[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 110-150]
MILITARY RESALE AND MORALE,
WELFARE, AND RECREATION OVERVIEW
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 17, 2008
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
NANCY BOYDA, Kansas THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire JOE WILSON, South Carolina
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
Michael Higgins, Professional Staff Member
John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
Rosellen Kim, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2008
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, April 17, 2008, Military Resale and Morale, Welfare,
and Recreation Overview........................................ 1
Appendix:
Thursday, April 17, 2008......................................... 39
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008
MILITARY RESALE AND MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION OVERVIEW
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California,
Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee.................... 1
McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative from New York, Ranking
Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee........................ 2
WITNESSES
Arsht, Leslye A., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military
Community and Family Policy.................................... 3
Baker, John, Fleet and Family Readiness Program Director, Navy
Installations Command.......................................... 10
Bianchi, Rear Adm. Robert J., USN, Commander, Navy Exchange
Service Command................................................ 6
Larsen, Timothy R., Director, Personal and Family Readiness
Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps...................... 8
Macdonald, Maj. Gen. John A., USA, Deputy Commanding General,
U.S. Army Installation Management Command and Commander, Family
and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command..................... 4
Myers, Arthur J., Director of Services, Headquarters, U.S. Air
Force.......................................................... 11
Page, Richard S., Acting Director, Defense Commissary Agency..... 9
Thurgood, Brig. Gen. Keith L., USAR, Commander, Army and Air
Force Exchange Service......................................... 7
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Arsht, Leslye A.............................................. 48
Baker, John.................................................. 158
Bianchi, Rear Adm. Robert J.................................. 95
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 43
Larsen, Timothy R............................................ 119
Macdonald, Maj. Gen. John A.................................. 79
McHugh, Hon. John M.......................................... 46
Myers, Arthur J.............................................. 172
Page, Richard S.............................................. 141
Thurgood, Brig. Gen. Keith L................................. 103
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mrs. Drake................................................... 205
Ms. Tsongas.................................................. 205
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mrs. Davis................................................... 209
MILITARY RESALE AND MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION OVERVIEW
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, April 17, 2008.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis
(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mrs. Davis. Good morning. Good to see you all.
Today, the subcommittee will turn its attention to military
resale and morale, welfare and recreation of our MWR programs.
When service members and their families talk about community
quality of life, they are referring to the commissaries, to
exchanges, child development centers, youth centers, libraries,
gymnasiums, playing fields, parks, golf courses, clubs,
restaurants, recreation equipment, and hobby shops that are the
core of the military community.
Many Americans would consider the package of facilities and
services that is typical for most installations and declare
that it is better than what they have in their communities. But
few would challenge that these community resources are
inappropriate, because Americans recognize the remarkable
sacrifices and stress that accompany military life,
particularly today, given the extreme tempo of our ongoing
conflicts. Our families need these strong and reliable centers
in their lives, and our warriors absolutely must be confident
that their families are well cared for in their absence.
The programs we will talk about today are a critical part
of that confidence. In short, the Members of Congress, and
particularly the members of this subcommittee, are believers.
While we require no convincing, I worry about the commitment of
the armed services to sustaining these programs; with the
exception of child care, the appropriated funding support for
these programs has not always been so terribly enthusiastic,
and we seem to be less concerned about the challenge in
maintaining a caring community environment.
So I hope that the day does not come when we regret the
loss of the sense of community in the military because we no
longer fully appreciate its value as we once did. And you may
want to respond to that because I think what we are trying to
see is, how do we--how do we enhance that? How do we see it
growing in a way that really honors the men and women who
serve?
We also have a number of questions concerning the
management of these programs and the stewardship of the
nonappropriated dollars that belong to the soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines that serve our Nation.
Before introducing our wonderful panel this morning, I want
to recognize Mr. McHugh for his opening comments.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 43.]
Mrs. Davis. Mr. McHugh.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
YORK, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. McHugh. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I ask that my
full statement be placed in the record in its entirety.
And let me just very briefly say that--well, first of all,
welcome to our distinguished panelists. You may have set a
committee record for the number of individuals on a panel. As
the Chair suggested, your number very clearly underscores the
wide range of the services you provide, and yet it all comes
back to that one catch-all phrase, ``quality of life.'' And I
know you recognize in this time of high operations tempo the
necessity for your product, for the quality of life, that the
needs of your customers have never been greater. And that is
our collective goal here, of course, to try to do everything we
can to ensure that your product goes forward and wherever
necessary and possible, even enhanced.
I certainly share the Chair's concern about what seems to
be, certainly in real dollar terms, a lack of consistent
commitment of the MWR programs. I think that that is something
that we are going to want to discuss more fully here today.
And, as well, of course, we want to hear your perspective--
where you view the greatest challenges, how we can be helpful
to you as you endeavor to meet those challenges.
And let me last welcome five of you, particularly. You are
all welcome, of course. And we are honored to have you. But we
have five amongst you, this is your first appearance; and I
know the Chair will be introducing the panel, so I will leave
it to her to single those folks out. But I wanted to add my
particular words of appreciation to those new panelists, and we
will try not to be too heavy handed in our treatment of you.
So welcome, and we look forward to your comments.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McHugh can be found in the
Appendix on page 46.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
I wanted to introduce all of the panel members this
morning. Ms. Leslye Arsht, who is the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Military Community and Family Policy; Major General
John A. Macdonald, United States Army, Deputy Commanding
General, U.S. Army Installation Management Command, and
Commander, Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command;
Rear Admiral Robert Bianchi, U.S. Navy Commander, Navy Exchange
Service Command; Brigadier General Keith Thurgood, U.S. Air
Forces, Commander, Army and Air Force Exchange Service; General
Timothy Larsen, Director of Personal and Family Readiness
Division, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps; Mr. Richard Page,
Acting Director, Defense Commissary Agency; Mr. John Baker,
Fleet and Family Readiness Program Director, Navy Installations
Command; and Mr. Arthur J. Myers, Director of Services,
Headquarters U.S. Air Force.
Ms. Arsht and Mr. Myers, you are both very familiar, we
know; and welcome back to you.
And General Macdonald, as we know, you took a year off, and
we welcome you back with--and also in a new role and a
promotion. So congratulations to you.
And to the rest of you, we welcome you here. I am very
pleased to have you. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel
knows how important your positions are; and we are very
encouraged by your interest and your commitment and we thank
you very much for being here.
It is unusual to have almost 100 percent turnover in these
positions, and so we hope that that will mean that we have
great new energy; and I am sure that the excellence of all of
you will certainly be realized as we work toward the goal of
helping our military families.
I wanted to ask, and I think you have probably been told,
we have such a large panel, and you have some wonderful
statements that you have given to us; if you can reduce your
comments this morning, though, to three minutes, and your
introductory statement, I know that we are going to have an
opportunity to get to many of the issues that you would spend
more time talking about. But if you could, just focus on the
key issues that you want us to know about today, this morning,
and we will have an opportunity to go into far greater depth.
Thank you very much for being here.
Ms. Arsht.
STATEMENT OF LESLYE A. ARSHT, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR MILITARY COMMUNITY AND FAMILY POLICY
Ms. Arsht. Chairwoman Davis, Representative McHugh,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity.
Today, you will hear testimony about inspired approaches
and a renewed spirit of collaboration to deliver meaningful and
relevant support to our military community members, whether
they live near or far from an installation. Our resale and MWR
programs are more effectively reaching out to our active duty,
Guard and Reserve families, our retirees, the digital
generation of members and our military spouses who work. We are
creating a new paradigm made possible through technologies and
partnerships.
Working together with the services to implement Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and restationing, we have made
great progress to develop uniform guidelines and standards for
programs to treat our affected employees equitably and assure
that the facilities costs are borne by appropriated funds.
In the State of the Union address, the President asked that
Congress support more child care and education opportunities
for our military families. With the help of enabling
legislation, we plan to increase the availability of affordable
child care by further accelerating on-base construction
programs and by creating more partnerships for child care in
the communities outside the gate.
We are also expanding spouse career and education
opportunities. There is a renewed commitment by the commissary
and exchange leadership to work together to better serve the
customer. Joint sales events exemplify commissary and exchange
collaboration. These events attract our families from
surrounding communities, including retirees, to our retail
complexes on military installations.
Last year, Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) initiated
prototype events at Guard and Reserve locations and plans to
significantly increase the number of events this year with
exchange participation.
We are initiating several MWR programs for our far-flung
military members and families. Newly purchased library
databases and electronic and audio books, including animated
books for children and do-it-yourself guides for home and auto
repair will be available virtually anywhere through Military
OneSource and services library portals.
To expand the MWR benefit for families of deployed Guard
and Reserve members, we will buy down family memberships to
fitness and recreation centers in local and communities. For
deployed members who use the Internet to communicate with
family and friends, we improved the speed, reliability and
access to YouTube.com, Facebook.com and other widely used
websites.
I thank the Congress, our resale and MWR employees, our
industry partners for the genuine concern and willingness to
work together to sustain these essential programs. We will need
your continued support as we adapt our programs to better serve
the deployed Guard and Reserve communities and implement the
President's initiatives for military families.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Arsht can be found in the
Appendix on page 48.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Yes, please go ahead. Who is next, Mr. Macdonald?
General Macdonald.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. JOHN A. MACDONALD, USA, DEPUTY
COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND
AND COMMANDER, FAMILY AND MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION
COMMAND
General Macdonald. Madam Chairwoman and members of the
subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss
the progress we have made in adapting Army family and MWR
programs to meet the challenges and opportunities that are
transforming our Army. I have submitted my statement for the
record and have a few brief comments.
Much of what I have to share with you today is not news. It
is not news that we continue to maintain MWR professional staff
in Southwest Asia and the Balkans; or that we maintain
facilities at 56 sites in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait; or that 65
civilian MWR professionals have served in areas since 9/11. But
we do, and they have. What was initially groundbreaking is now
business as usual; and while not exciting to report the routine
nature of, it is precisely what makes it good news.
Mrs. Davis. General, could you pull the mic a little
closer, please? Is it on?
Great. Thank you.
General Macdonald. Deploying soldiers can now be assured of
a standard level of service in even the most austere
environments. We continue to improve support in modest and
important ways: sports and recreation, library and theater-in-
a-box kits remain mainstays of MWR support to deployed
soldiers.
But one of our latest and very popular editions is a
product called a Playaway that we send to troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, about the size of an iPod, that comes preloaded
with an entire audio book, ear buds, extra batteries and a
lanyard ready to go wherever soldiers are regardless of whether
they have electricity or not.
Army support for families is another idea that is not new,
but the level of support is unprecedented. Your Army now has
the most dynamic and ambitious program to support families in
its 233-year history. Our initiatives are too numerous to fully
discuss here, but I would like to highlight just a few.
The Army Family Covenant is new and represents a $1.4
billion commitment this year to provide soldiers and families a
quality of life corresponding with their voluntary service and
daily sacrifice. That is a $700 million increase over last
year.
Our programs and services must adapt as the Army grows and
transforms. We are accomplishing that by implementing the
Family Covenant and other programs of standardized services
accessibility--quality health care, excellence in schools, and
expanded spousal education and employment opportunities. The
Army Integrated Family Support Network connects geographically
dispersed, all of our National Guard and Reserve soldiers, to
provide information, tools, resources and capabilities so that
those families are included in the Army, as well.
Army Child and Youth Programs remain essential to reduce
the conflict between soldiers' parental responsibilities and
unit mission requirements. The special authority to use
operations and maintenance (O&M) funding to construct child
development centers granted by the Fiscal Year 2006 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and extend it in 2008 has been
an invaluable complement to military construction (MILCON), and
we appreciate it. It has been able to serve as a fast track
intervention to be able to grow our child care capability.
The Army community covenant will be unveiled today at Fort
Benning, and is an ability for the Army to improve quality of
life for soldiers and families both at the current duty
stations as they transfer from state to state. This is tailored
at the local level, state level, and is working with governors
and governments to help us use community capability to support
our soldiers.
In conclusion, the Army will continue to invest in our
centerpiece, our soldiers and the families that support them.
We are on the right track in moving forward, installations and
quality of life are better today and will be even better
tomorrow. With your continued support, the Army will restore
balance, build the readiness necessary in an era of persistent
conflict and remain the strength of the Nation.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of General Macdonald can be found
in the Appendix on page 79.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Admiral Bianchi.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. ROBERT J. BIANCHI, USN, COMMANDER, NAVY
EXCHANGE SERVICE COMMAND
Admiral Bianchi. Chairwoman Davis and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, it is my privilege to appear before you
today, representing Navy exchanges.
Navy exchange programs exist to provide quality of life
support to our warfighters. Our role is a vital and enduring
one. By improving the quality of life of our sailors and taking
care of their needs, we allow them to focus on their mission
and ultimately prevail in battle because, at the end of the
day, that is really what it is all about.
Exchanges are instrumental in supporting recruitment and
retention. Navy's quality of life and retention survey of
enlisted and officer spouses has validated our critical link to
retention. Navy exchanges ranked among the top five programs
just behind health care, retirement benefit, housing allowances
and commissaries.
We support our warfighters both at sea and ashore. As Navy
operations evolve around the globe, so does our Navy exchange
presence. Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM) opened its
newest store at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Africa, last year.
And in November we opened a new store in Rota, Spain.
At sea, our ship store program takes care of sailors'
living needs and provides funding for our float recreation
programs. And our telecom program helps keep them in touch with
home.
We support the families of our warfighters. When their
loved ones are deployed or they are stationed overseas, our
exchanges provide more than just a place to shop. They function
as community hubs.
Navy exchanges, in conjunction with industry, sponsor
health and safety awareness programs, celebrity visits and many
family-focused events.
During the California wildfires last year, Navy exchanges
were there as part of Navy disaster recovery, providing lodging
and comfort items to evacuees.
Navy family members represent about one-third of our
worldwide associates. We value their contributions, and our
continuity of employment programs provide them flexible career
opportunities.
We are proud to take an active role in supporting our
wounded warriors and their families. Our Navy lodges provide
guest rooms to wounded service members and their loved ones.
Our telecom program provides free phone cards to the wounded at
hospitals and aboard United States Naval Ship (USNS) Comfort.
With our industry partners, we have provided new furniture for
hospital lounges and Nintendo Wii games for physical therapy
departments.
But taking care of our warfighters doesn't stop when they
retire from active duty. Retirees have earned their privileges,
and the exchanges play a vital role in fulfilling our Nation's
commitment to them.
Delivering quality of life programs is truly a joint
effort. Together with the Navy MWR, we provide a seamless
network of support to sailors and their families. We also
collaborate with Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES),
Marine Corps Exchange, DeCA and our industry partners to find
deficiencies and improve our program effectiveness.
Today's economic environment is affecting everyone. More
than ever, we are committed to bring savings and value to our
Navy families.
We have implemented tools to better understand our patrons
and meet their ever-changing needs. In short, we want to
delight our customers. Our 15,000 worldwide associates never
lose sight of the fact that we exist solely for the dedicated
patriots and their families who serve or have served our Nation
and our Navy.
I take great pride in all that our associates do, and on
their behalf, I thank all of the members of the subcommittee
for your continued support and commitment. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Bianchi can be found in
the Appendix on page 95.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, thank you.
General Thurgood.
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. KEITH L. THURGOOD, USAR, COMMANDER,
ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE
General Thurgood. Madam Chair, Mr. McHugh, members of the
subcommittee, as you noted, this is my first opportunity to
appear before you as the Commander of the Army and Air Force
Exchange Service.
So I would like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude
for your steadfast support in preserving a strong and effective
exchange benefit for the men and women of the armed forces. And
I look forward to working with you to ensure that AAFES
continues to play an important role as a combat multiplier for
the force and plays a significant role in improving the quality
of life of our soldiers, our airmen and their families through
quality products and services, that we give them at a fair
price, as well as financial contributions to MWR.
While 2007 was a challenging year for the competitive
retailers, AAFES continues to demonstrate that it is a strong
and viable organization with the strategic resilience and
financial health to compete in the global marketplace.
AAFES ended 2007 with $8.7 billion in revenue and earnings
totaling $426 million, which represents a 27 percent increase
versus fiscal year 2006. And for fiscal year 2007, AAFES will
contribute over $260 million in dividends to support MWR
programs. This return represents the second highest dividend
return to the services since 2002.
AAFES earnings not only provide dividends for the military
community, they simultaneously fund its capital reinvestment
program ensuring AAFES facilities provide shopping environments
that are world class and a value that is undeniable to the
military community.
In 2007, AAFES completed $344 million in capital
improvements at 57 installations worldwide, providing shoppers
with 496 new or renovated retail, dining and service
destinations.
Our military families deserve and demand the best service.
Capital improvements are the brick and mortar of our strategy,
but the foundation of our customer centered strategy is
listening to, learning from and leveraging our patrons'
collective input, as well as providing the product selections
and the categories that they want and expect. So I would like
to thank you and this committee for taking action to raise the
cost limits on restricted merchandise.
I am tremendously proud of the AAFES associates for
providing the services we deliver to both kinds of heroes--
military and family members. Our 450 volunteer associates are
working alongside our men and women in uniform, sharing some of
the same risk, while providing a level of service unmatched in
the retail industry.
At home, our AAFES associates are dealing with the impact
of BRAC, huge deployments and tremendous competition in the
marketplace. But more importantly, we are doing all of this
while striving to meet the needs of the military family
members, and in some cases, our associates are providing this
critical service while their own children or spouses are
deployed in harm's way. I am proud to play a role in furthering
this great legacy of service and value to our military members
and their families around the globe.
So on their behalf, I thank each of you and the entire
House and Armed Services Committee for your continued support,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Thurgood can be found in
the Appendix on page 103.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Larsen.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY R. LARSEN, DIRECTOR, PERSONAL AND FAMILY
READINESS DIVISION, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS
Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Davis,
Representative McHugh, distinguished subcommittee members. It
is really my pleasure today to be here, to appear before you
and discuss the Marine Corps resale and MWR programs.
In early 2007, the Commandant of the Marine Corps directed
the Personnel and Family Services Division to assess the
organizational and support requirements necessary to place
Marine and family programs on a wartime footing. In the ensuing
months, we have listened to thousands and thousands of marines
and family members, conducted critical program assessments,
benchmarked with other service organizations, developed
implementation plans and gained the support of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps and the senior leadership of the Marine
Corps to begin to implement improvements to Marine and family
support programs.
We are now aggressively engaged in the execution of major
program review and improvements that will refresh and enhance
the care and services provided to marines and their families.
Additionally, we have taken actions to address specific
program and infrastructure shortfalls at Marine Corps remote
and isolated locations. These actions, coupled with our ongoing
efforts to improve and brand Marine Corps exchanges, will
enable the Marine Corps community services to be more
responsive to marines and their families. They will be
appropriately resourced. They will focus on meeting the current
and future needs of the Marine Corps.
On behalf of the Marine Corps, thank you for your
unwavering dedication to the marines and their families and
your steadfast attention to our needs, and I have submitted my
statement for the record and look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen can be found in the
Appendix on page 119.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, General Larsen.
Mr. Page.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. PAGE, ACTING DIRECTOR, DEFENSE
COMMISSARY AGENCY
Mr. Page. Madam Chair, Representative McHugh and members of
the subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you to
provide the update of the Defense Commissary Agency's
performance of the past year.
The commissary benefit continues to remain strong,
providing exceptional savings and service for the men and women
who proudly serve our great Nation. We had another impressive
year in 2007, and once again our numbers say it all. Sales
continue to grow, the cost of delivering the commissary benefit
both in actual and constant fiscal year 2000 dollars came in
under budget. Customer service and patron savings levels remain
steady. Our patrons continue to believe we are doing it right.
Customers reported that DeCA strengths are perceived
quality, perceived value, low customer complaints and customer
loyalty. However, customer savings continue to be the heart of
the commissary benefit. The savings of 31.9 percent amounts to
almost $3,000 per year an average family of four saves by
purchasing their grocery items at their commissary. Of course,
obtaining this level of savings would not be possible without
the tremendous support our extended team of partners,
manufacturers, distributors and brokers provide in the pricing
and promotion of products.
For 2008, DeCA has four strategic initiatives: focusing on
people, supporting the Guard and Reserve, going greener and
increasing cooperation with the exchanges. We recognize that,
to be successful, the agency must focus on a comprehensive plan
that allows us to attract, develop and retain high-performing
employees by expanding our talent pool. We are particularly
interested in attracting individuals who have an investment in
the military services and the commissary, and are targeting a
variety of sources such as military spouses, wounded warriors
and disabled veterans, students and U.S. citizens who possess
retail experience.
Our Guard and Reserve efforts are twofold outreach, aimed
at enabling members and their families to discover their
benefit and expanding their access to provide services to
Reserve and Guard units that are not located at an installation
where there is a commissary.
The initial effort comprises onsite sales at Guard and
Reserve centers. We have scheduled over 120 of these sales in
2008, and by 2010, we expect that number to expand to over 400
onsite sales.
Our environmentally friendly efforts are on two fronts,
those that affect our operations and those that affect our
customers. For example, our recycling program for cardboard and
plastic wrap netted $3.7 million which went into the surcharge
coffers in 2007. And customers embraced the reusable cloth
grocery bags, purchasing over 750,000 of them since their
introduction at the end of October 2007.
DeCA and the exchanges have entered a new era where we are
actively seeking to cooperate and deconflict our programs
whenever the opportunity arises. Recognizing the value of
cooperation versus competition, the cooperative spirit between
commissaries and exchanges has never been higher.
In closing, the Administration and operation of the
commissary benefit has never been stronger. We recognize that
commissaries deliver a highly valued component of military
compensation, and they bring a morale-building taste of home,
feeling of providing familiar American food products in
overseas locations where such products are often unavailable.
The employees of DeCA are proud to serve the most deserving
customers in the world, and we are particularly privileged to
be entrusted with helping care for the welfare of the families
of those who are serving in harm's way.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Page can be found in the
Appendix on page 141.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Page.
Mr. Baker.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BAKER, FLEET AND FAMILY READINESS PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, NAVY INSTALLATIONS COMMAND
Mr. Baker. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss Navy
MWR programs. I have submitted a written statement for the
record, but would like to mention a few initiatives before
taking your questions.
Navy MWR professionals around the world continue their
outstanding efforts to help sailors and their families sustain
morale and readiness wherever they serve. Fiscal year 2007 was
another successful year.
Navy MWR continued to provide fitness equipment and
recreation programs to deployed forces at sea or ashore. We
distributed more than 20,000 pieces of gear to the fleet, and
of that distribution, 9,500 were distributed to 110 camps in
isolated or remote locations around the world to support our
vital off-duty military opportunities.
The Navy has also created a fitness-for-life initiative
that reaches out to improve the health and fitness habits of
the entire Navy community, including family members, Department
of Defense (DOD) civilians, senior civilians and retirees. This
includes a worldwide youth fitness initiative called Fit
Factor, designed to increase youth interest and awareness and
the importance of healthy lifestyle choices.
The Navy MWR MILCON strategy includes $96 million for three
fitness centers and 76 million for five child care centers, all
of which were included in the President's 2009 budget request.
We have also launched an aggressive child care expansion plan
by adding 4,000 new spaces within the next 18 months. This
expansion includes construction of new child care centers,
including 24/7 operations, commercial contracts in child care
spaces and expanding military-certified home care. Combined
with these initiatives we will reduce child care waiting time
less than three months Navy-wide, with the first priority given
to single military parents.
To assist parents and children with challenges of frequent
deployment, an additional 100,000 hours of respite care is
being provided for families of deployed service members. This
type of care is critical to families who may not have needed
child care in the past, but now rely on this interim support.
The Navy continues its investment in nonappropriated fund
construction projects totaling $65 million in 2007, which
greatly improves the quality of our MWR facilities. We intend
to sustain this level of support for the near future.
MWR continues to make a difference every day as we pursue
investments in modern and popular recreational programs to meet
the customer demands of the Navy personnel and their families.
This investment will especially ensure a strong and healthy
force for the Navy of the future.
Thank you for your time and ongoing support for Navy MWR. I
look forward to working with you to continue to improve this
vital program, and I am standing by to address your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker can be found in the
Appendix on page 158.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
Mr. Myers.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR J. MYERS, DIRECTOR OF SERVICES,
HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE
Mr. Myers. Madam Chairwoman, Representative McHugh and
distinguished members of the Military Personnel Subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to talk to you about our Air
Force MWR programs. Let me begin by thanking you for the
tremendous support you have provided for the men and women of
our Armed Forces and their families.
Our MWR programs sustain the Air Force mission and create a
culture of community support for all airmen and their families.
We proudly maintain the Air Force's number one weapon, our
airmen.
Our efforts tie directly to Air Force success and combatant
arenas and on the home front. 2005 base realignment closure
legislation drove us to examine our programs closely,
especially at the 10 locations where our Air Force programs
will be integrated into a joint base configuration.
We have been fully engaged in developing the common
standards for use at these bases. The quality of life of our
military personnel and their families should not be degraded.
We should maintain the highest possible standard for MWR
programs and, most importantly, fund them to those turnarounds
regardless of who operates the base where they are located.
We appreciate the subcommittee's historical emphasis on the
proper sources for realignment and closing costs and trust that
your continued vigilance will protect the service members in
the future.
As our partner in taking care of our military personnel and
their families, I must salute my fellow witness, the new AAFES
Commander, Brigadier General Thurgood. General Thurgood brings
a wealth of knowledge and experience from the civilian industry
and is providing outstanding leadership and support.
Their chief operating officer, Mr. Mike Howard, has a clear
vision and unwavering focus that are successfully getting
store-level management back to basics. Their combined efforts
are providing a further shift and focus throughout the
organization and are showing up as earnings and dividends
continue to increase.
I have worked with many AAFES executive commanders over the
years, but this leadership is undoubtedly the best.
I also need to thank Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) and this subcommittee for their continued support to grow
child care spaces. In particular, Ms. Jane Burke at OSD was
instrumental in obtaining emergency intervention funding in the
last three years. Between these funds and the subcommittee's
support for extending the expanded minor military construction
authority through fiscal year 2009, the men and women of the
Air Force will gain 2,400 additional child care spaces, all but
three of them are in permanent facilities.
Thanks again to both of you for taking care of our families
like this. I am extremely proud of our Air Force services
personnel and the around-the-clock unselfish dedication to
airmen and their families in every environment, from home
station to contingencies in deployed locations. Our team could
not do this without the support we get from the Military
Personnel Subcommittee. Thank you for joining us in this
critically important effort.
I will look forward to working with you in the future and
welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers can be found in the
Appendix on page 172.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
And thank you to all of you. You kept within that very
short time limit well, and that will give us some time to
really ask a number of questions. I hope we have a good
discussion.
Members, I think we are going to try to stick to our five
minutes and probably have a few rounds here. As you know, there
are a number of events occurring, a very special one this
morning. With the papal mass this morning, we have members who
are attending that, and they are also at some other commitments
that they have.
Let me start by looking at the appropriate funding support
for our MWR programs; and clearly, there have been some great
gains in areas--particularly in child care, I think, and we
want to commend those of you who have worked in that area.
But as we look at the funding support as a percentage of
total expense and we look at the last number of years, in
fiscal year 2003, we actually were spending more than in fiscal
year 2007, when we adjust for inflation.
So I wanted to ask you first, Ms. Arsht, given that figure
that the Army, Navy and Air Force have spent less on our MWR
programs during fiscal year 2007, what future does that suggest
for the military community? Are we, in fact, having some
slippage there?
And if I may, I will go on and ask a few other questions
and then we will come back to you.
General Larsen, we know that the Marine Corps has actually
had a fairly consistent approach to this funding, and we know
there is a management philosophy that has tried to keep it that
way. And I just wondered if you could tell us more about what
accounts for that consistency within the Marine Corps.
General Macdonald and General Larsen, Mr. Myers and Mr.
Baker, should we be concerned that there seems to be--if we
just look at these numbers, if we look at the appropriated
funds as a percentage of total expenses, is that a concern that
you think the Congress should be focusing on and how can we be
more helpful?
Ms. Arsht.
Ms. Arsht. I think that it is true that there have been
some small decreases, if you include inflation over this year
span that you have looked at. But we are pleased that the
fiscal year 2009 budget has a 20 percent increase; and I think
that you have already heard, in the opening remarks, that there
are longer-term plans.
So I think that each of the services should speak to their
individual plans.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Do you want to go ahead, General
Macdonald, and talk to us about that?
General Macdonald. I would love to, ma'am.
Like I said in my opening remarks, Secretary Geren and
Chief of Staff of the Army Casey have made a huge commitment to
Army families to the tune of an increase of $700 million this
year. They have moved, and as we put the next budget together,
we are going to do that again and put it in the base, as
opposed to just in supplemental or in moving year-of-execution
dollars over.
So the actual execution dollars in a number of programs,
which are represented by the Army Family Covenant, and their
statement and signature around the world that says that they
are committed to families just like families are committed to
soldiers, I think is expressed in the number of dollars that we
have expended in 2008, and we look to have in the budget in
2009.
Mrs. Davis. What concerns me about that is, because we are
talking about shifting, what we see as a supplemental, into the
base budget, that there will be a lot more demands on those
dollars.
What kind--is there more flexibility that is required to be
able to speak on behalf of the needs of the military community
as it relates to your issues?
General Macdonald. Let me try to answer your question this
way.
When General Casey became the Chief and went around and
talked to families and soldiers, they really said, ``We don't
need any different programs, we just need you to fund the ones
we have.'' They are all very good--child care, Army community
service, relocation capability, respite care, all of the
programs we have in place. We just needed the money to do them.
So we haven't seen an increase in requirement, with one
exception, and that is an outreach to our survivors, surviving
spouses and children, and we are putting in a much more robust
program to outreach to them, to push information to them, as
opposed to having them pull it from us.
That has really been the only increasing requirement that
we have seen. So we are just funding the programs that we had.
Mrs. Davis. My time is going to be up in a second.
But General Larsen, could you speak to the Marine Corps
quickly?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, ma'am.
The Marine Corps has been on a consistent ramp-up from
about fiscal year 1996, so we have achieved the standards that
have been set for funding those programs by OSD and for
Category A and Category B programs, and we are there. We have
also--we are committed to sustaining that level of funding for
those programs.
Additionally, the Commandant of the Marine Corps in the
past year has reemphasized the importance of those programs and
provided the support to marines and their families, so we have
gone out and refreshed many of those programs. Initially, he
has--he has committed to funding them for the Marine Corps, and
we are having an increase to our funding within the Personnel
and Family Readiness Division.
And we will also--I believe there is some--it is not being
taken away from other programs. There is some top line increase
for those programs. And additionally, we have a significant
increase in the funding in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year
2009--that is through supplemental funding, but also in the
Program Objective Memorandum (POM) 10 and beyond. Those costs,
those requirements are in our baseline funding.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. I think we will probably come back to
this and have an opportunity to have all of you state your
opinions about that.
Part of the difficulty, of course, is that we see we have
minimum standards that we are looking at; and part of the
question is, should even those be raised? I mean, should we be
looking at those differently and would that be helpful to you?
I am going to go on.
Mr. McHugh, do you want to----
Mr. McHugh. Yeah. We are going to come back to it right
now, Madam Chair. I think the Chair was being very kind and
very gracious.
We have had enormous erosion, with all due respect, Madam
Secretary, a total throughout the services of that time of
200.2 percent when adjusted for real dollars, inflated dollars.
The Army is 45.5 percent, the Navy 109.4, the Air Force, 67.1;
the Marine Corps is the sole exception.
But those are big losses. I mean, we have to be honest
about it. And I think it is important for us to understand the
real-world impact of those losses.
Now, I recognize you good folks at the table today don't do
budget, you deal with them; and I am not trying to cast blame
upon you for the circumstances that you have been handed. But I
would ask you--tell me a bit about, over that time--we are
talking 2003 through 2007 inclusive, five years--which programs
were most at risk? What services did you have to cut?
We have got five new folks here, so maybe you can speak
anecdotally. But we have got some veterans, folks that have
been through this. There has to have been some real-world
impact.
Secretary Dominguez was here last year and said it was his
intention to support the ongoing MWR efforts with, roughly
stated, ``increased emphasis, but the same dollars.'' Sadly, he
was a man of his word. I find it hard to believe we haven't had
to have cutbacks in programs--fewer clean towels, whatever it
is.
What kind of challenges have these real-dollar--adjusted
for inflation, but real-dollar erosions had on your efforts?
And anybody who has got the courage to answer first, I will
listen to whoever steps forward.
Mr. Myers. I will step forward.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Mr. Myers.
Mr. Myers. At the Air Force, we have had significant budget
cuts. We have seen our programs reduced across the board, at
every one of our libraries, services have been reduced. We have
seen in our other programs--and it is all a funding issue.
We have recently had a problem where we needed additional
positions for child care and funding for equipment and
supplies. We finally got it approved to be funded in 2009 and
2010.
However, Dr. Snyder brought up an issue that wasn't related
to that. But because he brought up the issue, we got that
funding now. So we thank the committee for their support.
But the Air Force is getting smaller, and it is a budget
issue. We have to fight for all of our requirements and we are
seeing our programs reduced dramatically. And the word we are
getting from the field, the airmen are seeing in the Air Force
that their quality of life is being eroded.
Mr. McHugh. Anybody else?
Well, let me say, Admiral, were you going to--no, you
weren't. See, I told you I would be easy on you. It is your
first time, and I tried to do that to you. I apologize. I am a
lousy poker player, too. I thought you had a tell there.
Anecdotally, we have heard it across the services. Look, we
all travel. Most of us have at least one, some have more than
one base in their district, and we hear from the folks we meet
on the street. Shorter hours in the gym program, et cetera, et
cetera.
The point of this is--and I will readily acknowledge the
commitment of Secretary Geren and others--in singling out the
Army, but across the board, we are hopeful that we are seeing a
turnaround in that. But there will be a new era and we will
regularize this budget process.
There will not be a continued blessing, if you will, of
supplementals. And while I admire budgetary creativity, there
is a big difference between moving money around and providing
the money in a base budget and this is a critical oversight
function of this subcommittee.
And we would be very remiss--Madam Secretary and the good
folks who support these programs, I would say to you, if we
didn't make it very clear, that this is a very, very troubling
and, sadly, long-term, continuing problem.
I have heard much over the years about outyears. I have
kidded in the past. I will state again that I pray every night
when I go to bed, the good Lord will allow me to live just one
day before I die in an outyear because everything is going to
be wonderful.
But I have been here nearly 16 years, and I have yet to see
an outyear as predicted it would be. So let us see our first
one next year--certainly, real soon.
I have got a number of other questions. That was more of a
lecture than a question, Madam Chair. But I felt it was
important to say.
So I would yield back and look forward to the future
rounds.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here today.
I hate to break this to you, Mr. McHugh, but you will never
see an outyear. No, it is never going to happen. I remember in
the long-distant past, when I was a program development officer
for the Marine Corps--of course, when you are building, you
love outyears because everything gets well in the outyear. Of
course, when those outyears turn into budget years, it is not
the case.
And I identify with yours and the chairwoman's remarks on
another subject where times are changing and, apparently,
changing for the better. A couple of you mentioned the Military
OneSource Program. I have had the opportunity to view, tour and
talk to some of the people that operate that; and I am struck
by the breadth and depth of the things we are covering now--the
questions that get answers, the services that get provided--and
so I am just sort of throwing it out to any of you who would
like to talk about that. Because I am interested to see how all
of the services are going to, and are integrating into that.
But I just think it is tremendous when you have a spouse
back here, a husband or wife is deployed, a problem comes up,
they have one place to call and they get the answer. I have
been very, very impressed with it.
So does anybody want to amplify on how that is working or
how you are working together? I would like to hear from you.
General Macdonald. If I could, sir, we are thrilled with
it. Frankly, as you know, it started as Army OneSource, and
then we had some Office of Personnel Management (OPM)--that is,
other people's money--and OSD took that on. And it has been a
tremendous program for our geographically dispersed, or for our
families that are right on a post--that are just off post or on
post.
That it has 140 languages that you can call in and get a
translation instantaneously, helps our young Korean spouses and
our ones from the Philippines and the ones that have
immigrated, our Spanish-speaking.
It continues to grow in capability, most recently with
addictive behavior counseling that is on line and on the phone.
We advertise it everywhere. I go out and talk to all the brand-
new precommand courses with colonels and lieutenant colonels;
and I talk about it every time I go as a tremendous resource
that I wish I had had when I was a battalion and brigade
commander. So, a great resource, sir.
Mr. Kline. Anybody else want to----
Mr. Larsen. Sir, I would just like to comment. If I could.
I use Military OneSource, so I know it works.
As I was coming back from Japan here a few months ago,
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) and back, as I retired, my
wife had a number of questions about the area. I got on line
and I contacted Military OneSource, gave them a whole series of
questions we had, and they responded very quickly.
So this is a great asset, and it has got great potential,
particularly for remote and isolated locations. The independent
duty recruiter, Reserve people that are not connected directly
to a base often have an opportunity to get the services they
need, and we have had several thousand face-to-face counseling
sessions that have gone on at the recommendation of Military
OneSource to our people in the field who have contacted them.
Ms. Arsht. I do want to say--and, General, forgive me for a
second.
This is a program that we continue to make more robust. We
are constantly adding services to it because we think this
discussion about how we are serving the volunteer force, both
on installation, off installation, and around the world, needs
technology to help us drive our responses. So Military
OneSource is sort of the lead asset that we have to be able to
bring lots of services together and to be able to deliver them
efficiently.
Mr. Kline. It seems to me--General, I think you were going
to say something. But it is more than just technology; there
are people behind this.
And I know, General Larsen, you were talking about coming
back. As I understand it, if you are being transferred
someplace, you can call up OneSource and say, where are the
schools, what are the schools, where are the child care
centers, what does the housing market look like and all those
things, and get the kind of help that in the old days we simply
didn't have.
So it should be having an impact on the quality of life in
every service, and I hope that it is.
And, General, was that a ``tell,'' as Mr. McHugh said?
General Thurgood. Yes, sir, it was. Just to highlight,
again, an anecdote.
As my wife has worked with our families and family support
groups specifically on the Reserve side, there are real-life
tangible benefits, physical benefits. We had a family, a wife--
her husband was deployed. She needed a refrigerator or an oven;
I can't remember which one it was. But she went through
OneSource, and through OneSource they had contacts from our
industry partners, and they delivered a stove to that family
free of charge. So it is a great resource.
And as General Macdonald mentioned, it is particularly
important to our family members, reservist and National Guard
who are away from our facilities in robust support groups, by
themselves.
Mr. Kline. It is a new thing to me, and we always think of
MWR and quality of life as commissaries and exchanges and so
forth. This is something new. And I am struck with the enormous
potential--not just potential, but it is actually delivering
right now, in your example, a stove.
I see my time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Drake.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank you all for being here today. I am sure you are
all aware of Representative Filner's bill about allowing
disabled veterans, service-related disability of 30 percent or
more, being able to use our commissaries and exchanges. So I
just wanted to hear from you if you think you can absorb that
extra flow of people or if you see anything that would be a
problem with that bill?
Who wants to start?
Ms. Arsht. The Department has generally tried to protect
the current eligibility looking at this benefit as a very
important non-monetary compensation attribute for our active
force and our 100 percent disabled.
We have--the most recent information we actually have on
the scale of the size of that change is a VA study that was
done in 2000 that said there were 600,000 service members in
the 30-to-90-percent-disabled category. And then, if you took
the dependents of those disabled, you take that population,
they do not have base-access I.D. cards. So that is a component
of the decision-making around that bill.
We have not taken a position on the bill, but that would be
one of the considerations that we would have to take into
account.
Mrs. Drake. I wonder--like, Admiral Bianchi--if you have
thought about, could the store absorb the extra people? I
understand the policy decision, but I am just wondering about
physically in the store, whether people make a decision at
certain times to go because they know they are less busy at
those times, or if you have actually looked at that issue,
where you are waiting to see if Congress acts on that bill or
not?
Admiral Bianchi. Ma'am, we believe we could absorb the
extra patronage. The issue is kind of the holistic issue of the
credentialing and all the other issues that would have to go
along with it.
But as far as footsteps in the door and the capacity of our
infrastructure, we believe we could absorb the impact of that
decision.
Mrs. Drake. And I agree. A huge issue is how they verify
who they are, and for commissaries and exchanges that are
located on a base, how you get them on the base.
And then the big question in my mind is, what is the
appropriate percentage? Is it 30 percent? Is it 50? Is it 100--
to look at that issue.
Admiral Bianchi. Right now, we base it all on Defense
Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), so that would
entail them being registered through the DEERS program somehow
or coming up with some other enrollment process to validate
their eligibility.
But if it worked, we could certainly absorb the after
traffic.
Mrs. Drake. I have actually had this discussion with a
group of veterans, kind of an advisory group that we have. A
lot of retired military are in that advisory group in the
district. They actually were very supportive of it.
Their question was, what is the proper number; is it 30 or
is it 50? So that was the way they looked at it.
And I am curious if there has been any sort of survey of
active duty military of how they would look at that. Have we
gotten to that point or not of getting feedback from active
duty military?
Ms. Arsht. I don't believe there have been any studies of
active duty, but I will be glad to take that for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 205.]
Mrs. Drake. Thank you very much for that.
And, did--oh, Madam Chairman, I see my time is about
expired, and I know we will go back around. Thank you. Thank
you very much.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Good morning. It is good to be here.
What you don't know is that I am the product of the
military. I spent all but three years of my education in
military schools, I lived on bases across this country and
around the world. And as I hear about library, I remember,
well, at Langley Air Force Base being first introduced to the
world of books.
I remember well the role the commissary played in my
family's life and, living in Japan, how important it was to
have an exchange there because it was our only access to
American goods. And my first job happened to be in the produce
department of the commissary in Japan where I reported to a
very kindly Japanese man.
So I have this sense of what you all are talking about,
though quite a few years ago.
What has changed, though, is our emphasis on child care.
That is a new world that we all live in, and I commend you for
the great work you are doing to really respond to the needs in
the various services. The question that I have, though, is
how--given the great run-up on this and the aggressive efforts
you are making, how you are doing in attracting qualified
personnel, what the challenges are and just to hear your
feedback on some of those issues.
Maybe we will begin with you, General Macdonald.
General Macdonald. Thank you very much.
We have a multipronged capability for child care. We are
going to build 91 child development centers from 2008 to 2013.
But they don't do any good unless you have people in them, as
you well know. We have a program where we bring young college
interns over to Europe to help us through the summer, and they
run camps and also work in our child care centers. We try to
align that with when brigades are coming back, because many of
our child caregivers are family members and they want to be
with their soldier when they come back. So we align that sine
curve, if you will, of intensity with a population that is very
mobile.
We continue to--in this most recent budget proposal, we are
looking to raise the wages of the folks that were to attract
the right folks. Frankly, we are in competition with the Post
Exchange (PX) and the commissary to get quality child
caregivers when there are family members and folks that live in
the community. So we need to stay abreast of that capability;
and we have all talked about not outpacing each other in that
capacity.
As you know, we are accredited in almost all of our child
development centers, and that is individuals that are
accredited, not just buildings. So we think we have a quality
child care workforce that provides a very high quality of child
care.
Ms. Tsongas. Do you have any guesstimate of how short you
are running on numbers of personnel that you need?
General Macdonald. I know we have a couple of places that
are short. Vilshofen in Germany, in particular, we have a tough
time. We have a couple of others that are remote sites. Fort
Irwin in California has a tough time to travel that 47 miles up
the road every day to get to Fort Irwin.
But, really, it is specific locations, and in those we have
raised the wages to attract the workforce that we want.
Ms. Tsongas. Would General Larsen like to comment?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, ma'am.
We have a variety of methods that we use to deliver the
child care on our installations. We have right now, I believe,
29 child development centers across the Marine Corps; to get to
the 80 percent standard that has been established, that would
require that we build another--about 16 more to meet that need
for the child development centers. If we do that, then there is
obviously going to be a staffing issue that we have to deal
with in some of these locations.
But, currently, we haven't had a problem. We have--we have
been able to staff the facilities that we have. There are some
other options that we also participate in to make sure that we
can provide that care. We have family care in the home, which
is not a traditional child development center, but we do it, we
provide that in other ways.
We also in places like Bridgeport, California, this past
year, started--they had a requirement for child care. It is a
very isolated location, so we have an in-home care system that
we set up. What we did is, we went to the public-private
venture (PPV) people that owned the housing and we leased back
some of the housing units and turned them into a facility that
we now use for child care; and we are taking care of about 84
to 86 children in that area which, prior to that, had no access
to child care. So there are a variety of things that we are
doing to try to meet that need.
Ms. Tsongas. I gather there was a mention of moving to 24-
hour childcare across the services. What are the challenges.
Mr. Larsen. Well, for the Marine Corps, we are providing
24-hour/7-day-a-week childcare in some locations across the
Marine Corps.
A couple of challenges associated with that is we provide
that care in the family home-care setting. We do not provide it
in the Child Development Center (CDC) because, in many
locations, in different states, there are regulations that
prevent us from operating childcare for more than 12 hours, so
that 24-hour care becomes an issue, and so we do that in other
ways to meet that need.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am sorry I was
late in getting here. I want to continue this discussion that
Ms. Tsongas started.
Mr. Myers, you and I share a great concern about the
childcare centers. There are a number of centers in the Air
Force, and I very much appreciate your advocacy.
The Air Force, I think, has fallen a little bit behind some
of the other services just because of some of the budgetary
issues. Would you give me an update on how you think the Air
Force is going to get out of their backlog of the need for
additional childcare spaces, centers?
Mr. Myers. Several years ago, our backlog was around 6,400
spaces, but through OSD and this emergency intervention
funding, we got that down to 4,000. Of course, we have expanded
our family daycare homes and so forth. We do have several
projects in the POM. However, I also depend on Congress to help
us with inserts, and they have been very, very good to us and
have given us inserts for child development centers.
Dr. Snyder. Is that what we call an earmark? Is that what
we call an earmark, Mr. Myers?
Mr. Myers. Yes.
Dr. Snyder. I think you and I talked yesterday. We do not
call that ``pork'' when you are referring to a childcare
center. You refer to it as a ``piglet.'' It is less politically
hot then when calling it a ``piglet.''
The issue of childcare centers, like Ms. Tsongas was
talking about, are even more important at a time of war when
you have one spouse mobilized. You know, if you cannot rely on
quality care for your child when you have got your mate
overseas, life becomes pretty rough. I know there has been some
discussion about the possibility in the supplementals this year
of perhaps doing something about childcare centers,
particularly for the Air Force, because we have gotten behind.
I talked to Mr. Murtha about that a day or two ago, and I know
he shares our concerns, and he is a very strong supporter of
those, but we will see what comes out of that.
I have to ask my annual or semi-annual question about
produce.
Mr. Page, are you the appropriate person to ask there.
Mr. Page. I am the designated produce peach.
Dr. Snyder. You are the head peach?
Mr. Page. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Dr. Snyder. My impression seems to be that it has gotten
better over the last several years, both in terms of quality
but also in terms of presentation, which, I think, has positive
ramifications on overall store sales, but I would like to hear
how you see it nationwide.
Mr. Page. Yes, sir.
We believe it is a tremendous success story. We have now
completely assumed the produce buying mission worldwide.
Dr. Snyder. Mr. Page, I need you to pull that microphone in
front of you a little bit.
Mr. Page. Is that better?
Dr. Snyder. Yes.
Mr. Page. I believe it is a great news story. We have
successfully taken over the buying mission worldwide for
produce. When you look at the numbers, they are spectacular.
Savings are up. Produce quality is up. Customers are buying
produce at record rates. Our sales are significantly up. For
us, when customers vote for us at the cash register, in that
way, they are really responding to what we have done.
Most importantly, you mentioned presentation. When you look
at part of the process and part of what we have done with the
contract in produce, part of that is a significant training
investment that our business partners have made to help train
on the merchandising of the product and on the proper handling
of the product. That all goes into that presentation you
mentioned earlier. Again, our produce departments are better
than they have ever been, and our customers are telling us that
every day.
Dr. Snyder. What is your quality control on the quality of
produce? Do you, personally, send people out to spot-check all
of the produce on a regular basis?
Mr. Page. Yes, sir, we do. We do checks ourselves, but we
also--the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
inspects every produce delivery that goes into every commissary
in the Continental United States. We also have inspectors at
the backdoor of every commissary as the produce is being
received. Plus, with the heightened involvement of our partners
in training our people on the handling of produce, we are
better able to make sure we are getting the very best produce
possible.
Dr. Snyder. My time is about up.
I think one of the issues has been the quality of stuff
coming in the door. But I do not care how good it is; if you
let it sit there for three weeks, it ain't going to be good. It
is not going to look good. Then somebody goes in and sees that
bad stuff, and then they think everything in the store is bad.
Mr. Page. Yes, sir.
Dr. Snyder. It could be cereal boxes. It does not matter
what it is. I mean, that is why it becomes so important. Thank
you.
I appreciate and thank you, Mr. Myers, for your comments,
too.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
I want to turn to what, in some ways, is a narrower issue
than much of the support that we are giving our service
members, but it is one that comes up to us frequently. Those
are the ASE regulations, the Armed Services Exchange
regulations. What I understand is that the House and Senate
perspective on the sale of furniture in our exchanges did not
necessarily match up with the request to lift all of the
restrictions imposed by the Congress in these regulations.
I am wondering, you know, what your thoughts are about that
and whether you believe that you are using the latitude that
you do have, particularly that would relate to the area of
furniture sales and opportunities that there may be to bring in
more, whether it is catalogs or tent sales, what have you. The
reason that I think this is a concern is that we know that much
of the furniture that is bought on the open market ends up
costing our service members a lot more because they are paying
higher interest rates. I understand the concern that we have
for protecting our community stores as well.
Do you have the latitude that you need in that? What could
you share with us in terms of the regulations and the impact
that it has?
General Thurgood, Admiral Bianchi, Mr. Larsen, who would
like to----
Ms. Arsht. Let me say, first, that we are very grateful for
the lifting of the restrictions that has occurred, and we are
using that new authority, and we are very pleased with it. We
do not have plans to ask for a further lifting of the
restrictions, which at this moment says that we cannot add
space, additional space, for furniture sales. I think the
commanders can speak to the rest of the question.
Mrs. Davis. I think part of the question is, are there some
creative ways that you have found in which you can respond to
some of those needs?
General Thurgood. Again, thank you very much for the work
that you have already done on lifting some of the restrictions.
We will continue to leverage those restrictions and to use them
in the right kind of way because, at the end of the day, what
we are trying to do is to compete in a global marketplace. Any
time our hands are tied, there is a chance that our service
members and our families will not get the value that they
deserve because of some restrictions that might be in place. So
we are going to use that--jewelry and all of those kinds of
things--to make a difference in the lives of our families.
So thank you very much, and we will move out against those.
Admiral Bianchi. Yes, ma'am. Thank you as well for the
relaxation of some of the restrictions.
I guess the only other thing I would offer right now is
that the per-piece limit has been raised to $1,100 from $900,
is the proposal. We believe that will make a difference. We do
a lot of special orders. So, in terms of having the authority
to construct space, that is not as critical an issue. I think
the issue is, can we provide the range of products? What we try
and do for the sailors and for their families is to offer them
the special order categories, and we do quite a lot of business
there. If there were potentially an opportunity to raise the
price limit again on furniture, that would, perhaps, help. I
mean, the reality is folks are going to furnish their houses.
Right now, they are probably going to the Value Citys or to
other places to buy if we are not authorized to sell the whole
range of bedroom sets and other kinds of things.
We think we can do quite a bit right now, and we thank you
for that. That would be the only other, I think, opportunity
that might present itself to us.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Just turning--I am sorry. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Can I just make a comment as well?
You know, the Marine Corps also appreciates the fact that
you have lifted some of the restrictions or have raised the
restrictions. We are interested in taking care of the Marines
and their families, and we are not trying to compete with small
businesses outside the gate. That is not why we operate the
exchanges.
What we are trying to do is to provide a good value for our
people. As you indicated, what we are trying to do is make sure
that they are not subject to some of the predatory lending
practices or high interest rates or other things that may have
an adverse impact on their financial well-being. So that is
what we are looking for, to try to take care of those Marines
and families.
Mrs. Davis. All right. As you mention that, too, I think,
obviously, financial literacy is an issue that is very
important, and there seem to be many ways to embed that within
MWR and to encourage people to have an opportunity to really
get counsel and to help them through what is, obviously, a very
difficult period with families separated.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I spent a lot of time lecturing everyone in my opening
question period about the erosive effects of inflation on
dedicated MWR dollars. Let me note to myself and others on this
side of the dais that inflation has an effect on ASE
restrictions as well. All of us represent communities that have
those small businesses, and I think we have been and we need to
continue to be very sensitive to those.
What I find outside of most gates of most military
facilities are less of those kinds of small businesses and more
of the big box stores that are voracious competitors. I say
that with a great deal of admiration, the strong capitalist
that I try to be, but I do believe that we have to, as a panel
here, be extraordinarily sensitive to the needs to keep up with
inflation and to keep up with that competitive spirit that the
big box stores bring so that our men and women in uniform can
have the best possible value, as the Chair said very
accurately, with the attendant benefits of lower interest rates
and other kinds of consumer protections. So that is just a
``me, too'' from me.
One of the other effects, I think, you folks have when you
are hard-pressed for dollars is you try to be creative. In
another life in Congress, I had the opportunity to chair a
subcommittee that had jurisdiction over the United States
Postal Service--I always get the good assignments--and they
tried to be very creative to try to balance some of the funding
problems they had. They got into some areas that, frankly, they
should have never ventured into, and it ended up costing them
more money than they ever brought in in revenues. I think we
have got to remain vigilant against that.
You know, almost 30 years ago, the Army Recreational
Machine Program (ARMP) was created to operate slot machines and
other such devices in overseas countries, and it has been a
good moneymaker. About $120 million goes to MWR support. I have
heard through the proverbial grapevine that ARMP has been
expanded and is expanding its scope of business activities here
in the United States and Continental United States (CONUS),
such things as Wi-Fi and gaming and other kinds of Internet, on
Army and Air Force bases.
I was just wondering if you could inform me a little bit
about what is happening there? Without judging, what kind of
analysis did you make to decide you should do that in-house
instead of going to the private sector as we have in other
programs?
General Macdonald. Sir, we are expanding the Army
Recreation Machine Program, and it is on the recreation side
with Internet capability. There is no money that goes into the
machines like overseas in our slot machines. We are not
authorized to do that in the United States, so these are truly
recreation machines. We are finding young soldiers are enjoying
that as entertainment. In fact, to make our recreation
facilities more viable, we are putting four or five different
kinds of activities--a cyber cafe, a gaming room, a beverage
store, a beverage bar, food, a bowling alley, and maybe a dance
facility--because the youngsters will not stay for one thing.
They are very interested in multiple things. So we have had
good luck in being able to do that.
We feel like we are on the leading edge of the gaming
industry. We have pulled down some of the games. We use our
young soldiers to find out what we want the most quickly. Right
now, we are continuing to move forward with how we do that, to
include some of the Internet capacity on post.
We are looking at a team with AAFES on the Internet Wi-Fi
capability on post. That is certainly lucrative in terms of
dividends back into the MWR and into the AAFES programs.
Mr. McHugh. I understand that, and I am not trying to
discourage new sources of revenue, believe me. I am just
curious--and this is a question. Could you not provide that
service and that opportunity and reap the benefits without the
attendant costs and the responsibilities of actually running
the program? In other words, is this really your core
competency?
General Macdonald. We have found from the other Recreation
Machine Program that we are some of the most efficient at
running that. We deal with, on the other side, the folks in the
gaming industry, and we lead some of that industry. We did some
of the firsts that did not do mechanical pieces to gaming. It
is all electronic inside a machine, which increases--reduces
overhead.
So the answer to the question is, yes, we think we are on
the lead of some of that industry.
Mr. McHugh. Well, I do not know if AAFES wants to make some
comments, but I would just, in closing, as I see my time is up,
this is something I was unaware of. As I said, we want to make
sure that you are using your core competency where it is most
needed. Again, I am not in any way criticizing the search and
the utilization of new revenue sources, but I do want to take a
little bit of a careful look at this because I have not had a
chance to examine it before.
Mr. Myers, I do not know if you want to comment.
Mr. Myers. I am not familiar with our charging for that.
You know, we have Wi-Fi in our activities, which our airmen use
for free, but I am not aware of any payment or things. I will
have to come back to you with that.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mrs. Drake.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Page, I wanted to ask you about the A-76 studies. It is
my understanding that you have been directed to identify four
stores to undergo a study next year. So I wonder if you could
comment on that and could let us know if you have identified
the four stores.
Mr. Page. We are in the initial planning stages in the
event that we would have to commence studies in 2009, but there
have been no definite stores identified. We have some internal
planning documents that we are just, actually, working through.
Again, come January 2009, based on current guidance, that is
when we will begin the studies, but there have been no
decisions.
Mrs. Drake. It is still possible then that that could be
withdrawn?
Mr. Page. They are all just internal planning documents.
There have been no final decisions made on any subject
regarding the stores and A-76, but we are initializing the
planning to prepare in the event, when January 2009 comes, that
we must start the A-76 studies.
Mrs. Drake. I am sure you could give us a whole list of the
benefits of the current system as opposed to contracting out
employees, so I will not make you do that. I know we feel very
strongly about the employment of spouses and of family members,
and we heard about your first job in a commissary. So I just
think that has a lot of benefit added to it as well to provide
those jobs within our commissaries to our family members.
So I am sure you will keep us posted on what the outcome is
and whether you are going to actually do those studies. I would
also like for you to tell us where those four studies will be
when you are able to identify that.
Mr. Page. Thank you.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you for that.
I just would also like to add to what the chairwoman and
what Mr. McHugh have brought up about the cap on the sales, the
$1,100.
Admiral, of course, you know, you showed me the Oceana
Exchange right at Christmas time. I want everyone to know that
I could not find another store where I could have gone and
could have bought as many things in one place. It was very
difficult for me at Christmas time to be looking at what was
right at my fingertips, and I had to go to several stores to
make those purchases.
You used the term ``savings and value.'' What I saw is that
you have got two other things, too. That is you have got
convenience, and you have got the confidence of our service
members that, when they are buying a product from you, they
know that the value is there, and they know that the quality is
there.
So I really hope we will continue that discussion, and we
will continue trying to change the Senate's opinion on how
those things are done.
So thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mrs. Drake.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. I think, General MacDonald, this will be a
question for you.
I recently was in Afghanistan where we met with our
soldiers and had a wonderful meal. In the course of a
discussion with an officer there, he said he was very
frustrated with the purchasing restrictions, and that he felt
it would be a more prompt and efficient way, and that it would
also support the Afghan economy if they could go out into the
market and buy produce and other things that were available.
I am wondering why that does not happen, what the
constraints are and what the concerns are because it seems to
me it would be more timely and that it would perhaps help
support an economy in a country that is suffering so. We all
understand how much we have to help rebuild that country in
order to be successful in the long term. So I would just
appreciate your comments on that.
General Macdonald. Unless I can get some help from my panel
members, I am going to take that for the record, ma'am. I
really do not know the answer on that at all. I am not seeing
any accepting of this question, so I will take that for the
record.
Ms. Tsongas. I will take it for the record. Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 205.]
Ms. Tsongas. The other thing we heard about from many of
the soldiers was that we all know the impact on their families
through these multiple deployments. There were great
expressions of just how hard it has been. They also expressed a
desire for video conferencing that is easier, that is more
readily available. They saw it as a real means to sort of feel
closer to their family members in order to make it easier for
them as well as for their loved ones back here in this country.
Again, I do not know what is possible, but I just want to
take what I heard and communicate it to you because it was
something that I heard from many, many of those we spoke with.
Ms. Arsht. We do expect to have that in Afghanistan soon.
It is coming.
Ms. Tsongas. That is good to hear. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. No. I am fine.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Great.
One of the issues I wanted to raise is the exchange
dividend contributions to MWR.
With the exception of the increase in Army and Air Force
exchange service dividends in 2007, if we look at the review of
the dividend contributions to MWR from the exchange, it looks
like they have been declining or have been stagnant since 2004,
notwithstanding what is really a steady growth in sales. So I
wonder if you could talk to us about that. Private sector
competition obviously plays a role in this.
General Thurgood, Admiral Bianchi, Mr. Larsen, what should
we expect regarding dividend contributions to MWR over the long
run?
General Thurgood. Ma'am, let me start first.
You used two words in the beginning of your statement,
``confidence'' and ``growth.'' I think, if you had to pick two
words in the way we want to take the dividend stream, it would
be around those two words.
We want to instill confidence in our customer base--the
Army, the Air Force, the Navy, the Coast Guard, and the
Marines--that we will deliver on our commitment to the dividend
stream, and we want to grow that dividend stream.
From an AAFES standpoint, I think what you will see
realistically over the next two years, meaning 2008 and 2009,
as we start to pay for our technology that we have been
developing for the last four years, is that we are going to
have to capitalize that over the next five years. I think, in
2008 and 2009, you will see it flat to slightly declining, but
our strategic target is to deliver record earnings to both the
Army and to the Air Force by 2012. Our target is to deliver
$200 million to the Army and $100 million to the Air Force by
2012. You will see that, as we try to create a culture of
ownership, a culture of entrepreneurism, and as we drive our
performance throughout the organization in a way that----
Mrs. Davis. What do you think gets in the way of that now?
General Thurgood. Our culture. And there are a couple of
things, I think, that are important to note.
One is, we have got to create in our organization, as I
mentioned, a culture of ownership where our associates at the
very lowest level of our organization own this business so
that, when customers come into one of our stores, they come in
because we are creating a different in-store experience for
them than we have ever had before. They are coming in because
they know the value proposition is so clear that they want to
shop at our stores. Now is the time for us to strike hard
because of the economy, and it is important that we do that
right because, just from a directional point of view--and I
will use Fort Hood as an example.
In 1970, around Fort Hood--and these numbers are not 100
percent right, but they are directionally correct to tell the
story--70 percent of our families lived on Fort Hood. There
were no Wal-Marts, and there were about 100 shopping venues
outside the gate. Families were not a high priority for us.
Today, 70 percent of our families live off post. There are 6
Wal-Marts around Fort Hood, and there are 1,000 shopping
venues.
And therefore, for AAFES to continue to drive and to
deliver a dividend stream, we have to, as I mentioned earlier,
be very effective marketeers. We have to realize that we
compete in a global marketplace. And to the extent that we can
drive productivity in our supply chain and glean that out,
those dividends fall directly to the services.
So our commitment is consistency so that the Army and the
Air Force and the other services know exactly how much they are
going to get. We want to commit to that number, and we want to
grow that number over the years. I think you will see that as
we lay our strategic plans out.
Mrs. Davis. In 2007, there was a spike.
General Thurgood. There was.
Mrs. Davis. And then you have a prediction that is quite a
bit lower than that. To what do you attribute that? What was
going on?
General Thurgood. Let me address 2007 first.
In 2007, we had historic productivity in our enterprise. We
delivered over $140 million of productivity, and that was
driven, as Mr. Myers mentioned--and he made these nice comments
about the leadership, but it is really about our folks at the
bottom line making a difference. So we were smarter purchasers
of everything. We spent about $7 billion a year on cost of
goods sold. We purchased better. We had supply chain
efficiencies in terms of how we optimized our distribution
network on the logistics side. Our employees were much more
productive than they were before. So we are taking all of those
things that we learned in 2007, and we are going to duplicate
those in 2008.
All of that productivity will not be enough to overcome
capitalization and depreciation for our new technology. Once we
get that employed and fully leveraged, which will take us about
18 months, you will start to see that dividend stream.
Mrs. Davis. So that would really speak to the decline in
expectations that you have for 2008?
General Thurgood. Exactly. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Does anybody else want to comment really
briefly?
Admiral Bianchi.
Admiral Bianchi. Yes, ma'am.
I would say that I am, actually, very proud of our track
record over the past years. I think, if you look at the
exchange operating profit, which is really the money the
exchanges are earning and delivering, it has had an upward
trend throughout this period. That is in an environment where
we have a decline in active duty force. We have had same-store
sales increases for the last nine years. Our customer
satisfaction score has been on a steady increase. We just hit
80 this year, which puts us up with the likes of Nordstrom and
Saks and so forth. So we are very pleased in that regard.
What has actually happened that has caused some of the
vagaries in the dividend is sort of the below-the-line things.
We have seen during this attendant period a 30-some percent
increase in medical costs. We have seen issues like Mount
Pinatubo adjustments and other sorts of, again, extraordinary-
type expenses.
I think what you will see in the outyears is that we are
projecting--for Mr. McHugh there, I know he made his comment
about the outyears, but we do believe strongly that we will see
increased dividends. In fact, the numbers we submitted to your
subcommittee will show us growing by about 37 percent in the
dividend earnings throughout 2013.
Again, I think, if you look at the basic business, we have
been on a very solid, positive trend over the years. Again, it
has been these expenses which we have tried to rein in, and we
are doing this again in the midst of a declining active duty
Navy population. So I think we have been----
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Larsen, do you want to add anything
specifically? I know my time is up. I wanted to just give you a
very quick chance.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, ma'am.
Very quickly, the Marine Corps is aggressively undertaking
a recapitalization program. This year, we renovated three of
our major exchanges. There are several others that are either
going to be renovated or have new construction within our
capital budget and within the funds we have for our
construction program.
Additionally, we also are looking at our customer surveys
and are making sure that we are providing a good benefit and
that we create an atmosphere where there is confidence so that
people will want to come in and shop with us. So we feel
confident that we are going to continue to provide a good
dividend to support the programs we have.
Of our programs, probably the biggest driver is our
exchange, but we also have other revenue-generating programs
that we have refreshed that we are looking at that we decide
how we are going to see how they can sustain themselves in the
future. So we feel confident about moving ahead.
We thank AAFES for the additional dividend that we receive
from them for our sales that we have in Afghanistan and in Iraq
with them.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Back in 2007, Secretary Dominguez issued a letter that was
important for a number of different reasons, not the least of
which was that it established a policy that appropriated funds
would have to be used from non-appropriated funds (NAF), not
appropriated funds from construction related to BRAC and to
global rebasing, which is a big, big challenge. I think that
was the right thing to do.
The concern, of course, is how we go about implementing
that policy given the fact of the NAF construction impacts of
that rebasing. BRAC is going to be awfully high. I have seen
one estimate of $700 million. I do not know what the real
estimate is. Thus, my question to you, Madam Secretary, is, do
you have a number that you have looked at? What kind of things
do you think you need and can or have done to try to provide
that appropriated funding? I mean, you know, we have got to be
open-eyed about it. It is a tremendous impact on the available
appropriated dollars----
Ms. Arsht. Right.
Mr. McHugh [continuing]. As correct as I feel the decision
was.
Ms. Arsht. Well, I want to say first that, at the staff
request, we provided a listing of projects that were planned
for installations that were growing, but that list did not
represent a validated list of requirements because of BRAC and
of global restationing and of other service-directed decisions.
So I think that is the first thing to say, that I think that is
where the $700 million number may have come from.
There has been this period of sort of relooking at what the
proposals were. The fiscal year 2008 Commissary and
Appropriated Fund program did not include any projects that
were BRAC-required. We see in the President's budget proposal
about 29 projects at $281 million that have been validated, as
necessary, as part of BRAC or restationing.
So we did think that by restating what is a longstanding
policy that we have brought a discipline that would be sure
that we were using nonappropriated and appropriated funding
sources in the way they were intended.
Mr. McHugh. Well, I appreciate that.
Again, when I talk about the erosion of appropriated
dollars to MWR and when I talk about these kinds of less-with-
more perspectives, it is not to criticize anyone here. I mean,
we are under an enormous challenge, and no one knows that
better than you good folks. What I worry about is a good policy
that we are just not able to live up to. In fact, from 2004 to
2008, if you look at the number of NAF construction waivers
that have been requested, it is about 40 percent of all of the
projects being completed. You know, I think it is fair to say
that is kind of an overreliance on waivers. This is more of a
statement than a question. We, obviously, have to do some
things very differently to adhere to that policy and to reduce
those numbers of waivers.
You are certainly welcome, Madam Secretary, to comment, but
I think that is a challenge you are fully aware of, and I am
sure you are very interested in meeting it. As I said, it is
something we are looking at very carefully or are concerned
about.
I do not have any further questions right now, Madam Chair.
I yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Mrs. Drake.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you. I just have another topic.
Is it true that the Department of Defense has issued a
ruling that you would be required to pay post allowance to all
U.S. citizens whom you hire to work overseas?
If so, does that apply to people who already live overseas,
or are we only talking about people who are hired here and who
are then transferred overseas?
Ms. Arsht. No. It includes local hires as well.
It is a policy that has been in place since 1995 when the
Department reviewed the treatment of appropriated fund and
nonappropriated fund employees and ruled that they needed to be
parallel. There has been a misunderstanding and perhaps an
uneven application of the understanding about the policy. So
this recent letter was to clarify that the services are
required, as a benefit, to pay this post allowance.
The second part of that letter said there would be a policy
memo coming to explain how we would treat the backpayment and
how employees who were entitled to that benefit would apply to
receive that backpay.
Then the third part of the memo from Mr. Dominguez was to
ask for an expeditious review of the policy to make certain
that it is an appropriate policy for a 21st Century workplace.
So that review will proceed. For now, the policy is in effect,
and the services will need to pay it.
Mrs. Drake. Well, that raises a couple of other questions.
First of all, do we know what the cost of that is going to
be yearly for you? Do we know what the retroactive costs are
going to be?
If I am understanding you correctly, what you have just
said is, if a military family is in Virginia Beach and the
spouse works for Admiral Bianchi, she is going to be paid the
regular pay, but if her husband were in Germany and she were
living in Germany with him, she would also get post allowance.
So can you comment first on the cost?
Ms. Arsht. The estimate for what the liability could be is
$68 million. We do not really know how many applicants there
will be and what the policy will be in carrying out the meeting
of the demand for fulfilling our obligations under the policy,
but we will have to accrue those dollars in case of and to
prepare ourselves for what the outside possibility could be.
Mrs. Drake. So this will be that much less into the MWR
accounts. Can you also explain to me why we would treat a
spouse differently based on where the husband is stationed or
where the wife is stationed? Was there an explanation of that?
Ms. Arsht. There was a request for us to review the policy
as it was currently being implemented. It was either the
Inspector General (IG) or the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) that reviewed the policy and told us that we were to
treat the two different populations in the same fashion. The
allotment is similar to a cost-of-living payment. So, if you
are entitled to it, you need to know you are entitled to it and
are to be paid it.
Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think we need to
talk more about that. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you to the panel for your service to our great
country. I appreciate it.
Mrs. Davis. Your mic is not on.
Mr. Murphy. My mic is not working?
Mrs. Davis. It is not.
Mr. Murphy. No?
Mrs. Davis. Is it on?
Mr. Murphy. Is this better? There you go. It always helps
if you put the button on.
Sir, you know, I thought of your alma mater. So I do not
know--you know, we never had those audio issues at West Point.
Again, I want to thank the panel for your service to our
great country. I know your role in keeping the hearts and minds
of our troopers in the right place is greatly appreciated by
this Congress.
I want to highlight--I know we combined the two hearings
this year as compared to last. At last year's hearing on
military re-sale programs, I had pressed Secretary Dominguez
about my concern over the exchanges' declining profits. Less
profits means less money for the MWR dividends, which means
less programs in support for our troops and their families. I
asked the Secretary whether he thought we should increase the
percentage of the exchange profits that are used for MWR
dividends. He responded that he believed that the exchange
system would be able to reverse the trend of receiving profits
through cost-cutting measures. So my question today to the
board is, do you agree with the Secretary's assessment that the
exchange system's profits can be increased through cost-cutting
measures? What steps has the exchange system taken in the last
year to cut overhead to ensure maximum profitability in how it
affects MWR programs?
General Thurgood. Thank you very much for the question. Let
me just highlight from an AAFES perspective.
Last year, we delivered $140 million in productivity, and
that was driven through several big buckets--employee/associate
productivity, logistics supply chain productivity as well as
buying smarter. Those things will continue to move forward.
Additionally, we will continue to work in a collaborative way
with all of our exchanges and with MWR sister agencies to drive
productivity wherever we can lead it out of the supply chain.
So I think that there is good hope--``hope'' is not a plan.
Let me back up. There is a plan, and you will see that from an
AAFES perspective and from the exchanges' perspective that as
we continue to focus and to leverage our technologies in
different ways than we have before, as that technology comes to
fruition, as we create a culture of ownership and
entrepreneurship and innovation within our own organizations,
all of that will drive productivity.
Now, having said that, we cannot save ourselves for the
future. We also have to be good marketeers and grow the top
line as well, which is why all of the things that we talked
about earlier--ASE restrictions, making sure that we have
world-class facilities, that we are building those facilities
in a way that creates a sense of community and a new shopping
experience going forward--drive us toward the productivity that
I mentioned. It makes us better competitors in the global
supply chain, and at the end of the day, it will deliver
better, consistent-growing dividends for the MWR program.
Mr. Murphy. Thanks, General.
I am reviewing my testimony from last year. I know, I cited
that the profit and the dividend ratio stayed steady for about
55 to 60 percent of the profits going to fund MWR dividends, so
we were seeing declining profits.
Do we have to expand that or are we locked in still at
about the 55 to 60 percent currently?
General Thurgood. That is probably not a question for me.
We will deliver the dividend, and somebody else can figure out
how to divvy it up.
Mr. Murphy. Sir.
Admiral Bianchi. Sir, I would just offer from the Navy
exchange perspective that, right now, our split within the Navy
is that 70 percent of the dividend goes to MWR, and 30 percent
goes back into the exchange for recapitalization. We have had
this reaffirmed by our board of directors that we have within
the Navy that includes three-star-level admirals and
representatives from the fleets and so forth.
We believe that is a successful model because we had a
period of time about 10 years or so ago where we were not
recapitalizing. I think what we saw was customer
dissatisfaction, and that drove footsteps out of there. So it
becomes kind of a vicious circle if we are not able to
replenish the brick and mortar.
The only other thing I would offer in terms of efficiencies
and so forth is that General Thurgood mentioned cooperative
efforts. That has been a key area especially this past year.
For example, we have combined with AAFES in stuffing vans that
go overseas. We have increased the utilization of those by
almost 10 percent. We are saving about eight percent on
commercial rates by using some of the similar contracts that
they have. So I believe we are positioning ourselves to be as
efficient as we can. At the same time, we are trying to drive
an increase in sales, and we have seen consistent sales growth
over the last six or eight years.
Mr. Murphy. I am sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Larsen. Well, from the Marine Corps perspective, if I
could--from the Marine Corps exchanges from our perspective,you
know, we feel very good about where we are this year. We have
increased our sales and have increased our dividends. At the
same time, we have had three of our major stores under
renovation. We have also had a significant amount of the Marine
Corps deployed. So there needs to be an understanding of why we
continue to increase our sales and dividends while we have
those other conditions that affect the number of people and the
availability of people to take advantage of the benefit. A
couple of those things is what we have done as an organization.
We have centralized our buying. We have a centralized
banking contract that has increased the efficiency of our
organization in the way we do business. Another major reason
that the Marine Corps is able to provide those dividends and to
keep them is that, the way we are organized and the way that we
spend that money, the money is generated on the installation.
It remains on the installation. The installation commander then
has the latitude to put that money into the programs that he
needs to, so we have the ability not only to generate that
income and that revenue but then to decide how we are going to
spend it.
Mr. Murphy. Can I ask a couple--I have one more.
Mrs. Davis. One more question, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Okay. I will wait, ma'am, if that is okay.
Mrs. Davis. No. Go ahead. Go ahead. We are going to wind up
in a few minutes.
Mr. Murphy. Okay. I am a Blue Dog Democrat, which means
that I believe in strong fiscal discipline, but I also believe
in strong national defense. When we propose government
spending, we should also propose a way to pay for it. We call
it ``pay as you go'' here in Washington. During the Bush
Administration, far too much of our military funding has been
appropriated through supplemental spending bills that do not go
through the regular budgetary process. This affects our
military's ability to adequately plan, which, in turn, puts our
Nation at a strategic disadvantage.
Do the panelists believe that our overreliance on
supplemental spending bills has hurt their ability to provide
adequate MWR programs? If so, could they give this committee
some concrete examples of the budgetary problems that they have
encountered?
Mrs. Davis. Who would like to answer that?
Mr. Larsen. I will take it on for the Marine Corps first.
You know, the Marine Corps, I think, shares your concern
about supplemental funding. We have benefited significantly
from that, and the commandant and the leadership of the Marine
Corps have recognized that that funding might not be there
forever, so they have taken steps to make sure that the
programs that we have for the MWR programs and the family
programs are funded within the baseline of the Marine Corps'
budget. So for the next two years--in fiscal year 2008 and in
fiscal year 2009--we will benefit from the supplemental
funding. After that, in the POM--the budget is being developed
right now--our programs are funded in the baseline funding for
the Marine Corps.
Mrs. Davis. Anybody else?
Quickly, Ms. Arsht, did you want to respond? No? Oh, did
you want to respond?
Ms. Arsht. Only to say that we have been very grateful for
the supplemental funding that we have received. It has been
important additional funding to support warfighters and their
families in very important ways that we talked about earlier,
which is it has allowed us to extend our reach, our emergency
intervention in childcare. There are different ways that we
have been able to use our authorities to put programs in place
that we did not have before, whether it is the Playaway books
in the libraries for service members. These are important
additions to the budget, but we do see the importance of moving
out of supplemental and into the baseline all of these
programs.
Mr. Murphy. Would you concur with the Marine Corps?
Obviously, the testimony was that they will have it good by
2010. Is that what your plan is overall, ma'am?
Ms. Arsht. I think that all of the services have talked
about this POM's being an important one. The conversations from
this POM forward would include moving to baseline funding.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
Thanks, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
I think, obviously, we spoke to that earlier and to our
concern that we keep that movement and the increment moving so
that the programs will benefit for the men and women who serve.
With the demands on those budgets, of course, we know that
there is a tug of war there all the time. You know, we think
that it is important that we focus on what we need to, which
are the needs and benefits for our military. If I could just
very quickly--there are a few outstanding issues to the
committee.
The Kaiserslautern community center at Ramstein Air Base, I
think we had heard that that was moving along. Then there seems
to be concern about whether there really is a plan for
completion.
I wonder, Mr. Myers. Could you just tell us, very briefly,
the current status of that project? Can you assure us that
service members' nonappropriated funds will not be used to pay
for cost increases that are being calculated today?
Mr. Myers. The visiting quarters (VQ) is about 90 percent
complete. As for the funding, all of the funding is within
congressional limits. Right now, I believe our forces in Europe
headquarters, United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE), have
the best plan we have ever seen. They have worked closely with
the German government. The Vice Commander of USAFE has worked
with the ambassador, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany. They have
got new people in the German oversight part of it.
Germany has done an unprecedented thing. It has given the
U.S. 25 million euros--about $40 million--to correct the
deficiencies. The roof repair work is being done right now.
There are ventilation problems and so forth. So they are
working on the project.
The only project that is coming close to the budget limit
is the VQ. So what we had said in December of last year is
that, if it came close, we would resubmit that to Congress as
an out-of-session. We plan on doing that. We do not believe we
will bust it, but it is going to be close, and we do not want
to stop the construction.
The German government has told us they will be completely
finished with the project by January. However, our engineers
are looking at that. They believe it could be done sooner. So
we continually monitor the program. So, as far as we are told,
it is on track. The German government is involved. Our vice
commander is concerned, and he is the monitor right now.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you.
Just one final question on the military resale operations
at base closure sites. How can we best approach this issue? Do
you have thoughts about a process or about some standards that
we need to adhere to as we determine what services should be
retained at a BRAC location?
Ms. Arsht. I think you know that our policy is that, when
an installation closes, the commissary and exchange close
unless there is an active duty mission and there are at least
100 service members stationed there.
We have tried these other models--have combined stores and
shared facilities--and they have not been popular. They have
not been profitable. So we are looking at ways--and we have
alluded to them today, perhaps not in the detail you might
like--to try to extend the benefit to more eligible patrons. We
are doing it now in a pilot that DeCA has undertaken and that
AAFES will soon join of on-site sales. We are focused right now
on Guard and Reserve to bring that benefit to the families and
to the members.
I was able just two weeks ago to go to the Air National
Guard in Charlotte and to see one of these on-site sales. There
was a tremendous response from people who would normally have
to drive 90 miles to the closest commissary.
So this--and I think Mr. Page would like to speak a little
bit more about the plans, but we have put a certain number of
these sales on the horizon for now, and we are adding to them,
and we are looking at that and also some virtual sale
capability to try to find efficient and good, solid ways to
serve those who are eligible but who do not have brick and
mortar presence.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Page.
Mr. Page. I would be more than happy to add.
It has been a hugely successful program. We will have about
120 at a minimum. It could be more than that. The Charlotte
sale that Ms. Arsht mentioned earlier was so successful that
they have asked us to schedule two additional sales. We will
have one in June. In fact, that is the one where AAFES will
join us. There is a very large customer base there--I think
about 1,100 Guard members, a huge retiree population. It was
extremely successful. A lot of very positive comments came
back.
We carry about 350 to 400 grocery items. We have produce.
We have meat. We have seafood. It is a hugely festive event. We
are tying them in with family days. We are tying them in at the
Navy Reserve Centers. We are working with all branches of the
service. I have been personally meeting with them to promote
that.
Again, it is an opportunity. It is an option for those who
are not located near a base or installation; 65 percent of
Guard members are not located near a base or installation.
About 42 percent of reservists are not located near a base or
installation. We are actively seeking to meet their needs by
delivering the benefit to them.
Our next stage is to view the Internet as an option. I will
be, actually, demo-ing it in New York at the Senior Enlisted
Leadership Council for the National Guard. It is being held
there tomorrow. So we will demo our option of being able to be
at home--to have the Guard members be at home--to order
products and to have them delivered to the Guard center. That
is the next stage in the process we are developing. It is, I
think, very exciting, and it does offer options for other
venues and for other possibilities that might meet the needs
that you are referring to.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Great.
Thank you all. Thank you all very much. We will submit any
other questions for the record. We wanted to do this in the
two-hour time frame, and I think we made it. I appreciate very
much your comments and your speaking to the point. Thank you.
We look forward to working with you in the future. The meeting
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 17, 2008
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 17, 2008
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 17, 2008
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DRAKE
Ms. Arsht. On behalf of the Department, we are exceptionally proud
and deeply appreciative of the services and sacrifices of all our
nation's veterans. Based on surveys of our active duty personnel, we
know the commissary and exchange are highly valued benefits and we work
hard to protect these non-pay benefits for all who are eligible. The
Department has not surveyed the active duty members to assess their
attitudes and opinions about extending commissary and exchange shopping
privileges to disabled veterans with a 30 percent Service-connected
disability, along with their dependents. The addition of other
categories of eligible patrons has been accomplished legislatively,
based on the compensation status of the individual or in recognition of
their retired status. The last major change, enacted by Section 651 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, authorized
unlimited access to commissary stores for Reserve members and their
dependents. [See page 19.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS
General Macdonald. Food items to feed military members from all
Services and civilians, including U.S. government employees and private
citizens, are provided under a Defense Logistics Agency contract by a
commercial prime vendor. These items are usually transported from U.S.
sources, while some items, such as produce and bakery items, may be
procured locally from approved sources.
Today U.S. government is making a number of local food purchases in
Afghanistan and is actively working to expand local purchases. We buy
bottled water from three Afghan bottling plants and a fourth plant is
awaiting approval. An Afghan soft drink plant has recently received
Army Central Command medical approval and is being added as an approved
source for the DLA prime vendor in Afghanistan. However, local purchase
of food items is a careful and deliberate process requiring medical
screening and approvals, followed by periodic audits of food sources,
in order to protect the health and strength of military members and
civilians. These steps must be accomplished before local purchase of
foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, can be approved and
conducted.
There is another, broader initiative to support the Afghan economy,
the Afghan First Program, administered by the International Security
Assistance Force under NATO, which seeks to utilize Afghan services,
purchase Afghan goods, and develop Afghan skills while supporting local
currency and encouraging economic competition. This Program's motto is
``support the local economy through local procurement.'' The DLA prime
vendor in Afghanistan is engaged with this program. [See page 27.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 17, 2008
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS
Mrs. Davis. H.R. 4497, bill offered by Representative Lincoln,
would prohibit the use of gambling devices on DOD property. I have
noted that the MWR slot machine program contributes $101 million in net
revenue to support MWR programs. Ms. Arsht, how important are slot
machines to troop morale? If MWR slot machines were eliminated at
overseas locations, how serious would the loss of revenue be?
Ms. Arsht. Gambling devices on DoD property produce a sizeable and
predictable stream of revenue that support MWR programs. In Fiscal Year
2007, profits covered approximately 6% ($129.1 million) of non-
appropriated (NAF) MWR expenses ($2 billion). Gambling device revenues
primarily pay for Category C MWR facility capital improvements that are
not authorized appropriated fund (APF) support (i.e., food and beverage
upgrades, golf course upgrades, cabins, and cottages). Funds are also
used to support a wide variety of quality of life programs such as
youth and outdoor recreation programs. Loss of these revenues would
have a significant negative impact on facility renovation and
construction, equipment purchases, and MWR programs not funded with
congressionally approved APFs.
Appropriated funds are not available to replace any loss of slot
machine profits, so the resulting loss of available funds would also
have a substantial degrading effect on troop morale, particularly
overseas, where there are the least off-installation opportunities. MWR
programs offered worldwide are intended to bring the touches of home to
Service members and their families. Military communities, as a
microcosm of American society, are generally entitled to the same
quality of life activities that are available in the United States.
On-installation gambling activities are only offered when they are
available in the host country and are not stand-alone programs. They
are offered in a controlled environment as just one recreational choice
among approximately 50 recreational activities, with all profits
returned to the MWR program.
Mrs. Davis. The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) has been working
on its ``Workforce of the Future'' (WOF) includes the best practices of
the private sector which would hopefully posture DeCA to improve its
performance in A-76 competitions with private sector industry. The
Subcommittee appreciates that implementation of NSPS was problematic
and WOF was never able to move forward on its original schedule. Ms.
Arsht, given that the Defense Commissary Agency has not been able to
fully implement its new workforce model, Workforce of the Future (WOF),
do you agree that the continued exemption from A-76 contracting out
competitions is the appropriate course of action?
Ms. Arsht. DeCA is implementing its WOF, to provide store-level
employees with more flexible position descriptions, allowing them to
cross-train in multiple positions and provide better advancement
opportunities, while providing a more efficient workforce. While
implementation of the WOF will improve DeCA's ability to successfully
compete with the private sector in A-76 competitions, continued
exemption from A-76 competitions is not necessary. Competitions could
be conducted at those commissaries where WOF has already been
implemented, without disadvantaging DeCA or its employees.
Mrs. Davis. One of the consequences of the realignment of forces
from overseas locations and the trend toward increased emphasis on
joint operations is the establishment of joint installations with
sizeable populations from multiple services. The combining of military
resale and MWR activities is complicated by financial and
administrative problems. Ms. Arsht, given the plan for DOD to establish
an increasing number of joint bases, how will DOD insure that the
exchange services and MWR activities and their employees will receive
equitable treatment?
Ms. Arsht. Joint bases are important to today's war fighting
strategy, but will have challenges and growing pains as we work through
joint operations and standards. Joint bases will be high quality places
where people want to live. Centralized guidance has been issued to
cover this important area. Using the Joint Standards as a beginning
point, DoD will oversee, visit, and assist the joint bases in achieving
equity, while ensuring that services are delivered to the benefit of
all Service members. Further, equitable treatment of our employees will
be a priority. Ultimately, joint installations will provide seamless,
high quality services to Service members and their families, regardless
of their parent Service.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Baker, Mr. Larsen, General Macdonald, and Mr.
Myers, what are the services doing to identify and counsel service
members and their family members who are addicted to gambling?
Mr. Larsen. A query, via email, to Marine Corps Substance Abuse
Counseling Centers (SACC) revealed that a small number of individuals
(30) sought help for gambling at our SACCs last year. Four
installations (MCB Camp Pendleton, MCRD San Diego, MCRD Parris Island,
and MCAS Beaufort) provide counseling services, either at the SACC or
at General Counseling, for gambling addiction; most refer to Gamblers
Anonymous (GA).
Marines and their family members who need assistance with gambling
addiction can contact Marine Corps Counseling Centers, Personal
Financial Management Specialists, or Military OneSource for referral to
community support organizations such as GA, Gam-Anon, and the National
Council on Problem Gambling. Many school districts also provide
programs to help students with gambling addiction.
In addition to referral services, Marine Corps Community Services
will increase awareness on the risks associated with gambling and
referral resources through targeted literature.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Baker, Mr. Larsen, General Macdonald, and Mr.
Myers, what are the services doing to identify and counsel service
members and their family members who are addicted to gambling?
Mr. Myers. Gambling addiction issues may surface when Airmen or
family members seek assistance for financial, relationship, or other
personal issues from an Airman and Family Readiness Center (A&FRC),
Military One Source (MOS) consultant, or contracted Military Family
Life Consultant (MFLC). While A&FRCS, MOS, and MFLCs do not offer
treatment for addiction issues, all will provide education resources,
answer questions about treatment options and facilitate connection to
the appropriate level of assistance including self-help/support groups
or long-term counseling options.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Baker, Mr. Larsen, General Macdonald, and Mr.
Myers, what are the services doing to identify and counsel service
members and their family members who are addicted to gambling?
Mr. Baker. Compulsive gamblers can be identified in a number of
ways. Gamblers may make self-referrals, the command may make a
referral, or judicial referrals can be made. Chaplains, mental health
professionals, and Fleet and Family Support Center staff may all
provide counseling and referrals on gambling issues. Counseling through
military resources is most often provided on an outpatient basis and
can be provided by any of the sources mentioned, depending on the
issue. For example, Fleet and Family Support Center staff may work with
financial hardships that have resulted from problem gambling and would
refer the individual to a mental health provider to address behavioral
issues. Some installations host support groups for individuals
suffering from problem gambling as part of their substance abuse
programs. They may also make referrals to civilian outpatient programs.
Navy Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program (SARP) and Mental Health
departments can provide initial evaluation for those with a gambling
problem. However, SARP does not provide outpatient services to treat
gambling addictions. Referrals are made to appropriate network
providers and to Gamblers Anonymous (GA).
A member may be referred for an evaluation as part of a legal
proceeding or for counseling and assistance whenever deemed to have a
mental/medical/physical problem that adversely affects the individual,
unit, or good order and discipline of the command. Under Military Rule
of Evidence (MRE) 513, communications made to a psychotherapist,
clinical psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker for the
purpose of facilitating diagnosis or treatment of the patient's mental
or emotional condition are privileged from disclosure in cases arising
under the UCMJ. Military mental health providers can refer an
individual for assistance to a civilian treatment facility if the
military location does not provide the needed expertise or care.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Baker, Mr. Larsen, General Macdonald, and Mr.
Myers, what are the services doing to identify and counsel service
members and their family members who are addicted to gambling?
General Macdonald. Army Family programs promote resilience and
satisfaction with military life through prevention, education, and
training. These programs are critical to the well-being of Soldiers and
Families, and directly influence the Army's ability to sustain mission
readiness.
In an effort to identify Soldiers and Family members with gambling
addictions, we coordinate with the medical staff (MEDCOM), specifically
the clinical professionals in the Department of Behavioral Health and
other health care providers. The Army's Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Program screens for all compulsive behavior. Potentially addicted
gamblers may be identified as a result.
Army Community Service (ACS) provides referral services to assist
Soldiers and Family members identified with behavior and debt typically
associated with an addiction to gambling.
Other resources for military Families include Chaplains, Military
Family Life Consultants (MFLC), and Military OneSource (MOS). The MFLC
provide much needed, on-demand support to Soldiers and Families. MFLC
outreach efforts include direct consultation, classes, groups, and
sessions for emotional well being which can be tailored to address
gambling addiction. Military OneSource is a 24-hour, 7-day a week toll
free information and referral telephone line and internet/Web based
service which includes face-to-face counseling sessions available to
active and reserve component Soldiers, deployed civilians, and their
families. It augments our installation family support services to
families living off installations. Soldiers and Family members needing
intense, long term addiction counseling are referred to the TRICARE
network.
Finally, Commanders may direct or recommend counseling services for
Soldiers who they believe have gambling problems. In instances where
there appears to be addictive behavior, Soldiers are referred to the
Department of Behavioral Health for further assessment and treatment as
warranted. Gamblers may also self-refer for assistance.
Mrs. Davis. The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) has been working
on its ``Workforce of the Future'' (WOF) includes the best practices of
the private sector which would hopefully posture DeCA to improve its
performance in A-76 competitions with private sector industry. The
Subcommittee appreciates that implementation of NSPS was problematic
and WOF was never able to move forward on its original schedule. Mr.
Page, if an extension of the exemption from A-76 competitions would
give you till 2011, is that sufficient time for the Defense Commissary
Agency to implement its workforce of the future?
Mr. Larsen. Implementation of the WOF will provide store-level
employees with more flexible position descriptions, allowing them to
cross-train in multiple positions and provide better advancement
opportunities, while providing a more efficient workforce. DeCA is
implementing WOF through attrition, filling vacancies as they occur,
under the new position descriptions. After expiration of the
moratorium, A-76 competitions will resume first at those locations
where WOF has been implemented in order to provide DeCA employees the
best opportunity to compete successfully with the private sector.