time trying to encourage the
enforcement of Nunn-Lugar and shining the light on this issue
of nuclear nonproliferation than Chairman Edwards. I have
served on several subcommittees now with him, and he is a
champion.
I happen to represent Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which also
plays a pretty critical role in this whole business. What can
you tell us about that from Special Ops and what your men and
women do around the world, and what you can say about this
angle today, or anything at all. I know you have to be guarded
in what you would say.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. Without going into closed session,
what I can say is that of the nine core activities assigned to
Special Operations Command, counter-proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and weapons of mass effect is one of those
nine. Special Operations does not own that mission area. We
have niche tasks to perform within that mission area. Our niche
tasks have mostly to do with interruption and interdiction of
the activities associated with proliferation, mostly at the
operational and tactical levels.
So we do maintain some specially trained forces who are
able to detect, interdict, and transfer weapons of mass
destruction, their chemicals and precursors, and the facilities
that support those.
Mr. Wamp. Would you say that your command has more or less
authority from the Department of Defense now than you had
before September 11?
Admiral Olson. Sir, we have significantly more authority
now than we had before 9/11. That authority is codified in
unified command plan language that assigned the commander of
Special Operations Command as the lead combatant command for
planning, synchronizing and, as directed, executing Department
of Defense operations against terrorists and terrorist
networks.
So that gives us a significant role of leadership in the
plans and planning for global Department of Defense operations,
not just Special Operations.
Mr. Wamp. And even with that said, the lead combatant
command and your role in the world, in the other room you told
Chairman Edwards and I that the people under your command are
very sensitive that every time we kick the proverbial door down
in the world, we agitate, and that there is a need to be
effective diplomats as well. And I have been blown away over
these last 19 hearings to see the effective diplomacy of our
leaders in uniform of all these commands.
Frankly just about every DOD person that has been in this
room this year has proven more effective diplomatically than
the average State Department person over in another room, which
to me is very counter to the beliefs, not just in our country,
but around the world about the nature of our armed forces. It
is very effective, even under your command, which are the door-
kicking-down guys, and not necessarily the peacemakers. But
diplomacy and being a good diplomat is also part of the
mission, correct?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. Just stepping away from Special
Operations, clearly the agency of our government that has the
most people in the most places every day is the Department of
Defense. So within my command, I am reminding them every day
that they are diplomats whether they like it or not. That is a
responsibility that they bear and we have high expectations of
them with respect to that.
I would also like to say that although we are the door-
kickers of the world, and we are certainly high-end door-
kickers, the civil affairs forces of the Department of Defense
are under my proponency as well. We are also the school-
builders and the well-diggers and the culvert-placers. Although
we are doing kinetic kinds of operations, mostly with our
counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan every night, in most of
the places of the world we are doing education, engagement,
training engagement, civil affairs engagement, advise and
assist kind of engagement. We are doing much more of that
globally than we are door-kicking.
Mr. Wamp. You are doing that with uniformed personnel or a
combination of uniformed and civilian?
Admiral Olson. Mostly uniformed personnel, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Would you say, just briefly, that our combined
forces around the world, regardless of their mission, are
pleased to see Special Ops forces come whatever the mission is
today?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. I would say they are all pleased
to see us. In fact, we are there at their invitation. But
sometimes, they are more pleased that the quieter we can be
about it, the more pleased they are to have us. In many cases,
our access depends on our ability to not talk about it publicly
with nations that are not too proud to accept our assistance,
but they are too proud to publicly acknowledge it.
Our people are pretty good at that. We are pretty good at
getting in and training and getting back out without drawing a
great deal of attention to it. It is mostly small numbers of
specially trained people who are doing this kind of activity.
Mr. Wamp. Well, in that case I have no more questions.
Mr. Edwards. A very good line of questions.
Mr. Dicks and then Mr. Farr.

C-130

Mr. Dicks. On equipment, and we will get to the $38 million
here pretty soon, on the equipment side, I notice, is there a
shortage of C-130s? Or do we need to get new C-130s? Are these
the C-130Js?
Admiral Olson. Sir, the new model is the C-130J. Our effort
is to recapitalize our older models, most importantly our C-130
Echo models with C-130Js. There are center wing-box issues.
There is a degradation of the fleet. Our average age of our C-
130 is 28 years at this point, but we have several that are 35
and more years old. So it is urgent that we one-for-one replace
our aging fleet.
Mr. Dicks. What is the plan? Is there a 5-year plan?
Admiral Olson. Our requirement is 37. We have in our
budget--and this is one of these interesting connections
between us and the services.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
Admiral Olson. The C-130 is a service-common airplane, so I
am not responsible for purchasing that. The Air Force is. Then
they are obliged to provide that to me so that I can modify it
with the budget that I am provided for Special Operations-
peculiar items. So in the case of a C-130, about three-quarters
of the airplane is bought by the Air Force and about one-
quarter by me, and we synchronize that so that it rolls off the
production line and we can make our modifications for the
Special Operations-peculiar mission aspects. It is in my budget
to fund 20 modifications in order to deliver 12 airplanes
within this 5-year plan. And Air Force is pursuing an
appropriate amount of funding to make those airplanes
available.
Mr. Dicks. Yes, because there may be some opportunity to
add to that C-130 line. So if there was going to be some money
added, you would have to add the modifications, too, right?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. At some point in the 5-year budget?
Admiral Olson. The platform money goes in the Air Force's
budget. The modification money goes in mine.
Mr. Dicks. Okay.

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

What about UAVs? How are you doing on UAVs?
Admiral Olson. Sir, you have hit my top two acquisition
priorities back to back here.
Mr. Dicks. That is good.
Admiral Olson. It is bigger than UAVs. It is the entire
system that it takes for intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance. We are at the point now where just buying more
UAVs doesn't solve the problem. It is the people. It is the
training. It is the ground crews. It is the analysts. It is the
communications capability. It is the band-width on the
satellites to transmit the full motion video imagery. There is
a whole lot to that.
But if your question is about where do sensors and UAVs
being part of that package fit in our priority, it is at the
very top.
Mr. Dicks. Right at the top.

SOF RANGER BATTALION COMPLEX AT FORT LEWIS

Tell me about this SOF Ranger Battalion complex at Fort
Lewis for $38 million. Tell us about that a little bit.
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. Part of the growth plan for
Special Operations grows one company for each of our three
Ranger battalions. We will grow from three operational
companies to four operational companies. Sir, this is specific.
I know this is a trend here. I talked about growing our Special
Forces Group from three to four battalions. We are growing our
Ranger battalions from three to four companies. That is for the
long-term goal to get us in 3-back-1-forward on a rotational
basis. So this is fully in sync with General Casey's comments
on that. So this is to accommodate a new growth company at Fort
Lewis.
Mr. Dicks. Okay. We will do our best to help you on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Farr.

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
I want to follow up on Zach Wamp's comments and talk a
little bit about education. First of all, I would like to echo
your comments. I served in local and state offices, as other
members of this committee have, and what is unique about being
in Congress is working with DOD. We don't have that at the
state or local government. So the entire military presence
before our committee is unique to Congress.
I would like to say that the biggest surprise is the
competency of the Commands we have heard from. It is just
incredible. I share those opinions. I think there is much more
of sensitivity awareness about things that I think are really
important, which is this understanding other cultures and being
able to cross the cultural divide--than there is among people
who are trained professionally in departments that are supposed
to be doing that. It is a compliment to your sensitivity.
In the training areas, Congress set up in the Naval
Postgraduate School a Center for Stabilization and
Reconstruction. I appreciate you going out and visiting the
school. I understand that one of your priorities is developing
capabilities among partner countries to support stability,
security, transition, and reconstruction operations. What we
find also, as the commands have been telling me, is that there
are very few officers who are currently slated for the degree
program at the Naval Postgraduate School and SSTR because the
Services have failed to establish an MOS for combatant
commands, and that the combatant commands have not established
a formal requirement.
I think you stated earlier and in your testimony that there
really is a need for expertise in this area. I wondered if you
have thought about establishing a requirement for such
expertise and utilizing the expertise in this area at the Naval
Postgraduate School for the global peace operations initiative.
Admiral Olson. Sir, I haven't initiated any effort. That is
a consideration that I will make. Our Special Forces officers
are mostly going through the Special Operations in low-
intensity conflict curriculum at Naval Postgraduate School. The
curriculum that you mentioned in the stability and
reconstruction areas is mostly appropriate to our civil affairs
officers, but I will study that, sir.
Mr. Farr. Well, I know Admiral Mullen is very interested
and he was very supportive. The Navy has two officers out there
now, but the problem is that there is no MOS. Why get a degree
in this field if you are not going to get an assignment. I
think again we are ahead of the bureaucracy. We need the
bureaucracy to catch up and create those MOS's.
The other that we hear a lot about is irregular warfare
environments and training for that, but not a lot of adjustment
for the training of it. I wondered what SOCOM has done to
correct the deficiencies that pertain to stability operations
and prevention operations. Are the essential training programs
in place?
Admiral Olson. Special Operations Command is emerging as a
leader within the department in the entire field of irregular
warfare. During the QDR discussions, I represented Special
Operations in irregular warfare needs to the department as the
deputy commander of Special Operations Command.
Since taking command, I have established a new division
within my headquarters that we call the Irregular Warfare
Division. It is the J-10 in military-speak. Most commands don't
go beyond single digits, but we thought it was important enough
to have an organization dedicated to irregular warfare. So we
were co-drafters of the irregular warfare joint operations
concept, for example, for the Department of Defense. We are
contributing heavily to the Department of Defense directive on
irregular warfare. So we are trying to put the academic
underpinnings to this.
I do have, I call it a junior varsity war college. It is
called the Joint Special Operations University. It is an
institution of higher education for us. I call it junior
varsity because most of its courses are days or single-digit
weeks long, but we have established an irregular warfare
curriculum within that Joint Special Operations University as
well, for both U.S. and international students.
So we are growing into this, but I agree completely that
there needs to be a broader awakening within the Department of
Defense in order to incentivize this sort of behavior that
leads to irregular warfare expertise.
Mr. Farr. I understand that about 88 percent of the civil
affairs personnel reside in the Army Reserves. I wondered if
that presented any problems for you, that this expertise is
within the Reserves.
Admiral Olson. One-hundred percent of civil affairs used to
reside within Special Operations Command. It was a QDR decision
to transfer the Reserve component to the Army. I have retained
the active component of civil affairs under my immediate
command, and I remain the Department of Defense proponent in
the terminology for all active and Reserve civil affairs. That
means I am responsible for the doctrine and the consistency of
training and compatibility of equipment and those sorts of
things, even as it extends into the Reserve force.
The issue is one of qualification and accessibility in the
Reserve component. To do civil affairs right, you have to be
steeped in the culture in which you are operating and it is
very hard for a Reservist to do that. The nature of civil
affairs, and I am a huge fan of what civil affairs does, but
the nature of the civil affairs community has changed
significantly in the last several years. It used to be doctors,
dentists, lawyers, police chiefs, water purification engineers,
mayors--people who could sort of come together in their reserve
capacity to deploy forward and help build governments and
infrastructures.
Given the demands of the last few years and the need to
grow the civil affairs community rapidly, what we have now is a
much younger force that is learning the civilian skills at the
same time they are learning their military skills. But our
maturity in civil affairs as it turns out does reside within
the Reserve component. It is very important to be able to
sustain that and be able to get at them.
Mr. Farr. The largest Army Reserve training base is Fort
Hunter Liggett, CA. I really want to be able to work with you
and integrate the training programs to meet the mission needs.
I appreciate anything you could do to tell us what more we can
do to help that training process.
Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. I have no further questions.

INFLATION

Mr. Edwards. Let me just ask you, Admiral, and I am going
to be fairly brief in my final questions. MILCON inflation is
hitting military construction, as it is highway construction,
construction in all parts of our economy pretty heavily. Is
your military construction budget funded in 2008? I know, as
you mentioned, it was a surge year. Have those dollars been
eroded because of inflation in ways you didn't expect? Were
there any challenges there? Are you having to cut corners or
delay building installations because of inflation?
Admiral Olson. That is a great question, sir. Because it
was a robust year for us, there were challenges, but we
overcame them. Among the ways we overcame them was finding that
some of our plan and design money was unexecutable, et cetera,
et cetera. So we found enough buffer within our own program to
answer most of our needs without having to cut into other
programs.
But the larger question is how are we affected by the
growing construction costs, and the fact that we do have to
adjust to them every year. It is a real concern for us.
Mr. Edwards. We have to get a better way. In the past, OMB
has dictated a 2.4 percent inflation factor, which when you
talk to the Associated General Contractors it doesn't even pass
the laugh test. And so we know corners are having to be cut,
projects delayed, others pushed out in the out-years, so we
will have to continue to look at that.
Let me ask you also, SOCOM is going through a process I
believe of reviewing global posture. When will that report be
finalized?
Admiral Olson. Sir, I think very quickly. I think we will
have the Secretary of Defense guidance on that here within the
next 2 weeks to a month on that.
Mr. Edwards. Would conclusions involve new military
construction needs, change end-strength numbers? Without
getting into specific conclusions before the report is
finalized, what would be the kind of issues you would be
addressing in that?
Admiral Olson. It would be minor adjustments in the out-
years based on tweaking the presence of our force globally.

COUNTERINSURGENCY EFFORT

Mr. Edwards. Okay. And the final question I have is in
terms of counterinsurgency efforts. There have to be a lot of
lessons learned, I would imagine, from Iraq and Afghanistan--
the times you have to kick down the doors, and you have people
trained the toughest of the tough--but as you commented, it has
been so important for us to hear. It is also important for us
to earn the respect of local citizens if we are going to fight
a counterinsurgency effort.
Are there some lessons learned out there that you could
just summarize briefly in terms of how we not only go after the
worst of the worst enemies, but at the same time deal with
communities in a way that earns their respect and ultimately
their support? I know they are critical as we are fighting the
bad guys. We have to have the local citizens telling us where
the bad guys are, and not vice versa. Any general thoughts on
lessons learned there?
Admiral Olson. Sir, I think you just said them. I think the
main lesson is in a counterinsurgency is that it is our
responsibility to provide a better alternative than the
insurgents. You do that neighborhood by neighborhood, city by
city in terms of gaining support for anti-insurgent activity
among the people. We can't operate among the people and rid
them of the insurgents in their midst. They have to be part of
it. There has to be an environment that is inhospitable to that
kind of activity.
And so it is providing education alternatives to the
Madrasas. It is providing recreational opportunities, and I
don't mean to exaggerate recreation, but the kinds of places
that enable people to gather in a productive way. There are
many activities that can just return hope to the people, to the
sense where people everywhere will bet on a winner. When the
insurgents no longer look like the winners, then that is
demonstrated success.
Mr. Edwards. Great.
Well, any other questions?
Admiral, I think I can speak for all of us in saying this
has been very, very informative and helpful to our subcommittee
to have you here. Thank you for that. My one request of you
would be to let this committee know where we can be of help on
military construction projects, even if that involves the
housing and barracks projects that are funded through the
various services since that money comes through this
subcommittee.
Given the level of sacrifice your personnel are making and
their families are making in this time of war, in that kind of
Global War on Terrorism we are fighting won't go away
overnight, so the sacrifices will continue--let us know where
we can be of help to your folks on quality of life issues,
including housing and barracks and child care facilities.
Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Chairman, I forgot one thing. I wanted to
follow up on one aspect.
Mr. Edwards. Sure.

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME/TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

Mr. Dicks. When we talked about the deployments, 6 or 7
months. What are you seeing on post-traumatic stress syndrome
and traumatic brain injuries?
Mr. Edwards. That is a good question.
Admiral Olson. We are seeing some, clearly. Within my
force, it is statistically lower than across the rest of the
department I think because of the level of training, because
when you get shorter deployments, because our people do sort of
stay together longer and have a family within the military to a
greater degree than most of the force does.
If you are looking for specific statistics, I can get those
to you for the record. I have snapshot numbers in my head of
specific elements of our force, but it is an issue for us.
[The information follows:]

All surveys done by the Services show that USSOCOM forces have much
less Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSS)/Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD)/Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) than other military units.
Within the command, we have good survey data which indicate a much
lower occurrence when compared with our conventional counterparts, but
we can not validate actual numbers. Experts believe that many personnel
who experience PTSS/PTSD do not report the conditions for various
reasons. For those reporting and being seen at medical centers and
clinics, the Service Surgeons General are best able to track those
numbers and would prove DOD's most reliable source of the most current
and accurate statistics.

Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. No, I am glad you asked that question. RAND
Corporation is coming out publicly tomorrow with a report. They
have done a rather extensive report on PTSD and TBI as well. It
will be interesting to see how much attention that draws.
Mr. Farr. Can I have a follow-up question on that?
Mr. Edwards. Sure.
Mr. Farr. You mentioned that a shorter deployment probably
is a factor, but how about training? That is something we have
never looked at, better training. You have people that are
knowledgeable about where they are going. They are
linguistically trained. They are culturally trained. So it is
not such a shock effect when you arrive.
Admiral Olson. That is exactly right, sir.
Mr. Farr. You probably aren't as exposed to as many
improvised explosive devices, are you?
Admiral Olson. No, sir. I think we are.
Mr. Farr. You are.
Admiral Olson. I think we are exposed man-for-man at a
higher rate than most of the force.
Mr. Farr. Really?
Mr. Edwards. Didn't you mention that to Mr. Wamp and me in
our brief meeting before the hearing?
Admiral Olson. We invested with real energy in what we call
medium mine protective vehicles, sort of an MRAP, an off-shoot
of that program. The specific vehicles are called RG-31s and
RG-33s. We fielded them to our force for the first time since
Christmas. In the months of March and April, we have had six
incidents. It destroyed at least four of those vehicles,
perhaps all six. Inside those vehicles, we sustained
casualties, but we are convinced that we saved at least eight
and maybe ten people.
But what we have seen is an increasing threat in response
to the increased capability of the vehicles. The mines that
these vehicles hit were larger of explosive weight. In the
past, we were used to 30 pounds or less. These vehicles protect
very well against that former low-level IED threat. We didn't
consider it low-level at the time. It was destructive. But
against these vehicles, it is not destructive, so they are
upping the explosive weight of the mines. We are going to have
to continue to struggle to stay ahead of that. The good news is
that it is a lot harder to move and place a larger mine than it
is a 30-pound mine, so they are more detectable by us in terms
of the activity that it takes to get them there. But that has
been a very successful program.
For the record, I would like to say that any sense that the
diminishing of violence in Iraq should lead to a decision to
back away from protecting our people in these kind of vehicles,
it is way too early to make that decision.
Mr. Bishop. Can I follow up on this?
Mr. Edwards. Please do. It is important.
Mr. Bishop. The issue that you describe, were they IEDs or
were they the explosive projectiles?
Admiral Olson. It is a combination. We had IEDs of the
traditional IED type. We had the explosively formed projectiles
and we had the pressure plate contact mines as well.
Mr. Bishop. And where you had survivors, were those IEDS,
was it a combination where they were destructive with the EFPs?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir. The casualties were killed by
large contact mines emplaced in a dirt roadway. The EFPs and
the IEDs were survivable by these vehicles.
Mr. Bishop. Because you had the MRAP-type vehicle?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Was it with the V-shaped bottoms?
Admiral Olson. Yes, sir--V-shaped bottoms, and they are
also designed to be destructed. Much of the energy of the
explosive is absorbed by throwing the transmission one way and
the engine in another way and blowing the wheels off and sort
of taking all that so that the cocoon of the vehicle survives.
Mr. Dicks. If you would yield. There has been some concern
that these things don't do well off-road, that they are pretty
limited in how they can be utilized. We are going out there and
buying 10,000 of these things or whatever the number is, and
there has been some concern that maybe we ought to think
through this a little bit, about the utility. Because you know,
the next situation may be different.
Admiral Olson. No, you are right. A family of vehicles is
required, including some that are off-road-capable. These
vehicles, all of them, all of the truly mine-protective
explosive-projectile-protective vehicles, weigh upwards of
30,000 pounds. Ours are about 37,000 pounds that we are
delivering. Those are not off-road-capable vehicles. It doesn't
require hard pavement, but it does require some sort of
improved hard-packed dirt roadway at a minimum.
Mr. Edwards. Great. Good questions.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Members, as we finish the 19th of 19 2009
budget hearings, we have had a pretty busy op tempo ourselves.
Thank you all for your participation, knowing how many other
subcommittees that you sit on. A special thanks to Mr. Wamp,
the ranking member, who has been here at each one of the 19
hearings.
We all would like to thank again an incredibly able and
talented and dedicated staff led by Carol Murphy, staff who
have worked without regard to politics or partisanship. Thank
you to all of the staff for making these hearings so
productive.
With that, we stand adjourned.
Admiral, thank you very much for being here and for your
service.
Admiral Olson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Question. Have you identified the total capacity (in square
footage) of SOF-peculiar facilities that you need to support SOCOM's
personnel growth and transformation? When do you expect to meet that
requirement?
Answer. Yes. The FY 2009 program consisting of 13 projects at 11
installations in seven states and one overseas location represents a
total capacity of 1,078,200 square feet. This figure includes the
second increment of our 323,000 square foot operational requirement at
Dam Neck, Virginia. Our FY 2009 construction requirement supporting
USSOCOM's personnel growth and transformation will be met approximately
2.5 years after project awards.
Question. How do the various SOF units differ demographically?
Focus in particular on rates of marriage and number of dependents.
Answer. Marriage and dependency rates among the Special Operations
Forces components are higher than their respective Services. The
following information is provided based on data available as of 30 Sep
07:
--58% of Army Special Operations Component (ARSOC) enlisted
were married, compared to 53% of the total Army enlisted
--91% of ARSOC Warrant Officers and 78% of Commissioned
Officers in ARSOC were married, compared to 82% and 68%
respectively for the total Army Warrant and Commissioned
Officers
--46% of ARSOC enlisted have two or more dependents, compared
to 42% of the total Army enlisted
--82% of ARSOC Warrant Officers have two or more dependents,
compared to 73% of the total Army Warrant Officers
--59% of ARSOC Commissioned Officers have two or more
dependents, compared to 52% of the total Army Commissioned
Officers
--64% of Naval Special Warfare (NSW) enlisted were married,
compared to 52% of the total Navy enlisted.
--97% of Warrant Officers and 75% of Commissioned Officers in
NSW were married, compared to 88% and 69% respectively for the
total Navy
--42% of NSW Enlisted have two or more dependents, compared
to 35% of the total Navy Enlisted
--79% of NSW Warrant Officers have two or more dependents,
compared to 78% of total Navy Warrant Officers
--55% of NSW Commissioned Officers have two or more
dependents, compared to 51% of the total Navy Commissioned
Officers
--65% of Air Forces Special Operations Component (AFSOC)
Enlisted were married, compared to 58% of the total Air Force
Enlisted
--75% of AFSOC Officers were married, compared to 72% of the
total Air Force Officers.
--47% of AFSOC Enlisted have two or more dependents, compared
to 41 % of the total Air Force Enlisted
--53% of AFSOC Commissioned Officers have two or more
dependents, likewise 53% of the Total Air Force Commissioned
Officers have two or more dependents
Note: ``Married'' includes those who are married, those who are
separated, and those under an interlocutory decree. The limit for
tracking ``Dependents'' is two or more, which assumes at least one
child and one spouse.
Question. Please describe the optimal training and deployment cycle
for the various SOF units, and how this has been impacted by GWOT/OEF/
OIF.
Answer. In general terms, for the majority of SOF units, the
optimal training and deployment cycle would be 2:1 (in-garrison:
deployed). However, the deployment cycle for various SOF units has
adapted to the situation in multiple theaters since the beginning of
the GWOT, where the majority of our forces are currently operating at a
1:1 ratio. The actual rotation cycle varies with the unit type and
mission, and the following typical SOF deployment cycles are based on
unit schedules for Operations ENDURING FREEDOM, ENDURING FREEDOM--
PHILIPPINES, and IRAQI FREEDOM.
U.S. Army Special Forces (SF) units: 7 months
Naval Special Warfare (Sea, Air, and Land [SEAL] and Special
Boat Units): 6 months
Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) air crews and
support: 3 to 6 months
Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC)
deployments: 6 months
Active Civil Affairs deployments: 6 months
Active Psychological Operations (PSYOP) deployments: 6 to 12
months
U.S. Army Ranger deployments: 4 months
SOF deployments for Theater Security Cooperation Events (Joint
Combined Exercises for Training (JCET), Counter Narco-terrorism, Mobile
Training Teams, Exercises) typically vary from 2 weeks to 4 months.
Question. Does the $9 million training range requested for Al Udeid
reflect a need to conduct more training in theater? Is this related to
the high rate of deployment?
Answer. The establishment of a training range is required because
no enduring special operations training facilities exist in theater.
Thus the $9 million training complex requested for Al Udeid reflects
the need for special operations forces to conduct realistic training in
theater to ensure they are sufficiently prepared to execute their
mission in support of USCENTCOM.
Question. What are the Guard and Reserve component units of SOCOM,
and where are they based?
Answer. USSOCOM is comprised of the following Guard and Reserve
Components, listed with their associated locations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air National Guard (ANG):
123rd Special Tactics Flight. Louisville, KY.
193rd Special Operations Wing Middletown, PA.
Army National Guard (ARNG):
20th Special Forces Group.... Birmingham, AL.
Company B, 1st Battalion/20th Decatur, AL.
Special Forces Group.
1st Battalion/20th Group Huntsville, AL.
Special Forces Group.
Company B/1st Battalion/20th Mobile, AL.
Group Special Forces Group.
Company A/5th Battalion/19th Los Alamitos, CA.
Group Special Forces Group.
Company A/5th Battalion/19th Redwood City, CA.
Group Special Forces Group.
Company B/5th Battalion/19th Fort Carson, CO.
Group Special Forces Group.
5th Battalion/19th Group Watkins, CO.
Special Forces Group.
3rd Battalion/20th Special Camp Blanding, FL.
Forces Group.
Special Operations Detachment MacDill AFB, FL.
Central.
Company A, 3rd Battalion/20th Ocala, FL.
Special Forces Group.
Company C, 3rd Battalion/20th Wauchula, FL.
Special Forces Group.
Company A/2nd Battalion/20th Chicago, IL.
Group Special Forces Group.
Kentucky Military Louisvilla, KY.
Intelligence Detachment.
Company C/1st Battalion/20th Springfield, MA.
Group Special Forces Group.
Special Operations Detachment Baltimore, MD.
Joint Forces.
Company B/2nd Battalion/20th Glen Arm, MD.
Group.
107th Weather Flight (ANG Detroit, MI.
Unit assigned to ARNG Unit).
Company C/2nd Battalion/20th Grenada, MS.
Group Special Forces Group.
2nd Battalion/20th Group Jackson, MS.
Special Forces Group.
Special Operations Detachment Jackson, MS.
South.
190th Chem Recon Detachment.. Helena, MT.
Company B/3rd Battalion/20th Roanoke Rapids, NC.
Group Special Forces Group.
Company A/2nd Battalion/19th Columbus, OH.
Group Special Forces Group.
Company A/2nd Battalion/19th Middletown, RI.
Group.
Special Operations Detachment Providence, RI.
Global.
181st Weather Flight (ANG Forth Worth, TX.
Unit assigned to ARNG Unit).
Company C/5th Battalion/19th San Antonio, TX.
Group Special Forces Group.
19th Special Forces Group.... Draper, UT.
1st Battalion/19th Group Camp Williams, UT.
Special Forces Group.
Company B/1st Battalion/19th Camp Williams, UT.
Group Special Forces Group.
Company C/1st Battalion/19th Camp Williams, UT.
Group Special Forces Group.
Company A/1st Battalion/19th Camp Buckley, WA
Group Special Forces Group.
Special Operations Detachment Camp Buckley, WA.
South.
Company A/1st Battalion/19th Spokane, WA.
Group Special Forces Group.
2nd Battalion/19th Group Kenova, WV.
Special Forces Group.
Company C/2nd Battalion/19th Kingwood, WV.
Group.
Special Operations Detachment Kingwood, WV.
Europe.
Navy Reserve (NR):
Naval Special Warfare San Diego, CA.
Operational Support Group.
Naval Special Warfare San Diego, CA.
Operational Support Team ONE.
Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd Hialeah, FL.
South Detachment 108.
Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd Jacksonville, FL.
Europe Detachment 530.
Navy Reserve U.S. Special Ops Tampa, FL.
Cmd Headquarters.
Navy Reserve U.S. Special Ops Tampa, FL.
Cmd Intel Detachment.
Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd Tampa, FL.
Central Detachment 208.
Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd Pearl Harbor, HI.
Pacific Detachment 620.
Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd Houston, TX.
Korea Detachment 101.
Navy Reserve Special Ops Cmd Norfolk VA.
JT Forces Cmd Det 606.
Naval Special Warfare Norfolk, VA.
Operational Support Team TWO.
Air Force Reserve (AFR):
919th Special Operations Wing Eglin AFB, FL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question. How does SOCOM generate its MILCON requirements? Are they
generated at the installation level? What is the role of SOCOM's
component commands in the process, and what is the role of the
engineering/facilities commands of the Military Departments?
Answer. SOCOM generates SOF MILCON requirements through a four-
phased comprehensive Strategic Planning Process (SPP). The SPP ensures
compliance with DoD directives and policies to produce the USSOCOM
Major Force Program--11 Program Objective Memorandum/Budget Estimate
Submission or Program Review/Program Budget Review. The SPP is the
principal vehicle for assigning priorities and allocating resources
among approved and validated SOF requirements, including MILCON, with
the desired goal to include these priorities in the POM to maximize
USSOCOM's capabilities through the end of the Future Years Defense
Program. This process is a collaborative effort involving installation,
component, and headquarters levels. SOCOM's component commands are an
integral partner in the process. All SOCOM MILCON projects comply with
DoD and Military Departments engineering/facilities commands policies
and procedures for construction.
Question. Is the execution of SOCOM MILCON overseen at the
headquarters level, or is this delegated to the component commands and/
or installation level?
Answer. Yes, MILCON execution is overseen at the headquarters level
together with our executive design and construction agents. The
component commands also maintain oversight along with SOF tier units at
the installation level.
Question. How does the 13,119 growth figure break down among the
SOCOM component commands?
Answer. Component command breakout of the 13,119 growth figure is
as follows: Army--7,769; Marine--2,461; Air Force--1,513; Navy--1,376.
Question. How many and what types of new units will be stood up
with the additional 13,119 personnel?
Answer. The following is a list of new units that will be stood up
with the 13,119 growth:
Army: 4 Special Forces Battalions; 3 Ranger Companies; 1 Civil
Affairs Brigade HQ; 3 Civil Affairs Battalions; 3 Psychological
Operations Companies.
Air Force: 1 UAS Squadron; 6 Operational Aviation Detachments--A; 1
Special Operations Distributed Ground Station Unit.
Marine: 2 Marine Special Operation Advisory Groups; 2 Marine
Special Operation Battalions; 1 Marine Special Operation Support Group.
Question. Are the personnel for the 27th Special Operations Wing at
Cannon included in the 13,119 growth figure?
Answer. Personnel for the 27th Special Operations Wing at Cannon
are not included in the 13,119 growth figure. Cannon relocation
decisions came post-QDR.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Edwards.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2754E.042

W I T N E S S E S

----------
Page
Abate, Statement of Paul......................................... 766
Arny, Wayne...................................................... 955
Baker, Statement of Kerry........................................ 851
Bell, General B. B............................................... 531
Beversdorf, Statement of Cheryl.................................. 659
Blake, Statement of Carl......................................... 838
Breckler, Statement of Steven.................................... 754
Brown, Statement of James K...................................... 737
Campa, Master Chief Petty Officer Joe R.......................... 45
Casey, General George W., Jr..................................... 1036
Conway, General James T.......................................... 459
Cox, Timothy C................................................... 197
Craddock, General Bantz J........................................ 1084
Daigh, John Jr................................................... 237
Davis, Statement of John R....................................... 724
Eulberg, Major General Del....................................... 619
Fallon, Admiral William J........................................ 350
Finn, Belinda.................................................... 260
Granahan, Statement of Marcie.................................... 745
Greene, Chief Judge William P., Jr............................... 218
Hake, Statement of Jonathan E.................................... 713
Howard, the Honorable Robert T................................... 896
Jonas, the Honorable Tina W...................................... 950
Jones, Statement of Rick......................................... 692
Keating, Admiral Timothy J....................................... 517
Kelley, Statement of Raymond..................................... 868
Kent, Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent............................. 24
Kussman, the Honorable Michael J................................. 390
Maupin, Statement of John E., Jr................................. 681
McKinley, Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J......................... 58
Mosely, General T. Michael....................................... 588
Needham, Statement of Christopher................................ 861
Nicholson, Brigadier General John W.............................. 171
O'Neill, James J................................................. 250
Olson, Admiral Eric T............................................ 1170
Peake, Honorable James B., M.D................................... 108
Preston, Sergeant Major Kenneth O................................ 5
Regan, Maureen................................................... 262
Robertson, Statement of Steve.................................... 821
Rodriguez, Statement of the Honorable Ciro....................... 652
Roughead, Admiral Gary........................................... 446
Stavridis, Admiral James G....................................... 1140
Weaver, Statement of Terri....................................... 673
Woodley, the Honorable John Paul, Jr............................. 182

I N D E X

----------

Quality of Life

Page
Base Realignment and Closure, Effects of......................... 97
Campa, Prepared Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Joe R.... 47
Campa, Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Joe R............. 45
Chairman, Statement of........................................... l
Child Development Centers........................................ 94
Family Housing................................................... 80
Family Support Network, Integrated............................... 92
Financial Counseling............................................. 96
Guard and Reserve................................................ 90
Health Care, Quality of.......................................... 86
High School Graduates............................................ 81
Joint Basing..................................................... 92
Kent, Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent....... 25
Kent, Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent................ 24
McKinley, Prepared Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J... 61
McKinley, Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J............ 58
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder................................... 84
Preston, Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O.......... 8
Preston, Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O................... 5
Quality of Life Priorities, Top.................................. 88
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 3
Sexual Assault, Programs for Victims of.......................... 82

Veterans Affairs

American Lake, Washington........................................ 134
Benefits, Overpayment of......................................... 151
Blood Glucose Monitoring......................................... 154
Budget Projections............................................... 138
Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES).......... 136
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 105
Construction Inflation........................................... 144
Denver, Colorado--Major Construction............................. 165
Dole-Shalala Commission--Disability Compensation................. 157
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Implementation of........................ 129
Gravesite Expansions--Major Construction......................... 168
Information Technology........................................... 146
Legislative Proposals............................................ 156
Long-Term Care................................................... 159
Louisville, Kentucky Hospital.................................... 166
Medical Research................................................. 160
Mental Health and Traumatic Brain Injury......................... 137
National Cemetery Administration--Minor Construction............. 161
Orlando, Florida--Major Construction............................. 162
Outpatient Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida....................... 148
Peake, Prepared Statement of the Honorable James B., M.D......... 113
Peake, Statement of the Honorable James B., M.D.................. 108
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder................................... 130
Prosthetic Research.............................................. 145
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 106
San Juan, Puerto Rico--Major Construction........................ 163
St. Louis, Missouri--Major Construction.......................... 164
Suicide Rate among Veterans...................................... 150
Sustainability and Energy........................................ 167
Transition to VA................................................. 134
Vet Centers...................................................... 152
Veterans Cemetery in Jacksonville, Florida....................... 149
Veterans, Burial Needs for....................................... 132

American Battle Monuments Commission

Chairman, Statement of the....................................... 169
Foreign Currency Fluctuation..................................... 177
Nicholson, Prepared Statement of Brigadier General John W........ 173
Nicholson, Statement of Brigadier General John W................. 171
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 170
Security at Normandy Visitor Center.............................. 179
Supplemental..................................................... 177

Cemeterial Expenses, Army

Amphitheater..................................................... 195
Cemetery Management Plan......................................... 192
Chairman, Statement of the....................................... 182
Honor Guard and Horses, Care of.................................. 193
Tomb of the Unknowns............................................. 193
Woodley, Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Paul, Jr....... 185
Woodley, Statement of the Honorable John Paul, Jr................ 182

Armed Forces Retirement Home

Cox, Prepared Statement of Timothy C............................. 200
Cox, Statement of Timothy C...................................... 197
Green Construction............................................... 210
Gulfport Facility................................................ 210
Homeless Veterans................................................ 208
Private Developments, Other...................................... 211
Washington Facility.............................................. 212

Court of Appeals

Appeals Process.................................................. 230
Cases, Backlog of................................................ 228
Full Time Equivalents............................................ 230
Greene, Prepared Statement of Chief Judge William P., Jr......... 221
Greene, Statement of Chief Judge William P., Jr.................. 218
Pro Bono Consortium.............................................. 229

Office of Inspector General

Benefit Overpayments............................................. 268
Benefits Claims, Backlog of...................................... 296
Benefits Processing.............................................. 297
Bureaucratic Management Issues................................... 272
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 235
Contracting...................................................... 266
Daigh, Statement of John Jr...................................... 237
Data-Mining...................................................... 257
Drug Diversion................................................... 287
Finn, Statement of Belinda....................................... 260
Hiring Personnel................................................. 285
Inadequate Care.................................................. 253
Information Management........................................... 296
Inspector General, Authority over................................ 282
Interoperability between DoD and VA.............................. 273
Las Vegas, Nevada Office......................................... 255
O'Neill, Statement of James J.................................... 250
Office of Inspector General, Prepared Statement from the......... 239
Patient Advocate System.......................................... 284
Personnel, Hiring Additional...................................251, 285
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder................................... 293
Prescriptions, Cost of........................................... 274
Private Health Care Providers, Contracting with.................. 266
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 236
Recruitment...................................................... 255
Regan, Statement of Maureen...................................... 262
Reports, Request for Copies of................................... 297
Staff Resources and Workload..................................... 256
Tallahassee, Florida Office...................................... 255
VA Facilities, Staffing Issues................................... 298
Procurement Activities........................................... 346
VA Standards of Delivery of Care................................. 273
VISN Management Issues........................................... 264
VISN Structure................................................... 295
Whistleblower Protection Act..................................... 283

Central Command

2009, Beyond..................................................... 379
Afghanistan...............................................366, 374, 383
Banking and Mail Delivery........................................ 381
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 349
Countries in CENTCOM............................................. 370
Djibouti......................................................... 374
Fallon, Prepared Statement of Admiral William J.................. 354
Fallon, Statement of Admiral William J........................... 350
Host Nations..................................................... 380
Iran............................................................. 371
Iraq, Daily Life in.............................................. 377
Iraq, U.S. Footprint in.......................................... 376
Long Term Security............................................... 365
MacDill AFB....................................................376, 379
Parking at CENTCOM Headquarters.................................. 375
Ranking Minority Member.......................................... 350
Syrian Border.................................................... 366

Veterans Affairs--Medical Care

Chairman, Statement of........................................... 389
Chattanooga Area Health Care and CARES Decision.................. 437
Community-Based Outpatient Clinics.............................402, 435
Disability Evaluation System/Wounded Warriors.................... 437
Dual Diagnosis Mental Health Programs............................ 432
Electronic Health Records........................................ 401
Federal Recovery Coordinators/Wounded Warriors................... 436
Future of Healthcare Research.................................... 416
GAO Report....................................................... 437
Head Trauma...................................................... 409
Homeless......................................................... 431
Innovation....................................................... 413
Joint VA/DoD Medical Facilities.................................. 425
Kussman, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael J........... 393
Kussman, Statement of the Honorable Michael J.................... 390
Long-Term Care................................................... 433
Louisville, Kentucky Hospital.................................... 431
Medical Accounts................................................. 430
Medical Administration and Medical Services Accounts, Request to
Merge.......................................................... 434
Medical Research................................................. 433
Non-Institutional Long-Term Care................................. 440
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder................................... 432
Priority Eight Veterans.......................................... 412
Quality Care, Access to.......................................... 428
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 390
Rural Health Care................................................ 441
Seamless Transition between VA and DoD........................... 440
Smoking Cessation................................................ 433
Suicide Rate of Veterans......................................... 418
Transfer of Records from DoD to VA............................... 404
Vet Centers...................................................... 439
Vision Impaired Veterans......................................... 407
VISN Structure................................................... 441
Women's Health................................................... 430

Navy Budget

Afghanistan...................................................... 481
AFRICOM.......................................................... 493
Barracks, Aged--Replacement Projects............................. 503
Barracks MilCon.................................................. 500
Barracks PPV..................................................... 500
Base Realignment and Closure 2005................................ 507
Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 480
Basic Housing Allowance.......................................... 509
Blount Island.................................................... 495
Camp Lejeune Water Contamination................................. 512
Camp Lemonier Budget Request..................................... 508
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 445
Child Development Center Construction............................ 511
Child Development Centers Expansion Plan......................... 511
Child Development Centers........................................ 490
Conway, Prepared Statement of General James T.................... 461
Conway, Statement of General James T............................. 459
DDG 1000......................................................... 488
Dispersal of Assets.............................................. 485
Environmental Impact for LCS Homeporting......................... 501
Environmental Impact Study....................................... 486
Family Housing--Construction, Improvements, Planning and Design.. 509
Family Housing--O&M and Leasing Costs............................ 511
Family Housing--Renovate, Replace, Sustain Housing in Overseas
Locations...................................................... 510
Family Housing Budget Overseas Locations......................... 510
Family Housing Budget............................................ 509
Family Services Program.......................................... 489
Grow the Force--Barracks Acquisition Strategy.................... 502
Grow the Force--Barracks......................................... 502
Grow the Force--Construction..................................... 502
Grow the Force--FY 09 Requirements............................... 508
Grow the Force--Marine Corps..................................... 508
Grow the Force--Reserves......................................... 502
Grow the Force--Temporary Facilities............................. 502
Guam--Flag Housing............................................... 502
Guam Realignment................................................. 506
Guam Relocation--Futenma Replacement Facility.................... 506
Guam Relocation--Plans, Decisions, Budget........................ 507
Guam Relocation--Units and Capabilities.......................... 505
Guam Requirements................................................ 501
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............................................. 498
Housing Privatization............................................ 487
Inadequate Housing............................................... 477
Incremental Funding.............................................. 498
Inflation Figures................................................ 500
Japan to Guam, Moving from....................................... 480
Joint Basing..................................................... 493
Joint Basing Process............................................. 508
MV-22--Military Construction Cost for Beddown.................... 506
Naval War College................................................ 497
PPV-Child Development Facilities................................. 501
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 445
Reprogrammings................................................... 492
Roughead, Prepared Statement of Admiral Gary..................... 448
Roughead, Statement of Admiral Gary.............................. 446
Single vs. Married Servicemembers................................ 477
Special Weapons Security......................................... 500
Training Barracks................................................ 503
Unaccompanied Housing Construction Strategy...................... 499
Unaccompanied Housing FYDP....................................... 499
Youth Activity Needs............................................. 501

Pacific Command

1-Year Tour...................................................... 564
Accompanied Tours................................................ 573
Bell, Prepared Statement of General B. B......................... 534
Bell, Statement of General B. B.................................. 531
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 515
China............................................................ 560
Construction Costs............................................... 584
DMZ.............................................................. 577
Family Housing in Korea.......................................... 571
Guam Construction Costs.......................................... 576
Guam............................................................. 560
Housing.......................................................... 562
Housing, Substandard............................................. 575
Keating, Prepared Statement of Admiral Timothy J................. 519
Keating, Statement of Admiral Timothy J.......................... 517
Long-Term Leasing................................................ 570
Military to Military Engagement/Security Progress................ 585
Okinawa to Guam Transition....................................... 567
PACOM Global War on Terror Efforts............................... 569
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 515
South Korean Economy............................................. 559
Strategic Culmination Plan....................................... 585
Taiwan........................................................... 566
Yongsan Garrison Relocation Plan................................. 578

Air Force

AFSOC Wing at Cannon Air Force Base.............................. 644
B-35 Beddown..................................................... 642
Bachelor Housing................................................. 648
Base Realignment and Closure Funding...........................627, 649
Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 623
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 587
Child Care Waiting List.......................................... 634
Child Development Centers........................................ 649
Combat Search and Research Helicopter............................ 643
Cyber Command.................................................... 631
Dorms-4-Airmen................................................... 643
Engineer Shortage................................................ 647
Eulberg, Statement of Major General Del.......................... 619
Family Housing................................................... 648
Fitness Centers.................................................. 649
Guam Military Construction....................................... 643
Housing, Inadequate.............................................. 621
Inflation Assumption............................................. 629
Infrastructure Funding, Risk in.................................. 646
Infrastructure................................................... 638
Joint Basing..................................................... 603
Korea, Training Ranges in........................................ 644
Military Construction and Family Housing......................... 642
Military Construction, Decrease in............................... 626
Moody Air Force Base............................................. 632
Moseley, Prepared Statement of General T. Michael................ 591
Moseley, Statement of General T. Michael......................... 588
Okinawa to Guam, Relocation from................................. 644
Permanent Party Dormitories...................................... 643
Personnel Relocations in the National Capital Region............. 645
Pipeline Dormitories............................................. 643
Private Sector................................................... 639
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 588
RED HORSE and Prime BEEF......................................... 624
Renewable Energy................................................. 648
Road Map......................................................... 642

Outside Witnesses

Abate, Prepared Statement of Paul................................ 768
Abate, Statement of Paul......................................... 766
Baker, Prepared Statement of Kerry............................... 853
Baker, Statement of Kerry........................................ 851
Beversdorf, Prepared Statement of Cheryl......................... 662
Beversdorf, Statement of Cheryl.................................. 659
Blake, Prepared Statement of Carl................................ 841
Blake, Statement of Carl......................................... 838
Breckler, Prepared Statement of Steven........................... 756
Breckler, Statement of Steven.................................... 754
Brown, Prepared Statement of James K............................. 739
Brown, Statement of James K...................................... 737
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 651
Davis, Prepared Statement of John R.............................. 727
Davis, Statement of John R....................................... 724
Granahan, Prepared Statement of Marcie........................... 748
Granahan, Statement of Marcie.................................... 745
Hake, Prepared Statement of Jonathan E........................... 716
Hake, Statement of Jonathan E.................................... 713
Jones, Prepared Statement of Rick................................ 695
Jones, Statement of Rick......................................... 692
Kelley, Prepared Statement of Raymond............................ 870
Kelley, Statement of Raymond..................................... 868
Maupin, Prepared Statement of John E., Jr........................ 684
Maupin, Statement of John E., Jr................................. 681
Needham, Prepared Statement of Christopher....................... 863
Needham, Statement of Christopher................................ 861
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 651
Robertson, Prepared Statement of Steve........................... 824
Robertson, Statement of Steve.................................... 821
Rodriguez, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ciro.............. 655
Rodriguez, Statement of the Honorable Ciro....................... 652
Weaver, Prepared Statement of Terri.............................. 675
Weaver, Statement of Terri....................................... 673

Veterans Affairs--Information Technology

Accountability................................................... 924
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 895
Community-Based Outpatient Clinics............................... 915
Consolidated Information Technology Operations................... 942
Data Exchange..................................................916, 927
District Casework Overload....................................... 940
Electronic Health Record......................................... 937
Encryption/Privacy of Mobile Service Delivery.................... 936
Financial Management............................................. 913
Fiscal Year 2009 Information Technology Budget Request........... 942
Howard, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert T............. 898
Howard, Statement of the Honorable Robert T...................... 896
Information Technology Initiatives............................... 939
Information Technology Systems................................... 926
Internal Facing Information Technology Systems................... 937
Lost Data........................................................ 933
Lost Records..................................................... 942
Office of Information and Technology............................. 931
Proposed Legislative Language.................................... 931
Reprogramming Letter............................................. 934
Rescheduling Projects..........................................924, 935
Security Breach Developments..................................... 911
Staffing Requirements............................................ 914
Surveys and Investigations Report................................ 934
Transmission of Electronic Health Records........................ 919
VA Communications System......................................... 943
VA/DoD Coordination on Disability Claims......................... 941
Veteran Facing Information Technology (IT) Systems............... 937
VISTA Contracting................................................ 932
VISTA Foundations Modernization.................................. 932
VISTA Legacy System.............................................. 939

Budget Overview

AFRICOM.......................................................... 996
Army, Prepared Statement of Wayne................................ 959
Army, Statement of Wayne......................................... 955
Base Realignment and Closure Sites, Cleanup of................... 1019
Base Realignment and Closure.............................995, 999, 1006
Camp Lejeune War Contamination................................... 1011
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 949
Child Development Centers........................................ 1011
Construction Inflation........................................... 997
Cuba, Plan for................................................... l018
Directive 3005................................................... 1002
Economic Development Conveyance.................................. 1016
Global Center for Security Cooperation........................... 1003
Guam............................................................. l014
Health Care...................................................... 1025
Inadequate Housing............................................... 1023
Joint Basing..................................................... 1004
Jonas, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tina W................ 952
Jonas, Statement of the Honorable Tina W......................... 950
Naval Station Newport............................................ 1009
Overseas Housing................................................. 1021
Privatization.................................................... 1007
Rebalancing the Army............................................. 1013

Army

Army Medical Action Plan and the Soldier Family Assistance Plan.. 1075
Army Training Reserve Facility................................... 1074
Balance, Restoring............................................... 1051
Barracks Privatization........................................... 1076
Base Realignment and Closure 2005................................ 1081
Base Realignment and Closure Privatization....................... 1070
CACTF............................................................ 1074
Casey, Prepared Statement of General George W., Jr............... 1040
Casey, Statement of General George W., Jr........................ 1036
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1035
Child Care Fees for an E-5....................................... 1072
Child Development Centers........................................ 1071
Community Based Outpatient Clinic at Former Fort Ord............. 1054
Construction Inflation on Military Construction.................. 1053
Europe, Footprint in............................................. 1071
Family Housing, Impact of Grow the Force......................... 1077
Fiscal Accountability............................................ 1067
Fort Benning, Georgia............................................ 1055
Fort Riley, Health Care Needs at................................. 1064
Full Spectrum Operations......................................... 1057
Grow the Army.................................................... 1079
Guard and Reserve................................................ 1059
Health Care...................................................... 1063
Impact Aid....................................................... 1061
Korea............................................................ 1072
Modularity....................................................... 1077
Monterey, Staffing New Medical Clinic in......................... 1054
Mortgages........................................................ 1062
National Guard Equipment......................................... 1069
Prepare.......................................................... 1080
Quality of Life Issues........................................... 1053
Range and Training Land Strategy................................. 1078
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 1036
Recruitment Goals................................................ 1066
Stability, Security, Transition and Reconstruction...........1068, 1074
Stress........................................................... 1050
Sustainment...................................................... 1079
Temporary Facilities and Interim Capacity........................ 1078
Tour Lengths, Reduced............................................ 1070
Training Facilities.............................................. 1052

European Command

AFRICOM.......................................................... 1123
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1083
Craddock, Prepared Statement of General Bantz J.................. 1087
Craddock, Statement of General Bantz J........................... 1084
Education........................................................ 1127
Egypt............................................................ 1120
European Command Area of Operation............................... 1130
Fluctuation of the Dollar........................................ 1115
Germany, Force Posture in....................................1114, 1121
Inadequate Housing............................................... 1123
Kosovo........................................................... 1131
Military Presence in Europe...................................... 1132
Missile Defense.................................................. 1117
NATO............................................................. 1128
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 1083

Southern Command

Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 1151
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1139
Columbia...............................................1150, 1153, 1157
Counter Narcotics Effort......................................... 1150
Counterdrug Operating Locations.................................. 1166
Crisis Corps Response............................................ 1159
Cuba and Guantanamo.............................................. 1151
Cuba.........................................................1149, 1158
Fourth Fleet..................................................... 1148
Guantanamo....................................................... 1167
Hospital Ship Comfort............................................ 1156
Latin American Military Aid...................................... 1165
Military Construction in Region.................................. 1148
Military/Armed Forces in SOUTHCOM................................ 1161
New Headquarters................................................. 1163
Panama........................................................... 1163
Political and Economic Developments in Latin America............. 1154
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 1139
SOCSOUTH......................................................... 1168
Soto Cano Air Base, Honduras..................................... 1167
SOUTHCOM Headquarters............................................ 1167
Stavridis, Prepared Statement of Admiral James G................. 1142
Stavridis, Statement of Admiral James G.......................... 1140

Special Operations

Al Udeid Air Base................................................ 1187
C-130............................................................ 1194
Cannon Air Force Base............................................ 1187
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1169
Counterinsurgency Effort......................................... 1198
Inflation........................................................ 1197
Mission, People and Acquisition Priorities....................... 1185
Naval Post-Graduate School Field Experimentation Program......... 1185
Naval Post-Graduate School....................................... 1195
Nuclear Proliferation............................................ 1192
Olson, Prepared Statement of Admiral Eric T...................... 1173
Olson, Statement of Admiral Eric T............................... 1170
Operational Tempo................................................ 1191
Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome/Traumatic Brain Injury............ 1199
Quality of Life Issues........................................... 1189
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 1169
SOF Ranger Battalion Complex, Fort Lewis......................... 1195
Special Forces Complex, Eglin Air Force Base..................... 1186
Special Operations Command, Growth of........................1182, 1188
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles......................................... 1194