- MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010

[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
CHET EDWARDS, Texas, Chairman
SAM FARR, California ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JOHN CARTER, Texas
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
STEVE ISRAEL, New York

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

________

PART 7

________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

Part 7--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
CHET EDWARDS, Texas, Chairman
SAM FARR, California ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JOHN CARTER, Texas
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
STEVE ISRAEL, New York

________

PART 7

________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-526 WASHINGTON : 2009

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman

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

Beverly Pheto, Clerk and Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N TS

__________
Page

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

Review of VA Challenges.......................................... 127

Family and Troop Housing......................................... 235

Pacific Command.................................................. 315

European Command................................................. 373

DoD/VA Medical Transition........................................ 487

Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 555

Outside Witnesses................................................ 653

Court of Appeals................................................. 917

American Battle Monuments Commission............................. 930

Cemeterial Expenses, Army........................................ 941

Armed Forces Retirement Home..................................... 962

Central Command.................................................. 985

Army Budget...................................................... 1059

Navy and Marine Corps Budget..................................... 1103

Veterans Affairs................................................. 1185

Budget Overview.................................................. 1275

Air Force Budget................................................. 1361

Testimony Submitted for the Record............................... 1407

(iii)

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010

---------- --
--------

Wednesday, February 4, 2009.

UNITED STATES ARMY

WITNESS

KENNETH O. PRESTON, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I would like to call the committee
to order. I want to welcome everyone here, the witnesses, the
members of the committee, and all the others for your
attendance here today at our first subcommittee meeting of the
111th Congress.
Our ranking member, Congressman Wamp, is back with us. I
want to thank you personally, Mr. Wamp, for your tremendous
leadership and a lot of the very positive accomplishments of
this subcommittee last year. And as I recall, our last bill
passed by--that was about 424-4 or something close to that. So
I really appreciate the bipartisan manner in which this
committee has been dedicated to supporting our veterans and our
troops and their families.
I would like to just start out with a few organizational
comments and points before we get into the witnesses'
testimony.
I would like to say at the very beginning here that I think
we are literally blessed to have one of the finest staffs of
any committee or subcommittee in the House. They work on a
bipartisan basis. They know their business. And I think they
are the real reason why we have had such great successes in
this committee in the last few years, as well as previous
years.
We have Carol Murphy as the clerk, she will be back as the
clerk for this subcommittee. We also have Mary Arnold.
And if you could all raise your hand when I introduce you.
Tim Peterson, Donna Shahbaz, Walter Hearne, all on the majority
side. And on the minority side, we have Martin Delgado, Liz
Dawson, and Kelly Shea.
And while I introduced them as majority and minority side,
this committee will continue its tradition of working on a
bipartisan and nonpartisan basis on behalf of our veterans and
our troops and their families.
I would like to just very briefly, for the record, since
this is the first meeting of the subcommittee for the year,
review some of our efforts and achievements from last year.
For the Veterans Administration, we followed up on the
largest single-year increase for veterans with an additional
$4.5 billion increase. We provided funds to hire an additional
2,000 claims processors to reduce the serious V.A. backlog
claims.
We increased veterans' funding by $16.3 billion during the
110th Congress, an unprecedented increase and something that I
believe the troops and our veterans earned--these were dollars
and programs that they earned through their service to the
country.
On the military construction side, we provided over $25
billion in new funding for 2009. We were also able to make
progress on a couple of areas where we identified a great need.
Between the 2008 and the 2009 supplemental bills, we were
able to secure nearly $975 million for new military hospital
construction, an initiative of this subcommittee and something
I think has been long overdue.
And we secured $200 million in additional money for new
training barracks, something that hasn't been the highest of
priorities coming out of budgets from OMB.
While our new recruits aren't expecting to be trained and
live in Hilton Hotels, we ought to have them living in the kind
of housing conditions that show respect from our country for
their choice to sign up and serve our country.
So I am very proud of our bipartisan effort to make new
inroads in improving our training barracks. Not many lobbyists
out there are lobbying for 18-, 19-, 20-year-old recruits to
the military forces, but this subcommittee intends to continue
being a lobbyist for them in partnership with you, who has been
such an eloquent voice on their behalf.
Before I proceed, I would like to recognize again Mr. Wamp,
who had such a tremendous impact on the success that I have
mentioned.
The time is yours.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Good morning.
I think it is really appropriate to start here with the top
enlisted leaders of our combined Armed Forces. Probably the
only better way we could do this is if we had your family
members up here--heart is where this committee's work is.
Quality of life is really everything for us.
And it is still a tough world to serve in out there, and we
know that, and we want to make sure we do everything we can
here at this table--I want to thank the chairman, because I
think he is exactly right. We have a lot to be grateful for,
first and foremost, your service and all the men and women that
you represent. This subcommittee has, in a bipartisan way,
really kicked it in and stepped it up.
And I tell people that at home and everywhere I go how
committed, in a bipartisan way, we are to your families and to
those men and women who volunteer to serve at a very difficult
time. And I think we have made progress, but I think we can
still make progress.
A little housekeeping here. I have Major Juan Alvarez that
is now on my staff, and Erin Fogleman. I have been through a
little transition.
But I want to tell you something that maybe sounds a little
strange to say, but I am now up to seven on our side in the
seniority of the ranking members. And unlike the Democrats, who
base their seniority on the particular subcommittee that they
choose, we can move.
We had three retirements ahead of me on our side, and I
could have gone to a number of other committees. I said, ``I
want to stay right here, because this is the most important
work that I can be engaged in.'' And I am actually doing two
jobs right now. I am running for governor of our state and
serving here in Congress.
But as long as I am here, it is absolutely the highest
privilege of my professional life to serve those that serve our
country in uniform, our Armed Forces in a volunteer capacity,
with two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and trouble in 25
countries. It is a volatile time. It is a tough time. But there
is no greater service to our country than the people that you
represent.
And I especially appreciate you four men, because just
about every one of you has some real, direct connection to the
state of Tennessee. So I just want to thank you for that.
[Laughter.]
And I know the chairman is going to find all those nexus to
Texas, but it is undeniable how much they know about where I
live. And I, too, have been out there.
I was with President Bush in November on the ground at Fort
Campbell, listening to our soldiers, many of whom are single.
We have housing needs for those single troops that are serving
us. We have a host of needs, still, in the area of childcare
centers. And I know that the chairman is trying any vehicle
passing through town here to help us. And that is important, as
well.
But we are so very grateful. And it is such a privilege.
Our numbers shrank over here. We had four members of the
subcommittee besides me. Now we have three. And Mr. Carter will
be here, but the same team, which is a strong Republican team
over here is committed to our men and women in uniform.
We stand ready over the next 2 years to do everything we
can to help our chairman and to help the majority and the
President of the United States honor your sacrifice and
service. I am really looking forward to it. We will do all that
we can at a time of great challenge and difficulty, both on the
budget front and around the world, to honor what you're doing--
and I just want you to know that going in.
It is going to be a great year. And thank you for your
presence here today. I hope that you will tell us what we need
to hear and not what we want to hear as we go through this
process. I know you are in charge of doing that to the
generals, and I hope you will be the same way with us this
morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Great. Thank you, Zach.
And let me just say, as a Texan, having studied the Alamo,
even we Texans are appreciative of Tennesseans--as long as I am
chairman of this committee and as long as Chairman Young
chooses to be on this subcommittee, it is going to be my
tradition to recognize him for an opening statement, as well,
because he has done as much or more than any single member of
Congress to support our troops and our veterans.
And the former chairman of the full Appropriations
Committee, former chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Committee, now the partner.
And, Chairman Young, we are honored to have you again in
this Congress on our subcommittee. And I would like to
recognize you for any opening comments you would care to make.
Mr. Young. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I
fought hard to stay on this subcommittee when we were having to
downsize somewhat. But when it comes to the well-being of the
men and women who serve in our military, there are no
Republicans and no Democrats, especially on this committee, the
chairman has conducted this subcommittee in just a tremendous
bipartisan way, in the best interests of our country. And Mr.
Wamp has done the same.
And we are here--I know you hear this as a joke on
occasion--but we are here to help, actually. I am not sure
whether you have seen your specific budget for your service or
not, but I don't think we have, have we, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Edwards. No.
Mr. Young. We haven't gotten the budget yet. But we know
that--regardless of what the budget is, there are needs that
our men and women need. And we are counting on you to tell us
what those needs are, because I can guarantee you that this
subcommittee, the members of this subcommittee are going to do
whatever we can possibly do to meet the needs to improve the
quality of life and to take care of some of those little
problems that are out there that sometimes we don't hear about.
So I am going to ask, Mr. Chairman, that, as they go
through their testimony, just pretend like we have a magic wand
up here and tell us some of the things that we might not have
read or we might not have heard about. Tell us some of the
things that we need to be doing in the interests of our
military personnel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Young.
Let me welcome two new members to our subcommittee,
Congressman John Salazar and Congressman Steve Israel. We are
thrilled to have both of you here.
And let me just give you a brief background. Congressman
Salazar was first elected in 2004. He is a new member of the
Appropriations Committee, but he is not new to defense issues.
He served in the United States Army, a distinguished career
there from 1973 to 1976. He also reflects his values by having
served on the Veterans Affairs Committee. He was born and
raised on a farm, still an active farmer, and a Blue Dog
Democrat.
John, we are very thrilled to have you. Would you care to
make any statement in your first subcommittee hearing?
Mr. Salazar. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, it is really an honor to be able to serve on
this subcommittee. It was one of my first choices. And I want
to thank you for the opportunity.
As many of you know, the Salazar family has had a long
history of serving this country. My father was a World War II
veteran, asked that he be buried in his staff sergeant World
War II uniform, and he was. And many times--we don't ask much
of our country, but we ask what we can do for our country.
Thank you for your service.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is truly an honor for me
to be able to serve on this committee.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, John. We are honored that you are
on this subcommittee.
Steve Israel is a member of Congress from the great state
of New York. He was first elected in 2000, became a member of
the Appropriations Committee in 2007. He is also not new to
defense issues on several points.
He previously served on the House Armed Services Committee,
founded the bipartisan House Center Aisle Caucus, and very
importantly, has been chairman of the House Democratic Caucus
Task Force on Defense and the Military. He is particularly
known for his leadership on professional military education
issues, in addition to other areas of interest to him.
Welcome to the committee, Steve.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. And I would like to recognize you for any
comments you would care to make.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I truly
am honored to be on this subcommittee.
If there was only one regret in coming to the
Appropriations Committee, it was that I had to leave the Armed
Services Committee. And I told the speaker, my heart remains
with the Armed Services Committee. My wallet is with the
Appropriations Committee. [Laughter.]
And I have always had a longstanding interest, working with
Chairman Skelton, on the issue of professional military
education and how we are equipping our forces with the software
that they need to become effective and remain effective
warriors. I look forward to continuing to work with you--thank
you all.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Steve. Welcome back.
And welcome back--welcome, as a new member of the
subcommittee. And welcome back, also, to all the returning
members today. It is an honor. I think this is a great, great
subcommittee.
Let me make a fairly brief opening statement. This is our
first hearing of the year. I think it is a reflection on our
respect for your leadership and the difference that you have
made from your previous year's testimony.
We felt, as Mr. Young alluded, we felt it wasn't even
important to wait until we have an official administration
budget request, that whatever the needs are that are out there
that you have identified--our troops and their families need to
be heard now, as we begin our--our budgeting process.
Members, today's hearing is on the quality of life for
enlisted soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and their
families. The four witnesses at the table are the senior
enlisted members of their respective branches. Members should
know--and this is amazing--that these four witnesses represent
roughly 124 years of distinguished military service and
experience.
This hearing is a great opportunity to identify areas where
we can do more to serve those who serve us. And as I mentioned
to some of you I met with yesterday, literally, if you ever
wonder all the trouble you go to testify on Capitol Hill, does
it make a difference?
Literally, the comments you made about the need for child
development centers over the last several years is the reason
why we have added several hundred million dollars to those
programs, and particularly the point being that we have a lot
of single moms and dads, while their spouses are serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan on a first, second, or third tour that
deserve and need that daycare.
So you have made a difference. And we know you will
continue to.
Our witnesses today are, first, Sergeant Major of the Army
Kenneth Preston. He is no stranger this subcommittee.
Welcome back, Sergeant Major.
He was sworn in to his present position on January 15th of
2004 with over 33 years of service in the United States Army.
He was command sergeant major for Combined Task Force 7 in
Baghdad prior to becoming sergeant major in the Army.
And I anticipate Sergeant Major Preston will introduce him
formally, but I also wanted to pay special tribute to Command
Sergeant Major John Gipe of the National Guard and also Command
Sergeant Major Leon Caffie of the Army Reserve.
Thank you. Thank you both for your leadership and for being
here today, as well.
Sergeant major of the Marine Corps is Carlton W. Kent.
Sergeant Major Kent is a returning witness and became sergeant
major of the Marine Corps on April 25th of 2007. He also has 33
years of military service.
And we thank you for those distinguished years of service,
Sergeant Major. He served as sergeant major of the Marine
Forces, Europe, and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp
Pendleton prior to his current position.
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Rick D. West, Master
Chief West is a first-time witness here. And this is a friendly
committee. [Laughter.]
Mr. Young meant it when he said we are here to help. We are
not like some of these committees trying to make points with
cameras or reporters. We are here to hear from you, and we do
welcome you to our subcommittee.
Master Chief West has about 28 years of service in the
Navy, entered the Navy straight from high school in 1981. And
he is a submariner. His assignments include service on the
staff of the commander, Submarine Force of the U.S. Pacific
Fleet, and chief of the boat aboard the USS Portsmouth.
Most recently, he served as fleet master chief of the U.S.
fleet forces--and I will let Master Chief West introduce him
formally, but I want to note that Force Master Chief Ronney
Bright from the Navy Reserve is also with us. Wright. I am
sorry, Wright. He is a bright Wright. [Laughter.]
Thank you for that. Well, welcome. It is good to have you
here, also.
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Rodney J. McKinley.
Chief McKinley is a returning witness, as well.
Chief, welcome. Welcome back to our subcommittee in your
present position since 2006, June 30th. He has served in the
Air Force for 30 years, beginning in 1974 with a 5-year break.
He served as Command Chief Master Sergeant at the wing,
Numbered Air Force, and major command levels and deployed to
southwest Asia in support of OEF and OIF.
Thank you again for all being here. And if you can just be
patient for 1 or 2 more minutes, I would like to just lay out a
couple of ground rules as we have agreed to them for this new
Congress for our subcommittee.
First, I will do everything I can to begin the committee
hearings on time. I respect your schedules. We are not going to
have you sitting here for 20 minutes waiting for a 10 o'clock
hearing to begin at 10:30.
For the members present in the room, when I gavel at the
beginning of the hearing to open the hearing, I will recognize
the members for questions in order of seniority, alternating
between the majority and minority.
For those who arrive after the hearing has started, I will
recognize those members solely in order of arrival, not in
order of seniority. And then the order will continue through
all rounds of questioning.
I will do my best to try to enforce the 5-minute rule on
questions and answers. We will do this out of the hope that in
this subcommittee, unlike the Armed Services Committee, Steve,
we will have opportunities to have multiple rounds of
questioning. And that might work better if we tried to not have
our members make a 5-minute statement and ask 20 questions in
the last 15 seconds of that.
So what I am going to do is I will gavel once when there is
a minute left. I will gavel twice, and I would ask the
witnesses to finish your sentence when I have gaveled follow-up
questions for the members.
With that, we would like by tradition to begin with
Sergeant Major Preston.

Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O. Preston

Sergeant Major Preston. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much.
Congressman Wamp, Congressman Young, all the committee
members, thanks very much. It is a great honor to be here and
to testify again before this distinguished committee. I
represent all the men and women of America's Army.
I will start out by saying that your support this past year
and your continued support today has had a tremendous impact on
our soldiers and our families. On behalf of all them, I want to
thank you for all your work and effort.
I also want to recognize Command Sergeant Major John Gipe,
who is the command sergeant major for the Army National Guard.
He is the senior enlisted adviser for Lieutenant General Vaughn
for the Army National Guard.
And then Command Sergeant Major Leon Caffie, who is the
command sergeant major for the Army Reserve. He works as the
senior enlisted adviser for Lieutenant General Jack Stultz.
These gentlemen represent 518,000 citizen-soldiers that serve
every day.
Today, the Army has more than 245,000 soldiers forward-
deployed to 80 countries around the world. We have more than
139,600 soldiers currently deployed in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
General Casey, early in his tenure as our Army chief of
staff, searched for a way to describe the state of the Army.
And he uses the term ``out of balance,'' not broken or hollow,
but the era of persistent global conflict has strained our Army
resources, our soldiers, our Army families, and our equipment,
to a point where we are consumed by the demands of the current
fight.
The Army has four strategic imperatives to restore this
balance. We must Sustain our all-volunteer force, our soldiers,
our Army civilians, and their families. We must Prepare our
forces for success in the current conflict. We must Reset our
soldiers and their equipment returning from the deployment. And
we must Transform to meet the demands of the future and provide
our soldiers, our Army civilians, and their families with the
predictability and stability that they need.
With your support, we intend to restore this balance to the
Army. Our recruiting and retention programs are a success. Last
year, we recruited over 169,000 young men and women, all great
soldiers. We re-enlisted 120,000 soldiers to retain in our
units. This past July, we celebrated the 35th anniversary of
the all-volunteer force.
And your support is directly attributed to our success, and
it is greatly appreciated.
We are seeing indicators of stress on the force as we enter
the eighth year of the global war on terror. The Army had an
increase in suicide rates for the fourth consecutive year.
There were 128 suicides last year, with 15 additional cases
still pending determination. The total number of suicides is
potentially 143. We continue to look for initiatives to
increase resources and enhance our efforts to identify,
intervene and prevent suicidal behavior.
The plan for this year is the implementation of a
comprehensive soldier fitness program. The vision of this
program is an Army whose resilience and total fitness enables
soldiers to thrive in an era of high op-tempo and persistent
conflict.
Child care is a top quality of life issue. Our goal is to
achieve the OFC standard of providing 80 percent childcare and
35 percent of the youth program demand by the end of fiscal
year 2009. We currently can provide about 72,500 childcare
spaces in support of our anticipated need of about 87,500 by
fiscal year 2013.
Our residential communities initiative is a successful tool
in our efforts to eliminate inadequate family housing. At the
end of this year, we will complete privatization on 44 of 45
installations, with over 89,000 homes. By 2011, we will
complete privatization of about 98 percent of our stateside
family housing inventory.
Our permanent-party soldier barracks goal is about 170,000
adequate soldier spaces funded by the end of fiscal year 2013.
Allowing 2 years for construction, we will not complete the
barracks building plan until fiscal year 2015 for our
permanent-party soldiers.
We have a plan to maintain safe living conditions in our
old Korean War-era barracks until enough new facilities are
built to house our permanent-party soldiers.
Our training barracks goal to support soldiers attending
initial entry and professional development schools across the
Army is 115,413 adequate soldier spaces funded by the end of
fiscal year 2013. Allowing 2 years for construction, we will
not complete the barracks building plan until fiscal year 2017.
And, of course, when you look at some of our facilities
that are out there, you know, the soldiers attending the
Noncommissioned Officer Academy at Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
live in World War II wooden barracks.
We completed standing up and manning 36 warrior transition
units and nine community-based warrior transition units to
support 12,000 soldiers. These facilities have a singular focus
on warrior healing and support to families.
We hired 191 of the needed 254 new behavioral health
providers this past year, which adds about 16,000 additional
appointments a month. Shortages of medical providers in
military treatment facilities is one of the top five issues
identified by soldiers and families in our most recent Army
family action plan conference last week.
I want to thank the committee for the increased focus on
our aging health care facilities over this last year. Our
medical facilities are well maintained and operated, but many
are more than 50 years old and not configured, nor constructed
to provide the range of treatments available in modern medical
facilities.
I am proud that this year we will--2009 as the year of the
noncommissioned officer. During this year, we will accelerate
previously approved strategic noncommissioned officer
development initiatives that enhance training, education,
capability, and utilization of our noncommissioned officers.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you, and I look
forward to your questions.
[Prepared testimony of Sergeant Major Kenneth O. Preston
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.019

Mr. Edwards. Sergeant Major Preston, thank you very much.
Sergeant Major Kent.
---------- --
--------

Wednesday, February 4, 2009.

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

WITNESS

CARLTON W. KENT, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE MARINE CORPS

Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent

Sergeant Major Kent. Thank you, Chairman Edwards, Ranking
Member Wamp, and all of the subcommittee members for an
opportunity to testify on all important issues that are
affecting our Marines and their families today.
The well-being of Marines and families is the most
important priority for our corps. Your Marines are serving at
every U.S. embassy throughout the world. They are engaged on
several fronts. They are serving aboard the U.S. ships with our
brothers and sisters in the Navy, and they are waiting on the
call to go in harm's way.
Marines are very proud to serve their country and their
Corps. I am pleased to report that the Marine Corps is making
positive changes for Marines and their families that will
benefit them for generations to come.
We are making strides--quality of life of our families. We
like to thank you all, you know, for what you have done for our
BEQs, for our housing, and, I mean, across the whole spectrum.
And we see that in our Corps.
As a matter of fact, I have a quick story that I told
Congressman Edwards yesterday. I was standing talking to a
young corporal on a visit recently. And I said, ``Are you
planning on staying in the Marine Corps?'' The young corporal
was getting ready to answer it. Then his wife jumped right in.
She said, ``Yes, he is staying in the Marine Corps, because I
like the housing, I like the commissary, I like childcare, I
like everything that comes with the Corps.''
So it is the families just keeping these Marines around. So
thank you very much, you know, for what you do for our Corps.
And, again, I am available to answer any questions.
[Prepared statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W. Kent
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.037

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

Wednesday, February 4, 2009.

UNITED STATES NAVY

WITNESS

RICK D. WEST, MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE NAVY

Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Rick D. West

Master Chief West. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp, distinguished members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you and represent our Sailors and their families in this
forum.
On December 12th, the day I took the job, I told our young
men and women that nothing would be more important to me than
providing them the avenues to succeed as Sailors and as
Americans. I view this time with you as an unparalleled
opportunity to speak on behalf and uphold the promise that I
made to them.
Joining me today is Force Master Chief Ronney Wright, who
represents our Reserve Force, the finest group of citizen-
sailors that this nation has ever seen.
Force Wright and I believe that three traditional pillars
are critical to the success of our service: Strong decisive
leadership, consistent and clear communications up, down and
across the chain of command, and education to our fleet and
their families regarding the quality of life and family support
programs that are available to them.
Consistent support from Congress and a continued emphasis
on these pillars will ensure all of our sailors are ready for
any mission any time, anywhere. Your commitment to our Sailors
and the unconditional support to the families both contribute
equally to our Navy's success and our ability to protect
America's strategic interests around the world.
Over the last few years, cooperation between this
subcommittee and our Navy leadership has led to impressive
progress in health care, childcare, family housing, and many
other support programs. However, we will need your support as
we focus on upgrading our existing barracks and providing more
quarters to support our Sailors. Approximately 9,000 of my
sailors today live on board ships.
Before I took this job, I had the privilege of leading
Sailors as Master Chief in both the Pacific and the Atlantic
fleets. I have met and talked with thousands of our great
Sailors. They inspire me daily, and I am happy to report morale
is high and retention is strong.
Our Navy mission is more diverse than ever before. I have
seen Sailors operate on and below the oceans of the world, in
the air, or boots on the ground with our expeditionary forces
or as individual augmentees as we prosecute the global war on
terror.
And I am continually amazed to see the caliber of these
Sailors working side by side with our Marine Corps brothers and
alongside our Army and Air Force counterparts.
They may not have joined with that job in mind, but every
day they are redefining their role as a United States Sailor.
Your Sailors stand ready.
But sadly to say, some of these Sailors never return to
their families. They present us with a serious national
responsibility. As a Navy and through your leadership, we are
continually improving the support and care that we provide our
wounded warriors. Our commitment to the heroes and their
families will never waver.
But today I come before you not only as the nation's senior
enlisted Sailor, but also as a Navy dad. I saw my eldest son
graduate from Navy boot camp, and a few months later, I
attended his graduation from Navy dive school.
In the near future, his younger brother plans to follow. I
am proud to tell you that these young men elected to follow in
my footsteps out of patriotism and sense of selfless service to
our nation, but I will also tell you another fact is they have
chosen to join our Navy. The reason they joined our Navy is the
lifelong exposure that they have had to the Navy way of life
and to the military quality of life that this subcommittee is
chartered with.
And they have seen my wife, Bobbi, a former Navy Seabee,
who doesn't have to worry too much about my safety, but now she
understands firsthand what so many of our American parents have
discovered, that a child in harm's way is a kind of stress you
can never prepare yourself for.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, it is not lost on me that
you and I share very similar responsibilities. I know that your
dedication to our military is stronger than ever before, and
that your loyalty to our families is limitless. You have my
most profound respect for that and for your continued
dedication to each of them.
I look forward to working with and alongside each of you
today and in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to
address you today, and I look forward to your questions. Hooah.
[Prepared statement of Master Chief Petty Officer Rick West
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.049

Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Master Chief West, thank you for
your eloquent first statement before our subcommittee.
Master Chief West. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. And thanks on behalf of all of us for your
entire family's service to our country.
Master Chief West. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Chief McKinley, welcome back to our
subcommittee. I would like to recognize you now for your
opening statement.
---------- --
--------

Wednesday, February 4, 2009.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

WITNESS

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

Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J. McKinley

Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp, Congressman Young, members
of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak with
you today about issues important to America's Airmen and our
Air Force.
I am honored to be here alongside my fellow warriors as we
collaborate on quality-of-life issues impacting all of our
service members and their families. I want to take this
opportunity to thank the members of this committee and the
entire House of Representatives for your incredible support.
Your Air Force appreciates greatly the expansion of pay,
health care, and retirement benefits for service members and
veterans and visits by the House members to our personnel in
the field and to our wounded warriors.
Thank you also, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for
recommending additional Air Force infrastructure funding in the
House Appropriations Committee's economic stimulus package.
Quality facilities and services directly impact our mission and
retention efforts, so we especially appreciate this
recommendation to invest in our future.
Mr. Chairman, we also thank you for your continued
sponsorship of the Military Child College Affordability Act in
which states offer resident rate college tuition to our
military families.
Recently, our Air Force has had some challenges in our
nuclear enterprise. We learned we needed to improve in many
areas. But under the leadership of our Secretary and Chief of
Staff, we have met those challenges head-on to ensure we have
the right focus.
We have stood up the Air Force Global Strike Command
Provisional to handle our nuclear missions. We now have the
right organizational emphasis as we steward this very important
national resource.
America's Airmen continue to deliver outstanding
capabilities to the battlefield. In the war on terrorism, more
than 208,000 total force Airmen are engaged in the joint and
coalition fight. We are supporting daily operations in the air,
on the ground, in space, and in cyberspace.
We are filling joint expeditionary taskings, formerly known
as in-lieu-of taskings, where our deployed Airmen work
alongside Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen on
missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe.
We are focused on cyberspace, unmanned aerial systems, and
the United States African Command. Security of cyberspace is of
great importance not only to our Air Force, but also to our
joint partners in our nation. Security of the nation's net-
centric information architecture requires more than Department
of Defense (DoD) emphasis, so we have committed to working
transparently with our interagency partners, as well.
Our unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are directly supporting
warfighters on the ground. Air Force Predators, Reapers, and
Global Hawks are finding, fixing, tracking, and attacking our
enemies. The intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance
capabilities these systems provide are critical to battlefield
operations.
We have increased from 12 UAS combat air patrols in 2007 to
33 today. To further support United States African Command, we
have a new numbered Air Force, 17th Air Force. We are gearing
up to support the extensive airlift requirements of that new
command, as well as humanitarian assistance, security
operation, improved aero-safety and security, and assisting our
African partners with their efforts in these areas.
We are constantly expanding care for our wounded warriors.
Our warrior and survivor care program cares for Airmen and
their families through treatment, recovery, and into the post-
separation period.
We are also working with our joint partners on special
monthly compensation, which will assist the families that have
catastrophically wounded service members toward maintaining
financial balance with their loved ones during recovery. This
compensation is intended to help family caregivers in meeting
recurring monthly expenses, such as rent, credit card, and car
payments while they are at the bedside.
Our recruiting efforts continue to be successful, despite
the decreasing eligibility pool due to increases in the
nationwide school dropout rate, a more obese youth population,
and other reasons. We met our 2008 recruiting goals and met
recruiting goals in all three areas of our total force: Active
Duty, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard.
We have experienced a few decreases in our retention
numbers. In fiscal year 2008, overall Active-Duty Air Force
retention rates finished slightly below annual goals, while
Guard and Reserve officer enlistment rates met or exceeded
their retention goals.
Although overall Active-Duty retention is trending slightly
upward for this fiscal year, 2009, some of our critical and
stressed specialties continue to experience significant
shortfalls.
We continue to use selective re-enlistment bonuses and
quality of service initiatives to resolve these shortages. We
appreciate continued congressional support for these incentive
efforts.
Childcare continues to be important to our Airmen and our
families. With the current economic situation, many of our
spouses must work to supplement the family income. We have made
good progress in providing affordable childcare, and we will
continue these efforts. Right now, we have need for about 1,900
childcare spaces and would like to cut that to zero.
Thank you all again for your continued support for our
Airmen. On behalf of America's Airmen, thank you for this
opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to your
questions.
[Prepared statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J.
McKinley follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.065

Mr. Edwards. Chief Master Sergeant McKinley, thank you for
your testimony. And thank you all for beginning this year's
subcommittee hearings in a very positive way.
Mr. Wamp, I want to personally thank you for choosing to
remain as ranking member of this subcommittee. I think that is
a reflection upon your values and commitment to this
committee's work. And I would like to recognize you to begin
this year's meetings.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you for your courtesy and your leadership,
Mr. Chairman. You are a class act.
This is an impressive lot here. I have to tell you, it is
emotional and kind of charges you up about the men and women
that you represent just to hear your passion and your
commitment to them.

SUICIDE RATES

I would like to start on the troop side. This suicide rate
issue is the canary in the mine, in a sense. I know this is the
toughest place to start, but it speaks to the overall health
and wellness of our men and women.
Is it just more the tempo, the deployment stress? Is it
battle and the asymmetrical nature of the battle? From each of
your perspectives, representing those men and women who are at
risk and that take us to this place of looking at 143 potential
suicides, what are the primary factors? And is the family and
our quality-of-life issues connected to it?
This tempo has to be driving a lot of stress, but tell me.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I will start. As I look at it,
I say it is the tempo. It is the pace, and it is the dynamics
of all the things that are occurring in young people's lives.
We track all the statistics and the analysis behind, why a
young person felt obligated to commit suicide and what pushed
them over the edge. A lot of it is failed relationships.
As I travel around the Army, the biggest question that I
get from young soldiers and families is, Sergeant Major, ``when
are we going to start to see something--12 months of dwell time
between deployments?'' It is those who are deployed, those that
are coming back that ask this question.
But even those, when you look at the numbers a third of our
suicides have never been deployed. It is those units that are
left behind, they are also working very hard, as well.
And it is the pace. It is the tempo. It is society. It is
packing up and moving from one location to another. It is
selling their house, trying to get out of an upside-down
mortgage. It is moving their children from one school to
another school. And it is transferring the school credits from
one school to another school.
It is all of those dynamics mixed in that add to the stress
in a young person's life. You could look at from how many have
been deployed or not deployed versus the majority of suicides
are married, more than 50 percent of those who have deployed
that commit the suicides have been back from a deployment well
over a year.
So there are a lot of dynamics. And, of course, we look at
every one of those cases very seriously. It is a tragedy. In
each one of their families, it is a crisis because their
families are directly affected.
And we are doing a number of things to get at, impacting
that this year.
Mr. Wamp. Before we go down the table, Sergeant Major, you
have the Guard and Reserve leadership behind you. Is there a
differential between the Guard and Reserve and the active
component in this suicide issue?
Sergeant Major Preston. The numbers that I gave you include
the Guard and Reserve. This is all Guard and Reserve, as well
as active-duty soldiers, that are serving on active duty. And
that is how we capture those.
Mr. Wamp. Right. And, is there an abnormal ratio of active
versus Guard and Reserve? Or is it just across the board?
Sergeant Major Preston. Across the board. In fact----
Mr. Wamp. It could indicate how much the tempo and the
stress are is the primary factors, not necessarily the battle
or the nature of the battle.
Sergeant Major Kent. We are concerned, also, sir. We went
from 33 fiscal year 2007 to 41, so we increased by eight. What
we are doing, we think that the small-unit leaders are the one
closer to these young Marines. So we are educating our
corporals and sergeants so they will know the symptoms and they
know how to get help for these young warriors.
But we are concerned about it. And we are keeping an eye on
it.
It is a combination of things. And that is why we want to
grow the force fast, and we are, so we can get the Marines more
dwell time back in the rear, you know, because right now they
are 7 months deployed and they are 7 months back.
Mr. Wamp. Just to interrupt you, the Marine Corps is
recruiting gangbusters. What do you attribute that to right
now, sir?
Sergeant Major Kent. We are not recruiting gangbusters,
sir. I would tend to say that we are not--excuse me, sir?
Mr. Farr. You can have all my gang members, if you----
[Laughter.]

RECRUITING

Sergeant Major Kent. Now, sir, let me tell you about the
process of recruiting. Right now, we are at a 97.8 percent high
school graduate average. The way the process works, if they
need a waiver, you know, if they have a criminal record and
they need a waiver, it just doesn't start at the recruiting
station. It is forward all the way up to the commanding general
of the recruiting command.
And let me give you an example of the waivers we grant. If
you have a young person, 13 years old, go out and they see a
tractor and they decide to jump in this tractor, and this
tractor is worth $20,000, and they get pulled over by the local
authorities, when they are 18, although they were pulled over
when they were 13, that is a felony.
But as they went from 13 to 18, they did great things and
they graduated. They were a star in football. But it was a
felony, and they need a waiver for that, you know, and that is
the kind of people that we would be recruiting with a felony.
But as far as gangbangers, sir, you probably saw them maybe
some slipped through the cracks.
Mr. Wamp. I just meant you are meeting your goals--that is
what I am talking about.
Sergeant Major Kent. Oh, sorry, I misunderstood sir. I am
just rattling on when you said ``gang,'' ``gang''--okay, okay,
sir, yes----
Mr. Wamp. But you are meeting your recruitment goals.
Sergeant Major Kent. Sorry about that, sir. I am just
rattling on, sir.
Mr. Wamp. The Marine Corps is at a time of incredible
stress. And these guys are looking, and they are talking to
their peers that are already serving, and they know it is hard
and tough.
Sergeant Major Kent. I misunderstood you, sir.
Mr. Wamp. I know.
Sergeant Major Kent. Yes, we are, sir.
Mr. Wamp. There is a lot of pride in being a Marine, and it
is a good product to sell, right?
Sergeant Major Kent. Well, actually, sir, we are going to
make our end-strength of 202,000 2 years early. We are going to
hit it in 3 years, sir, which is amazing.
Mr. Wamp. Master Chief.
Master Chief West. Yes, sir. As far as suicides, we had a
slight increase this year. When we dug into it, financial
responsibility was an issue.
What I found out that was I guess an interesting stat was
39 percent of our suicides were facing disciplinary action
already, so that gave us another indicator. That is 39 percent
of them.
We had 39 this past year, all of them are serious, but we
put things in place, such as the Operational Stress Control. We
have really ramped up the financial counseling for these
individuals and tried to ease some of the pressure from payday
lenders.
Everything is serious with that, but overall our numbers
are fairly steady, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Chief Master Sergeant.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Yes, sir, our Air Force
leadership, is very concerned about this. For the last 10
years, our average is 9.7 per 100,000. But right now, it is up
to 12.3. So that is a significant rise of us. And so we are
very concerned.
If you peel all that back and look at the reasons why, a
big percentage of that is these marriage issues, relationship
issues that lead to suicides. I think the stresses that each
one of us are talking about, not only with deployments, with
mission, but also with the financial crisis going on in America
that affects every person, not only civilians, but also gets
into the military families.
And I think that adds to the stress that is out there, not
only our military members, but to the spouses and to the
children. And more stress on the family leads to things like
this.
And so I think that is kind of like I said, our Air Force
leadership is very concerned, very committed that we lower
this. We want it to be zero. That is probably unrealistic, but
we are going to do everything we can to combat this and take
care of our members, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Zach----
Mr. Kennedy. I have trouble believing there is not a
differential between the Guard and Reserve and the standing
military in terms of the percentage of suicides. At least with
the standing military, you have embedded support systems,
whereas with the Guard and Reserve you don't.
They are just dumped back after they come back from, a
mission, and they don't have--they are spread out. They don't
have their colleagues, their counterparts, their peers around
them to give them the care, support and everything.
So does that just bear out in the statistics at all?
Sergeant Major Preston. In fact, the numbers--talk to that,
but I think it was----
Audience. None so far this year. Our numbers were up last
year, sir. They are up a little bit more for the first quarter
of this year.
Mr. Dicks. Is this Guard or Reserve?
Audience. Guard, sir. There are other influences on the
reserve components--active components--like the economy. So--
overseas--lose their jobs. They lose their jobs while they are
back home, things like that--active component doesn't see.
But, overall, there is not a huge difference between what
we see and what they see. The rates are up, and we are
addressing this.
Mr. Edwards. Sergeant Major, could I interrupt and ask the
transcriber--can you hear the testimony from the first row?
Transcriber. Yes.
Mr. Edwards. You can pick that okay? If you can't, you let
me know. Raise your hand or something.
Appreciate that.

GUARD AND RESERVE MORALE AND COHESION

Mr. Kennedy. Sorry, Mr. Chairman--we have this whole issue
of whether state commandants could call up their Guard and
reservists so as to keep the morale and the cohesion of the
unit together when they weren't off on duty so as to build
that--morale, which was precluded under the previous law, so
when--during their mission, they were precluded from calling up
there.
Sergeant Major Preston. They are doing that when they come
back from deployment. It is allowing the leadership to put eyes
all on those soldiers who are deployed to make sure that they
are doing okay and they are with their battle buddies again.
But, that is the commander on the ground. That is
leadership making that----
Mr. Edwards. Let me just say, before I recognize Mr. Farr,
Mr. Kennedy kind of foreshadowed what I would like to do.
I am going to wait for my question until the end of the
first round, but I would like to say to Master Chief Wright and
Sergeant Major Gipe, Sergeant Major Caffie, if you could be
thinking, my question will be of each of the three of you is,
are there are some particular quality-of-life issues that you
would like to talk about that may not be unique to the Guard
and Reserve, but they are a little bit different than those
quality-of-life issues being faced by the active-duty
servicemen and women?
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
for your leadership and that of Congressman Zach Wamp in
increasing last year's bill. It is the largest in history and I
think it is having some beneficial effect.
You know, it is interesting, this committee not only deals
with active-duty military, but we deal with the veterans. So
if, indeed, problems are caused, we are going to end up picking
up the pieces. And I think what we are trying to do is make
sure that the entire experience in service of our country is so
much better integrated, both in uniform and out of uniform, and
I think even more work needs to be done to include our
community support services.
I echo everybody's appreciation for your incredible years
of service. And I thank everybody in uniform for their service.
When you join, you build the esprit de corps.
We provide assistance to the families--community housing,
childcare, recreational centers--I mean, you build a community
of support that is second to none.
It seems to me where we fail in our society in general are
our the mental health programs.

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

But we have still not made it very acceptable to get
counseling. It seems to me there are two cases here of how we
try to deal with what we think might be PTSD. How do we
integrate in the counseling, quality counseling?
But at the same time, it seems to me what we are forgetting
is that we need to engage the community, because you have this
town-gown relationship, but not with the soldier in the mental
health field.
That is a real struggle because when military personnel
muster out they get sent back to their community. And they may
be a heck of a long way from a veterans clinic or a veterans
hospital. And there may be mental health services in that
community, but nobody in the Veterans Administration or the
military knows about that.
It seems to me we need a better integration in our town-
gown relationship for mental health services. And I just
wondered if you could list for us some of the needs you may
have along these lines of counseling, and PTSD, and continuing
support systems?

ACCESSIBILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF HEALTHCARE

Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I will start. We have made a
lot of progress in this area. And when you talk to soldiers,
and especially their families, and their concerns and when you
look at the medical health care professionals working on an
installation, those medical professionals deploy along with
units and organizations on that installation, as well.
So, their biggest complaint, when it comes to medical
health care--and that is across the board for all services--is
the accessibility and availability to be able to get an
appointment. Very satisfied with the quality of care that is
being provided, but it is just accessibility and availability.
Now, one of the things that, our medical command and
specifically the Army surgeon general, Lieutenant General
Schoomaker, has done is to expand that, as you were talking
about, into the communities to partner more with off-the-
installation medical facilities to be able to open up and
provide more appointments.
But the challenges, too, specifically in the area of mental
health care is--there is just not a lot out there in the
community. We have been working to increase those numbers in
our recruiting efforts, but, we still have a long ways to go.
Mr. Farr. Other services?
Sergeant Major Kent. Pretty much, yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. Are there any needs that aren't there and we need
to put some more resources--
Master Chief West. Sir, from the Navy perspective, we have
come a long way, similar to all the other services, through our
Safe Harbor Program. It is phenomenal. Last week I looked at
the Safe Harbor Program and how it integrated with the local,
state community governments in the San Diego area.
Mr. Edwards. I know I am going to end up cutting off some
good answers, but I think, as long as the committee supports
this, we are going to stick to the 5-minute rule and then that
will allow each member a second and third round. And if at any
point the committee wants to talk about doing it differently, I
will certainly respect that.
Thank you, Mr. Farr, and for your leadership on mental
health issues, both for the active duty and--you have been a
real leader on those issues, among others.
Our order will be Mr. Young, based on when they came in to
the meeting after starting, Mr. Young, Mr. Crenshaw, then Mr.
Bishop.
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much--
conversation----
Mr. Dicks. I want to ask a question.
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Mr. Dicks. We are going to not go back and forth?
Mr. Edwards. Well, what we had said for this first
meeting--I was just talking to Walter about that, we are going
to--after the meeting begins, Norm----
Mr. Dicks. You always go back and forth from one side to
other.
Mr. Edwards. And I think we may go to that in a second
meeting, but since I had announced before you came in----
Mr. Dicks. I didn't hear you announce that.
Mr. Edwards. Yes, what I announced might have been before
you came in. After the meeting----
Mr. Dicks. Oh, I listened to what you said. That is not
what you said.
Mr. Edwards. We will go by seniority first and then, after
we go by seniority, we will go based on when members come in. I
think what I may add to the second meeting is, once we get
beyond seniority, it is based on who comes in, we will go back
and forth, but I am going to stick with what our intention was
today.
If I didn't make that clear, I apologize to you and the
other members, as well.
Mr. Young.

MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING

Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
The conversations have evolved around an issue that is
extremely important to our military, to our country. When our
oldest son was finished with his time in the military and his
deployment to the Mideast, he said, ``Dad--our troops need
psychological help, and there is just not enough professional
care available.''
So when he was discharged, he came and he has just--he is 2
months away from becoming a psychologist. And his intention is
to re-enlist in the military to be available to help some of
these kids, because he saw the troubles.
Now, my question then is, where are we, as it relates to
the young troop that needs counseling, needs psychological
help? Where are we on the availability of that type of help in
your services?
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I will start. This past year,
we hired 191 of the 254 mental health professionals that we had
planned for, on our installations.
But the challenge, is finding medical professionals. There
is a shortage of medical health care professionals across the
nation. It is doctors and nurses, across the board. But, we are
working very hard to recruit medical health care professionals
to fill the vacancies that we have.
The other piece of that is tied in with the other types of
counseling that is done within organizations. It is the
chaplains and those types of community counselors to take care
of our families that are either at home or through the Army
OneSource or Military OneSource, to be able to provide an
outreach for those soldiers like the Guard and Reserve that are
serving in remote sites, as well as their families.
Sergeant Major Kent. We are actually doing okay right now,
sir. We are actually putting specialists in units that are
forward deploying right now. And we are doing good, but we
still have a shortage of them. And we think that is the key,
you know, to put somebody in there. When they forward deploy,
they would have somebody for counseling.
Master Chief West. Yes, sir, we are also doing well
overall. This is the first year in a while that we have met our
medical recruiting. We did that through a very aggressive push,
but it takes a while, as you know, to grow those specialists.
But we are out there. We are using all available assets.
Our chaplains play a big part in that. And we include training
in different areas of leadership so we can see that, along with
those folks that are funneling in to go do those missions.
Mr. Young. You are right about how long it takes to prepare
them. I know how long it has taken our son to get this degree
and to become a psychologist. So you are right about that.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Congressman Young, for the
Air Force, we have 400 mental health professionals that are
trained by national PTSD experts in advanced PTSD treatment
techniques. So we have, you know, a good amount out there.
We also have a lot of other programs, like
afterdeployment.org. We have Military OneSource. But I really
think probably the best thing is that--out there--the people
that they work with and being able to recognize when someone's
behavior has changed and be able to take that through the chain
of command and get that person help.
Mr. Young. Well, I am glad to hear that the services are
aware of the problem and doing something about it. Well, I
think we have a lot--we do have a lot more to do. And the
availability of the professional counseling is really a major
problem.
Mr. Chairman, the Intrepid Foundation--I think most of us
know about the Intrepid foundation--has volunteered to raise
money to build a facility in Bethesda to deal with post-
traumatic stress issues. And the money is going to be--the
money to build the building is going to come from private
donations.
In fact, I am going to ask the--if I can be excused in
about 10 minutes, because I am going to meet with Mr. Arnold
Fisher, who is the head of the Intrepid foundation, to get the
details on where they are on raising the money. And I believe
he is about to report that all of the money that is necessary
for the construction is now committed. When I get up and leave,
that is where I am going. But we appreciate--this is not a
pleasant subject, dealing with suicides and dealing with these
stress issues, but it is real and we can't--I think even
Congress has probably overlooked it for too long and hoped that
it would go away. But it is not going to go away.
And I am surprised that Sergeant Major Preston--bit of that
himself, because when my wife finds problems in the Army, he is
one of the first ones she goes to, to say, ``Hey, here is a
problem. You fix it.'' So I am surprised he doesn't have a lot
of grey hair. And Beverly gave that message to Sergeant Major
Chen last night.
Mr. Edwards. Can you say it in a sentence?
Master Chief West. Yes, sir. I was just down at Balboa. And
what I was really impressed with, there were Army, Marines and
Sailors out there at the Balboa hospital. I could not be more
impressed with the interaction with all those groups, doing the
right thing.
Mr. Edwards. Good. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Young----
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. For your meeting with Mr. Fisher.
So we are clear, members, the order of questioning will be
Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Israel, and then Mr.
Kennedy.
Mr. Crenshaw, welcome back to the subcommittee. Thank you
for your past leadership. It is great to have you back.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know,
I have been on the Appropriations Committee for eight--this is
my eighth year. And I have been on this Subcommittee for 8
years--Mr. Young put me on this Committee. It is the only real
Subcommittee I have ever been asked to be on.
So I am glad to be back, Mr. Chairman, working with you.
Mr. Edwards. Good to have you.
Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Wamp, glad you are still the ranking
member. As he said, the way the Republicans work, you get to be
a ranking member based on your seniority on the Full Committee.
The Democrats, have a pretty good way, because it is based on
the seniority on your subcommittee.
And in that case, I would be more encouraging to Mr. Wamp
to leave. But, unfortunately, I will be sitting here next year
under a new guy--the ranking member.
But I want to welcome you all back. I have not met our Navy
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy yet. I have two Navy
bases and a Marine base in my district, so welcome. And great
to see you all again.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

I always think of this as a time where we just sit down and
talk. Mr. Chairman, when I travel around to different naval and
military installations around the world, I try to take some
time and just quietly talk to the men and women and say,
``Look, if you had a chance, just between you and me, what
would you say to a Member of Congress, if you could talk about
what you like and what you don't like?''
And you get mixed reactions sometimes. Sometimes they are
very straightforward; sometimes they are a little nervous. But
I look at this meeting as one of those meetings. It is not
quite as private as those conversations that we have in South
Korea or Iraq or wherever.
But I really appreciate you all's candor and
straightforwardness when you come here and talk about the
things that are important to you and the men and women you
represent.
And so the big issue I wanted to talk about is--and I think
it affects everybody in our country, and that has to do with
this overall economic crisis. You all touched on it in your
testimony about how that affects the quality of life.
But in particular, I was just thinking that, in terms of
housing, because we have the three bases in our communities--
and in most places, when people buy a house, they think that is
a great investment and it is an important investment.
And if people are in the military, they decide to move,
they can sell their house. In today's world, they find out
their house probably is not worth as much as when they first
bought it. And so folks in the private sector can say, ``Maybe
I won't move. Maybe I will just stay right here.''
But as you know, the men and women you all represent get a
new assignment, they have to leave a community. And I just
wonder if--Florida and California and Texas, some places where
the real estate market has been hit pretty hard, and they don't
have a luxury of waiting, I would love to hear from you all if
you have any firsthand experiences of how that has impacted
people that you represent and how they deal with it.
Are there foreclosures taking place? Are people walking
away from their homes? Are they trying to rent their houses?
And I know we passed legislation dealing with BRAC, if you
moved--and there was a BRAC impact, and there was an assistance
program, Mr. Chairman, that you and the ranking member were
really helpful with getting that started, is something that is
needed? Are we getting to that point?
I would love to hear kind of firsthand what you all are
seeing.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I just--and we don't know the
exact numbers out there that, you know, with the current
economic crisis and the impact right now on those homeowners,
but what we do know is--and this is just from experience from a
lot of the soldiers out there that I have talked to that have
had to pack up families and move.
In many cases, they are leaving their families in place
because they can't afford to sell their house. They can't
afford to move out. So now what you end up with is a lot of
geographical bachelors. You have the soldier moving to the next
installation or to the next duty station and leaving their
families behind.
We are working to really understand the dynamics. And one
of the things that we want to do in the Army is to take the
homeowners assistance program, which was really designed to
help those affected by BRAC.
And because of posts--that are closing down, you have a
glut of housing that is in that area, to really help them sell
their houses and move, they are now looking at expanding the
homeowners assistance program to take care of our wounded, ill
and injured soldiers that potentially have to move and
relocate, live at Walter Reed or wherever they may be, and also
to affect those that are affected by permanent change of
station, when they have to move to Texas to Colorado or, their
next duty station.
Mr. Edwards. I think we have 1 minute left, if others of
you would like to----
Sergeant Major Kent. Well, we are actually keeping an eye
on this problem. Out in California where--the mortgage crisis
is most costly. I would tell you right now, sir, what we are
looking at is not to move someone with a financial hardship
every couple of years from California.
But if--actually working with the families to try to keep
them on base here.
Master Chief West. Sir, I would echo what the Sergeant
Major says. We are working that real hard.
Mr. Farr. Is there enough RCI housing to get them on base?
Sergeant Major Kent. We are working but it is not enough.
Sergeant Major Preston. We provide housing for 67 percent
of those that need housing that live off-post, so it is really
33 percent on base, a very small percentage.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Chairman, can I have 15
seconds on this?
Mr. Edwards. Please.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sometimes, sir all branches
of the service have to make a very difficult decision to maybe
even separate and leave the military that they love because
otherwise they would be taking a $200,000 loss on their home.
That is real. But we don't have the numbers on exactly how many
people there are.
Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Chairman, I would--I think this is an
important problem that I am sure we are going to address. And
maybe if you have any thoughts about how we could help, we
would love to hear that, as well.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. I think that is an
important issue that we need to talk about.
Mr. Bishop, with your okay----
Mr. Bishop. I would be happy to----
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I would be happy to yield to Mr. Dicks. He
indicated he has another----
Mr. Edwards. 5 minutes, Dicks----
Mr. Dicks. No, it is going to be much quicker than that.

WEB-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING

Gentlemen, in your opinion, what is the potential utility
of Web-based service to assess psychological counseling? We
have some people that are doing this, where--and I think this
would be particularly good for the Guard and Reserve, where
they can get online and get counseling from a psychiatrist when
they need it.
And to me, I think this helps us with the problem of people
not wanting to admit that they have a problem. If they can go
online and do it confidentially, I think this should be done.
We put the money in the Defense Subcommittee to do this, and we
are still trying to get the Army to do it.
And we are working with General Chiarelli and others to get
this thing moving. But why does it--what is your reaction to
that?
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Congressman Dicks--great
opportunity. Any time that we can give more tools out there for
our military----
Mr. Dicks. At least we ought to try it.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Absolutely.
Mr. Dicks. Sir, you have some people that, no matter what,
they have this pride factor. They are not going to go to the
supervisor or first sergeant and say, ``I am having issues.''
But if they can do something privately, we may save somebody.
So the more opportunities, the better for all our military.
Master Chief West. Sir, I would just like to echo that. I
think using the advanced technologies is a great thing.
Mr. Dicks. Especially these younger kids. They understand
this stuff.
Master Chief West. That is what they do, sir. You give a
young Sailor or Marine or a young adult a computer and a
connection, and they are happy. They are happy there for hours.
With that said, I think leadership, communications, and
education play huge into that. We have to have balance.
Mr. Dicks. I am not saying that is the only thing, but just
as another tool, another way----
Sergeant Major Kent. OneSource also has something on the
Web site. They can actually go onto the OneSource, and they can
work the counseling through there, sir.
Mr. Dicks. What about the Guard and Reserve guys back
there? What do you think?
Audience. Yes, sir, we currently have--program--and this is
indicative of what they are doing today. It gives that--for
soldiers to discreetly express their desire. They feel----
Mr. Dicks. Thank you. There is another question here about
the Pacific Northwest--special problem up there--I ask you that
for the record. Well, I didn't want to take Sanford's time. But
I will just do it for the record. I will just do it for the
record.
I have to get back. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop.

SUICIDE PREVENTION

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Let me take this opportunity to welcome all of you
gentlemen and let you know that I appreciate what you do for
our enlisted men and women.
I am particularly concerned, though, about the suicide
problem, particularly in the Army. I represent Fort Benning.
And, of course, I have a Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany.
I don't think that the Marine Corps suicide rate is quite as
bad, although it does bother me.
I wanted to share an anecdotal experience that I had just
yesterday. I received a call from a family member whose nephew
was an 18-year veteran of Fort Benning, two tours in Iraq, and
was in the emergency room after having been taken there by a
friend who is also a sergeant, who went to another state, and
retrieved him. He had blacked out, been AWOL--found out that
this soldier, after his two tours, had gone through divorce,
had not immediately put in the papers for change of the
quarters allowance, and as a consequence was disciplined.
And in the recoupment of the housing allowance that was
overpaid, his paycheck was cut in half, which sent him into a
financial tizzy. Obviously, he was suffering PTSD, but after
serious, serious discipline, losing rank, as well as losing
pay, he ended up being out of touch with reality. He didn't
know where he was, and now is hospitalized after being in the
emergency room yesterday.
His discipline and the loss of the funds accelerated the
onset of the stress, which obviously, this sergeant, with whom
I spoke yesterday, who is his friend who is looking after him
says that PTSD is absolutely a factor.
But this man apparently was not screened and he was
disciplined. According to the sergeant, he was probably singled
out and leaned on very heavily, which could have had the result
of a suicide.
How are you getting the word down to the commanders of
these units that they have to be sensitive to the wounded
warriors? What will be the scope of the comprehensive soldier
fitness program now?
It is a serious situation. I understand from talking with
many of the families of Iraqi veterans and Guard and Reserve
families that they bring a lot home with them in the way of
PTSD.
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I will start. First, for the
immediate future, between 15 February and 15 March, the Army
will conduct a mandatory stand-down day for every unit and
organization across the Army. It is designed to go back in and
re-look at intervention and identification of those Soldiers
potentially on the edge of committing suicide.
We will then follow up with a mandatory chain-teaching
program, which, we have had a lot of success with the chain-
teaching program in October of 2007 on PTSD. It is designed to
start at the senior level, with the chief of staff of the Army,
and allows commanders at the senior level to take their
subordinate commanders and, from a commander's perspective,
teach the case of PTSD, teach what PTSD is, the symptoms, and,
of course, how soldiers receive help.
And then that permeates all the way down through the
organization to every level of command. So down at the company
command level, for our 3,000 companies across the active,
Guard, and Reserve, every one will do a chain teach--their
leadership within the organization of, what are, the symptoms
of suicide and what are the things that we should be looking
for?
If you go back 4 years ago, we were doing something right.
Chain teaching is designed to make sure that we are still doing
all the right things.
Sergeant Major Kent. The most important----
[The information follows:]

All Soldiers redeploying from the Theater of Operations are
required to complete the Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA),
either before leaving Theater or shortly after redeployment. This
policy has been in place since October 1998. The PDHA screens for Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), major depression, concerns about
family issues, and concerns about drug and alcohol abuse. A primary
care provider reviews the form, interviews the Soldier as required, and
refers the Soldier to a behavioral health care provider when indicated.
Since January 2006 (retroactive to March 2005), all Soldiers have
been required to complete the Post-Deployment Health Reassessment
(PDHRA) in the 90-to-180 day interval after redeployment. If the PDHRA
identifies PTSD-related healthcare needs, Soldiers are offered care
through DoD military treatment facilities, Veterans Affairs medical
facilities, or by private healthcare providers through the TRICARE
network.
The Army Surgeon General directed in August 2007 that all
recommendations for a personality disorder (PD) discharge be reviewed
by the military treatment facility's Chief of Behavioral Health. The
Surgeon General will be issuing additional guidance to ensure (1)
accuracy of diagnosis and (2) appropriate screening for PTSD takes
place prior to completion of separate actions.
All Soldiers pending discharge for selected administrative reasons
are required by Army Regulation 635-200 to receive a mental status
evaluation. A new policy published in May 2008 directs that Soldiers
discharged for any reason related to misconduct must be specifically
screened for PTSD and mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

Mr. Edwards. I need to continue--second round. This is
obviously very important.
Sergeant Major Kent. The most important thing, sir, is the
stigma. And they actually come from the leadership. They have
to get rid of the stigma that it is a problem if you come
forward with these issues. And that is the key right there,
sir.
So I know our commandant has been pushing it hard to the
leadership that it is not a problem. You know, if they come
forward, we need to get them help.
Mr. Bishop. Sometimes they don't recognize their need for
help because they haven't been screened.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Israel.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

EDUCATION BENEFITS

I want to focus for a moment on educational benefits and
opportunities. Each of the witnesses alluded to educational
benefits as a retention tool, as a recruitment tool, as a
quality-of-life enhancement. As I noted earlier, I focused on
this as a member of the Armed Services Committee with Ike
Skelton.
I don't really need to explain the importance of it to you,
but the importance of it was explained to me by a young Marine
officer, Chris Myers, who was a military fellow serving in my
office, several years ago. Chris, who, when I have talked with
him about the importance of linguistics and cultural awareness
and preparation, said to me, ``Congressman, I know exactly what
you mean. After you kick in the door, you have to know what to
say.'' He was a highly decorated Marine who was injured in
Fallujah.
I visited West Point several years ago and talked to a
group of soldiers who told me that they were deployed in Iraq,
fought, and came back. During their dwell time, they went to
Columbia University, got graduate degrees, then were deployed
to Afghanistan, where they thought that they were far more
effective having gained a strategic understanding and those
type of skills.
Chief McKinley talked about the educational mobile program
that you have, as well as distance learning, and in-state
tuition. And I would add to that, in terms of the level of
importance--talking about the tragedy of suicide rates. When
people don't believe that they have a future or broader
horizons, they believe there are no alternatives.
So my question to each of you is, what can we be doing to
enhance accessibility and educational opportunities,
particularly at the junior levels?
Sergeant Major Preston. And I think I can speak for all of
us Mr. Chairman, I will leave this for the record, but there
are currently 35 states that support in-state tuition for
servicemembers in other states. And I really would like to see
the rest of the states also come on board to support, you know,
our servicemembers that are serving out there in all those
states.
In-state tuition is not only for the servicemember, but
also their children that are going to school. Education is very
important.
When you look across the Army, there are 450,000 soldiers
right now going to school. And this is not just brick-and-
mortar professional development schools, but it is also online
education. It is Army correspondence courses. It is amazing how
much education is a very important part of all of our
servicemembers' careers. So you are exactly right.
Sergeant Major Kent. Education is very important, sir.
And--spoke with you last weekend--we are actually standing up
our first--enlisted PME course, which is kicking off the
ground. And it is going to be speaking on an operational level
and--things, so that is going to be a good thing for us in the
future, sir. So we are really pushing on the PME----
Mr. Israel. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

As part of the Year of the Noncommissioned Officer, the Army is
accelerating changes to how the Army trains, educates and assigns
noncommissioned officers (NCOs). The NCO Lifelong Learning Strategy is
the capstone NCO cohort initiative that synchronizes all aspects of
development through a holistic/integrated development approach that
fosters continuous learning; synchronizes training and education with
the requirements of an Army at war.
Central to this strategy is Warrior University (WU) which affords
Soldiers access to information through a single interface, the Army
Career Tracker (ACT). ACT is a portal serving as an information service
broker for Soldiers to plan and track their own career development. ACT
allows every Soldier to view Army training, experiential learning, and
education data from a single interface. It provides every Soldier with
an accurate picture of their completed training and life-long training
transcript. Leaders will be able to provide more effective mentoring
and develop actionable recommendations for their Soldiers by using ACT
to identify training and learning opportunities. WU facilitates
commonality and currency of learning materials to ensure training and
education resources are maximized. ACT's course catalog helps to
synchronize training and education and significantly reduces the time
and effort that previously went into scheduling and resourcing.
Another aspect of WU is the College of the American Soldier (CAS).
CAS is a partnership between the Army and participating colleges and
universities to expand civilian educational opportunities for NCOs. CAS
links the NCO Education System (NCOES) course evaluations with specific
degree requirements and allows Soldiers to determine which NCOES
courses will transfer as equivalent college credit. When fully
implemented, CAS will provide a specific map Soldiers can follow in
order to pursue and attain a college degree. The Army is also working
with partner colleges and universities to create an advanced degree
program for career NCOs.

Master Chief West. Yes, sir, I would say the same. We are
pushing hard in the Navy too. Naval Education and Training, is
looking for all opportunities and all venues to get to our
Sailors out there. We even take, as you probably know, sir,
courses which go afloat with our ships when we go. Education
onboard our bigger ships has been a huge success for us.
We are making headway. Do we have room to go? Yes, sir, we
do. But we are making a lot of headway.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, we have the Community
College of the Air Force since about 1974. We have graduated
over 350,000 Airmen. The last two years, we have graduated the
most we have ever had per year. We just started last summer the
associate to bachelor program where you take your Community
College of the Air Force degree, and we can apply that toward a
bachelor's degree. We have now 35 colleges on board that you
can take all 64 credit hours from the Air Force degree, and
apply that toward a bachelor's degree.
We believe education is very important to keep our people
pointed in the right direction. And when they do choose to
leave our Air Force, they are going to be better citizens.
Mr. Israel. Mr. Chairman, one of the most fascinating
things I was involved in as a member of the Armed Services
Committee was doing an all-day conference on professional
military education that General Petraeus attended--and, after--
this conference, the conclusion was everybody understands the
value of education, but we may be too busy to learn, and
operation tempo really is the obstacle to that.
And so it is important that we put value into this, but we
also have to put budgets in and we have to put scheduling in.
And I hope--each of our witnesses and--all interested parties--
figure out ways we can make this happen----
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. That is right. Thank you, Mr. Israel.
And I am glad we took a step in the right direction. I
think I had asked Mr. Miller, and he agreed, to put into an
amendment in the higher education bill last year to say, if you
have a son or daughter who started school in, say, Tennessee
and your country has asked the family to move to Fort Hood in
Texas, in Mr. Carter's district, then that son or daughter will
continue their in-state tuition until they finish.
I know there are other steps to take, but I think that was
an important step forward to stop punishing military families,
because our country asks them to move from one state to
another.
And, Mr. Israel, your leadership on this subcommittee and
working with the Defense Appropriations Committee will make a
real difference on that issue.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GUARD AND RESERVE QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES

Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Let me just finish the first round of questioning. Let me
ask Master Chief Wright and Sergeant Major Gipe and Sergeant
Major Caffie if each of you--and I am going to stick to the 5
minutes here--if each of you could just add any additional
points on quality-of-life issues that you think perhaps maybe
need special attention for members of the Guard and Reserve.
Sergeant Major.

DEMOBILIZATION PROCESS

Sergeant Major Caffie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Leon Caffie. I am the command sergeant major for the U.S. Army
Reserve. Let me please address something that was said earlier
about our Reserve and National Guard soldiers, that once they
return home, they are left pretty much alone. We have changed
that, Mr. Chairman.
The Warrior and Family Assistance program is where the Army
Reserve starts counseling families--once the soldier receives a
letter of intent that they will be mobilized and deployed, we
start counseling at that stage. This consists of counseling
when they return from the theater.
We continue to work closely with the families. We have
hired 127 family readiness assistants throughout the Army
Reserve in all 50 states and four territories. I have Army
Reserve soldiers in--issues that we are dealing with that--when
we passed the bill last year that--for our National Guard and
Army Reserve soldiers still capped at age 60.
One component of that, if you were deployed for 90 days,
you could--so many days from that particular year. What we
failed to do is make it--soldiers that were deployed in 2001
and 2002. It is one of the major concerns that I am getting
pushback from my soldiers.
As we continue to transform the Army Reserve, we still run
into difficulty with--we will work our way through that. I
think last year I brought to your attention about IDT travel,
some forms----
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Sergeant Major Caffie. But other than that, I think we have
made tremendous progress since last year. And thank you for
what this committee have done to support my organization.
Mr. Edwards. Great. Thank you, Sergeant Major.
Sergeant Major Gipe.
Sergeant Major Gipe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. If you could just--out of the respect for the
Navy, take about a minute-and-a-half. We will give the Navy----
Sergeant Major Gipe. I will do that, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Sergeant Major Gipe. I am from Kentucky, but I can speak
fast when I need to. I do want to correct one error. I said we
had nine suicides the first quarter. It was only six. So that
is an improvement. It is still way too many.
A couple of things that we need. I appreciate all of this
committee's support. Some of the things that we need to
continue to work is the funding for the yellow ribbon
legislation that was passed last year. It is critical to
support our soldiers' pre-deployment, during deployment, and on
return with regards to some of the issues we have been dealing
with here today, as well as their families.
TRICARE providers is where we end up having the biggest
issue when our soldiers come back home. For instance my
daughter attended college in Bowling Green, Kentucky, she had
to go 48 miles to find a gynecologist that would accept
TRICARE. So we have to work that.

EMPLOYER SUPPORT FOR THE GUARD AND RESERVE

One thing that I think we really need to work--it is not
really the committee thing here, it is more of a congressional
thing--is employer support. We don't do enough to support the
employers out there that support our troops.
And 50 percent of the Army has employers outside of their
active-duty time. And we have to do something that rewards
those employers who do support us for--because it is extremely
critical.

MILCON

And then the last thing I would suggest is military
construction. Over 69 percent of our buildings are 50 years or
older.
Mr. Edwards. Sixty-nine percent are 50 years or older?
Sergeant Major Gipe. Yes, sir. So we have a lot of
opportunities out there and things that would go well with an
economic stimulus.
So I will turn it over to my----
Mr. Farr. Can I follow up on that question?
Mr. Edwards. Sure.
Mr. Farr. What is happening--we have a big RCI project, but
now that the community housing prices have dropped so much,
even though these houses are primo houses, a lot of the
families will opt to live in a community where they never would
have before because the rents were too high.
So it is more than just building new housing on base. It is
sort of getting that culture of living back on base--to think
about. Why are you are not using the housing we have built? You
can't complain about it. It has everything, childcare----
Mr. Edwards. That is an interesting--I hadn't thought about
people moving off-base because of lower housing. So we will
look into that.
Master Chief Wright.
Master Chief Wright. Chairman Edwards, thank you for the
opportunity, gentlemen.
Really, I just want to say that the Sailors that are coming
back, once we start the mobilization process, education is
provided all the way through. And I have to echo what the fine
gentleman before me said.
The process that the Navy is using is the Returning Warrior
Program. And what happens with that is, once these Sailors
return home, they have an opportunity to go away to a resort.
It is a nice place for the family to go where they want to
attend. It is totally volunteer.
And they have an opportunity to sit down and get guidance
from leadership, the colonels, generals that walk in and say,
``I have had a problem with post-traumatic stress,'' and they
go through their leadership, where the message is coming from
the top, that it is okay for that young Sailor--to say, ``I
have an issue.''
The opportunities are there for them to get counseling, get
financial counseling, Military OneSource, and information on
mental health issues. From this point on, we have conducted
about 31 events since fiscal year 2007. And we have had over
2,200 participants.
I have attended one of those. And we have leadership ensure
they attend. But I have seen folks that walk in with their arms
crossed, saying, ``You can't do anything for me.'' And by
Sunday afternoon, when they leave, they are saying, ``Thank
you. I didn't know that the Navy and military really cared
about me.''
And there has been outstanding opportunities, especially
when they are able to sit down at the roundtable. The military
member has dealt with a lot of issues while they are deployed,
while their spouse has dealt with the heating blowing out, the
car blowing out. And once they had the opportunity to interact,
it all comes together and there is a lot of healing that goes
on.
And the other side of it is the TRICARE, making sure we
have the providers for that. The distance and travel are areas
of concern. I have Sailors that are traveling from one coast to
another because they love the Navy. They are losing money. When
I have a Sailor that is doing it, and they are actually losing
money that weekend, but--every weekend, I can't ask for any
more, sir.
I mean, they are there because they are doing relevant
work, and we know they are making a difference.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Master Chief Wright. They are volunteering to keep doing
that.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Master Chief.
Master Chief Wright. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. To begin the second round, we will begin with
Mr. Wamp, Mr. Farr, and then Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Wamp.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Mr. Wamp. Well, I have several questions in different
directions, but picking up on what Ander Crenshaw raised and
the Master Sergeant just talked about on the financial side of
the troops, do we have more payday lending and predatory
lending? You talked about their cars breaking down.
How many of them are still turning to finance vehicles that
are not good for them? Do we know if we are moving toward
alternatives? This is such a hard time for everybody, and last
year, gas prices went through the roof. That becomes an issue,
and people are upside-down.
What are you seeing? Is there anything we need to do, in
terms of predatory activity around our troops that might be
upside-down, to take some of the stress off the family, because
it is all about staying ahead?
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I don't have any specific
numbers, but talking with soldiers and their families when the
gas prices were very high, it was very, very tough on them. And
you have 67 percent of married soldiers living off the
installation. That means that they are commuting back and forth
everyday to work. And, it is just the cost of living every day
that has gone up.
And I also sit on the Board of Directors for the Army Air
Force Exchange Service (AAFES), along with Chief Master
Sergeant McKinley. One of the things we noticed were the
financial statistics. The sales in AAFES actually went up.
And when you look at the rest of the economy, Wal-Mart was
the only other one going up. So obviously, the soldiers and
servicemembers are shopping at those places where, they can get
the best buy.
Sergeant Major Kent. It is some hard times out there, sir.
Payday lenders was a big problem out in California in the Camp
Pendleton area. It assisted our marines/sailors when California
passed a state law for payday lenders. And the lenders have I
mean, they pretty much are going out of business because of the
law that they passed in California.
And, also, we have been very active down at Camp Pendleton,
you know, teaching them, you know--about the financial
management.
Master Chief West. Sir, we have held both lectures,
seminars, training on not only predatory lending, but the
financial responsibilities for our Sailors and we have seen a
decrease in it. And what we have, with the Navy-Marine Corps
Relief Society is called the Quick Assist Loan. It is QAL. It
is a fund of about $300 in one shot. And when I say one shot,
it is you walk in, you walk out with a check. It is a huge
success for us.
What we have seen is an increase, but they pay them back.
It gets them past what they need to get to, to get on course
again. We have really hit that hard and I think that we are
headed in the right direction.
Our Fleet and Family Support Centers have made that a
priority. And they have gone proactive on the waterfronts, as
well. I don't have the numbers, but we have gotten 137,000 of
our Sailors touched this past year, which is a 51 percent
increase over 2007. So we are more out.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, with the Air Force, it
starts in the recruiting office. We make sure that, before we
recruit somebody, that they don't have a debt ratio that is
going to set them up for failure for the future.
Once we get them to basic training, even in basic training
we teach them financial counseling and how to manage a budget
and be smart about the future. They get that when they arrive
at their first duty location and hopefully set them up for
success in the future to spend wisely.
And the bill we passed on predatory lending, I think, was a
tremendous success. Thank you very much for making that happen.

HOME PORT ASHORE

Mr. Wamp. Maybe we are running out of time, but, Master
Chief West, on the home port ashore provision, because I know
when I went out on the USS HARRY TRUMAN, I told you about that
this morning, it was pretty tight quarters.
Master Chief West. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. They are out there for a long period of time,
unlike the other services when they get in. Give us a little
bit more detail about what we can do to help you when soldiers
are home so that quality of life is good enough for them to go
back out to sea for 6 months.
Master Chief West. Yes, sir. As I pointed out we have about
9,000 of our Sailors that are on a ship. Until you have done
that and experienced it, it is a pretty tough environment out
there for sailors. My hat is off to them every single day.
So now we have a master housing plan that we are presenting
to the CNO in a couple of weeks which will provide I guess a
landscape on what we can do. Through a Public-Private Venture
(PPV), one of which is out in California, Pacific Beacon. I
will take you if you haven't seen that. I would welcome you to
come. I will even show you the great quality-of-life living,
which is going to put about 2,900 spaces. And then, down in
Virginia, in Hampton Roads, about 3,600 spaces.
Our challenge right now is really in three locations, but
we certainly do need that help. But our three locations are
Norfolk, Virginia. We have, again, about 5,700 of our Sailors
living on board the ships. In Yokosuka, Japan, about 700 and in
California, about 700.
Even with the plan in place, it is going to be very tough
for us to get these folks ashore. One of the things that we are
asking to do is double up, go through the Marine Corps model
and the college model, for that matter, sort of the one-plus-
one, put a couple of our young Sailors in there. I will tell
you this is a success story out in Japan, even though we have a
shortfall there, we have had a significant decrease in the
amount of incidents out on the economy. And you know as well as
I do, it is a big deal anywhere, but more so in Japan with
American Sailors.
I do have a couple of slides that do show that, sir. And I
just don't want to get too deep into it, but it shows the
number of beds the number of our Sailors because, again, as I
pointed out earlier to Congressman Dicks, I do believe that you
give a Sailor WiFi and a computer, that is what they want,
really just to get away, get away from that ship.
So I would ask this committee for support. And I am sure
the bachelor housing area really needs some support there. And,
also, go in and view a lot of our buildings are aging, as well.
That is one thing that we have to tackle.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. [Laughter.]
We will go with Mr. Farr, Mr. Crenshaw, and then Mr. Berry.
Mr. Farr.

CROSS-CULTURAL TRAINING

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Again, thank you for all this good, lovely dialogue. I have
a lot of questions, one I would like to follow up on is
something that I am very interested in, and that is really
trying to integrate the capabilities of the services and the
interagency with our allies--partners across the full spectrum
of operations.
We have learned in this committee that our military are the
best in the world at being able to go anywhere at any time,
kick down any door, do anything we have to do. But we have not
done a very good job at winning hearts and minds. And we can
get in, but we can't get out.
My whole experience was in the Peace Corps where you
actually had to work yourself out of a job. What I have seen is
that soldiers, a lot of them, get really interested in cross-
cultural experiences, young kids parachuting into another
culture and other languages, the conditions of poverty, and so
on, and develop an interest in sharing American values with
host country folks.
I think that is a much longer and stronger effort. But the
only people I think are going to do effective nation-building
are our military, because they are on the ground. You can do
wells. You can do schools. You can do things like that.
I am concerned that we have 33,000 U.S. contractors
performing for the Army. And I wonder, is that getting in the
way--is there a way that we can do that? Can the military
decrease violence and leave it better than they found it?
What are we missing in this? Because it is the soldiers on
the ground--embassies are all locked up and nobody can go out
without being guarded, and same with USAID. But I have heard
out at conferences at the Naval Postgraduate School that the
international nongovernmental organizations are on the ground
with the soldiers.
And the one thing they and the military have in common,
they are both getting shot at. And they are both trying to do
the same--the military for security purposes, but in the end,
to make it secure for what?
Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I would encourage you to get
out and visit with our soldiers. And I will give you a couple
of examples, because the Army has done a magnificent job at
working itself out of a job. As I travel around, I get a lot of
questions from young soldiers about--in Iraq and Afghanistan,
but historically we have done a magnificent job.
In Bosnia, December 1995, 20,000 soldiers went there.
November of 2004, when we pulled out, there were less than 900
soldiers there. So it took us 8 years to go from 20,000
soldiers to less than 900, and then we handed that mission over
to the European Union.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Bosnia now?
Sergeant Major Preston. Just a couple of people in the
headquarters. That is it.
Kosovo, spring, summer of 1999, 14,000 soldiers that were
part of that campaign. Today, the Army National Guard has about
1,400 there. And, they have done a magnificent job over there
at building. It is helping the government become operational,
and it is the government at all levels. It is at the national
level. It is the county, province, down to all the small towns
and villages.
But you have to get the government operational. And then it
is training the security forces to take our place. And as those
security forces become competent, that allows us--and I will
give you a couple of quick stories from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Farr. Do our soldiers need more language training,
cultural training?
Sergeant Major Preston. We have worked very hard. The last
couple of years, across the board, cultural training comes
before any one deploys, as well as language training.
And when we look at the different language schools that are
out there, we are leveraging that right now. And there are
soldiers in every unit and organization that are deploying
right now that are taking language training.
I will give you a quick story. I was just at Fort Polk with
the 56th Stryker Brigade out of the Pennsylvania Guard. And he
was one of their trainers. And I asked him how long he had been
and he said, ``Sir, I have only been here about 7 months.''
And I said, ``Where were you at before that?'' He said, ``I
was in Iraq. I was in Baghdad. I was on a training team.''
And I said, ``Well, what did you think of that?'' And he
said, ``Sir, I would go back in a minute.'' And I said, ``Well,
why do you say that?'' And he said, ``Because I was able to
make a difference and it was the friendships that were
developing.''
And he said that, ``I was out everyday with a squad of
Iraqi soldiers that I helped train. And one day, we came under
fire. There was a sniper that was firing at us. We took cover
behind a concrete barrier. And as I came up to shoot my weapon,
Sergeant Oman, who was--I was, you know, his teacher, he pushes
me back down behind the concrete barrier and he says, `Stay
down.' ''
``And, of course, I told him, `Oman, I have to get up. I
have to be able to shoot.' And Oman told him, `Stay down. Today
is not your day to die.' '' And that was the kind of close
bonding relationships between us and the Iraqi soldiers.
I was just there in November. I spoke with Command Sergeant
Major Adel, who is the sergeant major of the Iraqi army, a
close, personal friend of mine. And I was there for their third
annual senior NCO conference and there with all of his division
command sergeant majors, across the Iraqi army, and we are all
brothers, and we are very close friends in what we are doing
right now to help each other.
In Afghanistan, the sergeant major of the army is Rashan.
He is a graduate of class 56 at our--United States Army--
Sergeants Major Academy. He is half-American and spent an
entire year down there going through the school.
And, when you look at the relationships and what he and
with the chief of staff of the Afghan army, General Bishmail
Kahn, who spoke at their conference in November; I told General
Casey that, when he sat up there and spoke, if he had been
wearing one of our uniforms and speaking English, you would
have thought he was one of our American generals, because he
was saying all the right things.
We have done a lot of things. And I can tell you about----
Mr. Farr. How about contractors?
Sergeant Major Preston. We have contractors out there, but
they are really in support of the soldiers there on the ground.
And, we don't have enough of the combat support, service
support kind of functions that those contractors right now are
doing.
Mr. Edwards. Brief statement?
Master Chief West. Sir, as that question was asked, I was
coming up out of my chair, because, I will tell you, it is a
great question. We are working almost every day with NGOs, or
nongovernmental organizations.
We have deployed COMFORT and MERCY. You talk about winning
the hearts and minds of all these countries. It is an
incredible thing to see, the capability those ships bring, and
more importantly, how many people line up and want us back.
We use our amphibs in that way, but we also have over
12,000 of our Sailors right now on the ground over there in
Iraq and Afghanistan, up in the hills, and in the provisional
reconstruction teams.
I was just out there with our CNO. And we got to fly out to
a place where they are building some schools and all that
stuff. It is incredible. It is incredible the way those
countries and those people come to us and want our help.

REBUILDING IRAQ

So I have to tell you, your Navy is out there. We are
engaging every single day with those NGOs. And it is just an
incredible feeling.
But if you are ever either in San Diego or able to come
down to the COMFORT or the MERCY, please, I will give you a
personal tour.
Sergeant Major Kent. Can I make a 30-second comment, sir?
Mr. Edwards. Sure, go ahead.
Sergeant Major Kent. Western Iraq used to be a bloody
place. I was there in 2004 and 2005. And the Marines today over
there are able to turn off kicking in the doors and they are
out there actually helping the locals each and every day.
That is the young PFCs on the ground. They know when to
turn it on and kick down doors and when to turn it off and help
the Iraqi people.
Mr. Edwards. That is great.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, just a second?
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. It is not only Iraq and
Afghanistan, sir, but we are doing capacity-building in many
countries, whether it be in the Pacific, to South America, from
the African continent to all over Europe. And more funding to
help with this would be fantastic.
But to build the military through professional military
education and so forth through our Combatant Commands (COCOMs)
and each one of our services is a great thing. And it is going
to make us all safer in the long run.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you all.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

QUALITY OF MILITARY HEALTHCARE

Yes, that whole discussion--that--you really can't surge
friendship, and the things that you are doing in the front end,
such as Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), in the Caribbean, those
potential hotspots I think what your men and women are doing,
just to build relationships, you just don't walk in one day and
say, ``Now we are your friend''--let me go back to--we started
the conversation about a specific part of health care, suicide
prevention--big picture, health care is so important, the
quality of life of not only the men and women who serve, but
the families.
And I know we have done a lot--the Chairman has been real
active in the military construction projects. We have built
some new facilities, new clinics, new hospitals. And we want to
keep on doing that.
But I want to ask you all, just in terms of overall health
care, just the delivery of health care, what would you say are
the good things that we do? What are some of the things that we
ought to do better?
And what do you hear--what do your troops say when they
talk about health care? What are some of the, when people are
sitting around talking, ``We wish you did a little better,''
or, ``We are really thankful for this part or that part,'' can
you touch on that, just some real-world examples that you see?
Because I have to believe that is so important for families,
particularly.

ARMY FAMILY ACTION PLAN

Sergeant Major Preston. Sir, I will start. Last week, we
had the Army Family Action Plan. And this is a conference that
we did here in D.C., but it stems out and it starts all around
the Army, overseas, as well.
And it starts with the soldiers and families at
installations and they raise issues to those representatives at
the installation level to present to the annual conference. And
then to the leadership.
The Secretary of the Army and the chief of staff of the
Army are there--and one of the top five issues that was raised
this last week that has now been added is there is a shortage
of medical providers in military treatment facilities.
And that is hands down, has always been a concern out there
as you travel around. It is accessibility and availability. The
quality of the care is very good, once you get into it, but it
is accessibility, it is availability.

TRICARE

And, of course, we have tried to stem that by partnering
with medical communities and facilities off post as well, but
there is still not enough. The Army is very big, and being able
to get out there into all those remote sites, as Command
Sergeant Major Gipe, Command Sergeant Major Caffie said, it is
to TRICARE providers--to travel to get somebody that takes
TRICARE. And that is a concern.
Sergeant Major Kent. The quality of medical service is very
good, sir, but the shortage of doctors is the issue.
Master Chief West. Sir, the same here. I will tell you, I
could not be happier with our Navy medicine and Marine Corps
aspect. They do a lot of good things.
I would say if there is any one thing, it is continue to
keep that ball in the air for us. You know, sir, you drop that
ball, and we start missing things, but, you know, you see the
assistance you could provide, that would really be of value.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, I think we have come a
very long way since 1995 when we started TRICARE. But I think
one of the big improvements we can do to make it more
attractive for civilian health care providers is to take out a
lot of the bureaucracy that we can right now.
You may have someone who goes to visit a doctor's office--
Blue Cross-Blue Shield in just a matter of a few minutes--to
see the doctor, and the paperwork is taken care of. You go to
the doctor with TRICARE and it is an hour's worth of paperwork.
And a lot of doctors just don't want to put up with it.
We need to clear up the bureaucracy and make it easier and
more attractive for civilian doctors that want to take----
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thanks. Before I recognize Mr. Berry, I want
to take the privilege of welcoming to our subcommittee Mrs.
Zach Wamp, Kim Wamp, and their son, Weston.
And as chairman of the committee, let me--I don't want to
embarrass the ranking member of the committee in your presence,
but I want to thank you both for the sacrifices you have made,
for the time Zach often has to spend away from family, to his
leadership in this committee. We are thrilled to have you both.
The subcommittee is very privileged to have Zach as our ranking
member.
Zach, would you like to----
Mr. Wamp. I am going to rat out my son, who is a senior at
the University of Tennessee and about to graduate magna cum
laude May the 1st. He and Kim are here for the National Prayer
Breakfast, which I am very involved in each week, and they just
came into town.
But they had not been to a committee hearing in this room
since I joined as ranking member. I have to tell you that my
son, when you were under consideration as Vice President,
started rooting for that ticket just because of our
relationship. So you had one Republican working for you, so--at
least we would have somebody in the White House that we know.
Mr. Edwards. And my Republican campaign opponent was
rooting for me, as well. But, Weston, thank you--thank you very
much. [Laughter.]
And it is great to have you both here.
I think the top enlisted leaders of our services that are
here symbolize the people making a difference for our country,
and our military aren't only those that have on the uniform or
wear the title of member of Congress, but spouses and the
children. So we welcome you.
Mr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. Well, I would just thank all of you for your
service and the great job you do. I think this committee is
committed to doing the best that we can to see that you have
what you need to do that job and do it well.
Master Chief West, you are from the same neck of the woods
as our colleague, Mr. Wamp. I am wondering, what made you turn
out so well? [Laughter.]
Master Chief West. Sir, I just have to say that I am just
across the Georgia line.
Mr. Berry. That explains it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Berry.
And welcome back to the subcommittee. You have been a great
member of the subcommittee. And you are here personally at
every committee hearing unless you have an absolute conflict
with other hearings. And we thank you for that. Thank you for
being here.

TOP QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES

Let me continue a tradition of this subcommittee, if I
could, and just ask each of you really two questions. First
would be, in terms of quality-of-life morale issues, would it
be fair for me to say, or to conclude from your comments, that
time away from family is number-one right now? Would that be a
yes--let the record show that time away from family is the
number-one quality-of-life issue right now.
Moving beyond that and putting aside pay, because we know
that is always crucial to those serving our country, if we were
to be arbitrary and to, say, take education, whether it is for
the serviceman or woman or their family, education, health
care, housing, and daycare, while we have a responsibility to
address all of those four areas, could I ask you to make your
own judgment and say, speaking for your respective servicemen
and women and their families, which would you rank as the
number-one challenge where we need to put more resources? What
would be number two, number three, if you want to?
Sergeant Major Kent [continuing]. Marine barracks?
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Sergeant Major Kent. I would--sir.
Mr. Edwards. So barracks improvement----
Sergeant Major Kent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Sergeant Major Kent. As we grow the force, we are going to
need other space.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. How about second, Sergeant Major?
Sergeant Major Kent. Second would be daycare, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Daycare after barracks?
Sergeant Major Kent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Sergeant Major Preston.
Sergeant Major Preston. Childcare which is working in the
right direction and is a priority right now, but childcare,
barracks are the top two, and then health care.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. The two of you, the sense is we have
made progress on family housing. It is not that we need to
stop, draw a line in the sand and stop improving military
family housing, but we at least--our servicemen and women--and
they are seeing real change, so we are behind the curve more on
barracks versus family housing?
Master Chief West.
Master Chief West. Sir, I have to agree over here. I will
tell you, the bachelor housing is absolutely the number-one
priority. With that said, the family housing, what this
committee has done and through our PPV partnerships, is
phenomenal. In my 28 years in the Navy, I have never seen
better housing and daycare is another one. I know we have made
huge strides. We have a very successful rate as we roll out, so
we are making headway there.
And also with health care, we have to keep all three of
those up in the air, but my number-one priority without a doubt
is housing.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Master Chief West. Bachelor housing.
Mr. Edwards. Okay, bachelor housing.
Master Chief West. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Chief Master Sergeant McKinley.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, I don't think that I
would really necessarily put them as a one-two-three. I think
it is a package deal. You know, I think each one of them are
equally important. And you can't really have one without the
other, so we have made tremendous strides in each one of those.
But each one of those is still very important.
Mr. Edwards. Sure. And I don't want to make the third or
fourth list on the priority list seem less important, because
they are very important. But if you only had enough money to
put into one of those four areas, where would you put that
money?
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Continue with housing. I
think housing is very----
Mr. Edwards. Family housing or barracks?
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Both.
Mr. Edwards. All right, if you could only put money into
barracks or family housing, where would you put it?
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. I would right now put it
into barracks, because we still have Airmen out there living in
barracks that are very old. The infrastructure needs to be
redone. You can't put lipstick on a pig.
Mr. Edwards. Right. Right.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. You have heard that one
before. So you have to go in and work with infrastructure. And
that takes money.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. And forgive me for trying to put you in
a box, but I think just trying to get that sense of priorities,
with limited resources--we don't have an unlimited check here.
We should not ignore any of those areas. We want to keep making
the kind of progress we have had in the last several years in
all of these areas, but that is good to know.
Mr. Farr. Is your BAH for a barrack the same as for a
house? If you stay in a barrack, you still receive a housing
allowance, don't you? Or if you stay in a house on base, you
pay your----
Master Chief West. You forfeit, at that point, your BAH, if
you stay. However if you have a public-private venture, then
you do get paid the BAH, but then you turn around and hand it
back to the PPV.
Mr. Farr. Are the economics better for the private venture,
better in building housing than in building barracks?
Master Chief West. We have a few barracks that are going
PPV.

BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING

Sergeant Major Preston. What you have to look at is that,
for a married soldier, they receive a basic allowance for
housing. And they have a choice. They can----
Mr. Farr. On-base or off-base?
Sergeant Major Preston. On-base or off-base. But they pay
either way. But for the single soldier, they don't receive a
housing allowance if they are living in a barracks. And, of
course, if you want them to live off-base--and we have done
that to free up space in the barracks we have taken some of our
senior noncommissioned officers who are single and paid them an
allowance for housing to allow them to go off and find an
apartment, but, that is a cost, as well.
Mr. Edwards. Could I ask Master Chief Wright and Sergeant
Major Gipe and Sergeant Major Caffie. Starting with you, Master
Chief Wright, could you come up to Mr. Carter's seat again? And
you don't have to choose from those same 4, because housing,
health care, education are obviously different sometimes in
terms of the challenges for the members of the Guard and
Reserve.
But the quality-of-life issues, what would be the first,
second, and third priorities that Congress needs to take a look
at, in terms of supporting quality of life and morale for our
members of the Guard and Reserve?
Master Chief Wright.
Master Chief Wright. Thank you, sir. Just trying to do some
quick thinking here. But I think the distance and travel, I
think that is a main one.
Number one.
Mr. Edwards. Any other of the concerns you hear?
Master Chief Wright. The other is TRICARE, a follow-on with
that. I know they are paid at the Medicaid levels. And a lot of
times, when you are dealing with the medical facilities and the
providers, it is all about the patriotism. They are looking at
the flag, and that is wonderful, but there is not a lot of
incentive there for it.
And on the other side of it, just making sure we have good,
quality facilities for these folks to come and train, too. A
majority of that time, they are training with the units and
doing everything they have to. But when they are at the reserve
site, or the NOSC, Navy Operational Support Center, they have
quality facilities to work in.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Master Chief Wright. These are my top 3, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Master Chief.
Sergeant Major Gipe.
Sergeant Major Gipe. Again, sir, without a doubt, health
care is our number-one issue. Education is up there, but with
the G.I. Bill and most states providing tuition assistance for
Guard and Reserve members, so without a doubt it is the TRICARE
and the yellow ribbon piece of the health care that relates to
post-traumatic and those kind of----
Mr. Edwards. What training equipment----
Sergeant Major Gipe. We are doing very, very well on the
equipping course. We are not where we need to be yet, but there
is a plan to get there. And the funding is dedicated long term
to get there.
The military construction to improve the facilities that we
have to train in would have to be up there, as well. But there
is a great plan in place for--up there. And the Army has done a
phenomenal job with getting this, as well as Congress, funding
the money for that.
Mr. Edwards. Thanks, Sergeant Major.
Sergeant Major Gipe. Thank you. Yes, sir. That is really
what the issue is. It is the provider issue. And then we
alluded to Military OneSource for counseling sessions and the
online things.
Things are getting better all the time, but TRICARE
providers is a huge issue for us, because they are just not out
there and available and where they should be. If we could get
that fixed, that would be huge.
Mr. Farr. Military clinic are for the uniformed military
personnel, but the spouses and children have to go to the
private sector, and they don't want to take TRICARE
reimbursements----
Sergeant Major Gipe. Of course, we have many soldiers that
don't live anywhere near a military facility, so----
Mr. Edwards. Thanks, Sergeant Major.
Sergeant Major Caffie.
Sergeant Major Caffie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Priority number one for me would be health care. I think we
have already addressed the issues with bureaucracy and paper
flow. We need to enhance the--physicians and nurses within that
program.
Second for me would be the distance. As we transform--
primary concern. I have soldiers driving excess to 250 to 300
miles--that we do not compensate them for.
And third would be equipment and renovating the
installations that I have--Reserve.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you all.
Any members--any of you want to follow up on that? Okay.
Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Welcome back to the subcommittee----
Mr. Carter. I would like to thank these fine gentlemen for
being with us, and I apologize for being late. I had to go to a
meeting with the leadership.

AGING FAMILY HOUSING

Sergeant Major Preston, I want to talk to you a little bit
about this Army Family Covenant you talked about. Chairman
Edwards has played a major role in establishing RCI, the
housing program. We have made great strides in military
housing. We are all well aware of it, as all of you are.
However, I visit Fort Hood many times each year and have
toured several times a housing area called Chaffee Village. Are
you familiar with Chaffee Village?
I don't know what year it was built, but it had to be in
the 1950s, because it looks old. Chaffee Village has 674 units
for enlisted soldiers and their families, and is part of the
RCI program. We are spending about $40,000 a unit to make them
more livable, but, quite frankly, this is, in my opinion, like
putting lipstick on a pig.
I mean, these are old units. We are patching them up, but
in reality, there is nothing around here that old that is
patched up like that.
And the real issue is we have to provide the quality of
life that we promised them, that we keep this Army Family
Covenant.
Now, even if these additional funds are provided to patch
it up, it is not going to be to the standard it ought to be, as
compared to the other housing that we are providing on Fort
Hood and other installations.
I know that Chairman Edwards is well aware of this, as are
quite a few others. I guess my question to all of you is, do
you have housing issues like Chaffee Village on other
facilities you visit that are still in use. They are old and
being patched rather than completed?
Have you informed the powers-that-be, this committee and
others, of your needs for housing areas like Chaffee Village so
that they can be in the next budget that we have to deal with?
Because I think this is something that it is time for us to put
a spotlight on. It is livable, but it is not quality living.
Sergeant Major Preston. Mr. Carter, I know Chaffee Village
very well. And having been there as a battalion sergeant major
and I sponsored Comanche II. For those houses that did not meet
the quality of life, the private partners have gone in and
completely torn them down and built a new house. And
specifically at Fort Hood, you can go around and see out on
West Ford Hood, hundreds of brand-new houses that have been
built.
I get asked by a lot of soldiers that are living in the old
houses like Chaffee or Comanche II why they have to live in the
older house while somebody else has the newer house. And it
really gets down to, what is the capitalization plan for that
housing?
Before privatization, we as an Army did not do very good at
planning for the capitalization for housing as well as our
barracks. And that is why we have a lot of old stuff out there
that we are now trying to play catch up.
But with our private partner, they have a capitalization
plan so that, you know, as those houses reach the end of their
life cycle, you know, they will be torn down and those
soldiers, you know, as--either as they leave or as they, you
know, transition away from the installation, will be moved
into, you know, new and upgraded housing.
So the good thing now with the private partners--
capitalization plan, and you rotate through, and you eliminate
the oldest stuff, and you build new.
Mr. Carter. Well, almost every visit I make to Fort Hood, I
get brought through Chaffee Village when there is a change of
command. The first place I go is for a drive through Chaffee
Village. This is something that really is on the minds,
especially of the enlisted men.
Sergeant Major Preston. And, sir, the private partners--for
a lot of money----
Mr. Carter. They have.
Sergeant Major Preston [continuing]. Chaffee Village and
fixed them up. And, when I was at Fort Campbell when we first
started the capitalization process, these old ranch-style
houses, very, very old, and Command Sergeant Major Hill, who is
now with General Petraeus down in CENTCOM, he was still the
installation sergeant major there.
And he and I have walked in and taken a look at this brand-
new house that they have renovated. And he and I both looked at
each other and said that, you know, if we were both
specialists--the rank that was looking at those houses now, we
would re-enlist, to live in a house--so the private partners
have really done, a very good job at renovating and fixing up
the old places, to provide the quality of life that we want.
Mr. Carter [continuing]. Other response from anybody?
[The information follows:]

The Army's Residential Communities Initiative (RCI)
privatized housing projects are developed, operated, managed,
and maintained in accordance with a detailed community
development management plan (CDMP). Project-specific CDMPs
define the plan for housing recapitalization efforts during the
3 to 11 year initial development phase (IDP) and the remainder
of the 50-year project, including housing renovations,
demolitions, and new construction.
During the IDP, RCI housing recapitalization is funded
through a combination of private debt, private equity, and/or
government equity. Following the IDP, RCI housing
recapitalization is funded from a project reinvestment account.
The project reinvestment account is funded through the project
cash waterfall at a sufficient level to sustain project housing
at contemporary standards throughout the 50-year project.
One of the biggest advantages of military housing
privatization is the speed at which houses can be renovated and
constructed during the IDP, and the high quality of housing and
housing maintenance that can be sustained over the project
life.

Sergeant Major Kent. Well, we have a plan to fix housing.
Thanks to all of you, the funding that we get for our quality
of life I will tell you, we have some great housing on our
military installations.
Mr. Carter. Well, I am aware we have some great housing
units.
Master Chief West. Yes, sir. With the Navy, we are on track
to eliminate anything that is out there in fiscal year 2011,
but what is important is our private companies. They are
working real well with our family housing--naval installations.
So like I told the members earlier, sir, it is the best
housing I have seen in 28 years of service.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, I am very passionate
about this, and so are all of us here. And I have used this
comparison before, but I think it is very valid. As you walk
through Arlington National Cemetery, we have a standard. We
take care of the fallen. They have the same markers; they have
the same plot, so there is a standard, no matter what service
you are in.
It is a shame we don't do this while we are wearing the
uniform. We have some that we take care of, some that we don't.
We need to make sure we provide that standard while we are
wearing the uniform.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Mr. Edwards. You know, Mr. Carter, if I could jump in, I
think generally we would all agree that privatized, public-
private partnership programs work very, very well. That doesn't
mean this subcommittee couldn't, you know, expend some effort
reviewing it and seeing where it is working better than other
areas.
And the question I couldn't answer--is, how do you make a
decision that at what point that developer at Fort Hood gets to
put more money in his pocket as a profit? We want him to make a
reasonable profit.
Mr. Edwards. And it seems that we ought to--if nothing
else, we ought to use the bully pulpit of this subcommittee to
pressure the developers, salute them where they are doing well,
but if in some cases they are, you know, renovating a 50-year-
old house rather than building a new one, and yet they are
making very, very solid profits, maybe we ought to let them
know we are going to keep an eye on them.
Mr. Carter. That is the thing. You know, if you are a
soldier, and, you know, one guy is living in a brand-spanking-
new house and his wife and kids have this really nice house,
the other guy comes back, he is coming to a clean, refurbished
house built in probably 1955, and then refurbished, you can't
help but saying he is in a substandard housing, even if it is
perfectly clean, perfectly functional, and everything works. It
is not what the other guy has.
Refurbishing costs a lot of money. Fixing up all the houses
costs a lot of money. Maybe our money would be better spent if
we started going in and tearing these things down and building
new houses.
Sergeant Major Preston. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend
that you take a look at it. And the best analogy I have for RCI
housing is that it is just like getting a haircut. We are
halfway through the haircut right now, so depending on which
side of the head that you look at, one side looks good, but
there is a plan that they are working through.
Mr. Edwards. In some cases they are spending $40,000 or
$50,000 renovating the unit where they could spend $150,000
just rebuilding a brand-new--and, again, I don't know that I
have an answer to that. I don't know if any other members do.
I assume it is done again on an installation-by-
installation basis where they negotiate an agreement. But I
think it might be healthy. You know, we have all talked about
exercising oversight. And maybe we could bring the developers
in and others--again, salute them for the good work they are
doing, but also let them know we are going to look over their
shoulder and make sure that they are in a time of war and
multiple deployments and the sacrifices--representing are
making that we are going to expect them to err on the side of,
you know, putting that extra dollar into unit housing.
Mr. Carter. I think our partners would give us a fair
analysis of what they see as needed.
Mr. Edwards. Might be a good basis for a future
subcommittee hearing.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. I think we are almost through. I asked Mr.
Crenshaw. He has no more questions.
Judge Carter, do you have any more questions?

CROSS-CULTURAL EXCHANGE--HORN OF AFRICA

I just have a couple of points and then we will be through
on our side. I know time is getting late.
Going back to Mr. Farr's question, I want to publicly say
how much I appreciate and was so impressed with his insight
into things around the world.
But this issue of hearts and minds. Chief Master Sergeant
McKinley, you mentioned AFRICOM earlier. I was so impressed
with General Kip Ward, who is the commander.
I wanted to ask you if we have any permanence there? I know
that there was a temporary status in Djibouti and we really
haven't established permanent base for AFRICOM headquarters.
But I want to tell you this. One of our guests for the
prayer breakfast is a former general who is now in the top
civilian leadership of Kenya, and I was with him last night.
And I asked him about this. He told me how impressed he was
with General Kip Ward and the fact that our military presence
there, while it is not permanent yet, is about making peace and
winning the hearts and minds of people in northern Africa.
Now, of those 25 countries I mentioned earlier, quite a few
of them are on the continent of Africa. And I am asking you,
because I was in Tanzania to the south not too long ago, and I
asked him about that former Arab coast, Mombasa particularly.
Actually, I think some things are turning in a better
direction.
Part of it is because our presence is welcomed. I know,
from Kenya's standpoint, this is a Maasai general who is now in
civilian leadership, and he was really impressed with the U.S.
presence in northern Africa, which I think bodes well for this
hearts and minds issue.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, I was just in Djibouti
in November. The leadership there is very committed, but they
are dealing wih the tyranny of distance of Africa. You can
basically put the United States of America in Africa three
times.
So when you are looking at how we get from Point A to Point
B, we have to work that out. But the goodness that we can do
there, winning the hearts and minds, it is just astronomical.
So we have to stay committed and make sure that we take care
and have a plan in how we can get from Point A to Point B to
Point C.
Mr. Edwards. Sergeant Major, you wanted to say something?
Sergeant Major Preston. You know, sir, I was Djibouti. And
we have a lot of stuff there for the--army to help train them,
as well as--in Kenya.
But I flew up into Ethiopia. This is a great kind of joint
team--flew into Ethiopia, the city of Dire Dawa. It is the
second largest city in Ethiopia. It is a city of about 300,000.
And I was met there on the ground by Staff Sergeant Colson,
who is an Army Reserve staff sergeant, who was the NCOIC or
noncommissioned officer in charge of a 17-member team. And his
commander was on leave so he was gone. So this staff sergeant
was in charge.
And he had a team of Navy Seabees as well as a squad of
artillery soldiers from Fort Sill, Oklahoma, that are doing
force protection. He had an airman and a signal NCO who was
doing the comms to keep him in touch with Camp--but we traveled
around the city.
And he took me out and showed me the 21st and 22nd water
point that the Seabees have put into place for the locals to
draw water from, fill up their water jugs.
They took me out to a $200,000 school project, primary,
secondary school that they were putting into place for first
grade through eighth or ninth grade.
And while we drove around the city, it was--you could tell
the relationship that he had built with all the locals, because
they were all--they all knew him. They were all waving at him.
But here is a young, staff sergeant with 7 or 8 years in
the Army, and then he is helping to build a city. You know, he
built a school and, helped to provide water, to the citizens.
And, it is just amazing out there to see the things that are
being done.
I visited the chief of staff and sergeant major of South
Africa. I was went around to their training facilities. And
they are trying to build a noncommissioned officer corps like
ours.
And that is one of the reasons why we are celebrating the
year of the NCO. And, South America has some unique challenges
down there, as well. But, we are partnering with every one of
those countries.
Master Chief West. Sir, if I could just add one quick point
to that, it is not necessarily the 30-, 40-, 50-year-olds that
are making a difference. We are having 19- and 20-year-olds
going out there, negotiating deals, and working with these
tribal leaders or these leaders of those communities. It is
just an incredible thing.
Sergeant Major Kent. And we are actually doing that with
the Navy every day, sir. We are actually--port--and we win
hearts and minds each and every day.
Mr. Wamp. And one other closing thing that I want to bring
up through several hearings as we go forward, Mr. Chairman, and
that is that what we heard from the deputy chief of staff of
the Army and Mrs. Casey, when they met with us after the
election and they said that the Congress still needs to change
the law so that outside foundations can support our soldiers.
We talked about Fisher House, an example, but there are still
some impediments of our free enterprise system to support the
military.
We need to look at ways to take those walls down,
especially with the needs that we hear about and the stress
that is there with multiple deployments. If our private sector
is willing to help and in any way the law keeps that from
happening, we need to take those things down.
They brought that to us in December at that dinner I
attended 2 weeks after the election. I thought, ``That is
something we need to bring up over and over again until we
figure out exactly how to take down these barriers to get all
the support.'' I know they wanted help, and they know that
there are stress points, and let's let them do that. We will
look into that every time.
Mr. Edwards. Good suggestion--bring in our authorizer
friends, but it would certainly be something that would be
important to do.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Do any members have any additional questions? And,
obviously, you can all turn in written questions.
Mr. Farr.

TRICARE PROVIDERS

Mr. Farr. I wasn't going to have one, but I want to get
back to this TRICARE issue. As I understand TRICARE, it
essentially models the Medicare reimbursement rate. It
establishes rates by region.
The problem is that providers don't want to take that rate
because it is too low or the process is too much of a hassle.
It is very difficult to change the rate.
How much of this problem is rate? And how much of it is
bureaucracy? Because we contract out a huge multibillion-dollar
contract, and then process blows up, and with a new provider
every 6 years, all the forms, telephone numbers, and contacts,
and appeals change.
Do you have any suggestions of how to improve this?
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Sir, I think a lot of the
health care providers out there, they are dedicated Americans.
They love our military, like everybody else, and they are
probably willing to take that little less money. But if the
bureaucracy, if the paperwork was much easier for them, I think
that would help a lot.
Mr. Farr. Do you have a memo on that?
[The information follows:]

The question is a good one because reimbursement rates are, indeed,
sometimes part of the problem. I should explain that when we say
TRICARE is tied to or as you say ``modeled'' on Medicare rates. It
doesn't mean that we match those rates dollar for dollar. In some
locations we actually pay more than Medicare, but if those Medicare
payments go up or down, our rates tend to match the same rate of
increase or decrease.
Does TRICARE pay enough? TRICARE participation is voluntary. If we
pay too little, providers do not participate. We have been able to find
ample TRICARE-accepting providers in most markets. We interpret this as
meaning we pay acceptable market rates. It is a delicate balance.
You also mention that providers feel that the TRICARE process is a
``hassle.'' Providers deal with numerous private insurers, plus the
Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA), TRICARE, Medicare, etc. It is
difficult to deal with multiple billing systems, but we do not perceive
the TRICARE billing process to be more onerous than other payers.
TRICARE has an excellent record of paying on time and paying
accurately. We monitor timely payment continuously and have an
excellent history of rapid payment. We also strive to minimize changes
for beneficiaries while giving them the greatest choice.
Our benefit is excellent and TRICARE is rated the best health plan
in the nation. An independent healthcare research firm polled 71,000
American households and found that TRICARE had higher customer
satisfaction rates than any other healthcare insurance carrier in the
United States. It exceeded Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, CIGNA, Kaiser
Permanente, the VA, and others. (Independent research was conducted by
Wilson Health Information. Third party information source found on
Business Wire: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOEIN/
is_2009_Jan_16/ai_n31198561)

Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. We can get back to you on
that, sir.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. The specifics.
Chief Master Sergeant McKinley. Yes, sir--about what that
bureaucracy is?
Sergeant Major Preston. I know for the health care
providers out there, they have a kind of balance. They are very
patriotic, and they try to balance the number of people that
they are seeing between the high end and the low end. So they
have a balance.
But there is a stigma, but I have to give them credit. They
have been working very hard to improve their process of
paperwork and make it more automated.
But there is also a stigma out there. A command sergeant
major of the Texas National Guard was living in Midland or
Odessa, and to find a health care provider, the specialist his
family needed, they had to go all the way to Fort Worth.
And that is the challenge. It is now working through and
demonstrating that some of the processes have improved. They
have gotten better. And it is getting more of the civilian
health care folks out there now to sign up and take TRICARE.
[The information follows:]

To date there are more than 325,000 providers in the TRICARE
network with over 1 million non-network providers accepting TRICARE
patients. In order to make TRICARE more attractive to health care
providers, the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) has a variety of tools
to include: reducing the administrative burden, increasing the number
of providers willing to accept TRICARE patients, and lastly, exercising
an active outreach program.
TMA is engaged in a comprehensive effort to reduce the
administrative burden on TRICARE providers. Efforts include expediting
the claims process for providers. Currently more than 99% of retained
claims are being processed to completion within 30 days. Additionally,
more than 97% of claims are now filed electronically. Providers have
online capability to check beneficiary eligibility, update their
information for beneficiaries appearing in TRICARE provider
directories, check claim status, and submit referrals. Lastly, monthly
provider bulletins and quarterly provider newsletters are used by
providers to communicate important facts about the TRICARE medical
benefit and business processes to the various TRICARE beneficiaries.
TMA conducts surveys to determine the numbers of healthcare
providers accepting new patients under TRICARE. TMA's fiscal year (FY)
05-07 surveys covered network/non-network providers in various
geographic areas nationally, including remote areas. Together, the
three year findings across all states and health service areas reveal
that approximately 87% of all physicians surveyed are aware of the
TRICARE program and about 81% of physicians accepting new patients
would also accept new TRICARE patients. For physicians who do not
accept new TRICARE patients, the most commonly single cited reason is
due to ``reimbursement'', which accounts for approximately 25% of all
comments received. Reimbursement concerns include low and insufficient
fees, fee schedules that do not cover overhead costs, or reimbursements
that take too long to receive. The remaining reasons for not accepting
TRICARE include a variety of other non-reimbursement factors such as
providers accepting no new patients, inconvenience, and other
miscellaneous reasons. The FY08 National Defense Authorization Act has
directed DoD to continue this survey process through 2011.
Title 10 U.S.C. 1079(h)(1) requires the TRICARE program to follow
the reimbursement rates of Medicare to the extent practicable, unless
DoD can justify a deviation. TRICARE rates and Medicare rates are
identical for most services. Medicare rates are adjusted each year.
These rates will vary by location and service provided. In areas where
access to care is severely impaired because of low reimbursement rates,
TMA can use its authority to increase TRICARE reimbursement rates by
issuing locality waivers that increase rates above the TRICARE
reimbursement rate for specific procedures in specific localities.
Secondly, TMA can issue network-based waivers that increase some
network civilian provider reimbursements up to 15% above the maximum
TRICARE reimbursement rate to ensure adequate numbers/mix of civilian
network providers. Directors of the TRICARE Regional offices work with
their managed care support contractors to address requests for
reimbursement waivers. A variety of stakeholders can request a waiver
to include providers, beneficiaries, managed care support contractors,
or military treatment facilities.
Expanding the network through outreach is a top priority of TMA.
TMA is reaching out to state officials, medical associations, and
individual physicians to educate them and appeal to their sense of
patriotism in accepting TRICARE. This outreach is showing promising
results. For example, the Oregon legislature approved incentives
including a one-time tax credit for new providers in the TRICARE
network, plus an additional annual credit for treating patients
enrolled in TRICARE. Since 2004, Oregon's TRICARE provider network has
increased by 35%. In addition, the governors of 20 western states have
supported TRICARE's efforts to encourage more health care providers to
accept new TRICARE patients. Their combined efforts led to an overall
increase in western region TRICARE network doctors from approximately
80,000 in 2004 to more than 125,000 today.

Mr. Edwards. Important issue. Thank you, Sam.
Let me finish as Mr. Wamp began the meeting. We are
privileged and humbled to be at the table with you and to have
an opportunity to thank you with a word for what you have done
for our country and all of those men and women that you
represent so ably have done.
And we want to thank you with our deeds, as well, with
better health care and housing and quality-of-life support that
the servicemen and women you represent deserve.
So this is a great way. I can't think of a better way to
start up the new Congress than to have this, our first
subcommittee hearing. Again, that is a testament of our respect
to you.
Thanks to each of you for your leadership. We look forward
to working with you in the months and years ahead.
With that, we will stand adjourned subject to the call of
the chair.
Let me just say to all the members, my staff just sent me a
note that said there is a bill scheduled for vote any moment
now. So before you can go running back to your office building,
you might want to check on the floor.
Thank you very much.
[Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Dicks:]

Army:
Question: Are there any special challenges to supporting quality of
life for the military at installations in the Pacific Northwest region?
What changes or improvements would have the greatest impact on
improving facets of quality of life in the Pacific Northwest region?
Answer: There are no challenges specific to supporting quality of
life for Soldiers and their Families stationed in the Pacific Northwest
region. Fort Lewis serves as home to approximately 25,000 Soldiers and
civilians, 29,000 Family members, and 120,000 retirees. Fort Lewis
delivers on the Army Family Covenant--the Army's expression of
commitment to quality of life commensurate with service; recognition of
the mutual bond between the Army, Soldiers, and their Families; and
dedication to improving Family Readiness. We are continually improving
quality of life across all components--Active, Guard, and Reserve--
through implementation of the Army Family Covenant, regardless of
geographic location.
Marine Corps:
Question: Are there any special challenges to supporting quality of
life for the military at installations in the Pacific Northwest region?
What changes or improvements would have the greatest impact on
improving facets of quality of life in the Pacific Northwest region?
Answer: There are no special challenges to supporting quality of
life (QOL) for the military installations in the Pacific Northwest.
Housing, child care, school and single Sailor programs are all
important elements to improving quality of life for sailors. In the
Pacific Northwest, these programs are resourced consistent with the
rest of the Navy's QOL programs in CONUS.
The PB09 FYDP contained one Physical Fitness Center project for NAS
Whidbey Island at a cost of $24.4M that would improve facets of QOL in
the Pacific Northwest region.
Navy:
Question. Are there any special challenges to supporting quality of
life for the military at installations in the Pacific Northwest region?
What changes or improvements would have the greatest impact on
improving facets of quality of life in the Pacific Northwest region?
Answer. There are no special challenges to supporting quality of
life (QOL) for the military installations in the Pacific Northwest.
Housing, child care, school and single Sailor programs are all
important elements to improving quality of life for sailors. In the
Pacific Northwest, these programs are resourced consistent with the
rest of the Navy's QOL programs in CONUS.
The PB09 FYDP contained one Physical Fitness Center project for NAS
Whidbey Island at a cost of $24.4M that would improve facets of QOL in
the Pacific Northwest region.
Air Force:
Question. Are there any special challenges to supporting quality of
life for the military at installations in the Pacific Northwest region?
What changes or improvements would have the greatest impact on
improving facets of quality of life in the Pacific Northwest region? .
Answer. There are no specific challenges to supporting quality of
life at installations in the Pacific Northwest region that are unique
to McChord AFB, Mountain Home AFB and Fairchild AFB. The Air Force will
continue to improve the investment in our people to avoid unacceptable
risk to combat capability and to people and family programs. Quality of
Life projects are a priority at these bases and include quality
housing, fitness centers and child care centers.

[End of questions submitted for the record by Congressman
Dicks.]

[Questions for the record submitted by Congressman Bishop:]

Suicide Prevention

Question. Last week it was reported that suicides among soldiers in
2008 rose for the fourth year in a row, reaching the highest level in
nearly three decades. At least 128 soldiers killed themselves last
year, and the Army suicide rate surpassed that for civilians for the
first time since the Vietnam War. This suicide count, which includes
soldiers in the Army Reserve and the National Guard, is expected to
grow. Fifteen deaths are still being investigated, and the vast
majority of them are expected to be ruled suicides according to Army
officials. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the vice chief of staff of the
Army, who is leading suicide-prevention efforts has stated, ``We [the
Army]-- need to move quickly to do everything we can to reverse the
very disturbing number of suicides we have in the U.S. Army.'' What is
the Army doing to address the problem?
Answer. Since my testimony in February 2009, the Army has taken
major steps to address the tragedy of suicides within our ranks.
From February 15 to March 15, 2009, the Army conducted a service-
wide Suicide Prevention Stand Down and Chain Teaching, a first
according to the Center for Military History. During the stand down,
the Army trained every Soldier on suicide risk identification and
intervention, and addressed the stigma associated with behavioral
health counseling, using an interactive video titled ``Beyond the
Front.'' Feedback from Soldiers about the video was so positive that
new, similar videos are being created for Families and DA civilians;
and the Army National Guard and Reserve plans to tailor these videos
for their Soldiers as well. Also during the stand-down, the Army
distributed thousands of ``ACE'' (Ask, Care, Escort) wallet cards to
Soldiers; these cards provide a quick reference on how to identify and
care for a potentially suicidal buddy. Follow-up to the stand down
included chain teaching on suicide prevention tactics. Chain teaching
remains underway through July 1.
In March and April 2009, General Chiarelli conducted an eight-day,
six-installation fact finding visit. He also organized a
multidisciplinary team of experts from across the Army Staff, which
conducted a review of those findings and Army programs and policies
relating to suicide, behavioral health, and suicide risk factors. The
team developed over 200 separate actions to be taken to improve
existing systems and programs. Those actions form the nucleus of the
Army's strategic approach to the suicide issue: the Army Campaign Plan
for Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention.
The Army issued the Plan in mid-April. A senior level Council,
chartered by General Chiarelli, meets twice a month to review and
refine the action plans for his approval and implementation. Some of
those plans include efforts to combat the problem of stigma; expand the
number of Army Chaplains and behavioral health providers to improve
access to care; and ensure funding for popular resources such as the
``Strong Bonds'' Program, a family-relationship initiative of the
Chaplain Corps which fosters relationship-building skills. The Council
review process will continue for several months while the Council
develops recommendations for strategic, enduring changes Army-wide.
Another part of the Plan directed Army leaders and medical treatment
facilities to immediately optimize existing policies and resources to
prevent suicides and set the stage for the longer-term strategic
changes.
Another long-term effort by the Army in this area is the October
2008 agreement with the National Institute of Mental Health for a five-
year longitudinal study of suicides, designed to assess factors
contributing to suicide and identify training to reduce suicides and
other mitigation techniques.
General Chiarelli holds frequent, periodic briefings with
commanders and a Senior Review Group on Army suicides. This ensures top
Army leadership maintains appropriate focus on this important issue. It
also allows for information sharing and learning from individual cases.
The bottom line, however, is that Soldiers have always taken care
of Soldiers. The Army team is an unbroken chain from the Chief of Staff
to the newest recruit, and the team has been mobilized to help one
another. I firmly believe that ultimately, it is our Soldiers who will
turn this problem around.

Army Medical Action Plan

Question. Last April GEN Casey stated that ``at the core of the
Army's strategy to maintain an all-volunteer force lie in two programs
that the Army leadership had developed''-one of those was the Army
Medical Action Plan (AMAP) which deals with the Army's initiative to
develop an ``integrated and comprehensive continuum of care for
Warriors and their families at home and in battle.'' How has that
program initiative fared and how has the money to that program been
used to deal with the suicide crisis in the Army?
Answer. The transformation of US Army Warrior Care began in April
2007 with the development of the Army Medical Action Plan (AMAP), which
outlined an organizational and cultural shift in how the Army cares for
its wounded, ill, and injured Soldiers. Over the past two years, the
AMAP has evolved and changed its name to the Army Warrior Care and
Transition Program (WCTP), fully integrating Warrior Care into
institutional processes across the Army, and achieving many of the
Army's goals for enhancing care and improving the transition of wounded
warriors back to duty or into civilian life as productive veterans. The
Army has made tremendous progress in transforming how it provides
health care to its Soldiers, with improvements impacting every aspect
of the continuum of care. During this period, overall Soldier and
family satisfaction with the care and support they receive as a result
of the efforts of the WCTP has increased significantly. Two years ago,
only 60% of those in the legacy medical hold units were satisfied with
the care they receive. Today, 80% of Soldiers and Families who now
receive the focused and comprehensive care and support provided by
Warrior Transition Units indicate satisfaction with the care they
receive.
Funding for the Army's suicide prevention efforts is separate and
distinct from funding for the WCTP. The money directed to the AMAP/WCTP
is used to provide the necessary care, support, and infrastructure that
wounded, ill, and injured Soldiers require. Part of this support,
however, includes staffing the Warrior Transition Units with one
behavioral health provider for every 100 Warriors in Transition. In
addition, Warrior Transition Units conducted a ``safety stand-down''
starting on January 30, 2009, to review unit compliance with the 18
preventive measures that were implemented in February 2008 after an
Army assessment team completed a comprehensive review of suicides and
accidental deaths in Warrior Transition Units. Finally, the WCTP
complies with guidance promulgated by the Army Suicide Prevention Task
Force and the Army Suicide Prevention Council.

Comprehensive Soldier Fitness

Question. For the fourth consecutive year, the Army has seen an
increase in suicide rates. There were 128 suicides last year in the
active Army, with another 15 cases still pending a determination,
according to data compiled by Army human resources officials. This was
up from 115 suicides in 2007. The Army stated that over the past two
years, it has increased its efforts and has enhanced resources and
initiatives aimed at identifying and mitigating the causes of suicidal
behavior; however, the suicide rates continue to increase. How does the
Army plan to change its past strategy in order to stop this increasing
trend? What is the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program and how will
it enhance Soldier's resiliency and total fitness in this era of
persistent conflict? What other programs are being offered to Soldiers
to deal with the difficult situations which are the results of repeated
deployments?
Answer. The Army is implementing the Army Campaign Plan for Health
Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention. The Plan represents
a strategic change because it is the first strategy to employ a
comprehensive approach to suicide prevention across the spectrum of
Army policy, doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership,
personnel, and resources. Due to the breadth and nature of that
strategy, the Plan widens the aperture of the Army's approach from a
narrow focus on suicide to the broader context of risk reduction and
health promotion. The Plan is also unique because it stems from efforts
led from the top down by the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, as compared to
earlier initiatives welling from lower-level Army Staff elements up to
senior Army leadership. In short, General Chiarelli is leading this
critical issue; it is too urgent to wait for resolution through normal
Army channels.
Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) is an Army strategy to provide
each Soldier the opportunity to maximize his or her potential in life:
socially, emotionally, spiritually, physically, and through a strong
Family. The program assesses the holistic fitness of all Soldiers,
encompassing all dimensions. It begins when you join the Army, and like
physical fitness, includes re-assessment at routine intervals. The
results of the assessment give each Soldier an individualized program
of education and training as needed. CSF provides the training and
tools to enhance Soldier resilience--the ability to grow and thrive in
the face of challenges and bounce back from adversity.
The Program will enhance Soldiers' resiliency and total fitness by
systematically training each Soldier in positive life-coping skills and
the ability to identify incipient behavioral health concerns before
they seriously affect the Soldier's well-being and readiness. The
Program includes training to encourage Soldiers to seek behavioral
health and other counseling before problems arise. The training will
also indirectly discourage stigma associated with seeking counseling,
because all Soldiers will be accustomed to discussing psychological
health issues.
The Program's resiliency training will be initiated in training
schools and will continue throughout each Soldier's career. For
example, the Program includes BATTLEMIND training for major junctures
in a Soldier's career from Basic Training to the Pre-Command Course.
There are also pre- and post-deployment modules for both Soldiers and
spouses. To date, BATTLEMIND is the only resilience training program
demonstrated to reduce symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress upon
redeployment. People who participate in BATTLEMIND also feel less
reluctance to seek mental health counseling than people who have not
had the training.
Other programs offered to Soldiers to deal with the difficult
situations arising from repeated deployments include the ``Strong
Bonds'' Program, a family-relationship initiative of the Chaplain
Corps, which fosters relationship-building skills; the Military and
Family Life Consultant Program, which embeds counselors into units
during post-deployment, and enables counselors to meet informally with
Soldiers in non-clinical settings to avoid stigma; and the Yellow
Ribbon Reintegration Program, which provides information, services,
referral, and proactive outreach programs to Soldiers of the Army
Reserve and their Families through all phases of the deployment cycle.

Family Programs

Question. Can you discuss the state of Army and Marine Corps
families, especially families that have had a service member go on more
than one deployment? The recent suicide levels, divorces, and issues
with reintegration point to a stressed force? What steps are the
services taking to counter-balance these trends?
Answer. Army Families remain resilient in the midst of
extraordinary sacrifices as their loved ones advance the cause of
freedom around the world. They have set aside careers, interrupted
their education, and when living far from a military base, struggled to
locate child care equal to the price and quality available at military
installations. Quality of life programs continue to contribute to
Soldiers' and Families' sense of belonging to a caring military
community, which reinforces their desire to choose the Army as a way of
life, despite the serious strains they experience as a result.
The Department of Defense conducted two Status of Forces surveys of
active duty service members in 2007 to assess the impact of frequent
deployments on troops and their Families. Their top concerns were
spouse employment and education, household repairs, yard work, personal
vehicle maintenance, maintaining emotional connections with spouse or
Family, safety of Family in the community, anxiety or depression,
marital problems, and problem behavior at school. Although Soldiers
cited marital problems as a concern, a recent RAND study found little
support for the hypothesis that deployments caused an increase in
divorce rates across the Services.
Under the Army Family Covenant, the Army began to implement
aggressive improvements to a broad range of family-oriented, quality of
life programs and services to standardize and fund existing Family
programs and services; increase accessibility to health care; improve
Soldier and Family housing; ensure excellence in schools, youth and
child services; and expand education and employment opportunities for
Family members.
Since the Covenant's inception, the Army has made significant
progress and improvements in quality of life programs across a range of
Family programs. Examples include implementation of the Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program to minimize stresses of military service,
particularly the stress of deployment and family separation; deployment
of 200,000 training products to strengthen resilience in military
children; increased staff for the New Parent Support Home Visit
Program; additional funding for respite care; implementation of Soldier
and Family Assistance Centers; and employment of thousands of spouses.
The Army has also implemented plans and programs to address
specific Soldier and Family issues. The Army Campaign Plan for Health
Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention is a comprehensive
approach to suicide prevention across the spectrum of Army policy,
doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, and
resources. Additionally, the Chaplain Corps expanded the Strong Bonds
program, a research-based, Chaplain-led training initiative helping
Soldiers and spouses strengthen their marital and family relationships.
Strong Bonds began in 1999 with four events and 90 couples and has
grown into a program with commanders planning 3,200 training events
this year in order to provide nearly 130,000 participants with the
knowledge and skills to sustain resilient relationships during multiple
deployments.
While we are moving in the right direction with the Army Family
Covenant, we still have much work to do. The Army remains determined to
provide a strong, supportive environment where Soldiers and their
Families can thrive.
Question. Can you discuss the state of Army and Marine Corps
families, especially families that have had a service member go on more
than one deployment? The recent suicide levels, divorces, and issues
with reintegration point to a stressed force? What steps are the
services taking to counter-balance these trends?
Answer. Stress on the Force. There is no question that continued
OPTEMPO puts stress on the force, not just for deploying Marines, but
for those who remain behind and face increased workloads. There were
year on year increases for 2008 in suicide incidents and divorces.
Marine Corps commanders are fully engaged in promoting the
psychological health of our Marines, Sailors, and family members. To
enable leaders, individuals, and families to prepare for and manage the
stress of operational deployment cycles, the Combat and Operational
Stress Control (COSC) Program provides a set of policies, training, and
tools to prepare for the upcoming deployment, recognize stress
reactions early and manage them more effectively within operational
units. Marine leaders are assisted by mental health professionals,
chaplains, and COSC regional training coordinators in the operating
forces, to detect stress problems in warfighters as early as possible,
and are provided the resources to effectively manage these stress
problems in theater or at home base. Resources are also provided for
the family members left behind to provide support, communications, and
information flow.
This training is being incorporated in formal Professional Military
Education schools for both officer and enlisted Marines, such as the
Expeditionary Warfare School and the Staff Non-commissioned Officer
Advanced Course. We have staffed full-time COSC training coordinators
at each of our Marine Expeditionary Force headquarters.
To assist with prevention, rapid identification, and effective
treatment of combat operational stress, we are expanding the
Operational Stress Control and Readiness (OSCAR) Program--our program
of embedding mental health professionals in operational units--to
directly support all active and reserve ground combat elements. This
year, we begin placing mental health professionals organic to the
active Divisions and Marine Forces Reserve. By FY11, full OSCAR teams
will be fielded to the Infantry Regiment level. OSCAR will eventually
be expanded to all deployed elements of the Marine Air-Ground Task
Force.
Our Marine Operational Stress Training (MOST) program was developed
with Tri-Marine Expeditionary Force (TRI MEF) Commanders based on the
USMC COSC stress continuum model, now adopted by OSD. Our program
supports the full deployment cycle by focusing on Leaders, Marines and
families from pre-deployment through post-deployment, providing
information on what's to come, what to look for, and what to do when
stress reactions appear. COSC concepts have also been incorporated in
family readiness training.
Stress on the Families: To mitigate the stress on military families
and children facing the multiple challenges of having a loved one at
war, we are partnering with the US Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
(BUMED) and UCLA's Center for Community Health and the National Center
for Child Traumatic Stress to sponsor a program called Project FOCUS,
``Families OverComing Under Stress'', at our major deploying bases. The
family-oriented program is designed to work with Marines, spouses and
children to improve family communications post deployment by through
specialized resiliency training.
FOCUS is founded on leading evidenced-based family intervention
models for at-risk families which have demonstrated positive emotional,
behavioral and adaptive outcomes for families over time. Working with
the existing teams of dedicated military family services personnel,
FOCUS staff will assist families to better understand how combat
operational stress affects them and their service family member, how to
manage it, and how to strengthen themselves and their children in
readiness for tomorrow. This program is currently being provided at
Camp Pendleton, Twentynine Palms, Camp Lejeune, MCB Hawaii, and MCB
Okinawa. Next year it will be expanded to include MCB Quantico, the
Wounded Warrior Regiment and Battalions, and Marine Corps Reserve units
in the Los Angeles Basin.
Suicides and Suicide Prevention Programs. Suicide prevention is a
high priority. The loss of any Marine through suicide is a tragedy for
the Marine's family and unit, and can never be accepted. With 42
suicides recorded in 2008, the Marine Corps experienced its highest
suicide rate since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The number of confirmed Marine suicides has
increased from 25 in 2006 to 33 in CY2007 to 42 in CY2008. Our suicide
rate in 2008 of 19.5 suicides per 100,000 approaches the national
civilian suicide rate for a demographic similar to the Marine Corps.
Through April, there were 12 suspected or confirmed suicides in CY09.
We are actively engaged in prevention and early identification of
problems that may increase the risk of suicide. Marine Corps leadership
is taking proactive action, focusing on the important role of leaders
of all ranks in addressing this issue. Understanding that there is no
single suicide prevention solution, we are committed to having an
effect on the individual Marine through leadership and command
involvement at all levels and we recognize that we must reduce the
stigma sometimes associated with seeking help.
Suicides are monitored monthly and annually for deployment related
trends such as the number of deployments and dwell time. Although it is
not unreasonable to assume that one or more deployments may cause an
increase in suicides, to date we have been unable to establish a direct
relationship between the two. The Marine Corps Combat Development
Command Studies and Analysis Division is conducting further analysis of
the data on dwell time and deployments. Additionally, we will
participate in the Army longitudinal study being conducted by the
National Institute for Mental Health.
Regardless of duty station, deployment, or duty status, the primary
stressors associated with Marine suicides are: problems in romantic
relationships, physical health, work-related issues such as poor
performance and job dissatisfaction, and pending legal or
administrative action. This is consistent with other Services and
civilian findings. Multiple stressors are almost always present in a
suicide.
The Commandant and Marine Corps leadership are taking proactive
action to address this issue. I selected a senior enlisted Marine
leader to add unique insight to our efforts in suicide prevention, and
the Assistant Commandant (ACMC), through the Executive Safety Board, is
directing a series of initiatives which are currently in accelerated
development:
Training: An ACMC-directed all hands training on suicide
prevention was conducted during the month of March. Since 90% of
suicides have tended to occur in the ranks of El-E5 Marines, a half-
day, high impact, relevant workshop has been designed to reach the NCO/
FMF Sailor community and facilitate their work with junior enlisted
Marines. This training is expected to be ready by this summer.
Leadership Suicide Prevention Video Messages: All 06 and
higher commanding officers were directed to produce videos focusing on
leadership and suicide prevention to set the tone for stigma reduction
and an imperative of prevention.
Integration of Suicide Prevention and the Marine Corps
Martial Arts Program (MCMAP): A prevention message was incorporated in
the MCMAP program in a manner appropriate and engaging to reach all
Marines.
Relationship Distress Hotline: Relationship problems, both
romantic and marital, remain the number one associated stressor related
to suicidal behavior. Suicide is complex and while this is not the only
problem, it is the most common. A hotline by phone, email and live
internet chat that is marketed specifically to assist with relationship
distress and questions may reduce risk of suicide related behaviors
that result from this type of stress. In the interim, we have partnered
with Military OneSource to strategically market their relationship
building resources to Marines and family members.
The Marine Corps will continue to aggressively pursue suicide
prevention initiatives; reevaluate existing programs designed to reduce
the stressors most correlated with suicidal behavior; develop and
distribute new prevention programs; and refresh and expand training
materials.
Reintegration Programs. The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program is
a national combat veteran reintegration program that assists National
Guard and Reserve members and their families throughout the entire
deployment cycle: Pre-Deployment; Deployment; Demobilization; and Post-
Deployment. The program provides servicemembers and their families with
information, services, referral, and proactive outreach opportunities
which help them prepare for mobilization, sustain them during
mobilization, and reintegrate servicemembers with their families,
communities, and employers upon post-deployment. To provide
servicemembers and their families with a wide range of options as close
to home as possible and to leverage scarce community and state
resources, Defense Department officials are working to unify efforts
among the services, the reserve components, other federal agencies and
nongovernmental organizations.
The Department Of Veterans Affairs also provides services to
returning Veterans (including those who are active duty), surviving
spouses and dependents, disabled, minority, and women Veterans. The VA
offers health care, mental health care, information about benefits and
eligibility, job and business opportunities, and information about
education, home loans, and more. The VA offers free care for combat-
related conditions for 2 years after returning from deployment. Mental
health services, including care for PTSD and substance use treatment,
are available and include individual and group treatment options.
Outpatient and residential programs are available, depending on
location. Treatment providers include psychologists, psychiatrists,
social workers, and addictions counselors.

RCI Housing

Question. How can use of privatized housing improve the overall
quality of life and better family housing in the military?
Answer. Use of privatized military Family housing has improved the
quality of life for Soldiers and their Families by providing world-
class housing communities and amenities faster and at a higher standard
than traditional methods. Since the start of Army housing
privatization, we have built over 19,000 homes, renovated another
14,000 homes, and built community centers, playgrounds, walking trails,
and other amenities. Further, privatization is designed to ensure
sustainment of the condition of the housing at those higher standards
over the 50-year terms of the Army's privatization projects.
Question. How can use of privatized housing improve the overall
quality of life and better family housing in the military?
Answer. In 2001 the Marine Corps had close to 17,700 inadequate
housing units, with the majority of those units requiring significant
revitalization or replacement. Based on Public Private Venture (PPV)
contracts now in place, the Marine Corps will have successfully met the
Department of Defense goal to have contracts in place by 2007 to
eliminate inadequate housing and will complete the build-out by 2014.
With ninety-six percent of our world-wide inventories privatized to
date, we continue to see success from our PPV projects across Marine
Corps installations. PPVs have not only improved the homes in which our
families live by being built to modern standards, they are also
providing community support facilities such as community centers,
playgrounds and green spaces that help create neighborhoods and a sense
of community.
Congressional support of the PPV program allows us to continue to
address the deficit requirement for additional family housing resulting
from Grow the Force increases by providing seed money for new
construction projects. The PPV program allows the Marine Corps to
leverage private sector funds and buy more investment in family
housing. The private sector contributes development capital for PPV
projects in addition to the government funding. The ratio achieved to
date is over 5 to 1. In turn, as homes are privatized, the requirement
for government Operations and maintenance is lessened.
With nearly our entire domestic inventory privatized, we will
continue to build on our prior successes and use PPVs to help us
address most of our remaining housing deficit requirement.
Overseas we are engaged with the Government of Japan in developing
a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) for Family Housing on Guam. Similar in
concept to our domestic PPVs, this SPE will supply the housing for
Marines and their families relocating to Guam from Okinawa, Japan.
Question. How can use of privatized housing improve the overall
quality of life and better family housing in the military?
Answer. Privatized housing has brought about a dramatic improvement
in housing conditions for service members and their families and has
increased their quality of life, readiness, morale, and retention.
Through privatization, the Navy is able to leverage a tremendous amount
of capital (about 18:1) for a relatively small investment to reduce
housing deficits, upgrade homes, and perform maintenance faster than
traditionally using military Family Housing appropriations. Privatized
housing is designed to market-based standards, which requires
developers to include community centers and events, swimming pools, and
family-oriented amenities to foster a sense of community and attract
residents.
Question. How can use of privatized housing improve the overall
quality of life and better family housing in the military?
Answer. Privatized housing is providing more new homes faster than
ever before. Project Owners are bringing the best of private sector
housing and community standards onto our bases. New homes with energy
efficient appliances, programmable thermostats, two-car garages,
spacious kitchens, and carpeting are creating on-base neighborhoods
where Air Force families choose to live. Not only are we getting over
200 new homes a month, but we now have a funding mechanism in place to
maintain, renovate, and replace these homes over the 50-year life of
the project. Today our Air Force members and their families are
choosing privatized housing, not because they have to, but because they
want to.

Housing for Redeploying Soldiers

Question. President Obama has indicated that he wants to withdraw
from Iraq in the next 16 months. Some senior commanders have expressed
concerns regarding an overly aggressive withdrawal from Iraq. What are
your views and what impact would that withdrawal and redeployment have
on your ability to house returning service members? Would the reduced
timeline significantly impact your ability to absorb the increase in
troops onto your bases? Would there be any housing or infrastructure
issues absorbing these service members?
Answer. The acceleration of the drawdown plan for Operation Iraqi
Freedom is expected to place stress on the Army's current facility
support plan. The return of forces, coupled with unit modularization,
requires the Army to address and improve unit operations and
maintenance facilities, as well as barracks, Family housing, and
quality of life requirements to support the All-Volunteer Force. Upon
release of a drawdown plan, the Army will complete its barracks
facility support analysis to gain greater fidelity on the impact on our
installations and their ability to adequately house Soldiers and their
Families.
Question. President Obama has indicated that he wants to withdraw
from Iraq in the next 16 months. Some senior commanders have expressed
concerns regarding an overly aggressive withdrawal from Iraq. What are
your views and what impact would that withdrawal and redeployment have
on your ability to house returning servicemen? Would the reduced
timeline significantly impact your ability to absorb the increase in
troops onto your bases? Would there be any housing or infrastructure
issues absorbing these servicemen?
Answer. The Marine Corps is conducting detailed planning to develop
potential force sourcing solutions which incorporate the potential
drawdown of Marines from Iraq, as well as the potential increase of
Marines deploying to Afghanistan. Were every Marine to return
immediately, we would meet the increased bachelor housing demand with a
combination of relaxed occupancy standards, interim relocatable
billeting structures, and a greater reliance on the local economy
through approval of Basic Allowance for Housing for noncommissioned
officers and junior enlisted Marines.
The reduced timeline should not significantly impact our ability to
absorb the increase in troops to our bases. The Marine Corps had
funding in place by FY 2005 to eliminate permanent party gang head
barracks.
Our robust FY 2009 Military Construction program will provide over
12,000 new spaces on our installations. Many of these projects will be
completed in 2010 and 2011. This new construction will mitigate many of
the expected bachelor housing issues. However, temporary use of some
gang head barracks has been and will be required while renovations take
place in permanent facilities. We are using temporary facilities to
support our immediate growth requirements with funding provided by
Congress in the 2007 GWOT Supplemental as well as other measures (such
as slowing down demolition of older facilities). Current deployment
cycles are helping to alleviate ``space crunches'' at the
installations.
Question. President Obama has indicated that he wants to withdraw
from Iraq in the next 16 months. Some senior commanders have expressed
concerns regarding an overly aggressive withdrawal from Iraq. What are
your views and what impact would that withdrawal and redeployment have
on your ability to house returning servicemen? Would the reduced
timeline significantly impact your ability to absorb the increase in
troops onto your bases? Would there be any housing or infrastructure
issues absorbing these servicemen?
Answer. The Navy would not have any difficulty absorbing returning
Sailors into housing. Sailors returning from deployments in Iraq are
accommodated much like those returning from a ship's deployment.
Question. President Obama has indicated that he wants to withdraw
from Iraq in the next 16 months. Some senior commanders have expressed
concerns regarding an overly aggressive withdrawal from Iraq. What are
your views and what impact would that withdrawal and redeployment have
on your ability to house returning servicemen? Would the reduced
timeline significantly impact your ability to absorb the increase in
troops onto your bases? Would there be any housing or infrastructure
issues absorbing these servicemen?
Answer. There will be no impact to Air Force housing or
infrastructure. Air Force members deployed to Iraq are on ``temporary
duty'' from their permanent duty station. Housing requirements at each
Air Force installation are determined based on the full complement of
Service members permanently assigned to an installation--this includes
consideration of the suitable housing available in local communities.
Military families continue to reside in family housing at the permanent
duty station. For unaccompanied Airmen deployed to Iraq, dormitory
rooms are kept available at their permanent duty station.
Question. President Obama also stated that he would like to see a
``surge'' in Afghanistan. Given recent lessons learned in Iraq and
Afghanistan, is it your view that the U.S. can effectively win the
fight in Afghanistan alone or will we need a like or similar commitment
from our major allies--Germany, France and Great Britain--who are
currently reducing the number of their troops? Will this create any
further strain on our soldiers and what are the military plans to
address this?
Army:
Answer. I defer judgment on these important questions to President
Obama and Secretary Gates, who continue to work on how best to address
the challenges you raise.
Question. President Obama also stated that he would like to see a
``surge'' in Afghanistan. Given recent lessons learned in Iraq and
Afghanistan, is it your view that the U.S. can effectively win the
fight in Afghanistan alone or will we need a like or similar commitment
from our major allies--Germany, France and Great Britain--who are
currently reducing the number of their troops? Will this create any
further strain on our soldiers and what are the military plans to
address this?
Marine Corps:
Answer. The Marine Corps defers judgment on these important
questions to President Obama and Secretary Gates, who continue to work
on how best to address the challenges raised by Congress.
Question. President Obama also stated that he would like to see a
``surge'' in Afghanistan. Given recent lessons learned in Iraq and
Afghanistan, is it your view that the U.S. can effectively win the
fight in Afghanistan alone or will we need a like or similar commitment
from our major allies--Germany, France and Great Britain--who are
currently reducing the number of their troops? Will this create any
further strain on our soldiers and what are the military plans to
address this?
Navy:
Answer. Respectfully defer judgment on these important questions to
the President and Secretary of Defense, who continue to work on how
best to address these specific challenges.
Question. President Obama also stated that he would like to see a
``surge'' in Afghanistan. Given recent lessons learned in Iraq and
Afghanistan, is it your view that the U.S. can effectively win the
fight in Afghanistan alone or will we need a like or similar commitment
from our major allies--Germany, France and Great Britain--who are
currently reducing the number of their troops? Will this create any
further strain on our soldiers and what are the military plans to
address this?
Air Force:
Answer: I defer judgment on these important questions to President
Obama and Secretary Gates, who continue to work on how best to address
the challenges you raise.

Single Soldier Housing Entitlements

Question. Is the Army transferring the cost of not having
sufficient barracks space to soldiers by giving them a certificate of
non-availability to move off post but not providing them with a
dislocation allowance? Why are soldiers forced to break their lease,
pack up their home goods and shut off their utilities upon deployment?
Answer. The Army is not transferring the cost of having
insufficient barracks space to Soldiers by giving them certificates of
non-availability to move off-post. The Army programs housing for single
Soldiers in the ranks of Private through Sergeant in the United States
and Private through Staff Sergeant overseas. For those ranks, a
certificate of non-availability is provided to Soldiers to authorize
payment of Basic Allowance for Housing at the ``without dependents''
rate when barracks space is not available. If a Soldier is authorized
to reside in barracks, and that Soldier is denied accommodation due to
lack of adequate space in the barracks, that Soldier is paid a
dislocation allowance. The Army is not aware of any such instance where
a Soldier has been denied a validated dislocation allowance.
Garrison commanders develop local housing policies based on
individual garrison needs that may require Soldiers living off-post to
break a lease when being deployed. If a Soldier is required by the
commander to break his or her lease prior to deployment, the Soldier
returns to the barracks, and household goods are stored at government
expense.
Thursday, March 12, 2009.

REVIEW OF VA CHALLENGES

WITNESSES

JOHN D. DAIGH, JR., MD, CPA, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR HEALTH
CARE INSPECTIONS
RANDALL B. WILLIAMSON, DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE, GAO
VALERIE C. MELVIN, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN CAPITAL
ISSUES, GAO
BELINDA J. FINN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITING
MAUREEN T. REGAN, COUNSELOR TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Good morning. I would like to
begin the hearing and welcome our witnesses and everyone here
in the room.
When I had the privilege of becoming chairman of this
subcommittee 2 years ago, I said I would have three goals in
regard to veterans: one, that we would increase funding so that
we provide the resources needed to provide the care and
services that our veterans have earned by their service to the
country; secondly, that we exercise more oversight of the V.A.
and how those dollars are being spent; and, thirdly, that we
work together with the V.A. and VSOs and others to find
innovative new approaches to providing better care and get a
bigger bang for the buck for our taxpayers.
Today's hearing is going to focus on the second of those
three goals, our responsibility as a subcommittee to exercise
oversight of the V.A. I am proud of the fact that, by working
together on a bipartisan basis, we have increased V.A. funding
in the last 14 months by $17.7 billion, an unprecedented
increase.
But with that unprecedented increase comes responsibility
to taxpayers and our veterans to see that those dollars are
being spent wisely. So the specific purpose of this morning's
hearing is--with the help of our witnesses--to evaluate some of
the challenges being faced by the V.A.
We all know we could have an entire week of hearings on all
the good things going on in the V.A., but today we are going to
make improvements. We have got to focus honestly and directly
on challenges. And so that is what we are here to try to
accomplish.
I want to welcome both the Office of Inspector General for
the Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States
Government Accountability Office here to be part of this panel.
The hearing this morning will be conducted in two panels.
The first will focus on V.A. health care, and the second will
review information technology and other challenges of the V.A.
Let me just say very briefly that, in recent years,
Congress has provided unprecedented increases, as I mentioned,
to the Department of the V.A., $17.7 billion since the
beginning of the 110th Congress.
The Office of Inspector General and the GAO play a vital
role in ensuring that these appropriated funds for the
department are spent efficiently and for the highest
priorities. Congress relies on both of these highly
professional, nonpartisan offices to alert us to the problems
with department operations and to recommend actions that can be
taken to resolve these problems.
I will be introducing our two witnesses in just a moment.
But, again, welcome to our subcommittee.
And with that, I would like to recognize our ranking
member, Mr. Wamp, for any opening comments he would care to
make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, the goals you stated are laudable.
I think we are on the path to achieving those goals, and we
have a great bipartisan team that is an absolute privilege and
honor.
I just want to say briefly before we hear the testimony and
ask a lot of questions that need to be asked as we begin this
budget cycle year and the appropriations that follow, the I.G.
and the GAO are very helpful. And those statutes that created
inspector generals and the fact that the GAO is a watchdog,
birddog, the eyes and ears for the Congress, and it is very
helpful.
I appreciate the people that you represent when you come
today that are doing the research and turning the rocks over to
find out what is under them so that we can actually do our job
more effectively, because this is the one piece of the
congressional responsibility that neither party has a lot to
brag about. The oversight of the Congress, in my opinion, in
the modern era is not adequate.
It is more complicated than it has ever been, so it is
harder to oversee, but at the same time I think we are too
inclined as a body to go do things and then just let it happen,
as opposed to going back and deciding, are we still on the
right road? Or do we even have any business doing this?
We know we have business doing what you are here today to
talk about. But the question is, is it done as efficiently as
it possibly can be? And that is where you can really help us,
because there are a lot of ways that we can tweak, improve, and
rewrite language in our bill, which has to go forward.
That is the difference between this committee and a lot of
other committees. You might give testimony before the Veterans
Affairs Committee and the legislation you are talking about
never becomes law. Our bill will become law every year.
Therefore, we really appreciate what you are bringing to
it. I just want to re-state the value that it can bring to
these professionals that will actually put our bill together
soon, even though we don't have much idea of what the
President's budget request says yet. That prescription is not
there, but we have to go ahead and get started. I think I speak
for both of us there.
And with that, I look forward to the testimony and I yield
back.
Mr. Edwards. I just want to thank you very much for your
very important, insightful, and appropriate comments.
Let me first introduce Dr. John Daigh. Dr. Daigh was
appointed assistant inspector general for health care, health
care inspections in January of 2004 for the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Colonel Daigh retired in 2001 after 27 years
of active-duty service in the United States Army.
And, Colonel, I thank you for that service, as well.
Dr. Daigh earned his medical degree from the University of
Texas Southwestern Medical School and wouldn't want to suggest
that is why he is here today, but it is good to have a fellow
Texan here today. And he actually graduated prior to that from
the United States Military Academy, class of 1974.
Let me also add an extra note. I am proud that this
subcommittee, against the wishes of most administrations,
Democrat and Republican alike, are not always the first to
volunteer a request for additional spending for inspector
generals.
We felt that this was awfully important, given the
unprecedented new money that we have put into the V.A., that
the V.A. inspector general's office be adequately funded. So we
actually plussed that up on a bipartisan basis. And I think
that will help us in our oversight efforts.
Mr. Randy Williamson is currently director in GAO's health
care team and is a staff member of GAO's Seattle field office.
He has been with GAO for over 40 years. He has managed audits
covering a wide range of federal activities, most recently
health care, transportation, and homeland security issues.
He currently manages GAO's portfolio of work on health care
issues for veterans and members of the Armed Services, two very
important responsibilities, Mr. Williamson, and we thank you
for that. He attended the University of Washington, where he
received a bachelor's degree in accounting.
To both of you, we will put your entire written testimony
in the record, but we would like to ask you to take 5 minutes
each to make your opening comments. I know there will be a lot
of dialogue and questions and answers and discussion after your
statement.
Dr. Daigh.

Statement of John Daigh

Dr. Daigh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the critical
challenges facing the department. We appreciate your support of
our efforts in the inspector general's office.
First, I would like to state that I believe that V.A.
provides high-quality health care to veterans. I do, however,
believe, as I stated before the House Veterans Affairs
Committee during the Marion, Illinois, hearings, that the
internal controls do need to be improved to assure that there
is a uniform high-quality benefit. Secondly, although our
published work in this particular area of computerized medical
records is limited, I am concerned that the rate of innovation
of the V.A.'s computer medical records has not kept pace.
And if that rate of innovation doesn't improve, I think it
will be progressively more difficult for V.A. to address the
challenges of the future.
Thirdly, I believe that it is beneficial to review the
current management structure of VHA, which emphasizes that all
health care is local. This has resulted in the creation of
business rules that vary too widely across the V.A. system.
I would offer as an example of that policy, there are many
copies of the medical record. It is not one set of code; it is
50 or 80 different sets of code. So to change the medical
record or to innovate is really quite a difficult issue.
The VISNs are all organized quite differently. Hospitals
are organized quite differently so that, to make a change or to
manage this enterprise there is a burden that is unnecessary.
Lastly, I would urge support for a project that is known as
the DOD/V.A. Reporting and Analysis Data Mart. This data mart
works to combine data from both DOD and V.A. It is an outgrowth
of the efforts on transition to care, which would create a
universe of veteran data that when fully implemented, I think,
would make it easier to derive innovative performance metrics,
improve budgeting and forecast modeling, and analysis of V.A.
and DOD business processes.
And with that, I am pleased to be here today and glad to
answer your questions.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Dr. Daigh.
Mr. Williamson.

Statement of Randall B. Williamson

Mr. Williamson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss V.A.
health-related budget issues as you consider V.A.'s 2010 budget
request.
The V.A. faces major budget challenges as it prepares to
meet the needs of both an aging veteran population, as well as
a growing number of veterans who have served their country in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
V.A. faces a major budget challenge in its budget
formulation process to accurately estimate the cost of
providing quality services to our nation's veterans. This will
not be easy. By its very nature, budget formulation is
challenging because it is based in part on imperfect data and
assumptions, which is further complicated in the changing
environment the V.A. faces.
Budget execution will also be challenging. If the
president's proposed budget increases are enacted, V.A. faces a
prospect of hiring thousands of new health care providers and
support staff, serving new veteran populations, and expanding
current services and developing new programs to better serve
our veterans.
As V.A. moves forward to address these challenges this year
and beyond, it must do so thoughtfully and with diligence. Our
work over the past 3 years has shown weaknesses in V.A.'s
budget formulation and execution processes, and I would briefly
like to discuss a few of these areas. Many of these issues
involve V.A.'s long-term care budget.
Regarding budget formulation, we reported in 2006 that V.A.
made unrealistic assumptions about the impact of some of its
policies, made inaccurate calculations, and did not obtain
sufficient data for useful budget projections.
These factors were largely responsible for V.A. having to
request supplemental funding totaling $975 million in fiscal
year 2005 and amending its fiscal year 2006 budget to increase
its request by almost $2 billion.
Early this year, we again reported on budget formulation
issues for the long-term care portion of V.A.'s budget.
Specifically, in its 2009 budget request, V.A. may have made
unrealistic assumptions about the cost of both its nursing home
and non-institutional long-term care.
For example, V.A. projected that the cost of a day of non-
institutional long-term care would not increase at all, when
available data showed that it was increasing at a rate of 19
percent. Assumptions like these call into question the
credibility of V.A.'s budget information.
Budget execution has been a problem in certain respects, as
well, and this area poses a major challenge for V.A., as it
faces a potential budget increase of about 10 percent in fiscal
year 2010.
For example, our work in 2006 on spending for V.A.'s mental
health initiatives shows that V.A. allocated $300 million in
fiscal years 2005 and 2006 for new mental health initiatives,
but the agency was not able to spend all of this in those years
due to delays in both hiring staff and locating space.
Similarly, in our recent report on long-term care, we found
that V.A. assumed in its 2009 budget request that it would
increase its non-institutional long-term care by 38 percent
over the previous year, which means that V.A. would have to
hire and train significant numbers of staff in a one-year
period. V.A. did not explain how it planned to achieve this
increase.
Tracking the use of funds for new initiatives has also been
an issue. We reported in 2006 that the V.A. did not have
adequate methods for tracking spending on its mental health
initiatives and could not determine whether monies allocated
were actually spent on those initiatives.
This ability to track funds, especially for new initiatives
and priorities, is critical for effective and cost-efficient
budget execution and congressional oversight.
Mr. Chairman, as I close, I would like to re-emphasize
again the importance for V.A. to adopt a thoughtful, well-
planned approach to budget formulation and execution. To its
credit, V.A. has implemented a number of our recommendations to
address past budget issues, but continued vigilance is
necessary.
Anticipating and sufficiently planning for changes and
proactively addressing workload and spending challenges are
critical, including the need for forward-looking and careful
strategic planning.
Equally important is the need to keep the Congress well
informed, including developing and reporting data that will
help the Congress oversee and hold V.A. accountable for the
funds entrusted to it to best serve our nation's veterans.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
As we begin questions, members, let me say, out of respect
to everyone's schedules, since we have two panels this
morning--and actually two hearings, with a second hearing this
afternoon--I am going to go on and gavel us all to close when
we hit 5 minutes. And I will begin that process, asking staff
to do that with me. And that way we can get through more rounds
of questions.
So if you are in the middle of an answer when I gavel, if
you could finish that sentence. You can make it a long
sentence----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. But--we would appreciate that.
Mr. Williamson, let me begin by asking you, dealing with
the issues, the problems that you mentioned, has GAO come out
with specific recommendations about how to address those?
Mr. Williamson. Yes, we have come up with a number of
recommendations as far as long-term care programs, both in
terms of strategic planning, as well as budget execution and
formulation.
One of the things that we found in looking in the strategic
plan was that V.A. was not being totally transparent in looking
at the total workload that it would serve by not fully
communicating this information in its plan.
Instead V.A. reported only workload for priority one vets
that were going to receive nursing home care, but did not
report the lion's portion of the workload in long-term care
which is discretionary. We think it is important that the
entire workload be reported. We made a recommendation to do
that.
On the budget formulation side, the important thing there
is to come up with good cost assumptions. The cost assumptions
for both nursing home care and non-institutional care were far
below the current experience of the V.A. So we made
recommendations that V.A. use better estimates in that regard.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Very good. Thank you.
And we welcome additional--information. I am sure staff has
copies of some of your reports. We could take a look at those--
--
Mr. Williamson. Okay.
Mr. Edwards. Dr. Daigh, you talked about the management
approach of the V.A., that all health care is local. I would
like to apply that to mental health care. I understand each
hospital has a certain culture and individuals, and you respect
that, but nevertheless--and mental health care is an example--I
am worried about, do we have the best practices, particularly
since the mental health problem is going to be the signature
challenge of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we deal with
veterans health care needs?
Are we making any progress in terms of trying to find best
practices and then apply those throughout the V.A. health care
system, and particularly on mental health treatment for our
vets?
Dr. Daigh. Let me address that in a couple of thoughts
here. First I think it is extremely difficult to treat PTSD,
which would be the most common condition servicemen have. There
is, in fact, a set of treatments that have been viewed as best
practice in that data does support that they do work.
We are saddened that these treatments have not been rolled
out more aggressively and that the wars have gone on for a
number of years and the treatment or the training of providers
to provide that set of practices has not been rolled out as
aggressively as we would like.
Having said that, I think people who are psychologists and
psychiatrists and social workers and properly trained in mental
health can deal with these issues effectively. I think adding
that extra arrow into their quiver helps their ability to treat
these patients.
The new plan that V.A. has to roll out a mental health
services standard set of programs across the system, I think,
is a good effort. I think it sets a very high mark, in terms of
having every hospital--being able to provide a standard package
of care.
I am concerned that it is aggressive. In my view, V.A. is
comprised of a series of hospitals that are low-volume
providers. It is difficult for a low-volume provider to
economically provide a complex set of treatment packages where
you have individuals dedicated to only one program out of many.
In our reviews of the millennium health care programs, we found
that larger places in big cities could easily tap into
resources and--smaller places had a more difficult time.
So I think there does need to be the flexibility to allow
local providers to pick which of these plans they think would
be better suited to their population. And I think the plan does
address that in its formulation.
The other question with PTSD that we have looked at is, are
veterans being treated well for PTSD? And I will say that we
think they are being treated well. We have looked at this at
Temple. We have looked at this in a variety of hospitals across
the system.
And although we find problems occasionally with the
delivery of the care, I think that V.A. is trying to make the
right diagnosis on the clinical side and in VBA a different
stovepipe effort has to deal with the benefit side.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wamp.

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

Mr. Wamp. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a chairman
gavel down like that. [Laughter.]
Just keep on this line of thought about PTSD, because you
talked about how hard it is to treat. How hard is it to
actually bring mental health professionals in that have any
experience in the battlefield or with multiple deployments, all
of the things that we know contribute mightily to these mental
health problems?
It is one thing to know how to treat it, but I would think
that it would be real important to also know what the veterans
in some way, shape or form have been through.
I have been worried about the rapid increase in funding
because it doesn't always translate into efficiency, especially
when you spend money really fast like in a stimulus bill. You
come back 12 months later, 18 months later and say, ``Man, this
is ugly. You know, we are not efficiently spending the money.''
In this case with this ramp-up, I noticed in 2008 $319
million directed at PTSD. You talk about the numbers in
previous years but that is a lot of money. Do you think it is
efficiently being spent? Do you think that these mental health
care professionals are adequately meeting the needs of the
veterans, and do they have the experience in the war, in
serving? Where do they come from?
How do you, over the next 3 to 5 years, keep ramping up?
How would they, how should they ramp up their capabilities to
meet these needs? The suicide rate is, like I said, the canary
in the mine here. We know that that is the stress point, so
mental health is a big topic of discussion as we go through
these hearings.
How do we try to help the V.A. ramp up this piece?
Yes, sir, Mr. Daigh.
Dr. Daigh. Well, sir, I would make the point that, although
I agree that military PTSD, both whether it is sexual trauma or
related to combat exposure, is by and large a military event,
it is not totally a military event.
For instance, police officers and firemen also, through the
course of their life, see horrible things repeatedly. So the
civilian trained and functioning psychologists and
psychiatrists and social workers do have experience with the
phenomena of PTSD that is not the same, but it is close.
So I think one can then, where resources are constrained
and where the population is relatively small, try to leverage
people who are not fully employed by the V.A. to try to improve
access.
We have recently completed a report on access to mental
health care in a state, which we plan to publish in the next
week or 2. They leveraged community mental health care centers,
I think, to great advantage. And I think it is possible to ramp
up access to care, assuming that you have some metric to ensure
that people see providers who are qualified to provide the care
and you don't rely totally on the fixed facilities the V.A.
seems to have.
So I think there are some ways one could improve access
that would be helpful.
As to the efficiency and dollar values you talk about, I am
not able to address that issue, sir.

VA MEDICAL PROCEDURE PROBLEMS

Mr. Wamp. I don't know if I can get to this whole question
in this 5 minutes, but I will come back, but in Tennessee, we
have had a problem that has come out, beginning February the
13th, about certain people in Murfreesboro's being exposed to
body fluids of other people during colonoscopies.
And 6,400 people were kind of put on notice that they may
have been affected. And now this week, Johnson City, another
health facility, notified some people that it might have bled
over into their facility, as well, where patients are being
treated at both places.
Is this a systemic problem? Is it being addressed? Another
canary in the mind. When it happens in one system, you have got
to say, ``What do you know?'' And so we can come back after 5
minutes, but let me know what you know.
Dr. Daigh. Yes, sir, I think that repeatedly in health care
there are going to be instances where instruments are defective
or procedures are defective and patients are exposed to
environmental contaminants.
So we recently reported in Las Vegas where, in doing
colonoscopies that were purchased care, a huge number of people
were exposed to hepatitis and potentially to AIDS. There have
been other instances where specific instruments were not--
either the instructions to clean them were not appropriate or
the cleaning process done at the hospital broke down.
V.A., through their patient safety program, aggressively
tries to pre-emptively deal with these issues. When they find a
problem, they notify veterans and try to get it addressed. In
the last couple of years, the SPD--that would be the rules that
pertain to how one cleans instruments and uses the infectious
disease protocols to ensure that sort of thing doesn't occur--
have been rewritten and strengthened.
So I think the problem is important. It will not go away.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Dr. Daigh.
Members, since this is our second hearing, I have
incorporated some of the suggestions made at our first hearing.
So let me just quickly reiterate what we are going to do in
terms of the list of who asks questions.
Those members that are here when we gavel the meeting into
order will be recognized based on seniority, rotating between
Republicans and Democrats. After the meeting has begun, members
will be recognized based on the order in which they showed up--
again, rotating between Republicans and--and Democrats.
With that, I would like to recognize Mr. Salazar.

COMMUNITY-BASED OUTREACH CLINICS

Mr. Salazar. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now I know the
importance of getting here 15, 20 minutes early. [Laughter.]
I do appreciate it. But as many of you know, my district is
one of the largest congressional districts in the country. It
is all of the western and southern part of Colorado. Much of
the services provided to veterans is in CBOCs, some that are
contract-based CBOCs, some that are V.A.-run CBOCs.
Can you tell me----
Mr. Dicks. What is a CBOC?
Mr. Salazar. Community-based outreach clinics. They are
small clinics that are----
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Salazar. Don't have--with very basic services to
veterans. Do you know or have you done any research as to who
does a better job? Is it the contract-based CBOCs or V.A.-run
CBOCs?
Dr. Daigh. We think that is a very important question. And
we brought that to the attention of this subcommittee last
year, and we have been provided money to take a look at some of
those issues.
We will begin to review CBOCs like we currently review
hospitals--and we will specifically have sorted CBOCs into
those that are contract-run and those that are not contract-
run. There are about 800 CBOCs nationwide.
We have sampled them. And we will try to come back with an
answer to--both on the quality side and on the certain aspects
of the budgetary side of that with an answer to that question.
So I cannot answer it right now, but we will have reports
this year that directly address it.
Mr. Salazar. What percentage are contract-run versus--do
you know that?
Dr. Daigh. If you will allow me to--I think about a third
or less are contract. Most are V.A.-run. I can get you the
abstract data with numbers on that, if you would like that--get
that back to you, sir.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you. Appreciate that.
[Clerk's note.--The responses are included with the
questions for the record.]
I yield back, Mr. Chairman, so somebody else can ask.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Crenshaw.

BUDGET ESTIMATES

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask--you know, Mr. Williamson, when you talked about
the--the V.A. and the budget process, it sounds like, you hit
and miss from time to time. It seems to me you have got--to
have the right kind of budget, you need--first, you have got to
have the plan. Then you have got to have the correct estimates.
And then you have got to timely execute it.
And it sounds like they have been missing on, you know,
some, if not all of those. What, like, when you sit down and
talk to them, whether they underestimate it or overestimate,
what has been the reaction? And do you see improvement from
year to year? Or do you find that sometimes the same mistakes
get made? Or are they just--is it just really difficult to do
that?
I mean, how does it fit in, when you sit down and say,
``Here is a better way''? What is their attitude toward that?
And do you find that the correction is being made?
Mr. Williamson. The V.A. reacts positively to our
recommendations. But, it seems to be a little different
situation every time.
Some of the answers we get, in terms of why they
underestimated or why they came up with unrealistic cost
estimates, for example, the answer we get would be, well, we
wanted to be conservative. Well, that wasn't a very satisfying
answer to me, because, you know, in the face of much higher
estimates or experiences they have had, so there must be, you
know, some other things going on that they are not telling us.
I think the big thing in terms of planning is, whenever you
get a fairly large infusion of money, it is very important that
you have good goals and priorities ahead of time. And that is
why strategic planning is so important, in terms of setting the
priorities of the agency, the goals of the agency, setting
strategies.
And we haven't seen--at least in the long-term care
budget--any thoughtful consideration of that. And I think, in a
larger sense, as we harken back to our work on the mental
health report in 2006, the same kind of thing.
They decided to allocate money, $300 million in those 2
years, 2005 and 2006, and yet didn't really have a good idea
and didn't really carry through with distributing that money to
their VISNs and to their health care facilities.
When we did that work, a lot of the VISNs were not aware of
the fact they were supposed to use those allocations for mental
health. And as V.A. allocates money, it is really important
that they communicate between headquarters, the VISNs, and
their medical centers. And sometimes that communication is
lacking.
We point those things out, and they are very receptive, and
they fix them, but other things then occur.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, like on the--what you are talking
about, discretionary care and kind of the long-term care, that
what they call discretionary seems to me it is really not
really discretionary. It is part of the long-term care, but it
is maybe an effort to shorten the stay to save money.
When you point that out, do they recognize--I mean, that is
like, fudging the numbers to say, well, this is--we are going
to have a short-term stay, but the long-term stay is
discretionary, but it really is not discretionary, because it
is part of some, acute situation that is going on.
Mr. Williamson. What I meant by that was that V.A. is only
required by law to serve priority one vets in their long-term
care facilities, but most of the vets they serve are not
priority one. Two-thirds or more are lower priorities.
So--and they only feel responsible for reporting the
priority ones. And it is useful information to you as you
deliberate. You need to know the total--you know, the total
workload. And so we pointed it out. And they are going to--
well, we don't know what they are going to do yet, because
while they agreed with our conclusions, they have not yet
responded to our recommendations on that.

IDENTITY THEFT

Mr. Crenshaw. I want to ask about identity theft, because I
noticed that was something you are focusing on. And we used to
see it in the big sense, like the big massive loss of data,
when that laptop got stolen.
But how is that working? In terms of individual identity
theft, how do you find out when that takes place? Is it very
common? How is the V.A. doing, trying to protect against that?
Mr. Williamson. --anything about that? The identity theft?
Dr. Daigh. I am unable to comment on how V.A. is doing. My
office investigated Birmingham--one of the larger data losses.
I would just say that I think they provide the ability for you
to check whether or not your identity has been stolen through
civilian providers of financial information, but I am unaware
of it.
Mr. Crenshaw. Got you. So not a great, big problem right
now on an individual basis that you have seen?
Dr. Daigh. I have no information.
Mr. Crenshaw. I got you. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Dicks.

VA AUDITS

Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we appreciate your
fairness in applying the rules. I just wanted to say that.
Let me, first of all----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. I appreciate the gentleman's suggestions.
Mr. Dicks. Since we have a University of Washington alumnus
here, I want to--Bremerton--this is too good to be true.
Let me ask you this. We have--on my subcommittee, we have
been checking on whether an agency can pass an audit. Can the
V.A. pass an audit on how they spend the money at the end of
the year, financially?
Ms. Finn. And I can tell you that V.A. has received--
Mr. Edwards. Ms. Finn, for the record and for the
transcription, could you please identify yourself?
Mr. Dicks. Maybe you ought to just come up to the--
Mr. Edwards. And maybe come up and sit here?
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Finn. Okay.
Thanks. I am Belinda Finn. I am the assistant I.G. for
audits at the V.A.
The V.A. has successfully passed and received a clean
opinion on their financial statements for about the last 10
years.
Mr. Dicks. Good.
Ms. Finn. It doesn't mean they don't have problems. They
have three material weaknesses, one over their I.T. systems and
their security, their need for better financial systems, and a
third weakness that I cannot recall at this moment.
Mr. Dicks. Don't they also have a problem communicating
with the Department of Defense health care, that that is still
an issue?
Ms. Finn. They do, but that is not a financial statement.
Mr. Dicks. Okay, that is a separate----
Ms. Finn. Yes, weakness.
Mr. Dicks. That is a separate problem?
Ms. Finn. Yes.
Mr. Dicks. Well, for the record, why don't you give us--and
you can figure out what the third one was.
Ms. Finn. I will do that.
Mr. Dicks. Yes.

TELEMEDICINE

Mr. Dicks. Dr. Daigh, let me ask you this question. I have
been promoting this idea, and I am having a hard time with the
Army getting this done. Now, maybe the V.A. could help them.
When these kids come back--and this is not just for the
Army and the Marine Corps, but this also could be for the Guard
Reserve, the National Guard--we have had people come in who
have this idea of online psychiatric care. In other words, with
the concern people have about privacy--and even you could maybe
even do this in country. If they had a problem, there could be
a network of psychiatrists that they could go online and talk
to and to try to help relieve their problems.
And with this escalation in suicides, it seems to me that
something needs to be done. Now, the Army is working its way
through this methodically, and it is going to take 4 months to
have a competition--an RFI on this.
I just wonder, is there any way we can figure out to do a
pilot project or something to see if this works while they are
working out these competition rules and things of that nature?
What do you think of that?
Dr. Daigh. By online, you mean telephone or do you mean----
Mr. Dicks. No, on computer.
Dr. Daigh. On computer.
Mr. Dicks. On the Internet.
Dr. Daigh. Okay. So there----
Mr. Dicks. And this has been done in some places already,
but it is not being done on a systematic basis.
Dr. Daigh. Right. So there is a nationwide V.A. suicide
hotline which we were advocates of and--has been very
successful. Online, if you mean video, would--under another
rubric would be sort of mental video telehealth is a standard
way that professionals provide medical consultation either
directly to patients or to other providers with less
experience.
So, for instance, you might have an expert in--a
psychiatrist sitting in a desk who you could go and project his
image and conversation to a social worker at some other
location with the patient, and you could talk about a mental
health issue or you could talk about a skin disease or you
could talk about a variety of issues.
Mr. Dicks. Well, what about the troop--the person who is
having mental problems, and he wants to--and maybe he wants to
do this confidentially, can he talk to a psychiatrist and get
some help?
Dr. Daigh. I am always concerned about trying to understand
the emotion that is in speech and information that is
transferred.
Mr. Dicks. Yes.
Dr. Daigh. So I would think that either the telephone or
seeing them and hearing them would convey a lot more
information that would be useful to the mental health provider
than simply a chat room or an Internet conversation.
Mr. Dicks. Well, maybe you could--could that be done? I
mean, could you do it so you could have the conversation on a
video basis?
Dr. Daigh. I believe that the military currently does it
all the time now----
Mr. Dicks. Yes, I mean----
Dr. Daigh. --across the world to Walter Reed. The V.A. does
it or telehealth in--for example and many other states. So the
answer is, yes, I think it can be done, and I think fairly
easily.
Most people, if you have a computer and you have a video
camera, then I would think you could do that.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. An important line of
questioning.
Mr. Berry.

COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINICS

Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you addressed Mr. Salazar's question about CBOCs and
outside contractors, I would think it should include a
comparison about how small business set-asides that get these
bids, that basically have no expertise or background in health
care, get a bid and see how the care--which is all any of us
care about on this committee--of course, we have all got to be
concerned about money--but is to see that our veterans get the
best possible care that they can get.
And I would encourage you to compare that in the study that
you do. And if you have any information about it at this point,
I would like to know about it. But I would like to see that
done.
Dr. Daigh. That is not an element in our current plan, but
we will look--I will go back. And when we have the data--
quality of care between those that are contracted and those
CBOCs that are not contracted, we will look at that and get
that back to you.
Mr. Berry. Okay, thank you.
Dr. Daigh. It may not be--since the samples weren't
selected to answer that question, it may not be statistically
significant, but I will give you the data we have on it.
Mr. Berry. Okay.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Berry.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Chairman.
Mr. Daigh, I want to just thank you for your public
service. I think it is--we are very fortunate to have you with
a medical program and CPA background being able to do this. And
I think with this committee we are almost--we like to have
these hearings in a conversational mode so that we can really
kind of fix things that are broken.
Do you have a chance--I mean, you are the inspector for,
you know, health care inspections, but in that you get to see
how things are--as you said in your opening comments. I think
the policy of our committee--at least I have been saying ever
since I have been in this committee--that our goal is to leave
no veteran behind.
My hope and feeling is that if there is any model in
government that could really reach out and provide all those
kinds of services that are needed to leave no person behind, no
veteran behind, that it is the Veterans Administration.
I am glad Mr. Wamp is here, because he may be a governor of
a state, and it seems to me the Veterans Administration can be
modeling for a lot of people, a lot of states, a lot of
interests in this whole health care reform, which is also,
hopefully, mental health reform, so that we have an
accessibility of services.

HOMELESS VETERANS

And I loved your statement that all health care is local.
In that, I have lots of questions, but I am really concerned
about what we are doing with the homeless veterans. We heard
that we have 250,000 homeless veterans that are sleeping on the
streets of America. That is a lot. And we ought to be, as a
country, embarrassed.
For some of them, there are no facilities. We have been
trying to allow the civilian community to be contracted,
particularly with PTSD, for local psychologists who are
licensed and can treat these folks, so that the veterans don't
have to go a lot of miles to get access to a clinic or a
hospital.
How we can close these gaps and what things we can do? I
have a Vietnam veterans association that has received a bunch
of houses from the closure of Fort Ord that are rundown and not
up to code. They actually have homeless families that they are
trying to put in these houses. And we don't have any--money to
rehab the places and bring them up to code.
How do we, in your position, bring the recommendations to
how to close these gaps so that we can really have a much
better, seamless delivery of care? You are pioneering. You are
pioneering the medical records. You are pioneering these
clinics and these community-based clinics.
I think you are really pioneering a lot of things that the
Department of Defense doesn't do, nor does the other deliveries
of health care that we have in the U.S.
So in your professional role, do you see a bigger picture
of how we might be able to address the gaps?
Dr. Daigh. Yes, sir, I do. The last effort that I asked for
support for was the DOD/V.A. reporting and analysis tool. And I
think if one understands who veterans are and understands their
characteristics and where they live and has access and
understands what their mental health needs or physical health
care needs are, then one can begin actually to look at the V.A.
care that is available, where they access the V.A. system.
You can access and see where they access DOD. You could see
where they access the Medicare or Medicaid, where they are
getting their care from. You can begin to see if there are
other HHS clinics out there that they are getting their care
from.
So you can build a picture of where they are getting care.
And you can also build a picture of where they are not getting
care and where you need care or you need to procure care of
some type.
Mr. Farr. We are not doing that?
Dr. Daigh. I think that we are currently focused on and the
metrics we submit with the budget are focused on transactions.
If you show up at this hospital and ask for care, were you
provided it? Not, if you live on the other side of the mountain
and you are the same person are you provided that care?
Mr. Farr. Thank you--
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
Welcome. I know the chairman got into this at the outset,
but I would like to revisit it, and that is the standards. I am
enormously impressed and what is so impressive about the V.A.
is that it is the biggest public health system we have in our
country and that it has scale and that we can measure outcomes
on a scale basis and take what works and bring it to scale.
But we have it for MRSA. We have it for cancer. We have it
for every illness under the sun, but we don't have it for
mental illnesses.
Now, the big debate now in the mental health community is
between clinical outcomes and functional outcomes. And the real
meat and potatoes here are functional outcomes. You know, we
can debate all day about clinical outcomes, but we know what
functional outcomes are. We know what--people can get up and go
to work, hold down a job, not drink as much, be able to stay
compliant with their meds.
There are pretty basic measures. And those aren't measures
that are hard to get. We can get them from the NIDA, NIAAA, and
NIH. And until we employ some basic measuring sticks, we are
not going to know whether your methadone clinic or your out-
patient clinic in Chicago or your PTSD clinic combined with
your methadone clinic in Houston or your Providence V.A. and
whatever it is doing with their vet-to-vet program is, which
program has had more success in terms of getting veterans back
on their feet, going to the local community college, and having
the greatest success academically and in the working world, so
forth and so on.
So I can't implore you enough. We have got to lay down
standards. As, you know, rudimentary as they may initially be,
we have got to start somewhere. And I am wondering, why haven't
we?
Dr. Daigh. Do you mean standards--population at risk or do
you----
Mr. Kennedy. Standards by which to measure how we are
doing. We are never going to get anywhere knowing what is
working and what is not working out there if we don't know
first what the objective measuring stick is, what we are after.
Dr. Daigh. I would agree with you that the current metrics
that are used and submitted with the budget are usually
transactional or process metrics, which I agree are what you
are against. We are looking for, you know, functional outcome
and----
Mr. Kennedy. Right, functional.
Dr. Daigh. So what I am suggesting is that, again, if you
know who the population is, one can have outcome measures to
apply to a population to see if folks are going where you would
like them to go, the outcomes are what you would like.
For instance, there might be a unit that comes back from
Iraq that decides to demobilize in a way that they provide
specific training to their soldiers or do specific things to
try to ensure that they don't have PTSD or that----
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Dr. Daigh [continuing]. Outcome. And there might be another
unit that had similar activity that didn't take those steps or
took a different set of steps. So if you know who was there and
you then can go and look and see several years down the road
what the outcome was, one can look back and see if one idea of
how to deal with this on the battlefield or after the
battlefield made a difference.
So I am completely on board and advocating that this sort
of data be put together so one can do the kind of analysis you
are suggesting to ferret out which ideas seem to be working the
best.
Mr. Kennedy. So speaking of audits, we need to be tracking
all the different data that is being--and employ it in terms of
how it is being collected, so we know what is working and what
is not working in a manageable way. And how do we propose--how
do you propose we get about doing that?
Dr. Daigh. In my office, I have to rely on psychiatrists or
mental health professionals to identify what they think the
best outcome metric would be for a mental health issue or on a
cardiologist, for example, but DOD and V.A. are currently
working to try to get this----
Mr. Kennedy. Okay.
Dr. Daigh [continuing]. Together.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, that is what, Mr. Chairman, we need to
work on, bring the mental health and DOD folks up here and get
them to answer what they are doing in terms of mental health
metrics.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Kennedy, may I interrupt?
Mr. Kennedy. Sure.
Mr. Edwards. I am going to stick to the 5-minute rule on
this round, but we are going to go directly into a second
round.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay.
Mr. Edwards. And recognize members. And let me just say,
members, on a second round, the policy will be we will
recognize members by seniority, as long as they were here when
the second round began.
So we will go with Mr. Wamp, and then we will go with Mr.
Farr, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Kennedy, and then Mr. Berry.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. It may be Farr, Kennedy, Salazar, Berry, Salazar,
in that order.
Anyway, and this will be my last question for these two,
because I know we have got to move on with the other panel in
this.

COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINICS

The 30,000-foot view, Mr. Chairman, where I wonder often,
having been in Congress for over 14 years and really worked at
expanding our out-patient clinics' capabilities. Watching the
whole CBOC process evolve, and now super-CBOCs, and watching
the V.A. stiff-arm contracting care as much as they could, and
certainly any kind of demonstrations where they might contract
with local health care providers for in-patient care, which
they have resisted I think all across the country, but
certainly in my area they have.
We don't have a hospital within 2 hours of where I live. So
the CBOC becomes more and more important. And super-CBOCs can
really fill that gap of care.
So my question is, do you think from your studies--and
every year we need to check--are the trends towards super-CBOCs
and trying to keep as much care available to the veteran,
without having to drive 2 or 3 hours to get in-patient care, is
a good trend?
I thought when care was the big thing that we were somehow
going to take some of these older facilities in the Northeast
that are not fully utilized, and maybe close them and redirect
some of the resources to where the veterans had actually moved,
which in many cases was the warmer climate where there might be
a little water. A lot of it is in my backyard, but I haven't
seen that happen.
And I just wonder, are there regions of the country that
are more efficient than others? Are there regions where we are
spending money and doing things better? Or is it a uniform
outcome across the country, I.G. and then GAO?
Dr. Daigh. I would like to try to answer your question this
way. One of the issues that arose after some adverse events in
the last year or 2, where in trying to provide procedures at
relatively small hospitals there were some catastrophes, V.A.
has agreed to our recommendation to determine what procedures
can be done at each hospital by the level of staffing that they
have.
So they have gone through and identified what sort of care
they have for pre-op, op, post-op, and then ward care, if you
will. And they have gone through and looked at the surgical
procedures that they have done and categorized them into sort
of three groups, you know, relatively straightforward, and
complicated, and very complicated.
So they have agreed with us that there are certain things
that you just shouldn't do at a relatively small facility. So I
think that the push to do too much at a facility, hopefully,
will not occur, and therefore then one will have to come up
with strategies to deal with patients who are distant from a
CBOC, which has, frankly, you know, capability, but limited
capability, or hospitals, which all have limited capability,
depending--you know, there is always another bigger hospital
someplace that can do more.
So I am hoping that the V.A. will then be able to arrive at
some practical solutions to address that issue that you are
talking about.
Mr. Williamson. A couple of issues you raised are
interesting. I think, in the discussion of CBOCs, we shouldn't
forget vet centers, because for mental health issues
especially, vet centers are the entry point for more and more
vets these days. I think close to 65 million vets a year use
these facilities.
And I just recently visited a couple vet centers in
Southern California. And I think there are a number of issues
relating to staffing, to training, especially for things like
military sexual trauma, whether these folks are being
adequately trained for all of these things that veterans are
presenting, I think, is a question.
The other issue you mentioned, in terms of cost comparison,
V.A. has in place performance metrics which allow them to look
at how efficient each hospital throughout the country--each of
their hospitals are. And I think there is a question of whether
the headquarters or the VISNs are actually looking at that
data, looking at indicators, that maybe there are some
outliers, and really saying, ``Why is that happening? Is there
anything we can do about it?''
I mean, some of it might just be due to the fact that
health care costs are higher in certain locations. That is
certainly true. But I would want to look at that process and
something that we are interested in, in the work we are doing.
Mr. Wamp. How many veterans you say go to VA medical
facilities?
Mr. Williamson. I think we are close to 65 million.
Mr. Wamp. You mean----
Mr. Williamson. I mean----
Mr. Wamp. I heard that, and I said there are only, I think,
23 million--so I was wondering where this number came from?
Mr. Williamson. That is 65 million outpatient visits for VA
healthcare. That is the visits, yes.
Mr. Wamp. I understand. But I knew it wasn't 65 million.
Mr. Williamson. No, no, no, I know.
Mr. Wamp. Okay. I yield back.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.

ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS

Mr. Farr. There are 23 million veterans? Do we have the
capacity to have them all in a computer? I mean, you have to
know that they are a veteran if somebody comes in. There has to
be records of it, right?
Dr. Daigh. There are records of that.
Mr. Farr. How do we develop an individual plan for each
veteran, for what the options are?
Dr. Daigh. There are----
Mr. Farr. We want them to know that, hey, you are a
veteran, you are in a priority. You are this priority. Oh, by
the way, even in the county that you live in or community that
you live in, there are these resources available and in the
region there are others.
Because what you are saying is, all we are doing is keeping
track of sort of a check-off system, if somebody enters by
asking for services. And we count the ones that are using the
services. We are not keeping track of the unmet needs of
veterans.
Dr. Daigh. I have probably said it a little too harshly. I
think that there is a view of all the veterans, and all
veterans need care, but if you get down to the actual metrics
that people apply, most are transactional. So there are
limitations in going backward where data is not as well
computerized as we would like, pay records, for instance, so
you can identify people.
But if you look at the different computer systems, the
amount of data available degrades fairly quickly once you get
back into the 1990s, and you can build it back, but only at the
current level we are with limits.
So I agree with you that we should try to identify where
our folks are, what their priorities are, and then try to
assist them to get the care they need.
Mr. Farr. The reason I am asking is, I am on the
Agricultural Committee, and we are looking at the school lunch
programs, and I found out from California that we can find out
where all the poor kids live who would qualify for the school
lunch program better than the method the schools use. That
method essentially requires the parent to come in and say,
well, yes, I am poor, I want my kid to have a lunch. And I
thought, well, we can do that by using the Medicare and census
data.
Dr. Daigh. Yes, sir, there----
Mr. Farr. It tells you exactly where these people live and
who they are. We need to do that with veterans. I mean, we are
all so insular, and we can look at all these other resources
that governments have, whether they are federal, state or
local, but we have got that kind of data now. We just haven't
arrayed that data in a way that makes it helpful.
It is also not only the data, but are there, do we know,
some proven results? What does it take to get the treatment you
need? To make sure that you have some functional functionality.
It seems to me that it is really a matter of knowing how good
our records are and then using other resources that the federal
and state governments have to put a list together--If it were
good for one veteran in one community, it would be good for all
the veterans in that community.
All health care is local.
Dr. Daigh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. What is that health care?
Dr. Daigh. Well, sir, we are going to publish a report
where we took the population of veterans living in a state,
sampled them, geocoded where they lived, geocoded all the care
providers that V.A. owned, V.A. contracted with, and that V.A.
had fee basis----
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Dr. Daigh [continuing]. And then calculated drive time for
all those folks, breaking the care up into those folks who
could write prescriptions or those folks who could offer
counseling----
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Dr. Daigh [continuing]. And then looked at what that care
in that state looks like. So I am right there with you. I think
that is exactly----
Mr. Farr. How long is it going to take to do that?
Dr. Daigh. I am going to publish that in a couple of weeks
for one state.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Will you bring those back to this
committee----
Dr. Daigh. I would be----
Mr. Farr [continuing]. What those recommendations are, as
you look at that data?
Dr. Daigh. I will. And I think that data exists and that it
can be used to address needs for different areas. So the needs
of this state might, in fact, be different than the needs of
another.
So I am right there with you. I encourage that. We have
begun to look more at populations, at the needs of populations,
driving down to individual care plans, which is what you are
saying.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. Just one brief question. You mentioned that
the V.A. had different codes for their electronic medical
records and how they enter information, one of you did, I
think. Have they taken your recommendations as to how they
can----
Mr. Williamson. In terms of medical----
Mr. Salazar [continuing]. Record. Isn't that what you said?
I thought that is what you had said, that they had different
codes as to how they entered different material into the
electronic medical records. Maybe----
Dr. Daigh. My understanding is that there is a standard
system of codes used across country for government and non-
government to describe the activities in a hospital. And the
V.A. uses those standard codes in their medical records to
define what care was provided.
Now, there might be many, many codes in medical records, so
I am not sure exactly what----
Mr. Salazar. But didn't you say that that was one of the
weaknesses----
Dr. Daigh. What I was talking about, sir, was innovation in
the medical records. For example, we went back and looked at
how V.A. compared in their treatment of patients with deep
venous thrombosis, so, for instance, you are admitted to the
hospital. You have a broken leg. You are at risk of getting a
clot that would then travel to your lungs.
Are the outcomes for that specific entity for which there
are standards of who should be anticoagulated, you know, out
there, how did the V.A. compare? We found that the V.A.
compared well with the rest of the country. Their rate of deep
venous thrombosis, embolisms about the same.
Where we had a problem was that the medical record, if it
were more intelligent, could say, ``You are admitted with this
diagnosis. Has this medication been ordered?'' So there are
medical record systems that have that business intelligence in
it. V.A.'s doesn't. So there is frustration by the physicians
in the field that that innovation hasn't been put into it
already, since everyone--since that would be one of the things
that you would like to see.
All I am saying is that that rate of innovation, the way
that the medical record can change and keep up with science
needs--is important. And if that rate of innovation doesn't
keep up, then V.A. is going to fall behind.
So I bring that to you as a risk for which I apologize I
don't have a lot of work, other than what people tell me and
this one piece on deep venous thrombosis. But I think that is a
very important issue.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Berry.

COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINICS

Mr. Berry. Thank you. I will be very brief. And I thank all
three of you for being here and for the work you do.
Back to the CBOCs and the comparison study you are doing
and all that. How long will it take to complete?
Dr. Daigh. Well, we will begin actually going to CBOCs in
April. We will, at the end of the fiscal year, roll up the data
that we have in a cumulative report. We will report on the
quality of care at each of the CBOCs on an every-other-month
basis, and so it will be four or five CBOCs that will be
visited.
And then there will be a report on the financial issue of
contracting that will--to be honest, I haven't figured out
whether it is going to be a separate report or part of the
roll-up report at the end of this fiscal year.
Mr. Berry. It seems to me that it might be a reasonable
thing to do to suspend further solicitations until we have the
results of that report.
Dr. Daigh. I can't comment, sir. I have no data. And----
Mr. Farr. Can I follow up on that? Is this part of the
other alternative way to get private financing through the
health care center for facilities program, where you have a
private developer build the facilities and then lease them
back? Is that part of that?
Mr. Berry. No, not that I am aware of, Sam. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.

TELEMEDICINE

Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Let me just finish with one quick question. And let me say,
also, I know we have just scratched the surface. I know a
number of members will have additional questions in writing to
send to you.
Let me just ask--one better use of psychiatrists,
psychologists, we have in the V.A. is the use of telemedicine.
Is there any other way we can bring more psychiatrists and
psychologists into the--tremendous competition--is out there in
the marketplace. You have the private sector and the V.A.
Anything we can do with loan forgiveness for young
psychiatrists coming out of medical schools, anything else that
either of you would recommend?
Dr. Daigh. I haven't looked at that issue. I think you
would be better to ask the mental health professionals at V.A.
as to what difficulty they have hiring and what they think
would work. We simply have not addressed that in our work.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Williamson.
Mr. Williamson. No, I--we haven't addressed that, either.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Let me just conclude then to allow time
for the second panel by thanking both of you.
You know, I know that, given your responsibility, sometimes
you are probably welcomed as warmly as a bank auditor by bank
executives. But you are genuinely welcome to this subcommittee,
and we see you as real partners and carrying out a
responsibility that I think we all want to see Congress do more
of, and that is the oversight responsibility.
I am so impressed by the experience and the commitment that
I see with your two positions and those others testifying with
us in just a few moments. It is obvious to me it is a genuine
commitment to help our agencies be better served, in this
particular case, help our veterans receive the care that they
have earned and so very much deserve.
Thank you for the important role you play. Please consider
yourselves partners with this committee. You are welcome to
contact us at any point. From here forward, you would be
returning our call. And so work closely with our staff on ideas
and recommendations you have about how we can address some of
the challenges that you have outlined today or challenges that
we didn't have time to get into today.
Thank you, Dr. Daigh.
Thank you, Mr. Williamson.
Members, I would like to call the second panel forward. And
we have three witnesses in that panel.
As they come forward, let me just say that the goal of this
panel is to address issues regarding I.T. interoperability, the
implementation of the new G.I. Bill. I think we are facing some
real challenges trying to meet the deadlines there--issues
regarding auditing, contracting, and claims processing,
recognizing that the backlog of veterans waiting to have their
claims processed has been a major issue of veterans and
veterans organizations.
To address these issues, we have three witnesses today.
First, as introduced previously, Ms. Belinda Finn is with the
Office of Inspector General. She was appointed assistant
inspector general for auditing in the V.A. in January of 2007.
Prior to joining the V.A., Ms. Finn was a deputy assistant
inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security. She
has also worked as an accountant and arbiter with the
Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense I.G., the
Department of Energy I.G., and the U.S. House of
Representatives I.G., making very well the point to her service
that I was just trying to make about the degree of
professionalism and experience in these positions with
inspector generals positions is very impressive to me.
Thank you, Ms. Finn, for being here.
Ms. Maureen Regan, welcome, Ms. Regan, to our subcommittee.
Ms. Regan was appointment counselor to the inspector general in
1989, once again showing a deep depth of experience and
commitment to your position. She began her government career in
1984 as a staff attorney with the Department of Veterans
Affairs Office of District Counsel in Washington, D.C. Ms.
Regan is a graduate of Columbus School of Law at the Catholic
University here in Washington.
Again, and welcome.
Our third witness this morning is Ms. Valerie Melvin.
Ms. Melvin, welcome to our subcommittee.
She is the director of information management and human
capital issues with the GAO's information technology team and
is primarily responsible for issues concerning health
information technology and I.T. human capital. And we have a
lot of issues to discuss on that front.
Ms. Melvin has led studies of information technology
management issues at several agencies, including the V.A., the
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Social
Security Administration. Ms. Melvin is a graduate of the
University of Maryland, with a bachelor of science degree in
business administration and a master's degree in management
information systems.
Again, I thank the three of you for being here today. And I
would like to recognize you for opening statement of
approximately 5 minutes. Have you selected any order?
Ms. Finn? Well, let's just begin with you, and then Ms.
Regan, and then to Ms. Melvin.

Statement of Belinda J. Finn

Ms. Finn. Thank you, Chairman Edwards.
And thank you to the members of the subcommittee for having
me here this morning. I am pleased to be here.
I am going to be speaking on the issues related to the
VBA's claims processing problems, their progress in
implementing the new G.I. Bill, educational benefits, and
finally the challenges involved in spending the stimulus funds
and our oversight of those funds.
My office has been tasked with monitoring V.A.'s progress
in implementing the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Act, now
basically called the new G.I. Bill.
We have found--V.A. has made some progress in the last few
months, in that they weren't doing very much at all before. But
they still have several challenges before they can get to a
successful implementation.
These include the inherent difficulty of fielding a new
software, limited I.T. development resources, developing
staffing requirements, and a really aggressive project
schedule.
Elsewhere in VBA, they are facing the challenge of large
backlogs of pending claims for compensation and benefits. This
has been a challenge for many years. Increases in funding at
V.A. have enabled them to hire additional claims examiners, but
this presents its own challenge in developing a productive
workforce.
We are currently working on a review where we are looking
at claims over 365 days old, and we believe we will identify a
number of ways that V.A. can help to improve their processing
time over their claims. We expect to issue the final report on
that work over the summer.
We are currently also standing up an inspections unit that
will be performing systematic reviews at individual regional
offices. Our charge there is to review operations and the
accuracy of claims processing to determine how well the R.O.s
are providing accurate and timely benefits to veterans.
In the I.T. area, I know your main focus is the sharing of
information. I work in the area of I.T. security and management
at V.A. V.A., of course, faces continuing challenges related to
I.T. security and the management of their projects.
Although the consolidation of functions and activities
under the CIO has addressed some security issues, we continue
to find problems related to access controls, configuration
management, change management, and service continuity.
We are also concerned greatly about the management of I.T.
capital investment, because these projects present great risks
and can become costly, risky, and unproductive, if not
effectively managed.
In the stimulus funding, V.A. is not a major player. They
have received about $1.4 billion to do maintenance and repairs
in VHA and the National Cemetery Administration, hire
additional employees, and develop some new I.T. systems.
Even though VA has not received as many funds as the rest
of the government, it is still a challenge to spend $1.4
billion wisely and efficiently, so we are going to be providing
oversight upfront over the requirements definition and the
controls over the spending of these funds.
Chairman Edwards and the subcommittee, thank you again for
the opportunity to be here today. And as Dr. Daigh said, thank
you very much for the continuing support you have given the
OIG. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Ms. Finn, for your testimony, for
being here and for what you are doing.
Ms. Regan.

Statement of Maureen T. Regan

Ms. Regan. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to address issues and challenges facing V.A.
and maintaining an effective and efficient acquisition program.
Before I start, I would like to say that your entire panel
here is University of Maryland graduates. I think it is the
first time I have been on such a panel, so go Terps.
Mr. Edwards. Well represented today.
V.A. spends approximately $10 billion a year on procuring
supplies, equipment, and services, and that number is growing
every year. Despite efforts to implement policies and
procedures to improve the acquisition program, procurement
remains one of V.A.'s five major management challenges.
In addition to more than 80 pre- and post-war reviews in
contracting that are issued directly to contracting officers,
in the past year, we have published more than 10 reports that
have identified deficiencies in the manner in which V.A. plans,
solicits, awards and administers procurement action.
We attribute the problems to many factors, including the
lack of sufficient personnel in those acquisition and program
offices that have the knowledge, experience to develop awards
and administer these contracts.
In addition, there is little to no oversight--particularly
conducted at the local levels, in the field. Our work has shown
that requesting program offices are often not able to identify
the requirements or properly administer a contract after award.
We have also found that acquisition personnel are not always
familiar with or fail to comply with procurement laws and
regulations.
The impact of these deficiencies is exacerbated by the
decentralization of V.A. acquisition programs and the absence
of a comprehensive system to accurately record and monitor
contracts and purchases.
With respect to the latter, in 2007, V.A. activated a new
Electronic Contract Management System. It is called eCMS. And
the purpose was to standardize the procurement process and to
provide visibility regarding V.A. procurement.
After it was initiated, V.A.'s Office of Acquisition,
Logistics and Construction issued a policy telling everybody
how to use this system to generate and issue contract documents
to record relevant contract information on both new and
existing procurements.
We recently completed an audit that showed that contracting
entities in V.A. were not complying with the policy. They are
not inputting the data; they are not using the system as
required. In fact, we found one VHA policy that they were
following that was inconsistent with the overall policy as
issued by the Office of Acquisition.
One of the things it did was exempted all your prosthetics
from using the system, and prosthetics is a large amount of VHA
purchases and supplies.
In addition to our work with the CBOCs that is ongoing, we
are doing a review at the request of the Secretary of the
interagency agreements between the Navy's Space Warfare Systems
Command, otherwise known as SPAWAR, and an audit of disability
examinations conducted by V.A. personnel and those conducted by
contractors, a review and an audit of the award administration
of V.A.'s federal supply schedule contracts for health care
services, and we are also looking at the Medical/Surgical Prime
Vendor Program that V.A. has in place.
One area that V.A. has expended resources for considerable
oversight is on the federal supply schedule contracts that V.A.
awards. As you know, this is really a GSA program. But for
about the last 40 years, the delegation has been to V.A. to do
all health care contracts.
V.A.'s programs--and that is for medical and surgical
supplies, equipment, pharmaceuticals, and health care services.
V.A. entities spend about $7.5 billion per year on V.A.'s FSS
contracts. About 60 percent of that, those dollars are V.A.
dollars, and so V.A. has a great interest in keeping the prices
fair and reasonable, because a lot of our money is going to
those contracts.
Of great concern to us in the past year, GSA convened a
Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panel. Some people call it the
blue-ribbon panel. And the purpose was to review the structure
used in pricing of FSS contracts.
On this panel are two representatives from industry
organizations. At their request and the request of industry,
the panel is considering removing key clauses from the
contracts. These are clauses that we believe ensure not only
that government gets fair and reasonable pricing at the time of
award, but that pricing is maintained throughout the term of
these contracts, which are 5 years or longer.
We believe if these clauses are taken out of the contracts,
and I know there was at least a vote on it at one point in time
to take them out, V.A. will be paying significantly higher
prices for these products than similarly situated commercial
customers.
This completes my oral statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to address these issues, and I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Ms. Regan.
Ms. Melvin.

Statement of Valerie C. Melvin

Ms. Melvin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
I am pleased to be here today to comment on V.A.'s efforts
to achieve interoperable electronic health records with the
Department of Defense. The two departments have been working
for over a decade to share electronic health data, and Congress
has directed them to jointly develop and fully implement
interoperable electronic health record capabilities by
September 30, 2009.
The department's experiences in this area are also relevant
to the broader effort to advance nationwide health information
technology initiatives. As current and past administrations
have recognized, information technology has the potential to
help improve the efficiency and the quality of health care by
making patient information more readily available to providers,
reducing medical errors, and streamlining administrative
functions.
Federal efforts to realize this potential are being led by
HHS's national coordinator for health information technology.
We have performed numerous studies of V.A.'s and DOD's efforts
to share electronic health information, and my testimony today
will describe some of the departments' achievements and
challenges in this area. I will also briefly comment on how
these apply to the broader national initiative.
In summary, V.A. and DOD have made important progress, but
they continue to face challenges in managing the activities
required to achieve this inherently complex goal. Over the
years, they have increased the types of information shared and
succeeded in sharing computable data, that is, data in a format
that a computer can understand and act on.
For example, the departments are now exchanging computable
pharmacy and drug allergy data on over 27,000 shared patients,
permitting their health information systems to alert clinicians
to drug allergies.
Sharing computable data is considered the highest level of
interoperability, yet achieving this level is not always
necessary. Data that are viewable but not computable also
provide important information, and the departments are sharing
many types of health information in this manner.
However, they have more to do since not all electronic
health information is yet shared, and although health data at
V.A. are all captured electronically, information is still
captured on paper at many DOD medical facilities. One challenge
facing any effort to share data is the need for clearly defined
standards to allow different systems to work together.
For example, technology standards must be agreed on. And a
host of content issues must be addressed, such as the need for
consistent medical terminology. V.A. and DOD continue to work
on standards to extend their own data sharing, and they also
participate in standards-related initiatives led by the
national coordinator that are focused on transitioning to a
nationwide health I.T. capability.
Their involvement in these initiatives is important, both
because of the experiences that these departments can offer and
to help ensure that the standards they jointly adopt are
consistent with applicable federal standards.
Nonetheless, V.A. and DOD face challenges to effectively
meeting the September 2009 deadline for full interoperability.
While they have plans to further increase their electronic
sharing capabilities by then, these plans do not effectively
define the extent of data sharing expected to be in place to
meet the interoperability goals or consistently identify
results-oriented performance measures that are essential to
assessing progress toward the delivery of that capability.
Further constraining their effectiveness is their slow pace
in setting up an interagency program office that is to be
accountable for achieving the interoperable capabilities.
Defining results-oriented performance measures and ensuring
that they are met would be an important part of this office's
mission.
V.A. and DOD concurred with our recommendations that they
give priority to these matters, but they have yet to be fully
addressed. Until they are, however, the risk is increased that
the departments will not achieve interoperable capabilities to
the extent and in a manner that most effectively serves our
nation's military servicemembers and veterans.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would
be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other
members of the subcommittee may have.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Edwards. Thank you all.
I want to be sure I understand one of the points that you
were making. This came to my attention very briefly yesterday
for the first time.
Right now, the V.A. buys a massive amount of prescription
drugs. And I have heard ballpark numbers that, compared to
standard retail prices at pharmacies, maybe the V.A. gets and
the taxpayers receive about a 40 percent discount. Is that in
the ballpark? Is that approximately right?
Ms. Regan. You can't compare to retail because you have to
know what the pharmacy paid for it versus what you are paying
for it as a consumer.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Ms. Regan. VA is probably more comparable to what the
pharmacies are paying for covered drugs. We are getting
excellent prices because of the statute--public law which sets
the price.
Mr. Edwards. So millions of dollars in savings to taxpayers
and to the V.A. by paying----
Ms. Regan. That is correct.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. By negotiating? Okay.
Ms. Regan. They are actually not negotiated prices. They
are an established price by--there is a formula for covered
drugs. And the formula is, I think, 26 percent below the non-
Federal Average Manufacturer's Price. There is a calculation
that is used, so they use all the pharmaceuticals that go
through a wholesaler, and they come up with a price.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Ms. Regan. And then once you have a contract, you can only
increase the price each year by a certain percentage----
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Ms. Regan. That is not negotiated. It is part of a formula.
Mr. Edwards. If I could jump in, I want to be sure about
the GSA role. Is there a panel at GSA that is recommending
changes in clauses that would--that would change that so the
V.A. could be charged significantly higher prices for
prescription drugs?
Ms. Regan. The law requires, in order to get any money from
any federal agency, including Medicare, even though they don't
buy off the schedule, you have to have the drug on a federal
supply schedule at what we call the federal ceiling price.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Ms. Regan. So what their changes will do will not affect
the calculation. But once an award is made, there is a clause
in the contract called a price reduction clause, and you track
certain customers. If the price to a customer goes below a
certain price, then we get those discounts. That is the one
clause that industry does not want in the contract.
So the impact--with respect to covered drugs, there will be
an impact on the covered drugs. There will be a bigger impact
financially on generics and on all your Med/Surg items and
equipment.
Mr. Edwards. And this is--you said there are two industry
representatives on a panel or a board at GSA?
Ms. Regan. It is called the Multiple Award Schedule
Advisory Panel, and it is made up of various people from
various agencies. In fact, V.A. was not even invited to be on
the panel until the House Veterans Affairs Committee, I
believe, wrote a letter and asked that Mr. Frye, the deputy
assistant secretary for acquisition----
Mr. Edwards. And this is an advisory panel? Who will make
the final decision on this?
Ms. Regan. I am not sure. I think when they make the
recommendations, it goes to another body within GSA to be
reviewed and then up to the administrator.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Ms. Regan. We do know they have voted to remove the price
reduction clause both from services contracts, where maybe it
doesn't have that big an impact, to the other commodities
schedules. And there would be----
Mr. Edwards. So it could affect prescription drug prices?
Ms. Regan. It will affect definitely generics. I think
there will be an impact. And what you will have is that you may
have a fair and reasonable price the day of award on all of
these Med/Surg, all of these items that are on federal supply
schedule contracts. You will not have a fair and reasonable
price the next day.
What we found in industry is that they will wait to award
better contracts until after ours gets awarded. And then the
discounts start coming in.
I presented to the panel in August, and basically that was
part of my presentation, is the impact it will have.
Mr. Edwards. Well, we are going to see that that decision
isn't made behind closed doors without public attention. Thank
you for bringing that to our attention, and I believe all sides
ought to have a chance to present their facts, but I don't want
anyone making a decision without great public knowledge and
taxpayer understanding of what the implications could be to
them, in terms of increased cost for hundreds of millions of
dollars in prescription drugs purchased by the V.A.
Mr. Wamp.

INTEROPERABILITY

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A two-part question, Ms. Melvin. If not September 30th,
when? Second, on the medical records piece of the
interoperability, if the V.A. still has the premiere reputation
for medical records and information technology and health care,
which I assume they still do from year to year, what about DOD?
Is it a problem with one side not being up to par with the
other? What are the problems? I know organizationally and
funding and all that, but is there a disconnect between the two
systems' quality?
Ms. Melvin. In answer to your first question relative to
when, if not by September 30th, that is a question that I don't
have an answer for you on, the reason being we have repeatedly
reported on what V.A. has been doing, V.A. and DOD, in terms of
interoperability.
And one of our concerns is that, as they move forward with
this initiative, we have not seen the level of planning that
would articulate specifically what the final outcomes will be
by this September 30th date.
Now, having said that, I think it is important to note that
V.A. and DOD do have, as I mentioned in my earlier statement,
levels of interoperability that they have achieved, they have
achieved at the highest level in terms of the computable data
for the pharmacy and drug allergy data.
They also have lower levels of interoperability relative to
having viewable data that is structured, for example, to have
lab reports that are in place within their records. And they
also are able to see unstructured data that perhaps is scanned
in, like clinical notes.
The bigger question on our part is, when you get to
September 30th, what has been defined as the end result for
that date? And today we have not seen from V.A. any specifics--
or from DOD--any specifics as to what that ultimate end state
will look like.
We do know that they intend to continue increasing their
sharing. They have indicated, for example, that they will
continue to include scanning and imaging in what they are
doing. Our concern and what we would like to see more of--and
we think is necessary for accountability--is for them to set an
end state for what at September 30th and then what more beyond
September 30th.
There is sure to be a need for more beyond September 30th.
I think laboratory data, for example, is data, computable data
that they are trying to achieve, but it would be beyond
September 30th.
And then, to the extent that there are other data that are
defined by their board that has been put in place to set those
priorities, we would assume that would also occur much beyond
September 30th.
As far as why the two departments have not been able to
come together yet, I would go back, actually, to the very
beginning with the systems. One of the things that is important
to recognize is that, even though V.A. and DOD are both
modernizing their health information systems and they have over
time stated that these systems would be the platform for
achieving this integrated capability that they were working
towards, it is important to recognize that as these systems
were developed--they went down separate tracks.
There wasn't a plan that we have seen that was ever
intended to bring those two systems together in quite the way
that would be necessary. So I think that where they stand
today, and certainly through our work and what we have been
able to discern, there are issues still relative to reaching
agreement on what such a system would like.
There are significant questions that would have to be
answered relative to what capabilities would be needed to serve
each department's mission. I think there are cultural issues
relative to really being able to overcome those barriers, to
step outside and say, ``Is my system better than the other?''
They are both modernizing. They are both at different
stages in their modernization. And while we have not looked
specifically at the system that DOD is modernizing, we do know
that V.A. is working on it. We have had concerns with some of
the progress with what they are doing relative to overall
planning and the integration efforts that are necessary to make
that system come to fruition.
So there are many challenges to--really being able to
decide, I think, first and foremost, what it is that they want
to accomplish and to start the dialogue. And to Secretary
Shinseki's credit, if I understand, there has been some recent
dialogue in that regard, but much more, in our view, is
necessary for them to come to agreement on what would be
necessary and how to meet the needs of both of those
departments, especially those unique needs that each would
have.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I have two questions for Ms. Finn.
I will wait for the next round.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Are I.T. standards worked out so that the I.T. standards in
veterans is compatible with I.T. standards in Medicare and
Social Security?
Ms. Finn. In the area of I.T. security, generally the
government agencies all try to follow the NIST standard----
Mr. Farr. One standard?
Ms. Finn. Yes.
Mr. Farr. And then in the president's stimulus budget--
recovery package, there is a lot of money for medical records,
for going to electronic records. And I imagine they are going
to have companies bidding for that, hospitals bidding.
Everybody is going to be bidding. Are they going to the follow
the model? I mean, you are way ahead of this--V.A. was sort of
the beginning of all this, wasn't it, in having the best
medical records?
Ms. Finn. That is my understanding.
Mr. Farr. So does that become kind of a standard that
everybody will try to achieve? Are we now going to get a
million different software programs out there that aren't
compatible and----
Ms. Melvin. I could share a perspective on that.
Mr. Farr. Because you are talking about interoperability,
and that is----
Ms. Melvin. Yes, the key is the standards that have to be
developed. You are correct that V.A. and DOD have been out
there and, as I mentioned, should be able to provide some
experiences in those areas, and they have set standards to
achieve the levels of interoperability that they have.
However, moving forward, one of the critical things from a
national perspective, the standard-setting process is not a
fast process. It is an extremely complicated process that is
involving many, many players----
Mr. Farr. Well, we are going to be letting the money out
before the standards are developed.
Ms. Melvin. You are correct in a lot of respects. There are
standards that have been defined, but at the same time there
are many more that still need to be defined.
The critical factor relative to V.A. is that while, yes,
they could pursue standards for their own interoperability--and
they have to certain degrees--the question is, how far out
ahead of the national standards do they want to get from the
standpoint of being able to make sure that, once a national
initiative is in place, that they, in fact----
Mr. Farr. What is our priority here? What is the one thing
we as a committee in dealing with the budget for V.A., what is
the highest priority, your recommendations to this committee
that we need to focus on, put some money in, or some language
in?
Doctor, you talked about the I.T. systems haven't kept up
with demand, with the workload, and, in fact, the financial
systems haven't kept up. Dr. Daigh said that we were pioneers,
but we are falling behind. What is it that this committee
should be focusing on?
Ms. Regan. I would say one issue--there are a lot of
issues--but one of them I think we are seeing is personnel that
can do the work. And there is increasing contracting out for
different things that they--maybe they should be doing in house
because they lack the number and the quality of the people to
be able to do it.
What we hear everywhere we go is that V.A. can't hire the
personnel whether--it may be financial, it may be some other
rules that are in place. I mean, for example, we need to go out
to the hospitals. V.A. is doing a lot of contracting for
positions, but they are not personal services, so you can't
supervise them while you are in your facility.
So even an authority for personal services authority like
DOD has would be an advantage, if you have to hire outside
doctors----
Mr. Farr. Among that personnel, is there a priority of the
type of personnel?
Ms. Regan. I think if you ask each part of the agency, they
all need personnel. The health care needs to be able to hire
more personnel to take care of the patients. That would be V.A.
employees. I.T. needs more personnel who can develop systems
who have the knowledge even how to develop a contract to go out
and contract for somebody to develop the system, the
acquisition workforce needs to be built up so that you have
contracting officers. V.A. needs more VBA examiners to come in
and be trained.
Mr. Farr. So the money is there, because we appropriated a
lot of money. And the money is there to hire the people, but
then we can't acquire them in the federal service for whatever
reason, so we are using that money to contract out to the
private sector to provide what we can't do on our own?
Ms. Regan. We understand there are some FTE ceilings and
that they can't surpass the FTE ceiling, so they have to go out
and hire people. So that would be one issue to look at. And I
think the department can answer that question.
I mean, right now, I think with hiring, we are getting more
applicants for jobs than we have seen in years, so it is not
the number of people. It is whether or not we can hire
sufficient numbers of qualified people and pay----
Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much.
Mr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MULTIPLE AWARD SCHEDULE ADVISORY PANELS

It looks like we once again are uncovering more snakes than
we can kill. [Laughter.]
And I share your concern about this procurement of
pharmaceuticals. I think that might be worth a hearing all by
itself sometime.
Mr. Edwards. With your background, I would like to follow
up.
Mr. Berry. Some of those--do you call them advisory panels?
Ms. Regan. It is a Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panel.
It was published in the Federal Register because it includes
non-government employees.
Mr. Berry. The V.A. doesn't have anyone that sits on that
panel?
Ms. Regan. They have one person. After a letter from the
House Veterans Affairs Committee, they put person from the
V.A., even though the only agency other than GSA that awards
schedules is V.A., and we do $7.5 billion worth of business a
year.
Mr. Berry. All right.
Mr. Edwards. Seven-and-a-half billion?
Ms. Regan. Yes. And that is growing every year, too.
Mr. Berry. That used to be a lot of money. [Laughter.]
Do you ever have any problem getting a company to
participate?
Ms. Regan. Yes, in fact, there are certain product lines,
for example, cardiac stents, where I don't believe there are
any on the federal supply schedule program. It is voluntary for
companies to come in, but none of the manufacturers have come
in and put stents on contract.
Cardiac devices, such as pacemaker, they were on contract
up until only one company, I think, was left by about 2004.
V.A. then did a competitive award, national contracts that went
to two companies in 2004. One failed because there was a big
recall, and the other company, I guess the contract expired.
They just now awarded another one in November.
So they do some national competitive contracts for some
items, but there is a lot of items they haven't done that on.
And like I said, stents is a big one.
Mr. Berry. I bet recalling stents is an interesting
process.
Ms. Regan. Yes, V.A. has a fairly good program for the
recalls that it gets out to the facilities. And they actually
have a pretty good database telling you what patients and what
stents were used.
Mr. Berry. Thank you once again for your service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Berry. And I look forward to
leveraging off your expertise in health care, to follow up on
the issue that we discussed there regarding that advisory
panel.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, it looks like you all are efficient
enough, we might actually get a lunch break here between these
two hearings. And I am grateful.
Ms. Finn----
Ms. Finn. Yes?

ENROLLMENT

Mr. Wamp [continuing]. In 2007, we had 23.6 million
veterans--number is up somewhat, but we all know that not every
veteran is enrolled in the V.A. What is that percentage?
And as the economy continues to weaken--and I don't want to
scare anybody, but I heard testimony yesterday that we may be
in the 15th month of a 60-month recession, based on the global
economic picture right now, if we are in the 15th month of a
60-month recession, what does that do to V.A. enrollment?
I would expect it to increase as more and more veterans
that aren't enrolled in the V.A. system have no choice but to
come to the V.A. system?
Ms. Finn. Mr. Wamp, I do not have any statistics at hand on
how many veterans are enrolled in the system.
Mr. Wamp. Even with Iraq and Afghanistan?
Dr. Daigh. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Okay. Did you say 5 million users? So it is only
about 20 percent?
Mr. Edwards. About 5.5 million, 5.8 million were the
projections I think this year.
Mr. Wamp. So 25 percent is a better number? Which leads me
to my second question, because I don't think we have had the
kind of rapid redeployment, downsizing that we are going to
expect under President Obama. What does that do? We are talking
the next 16 months or thereabouts, you should see more people
entering the veteran pool.
Are we ramping up or ready for that? Or is it going to be
this great influx of new veterans enrolling in the V.A. system
as they come home?
Ms. Finn. I don't think V.A. is ramping up for that, and I
am not sure what their expectation or their projections are for
enrolling those veterans. You know, just as a layman in this, I
would anticipate that, as the economy has worsened, if people
cannot obtain health care through other means, they may look to
the V.A.
Mr. Wamp. You and Mr. Daigh both can answer this question.
I am speaking to a statewide National Guard convention this
Saturday in Tennessee. And so from the Guard and reservist
perspective, do you know anything to report relative to the
V.A.? Because, obviously, their use of the V.A. is kind of like
their service to our country. It ain't what it used to be. It
is a whole lot tougher.
Ms. Finn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. And more and more, I assume, have access to the
V.A. and are using the V.A. when they come home. Anything you
all would add as I prepare to speak to probably a couple
thousand of them Saturday? Great. I don't think most I.G.s are
as nice as you are. [Laughter.]
Ms. Finn. I would say that the V.A. offers people
returning, the reservists and the National Guard a lot in
benefits, other than health care. The new G.I. Bill provides
payments based on time on active duty. Other benefits include
educational benefits, and rehabilitation.
We did an audit of the transition for benefits and found
that many of the reservists were not necessarily getting
notices that they were eligible for benefits. And so we
recommended that VBA put in some new controls. And I believe
they have done that. So hopefully they should be getting
notification.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.

NEW G.I. BILL

Ms. Finn, let me ask you: Is there any risk that, because
of the slowness of implementing software system and the
management issues involving contracting out versus doing work
in-house, the new G.I. Bill implementation, is there any
significant risk that veterans will be denied the G.I.
educational benefits they are supposed to begin receiving this
fall?
Ms. Finn. I believe V.A. will be paying benefits. I think
the question is, will they be able to handle the volume of
claims that will come in between now and when they start making
payments in August and will they be able to process all of
those for timely payment?
So I think the risk is that, if someone were to file a
claim late, they may not get payment right on time, although I
can't say that for certain. I think there will be a risk of
improper or erroneous payments, because this process will
likely be largely manual at this point.
Mr. Edwards. That is what I understand for the first year,
so----
Ms. Finn. Yes. And we won't have the built-in edit and
control that we would put into an automated system.
Mr. Edwards. Well, I hope, given some of the abuses of the
original G.I. Bill and the risk that posed to the credibility
of what I considered one of the greatest pieces of legislation
ever passed by any Congress, I hope we can keep an eye on the
check-and-balance system to be sure that there are not people
qualifying illegally for G.I. benefits. And if you have any
insights on that in the months ahead, please follow my request
and contact us and let you and I and our V.A. MILCON staff----
Ms. Finn. I will add that----
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Tell us about that.
Ms. Finn. I will add that to the charge of my team.

HIRING OF CLAIMS PROCESSORS

Mr. Edwards. Nothing could undermine our ability to fight
for improved benefits and funding for veterans more than abuse
of a major program such as the G.I. education bill. So we would
welcome your input there.
Let me ask you about the new hiring for addressing the
claims backlog. We have provided enough funding in the last 14
months to hire--if you count the stimulus bill--as many as
7,000 new claims processors. How would you rate the V.A.'s
training program at this point for those new hires?
Ms. Finn. We took a look at the hiring practice last year.
And the one area we didn't look at specifically was the
training program, because GAO had just done some work on the
training programs. And I think they had some issues mainly with
the administration of it.
We do know that they are deploying the new hires in a team
approach, where they work in a specific team with a group of
other more experienced employees doing incoming triage, which
is the incoming processing, or various things.
And I think that would probably be a reasonable way to
implement that many new people. We are going to be starting up
work again, going back and looking at a second year now of the
influx of new employees and hope to get a lot more information
on how they are being used, how they are being trained, and
what the end result is.
Mr. Edwards. Can we look at the turnover rate, too----
Ms. Finn. Yes, absolutely. Last year when we took a look at
it, the attrition and the turnover rate was relatively low,
especially compared to other employees. But that was fairly
early in the hiring process.
Mr. Edwards. Is the V.A. keeping account of data that would
allow us to look now, a year from now, 2 years from now, to see
what kind of rate they have of decisions overturned so we could
determine how effective they have been in that job?
Ms. Finn. I am not sure--that is a good question. I am not
sure if they will have that by employee, but we will endeavor
to find out how they will address that.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. That would be helpful to look at.
Ms. Finn. Sure.

V.A. DATA SECURITY

Mr. Edwards. Let me ask you very, very quickly. I have got
half a minute. Is there any chance that--any significant chance
that we could have another problem where a V.A. computer is
taken out of the office and, maliciously or otherwise, used to
compromise the privacy of a large number of veterans?
Ms. Finn. That chance still exists, yes.
Mr. Edwards. How would you compare the V.A.'s privacy
protection security systems to corporate America, as good as,
better than, or worse than?
Ms. Regan. I would say, since the 2006 data loss, V.A. has
really shored up their ability. If you remember, every big data
loss we have had has not been intrusion into a system; it has
been employees with access losing something or whatever.
They have now put out a series of rules they didn't have
before, where you can't use your home computer, if you have a
laptop, it has to be encrypted.
So I think the risk has diminished. You are still going to
have rogue employees out there that aren't going to follow the
rules, but I think the risk is diminished significantly and
that V.A. would be able to more swiftly take action because
there are strict policies out there.
Mr. Edwards. I would welcome any recommendations either of
you has in terms of steps the V.A. hasn't taken that they
should take. Thank you. Thank you both.
Mr. Farr.

ACCOUNTABILITY GOALS

Mr. Farr. I don't know if I have any other question, other
than--for each one of you, if we had one thing that we could--
this committee could do, what would it be, in your opinion?
Ms. Melvin. From my perspective, because we have looked
across a number of V.A.'s I.T. initiatives, there is one common
concern that always stays on the books with us, and that is in
terms of their overall project management, their ability to
really, as I said earlier, to establish goals, to really follow
through with results-oriented measures for making sure that
they are holding themselves accountable for what they are
doing.
We would like to certainly see more in the way of an
emphasis by the department on making sure that it is holding
itself accountable, that it has established really defined
measures for its success and that it can report against those
measures. So from our perspective----
Mr. Farr. Is that a lack of skilled managers?
Ms. Melvin. It is not--no, it is not contracting, per se.
It is really in the--it is in the management, overall project
management aspects of what the agency does. They certainly do
put out a lot of plans. I don't want to, you know, say that
they don't have documentation, they don't have plans. They do.
What we would like to see is a greater degree of
discipline, more rigor in the planning efforts that the
department undertakes to make sure that it really is setting
specific goals, that it is not a matter of saying, ``We are
going to just increase our--what we can share or we are going
to increase the number of patients,'' but to really set
defined, concrete measures of, when we get to this level, we
feel that will, at least in the short term or in the midterm or
the long term, that we have positioned ourselves to handle some
percentage of our staff----
Mr. Farr. A greater degree of discipline in creating
measurable outcomes?
Ms. Melvin. Yes, rigor in--in the processes that they are
using to really manage and monitor and hold themselves
accountable for their initiatives.
Mr. Farr. Ms. Regan?
Ms. Regan. Can I give you two?
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Ms. Regan. One of them is on the federal supply schedules
that I would consider, because V.A. has had these schedules for
almost 40 years, just giving them to V.A. and not playing
``Mother May I'' with GSA. We know our products. We have had
better oversight than GSA has. We know our industries.
There are clauses in the contract that maybe need to be in
ours and not theirs. That would be one.
On the internal V.A. side, as I said in my testimony,
decentralization is a huge problem to having an efficient
acquisition program, and that V.A. needs to take steps to
centralize.
V.A. did a study last year, PricewaterhouseCoopers did a
study and came up with the model that hasn't been implemented.
Mr. Farr. So the second is what?
Ms. Regan. Pardon me? The second was to centralize V.A.
procurement. Right now, you basically have two procurement
activities. You have VHA, and you have everybody else. You are
not going to have a procurement program that functions
efficiently if it is not more centralized or centralized. And
that probably should be done in steps, as opposed to doing all
at once, because most of your people are out in the field in
VHA.
Ms. Finn. I would second both of those suggestions greatly.
My thought would be to hold V.A. accountable for the integrity
of the data that they use to report their performance and their
outcomes.
V.A. has a lot of data, and it comes from a lot of
different sources. And as it is rolled up, I can't be certain
that it is always collected and recorded really in a consistent
manner across the organization.
So that situation creates a lot of concerns in my mind,
over measuring their performance, because I am just not sure
how well we can rely on the data, whether it is the number of
claims processed or the medical treatments or the number of
patients seen in the clinic or the appointments available.
Mr. Farr. That is all.
Mr. Edwards. What an excellent question, Sam. I am glad you
asked that.
Zach, would you like to finish off any questions?
Mr. Wamp. Well, speaking of that, I am going to ask three
quick questions, one to each of you, and I hope we can get
quick answers.
Ms. Regan, how many billions are contracted out under fee-
for-service care? And is that an efficient way to go forward to
expand that or not?
Ms. Finn, there is a category called miscellaneous
obligations. How much is that? And is that kind of an end run
around the normal process?
And, Mrs. Melvin, we talked about the complete
interoperability, but what is GAO's definition of complete
interoperability?
Ms. Regan.
Ms. Regan. By fee-for-service, I would assume you are
talking about the health care resource contracts, where we hire
physicians to come into our hospital?
Mr. Wamp. Yes. Yes.

FEE-FOR-SERVICE CARE

Ms. Regan. There is no system in V.A. that can tell you
exactly how many dollars were spent on that, because, as I have
testified, there is no system that records all of that data as
to what is spent and being spent on.
I do know it is an increasing number, because one of my
groups does the pre-awards for those contracts. We expected
when you increased physician pay, comparability pay, that that
would go down, but we haven't seen that. And it is becoming
even increasing for, like, support services and things like
that, so----
Mr. Wamp. So you can't tell if it is efficient because you
don't know how much it is?
Ms. Regan. Right. Nobody knows how much it is. I can
probably tell you that we are overpaying for the services, but
I can't tell you how many dollars are actually spent, because
there is no place that tells you that.
Mr. Wamp. Ms. Finn, miscellaneous obligations?
Ms. Finn. I don't know the number. I will get that for you
for the record.
We have seen at times other documents, rather than purchase
orders or your regular procurement documents, being used to
record miscellaneous obligations. And sometimes we have seen
that possibly used, yes, to record and obligate funds where it
is not going through the correct process.

INTEROPERABILITY

Mr. Wamp. Ms. Melvin, complete interoperability means what?
Ms. Melvin. We do not have a definition of complete
interoperability. However, what I would state is that it
depends significantly on the agencies involved and the
priorities that they establish. In V.A.'s case, relative to the
clinicians, that is what they have used thus far in setting the
priority for the drug allergy pharmacy data that is fully
computable. It really depends on what the needs are and to be
defined by those entities that are in involved with that, in
particular the health care providers.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I now am finished.
Mr. Edwards. Okay, those are good questions all.
Well, I want to thank each of you for your excellent
testimony. And what this hearing does for me is it just reminds
me and our committee of the important partnership you can play
with us as you try to be more proactive in exercising our
oversight responsibility.
We have all been so busy over the last few years that it
has been hard sometimes for committees to exercise the kind of
oversight that I think all of us would like to do. So we see
you as critical partners.
Thank you. I thank each of you, Ms. Finn, Ms. Regan, and
Ms. Melvin, Dr. Daigh--I tell you, and isn't it impressive, the
years of commitment to your jobs and what you are doing? It
says a lot about your values.
Thank you very much, all, for being here. We will stand in
recess until 1:30, at which time we will meet on family housing
and troop housing. Thank you all.
[Prepared statements follow:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.109

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.113

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.114

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.115

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.116

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.117

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.118

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.119

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.120

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.121

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.122

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.123

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.124

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.125

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.126

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.127

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.128

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.129

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.130

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.131

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.132

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.133

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.134

Thursday, March 12, 2009.

FAMILY AND TROOP HOUSING

WITNESSES

WAYNE ARNY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
KEITH EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
B.J. PENN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
KEVIN W. BILLINGS, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE,
INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND LOGISTICS

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Thank you for all being here. I
want to call the subcommittee back to order and say good
afternoon to everyone.
I want to welcome you to today's hearing on the issue of
family and troop housing in our military. The goal of today's
hearing is to establish the current state of family and troop
housing in our military and to ascertain additional resources
or decisions that have to be made in order to ensure that every
serviceman and woman, every family, has an adequate place to
live.
Several years ago the Department of Defense set a goal of
having the funds in place to eliminate all inadequate housing--
family housing--by fiscal year 2009. This goal was to be
accomplished primarily through the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative.
In the meantime, the Department of Defense has embarked on
an expansion of the Army and Marine Corps, and the Air Force
will begin to increase its numbers again after years of
decline. This will certainly result in additional demands for
both family housing and a greater requirement for barracks and
dormitories. So our committee thought that it would be a good
time to assess how far we have come in addressing quality of
housing for both military families and single servicemembers
and identify challenges as we move forward under a new
administration.
Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like to recognize
our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any opening comments he would
care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, our morning hearing was quite a bit
cooler in this room, so I don't know if it is our witnesses or
the topic, or just the afternoon sun coming through, but it is
a little warm----
Mr. Edwards. Running up and down those stairs, voting, may
be it too.
Mr. Wamp. In any event, Mr. Secretaries, thank you for your
time. I look forward to this most important hearing, and I have
no further opening statement. Just go straight to questions.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wayne Arny is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment, and no stranger to our
subcommittee.
Welcome back, Mr. Secretary.
He was appointed to his current post in February of 2008.
He previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Installations and Facilities. He is a 1964 graduate of the
Naval Academy, and active duty naval aviator until 1981. How
many hours?
Mr. Arny. Three thousand.
Mr. Edwards. 3,000 hours of flying time. In those
responsibilities he ultimately achieved the rank of commander
in the Navy. He served as a staff member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee from 1981 to 1984 and was program associate
director for national security and international affairs at OMB
from 1986 to 1989.
And I would note, as with so many who testify before our
committee who have served our country in uniform, Secretary
Arny has two sons currently serving in the Navy. Where are they
stationed right now?
Mr. Arny. They are both in Lemoore, California. One is
coming east and going to----
Mr. Edwards. Thank them on our behalf.
Keith Eastin is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Environment. Again, welcome back to our
subcommittee. He has served in his current position since
August of 2005. He previously served as Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and as Deputy Under Secretary
and Chief Environmental Council at the Department of the
Interior.
He worked as a senior consultant to the State Department in
organizing a ministry of the Iraqi government. His private
sector experience includes PricewaterhouseCooper, Deloitte &
Touche, and the American Arbitration Association.
Mr. B.J. Penn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Environment, is returning to the subcommittee
once again, having been appointed to his current position in
March of 2005. He previously served as director of the
Industrial Base Assessments from October 2001 to March of 2005.
He is a naval aviator of over 6,500 flight hours.
So, over 9,000 hours between the two of you. That is
impressive.
His private sector experience includes having worked with
Loral and Lockheed Martin.
Mr. Kevin W. Billings, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Installations, Environment, and Logistics.
Mr. Billings, welcome. You are no stranger to the Hill.
Welcome to our subcommittee today.
He was appointed as acting assistant secretary in 2008. He
previously served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Energy, Environmental Safety, and Occupational Health
from 2007 to 2008. He has extensive private sector experience,
including Westinghouse, Alliance Group, and Interior Solutions.
And notably, to former chairman, now ranking member of the full
Appropriations Committee in the House, he worked as a special
assistant to Representative Jerry Lewis, who has been such a
champion on behalf of our military men and women.
I again want to thank all of you for being here. As you
well know, your full statements will be included in the record,
and we would like to begin by asking each of you if you could
make an opening statement of 5 minutes or less.
And Secretary Arny, we will begin with you.

Statement of Wayne Arny

Mr. Arny. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wamp, distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you
today with my colleagues from the other services to discuss the
housing initiatives for the department.
First I want to thank this committee and your colleagues
here in the House and in the Senate for the authorities that
you provided us under the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative. These authorities have allowed us to greatly
improve the quality of housing available to our military
families.
We have been able to make these improvements much faster
than through the use of traditional military construction,
because we were able to leverage private capital to augment
appropriated funding. And the rental streams created in these
projects ensure sustainment and recapitalization of these
houses well into the future.
We have been extremely pleased with the performance of our
development partners on the 94 existing projects across the
department. Besides bringing great expertise to the
construction and operation of our housing, our partners are
proud to be serving military families and offer many services
to enhance the sense of community on our bases.
Our one underperforming partner, American Eagle, has been
replaced in all six of our projects--in all six of its
projects--by three experienced and solidly performing partners.
While no government funds were put at risk in these projects,
the bases involved have not yet seen the new construction they
had expected. The new partners are quickly moving to get those
projects back on track.
In response to congressional direction, and consistent with
the lessons we have learned from this experience, we have added
increased oversight to the privatization program. This
oversight includes on-scene procedures at the base level as
well as increased program reporting to my office and to the
Congress.
Because of BRAC restructuring, global re-posturing, joint
basing, and Grow the Force requirements, this is a time of
great change in DoD installations. All of these efforts have
significant effects on housing requirements at many of our
bases for both families and unaccompanied servicemembers. The
military departments are closely reviewing those requirements
at all bases, and together we believe we can support our
servicemembers and their families as we grow the force over the
next 3 to 5 years with both military construction and with
privatization.
Unfortunately, however, the stagnation in the housing and
overall financial markets has somewhat affected our use of the
privatization program in addressing these changes. Market
forces have led to increased costs and tightening of credit
standards. While the effect on our 94 existing projects has
been minimal, finding financing for future projects presents
new challenges.
The viability of military housing projects remains high in
the view of the private sector, but lending is limited across
the board due to the general lack of liquidity in the financial
markets. Military departments have been meeting with the
financial community to seek new sources of capital, and we have
revisited some of our guarantee authorities in an attempt to
make our projects even more attractive.
Additionally, we are considering executing our new projects
in such a manner that we will start the private sector
operation while delaying taking down private sector debt until
it is more efficiently priced. This will allow the department
to stop the deterioration of the housing stock of our newer
projects while waiting to maximize private capital available to
the project's income stream.
We also greatly appreciate your continued support of our
unaccompanied personnel housing program. We are currently
completing an inventory of all our unaccompanied housing to
better identify the shortfalls and ensure proper funding to
provide quality housing for our unaccompanied servicemembers.
We plan to establish goals for improvement, as we did for
family housing, and we will also continue to pursue additional
use of our privatization authorities to improve our barracks,
and also to learn from the Navy's first two pilot projects at
Norfolk and San Diego. While we have had some limited success
with unaccompanied projects for senior enlisted in the Army,
the Navy pilot authorities include an ability to pay members
partial housing allowances that make projects for junior
enlisted more financially viable, which we will work to extend
to the other Services.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like again to thank--to
express--appreciation for the strong support of military
housing programs that are crucial to a decent quality of life
for our service members.
[Prepared statement of Wayne Arny follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.135

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.136

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.137

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.138

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.139

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.140

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.141

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.142

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.143

Mr. Edwards. I thank you, Secretary Arny.
Secretary Eastin.

Statement of Keith Eastin

Mr. Eastin. I don't want to feel left out here, but I have
192 hours in a Cessna 172. [Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Well, I have got my thousand in a 210, so
between the two of us----
Mr. Eastin. Let me try to be a little short with my opening
remarks. I will give you a little overview: The Army's campaign
plan is predicated on rebalancing the Force in an era of
persistent conflict. A renewed focus and investment in our
housing--single soldier and family--programs are key elements
for finding that balance.
Among the challenges we face are a high op tempo, frequent
deployments, and aging barracks inventory that requires
constant management attention, repairs, and maintenance until
new construction projects are completed, the impact of the
financial market turmoil on our ongoing privatization programs,
and major stationing changes due to BRAC, Grow the Army, and
global redeployments.
In family housing, we have come a long way with our Army
housing facilities in terms of quantity, quality, and adequacy.
Inadequate family housing will be eliminated in 2016 for
privatized housing, 2010 for government-owned CONUS housing,
and 2012 for overseas CONUS government-owned housing. For major
Grow the Army sites, where our housing market analysis show an
insufficient in-state of available family housing, we are
programming additional government equity contributions to our
existing residential communities initiatives to build
additional family housing units.
With respect to barracks, our goal is to provide safe,
clean, and functional barracks for all soldiers--permanent
party, trainees, wounded warriors, and Guard and Reserve. Our
overarching strategy is to buy out all inadequate permanent
party barracks by 2013 by removing any barracks with common
area latrines and improving our barracks complexes as a whole.
The last inadequate buildings will be funded for construction
and renovation in 2013 and occupied in 2015.
We are buying out our training barracks requirements by
2015, and those will be occupied in 2017. We are instituting
improved procedures to assure that barracks are properly
maintained, sustained, and renovated.
With respect to privatization of our housing, our family
RCI program is comprised of 45 installations which are
comprised into 35 combined projects and a planned instate of
about 90,000 homes. As of this January we have privatized 39 of
45 installations, give or take 85,000 homes, we have built
almost 18,000 homes and renovated another 13,000 homes. The
last RCI projects will be awarded in 2010, and the remaining
14,000 privatized inadequate homes will be replaced and
renovated by 2016.
Our private sector partners are not immune to the global
financial industry turmoil affecting the entire credit market,
but I am pleased to report that the Army has a proactive
process and procedures in place to detect problems, and as
issues arise we will work with our partners to mitigate the
impacts.
With respect to what we call warriors in transition--those
returning from either Iraq or Afghanistan--we have about 85,000
warriors in transition, and they are currently housed in
interim facilities that have been modified to remove barriers
to improve accessibility. Every warrior in transition is
assigned a suitable room, preferably on-post, close to the
medical treatment facility.
W.T.s are assigned to the best available facilities we have
at the post. The specific location is a decision reached by the
senior mission commander at those posts. The new permanent
warrior transition facilities we are programming will exceed
the standards required by the Americans with Disabilities Act
and other federal accessibility programs.
In conclusion, the Army has put policies, procedures,
leadership focus, and additional resources into place to ensure
that we continue to make steady progress towards buying out our
family housing, barracks, and warriors in transition
requirements, then maintaining them to standards. I await your
questions. Thank you.
[Statement of Keith Eastin follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.144

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.145

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.146

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.147

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.148

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.149

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.150

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.151

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.152

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Secretary Eastin.
Secretary Penn.

Statement of B.J. Penn

Mr. Penn. Chairman Edwards, Representative Wamp, members of
the subcommittee, it is a privilege to come before you today to
discuss the Department of the Navy's housing programs. I would
like to begin by expressing our deep appreciation to the
Congress and this subcommittee for your unwavering support of
housing for our Sailors, Marines, and their families. With your
support, we have made tremendous progress in improving the
quality of life, and specifically the living conditions, for
our personnel.
I will briefly discuss those improvements, as well as the
remaining challenges. The privatization of family housing
within the Department of the Navy has been a resounding
success. To date, we have executed 30 projects involving more
than 61,000 homes for Navy or Marine Corps families. As a
result of these projects, over 41,000 homes will be constructed
or replaced.
These authorities have allowed us to leverage $800 million
in the Department of the Navy--to fund approximately $8 billion
in investments. To put it another way, each dollar that the
Navy has contributed will yield $10 of investment in better
housing for our families.
Military housing privatization has been the cornerstone of
our efforts to eliminate inadequate family housing in the
department. Where privatization is not feasible, such as the
foreign locations where the U.S. authorities do not apply, we
have continued to use traditional military construction.
At the end of 2007, we met the OSD goal of having funds,
programs, and contracts in place to eliminate inadequate family
housing. The Navy currently expects that all work will be
completed by 2011, and the Marine Corps by 2014. The latter
period is extended because the Marine Corps plans to retain its
housing in the interim to accommodate the increased
requirements due to force structure initiatives, like Grow the
Force, until sufficient additional housing can be built. We
have made similar progress in unaccompanied housing.
This committee's support of the Commandant's Barracks
Initiative and the resulting fiscal year 2009 appropriation of
$1.2 billion in MILCON funding for Marine Corps barracks will
translate into approximately 12,300 permanent--party spaces at
eight Marine Corps installations. The Marine Corps expects to
satisfy the requirement by 2014.
We have also focused on the needs of our wounded warriors
through the construction of wounded warrior barracks at Camp
Lejeune and Camp Pendleton. These projects will provide
critical temporary housing for our healing wounded warriors.
The Navy has successfully executed two unaccompanied
housing privatization projects using the pilot authority
provided by the Congress in 2003. These projects will result in
a total of over 3,100 units, including over 2,100 new two-
bedroom apartments for unaccompanied Sailors stationed in the
San Diego and Hampton Roads areas. The Navy is continuing to
evaluate candidate locations for the third pilot project,
including the Mayport-Jacksonville, Florida area, as well as
additional phases at San Diego and Hampton Roads.
Our unaccompanied program still has its challenges. The
Navy's Homeport Ashore Program, to provide housing ashore to
junior unaccompanied sailors currently living aboard ships,
remains a priority to the department. The Navy has thought to
address this requirement through both MILCON and the use of
pilot unaccompanied housing privatization authority.
However, there remain Sailors living onboard ships in our
fleet concentration areas. The Navy continues to evaluate
bachelor housing strategies to address this remaining
requirement and enhance the quality of life for single sea-duty
Sailors.
Returning to the subject of military housing privatization,
there has been a great deal of attention focused by Congress on
the service's oversight of housing privatization projects in
the wake of difficulties experienced by some partners. We take
seriously our responsibility to the Munzert Privatization
Agreement to ensure that the government's long-term interests
are adequately protected.
We have instituted a portfolio management approach that
collects and analyzes financial, occupancy, construction, and
resident satisfaction data to ensure that the projects remain
sound and that the partners are performing as expected. We
conduct meetings with senior representatives of our partners
and, where necessary, resolve issues of mutual interest.
Where our projects have encountered difficulties,
appropriate corrective actions have been taken. For example, we
had concerns regarding the performance of the private partner
in our Pacific Northwest project. We worked with that partner
to sell its interest to another company--with a good record of
performance with military housing privatization projects. We
are satisfied with the outcome.
Additionally, we are not insulated from the difficulties
affecting the nation's economy. We have seen a dramatic
curtailment in the amount of private financing available for
our future military housing privatization projects and phases.
This, in turn, affects plans for constructions and renovations.
We are working with the office of the Secretary of Defense, the
other services, and the lending community on ways to mitigate
such impacts and preserve our ability to leverage private
capital on future phases.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I look forward
to answering any questions that you or members of this
committee may have.
[Prepared statement of B.J. Penn follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.153

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.154

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.155

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.156

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.157

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.158

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.159

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.160

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Secretary Penn.
Secretary Billings.

Statement of Kevin W. Billings

Mr. Billings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wamp,
distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to address the Air Force unaccompanied and family
housing, both key quality of life issues for our Airmen and our
families.
When Secretary Donley asked me to assume the role of Acting
Secretary of the Air Force (Installations, Environment and
Logistics) six months ago, I laid out four basic principles to
guide our organization. First and foremost is compliance with
the law. Second is to be good stewards of the environment, and
equally importantly, to be good stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars. The fourth is to do this all while remembering that
taking care of our Airmen and their families is what allows us
to accomplish our mission.
Real quickly, though, I would also like to thank my
colleagues before the committee here, because without the
guidance of Mr. Arny and Mr. Eastin and Mr. Penn, I would have
not been able to get up to speed as quickly on these issues as
I have, and I want to publicly thank them.
With that fourth principle I want to reiterate what Chief
Master Sergeant of the Air Force McKinley told you a couple
weeks ago about our housing and dorms, and that is that the Air
Force is committed to ensuring our Airmen and their families
have quality housing in which to live and raise their families.
We have almost 43,000 Airmen living in unaccompanied housing,
or what we refer to as dormitories, and over 65,000 families
living in Air Force family housing.
We truly appreciate the continued efforts of this
subcommittee, the Congress, and the valuable support and
leadership you have provided to the success of our housing
program. First turning to unaccompanied housing, the Air Force
continues our longstanding commitment to provide quality
dormitories. As Chief McKinley also testified to this
committee, dorms are not just a place where Airmen sleep; they
are a place where we blue our newest and youngest Airmen, our
future Air Force leaders.
Enlisted Airmen are the backbone of our Air Force, and we
are currently aware of the vital importance quality living
conditions contributes to morale and retention. Since fiscal
year 2000, we have demonstrated our commitment by providing
quality dormitories for our Airmen by funding 95 construction
projects totaling almost $1.3 billion.
We continue to replace dormitories at the end of their
useful life with our standard Air Force design, Dorms for
Airmen Program. The Dorms for Airmen design capitalizes on the
wingman strategy that keeps the dorm residents both socially
and emotionally fit. This is accomplished by providing our
Airmen privacy and respect with their own bedroom and head, yet
encouraging them to interact with their fellow Airmen through
shared kitchen, laundry, and entertainment space.
The Air Force prides itself in saying that we recruit
Airmen, yet we retain families, and we understand the
importance of quality family housing to our members and their
families. Our strategy for providing quality family housing
uses the Defense Department ``off-base first'' policy to
determine what the local community can support and the need for
on-base housing.
Where possible, we utilize the congressional authorities
for privatization to meet our housing requirements. We will
continue to privatize where it makes sense. However, when
privatization is not feasible, such as at overseas bases, we
rely on traditional military construction funding. We continue
to make progress in the replacement or major improvement of our
housing for Air Force families.
Since last spring, the Air Force completed new construction
or major improvements on 1,161 units in the United States and
911 units overseas. Additionally, we have another 2,286 units
under construction in the United States, and 2,783 units under
construction overseas.
Using privatization to accelerate our family housing
improvement program, we have seen delivery of over 10,000 new
or renovated homes, and are currently bringing on-line over 200
quality homes a month. By the beginning of 2010 we will have
privatized close to 38,900 housing units at 44 bases. Further,
we plan to privatize 100 percent of our family housing
inventory in the Continential United States, Hawaii, Alaska,
and Guam by the end of fiscal year 2010. Current projections
show by strategically leveraging more than $402 million in
government investment, we will have brought in almost $6.3
billion in private sector total housing development.
Finally, I would like to thank you for your support of our
Airmen in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
This important appropriation significantly supports the Air
Force programs for providing quality housing for our Airmen and
their families. Specifically, we thank you for providing the
Air Force $80 million for family housing and military
construction, $16 million for housing operations and
maintenance, and $100 million for dormitories. While this
appropriation will help the Air Force improve its housing
inventory and stimulate the local job market surrounding our
various Air Force bases, there are still critical requirements
to fund in future appropriations.
In closing, the Air Force would like to thank the committee
for its continued strong support of the Air Force and
unaccompanied and family housing. Through your support we are
improving the quality of life for our Airmen and their families
by bringing quality dormitories on-line faster than ever
before, and at significant savings to the taxpayers through
privatization.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[Prepared statement of Kevin W. Billings follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.161

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.162

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.163

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.164

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.165

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.166

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.167

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.168

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.169

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.170

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.171

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Secretary Billings, and let me
thank each of you for what you do every day. One of the reasons
I consider it a privilege to be on this subcommittee is, I
don't think there is any shortage of lobbyists running around
Capitol Hill supporting various multi-billion dollar weapons
programs, but in my 18 years in the House I think maybe two or
three times at the most have I had anybody come by my office
asking that we do more to provide better housing for our troops
and their families, so you are the voice and leaders making a
difference in their quality of life, and I thank each of you
for that commitment.
I was going to recognize Mr. Wamp to start out the
questioning, but do I understand that Mr. Crenshaw might have
to leave after the next round of votes, and if that is
necessary, I would be happy to----
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, if you are going to rotate back and
forth I would ask that you let him go first in the event that
he has to leave after this series of votes.
Mr. Edwards. You bet.
Mr. Crenshaw.

PRIVATIZED HOUSING

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all. I think privatized housing, as the
chairman said, gives us all a sense of pride, and so often
civilians look at military housing and say, ``Gee, you know,
that is not so good.'' And now they look at the privatized
housing with a sense of envy, saying, ``You know, we would like
to live in those kind of houses.''
I visited San Diego and saw the family housing, and I tell
you what, it is awful nice. And I haven't seen the, the
privatized bachelor quarters, but I think it is a great
program. It leverages the money that we have and enables us to
do good things that the private sector has been doing for a
while. So I thank you all for working on this program.
Two quick questions. One has to do with Navy Region
Southeast.
Secretary Penn, I know you have done Bachelor Privatized
Housing in San Diego, you have done it in Hampton Roads, are
you still on track to do the Southeast project, part of those
at Mayport, part of those at Kings Bay?
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. We are looking at the options to
provide fantastic homes for our troops, and we are doing an
analysis, as you know, with a private program. We had three
initial locations, and two of them fell out, and Mayport-Jax is
in now, and we are doing the analysis on Mayport-Jax, based
upon the requirements, yes, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. Is there anything you need--do we need to
extend this program? As I understand it, it may expire at the
end of this fiscal year.
Mr. Penn. It expires in September of 2009, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. So it would be important for us to extend
this program
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. One of the things I wanted to ask you about
Mayport: When you do a housing demand study, as you know the
Navy has made a decision to homeport a nuclear carrier there,
and the carrier may come sooner, may come later, but when you
do the demand part of your housing study, do you take into
consideration the fact that there is a plan to have nuclear
carrier there with 3,000 Sailors? Does that go into your study?
Mr. Penn. That may be part of our EIS, or environmental
impact statement. We look at everything: schools, traffic.
Mr. Crenshaw. But in taking into consideration it takes a
little while to build a project, you don't want to end up with
a shortage of housing.
Mr. Penn. We do analysis on Mayport, that is correct. We
do.
Mr. Crenshaw. Got you. And on the other side, I ask the Air
Force, no program is perfect, but my colleagues in Florida, we
have been informed that Patrick Air Force Base, that project
down there hasn't gone as well as some of the other ones, and
there is a new developer, and we were told they are going to
open the housing up tonon-defense people, and possibly living
on base if you are not a military member could present
problems.
Do you sense that? Is that something you are aware of? And
have you done everything you can, been as creative as you can,
to make sure that there aren't enough folks in the military to
kind of fill those?

NON-MILITARY ON BASE HOUSING

Mr. Billings. Yes, sir. The issue with the waterfalls, as
it is called, at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida is larger than
the developer wanted. There were operations to make sure that
there are the right number of folks in the buildings, but when
it falls below 95 percent we open it up first to other military
families, then unaccompanied military, then to the Guard and
Reserve, then after that to contractors, and then it falls down
to the local community.
But before we let anybody from the local community in, we
do background checks, we do financial checks, and we make sure
the priority is to not have them on base. A lot of the
privatized housing is off-base, and the civilians who are part
of that privatized housing are in the off-base part first, as
opposed to on the on-base part.
And finally, the commander has sole authority of who he
lets on his base and who he doesn't, so as you put the
processes together to makes sure that these projects are
viable--that is why we have the waterfall so that the
developers can continue to do the work they need to do--we
prioritize who can be part of that waterfall. The waterfall is
in place in a number of other bases, and again, there are
processes to make sure that anybody who is part of that is
looked at very carefully.

HOUSING PRIVATIZATION STANDARDIZATION

Mr. Crenshaw. Real quick, Mr. Chairman--also at Eglin. The
Air Force is going to do a project there, and as I understand
it they have put it out to bid at least twice, no developers
said they want to do it, and do you coordinate with the other
services on building family housing contracts? Is there kind of
a standard or standardized way to do a privatized housing
project? I wonder why it hasn't worked as well there at Eglin,
which is over in northwest Florida. Any particular reason--does
it still make sense?

EGLIN AFB, FL HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Mr. Billings. Privatization will make sense at Eglin Air
Force Base, Florida. One of the issues at Eglin--a complicating
issue at Eglin--is the bed-down of the F-35. And as we beddown
the weapon system we were doing a supplemental environmental
analysis so that we can move forward to beddown. The
supplemental analysis will look at, perhaps, different runways
and different flight patterns. So, we have actually put the
privatized housing initiative at Eglin on hold until we have
done the supplemental environmental impact statement on the
overall F-35 bed-down of the integrated training facility
there.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Arny. I would like to make one comment. The thing to
remember, too, is--which took me a while to figure out--anybody
below an active duty military person that comes in on this
waterfall, and the first levels are either reservists or Guard
or military-related, or even on-base civilians, but anybody
below that first level only gets a 1-year lease, so that if you
are full a year later that person is out and one of your active
duty people come in.
Mr. Crenshaw. Got you. Got you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp, let me ask you, in terms of the procedure--we
have a 15-minute vote going. Are you comfortable with us going
till 2 or 3 minutes before this vote is over? There is one more
vote after this, so----
So if staff will let us know when it is down to 3 minutes
before the votes, I would appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You cut it pretty
short.
Mr. Edwards. But you get your full 5 minutes.

PINON CANYON

Mr. Salazar. Thank you.
First of all, let me thank all of you for your service. And
not to be outdone, but you have 182 hours, I have got----
Mr. Eastin. Ninety. One hundred and ninety. Please, don't--
--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Salazar. I have got over 600 on a Piper Cherokee, so--
--
I would like to discuss two more issues with Mr. Eastin. I
know, first of all, let me just tell you that I have the
greatest respect for all of you who have served in the military
and for all of you who serve this country. But there was an
article in ``The Pueblo Chieftain'' this week where ``The
Chieftain'' reported that Secretary Eastin has reached a lease
agreement with Denver businessman Craig Walker to acquire
70,000 acres off the Pinon Canyon and would announce it in
Trinidad.
It really took me off-guard. I know that you and I have had
some discussions before about maybe the auction. Last year, 2
years ago, we passed an amendment to Mil-Con V.A.
appropriations bill that actually prohibited the Army from
utilizing any funding for future expansions of Pinon Canyon.
And of course, that was only a 1-year prohibition.
Last year it was included in the language, and I guess I
would like to ask you if you think it was the intent of
Congress to completely bar the expansion with the use of these
funds. I think that you might have mentioned to others that
there might be other sources of revenue or funding for that
expansion. Could you maybe----
Mr. Eastin. This is, as you and I have discussed before and
I have discussed with the citizens of Trinidad in an
interesting little--what do I want to say--availability in a
gym down in Trinidad for people to make comments about what the
Army was doing. We have no intention of violating what the
prohibition is, but we have had, I believe, Senator Salazar has
asked GAO to look at this, and they have found that we are not
violating the law with respect to that.
Our reading of the law--and you can't get around having
lawyers even though you are at the Army; they are everywhere--
we asked them curtly about this. We are not acquiring, which
would require military construction funding, but we are, if you
will, investigating whether this will work and finding out how
to make it work.
Our opinion is that those preliminary steps to see what the
citizenry thinks, to take surveys out there of basically--land
and when the land might be available, that can be used with
operation and maintenance funds, and not military construction
funding. So it is not our intention to buy anything without
coming back to the committee, and certainly discussing this
with the Southeast Colorado delegation. So I think there is
some confusion in what the source of the funds was, and what
could be used with those funds and the other available funds
for other purposes.
Mr. Salazar. Do you think that maybe you may be cutting
some of the funding that we use for housing for troops and
utilizing some of those funds to begin the search and paying
for some of the research that you are doing now to acquire
these properties? Do you think that that is not taking money
away from the housing?
Mr. Eastin. Congressman, I don't believe so. We are using
operation and maintenance funds, which comes out of a different
account, so it is neither--family housing operations, which is
one account, it is not in the construction funds. It doesn't
come out of any RCR projects we have, and doesn't come out of
any of the barracks upgrade programs either, or the training
barracks upgrade programs. So in our opinion--and in any event,
I would venture to say that what has been expended is something
quite south of $1 million on this.
Mr. Salazar. So you will say that there is actually no
agreement right now?
Mr. Eastin. ``The Chieftain,'' of course, is free to write
whatever it likes, and my guess is you have seen that, but
there is not agreement to do anything. We are looking at all
sorts of options down there for acquiring land; we have, in
fact, looked at that--it is a little, I believe it is between
70,000 and 80,000-acre site that is the subject of our
discussions--but no deal has been made. I don't even know if we
can do it--certainly we couldn't do it without coming back to
see you all.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. We will have time for
a second round of questioning, for those members who can stay
here.
Mr. Wamp.

INVESTMENTS

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got a couple of
questions for each witness, and I will come back the second
round if I need to.
Secretary Arny, one of the drumbeats that all of our
witnesses will probably hear from me throughout the Mil-Con
quality of life side of this subcommittee is, I have spent a
lot of time with General Casey in the last year, and there are
impediments to our military families receiving support from the
private sector, from the philanthropic sector, and outside
groups . . . all of the above. And we hear more and more of
this, how people want to help but the law prohibits them to
help.
Is there anything that you know of today, relative to this
testimony and the housing piece, that is still an impediment to
outside groups helping our military families and I mean
financially? They want to help, and there are impediments to
investments and support for families, and we are scouring the
countryside trying to find anything that is in the way of our
extraordinary free-enterprise system, even in a recession, from
helping our military. Do you know of any?
Mr. Arny. Sir, this issue has not come up, in my knowledge,
in terms of--I was trying to think through the various--we are
getting support from the private sector, but it is all
competitive, and we bid for it. Other than people giving our
troops funds, which we don't permit, I think the law is
prohibiting that, I would have to work with you----
Mr. Wamp. Yes. If anything comes up like that, call me. I
want to hear about it.

GROW THE FORCE

Secretary Eastin, on the Grow the Army sites that have
inefficient availability family housing, the RCI partnerships
to build additional housing, can you tell the committee where
these locations are, what the deficits are in those locations,
and how long it will take before additional housing will be
constructed?
Mr. Eastin. There are basically nine of our installations
that are involved in some sort of Grow the Army operations. I
can list them quickly or furnish them for the record, but
basically we are happy with all of our housing at each of
these. Of course, we rely on the private sector to basically
furnish about half of the housing. This is to protect the
private sector developers, as development community as well as
our own, so we don't see any deficits in those that have not
been taken care of or planned on.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I see your note.
Mr. Edwards. If you would like to continue, you still have
time left.
We will stand in recess until we take both votes; then we
will be through with voting for the day.
[Recess.]

STIMULUS FUNDING

Mr. Wamp. All right. Down to Secretary Penn.
Sir, I was going to ask you about the Homeport Ashore
Initiative and the stimulus bill, and how the stimulus funding
ties into the progress that you are making on ramping up the
Homeport Ashore Program. Didn't you use some of the stimulus
money for that?
Mr. Arny. We are going to come out with our list here
pretty quickly, and most--we are still not sure what exactly
will tie specifically to Homeport Ashore, but we have asked--we
at OSD asked the Services to come up with fast spending
program. If you recall, almost all of the--there is a little
bit of MILCON in each of the Services, there is the hospital
MILCON for TMA, so if it is tied to the stimulus it is going to
be in the sustainment in the----
So it wouldn't be, I don't think, directly tied to Homeport
Ashore. It might benefit Homeport Ashore in that perhaps we
are, you know, renovating some rooms, or fixing up some
heating, or replacing windows, or that kind of smaller project
that we usually push off to the back that we are able to do
with the stimulus money.
Mr. Wamp. You mentioned the dorms and $100 million, but how
does the stimulus money tie into Tier 1 and Tier 2 deficiencies
on dorms on the Air Force?
Mr. Billings. Sir, all of the stimulus money will be spent
on Tier 1 dorms or deficient dorms. One deficient and three
Tier 1 dorms will be funded with the stimulus money.
Mr. Wamp. That is it, Mr. Chairman, for now.

INADEQUATE HOUSING

Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.
Let me ask each of you a traditional question of mine. In
whatever way you define adequate and inadequate housing, can
you tell me how many families in your respective service, how
many families live in inadequate housing and how many single
servicemen and women are living in inadequate housing?
Unless, Secretary Arny, if you have the numbers for all the
Services.
If not, we could just begin with you, Secretary Eastin, if
you have those numbers.
Mr. Eastin. I can furnish more accurate ones to you, but,
you know, the large part, with our family housing we probably
have about a deficit of, I would say, about 9,000 or 10,000.
Mr. Edwards. Nine thousand or 10,000.
Mr. Eastin. Barracks, of course, we are looking at, in the
training barracks, a large number--145,000 in training
barracks. But permanent party barracks, as we said, we will
have those filled out in 2015, and now the number, I think is
around 30.
Mr. Edwards. Thirty. And would you follow up, just to fine-
tune those numbers?
Mr. Eastin. I will get those for you.
Mr. Edwards. All right. I appreciate that.
[The information follows:]

There will be 19,208 permanent party barracks and 65,084 training
barracks spaces that remain inadequate after executing fiscal year 2009
military construction and renovation projects. Additionally, there will
be 681 inadequate Army-owned Family housing units (homes and
apartments) at one enduring site in Baumholder, Germany, as well as
4,399 inadequate Family housing units that are surplus to the Army's
needs, or at sites due to close. There will also be 19,659 inadequate
Army privatized Family housing units.

Mr. Penn. The Department of Navy, sir, has approximately
5,000 families still living in inadequate housing. Maybe we
will eliminate ours by 2011----
Mr. Edwards. How many Marine families are living in
inadequate housing? You said 5,000.
Mr. Penn. That is total.
Mr. Edwards. Maybe that is counting Navy and Marines, then,
okay.
Mr. Penn. And if we look at the bachelor quarters, the Navy
has 15,600 Sailors, and the Marine Corps has 17,400 Marines.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Secretary Billings.
Mr. Billings. We have 10,835 inadequate family houses with
about 8,000 families living in those houses. Those will be
eliminated by the end of fiscal year 2015. We have 106
inadequate dormitories with approximately 3,200 enlisted
personnel in 61 inadequate dorms, 400 contractors in 41
inadequate dorms, mostly in remote locations.
Mr. Edwards. When you say dorms, that could be a building
with 200 barracks in it?
Mr. Billings. Yes, sir. I mean, most----
Mr. Edwards. How many individual barracks----
Mr. Billings. Individual rooms, sir, I will take that for
the record.
[The information follows:]

The Air Force has 106 inadequate dormitories with a total of 4,500
rooms.

Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Let me ask you, with the challenges you have mentioned--
BRAC, global inflation, and construction, which we didn't
control but we will all be affected by it--have any of the
services changed your goals for providing full adequate housing
or barracks since this time last year when you or your cohorts
testified? Are these the same goals that you had a year ago, or
have they slipped in any way?
Mr. Eastin. Same with the Army, same year of buildup.
Mr. Edwards. Same thing?
Mr. Billings. Yes, sir.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Arny. One thing we are trying to do in the future is--
of all the barracks is, we would like to--specifically, all of
us have concentrated on permanent party, and we now want to
raise training barracks up to that same level to see what we
need to do with that, and then move also on to----
Mr. Edwards. Judge Carter brought to my attention some of
the family housing down at Fort Hood that has been defined as
adequate, but when he and I visited it several weeks ago I
would be hard-pressed to say with a straight face that it is
adequate housing. But we will leave that for further
discussion, perhaps, Judge Carter's discussion.
Judge.
Mr. Carter. I think you are reading my mind, Mr. Chairman.

FINANCIAL CHALLENGES

Before I get to the couple of questions I had--I am very
interested in continuing to move through the current economic
challenges, which Chet just asked a question about. I read in
every one of your comments that this new financing challenge
that we have in the private sector has created at least a
hiccup in your plans. It says here in this statement, I believe
this is by the Navy, that the Secretary of Defense and the
other Services were working and finding out ways to work with
the lending community to solve this problem. I assume that this
means interim financing for construction.
What have you come up with? Because from what we hear, the
lending markets are sealed up and they are not making loans,
and it is hard for people to find loans, and that is why we are
all spending so much money trying to figure out a way to solve
that problem. Do you all want to comment on what you have come
up with to solve these problems?
Mr. Arny. Well, I believe you there. One thing we have
done, we have gone to the lending community, and they all
agreed that our ratings are high. We have kept our debt service
under control; the programs are very solid. So we are faced
with the same liquidity problem as everyone. It is not like we
had a bunch of sub-primes and now we----
Mr. Carter. I understand that.
Mr. Arny. So one of the things we are doing, and I
mentioned it kind of peripherally in my testimony, is with our
newer projects. Ordinarily we put in some military construction
or some DoD value, and the lender would bring us--or the
private sector partner would bring money to the table, go out
and get a major loan so that we could do a bunch of new
construction. Well, now we are postponing that new construction
so we can get the private sector guy on board to do the
maintenance for us, because one of the secrets of privatization
is not just reconstruction on all these projects, it is also
the maintenance over a 50-year period.
One thing that we were never very good with, and those of
us that have been around the Service for a long time, we would
use what I call then 30-year MILCON approach. You would build
something with MILCON, and then we would let it go for 30
years, and the 30 years later we would have another MILCON
project. We never were very good at maintaining it.
So in the interim, until everybody gets some relief on the
financing, we are keeping the projects going--the new ones--
trying to get those new ones, get the management on board so
that we get better management of our projects, and then as the
markets open up, then come back in with the loans.
Mr. Carter. And I would agree, that is a good use of your
time and your money. But I think going back to the question
that the Chairman asked, doesn't that in some way throw you off
the construction schedules? I think that was the gist of the
Chairman's question. I mean, if it does, we want to know.
Mr. Arny. It does. It does throw us off, but again, even
before we had this credit crunch, other things would pop up.
The beauty of this is we do have flexibility in each of these
partnerships to adjust to whatever happens.
Mr. Carter. The housing, of course, we are talking about at
Fort Hood is Chaffee Village. Right now it is scheduled to be
renovated, which would I guess mean basically gutted and
rebuilt on the inside, but you are still going to have the
basic structure of a two-bedroom, old house. And it is my
understanding that we are quite some years off from going in
and replacing Chaffee Village.
Mr. Edwards. 2032, as I recall.
Mr. Carter. 2032, I believe it was. These houses look old.
They not only are old, but they look old too. There are a whole
lot of strange things in those projects, and the Chairman and I
both went through several units. We are just curious if there
is any possibility of a mind change to speed up the replacement
of those units. I realize it is not a popular thought with the
Army right now, but it is a real concern. It is the concern of
the Army families that are stationed there, and it is a concern
that I have and I believe the Chairman shares with me. So I
would like your comments about that.
Mr. Eastin. Let me discuss that a little bit. This is part
of a residential communities initiative program, where the--and
the Army will get together and decide what the scope of that
particular RCI project is in something called the initial
development period, commonly called the IDP, where we phase
in--there is some new houses, some houses have nothing done to
them, some are renovated, and it is on a time schedule that is
all carefully negotiated with both the partner and our
financing source so that once that is locked in these schedules
are driven by what the financing of it is.
Unfortunately, the Chaffee Village homes--674, as I
understand it--have minor renovations to them which, quite
frankly, is paint and window seals, and things like that, but
the major part of them will come at a prearranged schedule down
the road a piece. How can you fix that? Dollars. You have to
contribute--the Army would have to contribute some funding to
it so that hopefully you can borrow some funding against that,
and then basically double up on how much you can do----
The financing market is not affecting this right now, but
if we wanted to change one of the few parts of the mix, that is
when you would get into, I would think, a little more
difficult----
Mr. Carter. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Eastin. I don't disagree that these houses are not what
we would all like.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. We will follow up on that.
Mr. Kennedy, and then Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BARRACKS

Welcome, all of you. Thank you for your service. I want to
follow up with the Chairman's question about how many barracks
are unsuited for use.
I think that we would get ourselves in a lot of trouble if
we were to leave this question unanswered for a long period of
time. I know you are working with flexible budgets and trying
to deal with timing, in terms of trying to keep O&M up and
getting some of these more critical areas addressed, but when
you have got the numbers--like quarter million barracks in the
Army, over 100,000 in the Air Force, you know, tens of
thousands in the Navy, just off the top of your head--of
barracks that are, you know, insufficient for usage for our
enlisted, it seems to me this is something that doesn't
juxtapose well when at the same time you say, it has worked
very well for family housing, and when the privatized housing
has worked very well with the family housing we have managed to
move things along quickly, a lot better than the past.
So when it comes to moving the O&M along more quickly,
doing the O&M better than the government used to do it,
positioning construction so that when the money does come and
the liquidity back to the market starts coming back we are
ready to move on it, that we are in position to do that. It
just seems to me--what I would like to know is, what is the
hold-up to doing for our enlisted what we have done for our
families?
Mr. Arny. Let me comment overall. Having worked with Mr.
Penn on the Navy side for 7 years--6 years--it is much easier
to privatize the family housing than it was to privatize--than
it is to privatize enlisted dorms. The Navy faced--all three
Services have inadequate--a level of inadequate. That doesn't
mean they are uninhabitable; they are inadequate by our
standards.
But what the Navy then faced was Homeport Ashore, when you
had all these ships in port, you jumped another 30,000, so the
Navy had to move quickly, and so reached out and tried
privatization in Norfolk and San Diego. And in my humble
belief, and I think Mr. Penn--it has been very successful so
far. The housing that is up and about to run in San Diego is
something that is better than most of our officers are living
in, and even the enlisted housing that the partner took over,
we have been doing satisfaction surveys and it was at 70
percent, the private partner took over and they just have a
better sense for service than we do--it is not our business--
and it went to 90 percent. And in Norfolk we are doing that.
That doesn't work for all the Services. The Marine Corps
requires E-5 and below to live in barracks. They need the
barracks to be next to their units. They require their barracks
to be built out of concrete block. That is their standards.
The Army has, I believe it is E-5 and below as well. We are
trying to work through some of those. Where we can't we are
going to standard MILCON, and like I said, we are going out to
survey and start to set goals like we did in family housing to
get out----
Mr. Kennedy. So are you piloting? We would like to see
where you are piloting projects around the country.
Mr. Arny. That, which we have authority to do--the two
project at San Diego and at Newport News in the Norfolk area,
and the third project in the Mayport-Jax area.
Mr. Kennedy. And then how about Army?
Mr. Arny. Let me----
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Arny. Let us divide up two things here. We are doing
pilot projects on privatization at five separate installations,
but for E-6s and above. If you do E-5s and below--the reason
RCI projects work is there is an income stream. The income
stream is the basic allowance for housing that you would pay a
family for living off-post. So instead of paying him--off-post,
you would bring it inside.
Mr. Kennedy. Right, right.
Mr. Arny. There is no such allowance for housing for single
soldiers, so it presents some difficulties.
Mr. Kennedy. That presents a difficulty, but it also
presents a problem when these are the soldiers we are relying
on to do multiple tours, and they need to be living in quality
quarters irrespective of what their--the way this program is
structured for purposes of allowance for housing, is what we
are saying.
Mr. Arny. I agree. So in areas where we can do it--first of
all, we are fighting internally with our own personnel people
who then have to pay that BAH. So if we can't do it with
privatization, where it doesn't work--remember, it needs to be
up near the fence, it needs to be isolated, there are lots of
different restrictions--then we are focusing on permanent
parties, getting rid of inadequate. We have got the funding to
do that; we now need to move to training and others.
We realize there is a gap and we are trying to get it a
step at a time.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Isn't that one of the
problems we face with the Army growing by what, 67,000, and the
Marine Corps by 22,000? I mean, that has changed the dynamic
here of being able to have these barracks and other things in a
reasonable period of time. Isn't that part of the problem?
Mr. Arny. It is, but to be frank, and I think the Army did
the same thing, but I know, working with Mr. Penn, the Navy, as
opposed to the Department of Navy, coughed up money--what, two
or three budgets ago--to the Marine Corps so that part of Grow
the Force, Grow the Marine Corps, included many more barracks.
And the one thing that we in the I&E world were able to do is
get the Marines to buy them differently.
While the Marines won't privatize, we did get them to go
out and buy barracks in batches rather than one at a time. Now,
you know, on these joint bases, there has been a little
resistance--I am looking at the Air Force here--and I have
heard, you know, there has been reticence about how this is
going to be done. And it does make sense to me that--you know,
there is a lot of things that can be joined, but you have got
to protect the integrity of the missions.
Mr. Dicks. How are you doing on that?
Mr. Arny. We are doing superbly, thanks to Mr. Billings and
his Air Force colleagues that are here today.
Mr. Dicks. What about the ones that aren't here?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Arny. It has been a remarkable effort, and there--and I
have been around the military since 1960. I was an infant at
the time. But as I try and tell folks that you have--two or
three bases that are right next to each other, a civilian
driving by looks at it and assumes it is all Department of
Defense. So it is hard to go to them to say, ``No, you have two
different cultures.'' And they look at you like you are crazy.
But it is cultural change that we are bringing to the
Services, and we meet weekly and bi-weekly in my office with
the Services and their reps banging this stuff out. And we are
making tremendous progress. But we have to grow to get over
those categories.
But joint basing is bringing stuff together, but it is
joint basing only for installation management, not for mission,
and that is a message we have to deliver every week. The
missions are still intact; what we are bringing into jointness
is the mission support, the installation supports for that
mission.
So the mission----
Mr. Dicks. So you think this is moving ahead now----
Mr. Arny. Absolutely.
Mr. Dicks [continuing]. And we don't have this resistance?
Good. I am glad to hear that.
Mr. Billings. Well, sir, and when I came on board in this
job, Secretary Donley and General Schwartz made it a priority
to work with Mr. Arny, to work with us, and we have signed our
MOUs, we are very close to signing the last Phase 1 MOU, I
think by the end of this month.
Mr. Arny. I knew we were achieving victory when the biggest
problem we had at one of the bases, who shall remain nameless,
was the number of guard dogs. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dicks. All right. Well again, I have enjoyed working
with all four of you. I will just say one thing as I walk out
the door, because I have a meeting: We still don't have base
security where I think it ought to be. Every service has a
different approach to this. Secretary Arny, you and I have
talked about this--we have got to get this under control.
Because every time we put in a system at, like, Andrews, or the
Trident Submarine Base, or Fort Dix, we find that a lot of
people are getting on these bases that shouldn't be getting on
them.
Somehow we have got to get this thing standardized and know
what our protocol is. And up to this point I have been working
on this--Secretary Penn knows this; he has been in my office
three or four times trying to get this straightened out.
Everybody points the finger at everybody else. There is no
uniformity across the three Services about how to do this. So I
hope this is something you can take on.
Mr. Arny. Will do, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.

COMMITTEE SUPPORT

We will begin the second round of questioning with Mr.
Wamp, and then with Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Wamp. Well, Sam Farr asked a good question this morning
that I am going to ask of all the witnesses. If you could jump
over on the other side of the table, tell us the one thing that
we need to take away, that we need to hear today from you all
on what we could do to help you best in this bill going
forward--anything at all that is helpful. This morning it was
very helpful. You might not have anything, but I wanted to give
you that opportunity.
Mr. Arny. Good question. And I discussed with members
before, it would be nice if you all had the MILCON end to
payment package too, because one of the issues that we are
faced, I think we are--from the MILCON side, we could always
use more. I mean, there is not a program that doesn't use more.
But we are in decent shape with MILCON, and I think we have the
program to look forward to the future, and we are measuring it
better.
Sustainment was a problem up until a couple of years ago.
We now have established DOD standards at 90 percent sustainment
across the board where we were down at 70 to 75 percent--90
percent sustainment, and we at our office are working--my
office is working with the services to look at, now that we
have done housing--family housing--we have got a better handle
on bachelor housing, I call it--unaccompanied housing--now
admin space.
Eight years ago we looked at, how do we privatize admin
space, and there are all sorts of schemes floating around. None
of them work, because as Mr. Eastin said, there is no income
stream.
So I think we have got a way to do that, and we are going
to work it, and I think you need to ask us, ``How are you doing
now in family housing and bachelor housing, but what are you
doing for admin space? How do you measure whether it is
sustained properly? How do you measure if it is modernized?''
And I think we have got a way to do that.
And again, I want to set basic, simple--I know you didn't
like our inadequate measure, but at least it was a measure that
each Service understood. It wasn't necessarily translatable,
but they all understood it, and we set goals to get there. And
we missed them a little bit, but at least we had goals, and we
are going to try to do that with admin--all the buildings, not
just admin space, but hangars and all the stuff that falls out.
Mr. Wamp. Secretary Eastin.
Mr. Eastin. First let me say, it is rare that I don't
comment on something up here, but you all have supported the
Army's housing and our MILCON exceptionally well, and I thank
the Chairman and the rest of you for that.
And probably outside of your control is when the funding
comes. Everything gets approved, and then we have 8 months left
to go to try to build it all instead of 12 months. I just throw
that out; Chairman Edwards has heard that comment from me for
the last 3 or 4 years now, but I don't know how you fix this,
but----
Mr. Edwards. You were so persuasive last year we got the
bill passed----
Mr. Wamp. But timing is often more important than the
funding, in terms of planning, and finality.
Secretary Penn.
Mr. Penn. If you just continue your support of the quality
of life issues--Rep. Crenshaw mentioned the fact that we have
an authority that is expiring in September. If you just
continue to support us in that area, it is working great. And
thank you so much for your support.
Mr. Wamp. Secretary Billings.
Mr. Billings. Well, sir, thank you. I just, again,
reiterate what my colleagues have said: Thank you. As we move
forward with eliminating Tier 1 dorms, we have $2.2 billion
programmed for that, as the number one priority.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. I think that is a great
question to ask, both this morning and this afternoon.
Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted
to follow up on Mr. Wamp's question, but I think it was--I
guess I will pick on the Air Force a little bit today.
All of you have pretty much the same standards when it
comes to family housing and, you know, individual housing, but
it always seems like the Air Force seems to have nicer
buildings, nicer everything. Is that true or not?
Mr. Arny. You haven't been to Lewis-McChord yet.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Eastin. I take the 5th on that.
Mr. Salazar. Well, I am an Army guy, so I stand up for the
Army.
Mr. Penn. And I am sure when we were flying, we always
landed on Air Force bases, everything was better. [Laughter.]
The food, everything is better at an Air Force base.
Mr. Salazar. I really think it is a case of what base you
are on. And I think that--I will give you the example I heard
as a comment at a Marine Corps who spoke at a--in Quantico
where, as a second lieutenant, he was stationed down there, and
he made the comment that he and his new wife moved into his
house and they went and bought one bedside table for their bed,
not because they couldn't afford two, but because there was no
room in the bedroom for more. And he didn't like to cook, but
he didn't have to worry about it because the kitchen was so
small--this is officer housing--that only one person could fit
in at a time.
And if you could go back now, and I think you need to, to
visit some of the enlisted--that is where our concentration is,
is on our enlisted housing--at the housing at Quantico and all
the bases where it is going in, you will see a standard that
far exceeds anything we have had before for officers, let alone
enlisted housing. The privatization has brought in an outside
perspective.
So the other thing too is, you could go anywhere in the
world in the old days, it is the same house. Well, that same
house may be perfectly adequate for one base, but inadequate--
we were building houses with big lawns in Key West where nobody
could afford to buy lawns, but we were buying them. So in San
Diego, where houses are closer together and land is more
expensive, the houses are closer together and our enlisted
barracks go vertical.
In Norfolk, where there is plenty of land, our enlisted
barracks are more spread out and our family housing is more
spread out, so we have now--the privatization has done wonders
for the family housing. We are trying to get that over to our
other stuff.
Mr. Billings. Sir, just quickly, I wanted to----
Mr. Salazar. I am not picking on you.

AIR FORCE HOUSING

Mr. Billings. No, I understand, but I mean, to put this in
context, this is one of the things that I have learned since I
have been in the Air Force, that our bases are our weapon
systems fighting platforms and have been for the history of the
Air Force. And so that has been one of the reasons that I think
the Air Force has historically put a lot of emphasis on the
housing and the base, in terms of where we have been. In my
short tenure, this is one of the things I have learned.
I do want to tell an anecdote, though. I was coming back
from meeting at U.S. Southern Command last week, and I got to
fly back with General Blum, and General Blum said, ``You are
the installations guy, aren't you?'' and I said, ``Well, yes,
sir,'' and he goes, ``You know, I am finally living on an Air
Force base and I am being treated the way I have always wanted
to be treated my entire life.'' [Laughter.]
Mr. Salazar. And I just wanted to just, in response to Mr.
Eastin's reference to that GAO study that was done in the Army,
that study was actually one that was just supposed to justify
the need for--Pinon Canyon; I don't think it had any reference
to legalities or stuff like that. But I will just leave it
there.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Judge Carter.

BARRACKS

Mr. Carter. I have just about got all my answers, but I
want to go back just for a minute to the privatization issue.
And I understand we have got issues with capital, as does the
whole country and the whole world, but going back to the Army
and privatization, we have talked about this now at least twice
since I have been on this Committee. About what the schedule is
with the Army, and I didn't hear the answer of where we are
going with barracks privatization. I know you have been working
on getting pilot projects going----
Mr. Eastin. I would be happy to furnish that for the
record, because I don't have the exact figures of what is per
year, other than the overall figure that we are going to have--
--
[The information follows:]

The Army does not currently have any Unaccompanied Personnel
Housing (UPH) barracks privatization program or projects for single,
junior Soldiers (Privates through Sergeants) planned.
However, the Army does have a UPH privatization program and
projects for single, senior Soldiers (Staff Sergeants and above,
including officers) where there is a lack of adequate or affordable
accommodations off post. There are five projects with the status of
each indicated in the accompanying chart:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation # Apts # Bedrooms Date privatized 1st apts open All apts open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Irwin, CA................. 200 200 March 2004........ September 2008.... July 2011
Fort Drum, NY.................. 192 320 July 2007......... February 2009..... May 2009
Fort Bragg, NC................. 312 504 December 2007..... January 2009...... July 2010
Fort Stewart, GA............... 334 370 January 2008...... November 2008..... January 2010
Fort Bliss, TX *............... 358 410 Late 2009......... Non-applicable.... Non-applicable
----------------------
1,396 1,804
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Project financing expected in 2009, once the capital markets settle down.

Mr. Carter. Mr. Edwards and I both went through and saw
that we are in the process of modernizing several of our
barracks at Fort Hood, as you mention in the report. Ultimately
we have got to build some new barracks at Fort Hood that really
fit the standards that the Army has set for maintaining
soldiers. That is why I need to find out when we might be going
that way, because ultimately that looks like the solution.
Mr. Eastin. I will furnish you a schedule for Fort Hood,
but the basic problem is a lot broader than Fort Hood. I think
79-or-so percent of our barracks are ancient--some even
acropolis-like, if you will--where you just keep dumping
sustainment money through the hole in the roof, and there is
just a point--you have seen these in old houses--that you just
can't do it anymore and be effective. You need to either tear
it down or rip the floors out and start again, and this is an
expensive process.
Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. I agree with that.
Mr. Arny. And that is one of the reasons we look forward--
at least we are now working with--we tried to do restoration
and modernization on--remember we used the old 67-year, which
didn't work, because if you had a hurricane and dumped a bunch
of money into Pensacola, which is what Mr. Penn and I saw, then
all of a sudden your restoration modernization looked great
Navy-wide, because you are measuring with two gross sets of
standards.
One thing we are looking at is to--we have Q-ratings for
every facility in the Services. Now, some of them haven't paid
attention to those Q-ratings, so what we are looking at is to
say, ``Okay, how many with Q-2 and Q-1 are, you know, are above
what we accept, adequate and excellent?''
So we are looking at, ``Okay, guys. You have got the Q-
ratings. They had better be right, because we are going to
start measuring you against that.'' Very simple, like I said.
And each Service does it a little differently, but they all
have it. That way we can--then the Army leadership can get down
and say, ``Look, I have got half my barracks are Q-3 and Q-4,''
and point to Keith and me and say, ``Okay, when is the program
to get them up?'' ``Well, we need money, and here is what we
need, exactly, to get up there.''
Because before it was all too squishy. We are trying to get
it more finite without trying to over-control it with formulas.
That is my hope for the future, anyway.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Chet.

DOLLAR AMOUNT NEEDED FOR STANDARD HOUSING

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
Let me ask you if each of you could put together some
numbers and, you know, you don't have to sharpen the pencil
down to the penny, but I would like to know in today's dollars
how much money would each of you need to bring all barracks in
your respective service up to your standards, and all on-post
family housing. Is that something that you could do over a 2-
week period--just a broad number? Again, and I would say within
a range of 10 percent--10, 15 percent, either way. Don't spend
thousands of hours getting it down to the penny and dime, but
could you give us a ballpark number? Would that be possible?
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.172

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526A.173

Mr. Arny. Two weeks might be a little tough, potentially.
It is the crazy season right now with the budget, but we can
get you--I think we can get you--at least to show you where we
have got holes.
Mr. Edwards. I would like to--I don't think I have ever
heard that number, and I would like to just get a number of
what that would actually be.
Mr. Arny. Family housing for sure, permanent party barracks
are next easiest; the others might be a little squishy, but we
will definitely----
Mr. Edwards. If our country just said, you know, ``By gosh,
we are just going to see that every soldier, sailor, airman,
and marine is going to live in quality housing, and what is it
going to take to do it? We are going to do it.'' I would just
like to know what that number is.
Mr. Penn. You said on-post. Can we go off-post as well,
because Navy doesn't----
Mr. Edwards. Yes. I didn't want you to have to go out and
evaluate every home that someone is living in on the private
sector, or on BAH--family housing. Family housing, you bet, if
it is on-post, off-post. Don't worry about the Basic Allowance
for Housing number; that would be hard to get a handle unless
you did an inventory of where everybody lived.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Secondly, the Homeowners Assistance Program: Given the same
economic problems that are creating liquidity problems for some
of our private home partnerships, it is also creating problems
for our servicemen and women when they are having to sell their
home because their country asks them to be stationed in another
community in another state. So many of them are having to sell
their homes at absolute fire-sale prices.
We have put $550 million in the stimulus bill to help the
Homeowners Assistance Program. I am not sure, Secretary Arny,
if that is under your jurisdiction or not, but do you, or any
of you, have any thoughts about how that money will be used and
how serious of a problem is this out there?
Mr. Arny. We are working very closely with the Army; we
have set up a working group with all the Services, but the Army
is the lead agent for that. We should be back to you within a
month as to how big the problem is and how we are going to
control that, but that is a wonderful start towards--I mean,
our top priority are the wounded warriors and the families of
the fallen that have had to move.
Mr. Edwards. So you could even--it applies even to widows,
if somebody has----
Mr. Arny. Absolutely.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Lost his or her spouse in service
to country in combat, they have got to move--not only go
through the grieving process, but just get a shalacking in
terms of their loss on their home if they----
Mr. Eastin. What we are developing is guidelines on how
this will work, because I think this is a worthy program, but
you can start playing games, for lack of a better word, with
how much I lost as account of this, and that is where I don't
want--I don't want to get the foul of the same problems that we
have seen around in the financing area, where, you know, you
write something down and the somebody games it for you. So we
have got to do this very carefully. It is a lot of money, and
it couldn't go to a better place. We have gotten, I would say,
a couple hundred inquiries--we have a Web site set up----
Mr. Arny. It already has a Web site and we already have
forms online.
Mr. Eastin. A hundred hits a day.
Mr. Edwards. I think it is important to send a message to
our servicemen and women that when you buy a house it is not a
riskless investment. They have to understand, if they want
upside better than Treasury note interest rates, there is risk
involved.
So I know there is a balancing act. At the same time, we
are in potentially the deepest, longest recession we have had
since the Great Depression at a time where, with BRAC and
global repositioning, we are moving a lot of people around at
the country's request, and there ought to be some balance to
help those.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, can I----
Mr. Edwards. Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. My friend brought this up to me: The way I
understand the program, it is that you have to have--you can't
have bought your house after June of 2006. Those people don't
qualify if you bought your house after June of 2006, and there
is an awful lot of folks that are moving from Hood to Carson
that have homes that were purchased after June of 2006. I don't
know the answer to that. We have been asked that question.
Do you know, Mr. Chairman, if that applies to the HAP
program?
Mr. Edwards. The answer is yes.
Mr. Carter. I thought so. And that is an issue, because,
you know, we are moving to fourth ID to Carson, and that is
going to be an awful lot of soldiers, and----
Mr. Arny. It was tied to when the markets started dropping,
is what I am told, but we will look at it. Again, we have got a
working group together, and as you know, it was done fairly
quickly, and we may need improvements to it as it goes on.
Mr. Edwards. Will the highest priority be given to----
Mr. Arny. Absolutely. Wounded warriors--that is the number
one on everybody's list.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Arny. Also, I think our general philosophy is, we will
not make you whole, but we will reduce the amount of pain. And
we have got to figure out what that is, because I agree with
you, we don't what to--and we also need to parse it down to
look at, you know, who put no money down and lost a lot, who
put 20 percent down, you know, how do you--and then lost their
20 percent--how you balance that off. It is a lot of questions
in there.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.

KOREA HOUSING

Mr. Wamp. Secretary Eastin, despite the fact the Reggie
White was from my district and Usher is from my district, my
most prominent constituent is a guy named General B.B. Bell,
who is back home--and Katie is very sick, by the way; When he
was here last year, and we will hear this later, the
realignment on the Korean Peninsula was of interest and Camp
Humphreys was a unique kind of a situation. Can you update us
on those 2,400 housing units there?
Mr. Eastin. Sir, I would be happy to, but I will refer this
to my deputy, Joe Calcara, who knows this issue backwards and
forwards, and I am only here----
Mr. Calcara. We have reached an agreement--in December--
late December and early January. He is going to lay out the
project using a private finance-type approach. The project is
currently in underwriting. We expect to have a mock closing in
early May, and then have an official closing in June.
The first 1,200 units will--construction will start
immediately on those sometime in July. That should be ready for
the 2012--a thousand units will be in the second tranche, and
we will probably have a second closing maybe 12 months after
the first one, and that builds out the remaining number of
units, the 2,400.
Pinnacle is the master developer. It is an RCI and I think
a Navy housing partner, and they perhaps--in the Air Force. It
is a well known agent. Construction will be by Samsung, which
is one of the largest Korean construction contractors. There is
a huge amount of equity in the deal, so we feel very
comfortable we will get to underwriting. We are dealing with
the liquidity issues, but at last point we had 28 investor----
We also have relatively conservative underwriting elements
in the transaction, so I think the project will close. I am
pretty confident of that.
Mr. Wamp. Good report. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

MARKET LIQUIDITY

Mr. Edwards. Could I ask a follow up on the liquidity issue
that Judge Carter raised? Do we think that providing additional
public capital would help open up private investment dollars?
For example, if we had enough federal dollars to go in where
there is 20 percent down, 30 percent down, or whatever number
you want to use, is that how we address this, because this is a
serious problem?
Mr. Arny. Well, Joe--I would like my deputy to comment on
that, because he has been working on this, if you don't mind.
Mr. Edwards. Sure, absolutely. Have him come to the table,
since Judge Carter is gone.
Just for the record, if you would identify yourself.
Mr. Sikes. I am Joe Sikes, the director for housing for Mr.
Arny. And the answer to that would be that all of the Services
have been talking to their individual financial people, and we
think that maybe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac coming into this
with some guaranteed authorities might actually free it up.
Putting more money at it would effectively just do more MILCON,
if you will, and certainly that can help build some more
houses, but I don't think it really helps free up the private
sector lending.
We are also looking at taking some of the guarantee
authorities we used in the beginning of the program for base
closure guarantees, turning those into some sort of 1-year debt
service or a guarantee to eliminate having to put aside money,
which is being required right now because that doesn't exist in
the market anymore. So we are not totally sure how to get the
market to move, but we are talking to all parts of it we can,
and each of the Services privatization arms are going and
talking to their partners about their specific projects to see
what they need to do to get the----
Mr. Edwards. I don't know if we could find the money, but
if between now and our mark up you were to find that X number
of dollars would, for whatever reason, open up Y number of
dollars, eight in 10 times the kind of leverage that you
testify to, that has occurred in the past. Additional dollars
would really allow us to stay on track, in addition to other
avenues that you are pursuing, please let us know.
And again, I don't want to suggest we will be able to find
the money, but all of us would like to see this family housing
program stay on track and not have to be delayed because of
something that was absolutely not the fault of the servicemen
and women who, despite the recession, continue to get deployed
to Iraq and Afghanistan, and as you know better than anybody,
continue to make tremendous sacrifice.

GUARANTEED LOANS

Mr. Billings. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that the Air
Force is doing with our guaranteed loans is--they were
originally structured for payments at the end, when they were
complete.
Now, as houses are completed, we are freeing up cash to
continue to allow them to move forward during this time. We
have restructured these loans--allowing partial payments for
completed houses, as opposed to the end. This is allowing us to
free up a little cash right now.
Mr. Edwards. Do you audit the return on investment for
these companies? I didn't realize when we first got into this--
and I am thrilled at the good things that have happened--we
worked 8 years to put this plan in place--but they are very
highly leveraged. They are putting up a relatively small amount
of equity and then leveraging that greatly. Can you monitor, on
an installation-by-installation basis, what kind of return on
equity we are making?
Mr. Sikes. Yes, sir----
Mr. Edwards. What is their average return on equity?
Mr. Sikes. It is going to vary greatly by project, but a
lot of them are----
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Just to pick a project, since that is
the one where I looked at the housing with Mr. Carter recently,
could you get me the numbers for Axis lend-lease at Fort Hood?
Mr. Sikes. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]

A typical housing project under the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative (MHPI) includes a one to three percent private equity
investment, with the private partner/owner earning a 12 percent return
on investment. In addition, the private sector partner/owner earns fees
for construction, development and property/asset management. MHPI
project fees range from three to five percent of development and
property/asset management costs, and four to six percent of
construction costs, with up to 50 percent of the total fees being
incentive based.
Fort Hood military housing was privatized in October 2001 and was
the first project negotiated under the Army's Residential Communities
Initiative (RCI). The project finances in the Fort Hood deal structure
reflect market conditions at that time, including the perceived risks
of lender participation in projects under the relatively new MHPI
program. The Fort Hood project features a two percent private sector
equity contribution that earned a 12 percent preferred return during
the initial development phase (IDP). The Ford Hood project features a
five percent total fee (four percent base and one percent incentive)
for developer and property/asset management costs, and features a 5.1
percent total fee (3.6 percent base and 1.5 percent incentive) for
construction.
Additionally, following completion of the IDP, total return on
equity is capped at 25% subject to financial performance of the
project. These terms were consistent with market returns when the
project closed in 2001. One of the lessons learned from the
privatization program is that private equity is the most expensive form
of capital and, as a result, requirements for private equity have been
relaxed in later projects.

Mr. Edwards. I would like to see--if a company is making a,
you know, a responsible return on equity, then we have no right
to ask them--we have no contractual right to ask them to do
more. But if they were making a return on equity that were to
be double or triple what investors are receiving out there in
the private market, it would make me want to find a way to sit
down at a table and talk to them about whether they should wait
till 2034----
Mr. Arny. I think you will find they are all conservative,
because they also have management fees--their total income
isn't coming off their investment. They have management fees
that vary based on our satisfaction for them, too.
Mr. Edwards. Does their return on equity count what they
are making in management fees?
Mr. Sikes. No. They are normally not----
Mr. Edwards. Could you include that, just to pick one
example so I can look at one that I am familiar with at Fort
Hood, include how much they are also making in management fees?
I don't represent it anymore, but I know the person that does.
Mr. Sikes. Sir, we will get that for you. But one thing
that Mr. Arny was indicating was, if you remember at the
beginning of the program we were demanding 10 percent equity,
and we backed off on that because we realized if we were paying
12 percent on that we wouldn't be getting as many houses. So
one reason why it is where it is is because they don't actually
have that much equity in it; they mostly make their money off
of fees, and that causes them to stay around, which is what our
original intent was, that they would have partners that weren't
trying to run out on us as soon as they get their equity back
up, but partners that would stay for 50 years.
We will get you that data, though.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. I don't have any additional questions.
Thank you for your testimony and for your service every
single day. We will stand recessed at the call of the chair.
[Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards:]

Navy Unaccompanied Housing

Question. I understand the Navy is working on a Bachelor Housing
Master Plan to complete the Homeport Ashore initiative and provide all
sailors with adequate housing. When will this plan be completed, and
will it have an impact on the FY10 budget request?
Answer. The Bachelor Housing Master Plan is expected to be
completed in September 2009 and will not have an impact on the FY10
budget request.
Question. As part of this plan, will the Navy establish a standard
for room configuration and living space?
Answer. The Navy will be constructing 1 + 1E units (2 bedroom, 1
bath apartments with kitchenette and laundry) to address our Homeport
Ashore deficit.
Question. How many training barracks spaces does the Navy currently
have? Is the Navy able to determine how many of these spaces are
adequate?
Answer. The Navy has more than 100 facilities designated as
training (dormitory) barracks. This provides approximately 10,000 rooms
with 39,000 individual spaces in support of Navy training. Based on
both the condition and configuration of facilities and their quality
ratings (Q-Ratings), 40% of dormitory facilities are considered not
mission capable (Q4).

Marine Corps Barracks Modernization/Growing the Force

Question. The Marine Corps is on track to meet its Growing the
Force target end-strength of 202,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009.
Even though the Marine Corps was provided an unprecedented amount of
funding for barracks construction in FY09, clearly the MILCON program
has not moved fast enough to accommodate all new unaccompanied marines
while satisfying deficit and adequate barracks requirements for the
pre-GTF force. Please explain the strategy you are using to house
unaccompanied marines until the Commandant's barracks initiative is
completed in 2014, with specific reference to the use of relocatable
facilities and existing inadequate (including gang head) barracks.
Answer. The Marine Corps is grateful for the support Congress has
given us, especially your Subcommittee. Barracks are a critical
facilities element in supporting our war-fighters and the Base Enlisted
Quarters (BEQ) Campaign Plan is an integral part of efforts to improve
the quality of life of our enlisted Marines and Sailors in our
barracks. Because the Marine Corps has a significant and continuing
barracks requirement, we have dedicated a large portion of our MILCON
facility investment to barracks replacement projects. Our primary focus
remains housing our junior enlisted bachelor personnel in pay grades of
E1 through E5. When the Marine Corps undertook its Barracks Initiative,
we intended to reach our goal of a 2+0 room standard by 2012 for an end
strength of 180,000. With the direction to Grow the Force to an end
strength of 202,000, we have had to push that goal to 2014. It should
be noted that the Marine Corps has a permanent 2+0 waiver of the 1+1
module DoD standard.
The Marine Corps does not currently have existing excess barracks
capacity at our installations to support this personnel increase. Given
the expectation that in many locations Marines will arrive under the
Grow the Force initiative before final construction of associated
barracks is realized, we are relying on a variety of means to
accommodate this growth. These means include use of relocatable
barracks at specific locations, greater reliance on Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH), and maximizing the use of existing facilities through
temporarily increasing densities, slowing the demolition of older
facilities, and temporarily reducing the size of units we would
normally require to be housed together under our unit integrity
concept. For example, where BEQs are underutilized, we will billet
Marines by unit below the battalion/squadron level (e.g. maintain
company or platoon integrity) to maximize utilization of the barracks.
In limited instances, barracks with gang heads that have been kept for
use in surge conditions, have been utilized.
All new and replacement BEQ spaces will be constructed to the USMC
2+0 room standard, with shared rooms (1 Marine per ``space'') for E1-E3
and private rooms (1 Marine per ``2 spaces'') for E4-E5. Where space is
limited we are increasing authorization of BAH own-right for senior
NCOs. This allows senior NCOs to live on the local economy, and helps
ease the temporary room shortage. On some bases and stations we will
maximize BEQ efficiency by billeting up to three junior Marines in a
room and two corporals in a room. As a temporary measure, we will look
to billet Marines in surge/overflow barracks during whole barracks
renovations.
At locations where relocatables are part of our temporary solution,
we are ensuring they are of a quality and supportability to maintain
adequate habitability and quality of life for the duration of their
use, and built well enough to minimize any maintenance tail associated
with them. They are much more durable, functional, and aesthetically
pleasing than many previously used relocatable facilities. Use of these
facilities is also limited to a length of service keyed to the
completion of the MILCON project they are supporting--they will not be
kept for future contingencies.
Thank you again for your continued support of this program. Through
the great work of our recruiters and outstanding retention efforts in
the field we will reach our target end-strength ahead of our programmed
BEQ construction plan; however, we do have a plan that provides
adequate interim solutions for housing our Marines and will achieve the
Commandant's desired end state of a 2+0 assignment standard by 2014.

Wounded Warriors Barracks

Question. Please describe the configuration of Marine Corps Wounded
Warrior barracks, how this differs from standard 20
unaccompanied quarters, and how the layout serves the recovery and
transition process.
Answer. All Marine Corps barracks rooms in the Wounded Warrior
barracks are configured to be fully accessible to the physically
handicapped. Enhancements in the Wounded Warrior barracks include:
wheelchair accessibility ramps; larger automated opening doors;
elevators; Americans with Disabilities Act compliant laundry rooms;
larger rooms; tilt mirrors; roll-in showers; low sinks and counters.
Emergency call buttons will be provided to ensure a higher degree of
safety for Marines who may experience unforeseen complications or
difficulties during their recuperation. The larger rooms will
facilitate storage and use of wheelchairs as well as adaptive
equipment, extra prosthetic devices, and specialized athletic
equipment. Specialized dietary requirements will be facilitated by the
on-site common kitchen facility. On-site multipurpose rooms will be
used for physical therapy, massage, and interactions with health care
professionals as required. Counseling rooms will be used by a variety
of transition specialists meeting with Wounded Warriors such as Career
Retention Specialists; Veterans Administration counselors; Veterans
Services Organization representatives and Physical Evaluation Board
counselors. Lounges within the barracks provide the opportunity for
recovering Wounded Warriors to provide and obtain peer support and
interaction. The paved fitness trails will provide the degree of safety
and trafficability required for our Marines who need a level, hard
surface to recreationally rehabilitate. These enhancements will give
Wounded Warriors greater mobility to move around and to use the
facility independent of assistance, and for all our Wounded Warriors
these enhancements will greatly increase their confidence and morale.
Our standard barracks do not have all of these enhancements, although
it is a requirement for all of our newly constructed standard barracks
to have a minimum of 2 rooms on the ground floor designed as physically
handicapped accessible rooms.
Finally, the Wounded Warrior barracks will be part of the Wounded
Warrior campuses at Marine Corps Bases Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune.
Centralization of the Wounded Warrior population will facilitate
communication of essential updates and ease accountability for Marines
and sailors in residence. Consolidation of our Wounded Warriors will
also reduce the transportation requirement. The many features of this
robust facility are essential to support the recovery and transition of
our Wounded Warriors.
Question. What is the size and composition of a Wounded Warrior
unit in the Marine Corps?
Answer. The Wounded Warrior Regiment Headquarters and its
Battalions are currently staffed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Staff: MIL CIV CTR TOT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regiment Staff:..................... 70 19 33 122 (19 of military are mobilized 27%)
Bn East Staff:...................... 75 7 21 103 (59 of military are mobilized 79%)
Bn West Staff:...................... 61 10 13 84 (38 of military are mobilized 62%)
Total:.......................... 206 36 67 309 (116 of military are mobilized 56%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(#Note: Staff number does not include Marine for Life program which is not dedicated to injured support
mission.)

WWR Patients Tracked and Owned:

WWR HQ Owned: 10
LODs: 413
ADSW Medical Hold: 10
Medical Hold: 288
District Injured Support Cells: 647
BN East Owned: 362
BN East Tracked: 599
BN West Owned: 56
BN West Tracked: 873

WWR Total: 3,258

Family Housing--General

Question. You state in your testimony that the Army will commit to
a ``renewed focus and investment'' in housing. What specifically is
meant by this statement? Do you feel that Army family housing efforts
have been insufficient?
Answer. What is meant by the statement is that the Army is
constantly looking for opportunities to improve its Family housing and
single Soldier housing programs. We are proud of our programs, but not
so proud that we think they are perfect. We have standards and
procedures that specify the conditions in which Soldiers and Families
should be housed. But where we fall short, we try to learn what went
wrong, and how to fix it in the future.
The best way to understand the statement is to examine it in
context with the portion of the testimony that covered barracks
programs. In the aftermath of concerns about barracks conditions last
year, the Army conducted a sweeping inspection of our barracks
worldwide to ascertain the extent of the maintenance and facility
issues we were facing. We took immediate actions to correct
deficiencies whenever they were uncovered.
We sought to learn from the situation last year by making important
changes to the way we manage our barracks. The combination of changes
we have made, under the broad mantle of the ``First Sergeants Barracks
Initiative,'' exemplifies our overall approach of seeking opportunities
to improve our housing programs whenever possible.
Lastly, the Army is focused in our construction, sustainment,
restoration, and modernization programs to buy out our barracks
requirements for permanent party barracks by FY 2013 and training
barracks by FY 2015.
Housing Market Analyses have identified several Grow-the-Army
installations that have shortfalls in available family housing.
Question. Which specific installations have an insufficient end-
state of available family housing, and what is the deficiency at each
installation?
Answer. Based on the latest approved Housing Market Analyses (2007-
2008), the following installations are projected to have an
insufficient supply of Family housing.

Fort Bliss, TX--2,690 units
Fort Bragg, NC--150 units
Fort Campbell, KY--50 units
Fort Carson, CO--952 units
Fort Drum, NY--1,762 units
Fort Gordon, GA--459 units
Fort Knox, KY--246 units
Fort Lewis, WA--1,272 units
Fort Polk, LA--179 units
Fort Riley, KS--313 units
Fort Sill, OK--78 units
Fort Stewart, GA--91 units
Fort Wainwright, AK--230 units
USAG Oahu, HI--1,056 units
White Sands Missile Range, NM--793 units

Question. Please provide a detailed plan of how the deficiency at
each installation will be addressed.
Answer. The Army relies on the local community to provide most of
the housing for Army Families. All of the installation Family housing
inventories with projected deficits are privatized or scheduled for
privatization through the Army's Residential Communities Initiative
(RCI). Where Housing Market Analyses project an insufficient supply of
Family housing, the Army has engaged with local community leaders to
see how we can help to encourage local housing development for
Soldiers. In several cases, local development alone may be insufficient
to supply the housing when needed, and therefore, the Army is
programming additional funding to contribute to the RCI project to
build additional Family housing units. The list below details the
Army's strategy to meet Family housing requirements.

Fort Bliss, TX--Use additional equity (FY08-09) and encourage local
development.
Fort Bragg, NC--Use additional equity (FY08).
Fort Campbell, KY--Rely on local community.
Fort Carson, CO--Use additional equity (FY08-09).
Fort Drum, NY--Encourage local development.
Fort Gordon, GA--Rely on local community.
Fort Knox, KY--Seek additional equity and rely on local community.
Fort Lewis, WA--Use additional equity (FY08) and encourage local
development.
Fort Polk, LA--Seek additional equity.
Fort Riley, KS--Rely on local community.
Fort Sill, OK--Seek additional equity.
Fort Stewart, GA--Use additional equity (FY09).
Fort Wainwright, AK--Privatize in FY09.
USAG Oahu, HI--Rely on local community.
White Sands Missile Range, NM--Seek additional equity and encourage
local development.

Housing Services

You state in your testimony that the fiscal year 2010 budget will
support staff and facilities required to enhance housing assistance
services for soldiers and families living off post.
Question. What level of staff and funding increases are necessary
for this purpose?
Answer. Current staffing and funding levels are adequate. As Grow
the Army initiatives are realized at Army garrisons, we will increase
staffing as necessary. The Army recognizes the various stationing
actions, combined with the housing market downturn, will result in many
Soldiers and Families looking to receive help from our housing service
offices. The Army is focused on improving the quality of the housing
services we provide, and being responsive to the needs expressed by our
service members and Families.
Question. Please provide a specific list of new facilities that
will be needed to support increased services.
Answer. No new facilities are currently required to provide
services. Existing housing offices will be utilized in their present
locations. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides
funding for the upgrade of three Housing Support Offices, and signage
and flooring for another 56. We are currently reviewing requirements
for all garrison housing offices for future programming of repair,
upgrade, or replacement.

Fort Huachuca/Yuma Proving Ground RCI

The Army recently indicated its intent to award a project for Fort
Huachuca and Yuma Proving Ground in which the initial development cost
would be $110.2 million, with the developer securing $90.4 million from
the private sector and providing $1.8 million of its own equity. The
balance of the funds, according to Army, would come from ``net
operating income and interest earned on the construction escrow fund''.
Question. Please explain in greater detail how this will work.
Answer. Net Operating Income will be generated through rent
collections by the RCI project in the process of providing housing to
residents. This source of funds is the money that is left after the
expenses of the project have been paid. The RCI project will receive
rent from residents and will use a portion of these funds to pay for
utilities, maintenance, and other operating expenses. The money that
remains after paying project costs will be used as a source of funding
for a portion of the project's development work, including the
replacement and renovation of homes.
Another source of development funds is the interest income that can
be earned from construction escrow funds. Construction escrow funds are
designated for building new homes and renovating existing homes over
the next few years of the project and can be invested in an interest-
bearing account. These funds earn interest income for the project while
in escrow accounts and the interest earnings add to the total funds
available for project development.
Question. Has the Army taken this approach on any other RCI
projects?
Answer. Every RCI project has included the Net Operating Income
generated from the particular project as part of the funding for the
development of new and renovated homes. This income from each RCI
project, after covering project expenses, provides a payment to the
accounts designated for that project's development. Also, each project
maintains construction escrow accounts that earn interest payments on
these invested funds until they are withdrawn to construct new and
renovate existing homes. This interest income serves as another source
of funds for the development.

Barracks

Question. In May 2008, the Army informed Members of Congress that
$10 billion in future investment would be necessary to eliminate
inadequate barracks. Adjusting for fiscal year 2009 funding levels,
what is the total investment (including military construction and O&M
funds) that the Army now requires to eliminate inadequate barracks?
Answer. As of fiscal year (FY) 2009 budget submission, the Army
needs $8.3 billion from FY10-13 to provide quality barracks that meet
Army standards for Soldiers in permanent party and training barracks to
keep the buyout of inadequate barracks on track for FY 2015.
Question. Please provide a year-by-year funding and project
schedule that shows how Army will fund the buyout of inadequate
permanent party barracks by FY 2013, and training barracks by FY 2015.
Answer. The fiscal year (FY) 2009 President's Budget Request
identified funding required each year to buyout is as follows:

Permanent Party Barracks

$725 million--FY10
$1.9 billion--FY11
$1.3 billion--FY12
$1.6 billion--FY13

Training Barracks

$724 million--FY10
$333 million--FY11
$913.2 million--FY12
$816 million--FY13

Additional funding will be required in FY14-FY15 to complete the
training barracks buyout. Once the FY10 President's Budget Request is
released, these figures may change, and we can update you at that time.
Question. You state that ``any soldier found living in a
substandard room has been, and will be, relocated.'' For this purpose,
what does ``substandard'' mean?
Answer. The term ``substandard'' is defined as housing that does
not provide a decent, safe, sanitary, and habitable accommodation in
good repair; housing that does not meet minimum space and privacy
standards; and housing that does not provide separate and secure male
and female sleeping and bathroom facilities.
Question. You state that ``we have transferred barracks ownership
from deploying units to the garrison in order to better maintain them
at an acceptable standard. We are now centrally managing our barracks.
Why didn't IMCOM already centrally ``own'' and maintain barracks?
Wasn't that part of the purpose for which IMCOM was created? What role
does IMCOM play in barracks maintenance and repair?
Answer. From the outset, the Installation Management Command
(IMCOM) has owned and maintained barracks; however, the day-to-day
barracks management was shared with the occupying units. The operating
tempo of the Overseas Contingency Operations revealed that the units
could no longer devote time to barracks utilization and management. To
rectify this, IMCOM initiated the First Sergeants Barracks Initiative
(FSBI), which provides room-by-room barracks accountability. Under
FSBI, garrisons are now responsible to identify, report, and correct
barracks deficiencies.
Question. Under the First Sergeants Barracks Initiative, how does a
given soldier take concerns about living conditions to the chain of
command so that an official with the decision making and funding
authority can correct the problem?
Answer. Under FSBI, the Soldier takes their concerns about living
conditions to the Garrison Commander's Housing Office. The Housing
Office will then ensure the concern is addressed in a timely,
effective, and economical manner.
Question. What are the specific responsibilities of the sergeants
major who have been placed at directorates of public works?
Answer. The Directorate of Public Works (DPW) Sergeants Major (SGM)
provide the Garrison Command Sergeant Major (GCSM) with critical
insight into installation support requirements. DPW SGMs have
installation engineering and infrastructure management expertise as
well as vast operational experience that is very valuable to the
installation. On larger installations, the DPW SGM is responsible for
monitoring facilities renovations and duties to ensure that all life,
health, and safety issues are identified and corrected.
Some of the specific duties performed by the DPW SGM are:
(1) Meet and foster positive working relationships with all of the
unit command teams and civilian partners on the installation,
especially with the installation grounds and maintenance teams and all
Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (UPH) managers. DPW SGM is a member of
the Installation Planning Board and a Master Planner with continuity of
``Soldier Care'' in mind.
(2) Monitor First Sergeant's Barracks Initiative (FSBI) and
barracks renovation/construction projects as well as provide input to
the installation command team and solicit feedback.
(3) Support the Barracks Manager by being the conduit between
barracks residents and their chain of command.
Question. At what threshold do mold conditions in barracks present
what the Army considers an unacceptable risk to soldier health?
Answer. The presence of mold is unacceptable from a quality of life
perspective, even if it does not pose an immediate health risk.
Black mold, specifically, is toxic and may have an adverse impact
on a Soldier's health. Upon detection of what appears to be black mold
by a Soldier or through a routine inspection, the appropriate medical
officials are notified to determine if the mold is unsafe. An air
quality test may be conducted if necessary. If mold is found within the
barracks, all efforts are made to remediate it within 24 hours. If the
mold cannot be remediated within 24 hours, the affected Soldier(s) are
moved out of the barracks and housed in a safe environment. Upon
complete remediation of mold, Soldiers are returned to the barracks.
Most installations have contracts with service providers that will
respond within 24 hours. Otherwise, the remediation is done with in-
house staff. The Installation Management Command (IMCOM) is notified of
any instances of black or toxic mold through a Serious Incident Report.
The IMCOM Command Sergeant Major is also notified to ensure IMCOM
headquarters is apprised of the situation.
Question. How many barracks have been deemed unlivable due to mold
conditions?
Answer. The Army has not deemed any barracks unlivable due to mold
conditions. Upon detection of mold, appropriate actions are taken.
There have been two instances in which entire sets of barracks have
been vacated to remove mold; however, the Army has not deemed these
unlivable as the mold has been successfully remediated. Where mold has
been a persistent and recurring problem in very humid climates,
vacating a facility for an extended period can be an effective method
to ensure that it has been dealt with properly.
Measures have been put into place to minimize the potential for
mold growth and regrowth in our barracks. Installation Directorates of
Public Works are installing proper vapor barriers and special HVAC
systems with ultraviolet lighting that will kill mold. Barracks are
also being renovated and upgraded through the Barracks Improvement
Program to prevent the conditions in which mold grows.
Question. This Committee has received heightened interest in
barracks privatization for junior enlisted in the past year. Putting
aside concerns about the payment of BAH, are there any concerns that
you have about barracks privatization, speaking purely from the
installation management side?
Answer. From the installation management side, some of the concerns
regarding barracks privatization for junior enlisted Soldiers include
adjustments to Army culture and command, assignment policies,
deployment issues and the current state of the financial markets. The
Army has approved a portion of privatized unaccompanied quarters for
single Staff Sergeants (E-6) and above at five Army installations where
there were housing shortfalls for those grades. We will continue to
monitor the Army's existing Unaccompanied Personnel Housing
privatization projects as well as the Navy's pilot program.
Question. What is the Army standard for training barracks?
Answer. There are different space and privacy standards for
training barracks based upon Soldier grades and the type of training
program. Basic Training and One Station Unit Training barracks are
configured for open bay living spaces with common area latrines.
Advanced Individual Training barracks are configured for two Soldiers
per living area with a shared bathroom.

Guard and Reserve

Question. How will the Army increase housing opportunities for
mobilized Guard and Reserve soldiers?
Answer. The Army is reviewing how to best accommodate the
approximate 60,000 Reserve Component Soldiers that mobilize annually.
The Army is considering establishing primary mobilizations centers
potentially at Camps Shelby and Atterbury, and Forts Drum, Bragg, and
McCoy; however, the Guard and Reserve have additional requirements to
provide quality training facilities at many installations. Much of that
requirement will be identified in future budget submissions.

Warrior Transition

Question. Provide a list of the 36 Army Warrior Transition Units,
and the size of each unit.
Answer. The accompanying list details Warrior Transition Unit
locations and sizes. The Warrior in Transition population is a snapshot
in time. Actual numbers of Warriors in Transition is constantly in flux
as patients complete their treatment and new patients arrive. WTUs are
closing at the noted locations because of decreasing patient loads, or
in the case of Fort Lee, realignment with the Fort Eustis WTU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warrior in
# Installation Location transition Cadre Total
population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Ft Richardson......... AK 105 57 162
2................................... Ft Wainwright......... AK 85 30 115
3................................... Ft Rucker (WTU AL 2 5 7
closing).
4................................... Redstone Arsenal (WTU AL 11 6 17
closing).
5................................... Ft Huachuca........... AZ 50 22 72
6................................... Ft Irwin.............. CA 48 17 65
7................................... Balboa (Navy)......... CA 63 21 84
8................................... Ft Carson............. CO 534 243 777
9................................... Walter Reed Army DC 683 232 915
Medical Center.
10.................................. Ft Stewart............ GA 354 169 523
11.................................. Ft Benning............ GA 307 136 443
12.................................. Ft Gordon............. GA 445 160 605
13.................................. Schofield Barracks.... HI 257 109 366
14.................................. Ft Riley.............. KS 270 123 393
15.................................. Ft Leavenworth (WTU KS 20 4 24
closing).
16.................................. Ft Campbell........... KY 512 250 762
17.................................. Ft Knox............... KY 308 132 440
18.................................. Ft Polk............... LA 180 114 294
19.................................. Ft Meade.............. MD 108 26 134
20.................................. Ft Leonard Wood....... MO 151 54 205
21.................................. Ft Bragg.............. NC 614 222 836
22.................................. Ft Dix................ NJ 102 48 150
23.................................. Ft Drum............... NY 359 132 491
24.................................. West Point............ NY 102 33 135
25.................................. Ft Sill............... OK 93 42 135
26.................................. Ft Jackson............ SC 90 35 125
27.................................. Ft Sam Houston........ TX 568 183 751
28.................................. Ft Hood............... TX 734 460 1194
29.................................. Ft Bliss.............. TX 257 117 374
30.................................. Ft Belvoir............ VA 68 27 95
31.................................. Ft Eustis............. VA 134 51 185
32.................................. Ft Lee (WTU closing).. VA 49 25 74
33.................................. Ft Lewis.............. WA 421 232 653
34.................................. Schweinfurt, Wuerzburg GE 143 56 199
35.................................. Heidelberg............ GE 17 36 53
36.................................. Landstuhl............. GE 138 57 195
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question. How are the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
different than the standards established in the Americans with
Disabilities Act?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DoD) adopted new accessibility
standards in 2004 (Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural
Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines) which requires access for
persons with disabilities to federally funded facilities. The new
standards replaced the older Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
(UFAS) and the Americans with Disabilities Act Architectural Guidelines
(ADAAG).
Due to some subtle statutory differences between the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act of
1968 (ABA), the implementing guidelines for the two laws are similar
but not identical. In addition, the ADAAG had provisions for features
and facilities that were not addressed in the UFAS including provisions
for van accessible parking spaces, public telephones for the deaf
(TTYs), automated teller machines, and transportation facilities. To
address these differences, Army Regulation 420-1 requires Army
facilities to comply with the most stringent accessibility requirement.
DoD and the Army coordinate compliance issues with the Federal
Access Board. The United States Access Board was created in 1973 and is
an independent Federal agency devoted to accessibility for people with
disabilities. The Access Board is responsible for developing and
maintaining accessibility guidelines for the construction and
alteration of facilities covered by the ADA and ABA. The Board develops
and maintains design criteria for the built environment, transit
vehicles, telecommunications equipment, and for electronic and
information technology. It also provides technical assistance and
training on these requirements and on accessible design and continues
to enforce accessibility standards that cover federally funded
facilities. A guide on the Board's website (http://www.access-
board.gov/) provides additional information on compliance with the
requirements of the ABA and ADA.

FSRM funding for barracks

Question. How much FSRM funding did the Army spend on barracks in
fiscal years 2007 and 2008?
Answer. In fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the Army spent about $656
million ($140.1 million and $515.9 million, respectively) of FSRM funds
on sustaining, improving and modernizing barracks.
Question. What is the projected amount of FSRM spending on barracks
in fiscal year 2009?
Answer. During fiscal year 2009, the Army has spent, or will spend,
about $785 million of FSRM funds on sustaining, improving and
modernizing barracks ($647M Active, $30M ARNG, $8M USAR). On a related
note, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
directed the Army to spend at least $153 million for barracks over the
course of the legislation's timeframe (which includes FY 2009). The
Army anticipates spending significantly more on barracks FSRM than the
Congressionally directed minimum during the course of executing ARRA
funds.
Question. What is the projected FSRM requirement for fiscal year
2010?
Answer. For fiscal year (FY) 2010, the Army's FSRM models project
an estimated requirement of about $600 million to sustain, improve and
modernize barracks. At this time, it is premature to say what amount of
FSRM funds will be programmed against this requirement. Once the
President releases the FY 2010 budget, we can provide additional
information.

Government-Owned Family Housing

Question. In a report to Congress, Army indicated that it has over
7,200 Government-owned ``adequate'' homes that need repairs or
improvements costing between $10,000 and $30,000. Although this is not
explicit in the report, it appears likely that the largest portion of
these homes is overseas, particularly in Germany. Is this correct?
Answer. Yes. As a result of privatization, the Army's largest
number Government-owned, on-post Family housing inventory are located
at foreign locations. The Army had expected the elimination of all
inadequate government owned to be funded and completed by 2011 for
foreign locations. As a result of stationing decisions at Baumholder,
Germany, this installation's status changed from a non-enduring
location where no construction funds were programmed, to an enduring
location. Funding for Family housing replacement projects will be
considered in future budget requests to eliminate the remaining
inadequate homes at Baumholder.

Privatizing of Army Lodging

Question. Which installations are in the awarded first group for
PAL?
Answer. The first Privatization of Army Lodging (PAL) Group, Group
A, include: Fort Hood and Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Fort Riley and Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas; Fort Sill, Oklahoma; Fort Rucker and Redstone
Arsenal, Alabama; Fort Polk, Louisiana; Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona;
Fort Myer, Virginia; Fort McNair, District of Columbia; and Fort
Shafter and Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii.
Although Fort McNair and Fort Shafter were both initially included
as part of Group A, the due diligence process (conducted in close
coordination with the Army) determined that the demand at these
installations is best accommodated at the nearby locations of Fort Myer
and Tripler Army Medical Center, respectively.
Question. When will the first group be completed?
Answer. The first PAL Group, Group A, is scheduled to transfer mid-
2009. The Project is working with the capital markets to finalize
lending terms. Once transferred, the first phase of development will be
completed within three years.
Question. What Federal government contributions are being made to
the first group project, and how much private sector capital will be
provided?
Answer. In 2008, the value of the contributed Army Lodging
facilities and facility content was determined to be $36 million. There
is no government cash equity contribution, and the scope of the first
PAL Project, Group A, is approximately $317 million. All of the $317
million will be funded through private sector capital and financing.
Question. What is the timeline for groups two and three?
Answer. Any follow-on groups will be dependent upon OSD review and
approval following PAL Group A implementation.
Thursday, March 19, 2009.

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND

WITNESSES

ADMIRAL TIMOTHY J. KEATING, U.S. NAVY COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND
GENERAL WALTER ``SKIP'' SHARP, COMMANDER, REPUBLIC OF KOREA--UNITED
STATES COMBINED FORCES COMMAND, AND COMMANDER, UNITED STATES FORCES
KOREA

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I think we will go ahead and get
started. We have the staff and the ranking member here, so we
can move ahead.
Good afternoon. I would like to call the subcommittee to
order. We are here today to discuss the basing posture of the
U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea and the implications
that ongoing realignments and initiatives will have for
military construction and family housing.
Many experts on foreign affairs believe that the
international system is currently undergoing a great shift in
relative power from the West to the nations of the Pacific Rim.
For several years now, we in this subcommittee have been
discussing the massive realignment of forces that is underway
in Korea, Japan, and Guam, to better prepare the U.S. to face
its security challenges of the future.
This realignment is totally dependent upon billions of
dollars in military construction funding, which, in conjunction
with the generous assistance of our Asian allies, will provide
the facilities that our forces will need to sustain the U.S.
military power in the region. We will discuss this and other
regional issues with our witnesses today.
Before we proceed, I would like to recognize our ranking
member, Mr. Wamp, for any comments he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To Admiral Keating and General Sharp, I would just thank
you for your service. It is extraordinary. I can't help but
think that Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea are in
excellent hands, even though I know that B.B. Bell left big
shoes to fill, especially since he is now my most prominent
constituent.
And all of our hearts and thoughts and prayers are with
Katie and the family at this time, where they are--while they
are waiting hopefully to be able to get in line and take care
of her physically.
But there are many challenges. Our subcommittee finished
its work in a bipartisan, cooperative way on time last year. A
lot of other things were not finished, so we are very grateful
for that leadership, because we want to honor all of our men
and women in uniform on the MILCON side and our veterans that
have served our country so well.
We are committed to doing that again. And, frankly, all the
way from India east, we know that your commands are really
critical today because of what is happening, west of you and
all the other infrastructure improvements and the big changes
in Korea, with our capabilities with housing and moving a base.
And I talked to Admiral Keating about Guam, because it is
still the big piece of what is happening there in the region.
We are interested; we are grateful; we are totally supportive
in a bipartisan way.
We welcome you back again today. It is probably going to be
a crazy 2 or 3 hours here because AIG messes us up. So that is
all I will say. I know we are going to have votes back and
forth, but just bear with us. We will get through the questions
this afternoon.
We are grateful for your service and every single man,
woman in uniform that you represent, we want you to know and we
want them to know through you that we are grateful for their
service.
And I yield back.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. And well said, Zach.
Our witnesses don't need an introduction, but they deserve
one. Admiral Timothy J. Keating assumed Pacific Command on
March 23rd of 2007. And, Admiral, we are honored that you are
here with us.
Admiral Keating. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. He has 38 years of service to our nation,
after graduating from the Naval Academy in 1971. He is a naval
aviator with over 5,000 flight hours. And the bio also said
1,200 arrested landings. In case any civilians didn't know what
that part meant, I was going to leave that out. But I assume
those are carrier landings?
Admiral Keating. They are, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. He was commander of the Northern Command
and NORAD from 2004 to 2007. And thank you for that service, as
a native of Dayton, Ohio.
General Walter ``Skip'' Sharp, General, we are honored to
have you here again. And thank you for your service, as well.
He is commander of U.S. Forces Korea and Combined Forces
Command and United Nations Command since June of 2008. He was
born, interestingly, while his father was serving in the Korean
War, another example of the legacy of military families. It
always humbles me how many military--or military leaders are
first, second, third generation of service to our country in
uniform and how many of the children of our top military
officials have sons and daughters serving.
General Sharp spent 35 years in service after graduating
from West Point in 1974. He has had a variety of command posts,
including commanding troops in Desert Storm, Haiti, and Bosnia.
He has also served on four Joint Staff assignments. He has
three children, one of whom is married to an Army major
stationed in Germany.
Are they still in Germany----
General Sharp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Right now? He is a native of
Morgantown, West Virginia.
Again, as Mr. Wamp said, we are very honored that you are
here and, most importantly, for your lifelong service and
leadership to our country and to our military.
We would like to recognize you each for opening statements.
We will put any longer, formal statement into the record, but
we would like to recognize you now.
Admiral.

Statement of Admiral Timothy J. Keating

Admiral Keating. Great. Thank you, Chairman, Representative
Wamp, Mr. Farr, Mr. Dicks, good to see you all. Thanks for this
opportunity. I have the rare privilege of--how do you do, sir--
representing the 325,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines,
and Department of Defense civilians who work for us all in the
United States Pacific Command.
You mentioned a point, Chairman. To elaborate, Skip has kin
that are in service. My dad was in the Navy in World War II in
the Pacific, so it is a great privilege to follow in his
footsteps. And our son and son-in-law are both F-18 pilots in
the United States Navy.
Mr. Edwards. Wow. That is a great legacy. Thank you for
that.
Admiral Keating. The beat goes on.
If I could take a second of the committee's time to kind of
go over the strategy--of the Pacific Command and tee it up in
kind of a numerical fashion, we are privileged to represent
folks who occupy about 50 percent of the service of the Earth,
half the world's population, 36 countries in our AOR.
Five of our Asia Pacific nations are allied to us through
formal treaties. Skip lives in one of them. We have the most
populous nation, the largest Muslim population, and the largest
democracy in our area of responsibility. We have about two-
thirds of the U.S. two-way trade that is conducted in our AOR.
Interestingly, 15 of the 20 largest ports in the world by
volume are in our AOR. Nine of those are in China. Shanghai is
now the biggest port in the world by volume.
We are pleased with the general state of affairs, and we
will be happy to entertain all questions about those affairs in
our region. And we are optimistic about continued progress.
We are very proud of our legacy and the leadership role
that we have been able to assume in the region. And we are
committed to guaranteeing continued success.
We want to ensure our capacity and capability both enable
us to succeed in our primary mission of defending our homeland
and the interests of our nation and our allies.
To do all that, we employed a partnership readiness
presence strategy. We think it is a blueprint for enhancing our
relationships, and this is a very critical notion for us. It is
not just the United States Pacific Command. It is all of the
agencies of the federal government, the countries with whom we
deal, their militaries, their governmental agencies, and
increasingly the private sector that help us form this
cooperation and collaboration partnership that we think is
working very well.
We have been to 27 or 28 of those 36 countries in the 2
years we have been in command. And a theme that is
unmistakable, it is expressed in varying degrees, but those
countries view us, the United States, not just Pacific Command
or U.S. Forces Korea, as the indispensable partner.
Now, some of them advertise it a little more vocally than
others. Some trumpet it; some keep it very quiet. But it is an
unmistakable theme, and we are looking to capitalize on that.
Now, for all of that, level of stability and somewhat
gradually increasing prosperity for all of those in our country
and the increase of democracy throughout our region--India, for
example, has elections coming up, as does Malaysia, Japan
likely to, all of these democracies in action, there are
challenges in our area of responsibility.
Foremost among them, we are dedicated to curtailing and
extinguishing the spread of violent extremism throughout all of
the Asia Pacific region. Events in Mumbai and ongoing events in
the southern Philippines, in particular, reinforce to us the
importance of our mission, progress being made in those
countries and in those areas that we think is significant and
bodes well for success in the future.
A second area of concern--and Skip lives with this on a
daily basis--technology proliferation, the possibility of
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, worse case of all, to
include space and missile systems, and that, of course,
includes North Korea. And we would be happy to field your
questions on developments in North Korea, Skip being the guy
who handles that as an expert on a daily basis.
Finally, a few words about the People's Republic of China.
We made real headway, we thought, in the first half of 2008.
Then we had events, including denial of the port visit by naval
ships, and Taiwan--and China's suspension of mil-to-mil
discussions following the announcement of the next round of
Taiwan arms sales. So we have not had any significant military-
to-military dialogue with the People's Republic of China in
over 6 months.
So the relationship is clearly not where we would like it
to be. We are also concerned significantly with the People's
Liberation Army Navy and other agencies' activity in the South
China Sea, as demonstrated by their efforts to get the USNS
Impeccable to leave its location in an international operating
zone, well clear of Chinese national waters, of a couple of
weeks ago.
We have resumed our operations there, as it happens. We are
escorting as we speak the next vessel that is conducting that
oceanographic research for us, U.S. armed combatant. It is out
of sight of our ship now, but we will continue to provide
response, if necessary, should the Chinese give us further
reason to look very carefully at their behavior in a maritime
domain.
All that said, I remain cautiously optimistic about the
future of our relationship with China. It is of significant
importance to us. We think there is little merit in operating
in two separate spheres, so we are looking to bring the mil-to-
mil relationship back on a more collaborative and cooperative
basis, hopefully in the near term.
So thanks for giving us the privilege of giving you a
little bit of the United States Pacific Command perspective. We
are always anxious to have members and staffers come out and
visit us to see the young men and women who are doing the real
essential work for our nation's success in what we think is an
increasingly Asia Pacific-oriented world.
Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Timothy J. Keating
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.009

Mr. Edwards. Admiral Keating, thank you very much.
General Sharp.

Statement of General Walter L. Sharp

General Sharp. Chairman Edwards, Representative Wamp, and
distinguished members of this panel, it is indeed an honor for
me to be here today. And it is a real privilege for me to
represent the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, DOD
civilians, and all the families that serve in the Republic of
Korea today.
On behalf of all those outstanding men and women, I really
want to express our thanks to this subcommittee for all that
you have shown to support our operations and our quality of
life in Korea.
Your support allows us to promote peace and stability on
the Korean peninsula and improve security in Northeast Asia
and--which is, I think, very important, given the national
security interests that we have in the Republic of Korea and in
all of Northeast Asia.
The United States does have a significant national security
interest in Northeast Asia. The Republic of Korea plays a vital
role in the region that accounts for 22 percent of all the U.S.
trade in goods. It is a first-class economic power, our
seventh-largest trading partner, and one of the most
technologically and scientifically advanced countries in the
world.
It has been a partner with us around the world, and it has
proven to be, I believe, the strongest alliance that we have,
an alliance that is forged in blood and is maintained by
enduring commitments and friendship of the Korean and American
people.
The Republic of Korea armed forces have fought alongside
Americans in Vietnam. They participated in Operation Desert
Storm. They deployed forces to Iraq and Afghanistan. The
Republic of Korea is currently participating in six U.N.
peacekeeping missions around the world today. They recently
deployed a 4,500-ton destroyer and anti-submarine helicopter
off the waters of Somalia to fight piracy operations.
I also want to thank you all, the members of Congress, for
passing the legislation that elevated the Republic of Korea
foreign military sales status to a level that is on par with
the countries of NATO, as well as other nations with
longstanding U.S. allies.
Currently, the Republic of Korea has over 560 FMS cases
that are open, for a total value of over $12 billion. And this
legislation will go a long way to enhancing the alliance's
combined warfighting capability.
And when I came into command, I established three
priorities. The first is to be prepared to fight and win, and I
can report to this committee that our alliance, the ROK-U.S.
alliance, and all the servicemembers of that alliance are
strong and we are ready to fight and win against any
contingency on the peninsula today, all the way from
instability up to major combat.
And my second priority was to strengthen the alliance,
strengthen this strong U.S.-ROK alliance. We are adapting to
what we need in the future for an alliance.
So on the 17th of April, 2012, the Republic of Korea, this
professional military force in Korea, will take command of the
war fight, where today CFC, my--wearing my hat as the Combined
Forces Command commander, we command the war fight. After 17
April, 2012, they will do it, and the U.S. will be in a
supporting, to supported role after 2012.
That does not lessen our requirement there; it just changes
it. And I do believe that the force level that we have in Korea
right now and the commitment we have in Korea forces-wise and
capability-wise is about right for the foreseeable future.
We have 28,500 servicemembers in Korea right now. And I
believe that to be about the right number. We need to make sure
that we continue to evolve the alliance so that, capability-
wise, both the U.S. and Korea--alliance is possible as we move
to the future.
The Korean military will be ready for this change in 2012.
We are already starting to practice it now in our exercise
program and all that we are doing to prepare for it. And I am
confident that we will be able to accomplish that task.
My third priority was to continue to improve the quality of
life for all of our servicemembers, DOD civilians, and their
family. My real goal is to make Korea the assignment of choice
anywhere in the world. Recently, the Department of Defense
authorized us to move to 3-year tours for our accompanied
servicemembers. We will do that over time, as infrastructure
becomes available for those forces, so we don't bring families
to Korea before the infrastructure is there to support it.
We have just over 2,000 command-sponsored families now in
Korea. Our goal and the service's goal, by this time next year,
we will at least double that. I have the services to be able to
accomplish that.
And then, as we move to Camp Humphreys and as we continue
to build down with that first-class installation post down
there, we will be able to continue to bring more families to
eventually get to the point where all servicemembers who are
married can come accompanied and come for 3 years.
The 3-year tour is tremendously important for me and for
the command. It greatly increases my capability. And instead of
having to train a new servicemember every year, I now have them
for 3 years. It reduces the stress on our military around the
world. Why have an unaccompanied tour anywhere in the world if
you don't have to? And you don't have to in Korea.
And then, lastly, it really shows the U.S. commitment to
not only the Republic of Korea, but Northeast Asia, which I
believe is critically important for this important part of the
world to keep the stabilization that we have there now and in
the future.
As we move south, as you know, there are two parts of the
program. The first is the Yongsan relocation program, which
moves U.S. forces that are currently stationed in Seoul to U.S.
Army Garrison Humphries, which is about 40 miles south of
Seoul.
The second part is the land partnership plan, which
provides for the relocation of the 2nd Infantry Division. That
is up north near the demilitarized zone, and moving them also
down to the Camp Humphries area. This will significantly
improve the quality of life for all of our servicemembers and
their families as they move, really, into world-class training
and living facilities.
The great majority of the cost for the Yongsan relocation
plan are paid through the Republic of Korea. I do thank the
committee for the $125 million to MILCON that is already
appropriated to start the family housing project down there.
That is extremely important, and I ask for the continued
support.
Land partnership costs are shared between the Republic of
Korea and the United States. The new special measures
agreement, which is the burden-sharing agreement that was just
agreed to by both governments and both legislatures--or by the
national assembly of the Republic of Korea, it is a 5-year host
nation cost-sharing agreement that was concluded between our
two nations.
This provides burden-sharing money for Korean labor,
logistics cost-sharing, and a portion of the costs associated
with the realignment of our forces. The vast majority of
burden-sharing money goes directly back into the Korean
economy, while reducing the U.S. Forces Korea's appropriated
MILCON requirement, thus benefiting both nations.
Appropriated MILCON funding, resources obtained from host
nation construction funding, construction activity provided by
in-kind basis of the Republic of Korea, and investment from the
commercial sector and public-private ventures are the key
components to our overall funding strategy for this
transformation.
I ask for your continued support for future appropriated
MILCON funding requests that will provide facilities essential
to the success of the relocation of U.S. forces in Korea.
While we continue to commit funding toward our ongoing
relocation efforts--on the Yongsan relocation and the land
partnership program, we must also not lose sight of the urgent
need to maintain our existing and our enduring infrastructure
in facilities that support operations today and in the future
in Korea.
And I ask for your continued support for resources to
recapitalize our enduring facilities that we will--that we have
now and will continue to need in the future.
I thank you for the support of this subcommittee that you
have provided for our servicemembers, DOD civilians, and family
members serving in Korea. And I hope for your continued support
when the fiscal year 2010 budget is established in the Future
Years Defense Program is formulated.
I look forward to working with you for our alliance
transformation efforts and providing our men and women the very
best working, living, and training environment possible in the
Republic of Korea. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Walter L. Sharp
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.025

MOVING TROOPS FROM OKINAWA TO GUAM

Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Thank you, General Sharp. Thank you
both for your testimony.
Members, since we may be having votes today and today is
the last day of votes for the week, why don't we stick pretty
closely to the 5-minute rule for the first round, to give
everybody a chance to have at least one round of questions?
And I will just begin, Admiral Keating, by asking you, are
we still on track for the 2014 move of our troops from Okinawa
to Guam? And if so, are there any potential roadblocks that
might push that deadline back?
Admiral Keating. Chairman, we are on track. The Secretary
of State just reaffirmed our national commitment, along with
Japan's commitment, to the Defense Policy Review Initiative, a
subset of which is the agreed implementation plan. That is the
movement of 8,000 Marines and several thousand dependents from
Okinawa to Guam.
The fiscal year 2010--as Skip mentioned, the budget that
comes over, I don't know what monies are in this year's budget
for the movement to Guam. It will be--it is an expensive
proposition for both the United States and Japan. Our countries
are equally committed.
There will be challenges and road bumps, Chairman, as you
say, including perhaps the construction of the Futenma
replacement facility on the northeast coast of Okinawa. It is a
sophisticated engineering project. There is water there right
now. They are going to have to, you know, landfill and runway.
The infrastructure in Guam will need some attention. So it
will be, by all accounts, a very challenging undertaking. Our
countries are both committed to it. And Guam, of course,
remains just a strategic lynchpin for us, the United States
Pacific Command all throughout the Asia Pacific region.
Mr. Edwards. Great. Thank you very much for that. And let
us know if there are roadblocks that deal with military
construction projects----
Admiral Keating. All right, sir.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. That we need to look at.

U.S. FORCES KOREA TOUR NORMALIZATION

General Sharp, I am so thrilled to hear about your long-
term plans for Korea and accompanied tours there. This
subcommittee has expressed on a bipartisan basis year after
year, going back to Leon LaPorte and General Bell, the concern
that you come off a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, you go
back to your installation CONUS, and then you are deployed to
Korea, and perhaps away--90 percent of married soldiers are
away for another year from their families.
What percent of the soldiers now that are married have
their families accompanying them? Are we still in the 10
percent range?
General Sharp. Sir, we currently have--we believe, of the
28,500, about half of those are married. So if you take
ballpark numbers, 14,000 are married. We have just over 2,000
command-sponsored families that are there right now, so 2,000
of 14,000.
I do need to also point out that we have another 1,900
families or so that are not command-sponsored, families that
said, ``I am not going to spend another year away from my
servicemember. I am going to come and live on the economy in
Korea.''
General Bell did exactly the right thing. We are paying a
housing allowance for them to live off-post. They get TRICARE
Standard instead of TRICARE Prime. So there are some
differences and there are some out-of-pocket expenses that
those non-command-sponsored families have to do.
This new ruling that really went into effect in early
December, but all the regulations were finally changed about 3
weeks ago, will allow me to take the great majority of those
1,900 families and offer to them, do you want to stay another
year and become command-sponsored and get all of the benefits?
I think a large number of them will take us up on that as we go
forward.
Mr. Edwards. The fact that there are 1,900 who would go not
command-sponsored shows the needs and wants of families to be
together. And the thought that any single family has to take
money out of their own pocket in order to be together while
they are serving our country concerns us all.
And I--one other question. I am going to take one more
minute within my timeframe. Do you have a game plan? We had a
military construction budget over the next 5 years that shows
us, 2 years from now, we will be at--instead of 13 percent
today, we will be at 20 percent. Do we have any kind of a
timeline on that?
General Sharp. Sir, the timeline that I have takes me out
to about the 2015, 2016 time period. And that construction does
not get me all the way to the endpoint of all families.
During that period between now and 2015, 2016, allows me to
complete the building of Camp Humphries, which, when that is
complete, will be, I believe, the best base anywhere in the
world. It is a base that is being designed from the ground up.
It is----
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Fort Lewis. [Laughter.]
Mr. Farr. He is probably right. [Laughter.]
General Sharp. It is a cost-sharing between us and the
Republic of Korea. The family housing in--that is going to be
put there is an Army initiative of a Humphries housing
opportunity program, which are being paid for by private
investors that are there.
As we progress past that point, we will have to continue to
work with--I will work with my department and this committee in
order to be able to establish what MILCON needs, because the
more MILCON, obviously, we get, the quicker we can get to the
end state we all want.
Mr. Edwards. If you would send us the timeline you
presently have and what percentage accompanied families you
could have with that timeline, then we could look at whether
over time we could speed that up.
General Sharp. Will do. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.026

Mr. Edwards. Thank you. General.
Mr. Wamp.

NORTH KOREA AND OCEANIC COOPERATION

Mr. Wamp. Admiral Keating, having been in the last year to
Japan and Shanghai and Singapore and down in Oceania, you
talked about the Asia Pacific Command and how important it is.
Can you generally give us an idea where you see the most
troubled waters, no pun intended?
I mean, I would think that Oceania, Oceania is pretty
stable and pretty peaceful. You get over into Indonesia. You
still think some radicalization takes place there? You talked
about Mumbai, which was a little--not a little--a serious,
serious flare-up that the Indian government has handled, I
think, pretty well, given the delicacies of Pakistan to the
west, et cetera.
And then you come back into the Pacific Rim, headed north
to Korea, and we all know, you know, the tensions still there.
And I am just interested in where you see the real challenges
in terms of our capability.
And I know we are on the MILCON side, but we have to have a
pretty good understanding of where the investments need to be
made and why.
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir. Right this minute--the area of
greatest concern to us is, of course, Skip's. Activities of Kim
Jong-il and his military leaders are of significant concern to
us.
There is the positioning of missile launch equipment around
the Taepo dong. There are significant efforts underway, of
course, at the State Department. We are in support of and
coordinating with State on those efforts.
Activities that China demonstrates in the South China Sea
are of concern. Balance that, very--quite interesting to us,
they have three ships that are in the Gulf of Aden, Central
Command area of responsibility, but they are doing a pretty
good job, to their credit, of executing their mission to
decrease piracy in the--off the coast of Somalia and Yemen.
So North Korea on a day-to-day basis probably our most
significant military concern. The development of a reasonable
relationship with China on a mil-to-mil basis, as would reflect
their incorporation of increased transparency and better stated
intentions on a mil-to-mil basis, and across the entire
spectrum of global economics and strategy, those two areas
would be of foremost concern to us.
You mentioned Oceania. Our great partners, Australia and,
importantly, New Zealand, while we have a difference in policy
with New Zealand, they are helping us keep a very--a weather
eye on all of the southern reaches of the Asia Pacific waters,
and their efforts have been significant in, for example, Fiji,
a coup there, but they have forces that are still there in
Fiji.
Timor-Leste, Australia has helped Timor-Leste introduce
democracy to that nation. And the enforcing of fishery concerns
for those small nations who depend for their livelihood on
being able to continue to harvest the waters of the world, and
our Coast Guard does a great job of helping us there, too.
So there are areas that I would pay pretty close attention
to.
Mr. Wamp. Well, in this series of questions, I am going to
take that to General Sharp and say, you mentioned about kind of
the pullback of some of your forces from the demilitarized zone
above Seoul, which we talk still about this threat, and then
Camp Humphries being well below Seoul.
And I know, from last year's testimony, how important it
was for the Republic of Korea to free up that space so they can
grow their city and you can go south. But if we go south and
the trouble is still north, explain to us, in terms of the
capabilities--I know that is not a bad--not a fun post north of
there, but you still maintain a presence, in terms of a
deterrent, I assume.
Tell us, who will still be up there and why certain troops
are able to mobilize south of Seoul?
General Sharp. Sir, the great, great majority of the ground
forces that would stop a North Korean attack are Republic of
Korea forces. The Republic of Korea army and, really, the
entire forces, but especially their army are first-class. And
they have the responsibilities and the ability to be able to
stop that ground attack.
What we bring in the early parts of the war are primarily
air and naval air assets, to be able to take down the long-
range artillery. So moving what we have in 2nd Infantry
Division out of Camp Casey and Camp Hovey north of Seoul does
not degrade my warfighting capability.
In fact, in a sense, it increases it, because instead of
being scattered at dozens of camps all across, you know, the
northern part--north of Seoul, I am now consolidated to allow
2nd Infantry Division to do what they really need to do during
the first days of the war, which are help NEO, to get our
family members out of there, and that consolidation helps with
that, also, in the moving south, but, more importantly, to
bring additional forces into Korea. They have a responsibility
to do that, too.
The deterrent value is, we are still in Korea. And the
deterrent value, I believe, increases with the more families
that we bring to Korea, because it demonstrates the commitment
that the United States has to the defense of the Republic of
Korea.
Mr. Wamp. Is that 28,000 number pretty constant, sir?
General Sharp. Sir, it is now. It has not been over time.
We were, 10 years ago, at about 37,500. Secretary Rumsfeld in
2003 had a goal of bringing it down to 25,000. Last April,
President Bush at the time and President Lee, on President
Lee's first visit, his first visit off the peninsula, which was
to the United States, came and they had agreed to keep the
force level at about what it is right now, which is 28,500.
Again, I believe that is about the right level for now and
for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Wamp. And how many in Japan, Admiral Keating?
Admiral Keating. About 50,000.
Mr. Wamp. Fifty thousand?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Okay.
Mr. Chairman.
General Sharp. Sir, I would also point out, on Japan, they
also--you know, I have seven bases that are United Nations
Command bases in Japan, which are tremendously important for
the war fight, because they help flow through our forces and
bring ammunition and fuel from them. So it really is a good
teaming in order to be prepared to go to war.
Mr. Edwards. Great. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL DIVERSITY

Mr. Farr. Admiral Keating, General Sharp, thank you for
your service and thank you for being here in our MILCON
committee.
I have three questions, and I am not going to be able to
come back for a second round, so I am going to try to get them
all out now.
I represent the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. And
I know PACOM has a lot of interaction with it. One of the
things I am hearing about is the dramatic reduction in both the
number and diversity of international students due to flat
funding of the IMET funding, which no longer will cover the
travel and living expenses adequately for some of these foreign
officers.
In your respective commands, is there anything you can do
to help increase the budget for IMET? Because I know IMET is
important to you.
Admiral Keating. They are huge to us at Pacific Command,
and I am sure to Skip, as well. We ran the numbers. There are
about 185 foreign military students in our military institute--
educational institutions in the United States. There are 75
young men and women in our service academies.
Our view is, is this is a relatively small investment that
can yield a substantial and long-term dividend. I was unaware
that there had been restrictions imposed on Dan Oliver and the
Postgraduate School.
Mr. Farr. They flat-funded it, so the increased cost of
travel and living expenses are not included.
Admiral Keating. Enthusiastically endorse a consideration
by--I think it is a Department of the Navy program probably,
but--broad support on that one, sir.
Mr. Farr. Anything you can do to help, I would really
appreciate that.
Mr. Edwards. We will take it under consideration.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Farr. The Naval Postgraduate School is widely
recognized for its expertise in its security sector reform
programs, such as the Center for Military--Civil Military
Relations and the Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction
Studies. These programs address the critical educational needs
in building stabilization and reconstruction capability, both
home and abroad in places like Nepal, Sri Lanka.
I wonder if you had any plans to increase the PACOM
utilization of these programs--civil military and CSRS.
Admiral Keating. You bet. And thank you for the question.
We have Lieutenant General John Goodman, recently retired
Marine three-star, who was heading our Center of Excellence for
the United States Pacific Command. And one of the areas that
he--in which John is going to concentrate is the increasingly
multilateral, multinational approach to training folks to
prepare for conflict and the consequence management attendant
to conflict and natural disaster.
And so those areas that you cite, kind of the phase four
part of our operations, are of significant importance to us and
to Skip. And in our former lives, we have seen manifestation of
the need for more work in that area. So we----
Mr. Farr. Well, I am very excited to hear that. We have had
previous commands come in here and tell us how much need there
is to build that capacity. And, obviously, you have endorsed
that, as well.
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. I appreciate that.

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL AND COOPERATION WITH OTHER COUNTRIES ON
SEARCH AND RESCUE

I am aware that PACOM and the Naval Postgraduate School's
Center for Asymmetric Warfare had been working with the
Vietnamese government on increasing their capacity to do search
and rescue. And I wondered if that program could also be
extended to Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia?
It is a no-brainer that the more capacity capabilities we
can provide to our allies, the less cost it is going to be for
us.
Admiral Keating. You bet. You are exactly right,
Congressman. We would, again, enthusiastically endorse an
expansion of that training opportunity. We will take that one.
I was unaware that--I don't think we are excluding those
countries.
[The information follows:]

The Vietnamese Government is very restrictive when it comes to
military-to-military engagements. Our engagement with Vietnam has
concentrated mostly in the medical and engineering arenas. The Naval
Post Graduate School's Center for Asymmetric Warfare involvement with
the Vietnamese government serves as a way to engage with Vietnam in a
non-threatening way, which benefits both the United States and Vietnam.
Increasing capacity to conduct Search and Rescue just happens to be a
priority for the Vietnam Government. As far as expanding this
capability to Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia, it is something that
we are not excluding from these countries, however within our bilateral
engagements, search and rescue is not a priority for these countries;
therefore they are not looking to benefit from the Center for
Asymmetric Warfare.

Search-and-rescue exercises are fairly fundamental. They
are not rudimentary, but they are simple. They are not very
complex, and they don't involve elaborate command-and-control.
We are able to conduct those with China through their
offices in Hong Kong. Now, it is technical--complicated
relationship.
We have also proposed doing them with China. We do them
with Russia on a fairly regular basis. So search-and-rescue
exercises are an important step in a developing exercise
program with these countries, and we would be delighted to do
them with the countries that you mentioned.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
I don't have any further questions. I appreciate your
enthusiasm and your service.
Admiral Keating. Thank you, sir.
General Sharp. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome back, Admiral Keating.
General, nice to see you.

NUCLEAR POWERED AIRCRAFT IN JAPAN

Let me start by asking Admiral Keating about the process in
Japan, when it went from a conventional carrier to a nuclear
carrier. As you may know, I represent Naval Station Mayport,
which is in northeast Florida. And the Navy, as you know, has
just made a decision to make Mayport capable of homeporting a
nuclear carrier.
And so, as we work with you and your predecessor to go
through that in Japan, things worked pretty well. And just a
couple of questions.
One, do you recall--just a ballpark number--how much it
cost to go through all of that in Japan? And I know Japan paid
part of the cost. But do you recall what some of those numbers
are?
Admiral Keating. Congressman, I don't. We will get that for
you. It is a number that someone will have readily available. I
just don't have it off the top of my head.
[The information follows:]

The total facilities cost to support a nuclear powered aircraft at
Yokosuka was approximately $314 million in U.S. dollars. This cost was
shared between the U.S. Navy ($176 million) and by the Government of
Japan ($138 million). The cost breakdown follows.
The U.S. Navy cost included; berth 12 upgrades to support nuclear
aircraft carrier (US MILCON P-998) at $67 million (4160 volt AC shore
power, high quality water production facility, and maintenance support
facilities), co-generation power plant (Navy Energy Savings Performance
Contract) at $95 million, various facilities repairs (Operations and
Maintenance, Navy funds) at $7 million, and various support equipment
(Other Procurement, Navy) at $7 million.
The Government of Japan cost (Host Nation Funded Construction)
included; berth 12 upgrades for aircraft carrier at $108 million and
bay dredging at $30 million.
[corrected pacom answer]
There is no controlled industrial facility (CIF) in Japan. CIFs are
radiological work facilities that exist only within the United States
to support shore based radiological work associated with nuclear
powered warships. Work involving radioactivity from the propulsion
plant is never accomplished ashore in Japan.

You are right. It is not an insignificant sum of money. I
would guess--and we will confirm--it is in the hundreds of
millions of dollars. There are nuclear safety certifications.
There are water depth concerns. There are electrical loading
and certain laboratory facilities that aren't normally
attendant to conventional ship stationing, but I will get you
as accurate a figure as I can.
Mr. Crenshaw. Because we are waiting. We are hoping that--
actually, I just had a meeting with Admiral Alexander, who is
head of the Navy Region Southeast and they are sharpening their
pencils and tell us how much it is going to cost to do Mayport.
And we are expecting it to be in the MILCON budget that the
president submits. So I was just curious. We can kind of
compare that.
And one of the other things, sir, is do you know--when you
forward deployed an aircraft carrier, I know one of the big
items that will be at Mayport--and I visited in San Diego, they
built what they call a controlled industrial facility, which is
the--really works on the nuclear propulsion, very specific to
nuclear carriers--did they build one of those? Is there one of
those in Japan?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir. That is a going in--I mean, that
is a dealmaker for our friends in the Navy. If those facilities
aren't there, and nuclear safeguard assurances can't be
provided, then we don't either send a nuclear--we don't
permanently station a nuclear carrier in a place that doesn't
have them.
Mr. Crenshaw. I got you. And I assumed that. If you have--I
think one of the justifications for going to Mayport was the
only controlled industrial facility on the East Coast is in
Norfolk. And it would provide a backup, now on the west coast
you have three, so that is helpful.
But if you could give us an idea----
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir, we will.
Mr. Crenshaw. General Sharp, just real quickly. Before my
time expires, I want to welcome you.
And, by the way, on a personal note, my intelligence tells
me you just became a grandfather for the second time.
General Sharp. That is good intel.
Mr. Crenshaw. I need a little help, because my daughter is
going to have her second child in the next month or so, so we
will compare notes. And I know it was great the first time; I
am sure it is even better on the second time. So thank you for
your service.

KOREA

To hear all the good things happening, I first visited
South Korea right around about 2002, and the living conditions
weren't so great, the relationship wasn't so great. And things
have really turned around.
But one of the things I remember--it was about 2002, and
they were just getting ready to kind of put in place the Good
Neighbor Program, because there had been some incidents with
the civilians and our folks. And I know that was going to just
try to build a better alliance.
And maybe if you could just briefly tell us, number one,
what were the tenets of that? How is it working? And are there
things that you see we could do better? And then, three, is
there anything we ought to do as a subcommittee to help you in
that?
General Sharp. Sir, thank you. The good neighbor program is
very much alive and thriving right now, and we are continuing
to try to improve it even more.
You know, if you look at the different polls that they have
run in Korea in different places, over 65 percent of the people
of South Korea want the U.S. military there. And that number
has been fairly consistent for the last couple years.
The new administration for the Republic of Korea, headed by
President Lee, who became the president a little over a year
ago from now, is very supportive of not only the relationship
between the Republic of Korea and the United States, but U.S.
forces in Korea specifically.
And he personally has visited our command post. He
personally has taken part in some of our exercises over there.
I had an office call with him last week, because he knew I was
coming to talk to this committee, so that relationship between
the people of the Republic of Korea and the government of the
Republic of Korea and U.S. Forces Korea couldn't be better than
it is right now.
We are working very hard on the good neighbor program,
because I believe that our personal and professional
relationships with the Korean people really do get at the
strength of the alliance now and into the future.
So some examples of what we do. We work very hard to be
able to bring--get Korean children linked up with Korean
veterans that come to visit Korea and spend a day with them
together that go up to the DMZ, take the DMZ tour, eat lunch
together, to be able to have those veterans tell these young
Korean children how they fought in a war and what it was like
back in the 1950s.
We, through many, many of our different camps, teach
English to the Korean people. There is a great desire of the
Korean people to learn English. So we have English-speaking
camps.
The Koreans, in exchange, are just unbelievably warm to all
of our servicemembers over there and really do go out of the
way, not only to welcome them when they first get there, but to
continue that strong friendship and relationship throughout the
entire time that they are there.
It is a cornerstone of my command priorities, because it
really affects all three of them, prepare to fight and win,
strengthen the alliance, and improving the quality of life for
our servicemembers.
So I say, it is something that we continue to push forward.
Where the committee could help is to continue to support,
continue to support us to be able to enable to bring more
families and servicemembers to Korea and to be able to truly
have the facilities we need for 3-year accompanied tours over
there, because, again, I think that strengthens the alliance
and strengthens this bond and a friendship that we have between
Koreans and Americans there.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Farr. The Defense Language Institute told me that the
most difficult language for westerners to learn in the entire
world is Korean. The longest training program they have is for
Korean.
General Sharp. Is that right? I know it is difficult. I did
not realize it was the toughest.
Mr. Edwards. Some of us are still struggling with English.
[Laughter.]
I will get there.
Mr. Dicks.

GUAM

Mr. Dicks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Admiral and General, good to have you here.
I have been contemplating a trip out to Guam. And Admiral
French, who used to be in our area up in Puget Sound, is now
out there.
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. And I talked to Congresswoman Bordallo's office
just to get a sense of what problems they have. And there are a
couple things here.
And I don't know if this has any effect on the military or
not, but one was that they are going to have to close the Ordot
Dump and open up a new dump and recycling center. Apparently,
this cost $45.9 million to close it and $113.8 million to
create the new center. And so that was one issue.
And then wastewater treatment, they are under a court
order--they have to replace--I think it is--wait a minute here.
The landfill is facing a U.S. district order to close and be
replaced in 700 days. And the site has been on the national
priority list for action under the Superfund program for 26
years.
Guam must also comply with a new EPA decree to provide
secondary treatment at its northern wastewater facilities. And
apparently this costs $300 million.
And then the port of Guam, they are trying to improve the
capacity there. And although some funding can be kind of sent
to DOT via MARAD and the Department of Defense, if the port is
designated a strategic port, the GAO and DOD have identified
the port, if left at its current state, to be a major
chokepoint for delivery of materials and supplies on Guam
during the construction phase of the military build-up.
Are you aware of these issues?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. And can we help Guam somehow with this? I don't
think they are very prosperous, are they?
Admiral Keating. No, sir.
Mr. Dicks. I mean, in terms of having the money to deal
with these kind of problems.
Admiral Keating. They are not. They don't have
significant--huge cash reserves, I mean, not to diminish the
impact of the challenge. One, Bill French is doing a
magnificent job.
Mr. Dicks. Yes, he is terrific.
Admiral Keating. He is doing a magnificent job. Two,
Congressman--Chairman Skelton just led a delegation through,
and they visited Guam, and Bill talked to them. Congresswoman
Bordallo was part of that delegation.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
Admiral Keating. The challenges are not insignificant on
Guam. A great piece in our favor is, we are talking about
United States property here.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
Admiral Keating. And this is the strategic import to us at
Pacific Command. There is the flag of the United States of
America flying over that very important piece of land and
surrounding water and air.
The economic challenges are significant. There is the
wastewater. There will be needs for more schools. We talked
about this with the chairman, the four or five more schools
that are in our testimony.
The challenges are not insignificant. Guam will need fiscal
assistance, and we are aware of those challenges, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Is there a plan to deal with it yet?
Admiral Keating. Yes and no. There is a naval office
headed--now Acting Secretary Buddy Penn was in charge of it.
Major General David Bice leads the Guam program office. They
are developing timelines and flow charts to begin addressing
those challenges that you described, sir.
As to the funding support for those, that is a matter of
concern throughout the FITA.
Mr. Dicks. Yes, because I know that one of these, it is
like 700 days, and then they will be facing a fine of a million
dollars a week or something.
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir. I am not familiar with those
details, but the Guam program office is--they have
representatives in Guam and representatives in the Pentagon
every day, working with State and across the interagency, to
address these environmental and infrastructure challenges.
Mr. Dicks. The Guam program office?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. GPO?
Admiral Keating. Joint Guam Program Office. Yes, Buddy
Penn, Secretary Penn was in charge, and his action officer is
Major General David Bice, Marine Corps, retired.
Mr. Dicks. Okay. Thank you.
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Members--excuse me?
Mr. Farr. Do you have the largest geographical command in
the world?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
General Sharp. Half the world.
Mr. Farr. Incredible.
Admiral Keating. Fifty--some--about half-plus, a little
bit.
Mr. Edwards. Members, this first vote is a 15-minute vote.
I will ask staff to let us know when there are 3 minutes to go.
There is a second vote that is a 5-minute vote.
Let's begin the second round of questioning.
Mr. Wamp.

IMPACT OF THE VALUE OF U.S. DOLLAR

Mr. Wamp. Well, a couple things bubbled up through our
hearings last year that don't seem to be quite as pressing this
year, and that is the price of gasoline and the value of the
U.S. dollar around the world. Can you tell us how that impacts
you this year, going into your 2010 request, and how you
calculated for these issues?
And maybe both of you, what are the weak spots economically
within your areas? I know Japan's economy has really struggled
for a long period of time. But how has it impacted your budget?
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir. The stability of the dollar is,
of course, of significant importance all throughout the area of
responsibility. The economic impact of the current crisis is
slightly smaller to markedly smaller the impact in many of the
countries in our region because of historically conservative
policies by its citizens and governments throughout the Asia
Pacific region.
In many Eastern and Southeast Asian countries, they just
save money and don't invest in significant numbers in their
stock markets. We were in Hong Kong 3 weeks ago. There was a
line outside one of the banks for folks who were going in and
trying to withdraw all their money, and there were certain bank
concerns about this run on--it was one bank, and--but it is an
example of the relatively conservative fiscal policies of
families and governments over there.
The price of gasoline is significantly different than when
we were here last time. Those decreases in costs have certainly
been realized by the Department of Defense, and it is not
exactly--they are not giving us the--it was 4 bucks a gallon a
while ago. It is down to a buck and a half. We don't enjoy any
of the dividends there.
But the important point is, our readiness has not
decreased, in spite of fluctuations on the global oil market
prices. And the young men and women who are doing the flying,
the steaming, and the driving are doing it to the same extent
today that they were a year ago.
General Sharp. And in Korea--them being--Korea being mainly
an export country, the global economy greatly affects them. And
the value of the won has declined. It is gotten worse for the
Republic of Korea.
But I must say that, despite the world economy and despite
the issues that Korea is having with their exports, because of
what they learned in the mid-1990s during the IMF crisis, they
have a huge amount of reserves. And their banking structure is
in pretty good shape.
I think it is also notable that, even in the middle of all
this, a month-and-a-half ago, 2 months ago when we were
negotiating the burden-sharing agreement of how much Korea
would pay to the United States on a yearly basis, not only did
they agree to about the right amount, which was 760 billion
won, so about $741 million, a year they agreed to that, and
they agreed to that amount, plus CPI, plus inflation for 5
years.
So that really shows their commitment, I think, to the
United States and their commitment to keeping our forces there,
that even in this tough economic time, they are willing to
commit that money for a 5-year period.
Mr. Wamp. And there is no hint there with the Republic of
Korea. Is there no hint from Japan economically on their
commitment to Guam?
Admiral Keating. There is no hint, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Completely committed.
Admiral, one last question. You gave us the four broad
areas in your 2010 request, defense policy review, Republic of
Korea transformation, grow the forces, sustainment. What is the
percentage in your 2010 request of each of those four major
areas?
Admiral Keating. I don't have the breakdown.
Mr. Wamp. Okay.
Admiral Keating. We will be happy to get your staff that
answer very quickly, sir.
[The information follows:]

The percentage breakout of funds in the four broad program areas is
as follows; Defense Policy Review Initiative at 11 percent, Korea
Transformation at 2 percent, Grow the Force at 40 percent and
Sustainment at 47 percent.

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.

RESOURCES TO THE SOUTH PACIFIC

Mr. Farr. I am just so impressed of the amount of the world
that you command. It seems like a lot of the attention is in
Korea.
As I have flown around that region, as massive as it is,
and spent some time in Indonesia, and the problems it has, and
Thailand and so on, are we committing enough resources and
positioning ourselves well enough in the South Pacific to meet
the challenges ahead?
Admiral Keating. The short answer is, yes, sir.
To elaborate just a little bit, the three pieces of our
strategy that I mentioned are partnership, readiness and
presence. J.O.s on the staff--junior officers on the staff have
this bumper-sticker-type saying that they say, ``Virtual
presence equals actual absence.''
That is to say, all the video teleconferences and, you
know, you can hook up and communicate in a way that was
unprecedented when Skip and I were younger, but you still have
to go out there and put boots on the ground, and jets in the
air, and ships on the water, and tanks running through the mud.
Nothing replaces American presence in these countries.
Indonesia, a classic case. They want to do a lot more with
us than we can support because we are stretched a little bit
thin.
Singapore provided--they are building a brand-new command
and control and intelligence center. And we would have asked,
but before we even asked, they volunteered to give us a corner
of it for U.S.-only information and the Singapore and in the
Changi intel center.
India----
Mr. Farr. Just trying to get you to move there.
Admiral Keating. They wouldn't mind it. Senator Inouye
would feel different about it.
India, we have about a dozen full-scale field exercises
with those folks every year. So to your point, presence is one
of the three cornerstones of our strategy. We don't just
concentrate on Skip and United States Forces Korea. He has a
major exercise that is winding down right now.
We want to get out and about to the best of our ability.
The young men and women who join, they like to join the
services and see the world. It is part of why they decide to
support and defend the Constitution.
We would like to be in more places than we can be. We are
in sufficient places right now. And we are going to continue to
work this program very aggressively, all throughout our area of
responsibility.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.

ACCOMPANIED TOURS TO KOREA

Mr. Edwards. Okay, let me start in.
General Sharp, let me go back to the accompanied tours in
Korea. You said by 2016 you want to be at what point?
General Sharp. I said by this time next year, I want to
double.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Sharp. I want to be a little over 4,000.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Sharp. I think by 2015 or 2016, as we build out
Camp Humphries, we can probably realistically add about another
2,000, so up to somewhere between 5,500 and 6,000.
Mr. Edwards. So we would--even as far out under the present
glide path, as far out as 2015 or 2016, we would still have
more than half of the troops assigned at Korea that are married
unaccompanied?
General Sharp. That is correct. Now, there are some things
we are doing to try to speed that up. The main drivers are
housing, schools, and medical facilities.
And the housing--the way we are working the housing right
now is that the program which you are well aware of that the
Army has initiated, the Humphries housing opportunity program,
which is currently focused on Camp Humphries, which will, by
2011 or 2012, build 2,400 apartments down there, it is a
project that a consortium of companies is going to build on
Camp Humphries first-class apartments that meet our standards
for security, and comfort, and living space, and all the things
that we have, at their dime, and then we will use our housing
allowance to rent it back from them, and they will continue to
manage it.
Everything to make that project real has taken place,
except for the final contract, which we are confident we will
sign that contract in April or May of this year.
When that works, I will then be able to take that same
concept and to be able to start negotiations at Daegu and at
Osan. If we are able to get folks under contract to be able to
build more houses in those locations using the same concept,
that number of 5,500 or 6,000 by 2015, 2016 could expand,
depending upon how much we are able to get that to expand.
So the 5,500, 6,000 by 2016 is, I believe, a conservative
estimate. It is if we are not able to expand housing any more
than what we currently have on the books.
Mr. Edwards. I am sorry. Go ahead.

SCHOOLS

General Sharp. The other issue that is, in a sense, the
more difficult issue is schools. The schools issue is we have
planned and in the budget, between our budget and what the
Koreans are paying for the move south out of Yongsan and all,
enough schools to be able to handle the 5,500 or so that I
talked about by 2015 or 2016.
But if we are--when we expand from that 5,500 to the
14,000, we are going to need another 20 or--a little over 20
schools beyond that in order to be able to go the maximum that
we all want to be able to get.
There are obviously several ways to build those schools,
and we are working very closely with DoDDS on this. In fact,
Dr. Shirley Miles, the head of DoDDS, she left Korea today. She
has been out twice already to Korea to try to work with us on
how we are going to get there.
Mr. Edwards. What is the approximate cost of one school?
General Sharp. Sir, I don't have that. I will have to get
back with you. I don't think I have that in my notes. But we
will get that back to you very quickly.
[The information follows:]

High School and Middle Schools each cost approximately $61 million
and Elementary Schools cost approximately $43 million each.

We are working several initiatives along those lines,
though. There may be a way to do a public-private venture on
schools similar to what we are doing for the housing
opportunity program in exchange of tuition, if you will, that
we are able to pay back some building of some schools.
We are looking at some possibilities as to, can we team
with the Republic of Korea government to do some building of
schools in exchange for some students attending some of our
schools. Again, these are all at the very, very formative.
I met with the minister of education of Korea about 3 weeks
ago. And we have formulated a team, between us, the DoDDS
school system, and the Ministry of Education in Korea to look
at all of these issues.
Could we move quicker if we had additional MILCON to build
schools? Of course we could. And we are working that with the
department right now.
Mr. Edwards. I am not going to ask you to stay much longer
after the vote, but I would like to come down. It might just be
staff and me afterwards, but I would like to follow up on this.
Is there any way could get just a rough number?
General Sharp. Yes, sir, I can.
Mr. Edwards. I mean, $5 million, $10 million?
General Sharp. Sir, I can get that within 10 minutes. In
fact, I probably have it in one of my--get that very quickly.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. If you would excuse us for a few moments, we
are going to go up and vote. I might actually go up and vote
and come right back. And then I would go up and vote the second
time, and that might give us a couple minutes.
General Sharp. Sir, I will have the answer before you get
back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Edwards. I will not call us back to order, because
there is only one member here. And while I think we could do a
lot of good by unanimous consent, I think----
[Laughter.]
I can think of a lot of things that we could do for the
Pacific Command. But let me just--if we could continue----
General Sharp. I do have the numbers you were asking for,
sir. To finish out, we have right now 10 schools that are
programmed, paid for by a combination of the Republic of Korea
burden-sharing money, the Republic of Korea government, and by
us.
We need 20 more schools to be able to completely flesh out
the full--of those 20 schools, eight are high schools or middle
schools. Each one of those costs, in our projection, $61
million, and then the 12 additional are elementary schools,
which have an average cost of $43 million each.
Mr. Edwards. I didn't realize how expensive schools were to
build.
General Sharp. So the total cost of all 20 schools is right
at $1 billion.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. And I would never suggest that we can
get a dollar more than what would be budgeted, but we always
want to look for options, should we be able to do that.
You were saying earlier that housing was--you think you can
address that one way or another creatively, public-private, and
various ways, schools--if you could medical facilities as
schools----
General Sharp. Yes, sir. And we have--from DoDDS. As I
said, Dr. Miles, Chairman Miles, the head of DoDDS, has been
out to visit us twice. And she is committed to, if we can
figure out how to build a school, she can get the teachers
there.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Sharp. And we are doing some interim things that I
think will also be very beneficial. She is starting up a
virtual high school, where Korea will begin--the hub for all of
Northeast Asia, Japan, Guam, Okinawa, where not this coming
school year, but the year after that you will be able to get a
fully accredited high school diploma going to this virtual
school.
It is not--classes. It is truly a virtual school where you
get on and, you know, you have kids in Korea and kids in
Okinawa and kids in Hawaii, you know, and around the world,
really, interfacing with a real teacher on, you know, back and
forth, doing real classes, which will really help us as we move
forward and be able to bring more kids.
So she has been very proactive. You know, if I could just
say, any support that you can continue to give to Dr. Miles and
DoDDS would really be appropriated. I mean, budget cuts hurt us
all, but just because of her little bit of margin she has, as
her and I were talking about this earlier this week before I
came out, it would, you know, hurt us, which would hurt her,
which, you know, just cascades across what we are trying to do
in a lot of different venues.
So I am a great supporter of DoDDS. I grew up in a DoDDS
environment. And my kids did. And I think they really do a very
good job.

ACCOMPANIED TOURS TO KOREA

Mr. Edwards. I would just like to do anything possible--and
we are going to be looking at some tough budget years ahead--
but anything possible to allow more accompanied families to go
to Korea more quickly than the planned schedule.
How will you handle this during the interim until you do
get to the final goal of having, you know, every family that
wants to bring their loved ones over can? Will those whose
families wish to stay home, will they have an option of serving
for less than 3 years?
General Sharp. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. The current and the rule
that will stay in place is really doing a family--a married
servicemember will really have three different choices or has
to date three different choices. He can come one year
unaccompanied. He can come two years accompanied and not get
any additional cash benefits. Or he can say, okay, I am willing
to come, and I want to come for three years, and I want to
bring my family.
In that third option, the services--mainly Army and Air
Force--have agreed to pay him what we are paying now for his
assignment incentive pay, which is $300 a month extra, to sign
up for that 3-year period.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Sharp. The middle option of 2 years unaccompanied
will eventually go away and will eventually end up being just
like Japan or just like Germany, where it is--you have the
choice between 1 year unaccompanied and 3 years accompanied.
And there will be, you can tell just by the numbers, a
large number that really will end up not getting a choice,
because when we get to the place where we are at capacity for
housing and schools and medical, then I will have to say, ``I
can't bring any additional, so it is when one of those families
leave, another family can come in.''
Mr. Edwards. Right. Okay. Okay.
Are we now at 28,000 for our ultimate----
General Sharp. Twenty-eight thousand five hundred.
Mr. Edwards. Twenty-eight thousand five hundred?
General Sharp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Not going to go down to the 25,000?
General Sharp. Both Secretary Gates and Minister Lee,
President Lee, and in the past President Bush personally, and
Secretary Clinton, when she was over there, reconfirmed 28,500
for the foreseeable future. And, again, I think that is about
the right number.
As you know, we are getting ready to start a Quadrennial
Defense Review over in the department. That will look, I think,
at really the entire Pacific and the world, as far as force
posture goes, whether we need to be--so the composition of that
28,500 may change some over time, but I think that is the right
commitment of forces.
Mr. Edwards. When would be a QDR be completed?
General Sharp. Sir, it is due back to you all with a budget
next year. So----
Admiral Keating. That is February of next year.
Mr. Edwards. So it would be in time for the 2011--cycle.
General Sharp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. So if we get--do we know where those other
3,500 soldiers or troops were scheduled to be located, in CONUS
or in Europe? Somewhere there would be a hole of 3,500 forces.
Is there a specific site that was impacted by that decision?
General Sharp. No, sir. It really was in the process of--
you know, Secretary Rumsfeld said cut a third, and then
Secretary Gates reversed that, so the Army was in the process
of--you know, it is a complex thing, with the Army building up
forces, increasing the number of forces, and then this move.
There was no set place. There wasn't really going to be, you
know, kind of a cross-cutting section of not just Army, but Air
Force were also greatly involved in that.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.

GUAM BUILDUP

Admiral Keating, could I ask you if your staff could put
together for us the total budget numbers for our part of the
Guam build-up, in terms of military construction, if you count
housing, medical care----
Admiral Keating. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Everything, just so we have a
sense of----
Admiral Keating. To be clear, we are happy to do that,
Chairman. What we will do is we will go to the Joint Guam
Program Office. They have oversight. We don't; they do.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Admiral Keating. But we will get with them. And between the
two of us--and, really, that is the Department of Navy, to get
technical with you, but between the two of us, we will ensure
that the answer we give you is supportable by us and it
reflects their analysis.
[The information follows:]

Currently, the extent of U.S. Government's funding planned for Guam
build-up will be provided with the release of the Fiscal Year 10
President's Budget. After the budget is released, we will provide you
with the numbers for the cost.

Mr. Edwards. And in the continental United States over the
last year, construction cost increases have leveled out some
because the economy has slowed down. When you start--I am not a
construction manager, but when you put that much construction
in such a small area, do we have any sense that inflation isn't
going to double the cost of those construction projects? Do you
think we have a pretty good handle on it?
If you came back here 2 years from today, do you think we
would be able to stick with whatever numbers that you would
stand behind today as that projected cost?
Admiral Keating. I am not sure, Chairman. I don't have any
more experience in that than perhaps you do.
The likelihood of a new home in Guam being the same square
foot as the likelihood of a home in Chevy Chase--well, Chevy
Chase is not such a good example--a similar home anywhere in
the states I think is not high. It would likely be more
expensive.
To offset that, labor costs are lower. And there is
dramatic interest all throughout the South Pacific in the
Defense Policy Review Initiative, with respect to construction
in Guam.
So there are--and this is going to be an issue. There are
labor laws against non-U.S. citizens providing certain
construction help. And we get advised by other members of
Congress that don't think for--or words to this respect, we are
not going to let non-U.S. citizens build U.S. housing on U.S.
territory. The law is complicated. There are initiatives
underway to change the law.
Long answer to a short question. I think that housing will
be not inexpensive to construct. It will be high-quality. It is
the same that Skip says for his base in Korea. We are hoping--
the Marines are hoping that this becomes--not Humphries--that
Guam becomes the number one. So we have an interesting
challenge unfolding here, you know, living with the stars.
I think it will be not as--it will not be an insignificant
factor, the cost of housing.
Mr. Edwards. If you can--if it is appropriate and you
choose to do so, to use your position and the opportunity to do
some jawboning to let those involved in the construction
decisions know that it would be a real problem for Congress if
we have construction costs, just projected, low ball, and then
go through the roof.
We went through that with BRAC, one year went from $19
billion to $31 billion. It is hard to believe that we would
have that much unprojected increase in MILCON costs in a 12-
month period.
I want to thank you both for coming and for your
leadership.
Oh, Mr. Bishop. You came in quietly. My gosh, we now have
two members. We have unanimous consent. Do we want to change
the world?
Mr. Bishop. Well, sir, I just came to support the chairman
and to support PACOM.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for that. Do you have any questions?
Mr. Bishop. No, sir, I don't. My staff has been following
the hearing and we have read the testimony.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Bishop. And we are quite pleased.
Mr. Edwards. Great. They have said they would like Korea
and Guam to be almost as good as Fort Benning, Georgia.
[Laughter.]
But, you know, staff will follow up with a number of very
specific, detailed questions, but I think some of that is more
appropriate to handle between your staff and our staff. But the
overview you have given us, the major priorities are what we
really wanted to hear today. And we heard them. And thank you
both for your lifetime of service and for your families'
lifetime of services.
Admiral Keating. Thanks, Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. We will stand adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the Record Submitted by
Chairman Edwards to Admiral Keating.]

Question. Regarding the relocation of Marine Corps personnel from
Okinawa to Guam, is there anything new or substantively different in
the February 2009 U.S.-Japan agreement as compared to the 2006 ``Road
Map''?
Answer. No. The Guam International Agreement, signed 17 February
2009 by Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Nakasone legally secures
the actions by both Japan and the U.S. including multi-year funding, to
ensure the relocation of the U.S. Marines in Okinawa to Guam as
promised in the Roadmap.
Question. To date, how much funding has the Government of Japan
made available for the Okinawa-to-Guam realignment?
Answer. In Japan's Fiscal Year 2009 budget (which was recently
approved 27 March), Japan requested over $1 billion for realignment
costs, including $392 million for Guam ($336 million to be deposited in
the U.S. Treasury account for 2009) and $323 million for the Futenma
Replacement Facility.
Question. What is the total estimated Federal government cost for
the Okinawa-to-Guam realignment, including costs borne by agencies
other than the Department of Defense?
Answer. Under the Roadmap agreement, the cost estimate for
facilities and infrastructure necessary to support the realignment of
Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam was $10.27 billion. Of this
figure, the Government of Japan is responsible for up to $6.09 billion
of the costs. The U.S. Government is responsible for the remaining
$4.18 billion and any additional costs.
In addition to costs associated with infrastructure and facilities,
the Government of Guam will need increased federal funding and support
to prepare for the secondary economic and physical impact of military
realignment. In 2008 the Government of Guam estimated these costs to be
$238M for Fiscal Years 2010. The Department of Defense is working
closely with the Department of the Interior and key interagency
partners to review the cost estimate provided by the Government of Guam
and develop a coordinated, collaborative approach that establishes
agency accountability for improvements to Guam's civilian
infrastructure and social service needs. Federal agencies are currently
determining how they may support the Government of Guam's needs through
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, as well as other grant and
loan programs.
Question. What is the total military construction and family
housing cost for all initiatives on Guam other than those associated
with the Marine Corps relocation, such as the Air Force Strike/ISR Task
Force, Navy forward porting, and Army ADA?
Answer. The total military construction (MILCON) proposed in the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 to 2015 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for
Guam, excluding the Marine Corps Relocation (DPRI), is being developed
by the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget.
Question. According to the September 2008 report from the Navy,
transient carrier berthing in Guam will not begin until 2019. What are
the key milestones in this process, and what is the total
infrastructure cost associated with this initiative?
Answer. Current project cost is $390 million. Key project
milestones:
Guam transient CVN berthing engineering/planning
study: Completed Jul 2008
Environmental Impact Statement
Notice of Intent published in Federal
Register Mar 2007
Record of Decision Mar 2010 (tentative)
Construction (assuming FY11 MILCON authorization)
Funding profile: assume 8 funding increments
of approximately $50 million year, FY11-FY18.
Construction start Mar 2011
Construction completion Sep 2018 *
Wharf testing/certification/ready for use
Aug 2019
* Construction completion can be achieved as early as 2015 if
funding increments are increased to approximately $80 million
per year. Navy projection is that by 2014 increased ordnance
loading operations and increased transient carrier visits will
exceed maximum capacity of Guam Kilo Wharf where both missions
are supported currently.
Question. Will the Department of Defense be responsible for funding
the $1 billion road project on Guam? Will this be implemented through
the DAR program?
Answer. Through construction capacity studies, assessment of
socioeconomic impacts, and the development of the Environmental Impact
Statement, it has been determined that Guam's road network requires
improvement to handle the expected flow of materials from the port to
work sites, as well as to handle the projected 25% increase in
population after service members, dependents, and other civilians
relocate to the island. The Army's Surface Deployment and Distribution
Command (SDDC) administers the Defense Access Road (DAR) program, which
is established under U.S. Code Title 23 Section 210 to maintain and
construct roads that are important to national defense.
The Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO) is working with SDDC and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to evaluate a number of road
projects on Guam to support the relocation of Marines. Five roadway,
bridge, and intersection improvement projects have already been
certified and analysis continues for additional project certification.
It is too early to determine what the total cost of road projects on
Guam will be.
Question. How was the number of 8,000 Marines to be relocated
arrived at--i.e., was it based on an analysis of specific units to be
relocated, or was it driven by other factors?
Answer. The relocation of 8,000 Marines was based on analysis of
specific units to be relocated to meet the following requirements:
The number of 10,000 remaining Marines on Okinawa is based on the
PACOM requirement to maintain a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (approx
10,000 Marines) forward deployed for Operation Plan (OPLAN) and
contingency requirements.
The approximately 8,000 Marines being relocated to Guam reflects
associated III Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), 3rd Marine Division,
1st Marine Air Wing, Combat Logistics Regiment and base support
personnel.
The realignment of Marine forces permanently stationed in Okinawa,
Guam, and Hawaii strikes a balance that maintains a credible deterrence
against our ``most dangerous'' scenarios, and also creates new
opportunities for persistent engagement with regional partners--our
``most likely'' scenarios.
Question. Have you finalized the set of units to be relocated to
Guam, and if so, are there any significant differences from the set
identified by the Secretary of the Navy in the September 2008 report?
Answer. The forces identified for relocation remain the same as
identified in the May 2006 U.S.-Japan Realignment Roadmap and
reiterated in the Secretary of the Navy report of September 2008.
Question. An estimated 5,000 to 25,000 workers will be needed on
Guam for the buildup, depending on the amount of work-in-place at any
given time. The current resident population of Guam is approximately
175,000. What is your strategy for securing the number of workers
needed, and how will these workers be housed?
Answer. The estimate for the total number of workers required
during the period of peak construction--foreign, domestic and local--is
approximately 10,000-15,000. This figure is based upon a $2.5 billion
level of construction during the peak period. Given that construction
will ramp up from the start to the peak, fewer workers are expected in
the earlier part of the construction program.
Guam's current workforce cannot account for this surge. Shortfalls
that cannot be addressed by workers from the U.S. mainland, Hawai'i, or
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands will most likely be
filled by H2B visa foreign construction workers. Use of H2B visa
foreign construction workers is currently occurring on Guam and has
traditionally been used during major periods of major construction
activity on Guam, such as the building of resort hotels in the late
1980s and early 1990s.
The construction industry will secure the workers who will first
work with the Department of Labor to determine the capacity of the
local market. The Guam Department of Labor is prepared to certify that
there is an insufficient supply of labor in the Guam region. The
construction industry will then petition the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services to authorize the number of guest workers they need
for their construction projects. With this authorization, the
construction industry will work with various embassies and labor
suppliers to acquire the skilled labor they need. The construction
contractors are required to manage the housing, logistics,
transportation and medical care of their workers.
To minimize negative impacts on Guam, a workforce housing and
logistics strategy has been established with the following tenets:
ensure fair and equitable treatment of all workers; pursue options that
support transient workforce and can transition into positive long-term
benefits for Guam; recognize that Guam and Federal agencies have the
sole enforcement authority; and achieve positive public support that is
critical for an enduring base and relationship. Based upon these
tenets, contractors will be evaluated on their ability to manage
safety, medical, housing, transportation and security for their
workforce, as well as the ability for these workforce logistics
solutions to positively impact the Guam community.
Question. Have you analyzed the impact of the buildup on Guam on
the regional market for construction material and labor? If so, do you
have a strategy to mitigate supply bottlenecks and price inflation?
Answer. Department of Defense is still analyzing the issue of
supply and price inflation for materials and labor associated with the
Guam military build-up. There was some concern that price inflation for
materials and labor would adversely affect program implementation.
However, with the recent economic downturn these concerns may be
somewhat mitigated. Much depends upon the turnaround of the economy in
the next few years.
The acquisition strategy for the Guam military build-up envisions
the establishment of building criteria and standards to enable offsite
methodologies that will reduce the requirement for imported work force
and on island building materials. The acquisition strategy also
contemplates attracting firms that understand and have experience in
operating in logistically challenged areas
Relative to strategies for mitigating supply bottlenecks, we
recognize that the Port of Guam is a potential bottleneck. However, the
recent initiative by the Port Authority of Guam to obtain new cranes
with greater capacity should alleviate some of the pressures at the
port. Additionally, the Maritime Administration (MARAD) was recently
designated the lead federal agency for the Port of Guam Improvement
Enterprise Program pursuant to Public Law 110-417, Section 3512. As the
lead Federal agency, MARAD will manage the expenditure of Federal and
non-federal, and private funds made available for the project, provide
necessary oversight for port improvements, ensure National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and provide project
management through a prime contractor. This effort lead by MARAD should
further increase efficiencies and throughput at the port. In addition,
Defense Access Road projects will be considered in the build-up to
improve trafficability and relieve chokepoints along the haul road.
Question. Last year you estimated that a $500 million investment
would be needed for training facilities and ranges in Guam and the
Northern Marianas. Has Marine Forces Pacific completed the training
concept study, and if so, what is the current cost estimate? Is this
figure included in the estimated $4 billion U.S. share for the
relocation?
Answer. The Marine Force Pacific Training Concept Plan was
finalized in April 2008. This study presented an unconstrained concept
for locating training facilities and ranges on Guam, Tinian, and Pagan.
The cost for all range construction and required enablers was estimated
to be approximately $1.8 billion. Only a small portion of this cost
requirement is included in the estimated $4 billion of the U.S. share
for the relocation. The original cost sharing agreement between the
United States Government and Government of Japan included approximately
$360 million for land acquisition in support of ranges on Guam and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Andersen South training,
and Naval Magazine consolidation.
Question. When will the Environmental Impact Statement for the
training ranges be completed?
Answer. The target date for completion of the Guam Military Buildup
Environmental Impact Statement, which covers all aspects of the Marine
Corps realignment (administrative facilities, housing, training, which
includes maneuver, military operation in unbar terrain, and live fire,
quality of life facilities, etc.) the construction of a transient
aircraft carrier pier, the establishment of an Army Ballistic Missile
Defense Task Force on Guam, and various infrastructure improvements, is
January 2010. The Record of Decision will be signed shortly thereafter.
Question. The February 2009 agreement is clear that the relocation
of marines from Okinawa to Guam is contingent upon the Government of
Japan moving forward with the Futenma Replacement Facility. The
agreement specifically states that the GOJ must make ``tangible
progress'' on the FRF. What would you consider ``tangible progress,''
and have you seen any to date?
Answer. ``Tangible Progress'' is any event or milestone within the
Defense Policy Review Initiative which can be visibly seen as being
completed along the timeline recommended in the 2006 agreement. To
date, Japan has:
--passed the ``Law to Promote the Realignment for U.S. Forces
in Japan'' which pledged $16.8 billion ($10.7 billion for Japan
and Okinawa and $6.09 billion for Guam) for the total cost of
realignment of U.S. Forces in Japan: includes the Futenma
Replacement Facility (FRF) ($3.6 billion), Okinawa
consolidation ($4.2 billion), Iwakuni ($1.4 billion), U.S. Army
Transformation ($0.268 billion), Aviation Training Relocation
($0.290 billion), and Economic measures for local communities
($0.848 billion)
--initiated the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the
FRF (as of February 2009 in its second phase)
--provided security against protest activity that interfered
with the EIA
--established and employed consultative mechanisms with local
officials
--enacted and implemented a new system of economic incentives
for local communities
--funded and commenced on-land construction projects on Camp
Schwab
--requested $323 million for FRF construction for the Fiscal
Year 2009
budget
--reached agreement on the International Agreement on Guam
Financing with, the United States, which confirms the political
agreements of the 2006 Realignment Roadmap and clearly
establishes the linkages between FRF completion and Guam
relocation.

[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards to General Sharp.]

Status of Realignment

Question. Please provide an update on the status of land
acquisitions necessary to implement both the Land Partnership Plan and
the Yongsan Relocation Plan.
Answer. All land required to implement both the Land Partnership
Plan and Yongsan Relocation Plan has been acquired by the ROK
Government. Portions of the land at USAG Humphreys, Osan AB, and Camp
Mujuk have been granted to USFK under the SOFA. USFK is currently
working to secure the grants for the remaining land.
Question. Please provide an update on the status of all USFK
installations that have been closed or will be closed under the Land
Partnership Plan and Yongsan Relocation Plan.
Answer. Currently 37 installations have been closed under LPP and
YRP. Of those, 35 have been returned to the ROK Government. The
remaining 2 are currently being surveyed using the recently approved
Joint Environmental Assessment Procedures and should be returned within
the next 6-8 months. No further installations will be returned until
the facilities required to relocate the units are constructed at
enduring installations and the units have relocated.

Humphreys Housing Opportunity Program

Question. Please describe the structure of the Humphreys Housing
Opportunity Program. Will any families be assigned to this housing?
Will families have enough adequate alternative options to make a
meaningful choice? Who will control the land that HHOP housing sits on?
What leverage does USFK have to ensure that the developers will meet
their commitments?
Answer:
HHOP is private sector development and long term property
management of 2400 units of Army Family Housing (AFH) at USAG
Humphreys.
Army selected Humphreys Family Communities LLC (HFC).
Equity members of HFC are Pinnacle AMS Development Company LLC
(property/asset management) and Samsung C & T Corporation (construction
contractor).
Families will not be assigned to the housing; they will be
referred to HFC at in-processing. Rental of the housing is at the
election of the family and will be done through a standard landlord-
military tenant leasing arrangement.
The 2008 Housing Market Analysis (HMA) for USAG Humphreys
determined the community could provide for 40% of housing needs. In
addition to the community and HHOP, there will be over 600 Army owned
family housing units.
Under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) the United
Forces Korea will be granted exclusive use of the land on which the
apartments will be constructed. The Army will issue a use permit to
HFC.
The United States Army will enter into a Use Agreement
with HFC. The agreement requires that HFC operates and manages the
housing at industry standards of care and maintenance.
Question. How do you determine what constitutes an ``adequate''
family housing unit in Korea for the purpose of complying with DOD
policy?
Answer. The Air Force, Army and Navy use Housing Requirement Market
Analyses (HRMA), Housing Community Profiles (HCP), Housing Market
Analyses (HMA) and Housing Market Surveys to determine ``adequate''
family housing units in Korea for the purpose of complying with DOD
policy. This is the same process used by the Services worldwide.

Command-Sponsored Families

Question. Please explain in detail how you will be able to
accommodate a growth in command-sponsored families from 2,135 to 4,320
using your current infrastructure.
Answer. In general, infrastructure is available due to the drawdown
of over ten thousand military from the peninsula since 2004. The main
cause to limit ourselves to 4,320 families is the capacity of our
schools. We have a very limited ability to convert available structures
to schools, which drove us to the upper limit of 4,320 families in the
immediate future. Other services and functions (such as medical and
child care) require additional staff and/or equipment, but not
additional infrastructure.

Force Levels in Korea

Question. The Global Defense Posture Review called for reducing the
force level in Korea from 37,500 to 25,000. Was this reduction based on
any analysis of the specific units to be relocated?
Answer. The guidance was to reduce the force level by one-third, or
12,500, which was not based on an analysis of warfighting capability.
After the reduction was directed, an analysis of the missions and tasks
associated with USFK was conducted to determine which units should be
relocated. We then linked specific units to the tasks and rank ordered
them in priority. Those units no longer contributing or least
contributing to the Korea mission set were identified for the drawdown.
Question. What would have been the impact on USFK if the reduction
to 25,000 had been carried through?
Answer. Continuation of the force reduction to 25,000 would have
reduced the overall warfighting capability of USFK. The reduction would
have taken away the opportunity to review the force level and force mix
relative to recent and new strategic decisions, particularly concerning
the changing mission set and future requirements for U.S. military
forces in Korea. Additionally, the realignment of ground component
missions requires a force level of approximately 28,500 to enable USFK
to execute its assigned missions and tasks and provides a better
overall capability.
Question. How has the decision to retain the force level in Korea
at 28,500 required any adjustments in your milcon and family housing
programs? Are there any installations that were projected for closure
that will now be kept open as a result of this decision?
Answer. The current force structure does not require changes to
installation closures or MILCON and family housing programs.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009.

EUROPEAN COMMAND

WITNESS

GENERAL BANTZ J. CRADDOCK, USA, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES EUROPEAN
COMMAND

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to
order.
General Craddock, welcome back to our subcommittee. It is
great to have you here, and thank you for not only being here
today but for your lifetime of very distinguished service to
our country.
Today we will discuss the current basing posture of the
U.S. European Command. In 2004, the Department of Defense
initiated a sweeping change in the U.S. military overseas
presence that called for reducing force levels in Europe by
roughly 48,000 troops. This included the relocation of two
division headquarters and two brigade combat teams from Germany
to the United States.
In 2007, the Secretary of Defense decided to temporarily
station two BCTs in Germany until the 2012-2013 timeframe.
As we discussed with today's witnesses in last year's EUCOM
hearing, this decision raised the possibility that we would not
draw down our forces in Europe to the extent that the Defense
Department had originally planned.
The purpose of this hearing is to gain additional insights
on where the ultimate decision on this issue stands and to
discuss other significant issues relating to European Command
basing and construction.
Before I proceed, I would like to turn to Mr. Wamp, our
ranking member, for any comments that he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, just to welcome back what I
consider to be one of the greatest living Americans and a man
who is headed for a little bit of R&R after a brilliant career
and distinguished service. And it is an honor to be in his
presence and look forward to his testimony this morning.
Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Well said and ditto.
Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Let me introduce someone who doesn't need an introduction,
but he deserves one. General John Craddock is the commander of
U.S. European Command and the Supreme Allied Commander in
Europe. This is his second appearance before the subcommittee.
He has been the European commander since December of 2006.
Prior to that, he served as commander of SOUTHCOM from 2004
to 2006. And am I correct? Nearly 38 years of service to our
country in uniform. Thank you for all of those years of
service.
His previous assignments include Commander 1st Infantry
Division, commander of U.S. Forces during the initial
operations in Kosovo, Joint Staff. And with pride, I would like
to point out, Assistant Chief of Staff for 3 Corps at Fort
Hood, Battalion Commander with the 24th Infantry during Desert
Storm. And he is a graduate of West Virginia University.
General Craddock, without objection, your full testimony
will be submitted for the record, but I would like to recognize
you now for any opening comments you would care to make, and
then we will proceed with questions and discussion.

Statement of General Bantz J. Craddock

General Craddock. Thank you, Chairman Edwards.
And I appreciate that, Congressman Wamp.
It is, indeed, an honor to appear here before you. I always
look forward to this opportunity because I think this forum,
this committee is very important. So thank you for that.
I am here representing the approximately 84,000
servicemembers and family members and civilians of U.S.
European Command. It is a longstanding command. We have, as you
know, in the last 2 years, changed our command. We have taken
Africa and cut it out from our responsibility. We went from 92
countries to now I have 51 countries I am responsible for.
We have changed the geopolitical environment somewhat in
August of 2008 with the Russian encroachment into Georgia. I
would tell you that that has changed the political dynamics in
Europe because the assumption we made in NATO and in our
bilateral relations, the United States and these nations, was
that for the last 17 or so years, the assumption was not to
worry, nations, there will be no violation, no attack, no
encroachment of your sovereignty.
That changed on the 7th of August, and now we have a
different situation in Europe where we have many nations who
have anxieties over the Russian Federation and what their
strategy is and where they are going to be headed. And that is
particularly noticeable in the nations that border Russia.
Then we have a different perspective, which is nothing has
changed. We still have the same Russia. So those tensions
exist.
Energy is another complicating factor because the Russian
production, distribution, pushing into Western Europe, many of
these nations depend primarily on Russian gas and much of
Russian oil. So there are new dynamics at work. This affects
the U.S. European command because it impacts on our ability,
then, to understand the dynamics and be able to respond.
I have with me today my command sergeant major, Mark
Farley. Sergeant Major Farley is tasked to visit all of our
forces at all these installations. He probably is the most
expert in the command in terms of where people are, the quality
of life they have at the locations, the facilities they use. So
he is--he is my wing man here, my battle buddy. And I will tell
you, I depend on him a lot.
He is going to retire, also, here shortly. So we made an
agreement when we go, we go together. But he is--he is the guy
here that probably, if we have some issues, I will turn to him
to help out.
But thank for the opportunity. I look forward to your
questions.
And thank you, Chairman, and the committee.
[The prepared statement of Bantz J. Craddock follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.103

Mr. Edwards. General Craddock, thank you.
And Sergeant Major Farley, let me speak for the committee
in saying we are deeply grateful to you and to your family for
your service and sacrifices for our country. One of the
greatest privileges in my life was to represent Fort Hood in
the Congress for 14 years. Thank you for being here today.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION IMPLICATIONS IN GERMANY

General Craddock, let me apologize to you that we have
Budget Committee markup all day. I would like to see us fund
the Defense Department this year. So I better high tail it over
to the Budget Committee after my opening questions. But you
have key members and key staff here who will be shaping this
budget. We are very grateful, and it is important that you are
here and we thank you for that.
Let me ask you about the timing of the decision that the
Department of Defense has to make in regard to the two brigade
combat teams and you are--obviously, the decision itself and
the timing of that decision has military construction
implications both in Germany and here in the United States.
Could you tell me where you think we are on the timing of
that decision? And, also, if you could give us any insights
into what would be the military construction implications in
Germany should we keep them there. Do we have a bottom line on
additional monies that might be invested, whether it is for
living quarters or for barracks or for other facilities that we
might have--frankly, I know once we have made initial decisions
to draw down troops, we tend to cut corners on maintenance of
our facilities.
Any insights you can give us on those points, I would be
very grateful.
General Craddock. Thank you, Chairman.
You are absolutely right. There is going to be, obviously,
service considerations here because of the cost of the
maintenance and care of the facility. I have talked at length
with General Carter Ham, who is the commander of U.S. Army
Europe. He understands that we must have, from the Army, a
timing construct here so we understand when decisions have to
be made so that contracts won't be let, brick and mortar won't
be started to be put together in the States if the decision is
made not to bring the two brigades back.
He tells me--and we are trying to work this, and it is
difficult because everyone wants to keep information close
hold. But he tells me that the Army will need a decision on the
two brigades by about October of this year. That is, in order
to do the work they will have to do if they come back to start
to prepare for them, the 12 and 13, or to stop those efforts
and focus on other areas.
Now, I have taken that information and I went to the
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, because
the policy shop is the driver in regards to the decision on
force posture. And I told her that the Army timeline says
October. And she told me that the plan is, the OSD plan in the
joint staff, is to put this decision into the Quadrennial
Defense Review, the QDR, that is starting to formulate now.
She believes--and I talked to the chairman on Monday--he
believes that they will have in the QDR, they will be far
enough long with their global force posture decisions, not only
Europe but the Pacific--Guam and Okinawa--that they will have
their decision by late September on force posture for Europe.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
General Craddock. So that sounds encouraging, and we are
going to push on that to make sure that it doesn't get pushed
aside. But that synchs up, synchronizes up pretty good.
So I think, Chairman, that is the timeline we are looking
at. I have told the secretary and the chairman I will come in
to him with my proposal.
The compelling arguments that need to be made--excuse me--
--
Mr. Edwards. It is that time of year. I am fighting
allergies, so I understand.
General Craddock. The rationale or the arguments that need
to be made to show why we need to keep the two brigades--and we
will also show the tasks that will not be done--the missions,
the exercises--if we don't have those two brigades.
So we are working on that. We will bring in May to the
joint staff--in the tank--the ops desk, we will start with
them. So that will kick that process off. That will inform the
QDR.
Mr. Edwards. All right.
General Craddock. So that is what I am looking at.
Now, if we retain, the decision is to keep the two brigades
or there may be a decision to delay the decision. Maybe delay
bringing them back until 2014 or 2015. They will make the final
decision later--I heard that.
If we keep that, there will be a Mil Con hearing for
recapitalization in the installations that now are considered
non-enduring that would have to stay enduring to accommodate
the two brigades. Essentially, we are talking, probably, two
facilities. It would be troop barracks and family housing. They
are, quite frankly, in pretty good shape now.
So it is not as if we have to go ahead and tear down and
stand up. But there will be, for those two brigades in the out
years, some recapitalization costs. I don't have an amount, but
I think it is only two installations.
The plan would be that those two brigades would fill in as
much as they could to the main operating bases established
now--Grafenwoehr--Baumholder. But Schweinfurt then may take and
have to be backfilled by logistics and support troops for the
retention of two brigades. So I don't think we are talking
about a large standup of new main operating bases, maybe one,
maybe two at the outset.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. And, again, thanks for being here.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to say one word to Sergeant Major Farley before I
ask a question. And that is my good friend, Fred Thompson, got
really famous playing himself in a movie. And once you retire,
Sergeant Major, if there is ever a movie where they need an
authentic-looking sergeant major, you should just step into
that role. There would be life after the service, for sure. You
look just like a sergeant major ought to look.
So thank you for your service as well.
Major Farley. Thank you, sir.

QUALITY OF LIFE

Mr. Wamp. General, I think you just came off of a quality-
of-life conference, and I was just going to ask you of the
status--that is our main thrust here is quality of life. Give
us an update on the overall quality of life throughout the
European Command and then kind of the second piece of the
question which is a part of quality of life.
You have made a big deal out of the schools throughout the
European command, and I want you to update the committee on
where you are with the schools as you prepare to leave and what
the needs are still with the schools from your perspective.
General Craddock. Thank you, Congressman.
The quality-of-life conference, I thought, was a good one.
We had a good representation of delegates. We brought in teams,
a good sampling of teams. And I was very impressed with the
out-brief when the team group got up and gave their issues.
Dynamic, articulate, poised, quite impressive.
The major priorities and issues for quality of life are,
one, counseling for families and service members post- and pre-
deployment. Because of this extended duration, we have got
troops and units now starting--preparing for their third 12--
some of them 15-month. Now we are back to 12-month rotations.
We have had Air Force, 3-, 4-month rotations continuous.
This is a key need. And the fact is the problem is
overseas, we can't get the servicing contracted off post. We
have got to have the counselors, you know, embedded in our
organizations, the mental health organizations and medical
organizations to do that. So that is priority number one.
Second is the child, youth, and teen facilities. We have
got to make sure that because of this extended rotation,
deployment, when service members are going, that there are
adequate facilities to keep the kids engaged, active,
productively engaged, particularly the teenagers. So that is
another one that is been--we had a lot of focus on.
Access to medical care and dental care. I think what has
been done and the help we have gotten is to reduce out-of-
pocket costs for dental care so that that dental insurance plan
is better, is helpful.
TRICARE for the off-post requirements is coming along. It
is better than it was. We have more physicians, local national
physicians, whether it be in Germany or Italy or the UK, that
are in the program. So that is helpful. And we have got some
better counseling and better knowledge of how that works.
It is not yet as easy or as good as here in the States, and
that is the goal. My goal is to make life in Europe for our
forces commensurate with what we have here in the States. And
with the dental and medical, we are getting close, but it is
not quite enough.
Our medical facilities--I was at Landstuhl 2 weeks ago--
very impressive to see our staff, physicians, nursing all
rotate with the global force into Iraq and Afghanistan. So we
have got a continual turn. And what we have to do then is
contract local national, German and Italian doctors to go in.
So we have a lot of turbulence.
Mr. Wamp. Right.
Before you go on to schools, let me just ask then what is
the percentage of the troops under your command in European
Command that have their families with them?
General Craddock. Hmm. Sergeant Major.
Major Farley. About 60 percent, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Sixty percent. And is that increasing? We had the
Korean Command in here last week, and we are really trying to
improve command sponsorship. Ratchet up where families can be
with the troops because of these extended stays, multiple
deployments and rotations, et cetera.
Is that increasing in European Command or decreasing?
General Craddock. I think, at the senior noncommissioned
officer, it is decreasing I think. The number that bring their
family is down because they get to Europe, a few months later,
they--so rather than bring the family----
Mr. Wamp. And then leave them----
General Craddock. I think at the junior ranks, we are
probably holding about steady in the number that bring their
families.
Mr. Wamp. Okay.
General Craddock. Because as opposed to the past, we can
get more of them on to post housing and things like that. But
senior NCOs, I think, many of them are coming----
Mr. Wamp. Schools.
General Craddock. Schools. This is a major concern of mine.
DODEA and then the Department of Defense schools in Europe,
DODS Europe, has done, over the several years that I have
watched as my kids went to school there on and off, has done a
good job in terms of curriculum establishment, in terms of
quality of the teachers and, also, I think the administration.
So I am pretty much impressed with that.
The challenge we have got now is facilities. For several
years we have tracked this back. We have 43 percent of the
schools in DODEA worldwide that are located in Europe. We have
about 44 percent of the students of all the DODEA who are
located in DODS Europe.
For several years now, we have been getting 15 percent of
the DODS Mil Con allotment, and we have fallen farther and
farther behind in being able to maintain facilities and being
able to replace facilities. We are Band-Aiding over the years
and patching up the facilities.
There was a requirement in the Appropriation Act to report
back--DODEA had to report back the status of the facilities.
They have four categories--Q1 through 4, four being the lowest.
Seventy-two percent of our facilities are Category 3 or 4.
Category 3, major repair required. Category 4, replacement
required.
I think overall, DODEA came out 70 percent. So we are a bit
worse than the average overall. So the challenge we have had
over the past couple years is to get--I don't mean to do this
in a pejorative way, but we had to get DODEA's attention that
we had--we need a better fair share of the Mil Con
appropriation. We need a better allocation.
And I think we have done that to the extent that we now
have, from them, a commitment that we will get a greater share.
The challenge is being able to sustain the appropriation for
Mil Con. I am hearing it may be cut and that there are some
fences for the Mil Con in Europe and CONUS because it is grow
the Army so, therefore, it can't be touched.
We have got a few projects that we want to do, and I know I
am constrained a bit by OMB and I am not supposed to talk about
monies and things like that. My concern is this. It is a
readiness issue.
We must have schools facilities, fiscal plans, commensurate
with what they find here in the States. Will it be like
Northern Virginia? Maybe not. Will it be like Georgia?
Tennessee? Texas? Yes, it has got to be like that. Right now,
it is not.
I live in SHAPE in Mons, Belgium. I go over to the SHAPE
International School. I have walked through it several times,
and it is a huge campus that, over the years, has been patched
with temporary buildings here and there all over the place and
then tied together in a physical plant that is--it is
customized. There is--every time something breaks, it is a
unique fix because it is not like anywhere else. It has been
all pieced together. It is the same throughout all of EUCOM.
Old hospitals turned into schools. Facilities that were
never intended to be a school, we moved in, we made it work.
But these need more care and maintenance or they have got to be
replaced. So that is the challenge.
The readiness piece of this is when Mom or Dad gets orders
for Europe and they then find out where they are going. They
call ahead. What do they do? The first thing they ask about is
quarters. Where am I going to live? The second thing is schools
for the kids.
And if what they get is good school system, bad facilities,
there is no lunchroom, the gyms are far away, they are
decrepit. Then they will leave the family at home because they
are set in some place in CONUS in the United States that is
acceptable to them. And then Dad or Mom becomes a geographical
bachelor or bachelorette and a 2-year tour, not a three. And we
have got a greater turn.
This effects readiness because they are not as focused on
the job forward because they have got the family back here. It
is a split perspective, and it is much more difficult. We are
going to have that. We are going to--I worry that we will turn
EUCOM assignments into a--either a burden or a hardship tour
because we can't provide the schooling. Schooling is critical.
And my headquarters, EUCOM, we have got senior
noncommissioned officers who have kids in school, high school
kids a lot of them, and officers--and they will--they will opt
out if they don't think the kids can get an education, if they
don't have an adequate place to live--and we are doing pretty
good there--or if the facilities aren't acceptable in terms of
medical care and things like that.
That is the problem with the schooling. It is a readiness
issue over time.
Mr. Wamp. That is it for this round, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farr [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Wamp.
And thank you, General.
Chet had to go to a Budget Committee meeting and asked if I
would chair the committee.
I will ask some questions and then I will go to Mr.
Crenshaw.

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION IN TRAINING

I was very interested, General, in reading your statement
about your efforts in building the partner capacity, the BPCs
promise to be a stronger and more flexible response to the
broad spectrum of threats in your jurisdiction.
In reading that this morning and then just a moment ago, I
spoke to the international IMET, the Military Officers--
graduate school in Monterey that I represent. Thirty-nine of
them, a lot from Singapore, but a good number in Korea, but a
lot of them from your part of the world.
And what I was interested in is that we have seen a cut in
the funding of IMET which has not allowed these officers to
come to this country because their host countries pay for it.
And it is more expensive now. So they have been cutting in host
countries, but we have been matching, you know, it works on a
formula basis depending on the host country. If we help Germany
or France or England at all in sending their officers--or
Australia, it is full scale. But the others--the other
countries, they were telling me that it is a real difficult
problem.
And it seems to me, as I read throughout your testimony,
this whole concept that we are going to really try to build a
lot more capability in soft power and education and peace and
things like that.
What is your feeling about what is happening at IMET? If we
lose those officers, isn't that part of building your partner
capacity that they come here and get this kind of training?
General Craddock. Absolutely, sir. It is critical. IMET is
probably, dollar for dollar, the best program we have for
building partner nation capability and capacity. And, indeed,
over the years, we have seen a trend now where the dollars
available go down.
Every year, we work closely with the nations to determine
their needs, to request school slots. When a family from the
Ukraine, a family from Georgia, a family from Azerbaijan comes
to a year-long school, the officer, the noncommissioned officer
brings his family and they live in the States, we gain from
that, they gain from that, they go back, they never forget
that. And it is very--it is valuable. It is critical.
This is a Title 22 program along with the foreign military
financing. And the State Department essentially funds the
program, turns it over, then, to geographical combatant
commands to implement. So we work closely with State. But they
fund it.
We have--I think, we have got to push harder to sustain the
funds for IMET. I am absolutely convinced that, in terms of
opening up and engaging, that is the first place that we have
got to go. But the process is cumbersome.
What will happen is I have, in all these countries, offices
of defense cooperation. They are in the embassy. They work with
the host nation military to decide what schools, what slots
with needed. We then pull that together at EUCOM. We put a
package together and a recommendation. It goes back to the
office of secretary of defense policy. They look at it. They
massage it or cut it or change it. They send it over to State
Department.
State gets it. They add their spins on it or whatever. It
goes through OMB and comes over here. And oftentimes, then,
when State gets it back, this is just a fact of life, that
money is withheld as a cash flow enabler.
So for fiscal year 2009, this fiscal year in IMET, we get--
money up front, so we buy school slots. And then if we don't
get a predictable stream of money, normally what happens then--
this is--I did this in SOUTHCOM, and this is the third year in
EUCOM. About July or August, we get the big dump on IMET monies
based upon whatever it is State did not need to reallocate for
something else. And then we apply it for school seats the last
quarter of the fiscal year, but we have to get it spent by the
first quarter of the next fiscal year.
And the challenge is these are services that have these
classes, these schools. The services want to get those school
slots, seats, filled up early in the year. If they don't, they
sometimes they cancel that school or that course for July or
August or September.
So we become at risk if we can't get somebody in. We have
the money, but we don't have the seats because the class is
cancelled. Or we have to get it in the first quarter of the
next year and try to fill up. So it is not a--it is not a
consistent approach over the year. It is feast or famine.
Mr. Farr. I am very interested in seeing what we can do to,
perhaps, make that a better decision making process. And, in
fact, I asked Chet if he would stay here because they just
whacked a billion dollars out of State Department, and there is
no doubt that it is going to hit this program which you just
said is the best partner solution there is.
And our strategy for achieving stability around the world
is to develop these partnerships and building partnership
capacity.
I think it is important that you communicate those
thoughts, also, to Secretary Clinton.
General Craddock. Okay. I will.
Mr. Farr. And we will try to do something on this end.
I have some other questions, but I think I will let Mr.
Crenshaw go right now.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE--EUROPEAN SITE

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, General Craddock, for your service and wish you
well.
When you were here last year, we had a pretty candid
discussion about the missile defense in Poland and in the Czech
Republic. And I had just come back and met with the Poles and
they were, at the time, they were--they had a lot of demands
like--it seemed like they hired some guy to negotiate for them
picking up all the points.
The Czech Republic things were kind of moving along pretty
good, and then after Russia invaded Georgia, as I recall,
Poland kind of, may be, had changed their perspective or
whatever.
So I know that they have signed agreements with the
president, but I understand--I guess back in December both
those countries, though decided, well, let us wait and see what
the new administration is going to say about all this before we
kind of ratify those.
And I just--I guess I wanted to ask you, from your
perspective, has anything changed, in your view, in terms of
that--those two sites in terms of missile defense, number one?
Number two, there was an article in Reuters, I think, that
talked about the Polish government was a little concerned that
maybe if we didn't follow through, they had a lot on the line,
they, you know, had made a lot of commitments and what kind of
impact would that have over the area that you command?
And then, finally, where are we in terms of the military
construction that we appropriated the money in 2009? Not all
the money. But just those three questions.
In general, anything changed? What would happen if we
didn't follow through? And what is left in terms of dollars?
General Craddock. Thank you, sir.
There has been changes, and there is concern, I think, both
in Poland and the Czech Republic over how we are going to
proceed.
As you said, the Poles have approved the placement of the
interceptors. The EUCOM will do the technical agreements to do
that, the land-use agreements and the arrangements. But we
cannot do that until a Status of Forces Agreement is signed
with the Poles. So we are waiting for that. So we have got to
get through that process.
State Department will work that, and once that is agreed
to, then when we are given that, we will proceed for the land-
use agreements and the technical arrangement that start digging
the brick and mortar.
A little bit different, Czech Republic. The lower house did
not vote on the approval. They have withdrawn it because their
law says, after so long, it has to vote, and they were afraid
they would not get a favorable vote, so it has been withdrawn.
Yesterday, the government got an unfavorable confidence
vote, so the prime minister--the president will have to form a
new government. They may wait until after the end of the
rotating EU presidency to do that at the end of June. But it
looks like, right now, that government, which was in favor of
installation of the radar, is going to dissolve, probably, by
the end of the June. And we are concerned that the next
government may not hold that radar in the same favorable light.
So we have got some political changes here that are,
obviously, impacted on what we are going to do.
I have talked to the military leaders of both of those
nations. I have talked to the defense ministers. They all tell
me that, indeed, they have spent some political capital with
their constituents, their people, in order to generate approval
for the radar. The incursion into Georgia convinced the Poles
very quickly, as you said. So they were very favorable to that
and that was no issue.
It is still on the margins, I think, in the Czech Republic.
Some polls I read say that 70 percent are against the radar.
Others I read 48. So I don't know where it is, but I know it is
an issue with their population.
I think the longer the United States waits to decide how
they want to proceed, the greater risk we have in the peoples
of those nations then thinking that it is a good thing for
them. And I think that, as I saw the foreign minister of Poland
talk about the lack of confidence, and he is worried that the
United States may change its position. I think that will,
again, influence other nations in how they view our consistent
relationship. So, unfortunately, it will play in.
Now, the requirement--the need for a radar, I think, NATO
is--the 3rd of December, the foreign ministers affirmed that
the third site was needed and would provide significant
protection from ballistic missile attacks. So there is no
question there so far of the threat.
It is a matter of, now, I think, a decision by the United
States on how they will proceed, how they will proceed with
regards to the Russian consideration of the third site. And I
think those are going to be some difficult political decisions
that will lead to difficult discussions at the highest levels
of the U.S., the Russian Federation, and I think, Poland and
the Czech Republic.
So we, right now, essentially, we are in a hold status. We
are waiting for a political decision on--my requirement is to
protect U.S. forces and U.S. families and interests in Europe
from ballistic missile attack. If we do that by putting in a
third site to intercept, fine. If we do that through political
means, diplomatic means, economic means to minimize or reduce
the threat, that is okay, too. But that has yet to occur.
Mr. Crenshaw. In terms of the appropriation, is there
anything needed yet? We appropriated some money last year, but
I guess--is that kind of on hold as well?
General Craddock. That is on hold until we get the go-ahead
to make the technical agreement, and then the monies will be
used to break--start shoveling earth and do the brick and
mortar. I think it is an incremental appropriation. I think it
is okay. It is just a matter of have we got the trigger to get
started.
Mr. Crenshaw. Gotcha.
General Craddock. Yes.
Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Chairman, I have got another question,
but I will wait until the next round as well.
Mr. Farr. Okay.
Mr. Carter.

ECONOMIC DOWNTURN

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, the dollar is fluctuating pretty severely, and
there is a global downturn that we are seeing which, of course,
that is front-page news over here. I was reading an article
last night about the economic crisis in Europe.
It seems at least that in some countries, Spain and Ireland
being the two examples I was given in that article, they are
teetering on the edge. Is that having an effect on the military
construction projects that you might have or that you might
anticipate? And are we going to need to formulate something
consider the possibility of a severely fluctuating dollar when
we start trying to spend money in Europe?
General Craddock. Thank you, sir.
A difficult question. What we have seen is a favorable
exchange rate with the dollar against the Euro here over the
last few months. But in the last 2 weeks, the dollar has lost
$0.10 against the Euro which is pretty significant in a very
short period of time.
I don't think that is going to impact too much. I think,
actually, because of the economic downturn, that we may be able
to leverage that into great opportunities with the Mil Con we
do have because, as there is less demand for the construction
business, local contractors, whatever, then we may be able to
get their business at a better rate for us because they want
business.
Mr. Carter. Right.
General Craddock. As opposed to they have got too much
business and they, you know, we have to either outbid or wait.
So I don't think that will be unfavorable.
What I do think, though----
Mr. Carter [continuing]. Bid for American companies or
European companies?
General Craddock. If there is an American company that can
do it, fine, but the problem there is the Status of Forces
Agreement. And number the Status of Forces Agreement that we
have, for example, in Germany, you are going to have to go to a
German company before American if the German can do the same
work. It is not even a bidding process because the taxes then
on the American company are pretty high, and that makes a
difference.
But this downturn, I think, is going to impact any cost
shares or anything that the nations would have right now. We
are going to have to fight harder.
Let me give you an example. The SHAPE International School
has got 17 nations as a part of it. It has been there ever
since 1968, and we have worked over the years. We are having a
very difficult time with them to pay their fair share. And they
are saying, because of the downturn, they are not going to
touch it.
They have 17 percent of the students, they paid 3 percent
of the cost. The other nations are paying a fair share. But
with the downturn, discretionary monies, they are going to look
hard at all these cost shares to see if they can reduce it.
That is where the danger lies.
Mr. Carter. The overall economic situation in Europe, at
least in the article I was reading, is that the Eastern Bloc in
the last election just barely turned out to vote, there was
around 17 and 12 percent voter turnout in some of the eastern
nations in the EU. And even the founding nations were below 50
percent, in fact, they were below 40 percent.
The imposed currency is starting to be a burden on some of
the countries, do you have any comment about that?
General Craddock. Well, no, I agree with that. Now, the
Euro, the European Union, has got a lot of regulatory
requirements, and it is a bit of a burden. You know, there is
requirements for contributions to different types of funds in
the EU. And those are must-pays much like very view as our
budget, civilian pay is a must-pay. Those are must-pays.
So that then, as you have got to do that and your revenue
generation is less, it reduces the discretionary funding. NATO
asked its members to contribute 2 percent of their gross
domestic product to the security sector, to defense. That is--
they want 2 percent for ministries of defense.
Right now, there are three countries out of 26 that
contribute 2 percent. And the trend is down for everyone. And I
think within a month, it will be two countries, the UK and the
U.S. We had six countries doing it 6 months ago. Now, we are
down to three. It is going to go to two. That is where we are
trending.
And in Europe, when times are tough, revenues are down, the
first place they go to grab discretionary funding is in the
security sector. I think we are going to continue to see that.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.

NATO CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
General, both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and joint
chief of staff chairman, Admiral Mullen have called for a
whole-of-government response to stabilization and
reconstruction issues in Afghanistan. And I am wondering do you
know what NATO countries will contribute to this kind of
buildup of the civilian surge?
General Craddock. Well, the effort is ongoing right now. It
is--it is going to be pushed hard, I think, by the Secretary of
State. She has been given the task to engage with the NATO
nations.
As you know, the United States has increased its force
commitment by 30,000. When they are all there by the end of
July, it will be 30,000 since the 1st of January. Commensurate
with that, at the same time, we have to increase the civilian
representation.
What do I mean by that? We need Department of Agriculture
or like type agriculture experts from Europe--energy,
transportation, commerce--that can integrate into not only the
central government in Kabul and mentor these--this nascent
civil service, if you will, but also move out into the
provincial--the provinces, the capitals and the provinces and
the districts and mentor and partner with the government
personnel there. And that has not happened.
Mr. Farr. So the State Department has a new coordinator for
stabilization and reconstruction, Admiral Herbst--excuse me,
Ambassador Herbst.
General Craddock. Right.
Mr. Farr. Is he going to be coordinating the NATO country
civilians as well or just trying to grab our folks?
General Craddock. I think he will be working the U.S. side.
And right now, the U.S. side is the predominant side in terms
of numbers. However, in the north, the Germans have started to
push in quite a few civilians. And, right now, their provincial
reconstruction teams are co-led by a civilian, the foreign
ministry, and by a military officer.
We are seeing a little more of that in the West, but we
have got to do two things. One is----
Mr. Farr. Do these teams train together at all like you
would train----
General Craddock. They come together. They get trained up,
and then they deploy down. We want ours to stay a year. Theirs
stay 6 months. They have a continual turn, also.
Every one of the PRTs, not only ours but those run by other
nations, has a U.S. State Department representative and a USAID
representative. So we get integrated into them there.
Mr. Farr. And they have a language and cultural training to
be able to work on the grounds?
General Craddock. It is--we need to grow it. But what we
have is a good core capability around which we need to put more
agriculture experts, energy experts, medical experts so that we
can continue to build capabilities.
Mr. Farr. What I am curious about is this interaction
between Department of Defense, NATO, and these civilian crisis
corps folks that are--that are--the stabilization group, how
that will be integrated in command and how it will be
integrated in operations because, obviously, you can't be two
different entities in the same country on different missions.
General Craddock. In the U.S., where the rubber meets the
road is a provincial reconstruction team. There is 26 in
Afghanistan. The U.S. has 12. And in that team that is led by
U.S. military officers, but embedded in the team are State
Department representatives, USAID representatives, Department
of Agriculture--we are starting to get them--land grant
colleges are sending agriculture experts from the school over
on 6-, 7-, 8-month rotations.
Mr. Farr. Is this primarily--country?
General Craddock. Yes. I just talked last month to the
Department of Agriculture expert in Regional Command East, U.S.
leading, and he has got several teams of 30 or 40 from schools,
land ag colleges, agricultural schools, who are over there
working with farmers. And he said it is amazing because it is
very basic.
Give me an example. He said, well, we found out that a lot
of these farmers overwater. There is a lack of water, but when
they get it, they overwater the crops. So we worked with them
to show them how to do this better, and crop yields then go up
two and threefold.
So the land is fertile. There is water under the ground.
Some rivers in the east particularly. And it is a matter then
of just giving them the basic fundamentals of pulling it all
together, and the crop yields go up.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Poppy fields?
General Craddock. Different problem. But it is most--that
is mostly in the south right now. Ninety percent of the poppies
are coming out of the south, and that is where the focus--is
going to be next.

STABILIZATION CORPS

Mr. Farr. I am very keenly interested in emphasis on soft
power. I think it is the right thing to do, and I think America
can do it well. I was a Peace Corps volunteer and came back
with that experience of language and cultural knowledge and
really working with the peasants that, you know, just didn't
understand sort of basic things.
So I am interested in how you, as a career military
officer, feel about this. It really seems to me that if we are
really going to do stabilization and we are going to work
ourselves out, we have got to have that civilian transfer.
General Craddock. I agree. Absolutely agree.
Mr. Farr. What are the things that we need to add that we
are not doing?
General Craddock. I think that we have got to have, whether
it is USAID or whether it is the stabilization and
reconstruction directorate in State Department--maybe that is
where it starts--we have got to have an energized, growing--it
has got to be bigger--stabilization corps. And they have got
to--right now, the military is doing it in most places, but we
have got to get that transitioned into a civilian entity and
just let the military be there for security as required.
I don't know how you motivate that, how you get, you know,
incentives for folks to join, but that has to occur.
Mr. Farr. The concept here was to draw upon the trained
experience of USAID, State Department, and then have a reserve
corps made up of state and local folks who you can call upon
and you would have this cache of incredible career talent and,
hopefully, career talents that also know something about the
country that you could pull together and train and they could
come in there as you said, a stabilization corps.
General Craddock. I am all for it.
Mr. Farr. I guess we just haven't met the size and skill
level that is needed.
General Craddock. I think it is still fragmented. I think
departments, Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Health and Human
Services all generate their own participation, but it is not
brought together here under a stabilization corps where each
department agency puts their people in and 40 of them are
pulled out and they are trained together and culturally
assimilated to go into a province in Afghanistan, and 45 go
into some other country and--I think, now, it is individual
stovepipes going in.
And then they come together on the ground, and it is better
than nothing, but it is still not good enough.
Mr. Farr. What was the ingredient that made the military
come together in a coordinated way?
General Craddock. We follow a prescribed routine. It is in
our--it is the way we are drilled. It is our ethos.
And Regional Command East in Afghanistan, the military put
together a program in Nangarhar Province, and they called it
Nangarhar, Inc.--I-N-C--incorporated. And I took 30 members
from the Council on Foreign Relations to Afghanistan. We went
there.
And the military briefed these industrialists,
entrepreneurs, businessmen and women here is what we are doing.
And everyone I heard said why are you doing this. This is not a
military task. This is a civilian task. You are into
development, reconstruction, job creation. You are bringing in
industrial capability, technology, why are you doing this? And
the answer is no one else was there, but they were doing it
very well.
That is what we have--that is the stabilization corps we
are talking about. Those--those functions, those skills, those
tasks have to be handed off to a stabilization corps, a
stabilization battalion, whatever and then they have to sustain
that over time because we are taking the military--and our
strategy is shape, clear out the insurgents, hold--keep it
secured--and then build. We are using our forces to shape,
clear, hold, and then build, and we don't have enough to do it.
So as soon as the next problem spot comes up, we are trying
to hold and build, we have to move our forces over to clear the
insurgents out of this problem spot. And this is----
Mr. Farr. Well, I was involved in carrying the legislation
to create that stabilization corps in the State Department, and
it is only about 2 years old. Congress has cut their request in
funding. We haven't funded it enough. But I think it is
important for the Department of Defense to talk about that as
much as possible and plead with all of us appropriators that
you need that other arm, that other strength in order to secure
and stabilize an area.
And I think that voice, coming from the military, may be
even more respected on the Hill than coming from the State
Department.
General Craddock. I agree with Secretary Gates. I think it
means that we, the Department of Defense, push monies over to
do this. It is in our best interest to do it.
Ambassador Carlos Pascual was the first director, and I was
in SOUTHCOM. We worked together closely. I think--and I am--
this is my judgment--he got so frustrated with the ability to
get resourced and to get authorities to move ahead that he
left. And I think when that happened, that whole program lost a
lot of ground and a lot of momentum.
Mr. Farr. Well, the Congress can take the blame. They asked
for $150 million, and we gave them $10 million.
General Craddock. Okay.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Carrying the thought a little bit further, this
civilian approach, I have said here many times, that our
commanders around the world are maybe our best State Department
representatives--and they are more effective than State
Department a whole lot of times--but don't you think that that
is the best way for General ``Kip'' Ward to succeed in AFRICOM
is with that approach?
I talked to a top official last month from Kenya who
actually had gone from concern about AFRICOM to a much better
attitude towards AFRICOM. Not threatening, more stabilization
support and economic development things that they saw real
positive instead of a threat to the continent which I think was
the first reaction.
And just in a big picture, you have divested those
countries, but during the transition, don't you think that that
is very much a part of the success formula for AFRICOM is that
approach?
General Craddock. Oh, I absolutely do. I think that, in
most scenarios today, particularly in Africa, I think, in
Eurasia to a great extent, soft--S-O-F-T--power is what will
prevail.
In Afghanistan, I have said repeatedly, this is not going
to be won by military means. The military will set the
conditions, the security so that development, which is job
creation, the delivery of infrastructure, social services and
welfare to the people can occur. When that happens, then they
will decide they do not want insurgents around because they
don't bring that to them. And the people will push the
insurgents out.
Same thing in Africa. Different problems in Africa. It is
endemic. It is poverty. It is--but it is not a conventional
military threat. So we have got to--we, the military--have to
enable the civilian approach. And that is the challenge we have
got.
Until we do that, we have got to have civilians behind us.
Mr. Wamp. We are seeing the push-pull here to a certain
extent is if the military is involved, a lot of people in
Washington don't look at it as foreign aid or assistance to
countries. They don't think it is as efficient. This is just a
reality that still has to be dealt with because I do think as
you transition more over to State Department, you don't get,
frankly the efficiency.
And I know that there were gross inefficiencies with Iraq
in staging and procurement on the other side of the world in a
war-fighting capacity. But I also believe that you have seen
the military be very responsive with the resources in this kind
of a theater as opposed to, frankly, some State Department.
So we have got--I understand where you are going, but we
have got some selling to do.
Back to Afghanistan, unless you want to interject.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Farr. The problem is--the military has been very
straightforward about this and the Department of Defense,
Secretary of Defense has been very straightforward that they
need this capacity built up. And they were the first to support
this legislation.
And, in fact, that is how we got it through the Senate. It
was calls from the Department of Defense that got it through,
not the State Department. But we haven't been listening to it
or funding it. And I think the concept there is that they
trained. I mean, if you are going to be governor of a state,
you are going to have a lot of people who are really good at
their job and professional. Why can't we call them up as we do
National Guard to have these civilian skills and, perhaps, the
linguistic knowledge? You know, maybe they are Afghans.
I think it is just a missing component. As far as cost, I
mean, if we really put a nice spin on it, I think you could get
senior people to almost volunteer to do this. Who wouldn't want
to have an experience like this?
Mr. Wamp. Back to Afghanistan and your role as the supreme
commander and NATO increasing their presence there. Word from
the Pentagon is that in the supplemental, when it comes, there
will be a little thin slice for Mil Con directed to
Afghanistan. Where would that be spent? Do you know?
General Craddock. I have a NATO hat in Afghanistan. I do
not have a U.S. hat. But because of this uplift in forces, as I
understand, there have to be some additional tarmacs laid
because of the increase in numbers of helicopters, so they have
got to do some more work on the airfields. There will have to
be more facilities to house the troops, whether they are--
probably C-huts or things like that. Headquarters will have to
be built. Regional Command South is going to be up a little
bit. So I think that is the Mil Con investment.
From a NATO perspective, we are basically in airfields.
NATO will take care of common funding for common-use areas.
But, for example, the Germans in the north in Mazari Sharif
have built that into an incredible facility. I mean, there is
more--there is more cement up there than anywhere else in one
place in that country. It is huge. But that is nationally
funded, no NATO money there.
That is going to happen. The U.S. is going to have to fund
some of these increases when they put these forces in places
where there are no facilities now. There is no infrastructure
anywhere in Afghanistan.
So any time you put a force in there, one of these got to
put the infrastructure in. You have got to put in housing. You
have got to put in dining facilities. You have got to harden
them because of the threat from rockets and mortars. And that
is where the cost lies.
Mr. Farr. Is there water?
General Craddock. There is water in most places of the
country's surface. Southwest, no. But under--not too deep--
there is water. Some of it is high metal content, but the fact
is that before the Soviets destroyed it, that was a very
complex irrigation system, and it was--it was good. The country
was green. When the Soviets left, they just completely
destroyed the irrigation system.
The challenge we have got with Department of Agriculture
and some of the European nations is to help rebuild the
irrigation system in the south and the north. The east has got,
because of the Hindu Kush, a lot of mounts and runoff from snow
and streams. So there is plenty of water there. Good micro,
hydroelectric capability. Put a little turbine in one of these
streams as wide as this table, fast moving, and you can
generate enough to put one light bulb in 50 houses. That is a
pretty good deal.
So there is water. It is a matter of getting to it, getting
it in, out, and distributed in irrigation has got to be
rebuilt. Totally destroyed.
Mr. Wamp. So Admiral Stavridis, Ph.D., real smart guy, real
neat guy, but he is going from dealing with Hugo Chavez to
taking EUCOM. What do you say to him? [Laughter.]
General Craddock. Hang on. Well, I did the same thing. But
the difference--I went from SOUTHCOM to EUCOM and NATO. The
difference is I had already spent 14 years on and off in Europe
on assignments. I had been in a NATO command. So I understood a
lot of how that works.
So Jim is going to have to--militarily, not a problem. You
can transfer skills from one combatant command to the next.
Okay? So that is okay.
The challenge will be the political and military side in
NATO. And that is completely different and unique. There are
different rule sets, different acronyms, different processes.
When you--in NATO, when you were invited to something, that
means you will be there. It is--you have got to break the code.
And that is going to be the challenge.
So what I am telling you is listen to some of the folks who
have been around a while very carefully because, in NATO,
generally speaking, what you hear is different from what they
mean. It is incredibly political.
Mr. Wamp. Wow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Bishop, under the rules of the committee, I
am told that priority, because of the way people came in, is
that Mr. Crenshaw and Mr. Carter go.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you. While we are talking about
Afghanistan, let me ask you a couple of questions. You know,
kind of big picture, kind of what is going on there. But what
you just mentioned and, you know, kind of the political nature.
When I was there, one of the big problems, it seemed like,
I think you said we have got 62,000 people there. Half of those
are ours. Right? Forty-two different nations have people there.
We have got another 14,000 that are kind of part of Enduring
Freedom, and we are getting ready to send another 17,000 there.
And part of the problem is getting everybody to work
together. As I understand it, some countries don't go into some
areas of Afghanistan. There are these so-called caveats where,
you know, we watched the film of kind of the way people engage
the enemy, and they were watching from high-tech spy planes.
Now, here they are, the bad guys are here, but there are too
many people nearby so we can't do anything until they go
somewhere else.
I mean--and I guess I am wondering NATO is getting ready to
have an anniversary. You are going to have a NATO--do you all
talk about that? About--it seems to me that, with all the high-
tech equipment you have got, you know, interoperability kind of
questions of how you train people, how you work together, the
different rules that different countries have.
Give us a picture of the overall situation in Afghanistan.
And then what do you think are the things that we ought to be
doing legislatively or the things that you are trying to do at
these NATO summits to kind of work together?
But could you kind of comment on a couple of those issues?
General Craddock. I will give you an overall Afghanistan. I
just took the North Atlantic Council plus non-NATO troop-
contributing nations in 2 weeks ago--well, last week, actually.
That was 42--reps from all 42, ambassadors from 42 countries.
So we got them out and about to see the country and talked
to President Karzai, talked to the ministers, talked to Speaker
of the House Kenuti and others. So I will tell you the general
consensus was they came back seeing a far better picture than
what they expected.
So, now, it is not rosy, but it is not as bad as you read.
Three lines of operation in NATO: security, governance, and
development. My assessment is in security, except for the
south, we are making progress. In the south, we are stalemated,
and we need more troops, and that is what the U.S. is going to
provide.
The south is a coherent insurgency. It is Pashtun. They are
all working under orders from Quetta--the Quetta Sura. The
Pashtun insurgent leaders have very tight control in the south.
It is a coherent insurgency.
The east is a syndicate of insurgents. You have got
Taliban. You have got HIG, Hakani, Al Qaeda, IJU, you name it.
There are a whole bunch of bad guys, and sometimes they work
together and sometimes they don't. So they are syndicated to
the extent it is to their advantage. When they feel like it is
not, then they blow each other up and try to do something else.
Different kind of insurgency.
The key is Pakistan for them. If the safe haven in Pakistan
is not eliminated, we will never end the fighting in
Afghanistan. Fact. Insurgents, when they are under pressure, go
back across the border into sanctuary, and then they pick and
choose when to return.
But except for the south, security is on the uptick. We
turned over Kabul, the capital, for leave for security to the
Afghans. The incident rate today, they are doing a pretty good
job. Will they ever completely eliminate the suicide bomber
that makes the headlines? No, we can't do that anywhere in the
world. But the number of incidents are down. They are doing
okay.
Governance, I think, is the long pole in the tent. It is
the problem. If the people in Afghanistan don't believe
government is a positive factor in their life, they will never
support the government either central, provincial or district.
And, right now, the corruption is so bad that the people are
right on the margins. They don't know whether to walk off and
take the Taliban, even though they are harsh, they are not
corrupt, they don't--people and shake them down, or they think
maybe there is a chance the government is going to help them.
If we don't see a reduction in corruption, if we don't see
the delivery--fair delivery--of infrastructure and services, I
am worried that even though we could be perfect in securing the
place, the people will still never back their government.
Development is starting to get better. It is now a more
coherent approach. It is integrated the Afghan national
development strategy, which was a long time coming. It is
integrating from bottom to top, and we are seeing projects
linked up and down. So I am getting a better feel there.
The World Bank Solidarity Program, which is administered
down at the local level, does not go through Kabul or any
provincial capital, is probably the most effective development
program there. It is very good.
Now, we have got to take those types of successes and link
them up and then across. So that is the overall picture. Not
moving as fast as we want to. We still have to continue to
push.

NATO

And what is the problem with NATO? In order to get buy-in
in the beginning, I think what happened was that every nation
that wanted to have a little hitch in going, a caveat--well, we
will go but we want--okay, fine. Come on.
And individually, it wasn't a problem. But then when you
have got 42 nations and they generate, right now, 17 caveats--
18 nations out of 42 are caveat free. The rest have got 70
caveats. They won't do this. They won't go there. Then the
commanders on the ground, every time they have put together an
operation, have to consider that and have to adjust. And it
gets to be three-dimensional chess because you think you have
got it--no, I can't use these guys because--so it is very
difficult. It takes enormous planning efforts.
And now, the next factor, a good factor, is we have got to
work with the Afghan National Army. They are getting more
capable. They are participating in 90 percent of the ops. They
lead 50 percent. That is a good thing. So we want that.
But we have got nations that are caveated. They--if they
are--if they are providing mentoring teams for an infantry
battalion of Afghans in the north, and we have got a problem in
the south. So we want to move that brigade of Afghan soldiers
to the south, but that team in the north that belongs to a
country says, oh, no, I can't go south. So the OMLTs mentoring
team, they stay north. The U.S. has to pick up--put a team
together to go south. These are the things that cause
incredible inflexibility that the commanders down there have to
deal with.
So we have got to--it is too late. We have built our house.
We are going to live with it now. But when we do this again and
we build an O-plan, an operations plan and NATO says go do it,
then we cannot let nations opt in the way they want to. You are
either all in or you are all out.
And if you are not all in and we don't have enough to do
it, then militarily, we go back and say we can't do it. You
told us to do this. Here is what we need. You only gave us
this. This is all we can do. We didn't do that.
It is the worst abomination of a military--military effort.
We just--it is too hard. It is too many restraints.
Headquarters structure, all the caveats and the constraints,
some of these national elements that come in don't report under
ISAF, NATO. They stay nationally command and controlled. So it
is--we have got to have a 21st century structure here, and this
is a Cold War structure.
Mr. Crenshaw. You bring that up, like, at these meetings
and it just--they can change.
General Craddock. I meet with the chiefs of defense every 3
or 4 months. I tell them this. I need--you know, at the last
summit, the heads of state said we are going to fill up your
requirements with troops, we are going to eliminate caveats.
The next meeting after that, I took a big, old jar in and I
labeled it. This is the fill-up-the troops. And I laid it out
there. Who is going to put something in it? And nobody did a
thing.
So you can name them, you can shame them, but it doesn't
work. You just continually beat on them. The chiefs of
defense--the military guys--always tell me I can get more. I
can provide more. I can do this. Will you do it? I will try.
They go back, they can't get political approval.
Mr. Crenshaw [continuing]. Withhold military aid--
conditionality?
General Craddock. Most of the ones that have the
capability, have the capacity and haven't contributed don't get
aid from us. Smaller nations, the newer nations, the new
members of NATO are paying a bill--they are punching above
their weight, but they are not real capable, so we have got to
help them out. We have got to train them. Sometimes, we embed
U.S. guys with them to help them out. They are willing, but
they don't have a lot to bring.
It is the big nations that we don't give any aid to, they
are the ones that could do it but don't.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Carter and then Mr. Bishop.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Carter. Well, this line of questioning we have been
going into is very frustrating. I was over with the 4th
Infantry Division early on, and some of the commanders were
complaining about the same issues that you are complaining
about in Iraq.
One general, and I won't mention his name, got frustrated.
He said I spend more time taking care of these people than I do
getting anything out of them. And I have got fighting soldiers
that are having to take care of these people because they are
limited in what they are willing to do. And he said as far as I
am concerned, they might as well go on home. But I guess he was
a little bit frustrated.
But another thing that Sam brought up, and this is only in
Iraq you are talking about provincial teams were a good issue.
I mean, they really did work. But the frustration that the
military was having at that point in time--this was prior to
the surge was it was taking a lot of soldiers to move a few
people from the State Department out there because they just
didn't want to go.
And he said, finally, you just said it is easier for us to
just do it ourselves than try to push these guys out of their
little secure place inside Baghdad. They didn't want to go
outside of there. They didn't feel like they were getting paid
to get shot at and so they didn't want to go out there.
And so the Army took over, basically, all those issues that
were supposed to be dealt with. Is that same type of thing
occurring in Afghanistan?
General Craddock. To a certain extent, yes, but I don't
think it is as bad as what you described because we have been
there a little longer. When we pushed out the insurgents, the
Taliban, in late 2002, they were beat up pretty bad. We didn't
realize it, but they were out there refitting, rearming,
regenerating over the next 3-1/2 years. So, by 2006, they were
back.
We had folks out and about, State Department folks and
other civilian teams. So we had them out there. Now, the--you
know, and we had security for them, we just had to, probably,
put a little more security in certain places. But I don't think
it was having to get them out there. They were already out
there. The question is are they--is it good enough.
The problem wasn't the U.S. Now, the problem is
international organizations, nongovernmentals. Right now,
UNAMA, the mission in Afghanistan only has their people in
offices in 17 to 34 provinces. And the reason they will tell
you is security.
Well, the real reason is manpower. There is plenty of
security where they are, but they don't have enough people to
get out there. So they continually have a tension of resources
versus security.
But, no, we do have to provide security. We are asked to
escort world food trucks. We are asked to do a lot of that.
But, you know, there is a--there is a bit of a tension. Any
time a lot of these nongovernmentals, these international
organizations see a uniform, you know, they push back. They
don't want the military around because they think we endanger
them if they are near us.
But what we are seeing now is a reverse. They are asking us
to come around and help them out because they realize we can
provide a level of security now. ISAF does that. U.S. forces do
that. If it means we can get them out and they can start doing
what they are chartered to do, it is probably worth our time to
do it.
Mr. Carter. At the Naval Postgraduate School where they are
doing this training with everybody, military and international
and nongovernmental organizations, the feedback I am getting is
the NGOs are much more comfortable being with the military
because they are out in the fields. What they are not
comfortable with is watching USAID and the State Department
hide in the embassy compounds.
And because of the way they were founded they don't want to
be seen as partnering with the military. But as far as ground
work is concerned, they find themselves, because you say so
many of the soldiers are doing this work--fixing water systems.
I think it is a whole new paradigm that America needs to
build on, NATO needs to build on that we have never trained
civilian forces to go in and do stabilization in failed states
and how maybe you ought to go in ahead of time just so they
don't fail. But in post-conflict, how do you get them in and
how do you restart the system? You need forces trained together
and civilians don't train together. They are all independent.
They come in. They rush in. They are single purpose. One, will
build houses. Somebody else will do teaching. They are not
under a single command structure, and that is why I think we
should match military organizational skills to civilian parts.
I think it is challenging and exciting and a great
opportunity, but Congress has got to get behind you.
General Craddock. We don't have to push out the USAID or
U.S. State Department. I will say they are out there. We--the
challenge is keeping them out there and more of them because,
too often, we have an AID rep out in the PRT in some remote
province, and it is time to leave and they leave, and it is 2
months before we get a replacement.
So we have got to have a continual, persistent presence,
otherwise the local people lose faith in the fact that we are
serious about this.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Welcome, General Craddock.

COMMAND STRUCTURE AT EUCOM

I have been interested in the conversation regarding the
three Ds: defense, diplomacy, and development which is very
much a part of the newest command: which is Africa Command. One
of the specific things in the Africa Command structure is that
there is a deputy commander for civil and military affairs who
is an ambassador.
And do you believe that in what you are doing in
Afghanistan, that that would be helpful? Does your command
structure at EUCOM include a civil military affairs deputy to
the commander as does AFRICOM?
General Craddock. Thank you, sir.
No. The command structure of European Command does not have
a civilian deputy. I was--I worked with General Ward in the
beginning in the creation of that structure. And we looked at
what ailed Africa. We looked at the needs of Africa. We looked
at the challenges and the threats in Africa. And it was
apparent that there are probably more nonmilitary challenges
than military and it would take soft power to address it.
And that was a discreet decision, uniquely, to have a
civilian deputy out of the State Department, Ambassador Yates.
I think--and what I am doing now, quite frankly, in EUCOM is we
are beginning--I have started a review the command structure, a
review towards our reorganization.
When I left SOUTHCOM, I did that. I handed that off to
Admiral Stavridis.
Mr. Bishop. SOUTHCOM sort of has that structure, also.
General Craddock. Right. Exactly.
So we are heading that way, but I will, quite frankly, tell
you that we had the first year to be able to split out AFRICOM.
A challenge because that changed European Command. That was a
significant event.
So we spent the first year doing that. We spent the second
year, now, regrouping and understanding what that meant and
getting ourselves reorganized. Now, it doesn't sound like much,
but the fact that--a couple of facts.
I have got two hats. I am not the only combatant commander
with two hats, but I am the only one with two different
headquarters that are 500 miles apart. That created a
significant difference. And along with that was, in years past,
the deputy commander of EUCOM was a four-star, General Ward.
When we split out AFRICOM, my deputy commander became a
three-star. And while, as competent and capable and good as he
is, four beats three. And three can't get in doors that four
gets into. And when he wants to meet with chiefs of defense as
a three-star, it is harder.
When we have conferences--and we do that routinely, we
bring in the chiefs of defense of the nations once a quarter.
If I am not there, then it is hard to get them there. So we
spend the next year sorting ourselves out.
Now, I have stated let us get ourselves arranged for the
21st century because we are going to be in the process of
reorganizing ourselves. Is it going to be like SOUTHCOM? Not
exactly. Is it going to be like AFRICOM? Not exactly. But it
will be what we need to face the challenges in our region.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Bishop. In terms of your long-term military base needs
for Afghanistan, do you see in EUCOM the need for any long-term
military basing and access for the efforts in Afghanistan that
this committee would have to fund?
General Craddock. Not discreetly towards Afghanistan. I
think that, in conjunction with Transportation Command,
TRANSCOM, they have in-route infrastructure requirements in our
region. So, you know, Moron in Spain, Rota is in Spain, we have
got to make sure that what we have meets the needs but it is
not more than we need. We can't warm base things in two
locations if we can fix it to be adequate for all the
throughput we need in one location.
So I don't think there is anything unique to Afghanistan.
As you know, TRANSCOM is working on a northern distribution
network so that, instead of having to go through Pakistan, we
can come in through Russia and Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and
Tajikistan. That is working pretty well. NATO is doing the same
thing.
So I don't have anything different than what TRANSCOM--we
support TRANSCOM's efforts. We just--we are in a debate with
TRANSCOM. Let us make sure you don't have more than you need
there, TRANSCOM.

DOD EDUCATION NEEDS IN EUROPE

Mr. Bishop. Okay. Let me change gears for a moment and go
to your DOD education needs in Europe.
I think you may have alluded in your testimony to your need
for school construction in Europe. Can you describe that need
and the current state of the schools? I think you mentioned
about $300 million to $400 million in Mil Con needs per year.
Does that support the current transformation efforts? And
of what is that comprised? Other than schools, are there any
other major construction or infrastructure needs that you have?
Mr. Farr. Before you arrived, the general went through that
quite----
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. I apologize.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Respond to your question.
Mr. Bishop. Okay.
General Craddock. What we have is, over the years we have
taken and patched together school facilities, school
infrastructure, fiscal--and we put patches on it because we
never had enough money to be able to buy new in a quality
facility.
DODEA, for whatever reason, only gave us 15 percent of the
available funds, yet we have 43 percent of the schools and the
students. So we weren't getting a fair share. Because of that,
we could never completely fix a problem. We had to Band-Aid
several problems.
So we have gone in these last couple of years, we have
identified that, we have asked for a greater share. Right now,
72 percent of our school facilities, on a grading system, Q-1
through 4 with four being worse, 72 percent of ours are three
or four. Three means major repair. Four means needs a new
facility.
So we are just about at the end of being able to patch
these things. We are going to have to do some new construction.
That is the challenge we have got. We have got good staffs,
good teachers, good curricula. Physical plants are decaying
faster than we can ever----
If we don't do that, if we don't get these facilities up to
Q-1 soon, we are going to have families elect to stay in the
States and the service member comes alone. And that is going to
be a readiness issue.
Now, beyond that, there are several programs. We are still
going to need to finish up our barracks modernization. We are
still going need to finish up our family housing system. That
is already in the plan. And then, as we head towards the
objective force for the land army for the air, there are some
command and control requirements for the Army as they pull
together several different units into the Weisbaden location.
So that is all in the program that we have got now.
Mr. Bishop. I apologize for going back over information you
had already covered. I was in a Defense Subcommittee meeting
simultaneously with this, so I apologize.
But thank you so very much.

TAJIKISTAN

Mr. Farr. Recently, I got a call from a professor at
Monterey Institute of International Studies. She is Russian.
And she has been teaching problems of the region. And she was
really leaning on me about how we have sort of paid no
attention to Tajikistan.
You mentioned it. And she said the ills of Afghanistan are
flopping into that country without people paying any attention
to it and it could become really explosive. Do you concur with
that----
General Craddock. I don't have a lot of detailed knowledge
because Takijistan is in the CENTCOM AOR. But, obviously, as a
neighbor there, as a border state in Afghanistan, we see that.
The fact is that smuggling routes, historically, have gone
through that area up through Tajikistan. We know drugs are
moving through Tajikistan into Russia. The Russians know that.
They have a growing problem with heroin addiction coming out of
Afghanistan.
So the fact is we can't approach Afghanistan by itself as a
regional issue, and we have got to then see both from the
Pakistan side and the Iranian side, which are the two big
players, but we have got to look north. And then you have got
Turkmenistan and Tajikistan and--those nations are also going
to feel the problems move across borders to them the better it
gets in Afghanistan.
There is a natural flow--there has been for centuries--and
had runs from the south of Afghanistan up through the north
through the Kunduz Corridor where the Germans are. And that is
where they are facing problems because it is a Pashtun belt
there. And so there are a lot of bad things happening. And then
you have got another one out west into Turkmenistan. Those are
the two main corridors.
And as we are able to increase the security situation, it
is going to move that way. And the other way it is going to
move is through the Khyber Pass into Pakistan. And then you
have got--out west--not as defined, not as large, you have got
one large corridor into Iran, but it is pretty well covered. We
watched that--south of that, it is a wide open border and there
is all kinds of--there is--there is a truck park in
southwestern Afghanistan where there are no paved roads that,
at any one time, you will fly a predator over or a UAV and
there will be a thousand trucks there and they are marshaled
there coming and going.
And they are smuggling gasoline. They are smuggling
anything that is a commodity that they can make money on on the
black market. It is incredible.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. No further questions.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Crenshaw.

PRIVATIZED HOUSING/QUALITY OF LIFE

Mr. Crenshaw. Just a quick question. You were talking about
quality of life and family housing. Do you ever use--you know,
over here, we have kind of seen how privatized housing can kind
of speed up the process and not wait. Is that something that
you all have looked at over there?
General Craddock. We are doing that. Actually, all the new
things we are doing, the Army is moving into these new main
operating bases, it is all done on a build-to-lease.
Absolutely.
Mr. Crenshaw. Great.
General Craddock. Yes. We even looked at it to see if there
was a possibility for schools. Is there a way we could build
them, but it didn't pan out because, you know, the host nation
has their own requirements, their own standards. And we
couldn't make the thing meet.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farr. I don't have any other further questions. I think
your testimony is probably the most extensive I have ever seen
before this committee, and I really appreciate it. It is very
substantive.

QUALITY OF LIFE

Maybe in closing, there is one issue that I think the
schools, obviously, for a Mil Con project, are a high priority.
Is there anything else you wanted to share with the committee
to prioritize as something we ought to be paying attention to?
General Craddock. I just came out of a quality-of-life
conference that we had before the EUCOM about a month ago. And
what I was struck with--and I have--again, I have been back and
forth, in and out since 1972, 16 years now. So I have seen this
and I have watched the transformation of the quality of life.
And I will tell you that it is incredible. From 1972 to
today, the folks today--the kids, as I call them--if they were
transported in time back to 1972 and they saw the quality of
life, they would say, wow, this is a pretty good deal. But, of
course, in life, everything is relative. So you gauge how you
are based on what you had before, maybe, in the States.
So I think that what we have to do here is we have to make
sure the services--and that is the challenge we have got. The
services have to understand that they do have some
responsibility for these forward-deployed forces not only in
Europe but also in the Pacific.
And we have got to keep an awareness and a recognition
that, while it is not going to be the same as what they are
going to find in a camp, post, station, installation back in
the states, we have got to make it as close as possible to that
in the delivery of infrastructure and services.
The support relationships are going to be more difficult.
You cannot go off post at night in Vilseck down to a 7-Eleven
and pick up a gallon of milk. It is different. But what you can
do is get as close as possible. And you can go to a Shoppette,
if you can get that. And it is open 24 hours a day. That is
something we have done. That is a good thing.
So I think that is what I would focus on. The low-hanging
fruit is gone. It is quality of life. I said, look, folks, what
we have got to have here is you have got to tell us what you
need, and there are probably three categories.
One is what can I do in EUCOM to fix that problem. Do I
have the authority? Do I have the resources? We have got some
of that, not much left.
What does the Department of Defense have in terms of
authorities and resources to fix the next basket of problems?
And then what is it going to take to fix the next basket, which
is statute. That is you all.
What are those problems that we are going to have to fix?
The low-hanging fruit is gone. The hard ones, to a certain
extent, have already been pushed up and, sometimes, rejected.
You know, I asked for a COLA, a cost-of-living allowance
review. I felt that no one adequately explained COLA for
overseas camps, posts, and stations. And I talked to David Chu
when he was there and all of his people, and they came over and
they--and my COLA expert is right here. I mean, this is a
passion. And we worked this together.
But he is the guy that tried to break in to the proprietary
formula. It is proprietary. The contractor that does it, we
could not--he couldn't tell us. It is proprietary. What do you
mean it is proprietary? But it was.
And we had these folks come over, Department of Defense
folks, civil service, and explain it, and we couldn't
understand it. I couldn't understand it. You had to be a Ph.D.
in economics, I guess. I couldn't get it.
So we said, please, put it in English. We have got to be
able to tell our people that. And I asked, then, the
Undersecretary, the Deputy Secretary, Gordon England. I don't
accept it, please review this. And he initiated a panel, and
they came back and said it is all okay. But the problem is we
still don't know how it works.
Recently, we were told you have got to take a cut because
we have overpaid you too long. And we didn't cut you earlier
because Craddock requested a review. We reviewed and he lost.
So now you have got to take two points a month for 4 months. So
that is eight points--what? About $50 a point?
Mr. Bishop. Is this in reference to the civilian employees?
General Craddock. No. This is military. This is military.
Mr. Farr. It is $25----
General Craddock. It is going to be a couple hundred
dollars a month difference now.
Okay. But one place didn't take a cut to that extent. And
that place has better facilities than anywhere else. The most
modern facilities. Somewhere else that doesn't have that
access, smaller commissaries, smaller PX, took a bigger cut.
What kind of formula does that? So that is the challenge.
Mr. Farr. Is there a recommendation coming to us on what
those statutory changes ought to be?
General Craddock. Yes. We have put some requests in to the
department on some changes to the law that would help the
quality of life. And that is all being pulled together in OSD
general counsel, and they are going to review this through
their legal legislative affairs and push it over.
I don't know how much it will survive.
Mr. Farr. Well, we will have our staff look at it.
General Craddock. Good. Good. I appreciate that.
Sergeant Major, anything on COLA that you want to add? I
mean, he is really--it is a passion.
Mr. Farr. Well, the hearing is, I think, over. So why don't
you introduce the officers that you brought with you to the
committee?
General Craddock. Go ahead, guys. This is--Jim Sears is my
special assistant. EUCOM--he is in a EUCOM billet, but he works
with the attache.
In the back row, leg affairs, Rick Myers, my XO. J.L.
Briggs. And this is the Mil Con expert from EUCOM, and the
colonel knows that he is the absolute brain on all the history
here, where we have been, and where we are going. And he is the
guy that told me, because of the OMB restrictions, I can't talk
programs or dollars.
Mr. Farr. Our committees don't like it when we----
General Craddock. Necessary evil, I guess. But, yes.
Mr. Bishop. Do the currency and the fall of the dollar
impact your need for that COLA?
General Craddock. It plays into that, yes. Yes.
Voice. COLA is broken down into three components--which
indicates where I do my shopping. In the military--do I shop
off post or do I shop on post. That is one.
And then there is a market analysis where they compare the
cost of items for us overseas to numerous CONUS locations. Once
that is all done, then the dollar to Euro or dollar to Yen or
dollar to Won is--as the last thing.
So the dollar-Euro fluctuation for us--does not take effect
until--5 percent threshold--for it to be 2 percent--numerous
times--and they have rejected that request saying that the
system was not--16 to 31. They said that they couldn't react
fast enough--2 percent threshold.
The--things like that.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. That is the first time I have had that
explanation. I appreciate it.
General Craddock. And the argument is, over time, it all
balances out. The problem is many of our families aren't there
over time. They are there for a specific period, and if it is
caught in the downturn, it is always lagging behind. It is
always lagging behind the depreciation of the dollar. And they
never catch up.
So if you are there 5, 6, 10 years--2 years--but we--what
we have asked for is, explain it to us in English so we can
understand it so we could put an article in the Stars and
Stripes and say, folks, here is how it works and everybody
could read that and say, I understand that. We have yet to have
that.
Mr. Farr. Well, the president is arguing a new era of
transparency. Maybe we will have that go down to COLA analysis.
General Craddock. And if the contractor that figures it out
has got a proprietary formula that we can't get access to, I
don't think it is--I hope that doesn't continue. But that is
really strange.
Mr. Farr. Thank you for your presentation. And thank you
all for your service to our country. We really appreciate it.
The committee stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. when we are
going to reassemble for an afternoon hearing on the
interoperability between the Department of Veterans Affairs and
DOD on medical records.
General Craddock. Thank you, sir.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Force Levels/Demands in Europe

Question. You have recommended that the Army retain four brigade
combat teams in Europe. What are your recommendations for the other
service components (USAFE, NAVEUR, MARFOREUR) of EUCOM?
Answer.
United States Army Europe requirements in addition to four Brigade
Combat Teams (BCT):
Seven enabling brigades
One division headquarters
One Army service component command headquarters
United States Air Force Europe requirements:
Eight fighter squadrons
One theater airlift squadron
One air refueling squadron
One combat search and rescue group
One Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance/Global
Hawk squadron
Associated air base wings to support above
requirements
Navy Europe requirements:
One Command Ship (USS MOUNT WHITNEY)
One Navy service component command headquarters
Associated port and base support units
Naval presence in EUCOM area of responsibility of
2.5 major surface combatants (These forces are better suited as
rotational forces and may be fulfilled through Global Force
Management/Request for Forces processes)
Special Operations Command Europe requirements:
One Special Forces Battalion
One Special Operations Group with vertical lift
capability
One Naval Special Warfare Unit
One Theater Special Operations Command Headquarters
Marine Force Europe requirements:
Deployable Combined Joint Task Force Headquarters
for air, land, and sea components
Rotational requirements: These force requirements are better filled
by rotational forces and may be satisfied through Global Force
Management/Request for Forces processes:
Naval presence in EUCOM area of responsibility of
2.5 major surface combatants (mentioned above)
1.0 presence of a Littoral Combat Ship
1.0 presence of the Joint High Speed Vessel
0.5 presence of a United States Marine Corp Special
Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force
Question. You also indicate that along with the two BCTs, EUCOM
should retain ``Division HQ structure'' within the theater. Does this
mean retaining two division headquarters? Why is it necessary to retain
division headquarters structure?
Answer. EUCOM requires at least one intermediate, tactical level
headquarters in order to meet directed mission requirements, which
includes having a deployable Combined Joint Task Force Headquarters for
the land component commander and to effectively and efficiently conduct
Theater Security assistance missions.
Today United States Army Europe has only one Division Headquarters
(1st Armored Division) assigned in the EUCOM area of responsibility and
one Corps Headquarters (V Corps).
--In 2009, V Corps consolidates with United States Army
Europe Headquarters into 7th Army and will relocate to
Wiesbaden, Germany. This consolidation will remove it as
tactical level headquarters from EUCOM.
--The 1st Armored Division Headquarters (Wiesbaden, Germany)
is scheduled to return in 2011.
--Thus, by 2011 EUCOM will not have an intermediate tactical
headquarters land component capability.
A Division or Corps Headquarters includes a tactical command and
control capability for U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization
operations and training, staff expertise, and military-to-military
exchanges. This includes Division or Corps level exercises with North
Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and regional partners. A tactical
level Headquarters enables EUCOM to support NATO Headquarters with peer
Headquarters or subordinate tactical Headquarters. A ready, deployable,
full-spectrum, land-based tactical level Headquarters separate from the
Army Service Component Commander is a keystone of EUCOM's ability to
build partner capacity and export security from Europe. EUCOM
requirements include having Service Component capabilities to maintain
and deploy a Joint Task Force Headquarters. The Navy and Air Force
Joint Task Force Headquarters are challenged to deploy quickly to a
land based scenario away from sea and air ports.
Question. Where are the two temporary additional BCTs currently
stationed? If the two BCTs were made permanent, would you recommend
that they remain at these locations or be relocated somewhere else?
Answer. The two BCTs are currently home stationed in Baumholder and
Grafenwoehr. If they remain in Germany, they will remain stationed at
these locations.
EUCOM is currently assigned 4 Brigade Combat Teams. The current
plan has EUCOM permanently retaining the 173rd (Airborne) Brigade
Combat Team, which is split based between Germany and Italy, awaiting
Fiscal Year 2012 construction completion at the Dal Molin complex,
Vicenza, Italy, and the 2CR Striker Brigade Combat Team is stationed at
Vilseck, Germany within the Grafenwoehr Major Operating Base (MOB)
area.
Question. The relocation of two brigades and divisional
headquarters from Europe to CONUS was a key element of the Global
Defense Posture Review, and a decision to wholly or partly reverse that
decision would seem to rebuke the conclusions of that review. In your
opinion, was this review fundamentally flawed, or was it overtaken by
unforeseen developments?
Answer. The review was not fundamentally flawed; however, decisions
made at that time were based on geostrategic assumptions that have been
invalidated by recent events, e.g., the Caucasus. The resurgence of
Russia and its encroachment on Georgian sovereignty was clearly not
anticipated among NATO and in U.S. bilateral relations. Russia's
willingness to use force outside her borders was an unforeseen
development that renders a reassessment of whether previous strategic
assumptions made in the GDP Review are adequate regarding stability and
security in the region. Additionally, the global economic downturn has
underscored the importance of the European nations' dependence upon
Russia as an energy exporter, which has complicated the understanding
of the dynamics involved with respect to Russia. The continuing actions
in CENTCOM requiring increased support and cooperation from our
European Allies and partners has also elevated the importance of
EUCOM's ability to build those partnerships and export security to
regions in conflict or prone to crisis.
Question. Have you seen an increased demand from other countries
for bilateral/multilateral training with U.S. forces since the Russian
invasion of Georgia?
Answer. Absolutely. The Russian aggression against Georgia and its
intimidation and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations has
intensified the requests for all forms of Theater Security Cooperation
both from those nations who have been directly threatened and those key
supporting partners who understand the importance of a strong and
cohesive NATO. The most urgent requests are from Georgia, itself, along
with the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. These nations
want to see U.S. forces exercising with their forces. The NATO nations
that border Russia have all asked for increased assistance in building
their own capacity to defend themselves as well as increased exercises
as a demonstration of U.S. commitment and capacity. The Poles,
Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Turks and Bulgarians have
requested more U.S. support than I can provide. In addition, non-NATO
nations such as Azerbaijan have requested exercises and training events
with the U.S. Our long standing NATO partners such as the UK, France,
and Denmark have requested increased interoperability training. Last,
traditionally neutral nations such as Sweden, Finland and Austria have
shown interest in Theater Security Cooperation. This issue is as much
about avoiding a reduction of our current level of bi-lateral and
multi-lateral training as it is about a growing demand signal for
increased training.
We have noted an increased concern by our partners with regard to
Russian military activities and intentions and a corresponding desire
for the U.S. and NATO to reinforce our commitment to European security.
From an intelligence standpoint our newly-developing relationships with
several European partner nations include not only intelligence sharing
but also tactical level intelligence training.

DODEA Schools in Europe

Question. Please provide a listing of DODEA schools within your AOR
and indicate the quality rating of each school's facilities.
Answer. As I noted in my recent testimony, DoDEA measures and
articulates the quality of its school facilities in terms of DoD ``Q-
Ratings'' as defined below.
Q-1 Facility is new or well maintained--Good Condition
Q-2 Facility is satisfactorily maintained--Fair Condition
Q-3 Facility is under-maintained--Poor Condition
Q-4 Facility Requires Replacement--Failing Condition
The attached table provides aggregate Q-Ratings for each school in
the EUCOM AOR.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoDDS-Europe District/School Installation
Name Country Q-Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bavaria:
Ansbach Elementary School... USAG Ansbach, Q3
Germany.
Ansbach High School......... USAG Ansbach, Q3
Germany.
Bamberg Elementary School... USAG Bamberg, Q4
Germany.
Bamberg High School......... USAG Bamberg, Q3
Germany.
Garmisch Elementary/Middle USAG Garmisch, Q3
School. Germany.
USAG Grafenwoehr, Elementary USAG Grafenwoehr, Q3
School. Germany.
Hohenfels Elementary School. USAG Hohenfels, Q3
Germany.
Hohenfels High School....... USAG Hohenfels, Q1
Germany.
Illesheim Elementary School. USAG Ansbach, Q4
Germany.
Netzaberg Elementary/Middle USAG Grafenwoehr, Q1
School. Germany.
Rainbow Elementary School... USAG Ansbach, Q3
Germany.
Schweinfurt Elementary USAG Schweinfurt, Q4
School. Germany.
Schweinfurt Middle School... USAG Schweinfurt, Q3
Germany.
Vilseck Elementary School... USAG Grafenwoehr, Q3
Germany.
Vilseck High School......... USAG Grafenwoehr, Q4
Germany.
Heidelberg:
Aukamm Elementary School.... USAG Wiesbaden, Q3
Germany.
Boeblingen Elementary/Middle USAG Stuttgart, Q4
School. Germany.
Hainerberg Elementary School USAG Wiesbaden, Q4
Germany.
Heidelberg High School...... USAG Heidelberg, Q4
Germany.
Heidelberg Middle School.... USAG Heidelberg, Q4
Germany.
Mannheim Elementary School.. USAG Mannheim, Q4
Germany.
Mannheim High School........ USAG Mannheim, Q4
Germany.
Mannheim Middle School...... USAG Mannheim, Q4
Germany.
Mark Twain Elementary School USAG Heidelberg, Q3
Germany.
Patch Elementary School..... USAG Stuttgart, Q4
Germany.
Patch High School........... USAG Stuttgart, Q4
Germany.
Patrick Henry Elementary USAG Heidelberg, Q4
School. Germany.
Robinson Barracks Elementary/ USAG Stuttgart, Q3
Middle School. Germany.
Wiesbaden (Arnold) High USAG Wiesbaden, Q4
School. Germany.
Wiesbaden Middle School..... USAG Wiesbaden, Q4
Germany.
Isles:
AFNORTH Elementary/High Joint Force Q2
School. Command
Headquarters
Brunssum,
Netherlands.
Alconbury Elementary School. RAF Alconbury, Q4
United Kingdom.
Alconbury High School....... RAF Alconbury, Q4
United Kingdom.
Bahrain Elementary/High NSA Bahrain, Q4
School. Bahrain.
Brussels Elementary/High USAG Benelux...... Q4
School.
Croughton Elementary School. RAF Croughton, Q3
United Kingdom.
Feltwell Elementary School.. RAF Feltwell, Q3
United Kingdom.
Geilenkirchen Elementary Geilenkirchen AB, Q3
School. Germany.
Kleine Brogel Elementary Klein Brogel AB, Q3
School. Belgium.
Lakenheath Elementary School RAF Lakenheath, Q2
United Kingdom.
Lakenheath High School...... RAF Lakenheath, Q3
United Kingdom.
Lakenheath Middle School.... RAF Feltwell, Q1
United Kingdom.
Liberty Intermediate School. RAF Lakenheath, Q3
United Kingdom.
Menwith Hill Elementary/High RAF Menwith Hill, Q3
School. United Kingdom.
SHAPE Elementary School..... SHAPE, Belgium.... Q3
SHAPE High School........... SHAPE, Belgium.... Q4
Kaiserslautern:
Baumholder High School...... USAG Baumholder, Q3
Germany.
Bitburg Elementary School... Spangdahlem AB, Q4
Germany.
Bitburg High School......... Spangdahlem AB, Q4
Germany.
Bitburg Middle School....... Spangdahlem AB, Q4
Germany.
Kaiserslautern ES/MS/HS..... Vogelweh AB, Q4
Germany.
Landstuhl Elementary/Middle Landstuhl, Germany Q3
School.
Ramstein American Middle Ramstein AB, Q3
School. Germany.
Ramstein Elementary School.. Ramstein AB, Q2
Germany.
Ramstein High School........ Ramstein AB, Q4
Germany.
Ramstein Intermediate School Ramstein AB, Q3
Germany.
Sembach Elementary School... Sembach AB, Q4
Germany.
Sembach Middle School....... Sembach AB, Q3
Germany.
Smith Elementary School..... USAG Baumholder, Q4
Germany.
Spangdahlem Elementary Spangdahlem AB, Q3
School. Germany.
Spangdahlem Middle School... Spangdahlem AB, Q3
Germany.
Vogelweh Elementary School.. Vogelweh AB, Q4
Germany.
Wetzel Elementary School.... USAG Baumholder, Q3
Germany.
Mediterranean:
Ankara Elementary/High Ankara AB, Turkey. Q4
School.
Aviano ES/MS/HS Complex..... Aviano AB, Italy.. Q1
Incirlik Elementary/High Incirlik AB, Q3
School. Turkey.
Lajes Elementary/High School Lajes Field, Q4
Portugal.
Livorno Elementary/High USAG Livorno, Q3
School. Italy.
Naples Elementary School.... NSA Naples, Italy. Q2
Naples High School.......... NSA Naples, Italy. Q2
Rota Elementary School...... United States Q1
Naval Station,
Rota.
Rota High School............ United States Under Construction
Naval Station,
Rota.
Sevilla Elementary/Middle Moron AB, Spain... Q3
School.
Sigonella Elementary/Middle/ NAS Sigonella, Q2
High School. Italy.
Vicenza ES/MS/HS Complex.... USAG Vicenza, Q4
Italy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question. What is the annual sustainment requirement for DODEA
schools in your AOR, and how does this compare to the actual funding
level?
Answer. Based on applicable currency exchange rates, the facility
sustainment requirement for DoD Dependent Schools Europe (DoDDS-E) is
$39M for FY09 and $37M for FY10. Actual DoDDS-E sustainment funding for
FY09 is $34.1M and is projected to be $32.2M in FY10.
Question. What is the backlog of restoration and modernization for
DODEA schools in your AOR?
Answer. The backlog of Restoration and Modernization (R&M) is
defined as total unfunded requirement. DoDEA reports a $1,150M unfunded
R&M requirement for schools at enduring bases in Europe.
Working in close partnership with DoDEA, we have generated broad
support within OSD for increased investment in our schools and
anticipate making significant gains on this backlog over the next 5
years.
Of important note: The backlog figure above does not include $450M
in unfunded R&M requirements for schools in communities currently
slated for closure. While DoDEA tracks the backlog at all of their
facilities, they do not intend to recapitalize or make any non-emergent
investment in schools at these closing locations.

Deployment and En Route Infrastructure

Question. You note in your testimony that ``forward stationed units
meet the same deployment schedules to Afghanistan and Iraq as CONUS
units''. The 2004 ``Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture'' report
from the Department of Defense noted that ``heavy divisions in Europe
may be closer to the Persian Gulf region than units in the U.S., but as
Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrated, their movement by sea requires a
circuitous route via the Baltic and North Seas, the Atlantic Ocean, and
the Mediterranean. Therefore Europe's proximity provides no
particularly significant time advantage for movement of such heavy
forces compared to movement from the United States.'' You seem to argue
that the advantages of forward-stationed in forces in building partner
capacity should tilt the balance in favor of retaining a larger force
in Europe. At the same time, are there any potential changes that could
be made to EUCOM's posture and infrastructure that would bypass the
Baltic/North Seas/Atlantic Ocean route and allow for a more direct
movement of heavy forces by sea to Southwest/South Asia?
Answer. Yes, but such changes would drive tremendous infrastructure
costs as they would require significant rail network expansion and
seaport infrastructure improvements for southern European ports.
However, the most expeditious route for deployment of EUCOM heavy
forces to Southwest/South Asia remains the use of mature rail and
seaport infrastructure in Western Europe through seaports such as
Rotterdam, Netherlands; Bremerhaven, Germany; and Antwerp, Belgium via
the North Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. Currently, we
flow our Germany-based heavy brigade via ports on the North Sea via the
Baltic Sea. U.S. Transportation Command estimates a 25 to 30 day
transit timeline to Southwest Asia. Alternatively, CONUS based heavy
brigades take up to 45 days.
Our route utilizes the mature rail and seaport infrastructure in
Western Europe and is facilitated by well established, dependable host
nation support. In the event of major combat operations requiring
multiple U.S. Divisions, U.S. ports and rail lines could quickly become
overwhelmed. Deploying some of the force from Europe could save
valuable time. It is quite possible that four EUCOM BCTs could be
loaded on ships and under way from Europe while their CONUS BCT
counterparts are still waiting their turn at the smaller number of U.S.
ports that could accommodate them.
Last, I would like to point out, that while forward presence offers
advantages for rapid deployability to a crisis in Europe, Africa, or
the Caucasus, it significantly increases the effectiveness of Building
Partner Capacity (BPC) activities in several ways. There is tremendous
value added for BPC within the theater through the habitual
relationships which only forward stationed units can provide. These
relationships are critical to building trust and confidence with both
our traditional and new partners and allies alike. In addition, under
current BCT rotation and reset procedures for global sourcing, forward
stationed units can contribute to BPC activities for approximately
twice the length of time that rotational forces can provide. This is
because the forward stationed unit's training cycles are conducted in
theater and can be leveraged for BPC.
Question. What specific recommendations has TRANSCOM made regarding
en route infrastructure in the EUCOM AOR?
Answer. EUCOM works collaboratively with Transportation Command via
the European En-route Infrastructure Steering Committee to identify and
assess en-route infrastructure requirements within the context of the
strategies of both Commands and accounting for the strategies and
requirements for adjacent Commands. Beginning in 2003, Transportation
Command specifically recommended infrastructure enhancements at Rota,
Spain to increase the capability of this location to support strategic
air transport and multimodal (ship to aircraft) operations.
Recommendations by Transportation Command for en route infrastructure
at other locations in the EUCOM area of responsibility, for example
Ramstein, Germany or Souda Bay, Greece, have similarly been provided by
Transportation Command. Again, the recommendations are made by
Transportation Command with the coordination of EUCOM and are further
vetted within the Transportation Command-led Global En-route
Infrastructure Steering Committee, a governance body that ensures the
most vital infrastructure requirements are moved forward.
Question. What role do airfields, ports and other facilities in the
Black Sea/Caucasus region perform in the US/NATO supply effort for
Afghanistan?
Answer. The Black Sea/Caucasus region is proving to be an area of
strategic importance to both the U.S. and NATO as we expand our ground
lines of communication through countries other than Pakistan. The
nations in this region have made their airfields, ports and other
facilities available to our Afghanistan resupply effort, called the
``Northern Distribution Network.''
Specifically, access to Georgia and Azerbaijan allows us to use
their road, rail, and port networks to move construction and general
supplies into Afghanistan. Our aircrews use the airports at Tbilisi,
Georgia; Burgas, Bulgaria; Varna, Bulgaria; and Constanta, Romania as
refueling and crew rest stops.
NATO is similarly engaged in the region to expand the flow of
logistics toward Afghanistan. A line of communication is planned via
Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan. Also, the international airport
at Baku, Azerbaijan is an important hub for moving cargo from Germany
to Afghanistan.

Missile Defense

Question. What on-site activities are you able to conduct at the
BMD locations without ratification of the bilateral agreements?
Answer. Only site surveys have been allowed without Parliamentary
ratification of our bilateral agreements. Permanent changes, such as
ground clearing and construction, cannot begin at the sites in Poland
and the Czech Republic until entry into force of a Site Agreement and a
Status of Forces Agreement which supplements the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Status of Forces Agreement.
Both the Site and Status of Forces Agreement with Czech Republic
were signed in 2008; however, ratification in the Czech Republic
remains uncertain and will not occur until after new Parliamentary
elections (likely fall 2009--provided the winning party will support
the radar site).
The site agreement for Poland was signed in 2008 and negotiations
for the Status of Forces Agreement Supplemental are ongoing. Key issues
regarding construction, criminal jurisdiction, tax relief, and the
application of Polish law to U.S. forces must still be agreed upon. The
State Department is lead on Status of Forces Agreement Supplemental
negotiations.
Question. Would the personnel manning the BMD sites fall under
EUCOM operational command? How would the operation of the two bases be
integrated with existing garrison/wing command organizations in EUCOM?
Answer. Yes, EUCOM will command and control (C2) personnel manning
the BMD sites.
The operation of the two bases will be integrated through the
individual service components that have been assigned manning
responsibilities for those planned bases: U.S. Air Forces Europe for
the European Midcourse Radar Site in the Czech Republic, and U.S. Army
Europe for the European Interceptor Site in Poland. EUCOM, Missile
Defense Agency, and the European Service component staffs are working
closely with the services (U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army) to ensure
issues related to manning, sustainment, and required facilities are
addressed. EUCOM is monitoring the command organizations which are
being planned by the services, however the organization of sustainment
commands remain a service responsibility.
Question. Have the construction contracts for the BMD sites been
awarded? How much of the fiscal year 2009 military construction funds
for the BMD sites in Europe have been obligated and expended?
Answer. Construction contracts for the Ballistic Missile Defense
sites in Europe have not been awarded, nor has any of the Fiscal Year
09 Military Construction funding been obligated and/or expended. No
construction contracts will be awarded nor Military Construction funds
obligated and/or expended until all necessary Status of Forces
Agreement Supplemental and Implementing Agreements are complete.
Facility-related activities are currently limited to design and pre-
negotiation of agreements that must be in place prior to award of
construction contracts.
Question. The amounts programmed in the fiscal year 2009 FYDP for
construction of the BMD sites did not include amounts necessary for
housing or community facilities to support personnel. The agreements
allow for up to 250 personnel at the radar site, and 500 at the
interceptor site. Do you have an estimate and/or a list of facilities
necessary to provide such support?
Answer. No, we do not have an estimate. While support facility
planning is underway, the scope and cost of required facilities at both
sites are largely dependent on the terms of SOFA Supplemental and/or
Implementing Agreements that have yet to be finalized. Although we
cannot provide meaningful cost estimates at this time, it is important
to note that EUCOM, MDA, and the lead services at each site are
committed to meeting mission and mission support requirements with the
smallest practicable personnel and infrastructure footprints. Once the
terms of applicable agreements are finalized, the lead services for
each site (Army for the European Interceptor Site and Air Force for the
European Midcourse Radar) will work with MDA to develop mission support
facility requirements.
Question. The agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland retain
title to facilities on both sites with the respective host nation
governments, including permanent structures built with U.S. military
construction funds. How does this compare with basing arrangements with
other European host nations?
Answer. Our basing agreements typically retain title with the
respective host nation. Our use of facilities at overseas locations is
governed by the terms of host nation specific implementing arrangements
for real estate, which require consignment agreements be established
for all U.S. occupied facilities. These agreements are binding and
valid until terminated with the consent of both parties. Implementing
arrangements for real estate with both the Czech Republic and Poland
will include similar terms.
Question. In your written statement, you discuss a multi-national
Heavy Airlift Wing to be established at Papa Air Base, Hungary by the
U.S. and twelve other countries. Are there any facility requirements
for this unit, and will they be borne by the U.S., NSIP, or some other
cost-sharing arrangement?
Answer. Operational facility requirements have been identified for
supporting the Heavy Airlift Wing and in 2009 these costs will be
approximately $12.5M. Costs are shared among the twelve nations in
accordance with the cost-sharing arrangements contained in the
Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) C-17 Program Memorandum of
Understanding. The U.S. pays 33%, or an approximate $4.2M share. There
is an active effort on behalf of host nation Hungary, with support from
the U.S., to secure NSIP to cover a portion of the facility
requirements.
NSIP eligibility for a given infrastructure requirement is based
upon the minimum military requirement, or that infrastructure which is
essential to a NATO Commander's ability to fulfill his or her military
roles and responsibilities. Infrastructure required to fulfill that
minimum requirement is eligible for NSIP funding. Infrastructure above
and beyond that capability is to be funded by national assets, or in
this case the SAC C-17 Consortium.

NATO Security Investment Program

Question. In recent years, an increasing portion of NATO Security
Investment Program funds have gone to support the ``out of area''
mission in Afghanistan. As both commander of EUCOM and Supreme Allied
Commander, do you believe that the current NSIP program is well
balanced between the ISAF mission and needs within Europe?
Answer. The current NSIP program is reasonably balanced according
to partner nation priorities with respect to current operations in
Afghanistan and NATO needs within Europe. While the amount of the NSIP
available for investment within Europe has reduced with the increased
need for financing common-use requirements in Afghanistan, this shift
has not resulted in undue negative consequences for the Alliance.
Question. How will France's rejoining of NATO as a full member of
the alliance affect the cost-sharing distribution within NSIP?
Answer. France will assume a 12.4% share of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Security Investment Program's annual =640.5 million
annual program. Previously, France participated in approximately 60% of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program
funded expenditures to include, among others, capital investments for
ongoing military operations (Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc), the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Response Force, and the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Air Command and Control System. France will now
participate in the remaining 40% of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program funded activities such as the
infrastructure for the military headquarters and airfield and port
improvements. The French re-integration, along with the accession of
Albania and Croatia will reduce the U.S. North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program cost share from 23.2% to
21.7%. This cost share will be phased in over several years as, under
normal North Atlantic Treaty Organization procedures, France, Albania,
and Croatia will participate in the funding of newly programmed
projects but not previously programmed ones.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009.

MEDICAL TRANSITION: DEFENSE TO VETERANS AFFAIRS

WITNESSES

MICHAEL J. KUSSMAN, M.D., UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS
S. WARD CASSCELLS, M.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Farr [presiding]. This meeting will come to order.
Chairman Chet Edwards is at the Budget Committee, and has
asked me, as vice chair, to chair this afternoon's hearing.
As you know, this hearing is on the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs medical transition. The
purpose of this hearing is to review the progress that these
departments have made in ensuring a seamless transition for our
veterans and to identify and to discuss what still needs to be
done.
Witnesses from GAO and the VA inspector general, at one of
our earlier hearings, the review of the VA challenges,
acknowledged that the departments have moved forward in their
development of electronic medical interoperability, but they
also indicated that the process would be improved by
identifying results-oriented performance goals.
This is only one example of the many issues that must be
addressed if we are to ensure that no veteran falls through the
cracks and is left to navigate that system alone. And I know a
lot of members have been asking those questions all year.
Our witnesses for this hearing will be Dr. Michael Kussman,
who is the Under Secretary of Health for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and Dr. Ward Casscells, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs.
As the senior physicians and essentially the CEOs of the
veterans health systems and military health systems, they are
responsible for not only ensuring that their systems meet the
medical needs of their patients, but that patients can move
between these systems in order to provide those who have served
this nation with the very best in care.
I would like to welcome both of our witnesses to this
hearing and look forward to your testimony and discussion.
Before we hear from Dr. Kussman, I would like to recognize
my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Wamp, for any opening remarks
he might have.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Kussman and Dr. Casscells, you are at the forefront of
a very important issue; that is, the improving status of our VA
health care delivery system at a critical time in history,
where our veterans have problems that we haven't encountered in
other wars, and, certainly, the asymmetrical nature of this war
and constant rotation of our veterans.
They come back with afflictions, and we are very keen on
this, but, also, the overall bureaucracy of the VA is a beast
that has to be tamed.
I know we are on the road to recovery. And I appreciate Dr.
Kussman from last year and Dr. Casscells coming this year, and
the new secretary calling me and reiterating his commitment to
trying to improve the efficiencies at the VA, because it is an
absolutely essential agency.
But the bureaucracy is still, in my opinion, an impediment
to the delivery system being as efficient and as effective as
it can be.
So I look forward to your testimony today and a lot of
give-and-take, and then, frankly, the follow-up through the
year as we write the bill so that, by statute, we can assist
you in any and every way to deliver the health care as
effectively as possible.
And I am grateful that you are both physicians and that you
are on the job and you are prepared to address this need. I
think that is very, very helpful, based on your knowledge.
And Dr. Kussman and I developed a good relationship last
year and I feel like we are going in the right direction, but
we have still got a ways to go.
So I look forward to your testimony this afternoon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Dr. Kussman was confirmed as the Under Secretary for
Health, Veterans' Health Administration, in May 2007. He served
as brigadier general and retired after 28 years of active duty
service in the United States Army, culminating in his
assignment as the commander of Europe Regional Medical Command.
He earned his undergraduate and medical degrees from Boston
University. He became the Army Surgeon General's chief
consultant in internal medicine and serves on the faculty of
the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences.
For the record, we will, without objection, accept your
written statement and if you would just like to give us some
brief opening remarks, we would really appreciate that.

Statement of Michael J. Kussman

Dr. Kussman. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chairman
and members of the subcommittee.
It is a pleasure for me to sit here with my friend, Trip
Casscells, before you today to discuss VA's work with the
Department of Defense to support medical transitions for
injured or ill veterans and service members.
VA's mission is to care for those who have borne the
battle. As medical technology has advanced, more and more of
our brave heroes survive what would have been fatal wounds in
previous conflicts.
But survival is only the immediate goal. Our job is to
restore veterans to the greatest level of health, independence
and quality of life that is medically possible.
We are achieving this goal through close collaboration with
DOD to facilitate a smooth medical transition and continuum
that ensures veterans and service members receive the full
continuum of care.
And just as an aside, I was probably responsible for using
the term ``seamless transition,'' but I really believe that
this is not necessarily a transition.
That has a connotation of a handoff from DOD to the VA, but
we have gotten together so closely, this is a continuum.
There are a lot of active duty people who are in the VA.
There are veterans who are in DOD and it really is an issue
related to the continuum of the life cycle of the soldier,
sailor, airman, Marine, and veteran.
We recognize from some of our patients this transition is
not a one-way road, as mentioned. Many of our facilities,
particularly our polytrauma rehabilitation centers, treat
active duty service members who maintain their status with DOD,
while other facilities treat members of the Reserves or the
National Guard between periods of activation.
Regardless of the desired outcome for each individual
patient, communication is the critical link in this transition
process, communication with our patients, with their families,
and among clinicians.
Effective communication encompasses tailoring
rehabilitation plans to meet the needs and expectations of our
patients and their families. Dialogue between clinicians,
whether in different disciplines or different departments,
brings together capable medical minds to ensure all patients
receive high quality care that they deserve.
My written statement focuses on four areas of cooperation
and coordination between DOD and the VA regarding medical
transition for veterans and service members. Those are mental
health, traumatic brain injury, the electronic health record,
and outreach.
In each of these areas, VA and DOD have established
processes to improve care coordination, quality, no matter
which department is providing services.
Our facilities are active parts of their communities and
participate in so many initiatives that seldom receive the
praise they deserve.
I would like to use the few minutes I have now to provide
some examples of recent initiatives where VA outreach and
programs have improved the lives of veterans, service members,
and their families.
Near the beginning of the month, in Chicago, one of our
facilities held a welcome home event for more than 100 OEF/OIF
veterans.
VA staff in southern Oregon recently attended two pre-
mobilization events to establish contacts with Oregon National
Guardsmen and their families, in anticipation of their
deployment to Iraq.
Through these meetings, VA staff educates service members
before they deploy about the health care that they will earn in
service to their country.
One major initiative that facilitates a service member's
transition to veteran status is the yellow ribbon reintegration
program, which engages service members and their families in
the pre, during and post-deployment phases.
VA has a full-time liaison person with this office. This
program is currently active in 54 states and territories and
almost 20,000 service members have participated so far.
In Wilmington, North Carolina, just last week, VA staff
participated in a yellow ribbon event held for the Marine Corps
returnees, in which we assisted approximately 50 Marines and
their family members with VA health care registration.
At another event in Kansas, members of the Army National
Guard participated in a similar event.
Mr. Chairman, these are just a few examples of the
countless events and measures taken every day by both VA and
DOD staff to assist veterans and service members in need.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak about VA's
role in collaborating with DOD to support the continuum of care
for injured or ill veterans and service members.
I am prepared to answer any of your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Michael J. Kussman follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.104

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.109

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.113

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.114

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.115

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Dr. Casscells. He was sworn in as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs on April 16,
2007.
Prior to his appointment, Dr. Casscells served as John
Edward Tyson distinguished professor of medicine and cardiology
at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston,
Texas.
Dr. Casscells has a bachelor of science from Yale
University and graduated from Harvard Medical School.

Statement of S. Ward Casscells

Dr. Casscells. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will be very brief and just mention the things that we
have learned from the VA over the past 2 years.
I, first, want to recognize Mike Kussman's gracious
tutelage in so many of these things, because, as he mentioned,
he has got a long military career, much longer than mine, and
he was on the job there as acting, and been of great help to
me.
His mobile is on my speed dial. It gives you an idea how
often we talk.
First, the disability evaluation system, we are struggling
with that. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were
frustrated with it and we have basically yielded that to the
VA, single exam. VA decides how much people are going to be
paid, the servicemembers.
I am very happy with that. Disability evaluations, the time
is cut in half, and that pilot has been very successful. We
expect to roll out with that next year. It is now in a
secondary pilot in 17 centers.
Related to that is vocational rehab. It is particularly
important now because some 15 percent of returning warriors are
unemployed.
As an Army Reservist myself, who will soon be entering the
job market in about a month, I can tell you that it doesn't
help us that the world seems to think now that so many of our
returning troops are not quite right, that they have got anger
problems.
The fact is most of them come back stronger, better, wiser,
kinder, gentler, knowing their strengths and knowing their
limitations, and with better strengths than they went in.
And if there is one message I would convey to you, it is
that we, particularly the VA, could use some help, I think, in
the vocational rehab area, because so many of our guys and gals
deserve jobs and a job is the best treatment.
It is the best therapy and it is the best way to preserve
your sanity and your marriage and everything.
Let me mention, also, in the area of PTSD, post-traumatic
stress disorder, most of what we know we learned from the VA
and we want to recognize that.
Now, as we have the defense centers of excellence,
psychological health and traumatic brain injury, we have shared
leadership. DOD and VA co-lead it.
The same is true for electronic health records. We in the
military have struggled with that. VA has had a more popular
electronic health record. We have learned from that. We have
adopted the graphical user interface on that and together, we
have got a unified strategy now, governed by an interagency
program office, and I think we are both going to be upgrading
our electronic health records.
I do believe we will be leading the country in that area.
We are recovering from our stumbles in that area.
The fourth area, sir, is research. We have adopted the VA
model of having our research grants go out in a competitive
way.
The affiliations with the universities that the VA
pioneered have been an important lesson for us and we are doing
more and more of that.
Lastly, in the area of facilities, VA has upgraded their
facilities. They are among the finest hospitals in the country,
many of them.
My hometown of Houston, the Michael DeBakey VA, is as good
as any hospital in the world, and now, DOD, we are trying to do
likewise.
I will close by saying that yesterday, Secretary Shinseki
and Secretary Gates met with the senior leadership on a number
of issues, particularly the electronic health records, and Dr.
Gates left us with these orders, which I will share with you.
He said, ``Surface all the disagreements. Don't drag them
out. Don't paper over them.'' And in a Texas colloquialism, he
said, ``No wrestling under the blanket.''
I think we understood what he meant by that--get it on the
table, resolve it, and I think we are on the right road that
way.
I am subject to your questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of S. Ward Casscells follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.116

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.117

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.118

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.119

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.120

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.121

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.122

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.123

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.124

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.125

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.126

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.127

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.128

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.130

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.129

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.131

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.132

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.133

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.134

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.135

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.136

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.137

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.138

DOD/VA MEDICAL FACILITIES

Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much.
I will just lead off with a couple of questions and then we
will go around the room.
You have several medical facilities that are considered
joint ventures together. I am very interested in pursuing that
in my own district.
I wonder how many of these there are and whether this is
sort of the way you are going to move together in the future.
Dr. Casscells. Sir, we have got 11 under development and
more being studied. The big one has been in the Great Lakes
area north of Chicago, where we have a big Navy facility and a
lot of vets, and that has been a multiyear effort.
Currently, now, the plan is that VA will own the asset.
Some pending legislation will, I think, allow the Secretary of
the Navy to transfer those facilities to the VA.
And some other legislation is pending, as I understand it,
to declare that facility a DOD hospital. So even though it is a
VA asset, it can treat active duty service members.
This is called the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health
Care Center, after the astronaut, former Navy flyer.
Mr. Farr. So the facility can be accessed by qualified VA.
Dr. Casscells. Right.
Mr. Farr. And by retirees.
Dr. Casscells. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. Military retirees, and by active duty.
Dr. Casscells. Yes, sir. The VA, of course, is currently a
TRICARE network partner, but this particular hospital needs
legislation to allow the active duty service members to go
there directly without using the TRICARE network.
Mr. Farr. Because in these joint facilities, you have
different billing. The active duty you bill through the
military.
Dr. Casscells. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. And then if they are retirees, they are through
TRICARE billing.
Dr. Casscells. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. And if they are VA----
Dr. Kussman. I am sorry to interrupt sir, but it depends,
because if you are a retiree like myself, I can go to the north
Chicago facility as a veteran, not as a TRICARE person.
But the regular veteran, who is not a retiree----
Mr. Farr. Then they see your income is higher, then you
would have to----
Dr. Kussman. I am classified--for 28 years, I have been
evaluated. I won't get into all the gory details, but that----
Mr. Farr. You have a service-related disability.
Dr. Kussman. That is what VA says.
Mr. Farr. It is very interesting to hear this. I am keenly
interested in this jointness and then when you get into how it
is managed and paid for, it isn't as joint.
Dr. Kussman. Well, there have been some challenges, I
think, as Dr. Casscells was mentioning. This is a unique--it is
not a sharing effort. It is a true joint effort.
And we have been challenged occasionally by the policies
that exist. For instance, funding the facility, we--and I know
that the Appropriations Committee, your committee, is keenly
aware that we have Title 38 money, we have Title 10 money, and
how do you get that money mixed together.
Early on, I think some of us thought that, ``Gee, it would
be nice to have a Title 28 and do that,'' but that wasn't
legal. So we have been looking at getting maybe some
legislation that would allow an innovative way of putting the
money in and then using it.
One of the proposals that has been enjoined in the Senate
is that we both put money in every year to do that, but that is
no year money and that leads to some issues, as well.
So I think that is one of the things that we are looking at
is trying to develop a way of funding it in a different way.
Mr. Farr. Does this create problems in trying to get an
electronic record that is interoperable?
Dr. Kussman. No. I don't think that the challenge----
Mr. Farr. In terms of the record information used for
billing.
Dr. Kussman. No. I think there are challenges for us not
only in Chicago, but to work the two systems to make sure that
they are close and user-friendly.
Dr. Casscells and I testified, I think, in front of the
SFAC last October and we brought in, as a demonstration, Ross
Fletcher, who is the chief of staff at the Washington VA, and
had a live demonstration of how we can actually download a
great deal of medical information and medical interoperability
from DOD to the VA to help the providers.
But we still have a ways to go on this.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. My time is up.
Mr. Wamp.

MENTAL HEALTH

Mr. Wamp. Well, let me say, I have one question for each of
the two of you. I appreciate what Dr. Casscells said, and I
have seen that.
I have got a nephew who is redeploying this week to Iraq
for the second time, another nephew who is active duty. The
first one is Guard, the second one is active Marine, deploying
this week from California. And they both are the better for it.
But when we are talking about the suicide rate, which was
kind of the first point we started on with this year's
hearings, kind of the canary in the mine, obviously, the
incredible operational tempo that these troops are on and their
families and the family pressures that this places on the
families.
It is not roadside bombs--as much as it is just the stress
on the families. So while I know that they are the better for
their service, the mental health capabilities here have got to
be looked at, because of the stress on the families. So many
marriages are breaking up, and they are so stressed out.
So I do think it is important, too, that VA learn from DOD
and DOD learn from VA, and I think that is real helpful,
because I see strengths and weaknesses that, clearly, like a
good marriage--you can help each other, almost cover each
other's weak spots, the VA still needs some of that military
reform, in my opinion, instead of a government agency
bureaucracy and, things like medical records, which the VA
actually leads the entire health care system on, DOD can
certainly learn from those models, as well.
So that is just a little commentary.
But I still am a little confused, Dr. Kussman, as to how
all of this screening works and who gets screened for what. Can
you kind of break through--I think there are 272,000 OIF and
OEF veterans.
Does everybody get screened for PTSD and TBI? Is it a
comprehensive thing that everybody is included?
Dr. Kussman. Everybody that comes to us, whether they are
OIF/OEF or anybody else, get screened for TBI, PTSD, military
sexual trauma, and substance abuse.
That is done on a yearly basis, because we have been doing
that for a long time. The TBI is relatively new, but the PTSD,
military sexual trauma and substance abuse has been going on
for years.
That is part of our core assessment of patients. It is done
with the electronic health record. A drop-down menu comes and
forces the provider to ask those questions and if they are
positive, the person gets referred as appropriate for the
evaluation.
Mr. Wamp. Which is about a 35 or 40 percent referral of
those that are assessed and then of those referrals, most of
them go to VA medical centers and then a smaller number goes to
the vet centers.
But where do the rest of them go? Does everyone get
referred somewhere? It looks like 21,000 fall in the category
of not being referred to a VA medical center or a clinic.
Dr. Kussman. I would have to go back and look at the
specific numbers. You are talking about TBI?
Mr. Wamp. Just the referrals from 250,000 post-deployment
health assessments.
Dr. Kussman. I believe that was in the--but regardless of
what the screening is for, if it is PTSD, for instance, we have
two ways that we can provide services for PTSD, depending on
the patient's choice.
They can go to a vet center or they can use the more
traditional mainstream mental health services.
That depends on how many people are positive and whether
they want help. We can't force people to go get assistance if
they don't want to.

DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM PILOT PROGRAM

Mr. Wamp. Dr. Casscells, when you were talking about the
DES, you mentioned it, but not in real specific detail, and I
think the number is a 62 percent reduction in the amount of
time that you are able to cut out under this pilot program.
I think the number was 329 days that a veteran had to wait
outside of the pilot program for them to be completely
processed and, under this, you are able to reduce that time by
62 percent.
Where do we go from here in terms of the pilot program and
are the other veterans having to wait that long still outside
of these pilot programs?
Dr. Casscells. Sir, the veterans who are severely injured
are on a separate fast track. They are getting their paycheck
within 100 days or so.
But the veterans who are not severely injured are either in
this pilot, which has now been extended to 17 centers, or they
are in the traditional MEB, PEB, two exams, two paychecks
system which has caused so much confusion, so much delay, and
so much resentment.
The pilot is almost certainly going to be ratified or
whatever you call it, substantiated by the 17 new centers.
Mr. Wamp. And they are all up and running, all 17, or you
are working on setting them up?
Dr. Casscells. I think they are all up and running and it
looks like the rollout will be about a year from now, that all
the people leaving service for medical reasons will go through
this system, and it has been very popular.
You can imagine, they get their check faster, it is a
bigger check. They still have the safety--they still have the
appeals processes in there for fairness.
Mr. Wamp. What about hiring on setting all these up and
filling the staff positions? I understand that not all of them
were filled, at least by the end of last fiscal year, and I
just wonder what the status is now on filling all the
positions.
Dr. Casscells. Sir, it is taking a while to train people in
the VA way of doing things, but I think we are fully staffed on
that. Let me take that for the record and get back to you.
[The information follows:]

Our focus with the Disability Evaluation System (DES) Pilot has
been to ensure we have the necessary tools in place to take care of the
Service member and their family. Besides equipment and facilities, the
Military Departments and Department of Veterans Affairs identified,
through site assessments, the requirement for additional human
resources to meet the needs of our Service members. In the case of the
Military Departments, they have either hired additional staff or
reassigned personnel to meet the needs of our Service members at the 15
DES Pilot locations. The Military Departments report that they are on
track with regards to the other five expansion locations. Similarly,
the Veterans Affairs has identified their requirements for each Pilot
location. The VA is preparing a separate response that will be
forwarded in the near future.

Mr. Farr. We will have a second round.
The order of recognition, by order of people showing up, is
Mr. Young, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Israel and Mr. Carter.
Next is Mr. Young.

DOD/VA DATA SHARING

Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Dr. Casscells, Dr. Kussman, welcome to the subcommittee.
I am curious about where we are on arranging for medical
records to be available for the VA from, for example, Bethesda
or Walter Reed and vice versa.
I know we have had a couple of pilot programs where they
could be transferred electronically. I am also very personally
aware of some difficult situations that developed because
medical records were not available or were not accurate.
Are we working on this? Are we trying to get a handle on
this transfer of records and making these records available to
VA and military?
Dr. Kussman. Sir, we have been directed and committed to
interoperability by September of 2009.
I wouldn't sit here and say that we are going to have total
interoperability by then, because there are issues technically
and otherwise.
But as I mentioned in our testimony, and we would be happy
to give a demonstration, that we have pretty much
interoperability for medical delivery that is available
throughout the VA system of records at Bethesda and wherever
else that they are, and they can be downloaded.
Right now, they are not computable in the sense that we
can't add to the DOD record, but we can download the record to
see what was going on all the way far back as Landstuhl, to the
Walter Reeds and Bethesdas, on down the line.
Mr. Young. Doctor, can the hospital at Bethesda reverse
that and get information from the VA system by downloading,
also?
Dr. Casscells. They go two ways.
Dr. Kussman. I believe that that is--quite frankly, sir,
one of the challenges is making sure our people know how to do
it, that the technical capability exists for the information to
flow back and forth.
The bidirectional health program has the lab, the
diagnoses, and all those things are available to go back and
forth. Sometimes our challenge is to make sure that every
physician and nurse knows how to do that.

MEDICAL BRAC IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

Mr. Young. Dr. Casscells, I think this question would
probably be for the Defense Department, and it has to do with
BRAC and it has to do with BRAC's recommendation, with the
president's approval and the Congress' approval, to merge
Walter Reed Hospital with the Navy Hospital at Bethesda.
Knowing many of the doctors personally, working with them
as they treat their patients, I can tell you that quite a few
of the doctors are not really happy or they are frustrated
about the way this merger is actually working out.
Some have already left the service. Others are threatening
to leave the service.
Are we getting to the point that maybe the frustrations are
going to be behind us, maybe the merger will be at the point
where doctors can function like they should rather than having
to worry about who is in charge of what, if anybody?
Dr. Casscells. Mr. Young, thanks, that is a very legitimate
concern.
Doctors cite three basic reasons for talking about leaving
early. One is that they don't like the electronic health
records--this is from DOD--it is clunky. Now, most of them will
grudgingly admit it seems to be improving.
The second reason is that, for Walter Reed doctors, they
are concerned that they may be--they are not sure if they are
going to go to Bethesda or to Belvoir, and that is upsetting
for the families, because that is a very long commute if you
get sent to the one you don't want.
And then there is only going to be one radiology chairman,
only one emergency department chief, and so forth. So as those
announcements are made, there is a little bit of sour grapes
involved.
But the other big reason, sir, people leave is because they
don't have enough patients. So they want to go out and practice
orthopedic surgery or neurosurgery or something.
If they are not doing enough neurosurgery or pediatric
surgery, whatever, they are not going to be able to work in the
private sector when they retire.
So one of the great things about the BRAC decision and the
Congress' ratification of it is that it will create, in
Bethesda, a center where there are enough patients, enough
volume, that people can actually maintain expertise.
So I think when we get through these growing pains, we will
have there a center which will be one where everyone wants to
go in military medicine. It is going to be joint. It is going
to have high volume. It is going to have the best teachers. It
is right next door to NIH.
Of course, you know it well, you spend a lot of time up
there, and it is next to the Uniformed Services University.
So location is a big part of it. Volume is a big part of
it. And I think we are going to get this passed. I think we
will meet the BRAC deadlines.
I toured Belvoir today with Admiral Mateczun and General
Schoomaker. We will make that BRAC deadline. Belvoir is going
to be, also, a wonderful community hospital. It has very
patient-empowering, hospitable features.
I am not saying it well, but the kinds of modern amenities
that patients expect, without which they will go to Fairfax
INOVA or Suburban Hospital or Sibley.
So we have got to compete with the private sector and what
you all have done with BRAC is the right thing. We are going to
get it done.
Mr. Young. Well, I want to say hooray for the fact that
they don't have enough work to do right now. That means the
kids aren't getting hurt in as large numbers as they were.
But I can tell you that for a long time, both hospitals
were crowded. I have been to Bethesda many times when patients
were in the hallways because there were no rooms left and they
were overworked.
So when we go by to visit with wounded Marines at Bethesda,
for example, and we hear there are only three or four there,
our heart flutters because we are happy that they are just not
getting hurt.
Now, as Afghanistan begins to become the primary
consideration militarily, I am afraid it is going to start
happening again, because what we are seeing in Afghanistan--we
just had some pretty interesting briefings. It is not a pretty
picture for our military.
But anyway, my concern is--and as far as the long commute,
I can tell you, I know about that, because we live 10 miles
south of Fort Belvoir. During the heavy days of the casualties
coming in, my wife was at the hospitals, at Walter Reed and
Bethesda, every day to help with soldiers and their families,
to do things for them that the government doesn't do.
So I know about that long commute and I asked, if I keep
track of the mileage, maybe I can deduct it from my income tax,
but she never would do that.
Well, I understand that you have a large job and a large
responsibility, both of you and both or your systems, and I
think you will find that this subcommittee wants to provide
whatever we can provide, and what we do is appropriate money,
to provide what you need to do the job for these soldiers that
are giving so much to the country and their families.
And so thank you for listening to my concerns. Thank you
for being here, and God bless you for the good work that your
systems do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Young. Thank you for all your
personal experience with these hospitals and attending and
going out there and seeing the soldiers, airmen and Marines.
Mr. Bishop.

JOINT DOD/VA FACILITIES

Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, gentlemen. Dr. Casscells and Dr. Kussman, let me
thank both of you for your distinguished careers.
And let me go back to a subject that Mr. Farr, I think,
raised a little earlier: the issue of joint facilities between
DOD and VA.
Could you walk me through what will be necessary? For
example, last year, the committee passed legislation that
authorized the building of the Martin Army Community Hospital
at Fort Benning, and there is a great deal of interest in
having that facility serve as a joint DOD/VA facility.
It is now, I think, moving forward with the construction.
But at some point, if we were to be able to start moving toward
jointness, what would be necessary for us to prepare? What kind
of reports would we need? What kinds of assessments or
appropriations, if any, would be necessary to make any planning
adjustments in the architecture to accommodate our veterans
population, in addition to the DOD military and, of course,
dependent family needs?
Is that something that you think is a holistic approach to
the warrior and the wounded warrior?
Dr. Kussman. Sir, as you know, I was a former commander of
the Martin Army Community Hospital. So I have got a lot of
interest in what happens at Fort Benning.
We are dialoging very aggressively right now with the Army,
looking at what partnering can take place at Fort Benning.
One of the things, though, that, from my experience, and I
haven't been personally involved in the negotiations, but Fort
Benning is a huge post and although it is in Columbus, Georgia,
it is a long way from downtown.
So our intent is to try to have a veterans' clinic
collocated with the hospital, but it is not so easy to get to.
We have a clinic downtown, as you know, in Columbus, community-
based outpatient clinic. And where would be the best access for
veterans who--it is a long ride and trying to get through the
gates and all those other things can potentially be----
Mr. Bishop. I can assure you that the city would make
whatever necessary accommodations for transportation. The
security access would be the only challenge.
Dr. Kussman. But it is not as big a challenge as some other
places, because 185 goes--I think it is 185 that goes right
onto the base. There is no gate there, because you are going 60
miles an hour. It would be kind of hard----
Mr. Bishop. Well, there is a gate now.
Dr. Kussman. Oh, there is?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, sir.
Dr. Kussman. That shows how much I know what is going on.
But the fact is, sir, that I think the issue of partnering and
sharing is an ongoing discussion. I think we are all committed
to maximizing the efforts all over to what we can do and,
obviously, if Martin Army Community Hospital, just say, the new
one, was going to be involved with potentially admitting
veterans rather than just the traditional things, it would have
to be looked at from a business case plan B, adapted to the
sizing, because it would have to be much larger than it would
be for taking care of--I don't want to say just--family members
and retirees and active duty people.
So there is dialogue going on about that.
Mr. Bishop. I asked that question to try to determine
whether we need to try to put some funds in to deal with that
kind of planning issue or whether you have a line item that is
sufficient to deal with those planning concerns.
Dr. Kussman. I would have to get back to you for the record
to see what has been taking place. I don't really know what the
Army's thoughts were about that, so it would be a little hard
for me to say what they would be interested in doing.
Mr. Bishop. I thought I would ask that since we have the
counterpart at the table.
Dr. Casscells. Sorry, Mr. Bishop. Which part of that
question was mine?
Mr. Bishop. The possibility of the cooperation between the
two. My follow-up question was going to ask who would pay for
the planning for the jointness, if it were to be deemed
feasible--VA, DOD or the Army?
Dr. Casscells. Well, certainly, if it was in BRAC, we, the
defense health program, would pay for it.
New Army construction is typically paid for by the line,
the big Army, but we have on occasion helped them out with
that.
Mr. Bishop. The Army part is already appropriated. It is a
done deal as far as the military part goes.
What we are talking about is a conversion to jointness so
that by the time the hospital is completed, or shortly
thereafter, it could serve as a joint VA/DOD facility.
Dr. Casscells. I would think we would share those costs.
Mr. Farr. We will both pursue that on a second round.
Mr. Crenshaw.

DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM PILOT PROGRAM

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here.
I want to go back to the DES pilot project that we talked a
little bit about. One of the things that I read is that GAO had
said that there were some gaps in both DOD and VA and their
ability to evaluate how that is going.
I know you extended the pilot project. We have touched on
it and it is doing well.
But what did they say were some of those gaps and do you
feel like you have got the mechanisms in place to really
evaluate all the good and the bad that that program is doing?
Dr. Casscells. Sir, I think the first pilot was just too
small to give definitive numbers, the number of people who were
satisfied with their appeals, for example. Well, there weren't
many appeals.
Whether the appeals process was adequate, well, you need
more experience with the program. So I think when these next 17
report in, we should have the information that we need to roll
it out nationwide.
I am confident about that. But GAO, they have got a way of
coming in and asking questions we haven't asked. So we are
standing by for their input on that.
Mr. Crenshaw. So mostly it was a smaller number. So it is
hard right now to decide what is the good and what is the bad,
and that is why you have expanded to have more--then you will
have a more comprehensive analysis.
Dr. Kussman. Sir, it is even broader than that. We started
it here and I think, by all indications, it was quite
successful, albeit small numbers, but it was easy.
We have got a lot of resources here and we could do all the
things we need to do.
What we are learning, as we move it out to more of the
hinterlands, away from the facilities where we have a large VA,
with all the comprehensive things, of how we make sure that
infrastructure exists.
Fort Drum, other places, the medical community there isn't
very robust and our nearest VA is 90 miles away. So we are
trying to learn how to do that and we are aggressively trying
to develop some networks, say, in Watertown, New York, to be
better able to provide the subspecialty consultations that are
needed.
We don't have a problem with the primary evaluation, but if
people need an orthopedic part of it or a neurologic part of
it, how do we get those services to that; and, as we move it
out, we are moving now toward the Bennings, the Braggs and the
Hoods in the next thing. Those are huge numbers.
So this is a challenge that we are committed to. What we
have done, by telescoping the days from 500 to 300, I can't
remember exactly the numbers, has really been mostly the fact
that when somebody gets their DD-214, when they are finally
going to get out, there is nothing more for them to do.
They don't have to come to the VA. They have already had
their evaluation and, generally, usually, they will get their
check within 30 days, because that whole thing has been done.
So we have stopped that second part of it. I think the
challenge we have is, together, working on the MEB/PEB process
that we all know needs to be streamlined and things, and that
is the next step in trying to expedite the process. But it is
clearly much better.
Mr. Crenshaw. No question. It is one of the questions that
we get asked most, why it takes so long, the duplicity. So it
is a great program.
You mentioned just the initial physical, for instance. What
do you do if there is not a VA facility near someone, just that
entry level physical?
Dr. Kussman. Well, to do the single exam, we will provide,
either through contract or directly----
Mr. Crenshaw. Even if it is far away from an existing
clinic.
Dr. Kussman. Yes.
Mr. Crenshaw. I got you.
Dr. Kussman. The real challenge is not the actual basic
exam. It is the consults.
Mr. Crenshaw. It is all the specialties, I got you.
Dr. Kussman [continuing]. If you are in a rural area.
Killeen, Texas isn't exactly a metropolitan area for services.
The Temple VA is not too far away, but it is a distance,
whereas here in town, it was three or four miles.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. Crenshaw. I got you.
Let me ask one question to you, sir, about electronic
records, because I know we touched on that, as well, and the VA
has been a leader. You have been doing this for 20 years and
now everybody knows it is a good way to save money, ensure
patient safety, et cetera.
But in your testimony, I think you said twice that we are
on the brink of change. So what does that mean? You have worked
so hard for 20 years to be a leader. You won a Harvard award.
And you want to leverage that to continue to provide care
and, also, help other folks as they move toward electronic
records. But what does it mean we are on the brink of change?
Dr. Kussman. Let me try to clarify that. I think our intent
is to maximize as much of a common electronic record between
DOD and the VA.
DOD is on the cusp of making changes and moving forward and
improving their electronic record, and we are on the cusp of
reengineering and rebasing our, I think, world class record
MUMPS-based to JAVA-based and make it Web-based.
So together, I think that is what has to be--the decision
that was made yesterday at the joint executive committee was we
need to maximize common applications and common services.
So as we move forward and on the precipice of these
changes, we maximize the integration of those changes so there
is less and less difference between the two systems.
Mr. Crenshaw. Can you, A, figure out how much you have
saved through this 20-year process that you have become very
good at, and, number two, is this brink of change, is this
going to cost some more money?
But can you quantify those savings? Probably, as other
people move toward this, it would be a great----
Dr. Kussman. I don't have that, but I can tell you that it
has been thought that in the civilian community, for instance,
that only 1.5 percent of practicing people have an integrated
electronic record.
If you throw the VA hospitals in there, you make it three
percent for the whole country. So we have that much of an
impact.
One in seven lab tests and one in seven admissions to
hospitals are done because somebody can't find the record or
can't find a test.
So it is a huge amount of money if you looked at a $1
trillion industry. I don't know exactly what it is. But it does
cost a lot of money to migrate this system from where we are
right now to what we believe is the future to make sure that we
are integrated where the country goes.
The country will move, as we have with the president's
leadership, toward a Web-based, JAVA-based electronic health
record, and we want to be part of that. The MUMPS is very good
right now, but we are limited to where we can move forward.
No one has done this before. So we are in the process of
getting the best minds to figure out how to move it and then
everything new that we have developed with it is done as much
as possible in conjunction with DOD.
So we don't have to have interaction. It is the same.
Mr. Crenshaw. Got you. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Israel, we have some votes pending. Why don't
we take your questions and responses and then we will vote, and
hopefully everybody comes right back.

WARRIOR TRANSITION UNITS

Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask Dr. Casscells to focus with me on the
warrior transition units.
Several weeks ago, a group of personnel from the Fighting
69th met in this room with Chairman Edwards and me and shared
their experiences in the warrior transition unit, particularly
at Fort Bragg, and what they told us was bone-chilling.
They talked about an acute shortage of mental health
professionals. They talked about being handed bags of medicine,
all sorts of different medications, and being told to self-
administer.
And when they would say, ``Can I see a psychiatrist,'' they
were told there aren't enough psychiatrists. That problem has
since been solved with respect to being handed bags of
medicine, but it did happen to them and they complained about
it.
They talked about being given medication, no psychiatrist,
no mental health counseling, but then kind of living in
isolation. They would go to a room at the Airborne Inn, they
could go out at night, drink, come back, take their medicine,
and get no supervision at all.
They talked about the complete disarray in case management,
not being able to see the same doctor, not being able to see
the same professional.
So my questions to you are: do we have enough war
transition units? Are they fully staffed? Do we need to stand
up more? Are the personnel in the warrior transition units
trained properly? What is the metric for success?
I know these are a bunch of questions. But who is taking a
look at how these units are operating and making determinations
on whether improvements are necessary?
Dr. Casscells. Sir, this went to the highest levels of the
Army a year ago. General Casey and General Chiarelli asked us
for help, and General Granger, my deputy for TRICARE, went to
Fort Bragg, I went to Fort Bragg. We talked to the families
there.
And there is no doubt that as these warrior transition
units were started, there was a tendency for commanders to put
service members in there who just had a minor injury that
really could get better in the barracks. And they just were
afraid of another Walter Reed publicity episode.
So people were just put in these warrior transition units
and there weren't enough staff. So it is hard. Army staffing is
a laborious process, with a lot of regulations. So we fell
behind in the staffing.
We are about caught up in the staffing. The weak spot is
still mental health counselors. And many of them are not
physicians, which is fine. The problem is a lot of those
patients are taking medications, perhaps too many.
General Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, and I are
looking at how we can do a better job of making sure that if
people are on an antidepressant or something like that, that it
is actually working. If not, they need to get off it. You can't
just give people antidepressants without counseling.
So this balance is one that General Schoomaker is working
hard to achieve. I think we are getting there.
I heard the same things at Fort Bragg, not enough
counselors.
Mr. Israel. Is it just Fort Bragg? I am sorry for
interrupting, but my time is going to----
Dr. Casscells. No, sir. There are a lot of places where----
Mr. Israel. The problem is not isolated to Fort Bragg.
Isn't this a systemwide----
Dr. Casscells. Yes, sir.
Mr. Israel [continuing]. Problem over the 36 WTUs?
Dr. Casscells. Sir, it is particularly true where you have
a big Army post and a small nearby town, because the small
nearby town doesn't have enough doctors.
I could help out with TRICARE contracted doctors in the
town, but if there aren't enough of them, what we really need
is more caregivers at the installation, and the installation is
in a remote location. It is hard to attract civilian employees
to work at that fort.
So we are looking at a variety of approaches to this. At
Fort Drum, they have been able to do this pretty well,
contracting with people down at Watertown.
In Bethesda, they are now pioneering a new approach to get
at this other issue you mentioned, sir. People want to see the
same doctor. They want to have a relationship with someone they
trust, someone who can tell if they have lost weight or gained
weight, if their color is off, eyes are red-rimmed, looked like
they had been crying.
Doctors knowing you for some time can pick up on those
things. So it is a very legitimate point and it is difficult,
because so many providers are deploying or they are getting
caught up in meetings about Army transformation or other
administrative meetings. There are too darn many meetings.
So what they are doing at Bethesda is a terrific thing at
the Navy Hospital. It is called Medical Home, where they get a
small group of doctors and say this is like a partnership, like
an obstetrics practice. So on a given day, you may not see your
doctor, but you are going to see one of the two or three
partners that you have gotten to know and they are trusted. So
it brings it down in size.
This Medical Home situation, where people can call in and
get an appointment right away and they may not see Dr. Kussman,
but they could see Dr. Casscells and Casscells knows Kussman's
practice style and, in fact, I might have seen that patient
once before, that is a source of solace to those soldiers or
sailors.
We are working on it.
Mr. Israel. It needs more work and I am anxious to partner
with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farr. We have 5 minutes left in voting and when we come
back, Mr. Carter will be the first questioner.
[Recess.]
Mr. Farr. Well, Mr. Carter isn't back yet.
Mr. Wamp, you have another commitment. Do you want to--we
have another vote right after this.
Mr. Wamp. Just to keep it moving, though, so that you don't
have to wait, this is the chairman being courteous while I ask
you a question.

CONTINUUM OF CARE

Dr. Kussman, in your testimony, you make reference to at
least 11 commissions, plans, committees, programs or work
groups, including the senior oversight committee, joint
executive council, health executive council, federal recovery
coordination program, yellow ribbon reintegration program,
wounded and injured oversight committee, polytrauma liaison
officer, deployment health working group, patient safety work
group, medical records work group, joint strategic planning.
We talk about the bureaucracy and I do commend you for
whittling away and trying to coordinate and being efficient,
but how do you coordinate all the different groups, agencies,
task forces, to make sure that our health care is delivered in
the most efficient and less bureaucratic way?
Dr. Kussman. Sir, thank you for that question, because that
is the goal.
We should be helping the service member and his or her
family and soon to be veteran in that process of moving along
that continuum and not creating more aggravation for them,
particularly when they are sick. Our job is to make that smooth
and easy.
We have developed over the years a great deal of
infrastructure, and you mentioned some of the things. We could
start with the federal recovery coordinators. That was an
entity that grew out of the Dole-Shalala group to assure that
particularly seriously injured people had somebody that they
could go to who would be coordinating their movement, not just
from DOD to the VA or back, but in the civilian community, as
well, because there are people tapping into a multiplicity of
services and sometimes they do fall through the cracks, because
we don't have visibility all the time of what happened,
particularly in the civilian world.
So the federal recovery coordinator, for lack of a better
description, has been the air traffic control person. They are
not actually providing the care, but they are assuring that the
families and the service member have someplace to go to get
questions answered and then are leveraging the large number of
people, both in DOD and the VA.
We have VA people in 17 military facilities. We have
military people in VA facilities. We have care coordinators. We
have OIF/OEF coordinators, transition coordinators.
All these people are meant to assist people as they move
along the continuum from the Walter Reeds and Bethesdas to our
polytrauma centers and onward or people who don't need a
polytrauma center, but need assistance as they move from
Bethesda to wherever they are going to live.
In the beginning, we weren't too good at that, but I
believe now that I hear very few complaints anymore about
whether we have been able to assist or not.
Paul Hunter, who is here, is my coordinator related to all
DOD/VA actions and the continuum of care for particularly OIF/
OEF, but for everybody, and we believe we put the
infrastructure, that it is done on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Wamp. I know the purpose of this hearing is the
interoperability in the DOD/VA partnership, but while I have
got you here, Dr. Kussman, last year, I think you sat in on a
meeting that we had on collections from third-party payments
and all.
How is that going? Are we making progress on collecting
money that is owed to VA that we are not leaving on the table?
Dr. Kussman. I am amazed that every year we get better. I
get scared sometimes that one of these years, we are going to
project how much we are going to get and then we will run into
the wall, because it is part of our overall budget
considerations.
We have shown significant increases every year and we
continue to do that.
As you know, we had a pilot on a CPAC, a combined center in
VISN-6, in Asheville. It was expanded. It has been very
successful and, with the secretary's guidance, we are going to
move up that schedule from 2013 to 2011 to have six more around
the country that have shown up to 18 percent increase in third-
party collections for non-service-connected.
Mr. Wamp. You said in Asheville, not in Nashville.
Dr. Kussman. Asheville.
Mr. Wamp. I am just making sure we are staying together
there.
Dr. Kussman. North Carolina.
Mr. Wamp. To most members of Congress, the VA is not all of
what we talk about here. To them, it is a CBOC or a super CBOC
or maybe they are fortunate enough to have a hospital in their
district or close to their district.
So do you believe, in the wake of CARES and all the reforms
and everything else, that we are delivering health care as
smart and efficiently as possible?
We are seeing more CBOCs and more super CBOCs being built
and we are seeing more care contracted, but not privatized, but
just where it is necessary to contract it, increase the
contracting so that veterans have more options and access
immediately to the care that they need, and these seem to be
trends that almost fill the gaps between some sweeping reforms
where you would actually close hospitals.
I had hoped, when CARES came along, being from the south,
where people are moving and we have lakes and retirees and low
cost of living, we get a lot of veterans, but we don't get the
new infrastructure. We don't get the facilities to compensate
for it.
And I had hoped that CARES might realign a bunch of that,
where all of a sudden you would see the hospitals built where
the veterans are moving. But what we are seeing is the current
facilities expanded. So instead of a CBOC, you get a super
CBOC.
And that is good, we are grateful, but we still have gaps.
But I am seeing that the super CBOC kind of fills the gaps. We
serve a tremendous number of veterans down in the Chattanooga
area, but you have got to drive 2 hours to get inpatient care.
Yet, contracting can fill some of those gaps, because then
they can see the local provider that they might have to
traditionally go to Murfreesboro to see, and that is 2 hours
away.
So is that a trend you think is filling some of the gaps in
the delivery system?
Dr. Kussman. Yes, sir. CARES was a process. We could,
arguably, say it didn't succeed.
Mr. Wamp. That is what I would say.
Dr. Kussman. I don't want to get into that whole thing. So
we have been looking at a way of changing our approach from
facility centric to veteran centric; that the veterans live
wherever they do and our job is to provide services in the
maximum way possible as close to where they live.
So the way we have done that, partly, is primary care with
the CBOCs that are up in the--almost 900 all together and we
have a continuum of care from highly rural areas that use
telemedicine and outreach clinics and multiple vans to the
traditional CBOC, which is mostly primary care, so mental
health and those things, to large independent CBOCs, to what we
have now described as health care clinics, HCCs, that are
large, robust, ambulatory care, same-day surgery centers that
provide 90 to 95 percent of why people go to a hospital.
Any hospital you talk about in this country, when you look
at why people pull up to the door, 90 to 95 percent of the
people coming are doing some kind of ambulatory care thing.
They might even have their hernia repaired or their appendix
taken out or a colonoscopy, but they don't stay over. They
leave.
Relatively small numbers of people actually get admitted to
the hospital. So we are trying to push the services out and not
be hospital centric, but veteran centric, to do that.
Building hospitals is an exorbitant cost these days, as you
know, anywhere from 500 to $1 billion for small hospitals. And
we, effectively, with 153 hospitals on the edge of 57 years
old, there is no way we are going to be able to replace these
facilities and you can only retrofit facilities to a certain
point.
So the question then is how can we maximize the services
close to where--like in Chattanooga, so they don't have to
drive 90 percent of the time to Murfreesboro, and then partner
for acute hospitalization with the local community, but still
retaining the right for complex surgery, neurosurgery, thoracic
surgery, to move these into our system, because if we don't do
that, we won't be able to sustain ourselves in the complex
care.
Mr. Wamp. If I can have another minute.
My wife, 3 years ago, went full-blown severe septemia/ARDS
in hospital. So trust me, I would hope people can stay out of
hospitals, because sometimes that is----
Dr. Kussman. They are dangerous places to go.
Mr. Wamp. They are dangerous places and we actually have
had a problem in Murfreesboro with colonoscopies, where you are
inpatient and there is release, it is easy.

TELEMEDICINE

I was going to ask one other question, though, because I
noticed where Chairman Mullen went to Fort Campbell last month
and talked about some of the innovations, and this may play to
both DOD and VA, of virtual care, where maybe you can get some
of these treatments online.
How is that working and is that a demonstration that has
some validity?
Dr. Kussman. We have probably led the country in
telemedicine, tele-psychiatry, tele-dermatology, and we have--I
don't know what the latest number is, probably around 40,000 or
50,000 people who are getting their care that way with the
technology that allows you to communicate with your primary
care nurse or your primary care person without leaving home.
Mr. Wamp. Some veterans may be more inclined to be
interviewed in that capacity than to come in, right?
Dr. Kussman. So we are moving, as we can, emphasizing rural
health, but also patients who can't get out to do things,
because we can check the blood pressure, we can check the
glucose, we can check their weight, and somebody who has a
problem with, say, congestive heart failure, the fluid kind of
backs up because the pump isn't working so well, they will gain
weight and if they are monitored on a daily or every other day
basis, the nurse says, ``Mike Kussman, what is your weight,''
and I say, ``I have gained two pounds,'' maybe we ought to take
another Lasix, because if you don't do that, the next week,
they are seven or eight pounds and then they are in the
emergency room and end up being admitted.
So you can cut off some of this stuff with technology and
the patients are much happier, obviously.

INTEROPERABILITY

Mr. Farr. I have two questions. One, sort of the purpose of
this hearing and this interoperability, the other is money is
sort of the interoperability of the rest of government now,
spending billions of dollars on electronic files.
Are you engaged in this? Are there people that have done
this and know the pitfalls?
Dr. Kussman. Are people coming to us?
Mr. Farr. We have put billions of dollars in the stimulus
package to convert paper files to electronic files and now
there is going to be a lot of vendors out there selling systems
and it is going to be a madhouse.
The concept, obviously, is that when you are finished with
all this, you will have some interoperability. You won't be
owned by one system. But it seems to me that if I were engaged
in getting the rest of the country, the civilian community to
convert to electronic files, I would come to the VA first.
Dr. Kussman. I think we are partnering with HHS. As you
know, Rob Kolodner used to be in charge of that initiative. Dr.
Blumenthal, I think, is the new designee to do that. We are
working daily with them.
But our hope is that we can lead the country together, DOD
and the VA, as a forcing mechanism, because we also have a lot
of patients that Trip takes care of that are in TRICARE.
And if we start working with our TRICARE partners to make
sure that they have electronic records, and we buy a lot of
fee-based care, and if we do it, you can suddenly have a mass
that might be able to lead the country.
Mr. Farr. Lead the rest, yes.
Dr. Kussman. So we are very conscious of that
responsibility.
Mr. Farr. We have land owned by DOD that Veterans are going
to build a building. And my question about that building is
that you are exploring this new model to fund medical
facilities under the health care facilities----
Dr. Kussman. HCC, sir.
Mr. Farr. HCC. That is essentially a private development,
build to suit, and then leased back to you.
Dr. Kussman. Lease to build or build to lease is one way of
doing it. We could also build our own building. But getting
major construction is always difficult and leasing sometimes is
easy.
Mr. Farr. Are you going to include these facilities in this
year's budget?
Dr. Kussman. I think that we have already identified some
with HCC down in south Texas, because there was a strong
movement to have us build a hospital, because we were very
sensitive to the needs of the community, having to drive 5
hours to San Antonio for anything more than basic----
Mr. Farr. But you don't know if there is any in the budget
this year.
Dr. Kussman. I don't think we are----
Mr. Farr. I will come back on that.
Dr. Kussman. The budget hasn't been, as you know,
completed.
[Recess.]
Mr. Farr. We will come back to some of these other issues,
but Mr. Carter has been patient all day.

DOD/VA DATA SHARING--INTEROPERABILITY

Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, we were just visiting on what my question
was going to be about. We are very excited at Fort Hood that we
are going to have a new hospital in 2010, along with Camp
Pendleton, and they already have authorization for building at
Raleigh and Lejeune. So you are going to be in the hospital
building business.
Where I live, we are a fast-growing hospital district and
they have built two large hospitals in my hometown in the last
4 years.
In visiting Seton Hospital, they were talking about the
miles and miles of wiring that they have put in Seton Hospital
in anticipation of electronic recordkeeping.
So this has been an ongoing issue, we have talked about it
today, and we talk about it just about every time we get you
guys in here.
Do you have any ideas about what kind of plans they have
for the integration of new technology, putting together the
interoperability between the VA and the DOD on this
recordkeeping at all the new hospital facilities?
Is that going to be part of the anticipated planning that
you see on the hospital?
Dr. Casscells. Yes, sir. We are very fortunate that we have
got really a technical breakthrough, which should finally
reduce the cost of achieving interoperability.
It got so bad that Secretary Peake was having us fax and
scan every piece of paper to the VA and just recently, the
technical people, DOD and VA, have come up with a joint
solution using what they call services oriented architecture.
This is open source architecture, which enables you to be
modular in the way you build your connectivity, in the way you
build your electronic health record and yet you don't give up
any security, but you add flexibility and you markedly shrink
the time.
In the military, the acquisition process takes many years.
By the time you pick a product and start to contract to get it,
the product, when it is delivered, is out of date. So now, with
moving to this services oriented architecture, it is like
design-build in the construction community. You have got a
chance to change the design at the last minute.
This is going to rapidly--this is going to decrease
markedly the time from picking the product to the delivery and
installation of the product.
It also lets you uninstall a piece without the whole thing
coming down. So you can do your maintenance and so forth. So
this thing called services oriented architecture, SOA, is huge.

AHLTA--UPCOMING CHANGES

The other thing it does is decrease the cost estimate. A
year ago, when there was so much unhappiness about our
electronic health records, we went back with a clean sheet of
paper, even talked about pulling out the DOD's record system,
called AHLTA, which was slow and hard to learn and would often
crash.
So we looked at the cost of pulling that out and putting in
Vista, knowing full well that they want to upgrade theirs. What
we had put in, by the time we put it in, would already be
version 1.0 and they would be on to 2.0.
Even if we did that--and we had a certain number of doctors
who said just give us the VA system. If the VA upgrades it,
okay, but we would rather have the VA system.
We looked at the cost of that. Estimates ranged from $10
billion to $15 billion to pull out AHLTA and put in Vista.
So now, we will get back to you when this budget comes out.
We will have estimates that are a quarter of that. And instead
of the 2015 delivery date, we will be talking about 2012. This
is technology coming to the rescue.
So I am finally confident that we are going to have fully
interoperable records and not only that, but we will have
records as good as anybody out there has got.
Mr. Carter. That is exciting, because just having the
opportunity to go through the construction phase and looking at
these hospitals and what is being done today, it is really
space age, it is really something, and that is exactly what we
want.
We want to have the best we can do with smart technology.
So I am pleased to hear that.

MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

A question had been asked here earlier and I wanted to just
mention something to you. I have mentioned it to the folks at
Fort Hood.
I had a bunch of people from Texas, the mental health and
mental retardation state agency, come to my office in
Cedarville and say that they had an abundance of mental health
workers that were on staff that they needed help with, meaning
to work for them, and wanted to know if the Army wanted to
contract at Fort Hood with them to provide mental health, both
psychiatrists and certified mental health workers.
It has just been in the talking phase more than anything
else and we may match them, but it may be that you find that a
lot of places, that the MHMR departments in states might have
accessibility to contract for some of the shortfall that you
have for mental health professionals.
I just bring that to your attention because you have talked
about it today and that has always stuck in my mind that they
said we have an abundance of psychiatrists and certified
professionals that we can use to contract with the Army.
So I just wanted to put that on the table for you and see
what you thought about that.
Dr. Casscells. Loree Sutton, on our staff, has looked at
that, as you know, sir, and she gave it a thumbs-up. The Texas
reintegration project is what they call it.
Mr. Carter. Right.
Dr. Casscells. Yes, sir. And so she is still wrestling with
our personnel and readiness people as to whether that could be
a one-time MOU or whether it actually might be a template for a
wider rollout.
Sir, I would have to take that for the record and get back
to you.
[The information follows:]

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Texas State Integration
Program. We are always interested in learning more about new and
innovative ways to assist Service members, Veterans, and their
families. Community efforts to assist with the reintegration of
recently deployed Service members and their families are particularly
needed, and we welcome civilian, local, and state initiatives in this
regard. As to this specific program, although we have been able to gain
some information, we are not yet familiar enough with this particular
program to give a definitive response. As a result, we have been in
contact with them, and hope to set up a meeting where we can learn more
about the program, and better determine whether it would be of benefit.

Mr. Carter. I just mention it really as a suggestion that
would be helpful. You might find the same thing exists in
Tennessee and other states, California and so forth. But there
are ways we can contract with firms that have the professionals
available since we are having such an abundance of need right
now that it might help and I just bring it up for that purpose
and that purpose only.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DOD/VA HEALTH CARE COLLABORATION IN MONTEREY

Mr. Farr. I would like to get back to my question for both
of you. Let me give you a little of the scenario.
Fort Ord used to be one of the largest training bases in
the United States. It had probably 32,000 folks there.
The base was downsized, remaining as a residence for active
duty soldiers assigned to language studies at the Defense
Language Institute in Monterey and to students at the Naval
post-graduate school.
What happened at Fort Ord, you had a 400-bed licensed
hospital that closed and up to that time, everybody in the
military community, the active duty personnel, the families of
the active duty personnel, the retirees in the community, and
the veterans all used that hospital, because there was plenty
of space and it was space available, but there was plenty of
it.
But the hospital closed, and I think you are going to find
this in a lot of communities. They didn't have a hospital
anymore.
You opened a clinic at the Defense Language Institute, a
drop-in clinic for the soldiers, but a lot of them didn't know,
particularly at the Naval post-graduate school, that they could
go over to the Presidio in Monterey, not too far away, but
several miles, and get their clinical care there.
The TRICARE families ended up in mass confusion about
trying to find TRICARE doctors and we found none in the
community that would serve pediatric care, because the
reimbursement rates weren't large enough.
So they contracted with a firm in Salinas, which is about
30 miles away. Then in the meantime, we have rebuilt all of
that, with the RCI project. So you have this wonderful military
community who is very happy, with the exception that there is a
lot of confusion in how you get access to TRICARE.
And the Monterey Bay area being very expensive, it is very
difficult to find doctors who can come in. Our senior doctors
are leaving their practices. So you can imagine how difficult
it is for a young doctor, and they are not coming in and
picking up these services.
They have told us, however, that if we have facilities
where the cost of the overhead, cost of the rent, is not so
high as it is in the private sector, they would be glad to
partner up.
So what we have tried to do, in the meantime, Veterans
opened a clinic. It has been so successful it is cracking at
its seams. We have now a piece of property that the local
active duty community, Army and Navy, both agree is ideal,
because it is right in the community, in the RCI community, and
VA is willing to build a facility there.
The question is whether you are going to build it as an
HCCF, and what I hear from Palo Alto is that there are seven
potential HCCF sites scheduled for construction in 2010.
Your last answer to me was that you didn't know.
Dr. Kussman. Well, it was planned, but the budget hasn't
been confirmed. So I don't know. But a lot of them are in
leasing, so they wouldn't be in the construction budget.
There are things that we would like to do that we are
looking at, but I don't know where they got 17 from.
Mr. Farr. Seven.
Dr. Kussman. Seven from. I would have to go back and ask.
Mr. Farr. Could we find that out?
Dr. Kussman. Sure.
Mr. Farr. And I would like to find it is just one of them.
Dr. Casscells, I don't know if you know, but the Monterey
Bay area has about 6,000 men and women in uniform and about,
between veterans and retirees, another 28,000 people.
So it really makes sense now to try to make this combined
facility that VA is going to build to have you as a partner in
that facility. But that decision is in the feasibility studies
out there and it is going to show that you are going to have
about a $10 million savings, just TRICARE alone.
But you haven't made the decision whether to partner with
the VA yet on this and I am waiting to see that decision to be
made. Hopefully, it can be made as soon as possible, because we
would like to--we will have all the numbers for you and it will
show that it is financially a smart thing to do.
Dr. Casscells. Sir, as you know, from your visit with Major
General Horoho and Ken Cox from my office, the Army is
collecting their part of the data for this joint study, what is
called the joint market assessment team.
VA generously offered to build a joint clinic. They also
paid for the study. The Army surgeon general is completing the
study. The team goes out there the 13th of April to do their
site inspection and wrap up the report.
So we should know very soon, certainly, during the
appropriations cycle, whether anything more is needed. Of
course, we would love to hear--get a solution, because on
TRICARE, my hands are a little bit tied. I can offer a 10
percent adjustment to get pediatricians in the Monterey Bay
area to take TRICARE, but that is Medicare plus 10 percent.
And pediatricians aren't millionaires, but they still don't
want it. It is hard to get the--our TRICARE network is very
thin in some of these areas. It is thin in areas that are very
wealthy. It is also thin in areas that are very rural.
And Congress has given us----
Mr. Farr. Well, I think the lesson learned here that is
really some advice to both of you, because veterans are
everywhere that there are active duty military. If you are
going to close a hospital, you are going to have unintended
purposes, which are never measured, but, obviously, felt when
the hospital closes.
People have got to consider that. We thank God you did
respond, TRICARE, you weren't in command at the time, but
TRICARE had to fly in doctors just to be there. It was very
expensive, and they didn't anticipate that it was going to
happen.
But our Medicare reimbursements are the lowest in the
country, for one of the highest cost communities. That is
another problem and we are fighting that. But your TRICARE
reimbursements then are based on this low, low base, which none
of the doctors are even receiving or civilian doctors are not
taking Medicare patients.
We have 2,000 senior citizens who get their health care
through emergency. It is appalling.
We have excellent veterans' clinics. They are very
successful. It just seems to me that now that we are going to
build a new facility, that it just makes really good sense,
this is right in your footprint, to serve the families of the
active duty members who now have to truck over to Salinas.
We can get pediatric care right in that building. We have
already got commitments from doctors to come. So I am looking
forward to a favorable marriage here.
Dr. Casscells. Sir, could you write in there that the
clinic director would be Dr. Casscells? That would be a great
favor.
Mr. Farr. Whatever it takes, we will do that. You want that
in the bill? [Laughter.]
Be careful what you ask for. Fortunately, the clinic is
already going to be, I promised, just before he died, to
General Gourley, who put all this together, and we are going to
name it after him.
But we can name something after you.
Dr. Casscells. I might have to go work there.
Mr. Farr. We can arrange that, too.
I think it is about time we wrap up.

CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT

There is a tradition that Mr. Edwards has that I love and
it sort of just is a parting shot.
We are sitting here trying to prioritize a lot of issues.
In your opinion, what is the one thing that--each of your
opinions--what is the one thing that this committee, as
appropriators, can do to fix what you think is the most serious
problem right now?
Dr. Casscells. Sir, on the defense side, I would say stay
the course that Mr. Edwards has charted. What he has done in
supporting the construction of military hospitals, most of
which were built before I was in medical school, in asking that
these hospitals be built and that they be first class.
You not only boost the morale of the doctors and nurses,
but you boost the morale of the patients if they feel they
are--a new hospital, a hospital that is safe and high tech,
shows our respect for them.
And the hospitals that your funds have enabled us to have,
we now have hospitals that are lead--they are green, they save
28 percent on energy, reduce maintenance. The hospitals have
safety features that our current hospitals don't have and they
promote patient privacy and patient empowerment.
The new generation of hospitals is nothing like what we
have currently in the military.
So I would just ask that you stay the course, because these
hospitals will pace themselves. If we have an Army hospital,
for example, that is one-third full, it loses money. The
patients go down the street to a private hospital.
We pay twice. We are paying to keep the hospital open and
then TRICARE, me, paying for the downtown care.
So what you are helping us do, this committee, in shoring
up military hospitals will be cost-effective in the long run
and we appreciate it enormously.
So my message would be, please, just stay the course.
Mr. Farr. You just made my speech for a joint clinic. It is
a lot cheaper than a hospital to serve a lot of people.
Dr. Kussman.
Dr. Kussman. Thank you, sir, for the question.
First of all, I very much appreciate what the chairman and
all of you have done in support of what we have done and what
we have needed and you have always been willing to listen and
help us move forward.
My biggest--well, one of my biggest--I was just running
through a list of things, but as you know, our appropriation is
in four parts, the services, used to be admin facilities, and
then IT.
And one of the challenges is when this is separated, and I
understand why it was done and I am not arguing about that, it
is just that it locks us in sometimes and it is very difficult
to reprogram money.
So when I want to do that, I have to go through the process
of asking permission to do it. This is particularly poignant in
IT, because I think a lot of people presume that medical IT in
support of the delivery of health care is in medical services,
because it is part of medical services.
But the way the budget is structured, it isn't. It is in
IT. So we can buy a new piece of equipment, but the IT tail
that goes with it has to be funded out of something else.
Mr. Farr. Competing with something else.
Dr. Kussman. Yes. I mean, there are a lot of things we need
in IT, security and things like that. So the unique necessity
of medical IT becomes a challenge when we are competing, and
that is why, the last 2 years I reprogrammed money out of
medical services into IT to support medical IT projects.
But I think that this is an unintended consequence of an
IT, separate IT budget, because nothing we do now in medical
services doesn't have an IT tail.
So I hope I articulated that in a coherent manner. So the
challenge for us is being sure that when you give us money in
medical services, we can actually use it, as well, because a
lot of times, it gets frustrating----
Mr. Farr. Did we create these different accounting
accounts?
Dr. Kussman. Yes.
Mr. Farr. The Congress did.
Dr. Kussman. Yes.
Mr. Farr. So you are suggesting it needs to be modernized
to essentially IT is really part of everything and not just a
separate standalone.
Dr. Kussman. It is not just buying Blackberries and servers
and things. It is integral to everything I do medically.
Mr. Farr. Well, I know when we were in the California state
legislature, I am sure Mr. Wamp knows the same thing, the
problem was that when IT came out, there were so many vendors
up there and everybody wanted it. It was going crazy. People
were buying things that didn't work.
Dr. Kussman. And that is why I think----
Mr. Farr. So we tried to professionalize it and bring it
all under one roof.
Dr. Kussman. Right. And as you know, we moved to a
centralized OI&T in the VA I think that that is very important
to maintain standards and quality and make sure that people
don't waste their money on things.
And even if it was in medical services for medical IT, I
think that it is okay for them to have oversight to make sure
we don't buy something stupid.
But the challenge is to continue to expand medical services
when there is not enough money in the IT budget sometimes to
meet all the requirements. So things start competing with each
other and sometimes--and I am not complaining about the money.
It is just the way that things are done now.
And I believe that when this was done, the presumption was
that there was a lot of medical IT that would be paid for in
medical services, because I believe it is part of medical
services, but I can't do it anymore.
So that is one of the things that I would think that might
be helpful.
Mr. Farr. Well, we will take a look at that. I would
suggest that your team, working with HHS on the electronic
filing, I mean, your IT has got to be the----
Dr. Kussman. It is more than just the electronic record. It
is wireless. It is things that--we buy a new MRI. There is an
IT support tail to that and that doesn't come out of medical
services. It comes out of the IT budget.
It is part and parcel of the delivery of care, but it has
been separated from the delivery of care.
Mr. Farr. I don't know IT that much, but it seems to me if
you are buying equipment that is sophisticated as it is and you
are trying to create an electronic records system, that
equipment is going to be informing a lot of your data itself.
You are going to have reinterpretation of data coming out
of--I mean, I have seen these charts and scans and the way they
put things together, and it is remarkable information that is
even understandable for a patient like me, and that is----
Dr. Kussman. I am a dinosaur, too.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. And that is generated by the machine
that scanned me. Isn't this all integrated and doesn't this
have to be something in this discussion, if we are all going to
try to get the entire country on some kind of interoperable
system?
To me, interoperable means it is all like one. Isn't that
included in that? Don't you, in your recordkeeping, account for
things like that?
Dr. Kussman. Supporting our electronic health record, money
comes out of IT.
Mr. Farr. Okay.
Dr. Kussman. When we expand new services, in medical
services, there is frequently an IT tail. When I open a new
CBOC or a new HCC, there is IT support for that.
We can put all the equipment in and prepare ourselves to
deliver services, but I can't use medical services money to
support the IT part of it. It has got to come out of the IT
funding.
It is very complicated.
Mr. Farr. Has that been brought to the congressional
attention before?
Dr. Kussman. I don't know if I stuck my neck way out, but I
think we have had some dialogue about this in the past and it
is the way we do business right now.
And my plea would be we look at that and see if there is a
better way of doing it.
Mr. Farr. Has somebody got a better way to do it, anybody,
because we are doing report language and we can set up a system
to get us some answers.
Dr. Kussman. Maybe.
Mr. Farr. All right. We will work on that.
Dr. Kussman. Thank you.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TO WOUNDED WARRIORS/MILITARY FAMILIES

Mr. Wamp. My staff should have put this in my notes and
they didn't, so they will next time.
General Casey and General Chiarelli have been working with
me to identify impediments to outside groups, private entities,
from helping our veterans and even helping the families of our
active duty men and women, because there are impediments in the
law to them being able to help, and I will give you an example.
We had a van offered to our outpatient clinic a couple
years ago, after we had the wreck, people lost their lives, and
a new van was offered, but there was an impediment to being
able to accept that van.
So anything that you can do, Dr. Casscells, on your way
out? Dr. Kussman? We are asking for you to share with us any
impediments to the private sector, that really wants to help
our veterans and to help our military families, from being able
to help. There are impediments and we need to eliminate those
as we pass this bill from year to year so that everybody that
wants to help is not prohibited by a dumb law.
If there is a reason for it, we will back off. But if it is
just some illogical problem, we want to get rid of it. So help
us, just send us any ways you think that people are prohibited
from helping our veterans and our military families.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

NETWORK OF CARE WEBSITE

Mr. Farr. You just reminded me, I would like to also refer
you to a Web site, www.networkofcare.org. It has been brought
to my attention by our local doctors.
This organization is putting together on the Web all of the
information, county-by-county, in the United States and it is
contracted for by the local governments to put together, for
example, if you were dealing with PTSD, all of the PTSD
services that are available in that county and all of the
funding that comes from it, both private sector and public
sector, the support community out there to handle it, and
pertinent legislation at the state and federal level that would
relate to it. And they even have ability for case management,
where a personal file can be done.
The concept here was that as you have soldiers going back
home who know the DOD health care delivery system and they have
to go to a place to get it or a VA clinic that they might be
assigned to, but that may be miles, miles and miles away, that
you could actually give them a portfolio when they leave and
say, ``By the way, in your own community, here is what is
available.''
I think it is an incredible disclosure tool, because often
in cases, as you know, that community of care is sometimes the
best and families have no idea that there are support groups
out there.
I have had parents come in to me with children with
diabetes and not even knowing that we have this huge network of
families with diabetic kids who have learned how to handle
that.
And I want to provide that kind of same service for the
soldiers.
Dr. Kussman. We are aware of this and there is dialogue
going on about how to best utilize this across the continuum of
care. Certainly, if nothing else, it makes people aware of
where they could go locally for services. It doesn't mean
necessarily we would pay for it there, but that is a separate
issue.
At least they know that they have someplace and they may
have their own insurance or something else from work. The
National Guard and Reserve, when they get out, they would know
where to go quickly.
Mr. Farr. Well, if you are having a shortage of health care
providers in areas, professional licensed people that could be
counselors for PTSD, it seems to me that you have now got
access to a civilian licensed community that might be in your
backyard.
Dr. Casscells. Sir, I will make sure this is in our
national resource directory and we have several similar Web
sites, afterdeployment.org, health.mil, militaryonesource.com,
and we will make sure that networkofcare is featured on those
with a link, establish a link.
Mr. Farr. I hope that is helpful to you.
Well, thank you very much, folks, for your professional and
public service and career, and thank you for coming today.
The meeting is adjourned.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009.

BASE POSTURE AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST

WITNESSES

WAYNE ARNY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
KEITH E. EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
B.J. PENN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
(INSTALLATIONS) FOR KEVIN W. BILLINGS, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE AIR FORCE, INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND LOGISTICS

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Good morning. I would like to call
the subcommittee to order. And I want to welcome each of the
secretaries here. Secretary Arny, Secretary Easton, Secretary
Penn, Secretary Ferguson, thank you all for being here.
Zach, we found out Mr. Billings' airplane lost pressure at
37,000 feet last night, so he is somewhere between St. Louis
and Washington, DC.
Mr. Arny. And we are all upset. We forgot that----
Mr. Edwards. That is right. That is a new one.
Mr. Arny. I lost pressure in my car on the way to work.
Mr. Edwards. Absolutely. I will tell you.
Please, Secretary Ferguson, please tell Secretary Billings
we understand, and just glad that no one was hurt. We
understand it was military aircraft, that no one was hurt.
Ms. Ferguson. No one was hurt. It landed safely. The
aircraft is being repaired now. And he is on another airplane
on his way back right now.
Mr. Edwards. That is good to hear.
Well, again, I want to welcome all of you to our hearing on
the Department of Defense's ongoing implementation of the 2005
Base Realignment and Closure round. BRAC 2005 became law on
November 9, 2005.
The department has until September 15, 2011, to complete
all of the required actions, as you well know.
The cost of this round--at least the cost that is being
funded through the BRAC account--is $32 billion, according to
the current information that we have. And I believe that is up
from the initial estimate of BRAC somewhere in the $19 billion
range.
I have two major concerns I would like to address at
today's hearing. The first concern is whether the department
can, in fact, complete all of the required closures and
realignments by the legal deadline. This BRAC round has been
variously described as the biggest, most complex and most
costly round ever implemented.
Clearly, this BRAC round was much more than about saving
money. It was about executing a transformation of the military.
A number of very difficult actions will be pushing right up
against the deadline.
The second concern I have, related to the first, is whether
the deadline can be met wisely and effectively. What I mean is
this. Can we meet the deadline without cutting corners on
facilities that our troops and families need? Can we do it
without paying exorbitant premiums to contractors to speed up
construction? Are we going to satisfy the mere legal
requirements while leaving a tail of expenditures to be funded
through the regular MILCON appropriation or other accounts?
A number of GAO reports on BRAC have been released in the
past 2 years. The basic theme of all of these reports could be
described as costs underestimated, savings over-estimated.
Not only were the savings underestimated, but some of the
savings could best be described as theoretical. But as we all
know, however, the costs are very real.
We have reason to believe that some of this cost is coming
at the expense of other pressing military infrastructure needs.
The department is committed to a number of major initiatives
with high military construction costs, such as growing the
force and realignment of the Marines from Okinawa to Guam.
Unlike BRAC, however, these actions are not mandated by law.
Our worry and our concern is that, under current economic
and fiscal conditions, BRAC could end up crowding out other
needed investments for the next 2\1/2\ years. We also must not
forget that we still have a large unfunded obligation to clean
up and dispose of military properties that were closed during
the previous four BRAC rounds, going back to 1988.
Is that correct? Was the first BRAC round in 1988?
According to the 2007 Defense Environmental Programs
Report, the total cost to complete cleanup at these sites is
nearly $3.5 billion. And I have not seen that number going down
in recent years.
I am very pleased that our witnesses are here today. Since
you bear the burden of implementing BRAC, I am interested in
hearing your frank assessments of the challenges you face and
how the services are meeting these challenges.
Before I introduce our witnesses, let me turn to our
ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any opening remarks that he would
care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being punctual and
efficient yourself. And welcome back here after our Easter work
period. I just traveled 4,000 miles in 17 days all across the
state of Tennessee in my Volkswagen, so I have got a whole new
perspective of life. [Laughter.]
I want to thank our witnesses for coming, and those that
tried to get here.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, you were very cooperative as we
raised this issue over the last 2 years on whether the money
for BRAC to close out by 2011 was in place. And we did the very
best we could to provide the resources. I think your two
objectives of the hearing today are entirely appropriate.
I would even add a third. And that is to make sure that the
monies that we have dedicated have been spent efficiently to-
date, so that as we continue to work towards some new
timelines--obviously, I read the report showing that we do not
expect most of these sites to meet their target goals in terms
of finishing out the BRAC realignment on schedule--but to make
sure that as we put additional resources into BRAC, that the
money is being spent as efficiently and as effectively as
possible.
I do think you are right on target about the long-term
obligation of the cleanup efforts, because I think many times,
from my experience in Tennessee, that is just punted down the
field. And frankly, the ongoing cost of maintaining these
facilities continues to climb. And the cleanup is few and far
between, so to speak.
So, I think this is an important hearing. Even though it
might not be the highest profile hearing that we have this
spring, it is an important hearing on an important objective.
And I do think the whole BRAC process, Mr. Chairman, is one
that the government can point to for true reform.
There are very few processes that government can actually
say, this works. Because everybody talks about government
reform, but there is very little reform of the government. The
government just grows. At every level it grows, but
particularly in Washington.
And actually, BRAC, as a model, if we do it right and make
sure it is efficient and accountable, is a good process for an
objective look at how to reform a host of other programs. And
that is why BRAC is important, because this is sort of a
benchmark as to whether or not the government can ever reform
itself, or clean itself up, or make itself more efficient. And
there are a host of federal agencies that could learn from the
BRAC model, as long as we have a good story to tell.
And I thank you very much, and look forward to the
testimony.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp, thank you for your comments. And I
think your points are well taken in terms of our need to focus
on the efficient use and wise use of the BRAC dollars, and help
us apply that to future BRAC rounds and lessons learned.
For the sake of time, I am going to forego the long
introduction. With the exception of Secretary Ferguson, each of
you has been before this committee multiple times.
Again, I thank you.
I would note for the record that Assistant Secretary Penn
is also the Acting Secretary of the Navy. And we welcome you
back.
I would like, on a personal note, to thank Secretary Eastin
for your long and distinguished service to our country, to our
military and the United States Army. I know that Monday is, I
believe, your last day in your present position. And I have no
doubt you will continue to find other ways to serve our
country.
But I would be remiss if I did not personally take the time
to thank you, Secretary Eastin, for your incredible work on
behalf of our country and our Army soldiers and their families.
You have made a real difference, and I have seen that first
hand on multiple occasions with your hard work.
Mr. Wamp. Hear, hear.
Mr. Edwards. Secretary Arny, we are honored to have you
here. And as deputy undersecretary, let me begin with you, and
then we will follow with people on down----

Statement of Wayne Arny

Mr. Arny. I would be happy to.
Chairman Edwards, Mr. Wamp and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to address the Department's implementation of the BRAC
Commission's decisions.
As previously discussed with this committee, BRAC 2005
effort is the largest round undertaken by the Department. And
we continue to monitor BRAC implementation to ensure we are
meeting our legal obligation.
Further, the Administration, as before, will request
sufficient funding to enable the Department to continue its
efforts to meet the requirements of the BRAC process and be
completed by September 15, 2011.
Implementation of this round is an exceedingly complex
undertaking, as you have mentioned, not merely as a function of
its magnitude, but to the largest extent, as a function of the
original goal established for this round. The BRAC 2005 would
focus on the reconfiguration of operational capacity to
maximize warfighting capability and efficiency.
Focusing on operational capacity required that we
appropriately assess the increased military capabilities we are
achieving through these recommendations. We accomplished that
requirement and, through BRAC, are significantly enhancing this
capability.
For example, in the largest operational Army BRAC movement,
the Army plans to build three brigade combat team complexes, a
combat aviation brigade complex and a division headquarters at
Fort Bliss, Texas, to accommodate the 15,000 soldiers and their
families who are being relocated there.
The closure of Naval Air Station Brunswick is another
example. This action will allow the single-siting of the East
Coast Maritime Patrol community at NAS Jacksonville, while
reducing operating costs. Construction is moving ahead as
planned.
Besides these individual actions, the key component of this
BRAC round was a goal to rationalize medical infrastructure to
address the transformation we have seen in health care, and to
adapt our facilities to address the continuing change in
warrior care.
We were able to realign two of our major military medical
markets, San Antonio and the National Capital Region. These
address a critical need to realign and consolidate key clinical
and clinical research capabilities while addressing serious
facility modernization requirements.
In San Antonio, the Department is consolidating inpatient
service into a recapitalized Brooke Army Medical Center while
replacing the aging Wilford Hall with a state-of-the-art
ambulatory outpatient center.
In the National Capital Region, we are closing the aged and
degrading Walter Reed and transferring its services to both an
expanded Bethesda and the new community hospital at Fort
Belvoir. In addition, the medical center at Andrews will be
transformed into a clinic. This allows DoD to forego the cost
of renovating Walter Reed, and instead focus its resources to
realign the active duty beneficiaries to the remaining
hospitals in line with changing demographics.
Because these transformations required facility closures as
well as restructuring, we could not have been--these could not
have been accomplished efficiently without the authority
provided by BRAC.
BRAC 2005 also calls for the transfer of installation
management functions to create 12 joint bases from 26 separate
bases. The Department is using this opportunity to create
conditions for more consistent and effective delivery of
installation support at these sites, capitalizing on the fact
that these bases either share a common boundary or are in close
proximity.
Consequently, the installation management functions and the
delivery of installations support functions can be consolidated
to ensure best business practices, while warfighting
capabilities are preserved or enhanced.
A Memorandum of Agreement for each Joint Base, signed by
the affected service vice chief, is defining the relationships
between the components and will govern the supporting
components delivery of support at approved output levels--
something we have never done before.
A governance framework, called the Joint Management
Oversight Structure, allows for approval of variations to
policy guidance, deviations to approved output levels, and
dispute resolution.
The supporting component--in other words, the lead
component--will establish a joint base commander, who will be
responsible for installation support to the supported component
or components and the tenants. The deputy joint base commander
will be from the supported or follower command. To-date, five
of the 12 MOAs have been signed, and the 12 joint bases are
being established in two phases, with full operational
capability for phase one in October 2009, and phase two in
October 2010.
At FOC, both the total obligational authority and the real
property will transfer from the supported component or
components to the supporting component. And if you want, we can
talk about that at greater length in the hearing.
As I said, and as you mentioned, these are complex
recommendations, and we recognize the unique challenges
associated with their implementation, particularly for those
recommendations where synchronization is required to manage
interdependencies with other initiatives.
To provide necessary oversight and to apprise senior
leadership whenever issues require attention, we
institutionalized an implementation execution oversight
program. We do come up with good titles, I thought----
[Laughter.]
The recent GAO report acknowledged that this is a positive
step in oversight. This level of review allows our managers to
explain actions underway, to mitigate the impacts of problem
issues.
The recently published GAO report also acknowledges that
the Department has made steady progress thus far in
implementing BRAC 2005. There has been a great deal of concern,
as you mentioned, about the increased costs of BRAC 2005.
It is important to note that almost 70 percent of the BRAC
2005 program supports military construction requirements,
compared to 33 percent experienced in previous rounds. This is
because in this round, the Department decided to use new
construction versus renovated space, with existing space
diverted to other needs, to accommodate changes in unit sizes,
functions or responsibilities by increasing facilities,
changing configurations or building additional facilities, and
to accept inflation factors exceeding previous planning
factors.
Finally, it is our policy that every practical
consideration shall be given to implementing DoD actions that
seriously affect the economy of a community in a manner that
minimizes the local impact. To that end, the Department
provides economic adjustment assistance through its Office of
Economic Adjustment, or OEA, to help communities who have
decreases--and in this case, in this round, increases--to help
them help themselves use the combined resources of federal,
state and local governments and the private sector.
Regarding prior BRAC disposal and redevelopment, the
department has used the full range of transfer and conveyance
authorities to dispose of real property made available.
Property disposal is complete at 205 out of 250 prior BRAC
locations where property became available for disposal. And
local redevelopment efforts, in turn, have resulted in the
creation of 143,700 jobs, more than offsetting the 129,600
civilian jobs that were lost across 73 prior BRAC locations
where OEA is monitoring redevelopment activity.
As of December 2008, our last data, we have disposed of
over 367,000 acres of the 422,000 or so acres at these legacy
locations, leaving only a little over 55,000 acres left to go.
When we exclude leases in furtherance of conveyance, which will
be transferred in many cases when cleanup is complete, only
34,000 acres or so remain.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this
opportunity to highlight the Department's BRAC efforts.
[The prepared statement of Wayne Arny follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.139

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.140

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.141

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.142

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.143

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.144

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.145

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.146

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.147

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.148

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.149

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.150

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.151

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.152

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.153

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.154

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

Statement of Keith E. Eastin

Mr. Eastin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wamp and members
of the committee.
I will try to be brief.
The Army has 102 specific BRAC actions that are our
responsibility, and another 11 that were business plans that we
manage.
We are now 3\1/2\ years into this process. And I think I
can count firmly by saying we have 2 years, 4 months and 24
days before September 15, 2011. [Laughter.]
As you mentioned, unfortunately, I will not be around to
see the end of----
Mr. Edwards. And we regret that.
Mr. Eastin. We have a very carefully orchestrated plan and
group that runs our BRAC program. And all of these projects
are, as announced, on schedule.
Since I have been here, I have asked the question: Who are
we kidding? We are not going to get all of this done by 2011.
And we ask it, and I ask it, virtually every couple weeks.
Do we know of any of BRAC actions that are not going to make
the deadline? And the answer is ``no.'' They will all make
September 15, 2011, in the Army.
We all know that something is likely to go on between now
and 2 years from now, but we do not see anything specifically.
My guess is, one of the AFRCs might slip a little bit, or
something like that. But we do not see that right now.
And we are in the process, as you know, of closing 387
National Guard and Reserve Centers, and at the same time,
building 125 Armed Forces Reserve Centers that will encompass
those activities abroad.
We are--as Wayne has indicated, Fort Bliss is growing
vastly. We are basically tripling its size. Fort Belvoir is
doubling in size, and adding the National Geospatial Agency out
there will bring 8,500 new people to it alone, plus the new
Dewitt Army Hospital, which will supplement the Bethesda
complex.
All of that is on time, on schedule, and I would like to
say under budget. Budgets will now and then change, but--we are
on track to complete all of it.
We got into environmental restoration. Of course, the
disposition of property from the installations we were closing,
we would--it is our goal to move this property within 6 months
after a request from an LRA or land, local reuse authority. And
we are trying to do our best to take the property disposal
aspect of this and then put it into effect.
Standing in the way of that, of course, is that most of
these installations, in one way or another, are subject to some
contamination, either something fairly benign like a
corporation yard, to something where we have unexploded
ordnance and have to clean up before we turn it over.
Everything, I am happy to report, is on track. We think the
scope has not been degradated in any way, to answer one of your
questions.
And as I say, crossing our fingers securely behind our
back, September 15, 2011, will come and go with our successful
completion of this. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Keith E. Eastin follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.155

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.156

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.157

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.158

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.159

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.160

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.161

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.162

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.163

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.164

Mr. Edwards. Okay. Secretary Eastin, thank you very much.
Secretary Penn.

Statement of B.J. Penn

Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, Representative Wamp, members of the
committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to provide
an overview of the Department's BRAC program.
Regarding BRAC 2005, we have moved swiftly from planning to
execution since I last briefed you in March of 2007. All 59 led
business plans are approved and underway, and our program is on
track to fully meet the September 15, 2011, statutory deadline.
In total, the Department awarded 85 of the 118 BRAC
construction projects with a combined value of $1.4 billion.
Eighteen projects worth $256 million are on track to be awarded
this year. At the end of the fiscal year 2008, the Department
has closed 43 percent of the BRAC 2005 properties slated for
closure.
One success story I would like to highlight comes from New
Orleans, which still struggles to recover from the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina.
We entered into a 75-year leasing agreement with the
Algiers Development District, ADD, in September of 2008. In
exchange for leasing 149 acres of Naval Support Activity New
Orleans, the headquarters, Marine Forces Reserve, will receive
approximately $150 million in new facilities. Demolition began
recently, and we have established temporary quarters for the
commissary, so that the military personnel, retirees and their
families still have access to the quality of life service
during construction. We continue to work with ADD to ensure
this partnership's successful outcome.
Our remaining environmental liabilities for BRAC 2005 are
substantially less than in prior rounds of BRAC. We have spent
$148 million in cleanup through fiscal year 2008. We attribute
this to the relatively few numbers of closures, the absence of
major industrial facilities and the extensive environmental
work that the Department has accomplished over the past several
decades.
Financially, we continue to control costs, keeping cost
growth down to a modest 2 to 2\1/2\ percent per year.
Our overall execution rate is nearly 90 percent, a
significant improvement over the same period last year, and
further evidence of the shift from planning to accelerated
implementation.
We are also on track to obligate over 90 percent of our
fiscal year 2009 funds by the end of September. We appreciate
the efforts of this committee, which contributed directly to
our success by providing these funds early in the fiscal year.
Although we are on track to meet the statutory deadline, we
do face some challenges. Seven major construction projects
require complex site approvals and operational certifications
from the DOD Explosive Safety Board. And we also have
correctional facilities that require certification before
occupancy. We are monitoring construction closely, so that the
projects complete in time to conduct the necessary
certifications.
With respect to Legacy BRAC, the Department has achieved a
steady savings rate of approximately $2.7 billion per year
since fiscal year 2002. At the end of fiscal year 2008, we
disposed of 93 percent of our real properties slated for
closure in the first four rounds of BRAC.
Many factors play into developing a conveyance strategy,
including environmental mitigation, indemnity and liability
considerations and the financial capacity of recipients to
manage or develop the property. We have used a variety of
disposal methods, including the Economic Development
Conveyance, EDC, that was specifically created for BRAC
properties.
We have conveyed 91 percent of Navy real property at no
cost. From the remaining 9 percent, we received over $1.1
billion in revenue through a variety of conveyance mechanisms,
nearly all of it since fiscal year 2003. Since then, we have
used these funds to accelerate cleanup and finance the entire
prior BRAC effort, including caretaker costs from fiscal year
2005 through fiscal year 2008.
Despite our success in using property sales to augment
cleanup and disposal and recover value for taxpayers, future
revenues are very limited. We resumed our request for
appropriated funding last year.
It is also our experience that EDCs do not necessarily spur
economic redevelopment any faster than traditional conveyance
methods. Some communities that receive no-cost EDCs during a
more robust economy have not developed the property, or have
yet to realize the benefits of having property on the tax
rolls.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
committee. And we look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of B.J. Penn follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.165

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.166

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.167

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.168

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.169

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.170

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.171

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.172

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.173

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Secretary Penn.
Secretary Ferguson, thank you again for being here to fill
in for Secretary Billings, who lost the pressure on his plane
at 37,000 feet on the way back to Washington last night.
We are glad you are here, and would like to recognize you
now for your testimony.

Statement of Kathleen I. Ferguson

Ms. Ferguson. Thank you. And he, again, sends his apologies
for not being here. He spent the last two days in San Antonio
visiting Fort Sam Houston and Lackland Air Force Base for all
the BRAC recommendations. So, he is going to come in with a
fresh look on the ground. And unfortunately, he was unable to
make it this morning.
Mr. Edwards. I understand. Thank you.
Ms. Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wamp, members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide an update
on the Air Force's efforts in support of Base Realignment and
Closure and our implementation progress to-date.
More than 42 months ago, the recommendations of the BRAC
2005 Commission were approved. Today, we find ourselves a mere
29 months away from reaching the commission-mandated completion
date of September 15, 2011. While we still have much more work
to do, I am confident in informing the committee that the Air
Force BRAC implementation efforts are on track, on time and on
budget.
BRAC 2005 resulted in seven Air Force installation closures
and 59 realignments affecting 122 installations. To achieve
these closures and realignments, the Air Force must execute
more than 410 separate implementation actions. This complex
effort involves more than just bricks and mortar. It includes
military construction, operations and maintenance,
environmental reviews, training and the movement of people and
things.
Mr. Billings' written statement, which had previously been
provided to the committee, outlines in detail two BRAC
undertakings in San Antonio which illustrate the complexity of
the Air Force BRAC program. I will not go into those today in
the interest of time, but these are the largest efforts the Air
Force has undertaken in the San Antonio area, with the TRICARE
Management Activity for SAMMC and or the MEtC. And I will be
happy to talk about those in more detail.
During past testimony, the Air Force has also stressed its
strong support of the BRAC 2005 Commission joint basing
recommendations. I can tell you the Services and DOD have been
working hard to implement one of BRAC's most transformational
initiatives, and are working through many complex issues to
make joint basing work.
The Air Force wants to personally thank Mr. Wayne Arny for
his leadership over the last year in guiding all the services
in the implementation of the BRAC recommendations. We have made
tremendous progress and are now in the process of reviewing and
coordinating numerous implementation plan details and formal
memorandum of agreement for each joint base.
The Air Force has a long and successful history of working
towards common goals in a joint environment, and joint basing
is no different.
Mr. Chairman, the last item I would like to address is the
BRAC recommendation to bed down the Joint Strike Fighter,
integrate a joint training center at Eglin Air Force Base. The
last 2\1/2\ years has demonstrated the use of BRAC to bed down
a weapons system still in development is very difficult.
In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter, the noise profile
of the aircraft was unknown at the time of the BRAC decision.
And issues identified through the National Environmental Policy
Act process required further study, which are now underway. The
result of this analysis will help us identify ways to operate
the aircraft and mitigate the potential noise impacts on the
community as we bed down this important weapon system at Eglin.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I will finish with a short
execution overview.
BRAC 2005 impacts more than 120 Air Force installations.
Whether establishing the F-35, Joint Strike Fighter initial
training site at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, closing Kulis
Air Guard Station in Alaska, or transferring Pope Air Force
Base, North Carolina, to the Army, the Air Force community as a
whole, Active, Guard and Reserve, will benefit from the changes
BRAC directed.
The Air Force's total BRAC budget is approximately $3.8
billion, which the Air Force and DOD have fully funded. Our
largest costs are for military construction projects, totaling
more than $2.6 billion.
Operations and maintenance expenditures are just over $900
million. And there are other BRAC expenses as well, which
include information technology, equipment procurement and Air
Force Reserve and Air National Guard training, to name a few,
at $142 million. Other BRAC program expenses include $136
million for military personnel expenses and environmental
planning and cleanup.
The Air Force's primary focus in the 2010 program is in
budget areas other than Military Construction, because we are
now focused on personnel-related issues, relocating assets and
functions, outfitting new and renovated facilities and
procuring those end-state necessities, continuing environmental
actions to realign and integrate the total force.
Thousands of man-hours have been spent on planning,
coordinating, meetings, visiting bases and executing the more
than 410 actions we must implement to complete BRAC 2005, and
we have many more ahead. The good news is, Mr. Chairman, we
will be done no later than September 15th, and we will have
executed our program within budget.
This concludes my formal remarks, and I thank you and the
committee for your time and opportunity to provide you this
update. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Kevin W. Billings follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.174

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.175

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.176

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.177

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.178

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.179

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.180

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.181

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.182

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.183

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.184

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Secretary Ferguson.
And thank you again, all.
For the record, your complete statements will be submitted
and made part of that record.
You each will begin with the 5-minute rule, and we will be
able to do multiple rounds here and cover a lot of the
subjects. You will begin with me.
You answered my first question. But for the record, each of
you--is this correct--each of you has said that your respective
service will meet the BRAC time deadline. Is that correct?
Mr. Eastin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. So, that answers the follow-up question
I was going to ask.
Do any of you see any need to provide exemptions from BRAC
or extend the BRAC deadline?
Mr. Edwards. The answer would be ``no.'' For the record,
all have answered ``no.''

COST ESTIMATES FOR BRAC

Let me ask this, then. In some ways, it is like fitting a
size 12 foot into a size nine shoe. I know we have had
challenges between some of the original cost estimates for
BRAC.
It seems that initially, we went from around $19 billion
estimate to about $31 or $32 billion. It seems like we have
locked in on that $32 billion figure for several years.
Could I ask each of you, has your respective service or
Secretary Arny, from your oversight position at DOD, have you
seen projects, or would it be possible to get a list of
projects, that were either pushed outside of the BRAC account
or pushed outside of the future year defense plan timeline in
order to make the BRAC numbers stay within the estimates of the
last year or two?
Mr. Arny. Let me----
Mr. Edwards. Secretary Arny.
Mr. Arny. Let me respond to that. I know of no projects
that were pushed out that were necessary for BRAC, that we may
have decided that a project was unnecessary for one reason or
another, and it is not out in the out years, so it was chopped
completely.
The----
Mr. Edwards. So, you say not necessary. There might have
been projects that perhaps our base commanders wanted or
supported, but maybe the Department decided it was not
absolutely necessary?
Mr. Arny. Absolutely.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. As part of the BRAC----
Mr. Arny. I remember one in particular. There were a couple
that flashed through my mind. But one was the lack of
communications between Crane and China Lake. We were supposed
to build, like, 40 weapons storage bunkers. And we, in Navy--
when I was in Navy at the time--sent a tiger team out to every
base to scrub the recommendations, and found lots of errors.
In this case, the question was asked of Crane--they thought
the question was: How many bunkers do you have? And they said,
40-something. And the real question that was being asked was:
How many do we need to build at China Lake for this function?
And it was five, or six or something.
And so, those, if you look back at the record, there were
40-something out of five or six.
So, we scrubbed. We had places where somebody wanted a dog
kennel. A dog kennel was not required. Somebody wanted to--not
that humans are frail--but somebody wanted to upgrade a police
station that did not require being upgraded. So, there were
those kinds of changes.
And I assume you will ask questions about COBRA. But our
initial estimates were based off of COBRA, which is not as, you
know, as confirmed, not a budgeting tool.
And so, in the process of going from COBRA to actual budget
plans, I think we have stuck pretty close, because once we got
through that first year of planning, when we were actually
putting engineers on the ground, what are soil conditions? What
exactly is this building going to look like, and where is it
going to sit? And we got decent estimates.
And if you recall back then, inflation was going crazy at
some of our locations. Once we got a handle on that, then I
think our cost adjustments have been just pluses and minuses.
And where there have been increases or decreases, we have
included them in the budget. But relative to--I think we are
at--according to my data, we are at $33.2, relatively, billion.
The changes have been minor in the last couple of years.

LESSONS LEARNED

Mr. Edwards. Okay. What I might, Secretary Arny, in my
second round, is ask you about lessons learned. While you were
not in your present position when the BRAC process began,
perhaps--I would be interested in following up on Mr. Wamp's
opening comments. I would like to find out what lessons you
think we have learned.
When you are doing a cost-benefit analysis and then making
decisions based on that, obviously, there are serious
implications if the original costs were around $19 billion,
then they jump up to $32 billion. If you had the actual costs
rather than the estimated COBRA costs initially, a number of
these decisions might have been made differently, based on that
additional----
Mr. Arny. I would love to, because I do not think they
would have, and I can explain why.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. I would welcome that in the second
round.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well, we will have a lot of questions. Some we
may have to have you take with you and report back to us.
But start on the big picture, because the testimony we just
heard was all pretty positive, with a lot of forecasts that
respective services were going to meet the September 15, 2011
schedule.

SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS REPORT

But what I was talking about when I opened was the S&I
report, surveys and investigations here, that point to issues
that may lead to that not happening. Almost half of the 222
business plans have varying degrees of risk of missing their
deadline.
Over half of the business plans have completion dates
within the final 2 weeks of the deadline, which obviously is
very little margin of error in terms of implementing a 2\1/2\-
year plan to meet those deadlines. And therefore, S&I believes
that it will not be as rosy a picture on meeting those
deadlines.
And frankly, if this were anything other than the United
States military sitting across the table having this versus
what I just heard, we would have a field day at ripping you
apart. But in this case, because the military has got an
unbelievable record around the world of meeting deadlines and
doing things right, I just want to know, is there any lack of
continuity between what you are saying and what our
investigators are telling us in terms of how tight these
schedules are?
It is probably yours, Secretary Arny?
Mr. Arny. Yes, I would love to take a look at specific
examples, which--you point to one thing that we often miss in
this BRAC 2005 process, is that in this process, we had
business plans. In prior BRAC rounds, we had no business plans.
It was just turned over to the services, and they executed.
So, there was no way for anybody to go in and track
progress or by certain deadlines that we have now. And I can
tell, having been on the Navy side, the process is painful,
because you have got to lay down lots of requirements. And I
and my current associates were in different positions and
warred often over those business plans.
We would have liked to have started earlier, once BRAC 2005
hit. But we had extensive NEPA requirements to complete.
So, in earlier rounds, we just went in. There was no DoD
budget for it. Services just did it. As you heard earlier, we
had less MILCON.
And if you recall in the earlier rounds, the military was
coming down, tremendous sizes. So we were just eliminating
whole units, so that BRAC in many ways from the force movement
was a lot easier than this round.
You had rather large movements of people. And it--let me
get back to your question. A lot of these are at the--we would
have rather had them earlier, but because of our NEPA
constraints and our planning constraints, we could not.
We still believe we will make those deadlines. And I am
constantly pushing the services and their chief engineers to
get this stuff done earlier. And now that they are on a roll, I
think a lot of those deadlines will come a little bit earlier.
Mr. Wamp. And for our purpose, the conclusion of this
report says, the unanimous view of BRAC program managers said
that receiving fiscal year 2010 funds on time is going to be
critical, if many project deadlines are going to be met.
Obviously, last year we were working really hard, and the
chairman did a great job of getting this bill done. But
obviously, the flow of funds is going to be key to any of these
goals being met.
You cannot throw a schedule off 1 week, if over half of
your business plans call for completion in the final 2 weeks
without missing your deadlines. And they do not need to be
arbitrary when you are trying to carry out a mission that other
people are making plans on.
Mr. Arny. Well, we do really appreciate the fact that this
committee, especially, got this bill out. You are one of only
two, if I recall. Right?
Mr. Wamp. Right. I do not know if we are making a habit of
it. [Laughter.]
My time is about up, so I will come back to the other
questions later. But----
Mr. Edwards. Could I ask just----
Mr. Wamp. Sure.

FIXED DEADLINE

Mr. Edwards. Just for the record, I would like to hear your
answer to Mr. Wamp's question about what are the consequences
if this bill is passed after the October 1 deadline? Would
there be any?
Mr. Arny. It really affects this, because we have such a
fixed deadline. In fact, it affects all of our military
construction. You will not believe internally what hoops we
jump through when we do not get the money until October,
November, December, January.
As you have seen in some years, it has come very late. And
we are borrowing money from other projects and really doing
all--expending all sorts of effort. And some things cannot get
started.
I think, fortunately, most of our stuff is started, so even
with a continuing resolution, we would be okay. But it will
hurt us. It will make life very difficult.
Mr. Edwards. Would it make it--I do not want to put words
in your mouth.
Mr. Arny. It is not impossible.
Mr. Edwards. Could it make it difficult, if not impossible,
to finish a number of the key projects by the BRAC deadline, if
you do not get your funding----
Mr. Arny. Depending on how late. Frankly, because of the
last--in my experience in this period of time as opposed to
when I was doing this in the 1980s, we tend--because of the
experience that we have had, we tend to put cushions in there,
so that if the bill does not show up on the 1st of October--I
mean, there are very few of us at the table who remember the
1976 T, fiscal year 1976 T as a transition year, when we went
from one July to one October, so that we could all--it did not,
you know.
So, we do put--we do put a cushion in there. So, depending
on how late, if it is just a week or two, we might--it might
not be a problem. But much later than that, it will be a
problem.
Mr. Wamp. Well, just one other quick question.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp, for any additional questions----
Mr. Wamp. Thank you. That was very good.
Just one other quick thing on this round, and that is, the
takeaway point from the morning here, obviously, that was one
of them, for sure. Getting the money on time is huge. Is there
another one, a big takeaway point for this morning for this
committee?
From any of you?
Mr. Arny. I think----
Mr. Wamp. Things we have got to get across?
Mr. Arny. Stay the course. Yes, just stay the course. And
we do not believe we need an extension at all. And that helps
us keep it all in a box.
Mr. Wamp. Got to have a deadline.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. I will wait for the rest. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing.

FORT ORD

Congress is synonymous with BRAC for me. I arrived with a
base closure at Fort Ord, 28,000 acres, probably the largest
base ever closed. And I think I have spent every single day in
the last 15 years in Congress dealing with that closure.
Where deadlines are concerned on legacy bases, the Army
never met any of them. So, it will be interesting to see if DoD
meets deadlines in this round.
I have some questions for Secretary Eastin in regards to
the cleanup issues at Fort Ord, specifically the ESCA payment
that we agreed to and the contract we made for cleanup. That
last payment to FORA, which is the approximately $40 million,
when will that be made? And will it be in full?
Mr. Eastin. It was my understanding that it is complete. If
that is not correct, I will get back to you.
Mr. Farr. It is? All right.
Mr. Eastin. And I am happy to report that one.
Mr. Farr. So, the money is there.
Mr. Eastin. There. It is out the door.
Mr. Farr. Has the Army finalized its cleanup protocols with
BLM on how the BLM land is to be cleaned? When I heard about it
last summer there were still about a half a dozen outstanding
issues between Army and BLM.
Mr. Eastin. We are working through a couple other minor
issues, but we are still, as you are well aware, constrained by
the 800-acre-a-year burn that we are going to have on that land
to clean up with the UXO out there.
Mr. Farr. Can you give me a copy of the agreement, the
latest one?
Mr. Eastin. Yes, I will get that to you.
Mr. Farr. Also, have you gotten into the cost of that
cleanup? Are any of those funds set aside?
Mr. Eastin. I really have not done the--we expense
something like $250 million a year on cleanups. And to the
extent that this programs, there will be funds for it.
Mr. Farr. Well, that is the question. Is it----
Mr. Eastin. The 800 acres a year for burning is the
limiting factor.
Mr. Farr. Has the Army set aside some money for that
cleanup?
Mr. Eastin. Yes.
Mr. Farr. Can we get that detail?
Mr. Eastin. I am going to get you those details as well.
[The information follows:]

The Army provided the final installment of $40 million on the Fort
Ord Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) to the Fort Ord
Reuse Authority on December 17, 2008.
There is no formal agreement between the Army and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM). BLM's final comments and the Army's response to
comment are documented in the Fort Ord Track 3 munitions and explosives
of concern Record of Decision that was completed on May 27, 2008.
Funding to continue cleanup of the range areas on Fort Ord will be
included in the fiscal year 2010 budget request.

Mr. Farr. Thank you. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Eastin. My pleasure.
Mr. Farr. With your retirement, we are going to miss you.
Mr. Arny. Don't congratulate him too much.
Mr. Eastin. No, I----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Arny. Keith may be----
Mr. Eastin. I brought my Fort Ord map here with me.
[Laughter.]
And it is duly annotated from last year.

TREASURE ISLAND

Mr. Farr. Mr. Penn, I would like to raise a couple of
questions regarding the conveyance of Treasure Island in the
San Francisco area.
I understand the City of San Francisco put aside $700
million and the developers have put up $500 million for
infrastructure improvements at Treasure Island, and the city
has offered the Navy a 50-50 profit sharing for revenues from
the development.
With this kind of offer, why hasn't the property been
transferred?
Mr. Penn. We estimated the property at $250 million. And
that was substantiated by GSA. And the city has only offered
us, I think $17.5 million for it.
Mr. Farr. The purpose of this property is to do economic
development, is it not?
Mr. Penn. But they are not going to be doing economic
development the way we see it. The houses are already there and
just--there will be no business, which is required for the EDC.
Mr. Farr. Who determines that?
Mr. Penn. The courts will. We push back on it. The courts
will determine if it will, in fact, meet the requirements for
the creation of jobs.
Treasure Island has houses. And the jobs--they want to make
it into a----
Mr. Farr. When the service pulls out, it is the
responsibility of the local government to create a reuse plan,
not the Navy to tell the locals how to use it.
The local government----
Mr. Penn. Given the land for nothing. We have certain
requirements, as you well know, sir.
Mr. Farr. Well, you have a----
Mr. Penn. With a no-cost EDC, right.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Farr. Yes. But that is not what my question is. There
is a plan of what, about $1.2 billion. This has been promised
to do infrastructure; that will provide jobs, and the city is
offering a 50-50 profit sharing revenue. What problem is 50-50?
That is pretty good.
Mr. Arny. If I recall that--excuse me, because I was
working for Mr. Penn doing this--that 50-50 is at the tail end
after all the other people have been--we are not--the
Department is not averse at all to profit-sharing
participation. But the profit sharing at T.I., the last time I
checked it--I do not know if it was changed--is at the very
tail end, after everybody else gets something.
Mr. Penn. After the developer and everyone else has their
profit----
Mr. Farr. But you transferred all of Fort Ord without those
conditions as----
Mr. Arny. Because there was an economic development for
jobs.
Mr. Farr. Right.
Mr. Arny. And that means permanent jobs for----
Mr. Farr. Well, I would argue, the permanancy of those Fort
Ord jobs is questionable.
Mr. Arny. Well, the plan----
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Anyway.
Mr. Arny. T.I. has gone through nine separate plans. And we
have always been open--the Department and the Navy, when I was
working there--to a no-cost EDC. We argued that, do a cost EDC.
If it works out to be no cost, it is fine. But to do an EDC,
which we are still doing lots of them, it requires permanent
jobs. And housing components are not part of that.
Mr. Farr. Yes, but the issue is the economics. Right now
you estimate the value of the land at $250 million. But paying
that kind of money precludes building in public benefits. You
cannot do it. You cannot do the low-income housing. You cannot
do the set-asides for parks----
Mr. Arny. Oh, yes, sir.
I would argue you can, because we include that in the
value. If you are doing public benefit conveyances, those come
at no cost. If there are parks as part of the development, we
based it on--we based the cost estimate--the appraisal, I am
sorry--the appraisal strictly on what the city provided as the
use, because we do not control the use of the property. It is
the zoning authority that controls the use of the property.
Mr. Farr. Well, I argue it would make a good EDC.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Sam.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thank each of you. It
is good to see many of you again.

BRAC COMMUNITIES

There are some GAO studies that show that some of the
communities are located near the facilities that are gaining
troups, are not on track for the construction of schools,
housing and infrastructure required to accommodate arriving
soldiers and their families.
Considering that Secretary Gates has indicated that he
intends to move many of the quality-of-life programs to the
base budget, which have been funded through supplementals, how
are the Services assessing whether all those services, other
than BRAC headquarters and motor pools, will be in place, by
September 15th of 2011?
Are the communities going to be ready?
Mr. Arny. Well, sir, in many cases, it depends on the
community. If they have had plenty of notice, we are working--
the Office of Economic Adjustment, which works for me--has been
providing loans--or not loans, I am sorry, grants--to all the
communities surrounding these gaining bases, so that they can
go through the planning process, not only for BRAC closure, but
for an opening--I am sorry, for where BRAC is increasing the
number of people there.
And I know they are wrestling with some of these
situations. I do not know of a particular one. If you have got
some particular one, I would love to be able to go back and
research that for you.
Mr. Carter. I have heard knowledge that the communities are
struggling at Bliss and at Carson, and I have spoken with some
of the members of Congress, and they do indicate that some of
the school districts are struggling to try to meet these
issues.
We have always had an issue about military construction
money going to building schools, at least as far as the fort
that I represent is concerned. We have had that issue, actual
brick-and-mortar schools. I am just curious as to where we
thought they were as far as the quality of life for our
soldiers. Because that is what it is all about. We want them to
come back home to a place where families can live.
Mr. Arny. I believe that, with some exceptions, that we are
in decent shape, but I will get back to you on particulars on
that.
[The information follows:]

Working with the Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC), established
under Executive Order 12788, as amended, to support the Defense
Economic Adjustment Program, senior leaders from Office of Economic
Adjustment, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military
Community & Family Policy), Army Headquarters, and U.S. Department of
Education completed six site visits to a representative sample of
mission-growth locations (Fort Benning, Fort Bliss, Fort Bragg, Fort
Carson, Fort Drum, and Fort Riley) to better understand the specific
education issues arising from mission growth; improve communication
across cognizant Federal sources of assistance; and identify gaps and/
or lags in capacities to respond.
Site visit findings and observations were completed and shared with
the cognizant Federal agencies, Executive Offices of the President,
Congress states, locals and local educational agencies and are posted
at www.OEA.gov. The following represents some of the issues discussed:
School capacity. Some local educational agencies (LEAs)
will face challenges providing facilities to accommodate student
growth.
Consistent growth estimates. Communities and stakeholders
would benefit from more consistent growth estimates from the Department
of Defense.
Deployment impacts. Some LEAs and the supporting
communities face challenges to assist dependents of deployed military
personnel.
Reciprocity, recruitment, and other ``soft costs.''
Curriculum requirements and assessment levels vary from one state to
another, presenting challenges to transferring military dependent
students which often impact grade advancement, extra-curricular
activities, and graduation. Furthermore, teacher certification
requirements vary, impacting spousal employment.
Improve communications with military parents.
Communications and outreach about educational resources could be
improved, especially to military parents living off post.
Special education. Some locations appear to be receiving a
higher than expected number of children with special education needs,
which can generate unexpected demands for credentialed teachers, and
higher than anticipated operating and facility costs.
Regional planning capacity. Some areas would benefit from
additional resources dedicated to building regional responses to
education growth challenges.

Mr. Carter. I think it is important.
Mr. Arny. I agree.
Mr. Carter. I realize you have a deadline. You cut yourself
2 weeks' slack. That is fair. Let us hope you make it. But the
world has to also function to make life good for these
soldiers. And it is to some extent our responsibility to make
sure it is moving along.
I am very proud of what the communities around my fort have
done in staying ahead of the game on school infrastructure. But
it is not that way everywhere.
I think, in the way we view the Army today, that the
families fight the wars, that we have got to be sure that we
have got those people. If they are not moving in that
direction, we need to be building fires under them.
Mr. Arny. Well, we have--and I go back to my Navy
experience, which was more on the ground. When we were doing
housing, privatized housing at our bases, in most of our bases
where we needed more schools, we could not build the school
legally, but we could provide land, which we did, in the local
school board.
And on some of our bigger bases like Camp Pendleton, we
actually have the schools on the base, provided by the local
community.
In one BRAC community in--I mean, not BRAC, but housing in,
I believe it was Camp Lejeune, we actually built the school,
but that is because the schools on base are DODEA schools, so
that a housing privatization project actually built the school.
So there are some problems with local laws, too, as well.
Mr. Carter. I would like to ask another question, if I have
time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. You do. You have another minute.

BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS

Mr. Carter. General Helmick said that he would like to
retain at least four BCTs in Europe for the purpose of meeting
NATO obligations. However, the Army's plan called for drawing
down two BCTs in Europe, and one IBCT in Korea. Secretary Gates
made an announcement to cancel the activation of three of the
Grow the Army BCTs.
Can you talk about the long-term future attempt for
overseas forces and plans to ensure adequate infrastructure
will be available for them?
Mr. Arny. Well, I will let Mr. Eastin talk to the BCTs, but
I would like to follow on, too.
Mr. Eastin. Yes, we have not made a decision on where those
BCTs might be drawn from. But one thing that needs to be kept
in mind here, we are not talking about drawing down the size of
the Army. How it is organized, whether a BCT is there or not
there, people, soldiers are still there. So they may be in
different units.
But drawing down a formal BCT is not going to draw down the
number of soldiers, nor the number of soldiers we program for
and their families. So, those--the support for them will be
there.
Mr. Arny. Let me go on to talk about planning. First of
all, we are starting up a Quadrennial Defense Review. And that,
I am fairly sure, will be one of the major questions asked.
Also, from my shop, we have been looking around at the
major combatant commands. And we are going to institute
combatant command infrastructure master plans, which we will
sit down, for instance, in European Command, with the EUCOM
commander, with the Army, Navy and Air Force and Marine Corps,
whoever is there, and the undersecretary for policy staff, and
we will sit down, and we will create an infrastructure master
plan, based off the QDR, because we do not want to make
decisions based on policy, to find that people do not have
barracks to go to, or the base was closed last year, or we need
to open a new base.
So that we have a master plan that is updated periodically
in every region of the country. We do not have as formalized a
process right now as we need to for the infrastructure. And we
want to institute that.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Let me thank all of you for your service. Particularly let
me thank Secretary Eastin, who I understand will be ending his
service very shortly.

BRAC COMMUNITIES

I want to follow up on the line of questioning that Mr.
Carter was asking, particularly about BRAC communities that
will be upsizing.
I would like to address these specifically to Secretary
Eastin and Mr. Arny.
Secretary Eastin, according to a letter that I got from you
on April 7th of this year, you were projecting approximately
3,535 net new school-aged children as a result of the BRAC
personnel changes at Fort Benning, which is considerably lower
than was anticipated, given the local school systems in the
area projecting 6,840 new children.
And in the Fort Benning area, you are talking about eight
school systems, four of which are on the Georgia side of the
Chattahoochee River, Fort Benning, and three of which are on
the Alabama side, for a total of eight school systems.
Fort Sill in Oklahoma is projecting 2,349 new students,
Fort Bliss, 18,229, and Fort Bragg, 6,674. These are local
school system projections. And I know that Fort Benning's
projections are based upon collaboration with the Fort Benning
authorities, as well as the local school districts.
But your estimate is considerably lower than that, which
causes a great deal of concern, particularly from Mr. Arny's
testimony, with regard to the Office of Economic Adjustment,
which really has responsibility for making these communities
able to accommodate the DOD changes, particularly with school
construction.
What can we do? It seems as if the responsibility here is
almost a matter of finger-pointing from one agency to another.
In your testimony, Mr. Arny, you indicate that you will be
looking toward the Transportation, Commerce, Education and
Agriculture Departments for help. But somebody has to bite the
bullet. And it seems as if the Department of Defense has a
moral responsibility to these communities, to help them
accommodate the needs of our warfighters and their families
when it comes to school construction.
And if we expect, for example, in the Fort Benning area,
6,680 or 640 new students, it would be a disservice to them and
to their warfighter parents for us not to have those
communities ready with schools in place.
I understand you have a conference set for the fall to
discuss some of these issues, but we have been talking about it
for about 3 or 4 years in this subcommittee. In fact, I think
in the authorization conference report, there was actually
language authorizing some additional funds to do the planning
on that. But you have not requested those additional funds in
your budget submission for this year.
So, I am very frustrated. And the communities that are
being upsized are very frustrated. We would like some concrete
action and some specifics on how we are going to fund the
schools. Many of these will be off-base, and we need some help.
And these communities are really almost at panic mode,
particularly given the current economic environment.
One, we need to get some kind of synchronization on the
numbers. And two, we must decide how this is going to be paid
for. I know the Office of Economic Adjustment did build schools
when Kings Bay was constructed off the coast of Georgia. And
they did schools and housing, as you indicate.
But it seems to me that this is a much bigger problem than
the Department of Defense is recognizing. It needs to be dealt
with sooner rather than later.
Can I get a response on that?
Mr. Eastin. Let me talk to the number problem, as we
remember from last year at this time, talking numbers.
Our formula, which is basically 0.4 child per family, which
has been around the department for many, many years, that was
used as a basis to start with how many children would be
generated by the increase in the size at Benning.
Then the senior mission commander at the time sat down with
the local community. And that is where the roughly 3,500 number
came from, is taking our standard procedure for figuring out
how many children are going to be there, and then fine-tuning
it and getting down to the aegis of how many are expected here,
how large are these family sizes, how many single soldiers are
going to come, this sort of thing.
But it was my understanding that there had been an
agreement with the local community.
Mr. Bishop. Right. The agreement that we got was the 6,839
figure: 2,771 school-aged military, 1,096 government civilians,
and 2,972 children of contractors. Those are the figures that
both the local base people and the eight local school systems
agreed upon.
But, of course, when we sought to verify that we were both
using the same figures, you came back with a much lower figure.
My question is, with Fort Bliss and Fort Sill and Fort
Bragg, are those figures low-balled also?
Mr. Eastin. I do not think any of these are low-balled, to
be honest with you. What we are trying to do here is to arrive
at a number. Because these kids are our kids.
Mr. Bishop. Exactly.
Mr. Eastin. And we want to make sure they get educated.
The larger problem is, how do you pay for that?
Mr. Bishop. That is the question I am asking.
Mr. Eastin [continuing]. If it is 20,000 out there.
I do note from the New York Times this morning, which I
read occasionally, that you are going to get about 10,000 new
from a Kia plant. And everybody is happy as a clam about that.
But I do not know what the arrangements are for Kia to pay for
their kids.
But these are, in large part----
Mr. Bishop. But----
Mr. Eastin [continuing]. They live on the economy and pay--
--
Mr. Bishop. Yes, it is a little bit distant from Fort
Benning. [Laughter.]
Mr. Eastin. But no, in all seriousness, schools
traditionally have been the responsibility of the local
community and supported by the tax base.

IMPACT AID

Mr. Bishop. We understand that. The Impact Aid program was
added to ameliorate that but has been always underfunded. And
it does not deal with a problem the size that is created by
these BRAC upsizings.
Mr. Edwards. I want to stick to the 5-minute rule. But let
me add that we all know this is a significant issue, and we
have been kicking this around for a couple of years. We have
not seen really any change in policy from the Department of
Defense.
But it seems to me the problem is, they get Impact Aid,
Part A, Part B money after the kids are in school, but no help
with construction money up front. And there ought to be some
way for us to deal with that, even though Impact Aid is the
jurisdiction of the Health and Human Services Committee, there
are military kids. If a classroom goes from 20 kids to 40 kids,
because of BRAC, then that is affecting military families, many
of whom are serving in Iraq----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, may I just add to that? You have
three subcommittees of Appropriations that have to address
this. You have defense, you have MILCON, and you have the
education subcommittees, all of which--well, I should say none
of which provides adequate funds to deal with a problem of this
magnitude.
Mr. Edwards. Maybe we need to get all three. That may be
part of the problem. Maybe we need to get all three
subcommittees together and talk about that.
Let--I have----
Mr. Arny. I would like to make just one comment.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Arny. We have tried very hard within the legal limits
that we have to help the communities plan and provide for these
schools. Seventy-five percent of our folks live off base.
So, when that increases their tax base--and I understand
they do not have the construction money up front, so they are
coming with a tax, you know, contribution. Even if they are
renting, they are going to rent a house where somebody is
paying taxes. And in some cases, like I said, we have actually
offered land for nothing, so that people could build schools on
the bases.
The only one I know of that we have built was a DODEA
school, so I would have to check on the others.
Mr. Edwards. Well, let us continue on in a second round. I
want to let everybody have a chance to finish the first round.
But this, by cutting this off, I do not want to suggest I am
not really concerned about this. I think we do have to deal
with this issue somehow.
Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any
questions. I just wanted to commend all of you for all your
hard work, and especially, Secretary Eastin, on your
retirement. I look forward to continuing working with you in
the future, especially on the issue of Pinon Canyon.
[Laughter.]
That seems to be a sore spot around here.
But I have enjoyed working with you, and God speed and take
care.
Mr. Eastin. Likewise, and thank you.
Mr. Salazar. And I yield back.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Berry, thank you for being here. I think Mr. Berry
indicated he did not have any questions on this round.

LESSONS LEARNED

To begin the second round, let me go back, Secretary Arny,
if I could, to the question of lessons learned. You make
decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis. It turns out,
according to GAO, that the savings benefits have been maybe
significantly overestimated, and, obviously, the costs were
underestimated. And unless cost-benefit was not used in BRAC--
and I assume it was--you know, that could significantly change
decisions.
If you underestimate the cost of your decisions by $11 or
$12 billion, and you overestimate the savings by $1 billion,
you can argue these changes on a policy basis. But I think, you
know, administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, have
argued BRAC recommendations based on costs and savings.
Could you give me your sense of the lessons learned? And do
we have any lessons that can help us accurately estimate both
the savings and the costs, those factors, if there are any,
with your backgrounds?
Mr. Arny. I think, and I go back to, from Texas, the
congressman, retired, who started this--claims to have help
started----
Mr. Edwards. Dick Armey.
Mr. Arny. Yes, Dick Armey.
Mr. Edwards. Who did----
Mr. Arny. Yes.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Play a key role in initiating
BRAC.
Mr. Arny. Because I remember from before BRAC, when Admiral
Zumwalt in the 1960s closed a bunch of bases. And that was the
last time we were able to close any bases. And we were going
from a 1,000-ship Navy to 600 at the time. And in the last, we
have gone down to 300.
What we found is, one of the hidden secrets of BRAC is it
makes the initial NEPA decision for you. Prior to BRAC, we
could not close a base, because when we decided to close a
base, we would go into NEPA, we would get sued--lawsuit after
lawsuit after lawsuit. So, we were carrying lots of excess
capacity that we did not need.
So, the BRAC process has been very successful in allowing
us to make military decisions on capability. And I would
emphasize that, that the primary goal is military value.
Now, we do get lots of savings, and there are costs in that
process. We believe that part of the problem with the costs
being less in the initial years is that we estimated the
movements, and the construction would begin earlier, so we have
delayed some of the savings.
We still believe--and I do not have the numbers at the tip
of my tongue--there will be significant annual savings that
will remain, because of the decisions being made.
Mr. Edwards. Are you updating that? Is it----
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. You are always updating those
numbers?
Mr. Arny. We do. We do.
Mr. Edwards. When you have those and you are comfortable
with those numbers, could you provide that to the committee?
Mr. Arny. We will.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.

COBRA

Mr. Arny. As far as the initial estimates, people went--I
mean, not very many people understand the COBRA model. They
believe it to be the ultimate model when they go to it, and so
the COBRA model says $10. Therefore, it is $10.
And frankly, I did myself until you start digging into it.
But once you start digging into it, the COBRA model is very,
very useful comparing apples to apples, because you are making
assumptions on building size off of a model, and you are
comparing it to another installation doing the same sort of
things. So it is very good at helping you make relative
decisions between do I do option A, B or C.
But it is not very good at estimating long term the cost of
a particular building, because it does not look at--first of
all, you freeze inflation, so it does not discuss inflation at
all. And by the time we got to executing BRAC, the numbers that
were in COBRA were 3 years old. So you already had 3 years of
inflation on top of what COBRA was saying.
Mr. Edwards. COBRA assumes no inflation?
Mr. Arny. That is right. It----
Mr. Edwards. That should be one lesson learned.
Mr. Arny. Well, not for comparison. It looks at constant
dollars. So you are making a comparison, do I pick this or
this, would I say, because then, once you let inflation go, you
are going to inflate all of your estimates. Okay?
But once you have made that decision, the problem we have
is, then, okay, your costs have gone up here. You have
forgotten about option B and C, because you did not pick those.
So the costs would have gone up probably the same percentage on
B and C.
Mr. Edwards. Unless you had a facility where you already
had the present buildings providing the structures for the
services. And instead of keeping those services at that
installation, you decide to move them somewhere else.
Mr. Arny. Well, we----
Mr. Edwards. And in that case, inflation is a real factor.
Mr. Arny. Well, but we also--you also compare some of the
decisions were made. We were going to renovate. We do look at
renovation versus--as compared with new construction. We do
compare those.
So, the other thing we did in this BRAC is, after the
decisions were made, we also added things on, especially in the
Army and especially for medical. We added a bunch of stuff to
the BRAC that were not really part of the initial decision. We
wrapped in some major force moves, the people coming in and out
of Europe, that were not part of BRAC 2005, because the BRAC
process is continental--or not continental--the 50 states only
and the territories. It is only the United States.
So, the costs went up, and I can give you a comparison of
where all they--we know, because of our business plan process,
where all those costs came from. Some was inflation, and a lot
of it, a huge part of it was adding stuff to the mix that
really was not part of BRAC 2005, because it was stuff coming
from Europe into the United States, so it was not really part
of that whole BRAC 2005.
Mr. Edwards. In a way, if we were going back to determine
lessons learned, is there a way to differentiate extra costs
that were because of other decisions on global repositioning--
--
Mr. Arny. Yes.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Such as costs----
Mr. Arny. I have got those numbers here.
Mr. Edwards. Because otherwise, there is no accountability.
You just say, well, there were factors that came into play--so
what? We had a $12 billion more expensive program than we had
intended.
And certainly it has an impact on presidential budgets that
are presented for 5 years. So, I hope we would not--and I do
not think you did--underestimate the importance of trying to
build in realistic assumptions.
Mr. Arny. That was some of the initial escalations right
away. And I was involved in it, because I did not--I was not
involved in the run-up to BRAC. I got it after the decisions
were made. And we were having to escalate tremendously, based
on not only just normal inflation over 3 years, but if you
recall, we in the Navy were looking at, you know, after
Hurricane Katrina and things like that. So, we had some
significant----
Mr. Edwards. I will conclude with this, because I am over
my time--but we ought to assume in future models that there are
unpredictable factors. We want to get an honest estimate of
what the real costs of a BRAC round would be, or building new
installations would be. We ought to build those factors in.
It is kind of like the federal government assuming there
will never be another hurricane, there will never be another
war, there will never be another tornado. Therefore, this is
what our budget is. Doesn't it look balanced?
Mr. Arny. We have documented this one better than we have
the previous rounds. But I would argue, human nature, when you
are dealing with press headlines, we will do that, if we have
another round. Say, look, we are looking at COBRA numbers. You
have got to understand those are going to be different than
real numbers. But sometimes that gets lost in the initial
onslaught of data.
Mr. Edwards. Right. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I think I have this round and then
one more round, just so you will know this side.
My experience is that three groups of people typically do
not admit their mistakes or liabilities: men, women and
children. [Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Not necessarily in that order.
Mr. Wamp. Right. And the fourth might be witnesses before
hearings over the last 15 years that I have been here.

BRAC MONEY

But with that said, we talked earlier about lessons
learned. Are there more efficient ways that BRAC money is spent
and less efficient ways? Is there anything to acknowledge what
really, really works, where we get the most bang for our buck
on these investments in BRAC? Is there anything that really
needs to be improved?
Mr. Arny. Frankly, I am very satisfied with the process,
the way it is going. And there are not a lot of savings now,
but one element--and we will talk about that--that I think over
the long term will be efficiencies that will produce savings--
you cannot estimate them now--and that is Joint Basing.
We are--I mean, I grew up in the service, not as a kid, but
from the Naval Academy on, and did not realize until I was
doing Joint Basing how stuck we are in our own cultures. All
right?
The Navy, in which I have the most experience, back in the
1960s, 1970s, 1980s, when I was in the service as a fighter
pilot, you never noticed who ran the base. It was just always
there.
But each base was being run by its major claimant, its
major command. The Naval Air Systems Command ran PAX River
where I was stationed. Commander of Naval Air Forces Pacific
ran Miramar. Air Land ran--well, there were huge
inefficiencies.
So, the services have begun to consolidate management as we
get smarter at it, so that you have the commander of Naval
Installations Command. And you find huge inequities in how--I
mean, I remember one with Congressman Dicks where we were doing
firefighting differently all over the country.
Now that we are bringing these bases together, I have
gotten up in front of these Joint Base groups and said, look,
you guys have got to get out of your light blue-dark blue suit
mentality. If somebody is driving up the Jersey Turnpike and
they look at, they see McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, they are going to
look at it and say, oh, it is all run as one DoD base. Well, it
is not.
And so, including them together, bringing them together, we
have done some--we have made enormous progress, because we now
have common output levels of service that we are doing in these
joint--where the services all agree that we are going to--you
know, you are going to have X amount of guard dogs per number
of people.
And we have developed joint groups at my level and below,
where we iron these things out, and we have, you know, at
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, there will be an Air Force colonel as
the commanding officer, an Army colonel as the vice commander
and a Navy captain as the head of installation, the local
installation management. So we have brought all three services
together, and we are doing it all around.
It is much more difficult than I would have ever imagined,
but I think it will produce tremendous results for the country.
Mr. Wamp. She smiled down at the end of the table, because
I think the Air Force was the last one to come along with this
new vision.
Mr. Penn, you had a question?
Mr. Penn. One of the things we started doing, sir, was we
created tiger teams to go out look at specific projects. I
think you created that. And we found additional savings there,
just by going out and putting the individual eyes on and
scrubbing.
Mr. Wamp. I have been at Hickam and Elmendorf, where this
was very much discussed, joint basing.
Mr. Arny. Really?
Mr. Wamp. Yes, especially Hickam.
Let me ask, though, if there is a savings of an asset, and
you say, through joint basing we actually do not need this or
that, is it disposed of like a BRAC site with the GSA disposal
process, I think is what they call it, or dispensation process?
Mr. Arny. We have the--under BRAC, the GSA authorities are
transferred to the Department of Defense, so we can just--we
have read the law. If any base, gaining or joint, where there
is excess property, it can be disposed of under BRAC, or it can
be disposed of regularly.
Mr. Wamp. Yes.
Mr. Arny. What we have found, though--coming to Hickam,
Pearl Harbor-Hickam--is probably the toughest thing to make
people realize is, what we were doing was, we were making the
installation management of the base joint. The mission was
still Air Force or Navy.
Mr. Wamp. Right.

BRAC CLEANUP

Now, I have other questions about how this process works,
because is there any differentiation between the cleanup
responsibilities of a site that is in BRAC 2005, than any other
site that happens to be BRACed along the way----
Mr. Arny. No, absolutely not.
Mr. Wamp. All the same.
Mr. Arny. All the same.
Now, what is interesting is, especially since I was doing
BRAC cleanup for Mr. Penn before, when we looked at the bases
in BRAC 2005, I mean, the total for Navy, total cost to
complete on the cleanup, was--I think it was like $150 million
for all the bases, including two that dropped off that were
industrial, Portsmouth and the sub base, New London.
Now, we might have found some more. When you put shovels in
the ground you always do. But the cost was, say, less than $200
million for all those bases.
I mean, we have bases at Hunters Point, for one, which has
more than $200 million, and we will have probably spent we are
done $1 billion cleaning that base up.
So, what do I attribute it to? Well, in the early rounds,
which started in the 1980s, we had not done a lot of cleanup
nationwide, as a nation or as a military. And since that time,
we have done a heck of a lot of cleanup.
I mean, Albany, Georgia, when we--when that was ready to
dispose of, we had just finished cleaning up the gas station.
Gas stations are typical on the bases for having problems. And
so, Albany is completely clean, all done--or remedy is in
place.
So, the answer to your question is ``yes.'' The cleanup is
no--the requirements are no different, whether it is an active
base--well, there is some requirement that we do not have to
comply with an active base. But for closed bases, no matter
what round it is, we have to still comply with state and
federal law.
Mr. Wamp. That is it for this round, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Can I quickly follow up and ask, have we
updated our models of estimating what cleanup costs are, so
that we will be more realistic in----
Mr. Arny. Yes, and----
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Future decisions?
Mr. Arny. We do not base them on models, interestingly. We
base them on signed affidavits, basically, from our RECs, our--
what is RECs?
Ms. Edwards. Environmental coordinators----
Mr. Arny. Yes, the environmental coordinators on the bases
have to sign.
We go through a lengthy process with EPA. And we sit down
and we do discovery, basically. We use overhead photographs in
many cases to try and find locations. We test them. We identify
sites.
And then the RECs, based on their experience and that of
their contractors, estimate the cost. And that cost--cost to
complete. What will it take to clean up this process?
We then go and aggregate those and report them annually--I
think annually, or semiannually--to Congress.
Now, what is interesting on some of our bases out West, the
team was doing that. And they were concerned that each year the
cost to complete would increase, if you open a shovel up.
And this--the cleanup contracts were all done
competitively. But they went out and recompeted it, and got the
costs down. You know--Six Sigma.
So, we are constantly wrestling with, what is the cost to
complete on our FUD sites, our active sites and our cleanup
sites. The estimates are the best that we can do through human
nature.
Now, I will say, for instance, at Hunters Point you have a
base that was built in the 1800s. It has been a major
construction site ever since. We had radium dials, instruments,
if you recall, back in World War II. We would just throw those
in the landfills. Well, they were all radioactive, you know,
trigger it off.
Not only that, at the end of World War II, we brought the
ships back from the Bikini Atoll tests, and it was a nuclear
radiation effects test base. So there, the cost is not bringing
in lasers and fancy stuff. We have to dig down 10 feet and pull
out sewers, because we found a couple of sewers where there was
trace--you could not find anything on the surface--but you
would find trace radioactivity. So, rather than investigating
every sewer, we are digging them all up.
And there is no place in California to dump, to dispose of
low-level radioactive waste, so we are trucking it to Utah. So,
the cost there is just truck-miles and steam shovels.
Mr. Edwards. That is expensive. Thank you.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that my base
closed 18 years ago. It still is not cleaned up. It still is
not though all the land has been transferred. So, not
everything is hunky-dory.
I think the Department of Defense is sitting on a lot of
land that should have been disposed of already. There are many
ways of doing so.
For growth communities it is impossible for them to absorb
the kind of impact that new missions bring, especially where
education is concerned. You finance schools through general
obligation bonds, which take a vote of the people. You do not
finance the construction of schools through the property taxes
or other methods.
So there is no way you can build new schools relying on the
local process. The public will reject raising the taxes on
their land just to build schools for all the military kids. I
do not think you could pass a referendum like that.
DoD built a school down at Kings Bay, Georgia, when it
built the submarine base. There is nothing there. You went and
built a school. You build DoD schools. There is no reason you
cannot work out this through the OEA process to build the
schools at mission growth bases.
Mr. Arny. Congressman, I agree with you entirely. And--
Mr. Farr. I am trying to solve Mr. Bishop's problem.
Mr. Arny. Well, I want to check on the Kings Bay, because I
am dumbfounded. A friend of mine was the construction manager
down there.
Because my experience over the last 8 years is, we are not
permitted to build schools in----
Mr. Farr. Well, you--OEA--I understand there is a process
through OEA in which you can do that. And----
Mr. Arny. I will check. And OEA gives me the, you know, the
blah-blah-blah every week. And----
Mr. Farr. I mean, I want to follow up on Mr. Wamp's
question on cleanup.
I understand that the DoD estimates for backlog cleanup is
$3.5 billion. That includes the 2005 round bases, the legacy
bases.
What is it going to be in your budget for this year for the
cleanup?
Mr. Arny. A, I do not have the number at the tip of my
tongue. B, I cannot talk about it until it is out. But C, it
will be, I suspect, no less, if not more, than what we did last
year.
Mr. Farr. And can you break that down by pre-2005 and 2005
bases?
Mr. Arny. Yes.
Mr. Farr. So that it will committed that way? Or will it
just be in one item?
Mr. Arny. Yes. I am told it will be.
Mr. Farr. Yes what? What--
Mr. Arny. Yes, it will be--no, it will be broken out.
Mr. Farr. Okay.

TREASURE ISLAND

You know, I want to also tell Mr. Penn, you are sitting on
that property on Treasure Island. I am a native San Franciscan,
so I am very interested in this property.
It is not moving. The State of California has adopted laws
saying you can only sell it to the State of California, and
they are willing to sue that all the way up to the Supreme
Court, if you want to challenge it.
It seems to me that, as part of the whole stimulus effort
we want to create jobs. And I cannot think of a faster way to
create jobs than to transfer that base as fast as possible.
We sit around and debate with the City of San Francisco
what the fair market value is. And I do not even know if that
fair market value was done with the California restrictions
factored in, but that has got to have some effect on value.
I would just encourage you to use whatever options you have
available to get that land transferred. We are hurting for jobs
in California and this is an area with the highest drop in
housing prices in the United States, the highest number of
foreclosures. You take a look at that Greater Bay Area, and it
is really hurting.
Part of my frustration with this BRAC process is its
incredible slowness. I mean, you use the COBRA model, you go
through the BRAC process. The BRAC Commission recommends that
these closures occur, and everything is going to be taken care
of. All the community needs will be taken care of. You can
redevelop, you can sell, you can create jobs. You can do this,
do that.
But it is so slow. So, as I said, after 18 years Fort Ord
is still not finished.

BRAC ACRES PENDING DISPOSAL

I want to know from you, what are the total number of
disposed BRAC acres, not including the leases in furtherance of
conveyances? Just how many acres have we gotten rid of in your
total inventory?
Mr. Arny. We have gotten rid of--I had that in--
Mr. Farr. What is the total number of BRAC acres pending
disposal by year?
Mr. Arny. We can get you those. We disposed of--because I
asked for that number--we have 205 of 250 prior BRAC are
completely disposed of. We created 140--almost 144,000----
Mr. Farr. But you would--I mean, you probably closed Fort
Ord in that. You have not disclosed----
Mr. Arny. I do not know. I will check on it.
[The information follows:]

The total number of BRAC acres pending disposal by year (including
Outgrant LIFOC acres) are provided on the table below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force..................................................... 66,209 67,301 55,735 42,419 35,661 30,294 21,042 16,281 13,479
Army.......................................................... 176,840 214,332 145,408 249,918 239,654 104,694 96,020 128,986 76,358
Navy.......................................................... 141,344 129,847 96,133 95,785 87,311 12,936 17,885 38,197 32,822
Total..................................................... 384,393 411,480 297,276 388,122 362,626 147,924 134,947 183,464 122,659
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Farr. Remember, that goes to BLM, and we cannot do that
till we clean it up. It is just----
Mr. Arny. As of December 2008, we have disposed of 367,000
acres out of 422,000, leaving 55,000----
Mr. Farr. And how many are going to be disposed of, of the
pending number that you have are going to be disposed of----
Mr. Arny. I can check on that.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. By years?
Mr. Arny. Because I think a big chunk of the 34,000 acres--
remember, Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOCs) are in
many cases, like at----
Mr. Farr. You know what they are.
Mr. Arny. But at El Toro, we have disposed of the whole
base. A bunch of it is a LIFOC. They are developing on top of
our LIFOC, because one of the--like 20 percent of the base is a
large LIFOC, where the pollution is down 200 feet. And there is
a long, many year, multi-year pump-and-treat that we are
cooperating with. So, that will remain a LIFOC for decades. But
the development will take place on top of it.
Mr. Farr. I think we have done that with the university----
Mr. Arny. Yes.
So, we can get you those by----
Mr. Farr. And I would also like to know the number of acres
conveyed by service and by property disposal type.
Mr. Arny. We can do that.
Mr. Farr. And to which type of grantee.
And I would like to know the length of time for disposal of
BRAC acreage, and by disposal type.
What I am trying to get here is that, I think that if you
look at these numbers, you are not moving property as fast as
you should be.
Mr. Arny. Well, in many cases, like at T.I., we rely on the
LRA's plan. And they have had nine separate plans over the last
15 years.
But we have----
Mr. Farr. Those arguments cannot go to the San Francisco
property. I mean, this is another example where--
Mr. Arny. No, that is the property I am talking about.

EDC

They have had nine separate plans that changes constantly.
Because they wanted to do a no-cost EDC. And we were fine with
that.
Mr. Farr. But once they have an adopted plan, that's it.
You do not----
Mr. Arny. That is right.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Micro-manage the plan.
Mr. Arny. No. But they--but we said, you know, we go in and
appraise it for the value, because a no-cost EDC, an EDC must
be for permanent jobs. That is the law.
And they finally, after nine plans, had come around to
doing mostly housing on there, which is fine. But that does not
qualify for an EDC. Part of it does.
Mr. Farr. Well, I think the planned value is--your
estimated--$1 million----
Mr. Arny. We have----
Mr. Farr [continuing]. If you are going to sit on that
forever--
Mr. Penn. Right. And we offered--we want to go back and do
it.
Mr. Farr. Well, they have made some offers.
Mr. Penn. We will pay for it, if we can.
Mr. Farr. They have made some pretty good offers.
Mr. Arny. Well, and frankly----
Mr. Farr. We are auditing that all----
Mr. Arny. Frankly, the City of San Francisco has been
getting the revenue. They have been renting the houses out on
Treasure Island to the public since the base was closed, and
they have been getting the revenue. So, it has not been
revenue-negative. They have been making rents off those houses
since we closed it.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two questions left, one
for Secretary Arny and one for Secretary Eastin.

VISION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE

Secretary Arny, I believe about 5,000 Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans have been diagnosed with direct eye injuries. Part of
this realignment with the National Naval Medical Center, I
think, is a big investment in what is called the Vision Center
of Excellence.
Can you go into more detail about where we are at with the
Vision Center, and how is it coming along?
Mr. Arny. No, sir, I cannot. I will have to get back to you
on that.
[The information follows:]

The Department has determined that space at the present National
Naval Medical Center can be renovated to house the Vision Center of
Excellence and staff, such that it can be collocated with the Walter
Reed National Military Medical Center. DoD is examining options on the
cost and the fiscal years in which to fund the project. The current
estimate is $4M in MILCON for renovation projects in the first FY and
$0.3M in operations and maintenance in next FY to outfit the facility.
DoD is reviewing when the renovation necessary to establish the center
can take place to integrate it with the extensive BRAC construction now
underway at Bethesda.

Mr. Wamp. Okay. If you will get back to me on that.
And then, Secretary Eastin, this is probably----
Mr. Penn. Sir, what would you like to know on the vision
center?
Mr. Wamp. Just an update on where we are in the process,
how it is coming along.
Mr. Penn. Sir----
Mr. Wamp. You have got that here?
Mr. Penn. Well, Army is the business plan manager for that.
All the plans are being held by TRICARE Management Activity,
TMA.
We are putting it in an existing space in building eight,
as part of the BRAC movement from Walter Reed to Bethesda.
Total cost is $3.2 million.
Mr. Wamp. And there is a $2.6 million HVAC upgrade, I
think. So, all of that money is in place and it is moving
forward. We are going to get this Vision Center of Excellence
up and running.
Mr. Penn. Right.
Mr. Arny. Let us double check. I am hearing some
conflicting data. We will get you----
[The information follows:]

Mr. Penn. Yes. But the money is still TMA's.
Mr. Wamp. Okay. If you would get that to us.
And then the second thing sounds parochial, because it is
in Tennessee, but it is almost the opposite of what you
normally hear. None of us are immune from this.

MILAN ARSENAL

Normally, someone would be lobbying for BRAC to be changed.
My question about the Milan Arsenal in west Tennessee is
whether BRAC 2005 is being complied with. And here is why. I am
going to give you kind of a series of questions.
The newspaper tried to get some answers a couple of months
ago there in Milan, Tennessee, but they could not. A facilities
use contract was awarded for one company to basically run Milan
and the Iowa AAP. But now, it appears that some of the missions
are moving to Iowa.
And in 2005, under BRAC, the Milan Arsenal was named a
Munitions Center of Excellence, and was supposed to receive
funds from Kansas and Lone Star. I was there and toured it, and
listened to what is happening. I am questioning whether or not
this is actually running exactly opposite of BRAC.
This appears to be political influence set in to move some
things outside of BRAC. And I just need a series of questions
answered that, frankly, the newspaper could not get answered 2
months ago.
And I know you are leaving next week, so if you could have
somebody pick these questions up, get to the bottom of it, and
let me know, please, about Milan. I do not want to bug you too
much with an issue that is Tennessee, but this is a BRAC
question.
[The information follows:]

I'm glad you asked about that because there have been some
misunderstandings.
First, as to the newspaper's questions, the newspaper filed a
Freedom of Information Act request for a Corrective Action Request from
the commander of Iowa Army Ammunition Plant to the operating contractor
there, relating to the contractor's storage and housekeeping. The Army
has been working on that FOIA request. We want to be responsive to the
newspaper's request while protecting the operating proprietary
information.
Second, I assure you that we are fully complying with BRAC Law. In
the case of Milan, BRAC Law required the Army to move certain munitions
capabilities from the Kansas and Lone Star plants to Milan. Those
capabilities are moving to and will be retained at Milan.
Finally, let me address the new operating contract for the Milan
and Iowa plants. Both of these government-owned, contractor-operated
ammunition plants have been operated by a single contractor under a
single contract, for a number of years. With the contract at the end of
its term, we held a competition for a new contract for the operation
and maintenance of these facilities. The successful offeror elected to
consolidate production workload at Iowa and to develop Milan as a
commercial distribution hub, while retaining some production
capabilities there. The Army did not require that solution. It was a
commercial decision by an offeror for its method to maintain both
facilities at no cost to the Government and provide the ammunition we
need.

Mr. Eastin. I am surprised that I have not heard this. So--
and usually, these inquiries filter up to me. So, I will be
happy to.
Mr. Wamp. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT BETHESDA AND FORT BELVOIR

Let me ask about Bethesda and Walter Reed, two questions.
One, why did the administration have to, in recent weeks,
ask for an additional $263 million for the fiscal year 2009
supplemental to move this project forward?
And secondly, does the Department of Defense, the Navy or
the Army have a good analysis of what the impact is going to be
on traffic congestion at both Bethesda and Fort Belvoir? And if
so, is DoD putting any money into that transportation
infrastructure, or is that being left to the local communities
to address that?
Mr. Eastin. Let me talk about Belvoir, then I will let B.J.
talk about--which avenue is that? [Laughter.]
We have--there are significant traffic problems at Belvoir.
And one of the ways you handle these traffic problems is to
spread them out, which is what we have tried to do with so-
called BRAC 133, moving 6,400 and some people up to Market
Center instead of down in Belvoir proper, keeping some out at
EPG down there and keeping them off of the more local roads,
Route 1, especially.
There still exists--and I have not looked at it in the last
4 or 5 months--there still exists probably $200 million worth
of road improvements that are going to be needed down there.
And it is basically state-funded activities.
We have a DAR, Defense Access Road program, that we have
funded for $36 million. We are looking at a couple other--some
of the off-ramps off of Fairfax County Parkway. But as to
whether they would be funded as DAR--it has very constrained
ability to pay for roads unless they are specifically,
basically for military purposes.
But the traffic is going to be challenging, but we are
going to be able to handle it, I think, on Route 1 with respect
to the hospitals----
Mr. Edwards. When you say challenging, are there any
estimates about what a 30-minute commute is going to be? Will
it be an hour-and-a-half commute? Or will it be a 40-minute
commute?
Mr. Eastin. We have estimates on probably every inch of
road at Belvoir, and I can get those to you. I have not looked
at them in a while.
[The information follows:]

US Route 1 is critical to both morning and evening traffic
conditions for Fort Belvoir's Main Post. Dispersion of population
growth among Fort Belvoir, the Engineering Proving Ground, and the Mark
Center has mitigated some of the impact to Route 1 and the Fairfax
County Parkway. While off-post traffic will be slightly more congested
(5 to 10 more minutes of travel time) after 2011, the more dramatic
change in traffic will come in terms of adding about 15 minutes before
and after the peak traffic times. In accordance with the Environmental
Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Fort Belvoir is implementing a
Traffic Demand Management Plan to further mitigate traffic impacts.

Mr. Edwards. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Eastin. But we have a consultant that is all over this.
And it is, from day one when this recommendation--this whole
BRAC process was adopted, everybody looked at Fort Belvoir and
said, gee, isn't that near 95? Which is loosely called traffic
condition F.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. Eastin. Which means--and the question is, how long will
it be traffic condition F every day.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. Eastin. So, what we are trying to do--yes.
Mr. Edwards. In hindsight, in terms of lessons learned, do
we need to spend more time in any future base realignment
decisions carefully examining the traffic implications for
those decisions?
Mr. Eastin. In my remaining 3 days in this job--a little
more freedom to talk. But it would have been nice if they had
considered traffic problems in some of these. I think that the
outcome might have been slightly different.
Mr. Edwards. So, based on what you have seen, those
involved in the original BRAC decision or recommendation on
Belvoir, and perhaps Bethesda, as well, did not do a careful
analysis of the----
Mr. Eastin. I am not sure what analysis was done.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Traffic implications.
Mr. Eastin. I was not here at that end of the scheme
either. But in terms of someone that has had to deal with this,
sometimes on a daily basis, if there were no traffic problems,
there would be zero problems making this work at Belvoir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Arny. I would add to that, that Mr. Eastin and his
group have done a great job, because there were recommendations
to move stuff to Belvoir that we have actually had--we have
created Belvoir annexes to do it.
And I suspect that both the Commission and the Navy folks
doing it took their best shot at it, but did not have that
level of details.
Now, I will also look at the other side of the coin at
Bethesda and Belvoir. They, I am sure--I was not there--but I
am sure their political leaders were at the BRAC Commission
asking to move things to those bases. So, I mean, it is a
double-edged sword.
And to answer your question about the----
Mr. Edwards. It is the whole security issue----
Mr. Arny. Well, it really was not--I think we have a handle
on the security. It was really the traffic on the roads around
Belvoir and at Bethesda. And what we found at Bethesda was that
Montgomery County had a lot of stuff in planning, because
Bethesda had a traffic problem before. And now, as a result of
BRAC, but even more as a result of Wounded Warrior, we have
increased the capacity.
There were a lot of things that Montgomery County and the
State of Maryland had put off that they had planned years ago,
so it just spurred into action.
And speaking of that, you had asked, the $263 million in
the supplemental was the second part of the amount that we
talked about last year, which was $416 million. Back in the old
days when we funded things in supplementals, the deputy
secretary made the decision to increase the capability of
Bethesda, over and above what BRAC had said. And that $679
million was to go into the supplemental, because it is all for
Wounded Warriors.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Farr.

FUDS

Mr. Farr. One clarification on the cleanup ask, the money.
Is that going to be based on what the department asks for, or
what Mr. Edwards--the end amount after Mr. Edwards' adds last
year?
Will it be on what we appropriated, or what you----
Mr. Arny. I will have to get the answer for that.
[The information follows:]

BRAC Cleanup:
The Department of Defense will apply the full appropriated amount
(including Congressional plus-ups) to cleanup of Environmental
Restoration sites on BRAC properties. The FY2009 President's Budget
Request for BRAC Environmental was $455 million, while the final
appropriated amount was $525 million. The FY2010 request of $554
million is requirements-based, and reflects an increase over the prior
year due to a transition of several cleanup actions from the DERA
program into the BRAC 2005 program.

We will try--we have always tried to--I notice that Mr.
Penn talked about it in BRAC. When we got the land sale
revenues, we increased our cleanup.
There are certain limits. And I share your concern about
this backlog, because you are focusing on BRAC, but I am having
to focus on the FUDs, the formerly used defense sites. In many
of these cases, even if you throw money at it, we cannot clean
up faster than we are right now, because a lot of it is
painstaking. There is a lot of planning involved----
Mr. Farr. But it helps to get some money in there. And not
being able to move forward without cleanup--well, that is
usually what holds up conveyances.

TREASURE ISLAND

Mr. Penn, this will be my last question. It is really about
the Treasure Island. What is your intent? We would like to move
that as fast as possible.
I know you say you want to get fair market value. But as I
recall, the original BRAC law did not require that you have to
get fair market value. It only required that you seek fair
market value for bases closed after January 1, 2005. Treasure
Island was prior to that.
So, aren't there other options? And I just heard you say
maybe you are going to go out and get another appraisal?
Mr. Penn. Well, that was one of the options with the city,
if they want to purchase it. But you are right. They are trying
at this time for a no-cost EDC. And as Mr. Arny stated, that
has to be for job creation.
Mr. Farr. Well, look. At Fort Ord, DoD you transferred
almost all of it except the welfare and morale properties,
which were golf courses. You sold those. You had to.
You did one other sale of Fort Ord. But you have
transferred about 20,000 acres out there, all of it in a no-
cost EDC.
But the job creation just never materialized like we
thought it would.
But anyway, there is nothing being built at Fort Ord. right
now. I mean, we did get a university, which is great, but that
was public benefit demand.
So, what is your intent? What are you doing right now to
try to get that property moved?
Mr. Penn. With Treasure Island, we have to go back to the
city and hopefully talk to them.
For example, we did eight no-cost EDCs between 2002 and
2009. Zero-cost EDCs were executed. Now, all we have to do is
get them to align, and we can do it.
I mean, we are still in negotiations. The doors are not
closed.
And, in fact, actually, it is more money out of our pocket
to maintain these facilities, as you well know.
Mr. Farr. Yes, it is costly.
Mr. Penn. Exactly.
Mr. Farr. You have got the liability----
Mr. Penn. So, the sooner we can rid of them----
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Maintenance costs. How much a year
is it costing?
Mr. Arny. I am not sure. Treasure Island, I think, is just
some human oversight, because, again, the city took it as a
lease, and they have been renting out the office space and the
housing. So they have been revenue-positive since the base
closed.
Mr. Penn. They have acres. They have--
Mr. Farr. You have got to build it all up to California
code now.
Mr. Arny. I understand, sir. I am just saying that it is
not a cost to us, because they have been renting it out and
getting property.
I would have to give you the acreage----
Mr. Farr. And there is cleanup, too, isn't there?
Mr. Arny. And which we are proceeding with.
Mr. Penn. We are doing that, correct.
Mr. Edwards. Any ballpark on how many acres?
Mr. Farr. It is an island.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. Arny. Well, it is two islands, actually. There is
Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island. And----
Mr. Farr. We still have the Coast Guard----
Mr. Arny. Yes.
Mr. Penn. Right.
Mr. Arny. The Coast Guard is there. We lost part of it to
Caltrans. They condemned part of it for the----
Mr. Farr. This is the island that the Bay Bridge goes over
to----
Mr. Edwards. I have seen pictures, but I do not think I
have ever----
Mr. Arny. I am going to say it is like--I get 367 acres
stuck in my mind, but I do not know. I can get you the answer
to that.
Mr. Penn. We will get back.
[The information follows:]

79 acres conveyed (Coast Guard, Federal Highway Authority
and Job Corps)
996 acres (468 acres dry land/528 acres submerged land)
remaining
Over 50% of dry land environmentally suitable for transfer
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Edwards.]

Statutory BRAC Deadline

Question. How does the Department define compliance with the BRAC
mandate?
Answer. The Department has a legal obligation to complete all
closures and realignments no later than six years from the date the
President transmits the Commission's report to the Congress. The
Department defines completion as the point in time at which all
functions specified in the BRAC recommendation have been relocated to
and are functioning at the receiving installation(s) identified in the
recommendation. In the case of closures, caretaker and environmental
operations may continue at the closed location, as long as the
functions have been relocated to and are functioning at the specified
receiving location.
Question. Who determines or certifies that a BRAC action has been
completed?
Answer. Implementing BRAC 2005 recommendations requires detailed
plans that delineate required actions, their timing, and necessary
resources. The large number of transformational recommendations,
particularly recommendations to establish joint operations, presented
significant implementation challenges that underscore the utility and
necessity of good planning. As such, the Department developed Business
Plans to serve as the foundation for the complex program management
necessary to ensure BRAC 2005 recommendations are implemented
efficiently and effectively. Responsibility for the development of each
Business Plan was assigned, by recommendation, generally to the
Military Department or Defense Agency with facility management
authority at the receiving site. Organizations significantly impacted
by the recommendation were consulted and required to formally
coordinate on the plans. Business Plans form the initial operational
and budgetary basis for BRAC 2005 implementation and must be updated
twice each year. Each business plan manager is required to certify that
the BRAC recommendation for which they are responsible have been
completed.
Question. What are the actual legal consequences, if any, of not
meeting the BRAC deadline?
Answer. The Department is obligated to complete closures and
realignments by the deadline imposed by the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990, as amended. Applicable statutes (the BRAC Act
of 1990 and annual appropriation and authorization acts for DoD) do not
address failure by the Department to complete a recommendation by the
statutory deadline. The BRAC Act of 1990 authorizes the Department to
take such actions as may be necessary to close or realign approved
military installations, and to use for such purposes funds in the
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005. The legal consequences
of a failure to meet the deadline on this authority and funding are not
clear.
The Department fully intends to meet its legal obligation to close
and realign all installations by September 15, 2011, as required by the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 as amended. As
intended by Congress, the deadline ensures that the Department moves
functions with minimal disruption and that DoD transfers closed
facilities to the community for reuse as expeditiously as possible. The
deadline keeps the Department focused on completing implementation and
ensures that DoD closes installations expeditiously to allow
communities to redevelop the property. Specific adverse effects of
failing to meet the deadline include:
Projects being stretched over many years as both
internal (Military Department Comptrollers) and external
(Congress) forces shift money away from BRAC projects to other
``short-term'' priorities with the net result being increased
in cost due to inflation and scope growth.
Breaking linkages between many recommendations that
require careful choreography of the recommendations that are
dependent on functions moving out of one location so another
function can move in.
More opportunities for Congress to try to reverse or
alter decisions.
Delayed modernization of facilities provided by BRAC
construction.
Personnel turmoil and uncertainty as relocations
drag on.
Unwillingness of market to plan/invest in either
redeveloping closing sites or expanding development (including
housing) at receiving locations
Question. In the four prior BRAC rounds, were any actions not
completed by the statutory deadline? If so, how was the issue resolved?
Answer. As required by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
of 1990, as amended, for each of the four previous BRAC rounds, the
Department met its legal obligation to close and realign all
installations within 6 years of the date the President transmitted that
year's Commission Report to Congress.

COBRA

Question. As you noted in your testimony, BRAC 2005 is the most
complex BRAC round ever. You also noted that previous BRAC rounds were
undertaken during a period of downsizing in the Armed Forces. Compared
to previous rounds, the number of major closures in BRAC 2005 is
slightly below average, while the number of major realignments is 2.4
times the average of the previous four, and the number of minor
closures and realignments is more than triple that of all previous
rounds put together. Furthermore, as you also noted, military
construction funding as a percentage of total cost for this round is
more than double that of previous rounds. The COBRA model has been in
use since the original 1988 round. While the Committee appreciates your
point about COBRA being a, comparative tool, and not a method of
producing ``budget quality'' cost estimates, did the Department make
any efforts whatsoever to refine the COBRA model in order to account
for the unique nature of this BRAC round?
Answer. The COBRA model was used during the development of the BRAC
recommendations, whereas the unique nature of this BRAC round was not
apparent until that process was complete--a point at which refinement
of the COBRA model would not have been useful. The Department did
refine the COBRA model (before it was used in this round) based on
experience in three prior rounds. As stated in the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) review (Military Bases Analysis of DoD's
2005 Selection Process and Recommendations for Base Closures and
Realignments July 2005) of the Department's BRAC selection process
``DOD has used the COBRA model in each of the previous BRAC rounds and,
over time, has improved upon its design to provide better estimating
capability. In our past and current reviews of the COBRA model, we
found it to be a generally reasonable estimator for comparing potential
costs and savings among various BRAC options.'' The Department agrees
with GAO and stands by the use of the model to compare alternatives.

San Antonio Military Medical Center

Question. Construction on the new medical center at Fort Sam
Houston began in December 2008. According to the original 1391
submitted for this project, the construction timeline was three years
and three months (assuming a start date of December 2007 and a
completion date of March 2011). How will the Department ensure that
this facility is completed and outfitted by the BRAC deadline?
Answer. The Department is watching all projects closely, especially
those that are complex and complete near the implementation deadline.
This recommendation in particular has been subject to focused
oversight. At this point, the Department is confident that all
inpatient functions will be moved from Wilford Hall to Brook Army
Medical Center, those inpatient functions will cease at Wilford Hall,
and the new San Antonio Medical Center will be operational by September
15, 2011.

Joint Basing

Question. According to GAO, Joint Basing will produce no net
savings for the Department. What is your estimate of the net annual
recurring cost required to support Joint Basing?
Answer. Based on the most current FY10 President's Budget data, the
annual recurring savings from the Joint Basing recommendation, starting
in FY2012, is estimated at $32M/year. As the Department gains more
experience in financing joint base operations, the Department will
revise these estimates in future budget submissions.

Eglin AFB-Initial Joint Training Site for the Joint Strike Fighter

Question. As Deputy Assistant Secretary Ferguson stated, the noise
profile of the Joint Strike Fighter was unknown at the time of the BRAC
recommendation for establishing the Initial Joint Training Site (IJTS)
at Eglin AFB. The Record of Decision of the IJTS demonstrated a
significant noise impact issue and restricts the Department to only 59
of the 107 programmed aircraft, which would operate under restricted
conditions. What is your plan of action if the restrictions on aircraft
and operations are upheld by the supplemental EIS?
Answer. Several alternatives are under review in the preplanning
for the supplemental EIS to include other operational locations on the
Eglin reservation, additional runway(s) and reorientation of runway(s).
As the Air Force evaluates these options and works toward a draft
DOPAA, we anticipate some of these alternatives will meet operational
needs and potentially reduce noise impacts to warrant and be analyzed
fully in the supplement EIS.
Question. The Committee understands that the Navy variant of JSF
will not be available until September 2012. If this is the case, how
can the Department comply with the BRAC mandate?
Answer. The JSF aircraft acquisition is a programmatic decision and
is not part of the BRAC recommendation.
The BRAC recommendation requires that a JSF Initial Joint Training
Site be stood up at Eglin AFB. This includes appropriate manpower
movements for maintenance and pilot instructors from all three
Services; construction of a specialized JSF Academic Training Center
housing JSF training devices and JSF flight simulators for all three
aircraft variants; and other supporting facilities for aircraft
maintenance and housing/feeding student personnel.
The manpower and facilities have been programmed and construction
is underway on a schedule to meet the BRAC timeline. The academic
training facility with its maintenance and flight simulators will
provide the capability to train all Services maintenance personnel and
pilots by 15 Sep 2011. The JSF acquisition schedule may vary with
individual Service requirements and other programmatic decisions,
however the Initial Joint Training Site, with the capability to train
JSF personnel in all variants will standup prior to 15 Sept 2011 and be
ready to align with the JSF acquisition schedule.
Question. The Secretary of Defense announced on April 6, 2009 that
the Department will increase the buy of Joint Strike Fighters. Will
this have any impact on the requirements for the joint training site at
Eglin?
Answer. This announcement does not impact the requirements for the
joint training site at Eglin.

Eglin AFB-Relocation of 7th Special Forces Group

Question. It is the Committee's understanding that the construction
to support the relocation of the 7th Special Forces Group from Fort
Bragg to Eglin has been delayed and complicated by the issues
associated with the training site for the JSF. What projects has the
Department currently identified for bedding down the 7th SFG at Eglin,
and what is the timeline for the award and construction of each
project?
Answer. There is one BRAC project, funded in two increments (FY09/
FY10) that has been identified to meet the BRAC requirement to relocate
the 7th SFG to Eglin AFB. One contract has been awarded for the first
increment and another is scheduled for award this fiscal year. The
award of this project was delayed because of issues associated with the
JSF that were identified in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Those issues have been resolved, the project is on schedule to meet the
BRAC deadline of 15 September 2011.
Question. The relocation of the 7th SFG involves Air Force, Army,
and Special Operations Command. Eglin AFB, however, is not a Joint
Basing site. Has the Department sorted out what each command will be
responsible for in terms of MILCON programming and execution?
Answer. The Army will be responsible for the MILCON programming and
execution for the construction projects required by the 7th SFG.
Question. The Committee has information that there are about $106
million of unfunded construction requirements for the 7th SFG at Eglin.
Have any 7th SFG projects been identified which are not being funded by
BRAC?
Answer. There is one BRAC project, funded in two increments (FY09/
FY10) that has been identified to meet the BRAC requirement to relocate
the 7th SFG to Eglin AFB. There have been projects identified that are
not necessary to meet the BRAC requirement but are part of the Military
Construction (MILCON) program. These projects have been identified,
validated, and programmed for funding through the MILCON program. The
Army provided funding to the Air Force for child care, medical, and a
gymnasium. If any other requirements are identified and are validated
they will compete for funding through the normal MILCON process.

Savings and Reduction in Excess Infrastructure

Question. What is your current estimate of how much money BRAC 2005
will save the Department, and how does this compare with the savings
from the four prior rounds?
Answer. The Department estimates that the BRAC 2005 recommendations
will save $4B annually, which compares with the four prior rounds as
follows:
BRAC 88 $1B annually
BRAC 91 $2.4B annually
BRAC 93 $2.8B annually
BRAC 95 $2.0B annually
Question. What is the Department's estimate of the net reduction in
acreage and square footage that BRAC 2005 will produce?
Answer. As stated in the Secretary's letter to the BRAC Commission,
the goal of BRAC 2005 was to ``support force transformation; address
new threats, strategies, and force protection concerns; consolidate
business-oriented support functions; promote joint- and multi-service
basing; and provide the Department with significant savings.'' As such
reducing footprint was not a primary goal. The net change in acreage
and square feet will not be known until all recommendations are
implemented. At this point the Department estimates it will return
49,138.75 acres to communities and other federal agencies.
Question. The Department cites savings derived from the costs
associated with service members or civilian personnel who are
reassigned from a closed or realigned installation. These savings are
claimed from eliminating authorized positions, despite there being no
corresponding decrease in overall personnel strength. This assumption
generates nearly half of the BRAC 2005 savings claimed by the
Department. Both the BRAC Commission and GAO have disputed the
Department's claim that these savings are real. What is the
Department's specific rationale for claiming these savings, and can you
demonstrate any actual savings from such actions?
Answer. The issue regarding the treatment of military personnel
savings represents a longstanding difference of opinion between DoD and
GAO. The Department considers military personnel reductions as savings
that are just as real as monetary savings. While the Department is not
reducing overall end-strength (and is increasing end-strength for the
Army and Marines), the reductions in military personnel for each
recommendation at a specific location are real. As is the case with
monetary savings, personnel reductions allow the Department to apply
these military personnel to generate new capabilities and to improve
operational efficiencies. The fact that the Department has already
decided how to ``spend'' those savings (application to other
priorities) does not change the fact that savings did occur.

Defense Access Roads

Question. As discussed in the hearing, certain transportation
improvements have been identified to support BRAC realignments at
gaining installations, such as Bethesda and Fort Belvoir. Some of these
improvements may be eligible for military construction under the
Defense Access Roads (DAR) program. If DAR projects in support of BRAC
are certified, will these projects be programmed into the BRAC account,
or will they be shifted to regular MILCON accounts?
Answer. Any such DAR projects, if certified and validated in DoD's
planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system, will be
programmed in the BRAC account.

Fort Detrick

BRAC requires the relocation of the Naval Medical Research Center's
Biological Defense Research Directorate to Fort Detrick. The initial
assumption was that the Directorate would be housed in existing,
renovated laboratory facilities. A new facility was programmed for
AMRIID, but no space was made available for the Navy's Directorate. In
June 2008, OSD determined that new $49 million laboratory construction
project for the Navy was the only viable solution.
Question. Why did it take until June 2008 to make the determination
that new construction was needed?
Answer. As is the case in complex issues involving multiple
organizations and stakeholders, the Department pursued a variety of
options to determine the best, least cost alternative to building a
separate facility. Arriving at this point required a deliberate
analysis of alternatives and achieving consensus among the various
organizations. While this deliberate process was lengthy, it ensured
that all organizations' views were represented in the decision process.
In the end, senior leadership decided that a laboratory for the Navy's
directorate was the best approach to meet the Navy's unique mission
requirements.
Question. When will new laboratory be fully outfitted and ready for
occupancy?
Answer. The new laboratory is expected to be fully outfitted and
ready for occupancy during fourth quarter of FY 2011.

Community Support and Quality of Life Projects

Question. Does the Department consider community support and
quality of life projects--such as child development centers, chapels,
commissaries, and fitness centers--to be ``necessary'' for BRAC, and
therefore appropriate for BRAC 2005 funding?
Answer. In general, the Department believes that community support
and quality of life projects that support personnel growth caused by
BRAC actions to be eligible for BRAC funding. The determination of
whether specific projects are eligible is left to the Military
Departments controlling the installations.
Question. How does the Department determine whether a given project
is appropriate for BRAC 2005 funding?
Answer. As indicated in the earlier question, the Military
Departments determine which projects are necessary to support incoming
missions that arrive as a direct result of a BRAC action. The specifics
of the individual projects are developed based on such factors as
population growth and the type of mission coming to the base.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Wamp.]

BRAC Implementation

According to the testimony, the Department continues to monitor
BRAC implementation to ensure that we are meeting our legal obligation
under the law.
Question. What is the Department's view on what it considers to be
``meeting the legal obligation under the law''?
Answer. The Department has a legal obligation to complete all
closures and realignments no later than six years from the date the
President transmits the Commission's report to the Congress. The
Department defines completion as the point in time at which all
functions specified in the BRAC recommendation have been relocated to
and are functioning at the receiving installation(s) identified in the
recommendation. In the case of closures, caretaker and environmental
operations may continue at the closed location, as long as the
functions have been relocated to and are functioning at the specified
receiving location.
Question. If and when the Department makes the determination that a
BRAC action cannot be completed on time, what are some of the options
that you are considering?
Answer. At this point in time, we are confident that all
recommendations will be completed on time. If later in the process, it
appears that a recommendation may not be completed on time, the
Department will examine its options in detail to determine the best way
forward.
Question. How many Joint Basing MOAs have been signed?
Answer. As of April 10, 2009, five joint basing Memorandum of
Agreement (MOAs) have been signed. Those MOAs are for Joint Base Myer-
Henderson Hall, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Story, Joint Base
Andrews--NAF Washington, Joint Region Marianas (Naval Base Guam--
Andersen AFB), and Joint Base McGuire--Dix--Lakehurst.
Question. Which ones?
Answer. Those MOAs have been signed for Joint Base Myer-Henderson
Hall, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Story, Joint Base Andrews--
NAF Washington, Joint Region Marianas (Naval Base Guam--Andersen AFB),
and Joint Base McGuire--Dix--Lakehurst.
Question. How many does the Department expect to have signed by the
beginning of FY'10?
Answer. The Department expects to have signed MOAs for all 12 joint
bases by the beginning of FY'10.
Question. When does the Department expect to have all MOAs signed?
Answer. The Department expects all MOAs to be signed by October 1,
2009.

Milan Army Ammunition Plant

Your testimony describes that the first major BRAC 2005 closure was
completed last December when the Kansas Army Ammo Plant was closed and
production was moved to McAlester (OK) Ammunition Plant, Crane (IN)
Ammunition Plant, and Milan Ammunition Plant in TN. Secretary Eastin,
I'm seeking clarification on a number of issues related to the recently
awarded facilities-use contract for both the Milan Army Ammunition
Plant (AAP) and the Iowa AAP. Both plants will now be operated by a
single contractor, with production work being concentrated in Iowa.
Question. A February 24, 2009 article in the Milan Mirror-Exchange
cites a corrective action report (CAR) issued by the Army. The CAR
reportedly highlights a number of serious safety violations at Iowa AAP
with instructions to report back to the Army by January 29, 2009. Can
you please provide me with a detailed response about the CAR issued by
the Army?
Answer. Corrective Action Report cited in the newspaper article
found deficiencies in one of the operation areas with regard to storage
and housekeeping of in-process and scrap material. American Ordnance
immediately shut down the business unit where this occurred and put
procedures in place to assure there will not be any future housekeeping
and storage issues in any business unit at either Iowa Army Ammunition
Plant or Milan Army Ammunition Plant.
Question. Have the violations at the Iowa AAP been completely
addressed?
Answer. Yes. There is no indication that American Ordnance will
experience any safety shortcomings related to its plan to consolidate
the bulk of its production at Iowa, and Iowa can assume the increase in
workload. Government staff will continue to monitor the area for which
the Corrective Action Report was issued, as well as all other areas at
Iowa.
Question. I understand that some security concerns may have been
highlighted, so in light othese security concerns, is the Iowa AAP
ready to assume significant workload that is set to be transferred from
Milan?
Answer. There is no indication that American Ordnance will
experience any security shortcomings related to its plan.
Question. Will this production move mean that all large and medium
caliber munitions are produced at one government-owned plant? If so,
does such a concentration create a vulnerability in our national
security?
Answer. Moving the large and medium caliber munitions production
capability from Milan to Iowa doesn't mean that the Army will be
limited to a single source. Several other sources exist within the
National Technology and Industrial Base with the capability to load,
assemble, and pack mortar and artillery high-explosive cartridges, 40mm
ammunition, and 105mm and 120mm tank rounds.
Question. There may be a significant cost to clean up sites at
Milan if production and testing are moved to Iowa AAP. Has the Army
identified such environmental costs? Were they taken into consideration
during the contract evaluation?
Answer. The Army considered the potential environmental remediation
costs that could be involved at Milan during the contract evaluation.
American Ordnance plans to bring additional tenants to Milan to
preclude the closure of any environmentally managed areas. These
managed areas include ammunition disposal areas, test areas, or other
operational areas or ranges that require special environmental permits
for the activities or processes conducted there. The government will
bear the costs of environmental remediation at Milan regardless of when
they are incurred.
Question. Under BRAC 2005, Milan was slated to become a ``Munitions
Center of Excellence'' and receive functions from Kansas AAP and Lone
Star AAP. Does the recent contract award comply with BRAC 2005?
Answer. The contract awarded to American Ordnance (AO) complies
with BRAC 2005. Under BRAC, certain munitions production capacity and
capability was directed to be relocated from Kansas Army Ammunition
Plant and Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant to Milan. However, BRAC did
not preclude establishment of similar capacity and capability
elsewhere. To ensure BRAC compliance, none of the production equipment
that moved to Milan from Kansas and Lone Star will be moved to Iowa.
Instead, AO plans to create new production capability at Iowa, while
retaining at Milan the capacity and capability relocated from Kansas
and Lone Star.
Question. How would this reorganization impact the number of jobs
at the Milan plant?
Answer. American Ordnance will determine how many of its jobs for
work under the contracts will move and when, and what number of jobs
will be required for its Milan operations.

Discrete BRAC Actions

The Army has over 1,100 discrete actions that are required for the
successful implementation of BRAC 2005.
Question. How many discrete actions have been completed to date?
Answer. The Army has completed 180 actions as of April 22, 2009.
Question. How many do you expect to have completed by the end of
fiscal year 2009?
Answer. The Army has 265 actions of which 180 are already completed
that are scheduled for completion by the end of fiscal year 2009.
Question. What is the cost to implement these 1,100 discrete
actions?
Answer. The over 1,100 actions represent what the Army needs to
complete to meet the requirements of the BRAC Law. Therefore, the cost
as of the President's fiscal year 2009 budget submission is $17.3
billion.
Question. How much of that cost is military construction?
Answer. The military construction cost to complete the over 1,100
actions as of the fiscal year 2009 President's Budget submission is
$13.1 billion.

FY '09 Army BRAC 2005 Construction Projects

Question. What is the total cost for the 96 BRAC construction
projects that the Army intends to award in FY '09? How many of the 96
BRAC construction projects that the Army plans to award in FY '09 have
been awarded to date?
Answer. The cost for the 96 BRAC construction projects scheduled
for award in fiscal year 2009 is $3.8 billion. As of April 22, 2009,
the Army has awarded 26 of those projects.

Navy Business Plans

Question. The Secretary has approved all 59 Navy-led BRAC 2005
business plans along with 24 other service-led business plans with some
Navy equity in them. Your testimony points out that some significant
challenges lie ahead. What specifically are those challenges, and how
are you managing the process to ensure that statutory requirements will
be met?
Answer. Seven major construction projects at Naval Air Weapons
Station China Lake, CA and Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head, MD
require complex site approvals and certifications for operation from
the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board. Additionally,
Correctional Facilities require certification before occupancy. And
finally, several complex move actions require close coordination with
other services and agencies. The Department of the Navy (DON) is
closely managing construction so that it completes in time to conduct
the necessary certifications. DON is also maintaining effective and
continuous coordination with other services and agencies for the
interdependent moves to succeed.

[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Farr.]
Question. I am concerned that conveyance of legacy bases continues
to lag. The longer these properties stay on the DOD books, the more
they cost us to maintain and secure. And--they are not providing any
economic activity for local communities. I would like your office to I
provide me with the following statistics so we can get a good handle on
just where we are on getting these parcels off the DOD books and into
the hands of locals. Total number of disposed BRAC acres (not including
Outgrant LIFOC acres). Total number of BRAC acres pending disposal by
year (including Outgrant LIFOC acres). Number of acres conveyed by
Service by property disposal type and to which type of grantee. Length
of time for disposal of BRAC acreage by disposal type.
Answer. Total number of disposed BRAC acres (not including Outgrant
Lease In Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) acres) is provided in Table
1 of Enclosure 1.
Total number of BRAC acres pending disposal by year (including
Outgrant LIFOC acres) is provided in Table 2 of Enclosure 1.
Number of acres conveyed by Service, by property disposal type, and
to which type of grantee, is provided as Enclosures 2 and 3. Enclosure
2 also provides comments concerning apparent fluctuations in data from
one year to the next, including instances where the status of acreage
may be reclassified from one year to the next.
Length of time for disposal of BRAC acreage by disposal type will
be provided separately as soon as we are able to complete the necessary
data search, validation, and calculations with the Military Departments
(MILDEPs).
The information provided reflects yearly disposal activity starting
in 1999 when the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment
began tracking this information. Prior to 1999, the MILDEPs had
disposed of approximately 16% of the acreage to be disposed. This
response provides a yearly disposal picture for the remaining 84% of
the total property disposed under BRAC 88, 91, 93, 95, and 05, through
December 2007.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.185

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.186

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.187

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.188

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526B.189

Mr. Farr. Okay.
Mr. Eastin. So, the--is somewhat--in San Francisco.
Mr. Penn. We will scrub that----
Mr. Edwards. If there is some way we can work with you to
move that forward, please let us know.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp, any other----
Mr. Wamp. Great hearing.
Mr. Edwards. I have no additional questions. Obviously, we
will have a number of written questions we will send to each of
you. But thank you for your service, and we appreciate you
being here.
The committee will stand in recess. Thank you.
Thursday, April 23, 2009.

TESTIMONY OF OUTSIDE WITNESSES

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Farr [presiding]. Good morning. The subcommittee will
come to order.
Before I begin, I want to mention that the chairman, Mr.
Edwards, is going to be a little bit late. He is testifying
before another subcommittee, and he asked me to chair the
hearing until he arrives.
We have about 16 witnesses today from various
nongovernmental organizations. And with that many witnesses, we
are going to have to go in a very timely order.
Because of those constraints, we ask each of you to limit
your testimony to no more than 5 minutes. We will have copies
of all your written testimony, and I will make sure that those
are included in their entirety in the record.
At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Wamp if he has
anything to say, opening remarks.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Just almost, Mr. Chairman, ditto what you say.
This is a learning experience for us to give everybody an
opportunity to appear. And the main thing, I think, is a
takeaway from each one of the outside witnesses.
The main thing is, if you can even just underscore my
takeaway for the day, things that we have to do or should do or
the most important things, try to think about that ahead of
time so that, no matter what, we get whatever that message is
before you walk out the door.
And that way, we can listen, learn, help and lead, which is
a pretty good model for us to follow around here. It is not
done enough, but we are going to try. So thanks for being here.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
And I want to echo that. I read your testimony this
morning, and I was very impressed. There are a lot of suggested
things like report language that we could include, but it is
really for us to listen to you and to take away, what are the
priorities, needs of the various entities represented here?
We are going to go in the order this committee has set up,
and the first is the Friends of the V.A. Medical Care and
Health Research.
Mr. Galen Toews, is he here today?
Galen is a V.A. physician scientist at Ann Arbor V.A.
Medical Center. He is also a professor of internal medicine at
the University of Michigan Medical School. He is testifying on
behalf of the Friends of the V.A. Medical Care and Health
Research.
Dr. Toews. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Welcome to the committee.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

FRIENDS OF VA MEDICAL CARE AND HEALTH RESEARCH (FOVA)

WITNESS

GALEN B. TOEWS, MD

Statement of Galen B. Toews

Dr. Toews. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Dr. Galen Toews. And as mentioned,
I am testifying on behalf of FOVA, a coalition of 80 veterans
service and voluntary health and medical professional
organizations that work to support funding for veterans health
programs.
We are especially committed to ensuring a strong V.A.
medical and prosthetic research program. And FOVA recommends
the subcommittee provide $575 million for the V.A. medical and
prosthetic research program in fiscal year 2010.
We also, importantly, request an additional $142 million in
the V.A. minor construction budget to address the deteriorating
state of V.A. laboratory infrastructure.
Research really plays an essential role in the V.A. health
system. Research is the process by which hope is fulfilled,
hope for less pain, increased function, and independence,
symptom-free days, and in some instances hope for a cure, hope
for leading, in short, a normal life.
These are the kinds of hopes that veterans who come to the
V.A. are seeking. And the V.A. is dedicated to bringing these
hopes to fruition.
The V.A. is doing a good job. In 2008, the V.A. published
the results of a landmark, 7-year diabetes trial, which found
that intensive control of blood glucose in Type 2 diabetes does
little to cut the risk of heart disease compared with standard
treatment.
In 2007, the V.A. unveiled the first powered ankle-foot
prosthesis. The V.A. has also been involved in comparative
effectiveness research for many years, a program that the
president has highlighted.
In 2008, the V.A. demonstrated in a large, multi-site
clinical trial--something we do very well--that more intensive
treatment of acute kidney injury, for instance, dialysis 6
times instead of 3 times per week, did not produce any added
benefit.
In 2007, the V.A. found that balloon angioplasty and
stenting, an invasive cardiovascular procedure, did little to
improve outcome for patients with stable coronary artery
disease, who were also receiving optimal medical therapy.
In short, the V.A. is doing good research that is having a
direct impact on improving the lives of veterans.
There are some challenges. FOVA congratulates the V.A. for
a decision to raise the merit review cap from $125,000 per year
to $150,000. And this was done to recognize the increased costs
of doing research.
However, this welcome increase in grant size puts pressure
on the V.A. to reduce the overall number of grants awarded. We
urge the subcommittee to provide V.A. with the necessary
resources to maintain the new award size, while continuing to
support a comparable number of merit review awards.
The second challenge is sustaining the good work that we
have started. The V.A. will need to increase its funding by at
least $20 million in fiscal year 2010 to just keep up with
current purchasing power.
The third challenge is what I mentioned earlier, and that
is the state of V.A. laboratory infrastructure. State-of-the-
art research requires state-of-the-art technology, equipment
and facilities, in addition to highly qualified and committed
scientists. In recent years, the V.A. minor construction
program has failed to provide the resources needed to maintain,
upgrade and replace aging facilities.
FOVA recommends Congress provide at least $142 million for
V.A. laboratory renovations in fiscal year 2010 via this minor
construction budget.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for listening.
[The prepared statement of Galen B. Toews follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.005

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Dr. Toews. I am happy to answer questions if you have any.
Mr. Farr. Any questions, Mr. Wamp?
I just have one quick one. DARPA came here and demonstrated
a lot of the prosthetics that they are developing. Are you
working closely--are these labs working closely with DARPA?
Dr. Toews. Yes, they are. They are working closely with a
variety of laboratories. The prosthesis specifically mentioned
was an MIT and Brown collaboration. But the answer to your
question is yes.
Mr. Farr. Terrific. I am very excited about what you are
doing in that field.
Dr. Toews. Right. Right.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Dr. Toews. You are welcome.
Mr. Farr. Our next witness is Joel Streim? He is testifying
on behalf of the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry.
Dr. Streim is the professor of psychiatry at the University of
Pennsylvania's School of Medicine.
Welcome to our committee. And we will take your testimony
in full for the record, and if you could summarize it.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY

WITNESS

JOEL E. STREIM, MD

Statement of Joel Streim

Dr. Streim. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, I am Joel Streim, a past president of the
American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry and a practicing
geriatric psychiatrist.
AAGP is a professional membership organization dedicated to
promoting the mental health and well-being of older Americans
and improving the care of those with late-life mental
disorders.
You have our written statement, which addresses a number of
concerns. I will focus my testimony today on just two issues:
first, the return on V.A. investments in geriatric mental
health research and services with benefits that are now
accruing to veterans across the lifespan; and, secondly, the
need to safeguard funding to ensure full implementation of the
VHA comprehensive Mental Health Strategic Plan and uniform
mental health services handbook that specifies requirements
supporting that implementation.
The number of veterans 85 years of age or older has grown
rapidly in recent years, and the V.A. predicts that this oldest
group will reach 1.2 million next year.
Providing health care for these veterans is challenging, as
many of them have co-occurring chronic medical conditions,
psychiatric illness, including cognitive disorders, and/or
substance use disorders. For these patients, the interactions
between their medical and psychiatric illnesses often
complicate their health and result in poorer outcomes.
To deal with these common interactions, geriatric
specialists have recognized that psychiatric treatment must be
integrated and highly coordinated with general medical care.
Over the past decade, the V.A. made a historic investment in
aging research and integrated service models, and now it is
paying dividends not only in better treatment for older
veterans, but also in how we approach complex conditions across
the lifespan.
V.A. has played a leading role in developing the scientific
evidence base for understanding and treating health problems
that are common in late life, such as cognitive impairment,
musculoskeletal disorders, and chronic pain.
V.A. expertise in managing these interacting infirmities of
aging now is informing the approach to younger veterans with
similar problems. The cross-fertilization made possible by
advances in geriatric mental health care will be especially
important in working with returning OEF-OIF veterans who have
polytrauma, which results in functional limitations due to
combinations of cognitive impairment and physical disability.
A related concern is the previously recognized association
in older adults between head trauma and an increased risk of
developing dementia, which raises the worrisome possibility of
accelerated brain aging in these younger veterans with head
injuries.
AAGP urges Congress to support the V.A. in monitoring and
managing the downstream effects of traumatic brain injury and
its associated cognitive and physical disabilities beyond the
initial recovery period as these veterans continue to age.
A second successful V.A. investment in mental health
services for veterans across the lifespan must be continued and
strengthened. This is the mental health enhancement initiative,
which has grown from $100 million when the special purpose fund
was created in 2005 to $557 million in 2009.
Through this important initiative, V.A. has ensured the
availability of mental health staff to treat elderly veterans
who receive their general health care through home-based
primary care programs and in community living centers,
previously known as nursing home care units.
The integration of mental health services into primary care
and related settings has made it easier for older veterans to
access mental health care, and it has improved the coordination
of care for complex problems that I described in this
population.
It has now been 5 years since the development of the VHA
Comprehensive Mental Health Strategic Plan and 5 years since
the mental health enhancement initiative was made available to
support that plan. We at AAGP look forward to the time when the
strategic plan is fully implemented according to the
requirements specified in the recent uniform mental health
services handbook that was published in June 2008.
However, it is anticipated that after 2009, the enhancement
initiative will be rolled over into Veterans Equitable Resource
Allocation, known as VERA. And while we believe V.A.'s intent
is to maintain these enhancements of mental health care for
older veterans, we have concerns about V.A.'s ability to
achieve full implementation of the strategic plan without
sustained, dedicated funding.
We therefore urge Congress to enact safeguards to prevent
diffusion of the ongoing support that is required to reach this
goal. AAGP appreciates that there is an important existing
safeguard in appropriations language that requires no less than
$3.8 billion to be spent for mental health purposes.
However, further safeguards are really necessary to ensure
continuation of funding specifically dedicated to full
implementation of this VHA Comprehensive Mental Health
Strategic Plan.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity
to testify today, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Joel Streim follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.014

Mr. Wamp. So if there is a one-sentence takeaway, what
would it say?
Dr. Streim. Try and figure out a safeguard to make sure
that, if funds are rolled over into VERA, that they are
dedicated to make sure that the strategic plan is actually
implemented.
Actually, the GAO did a follow up in 2006 and published a
report showing that funds allocated under the mental health
initiative--enhancement initiative actually didn't all get to
mental health activities that were part of the intended
implementation, according to the handbook requirements.
And so it is down to follow the dollars and make sure they
get to where they are intended to go.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
Dr. Streim. The appropriations are there. We want them to
continue. But we want to make sure they actually do----
Mr. Farr. You want a firewall?
Dr. Streim. Exactly. And I leave it up to you to craft
that.
Mr. Farr. Let me ask you one question. You recommend a
creation of a new line of mental health research funding for
the development, testing and dissemination of an intervention
to manage the psychiatric and behavioral manifestations of
Alzheimer's disease and other related dementias.
Do the National Institutes of Health already have that?
Dr. Streim. Yes, the NIH funds the large proportion of the
Alzheimer's research in the United States currently. The V.A.
has actually also taken tremendous initiative in this area.
There are geriatric research, education and clinical centers.
There are mental illness research, education and clinical
centers----
Mr. Farr. Then why do we need a line item?
Dr. Streim. Because we really believe that the Alzheimer's
research at this point is still underfunded. And the reason we
are particularly concerned now, as I said in my oral testimony,
is, with all the returning veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq
theaters, we are seeing head injuries, and we know that these
young veterans are at risk as they age for developing dementias
of the Alzheimer type. And we want to be as prepared as we can,
as they get older, to follow them up and make sure that the
treatments are in place.
Alzheimer's research is underway, but we have a long way to
go.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony.
Dr. Streim. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Moving on, Barbara Cohoon is the Deputy Director
of Government Relations for the National Military Family
Association. She is a member of the Department of Defense's
Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel. That is a
mouthful. She has been appointed to DOD's Defense Health
Board's TBI Family Caregivers Panel, Health Care Delivery
Subcommittee, and the TBI Subcommittee.
We look forward to your testimony.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION

WITNESS

BARBARA COHOON

Statement of Barbara Cohoon

Ms. Cohoon. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
the National Military Family Association would like to thank
you for the opportunity to present testimony on the quality of
life of military families, the nation's families.
In this statement, our association will address issues of
importance to military families, veterans, and survivors
regarding family readiness, family health, and family
transition.
Our association is pleased with the attention this
subcommittee has paid to expanding childcare facilities.
However, we continue to hear more childcare services are needed
to fill the ever-growing demand. Our association encourages
increased funding for drop-in childcare for medical
appointments and restive care on DOD and V.A. premises--
partnerships with other organizations to provide this valuable
service.
Privatized housing is a welcome change for military
families. However, project delays negatively impact the quality
of the life of our families. A visit to Key West, Florida,
found a contractor had only renovated 32 homes out of 890, and
no new construction projects had been completed. We request an
oversight hearing to address these issues.
The V.A. needs to be cognizant of the ever-changing
landscape and needs of their veteran population and those who
care for them. The V.A. needs to offer alternative housing
arrangements, which allows for a diversified population to live
together in harmony, fosters independent living, and maintains
dignity for all involved. We recommend V.A. funding for these
housing initiatives.
The commissary is a key element of the total compensation
package for our military families. Our association is concerned
there will not be enough commissaries to serve areas
experiencing substantial growth because of BRAC. Additional
flexible funding is needed to ensure commissaries are built,
expanded or renovated in these areas.
Our association is concerned DOD and the V.A. health care
system may not have all the resources it needs to provide
access to health care for all eligible beneficiaries. DOD and
V.A.'s health care facilities must meet today's health care
demands of the diversified population.
Congress must provide timely and accurate funding for
world-class facilities, offering state-of-the-art services
supported by evidence-based research and design.
Family members are a key component of their veteran's well-
being. Our association is especially concerned with the
scarcity of services available to these families as they leave
the military.
The V.A. and DOD need to think proactively as a team and as
one system to address issues early in the process and provide
transitional programs. And these services need to be adequately
funded.
Interoperability is crucial. We need to create a seamless
transfer of medical record information, especially as we move
toward more joint facility operations and for our wounded, ill
and injured who frequently transfer between the two agencies'
health care systems. We encourage Congress to adequately fund
V.A. and DOD I.T. interoperability.
Caregivers need to be recognized for the important role
they play in the care of their loved ones. Their daily
involvement improves the quality of life of the veteran and
saves the V.A. money. In order to perform their job well,
caregivers need to be trained, certified, and appropriately
compensated for the care they provide.
Our association looks forward to discussing details of
implementing such a plan with members of this subcommittee. We
would like to see the dependents educational assistance benefit
match the increase in Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits and adjust
proportionately whenever Congress raises servicemembers'
educational benefits.
Our association asks for dependency and indemnity
compensation, DIC equity, with other federal survivor benefits
and that it be increased to 55 percent of V.A. disability
compensation. We ask Congress to make the additional $250 DIC
family transitional payments paid by the V.A. retroactive
through October 7, 2001, and that this benefit be linked to
COLA in the future.
BRAC and global rebasing are still occurring. For families
remaining overseas, additional MILCON funding is needed to
rebuild and upgrade schools. To address these concerns, we urge
Congress to appropriate $100 million in MILCON funding for
these schools.
Our association would like to thank you again for the
opportunity to present testimony today on the quality of life
of our military families. We thank you for your support of our
servicemembers, veterans, their families, and for the survivors
who made the greatest sacrifice.
Military families are our nation's families. They serve
with pride, honor, and quiet dedication. We look forward to
working with you to improve the quality of life for all these
families.
Thank you, and I await your questions.
[The prepared statement of Barbara Cohoon follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.030

Mr. Farr. Thank you--certainly, you did that in a timely
way, 14 pages of testimony all single spaced. I think you had
more requests than all the other witnesses of the day.
Do you have any questions?
Mr. Wamp. It is about the best summary of the quality-of-
life needs that I have actually heard, so whoever did that is
very good.
This is a little off that path, though, and you may have to
get back with me on this, but General Casey, General Chiarelli,
and General Casey's wife have all told me personally that there
are still impediments in the law, statutory impediments to
outside entities, nonprofits, even for-profit entities, or
individuals from assisting financially military families.
And I have actually got a new bill and old law right here
that I am reviewing, trying to figure out how to approach this.
But if your association can identify any impediments that exist
today for military families, I hear them say that a lot of our
free enterprise system wants to help military families and they
can't, they are prohibited by law, by statute.
I need to know where, how, and what to change, because I
want to do that. I feel like that is a missing link. You all
clearly make your case to us on behalf of the taxpayers, but if
there is this huge potential out there of our free enterprise
system, besides employers in the Guard and Reserve, et cetera,
people that want to help but they can't, they are prohibited.
And some of it is gift rules. I am reading all this, but I
don't think it is just direct gifts, like I want to give you
food or whatever. I think it is support.
And that is a question that we need to address every
hearing. But if you all can glean that from your membership and
ask, you know, where have you seen them stopped from helping--
people they want to help? Let's say you want to give a van; I
don't know. I mean, just things like that.
So I am just throwing that at you, but I don't expect you
to answer the question, but I would love to have you come to my
office and give me any feedback from your membership.
Ms. Cohoon. Well, we certainly can do that. America
Supports You, which is a Web site set up by DOD, has a lot of
nonprofit entities that provide services for families. And we
direct them in that direction on a regular basis.
Also, too, the military itself has institutions in place as
far as to help out financially, along with the different
services on top of that, too, for them to go to.
So there are organizations that have been giving out large
sums of money and have been giving--you know, fixing up homes
and things like that. So I will certainly go back and talk to
members within our association, as far as what they are hearing
regarding legal aspects that are preventing it from going on.
But we certainly tell people on a regular basis to go to
America Supports You. We also point them in other--because our
association does not give out money. But we do steer them to
organizations that do it on a regular basis and have not heard
back that the organization itself was unable to proceed.
Mr. Wamp. Quickly, because there are 13 others, but let me
ask you, how many of your families still have financial
problems that cause them to go to predatory lenders and borrow
money that puts them in a hole that they can't get out of?
And what about divorce? And are you seeing suicide rates go
up, many times from family members who have had financial
problems or divorce while they have been serving? And that
pressure leads to suicide, and some people think it is
asymmetrical warfare and head trauma and all that, which are in
some cases, but in most cases, it is just the pressure on the
family. Is that what you see with your membership?
Ms. Cohoon. Well, we are hearing the financial aspect
starting to play out more and more. I was recently in Norfolk,
and the special forces are starting to notice, especially
foreclosures on homes. And they themselves have set something
up to help them financially with that particular piece.
Because their concern is--and it is true across the
service--if you are thinking about financial issues back home,
it is difficult for you to be able to serve in theater and do
your job. And so they are looking at that particular piece.
Predatory lending is still an issue. There are some
loopholes which we can get back to you on that that we would
like to see addressed.
But the services themselves, as far as the Navy-Marine
Corps Relief Society, those types of programs have made it so
that it is a little bit easier as far as their servicemembers
to go and get money.
The problem with the mental health issues is, there is a
shortage of providers out there. One of our things that we also
had in our testimony is we need to do a lot more outreach as
far as teaching our families, but also the communities in which
they live, signs and symptoms of mental health issues and then,
also, the resources to go to, because it may not necessarily be
the spouse. It is mom or dad, or it might be the coach that is
picking up.
So there are a lot of different moving parts, but we can
certainly get back to you on the lending piece.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Barbara.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much. That Web site is
AmericaSupportsYou.com?
Ms. Cohoon. I think it is .gov. It is through DOD. It was
set up some years ago, and it is where all the nonprofits can
actually register and that can provide services.
Mr. Farr. I will take a look at it. Thank you very much for
your testimony.
The next witness is Stephen Nolan. Stephen is testifying on
behalf of the American Lung Association. In May 2006, he was
elected to serve on the board of directors of the American Lung
Association. This is the oldest nonprofit health agency in the
country.
Welcome to our committee.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION

WITNESS

STEPHEN J. NOLAN

Statement of Stephen J. Nolan

Mr. Nolan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee.
I am Steve Nolan. I am chair of the American Lung
Association. As the chair just indicated, we are the oldest
voluntary health organization in the country with over 300,000
volunteers and over 5 million active donors.
I am an attorney in private practice in Baltimore,
Maryland, and have been a volunteer with the American Lung
Association for over 10 years.
I am pleased today to be accompanied by our new American
Lung Association president and CEO, Chuck Connor, Captain
Charles Connor, I should say, U.S. Navy, retired. Captain
Connor served our nation in uniform for over 26 years.
First of all, we want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the
committee for increasing the investment in medical research at
the V.A. to $510 million for fiscal year 2009.
There is no doubt that our nation has an undying commitment
to all our veterans, especially the 40 percent of our veterans
who are over age 65. Chronic diseases are now the most
prevalent in the V.A. system. Now is the time to increase
funding for research at the V.A. to meet emerging needs and the
existing disease burden.
The American Lung Association recommends and supports
increasing V.A. medical and prosthetics research to $575
million.
Tobacco use and the chronic diseases caused and exacerbated
by tobacco take an enormous toll on veterans. We commend the
work of this committee and the Veterans Health Administration
to increase smoking cessation.
While cigarette smoking continues to be a problem for
veterans, progress has been made. In 2007, a survey conducted
of veterans enrolled in the Veterans Administration showed that
22 percent of the entire enrollee population currently smokes
cigarettes. In contrast, the general population, the rate of
smoking among the general adult population is 19.8 percent.
We recommend that the committee encourage the Department of
Veterans Affairs to work with the Department of Defense to
increase effective efforts to prevent tobacco use and increase
tobacco cessation.
Let's try to stop tobacco addiction, end disease before it
starts, and prevent the enormous health toll on this nation's
veterans and active-duty military.
Now, let's look at just one lung disease the American Lung
Association is fighting. Chronic lung disease causes a large
human and financial cost within the V.A. system. Generally in
this country, lung disease is responsible for 1 out of 6
deaths. It is the third-leading cause of death in this country.
And in particular, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease
affects approximately 16 percent of the veterans, according to
the Department of Veterans Affairs health care.
Proven interventions are effective, and treatments have
been showed to improve quality of life. Chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, or COPD, is a term referring to two lung
diseases, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Both conditions
cause obstruction of the air flows that interfere with normal
breathing.
Emphysema begins with destruction of the airways. As air
sacs are destroyed, the lungs are able to transfer less and
less oxygen to the bloodstream. The lungs also lose their
capacity and elasticity, which results in a shortness of breath
and difficulty exhaling.
Symptoms of emphysema include cough, shortness of breath,
and limited exercise tolerance. People with COPD may eventually
require oxygen and supplemental mechanical respiratory
assistance.
The other COPD that I mentioned is chronic bronchitis, and
that refers to inflammation and eventual scarring of the lining
of the lungs and the bronchial tubes.
The bronchial tubes then make an ideal breeding place for
bacteria infections, infections which are a frequent reason for
hospitalization and emergency visits of veterans and other
people with COPD.
Cigarette smoking is associated with a tenfold increase in
the risk of dying from chronic obstructive lung disease. About
80 percent to 90 percent of all deaths from chronic obstructive
lung disease are attributable to cigarette smoking.
It is possible to reduce the burden of COPD and tobacco
addiction in the V.A. system through using proven, effective
measures, summarized in national treating tobacco dependence
guidelines.
Mr. Farr. Can you wrap it up?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, your honor.
I would like to say just a few words regarding research----
Mr. Farr. You have got about a half a minute.
Mr. Nolan. Yes, sir. Again, the ALA supports increasing the
investment to $575 million.
[The prepared statement of Stephen J. Nolan follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.039

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well, that is the takeaway, but what is the cost
of cigarette smoking to the United States of America each year?
Mr. Nolan. In H.R. 1256, which was recently passed by the
House, the cost is tremendous. Cigarette companies alone spent
$13.5 billion in 2005 to keep Americans addicted to smoking and
to attract new smokers.
But, sir, I will provide the committee with the actual
dollar cost, the overall dollar cost to our health care system
in a supplemental submission.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.046

Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. I have one question. In your
testimony, you point out that the Department of Veterans
Affairs estimates that more than 50 percent of all the active-
duty personnel stationed in Iraq smoke. Why?
Mr. Nolan. Captain Connor.
Mr. Farr. That is 1 out of every 2. Are they smoking before
they go to Iraq or are they picking it up there?
Captain Connor. The indications are that they are
nonsmokers before they come into the Army and they pick it up
during the course of their service because some of their
sergeants or their seniors smoke. And in theater, they pick
this up----
Mr. Farr. Are there any penalties for starting to smoke
while you are in the service?
Captain Connor. There are no administrative or disciplinary
penalties, but they are coming back from service 50 percent as
smokers when they weren't a year or two before.
Mr. Farr. You need to look into that.
Thank you.
Mr. Nolan. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Farr. Our next witness is Dr. Heather Kelly, Senior
Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer in the Science-
Government Relations office of the American Psychological
Association, a scientific and professional organization of more
than 150,000 psychologists and affiliates.
Welcome to our committee, and we look forward to your
testimony. We have the testimony and will submit it for the
record, so if you could just summarize it.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

WITNESS

HEATHER KELLY

Statement of Heather Kelly

Ms. Kelly. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Vice Chairman, Ranking Member Wamp. As
was mentioned, I am Dr. Heather O'Beirne Kelly with the
American Psychological Association, APA, and we are a
membership organization of more than 150,000 psychologists and
affiliates across the country, both scientific and clinicians
focused.
Many of our psychologists work within the Department of
Veterans Affairs as both research scientists and clinicians
committed to improving the lives of our nation's veterans.
A strong V.A. psychology research program provides the
scientific foundation for high-quality care within the V.A.
system. V.A. psychologists play a dual role in both providing
care for veterans and in conducting research in all areas of
health, including high-priority areas especially relevant to
veterans, such as mental health, brain injury, substance use,
aging-related disorders, and physical and psychosocial
rehabilitation.
As you know, the current conflicts have presented new
challenges for V.A. psychologists, as many veterans of PTSD
have post-concussive symptoms extending from blast injury. In
addition, V.A. psychologists often receive special training in
rehabilitation psychology and/or neuropsychology, which helps
to improve assessment, treatment and research on the many
conditions affecting veterans of the current conflicts,
including PTSD, burns, amputations, blindness, spinal cord
injuries, and polytrauma.
Equally important are the positive impacts of psychological
interventions on the care of veterans suffering from chronic
and aging-related illnesses, such as cancer, cardiovascular
disease, HIV, and pain. I should mention psychologists have a
very strong program within the V.A., in terms of substance
abuse prevention and treatment, especially focusing on smoking
these days in the current theaters.
Here are my two take-home points. First, APA joins the
Friends of V.A. Medical Care and Health Research, the FOVA
coalition, in urging Congress to provide $575 million in fiscal
year 2010 for the overall V.A. medical and prosthetic research
accounts. This recommendation is echoed in the veterans
Independent Budget and in the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs views and estimates.
We also urge the committee to make sure that our stellar
V.A. scientists have adequate technology, equipment and
facilities for their research. That is my second take-home
point.
So within the V.A. minor construction program, which has
not provided the resources needed to adequately maintain,
upgrade and replace aging research facilities, we again join
FOVA in urging Congress to designate $142 million in fiscal
year 2010 within the minor construction budget specifically for
renovation of research facilities.
This is not asking for luxury. I mean, it is true that some
of these facilities have research labs that are in worse shape
than my children's elementary schools, and that should not be
the case.
As a psychologist and also as the daughter and
granddaughter of career military officers, I feel very
strongly, both personally and professionally, about our
responsibilities towards military personnel and veterans.
The care of veterans suffering psychological wounds as a
result of military service is at the heart of the V.A.'s
mandate to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle.''
And with your support, V.A. psychologists stand ready to
respond with cutting-edge research and treatment.
Thank you. And I am happy to take any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Heather Kelly follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.052

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, less than 2 minutes. Well
done.
Mr. Wamp. Thanks for your service and excellent testimony.
When the other witnesses said that we still don't have enough
providers for psychological services, what is your association
doing to help us provide those providers through the V.A. in
the field so that we do have adequate mental health services
for our returning population?
Ms. Kelly. Yes. And I can get back to you with a much
longer, specific response, but we echo their concerns.
Sometimes the issue is not as much financial as making sure
that the--as a previous witness mentioned, get to the right
places so that the money can be spent on the right things.
And you all have helped in the past couple of years--
devoted a lot more support toward mental health professionals.
In some cases, we have those professionals now, and we are
waiting to get them a desk, a computer. So there are a lot of
issues around personnel that aren't necessarily always pure
numbers.
But we can certainly get back to you in terms of what the
issues are and how best we could address those.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Ms. Kelly. I had a nice meeting with your staff last week
on some of these issues. They have been very helpful.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. In the office of the American Psychological
Association, you represent all the professionals in the
association, not those just that are in the V.A.----
Ms. Kelly. Correct.
Mr. Farr. or any government----
Ms. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Farr. And what we have been trying to do is--match
those professionals with the patients in their hometown
communities.
Ms. Kelly. We have had a lot of interest from our
membership across the country, both in terms of Reserve, V.A.,
and active duty--psychologists who practice as clinicians who
want to be of service, of volunteer service to military and
veteran personnel.
And we are trying--and as NMFA mentioned, we are trying to
find the best ways to hook up appropriate personnel with
appropriate training in ways that they can be helpful to sort
of augment what the military and the V.A. population of mental
health professionals can provide.
Mr. Farr. A very effective Web site you might look at is
called networkofcare.org. It tries to link up resources county
by county in the United States, so that you really know what
all the network of care in a given field, Alzheimer's or mental
health, or other kinds of diseases, what kind of resources are
there in the civilian community, as well as the government.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you very much.
Mr. Farr. Next witness is with the American Thoracic
Society, Jesse Roman-Rodriguez, who is testifying on behalf of
the American Thoracic Society, a medical professional
organization of over 15,000 members dedicated to the
prevention, treatment, research, and cure of respiratory
disease.
Dr. Roman-Rodriguez is a professor of medicine at the Emory
University School of Medicine and is also staff physician at
the Emory Clinic and the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical
Center.
Welcome to our committee.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY

WITNESS

JESSE ROMAN-RODRIGUEZ, MD

Statement of Jesse Roman-Rodriguez

Dr. Roman-Rodriguez. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman
and members of the committee.
My name is Jesse Roman-Rodriguez, as you heard. I serve at
the Atlanta V.A. Medical Center, and I am here to talk to you
about the good things that V.A. provides, but also to request
that you provide funding for its infrastructure.
I am excited to be here because of the many things the V.A.
medical research and prosthetic research program provides. I
know I have only a few minutes, so I am going to focus on a
couple of things that I believe are truly outstanding about
this program.
As you mentioned, I testify on behalf to the American
Thoracic Society. It is a 15,000-member medical professional
society dedicated to the research, prevention, treatment and
cure of respiratory disorders. Like me, there are many ATS
members that serve in V.A. facilities all across the country.
This organization is especially committed to ensuring the
continuation of strong V.A. medical and prosthetic research
program. And it is grateful that, in the past year, there has
been increases in the V.A. funding, and we request the
subcommittee to provide $575 million for the V.A. research
program in 2010.
Now, why support the V.A.? And you have heard other
witnesses describe that. Let me give you my version of it.
First, the V.A. research program attracts many bright,
young physicians to serve our nation's veterans. You have the
best physicians. You also have the best trainees. And that is a
crucial component with what the V.A. does, and these are people
devoted to taking care of veterans.
I came to the V.A. because of its research program. I
trained in the V.A. in San Juan. Later on, I went to the St.
Louis V.A. I have been 17 years at the Atlanta V.A., and I am
moving on to Kentucky to the Louisville V.A. And it is a
program that I would not leave.
Based on my experience, and the experience of my colleagues
and many others, I am convinced that the V.A. research program
keeps high-quality doctors within the system. The grants, the
mentorship opportunities that are there really attract these
people who are actually devoted to the care of patients. And,
therefore, being able to maintain a clinical research career
there is highly attractive for these physicians.
The second point that I want to make is the V.A. research
program excels in clinical research. It is great to perform
research in tissue culture and Petri dishes and so forth, but
we have got to translate that research to the human condition
and the care of patients. That is something the V.A.
researchers do and do extremely well.
In my own place, research performed by my colleagues has
improved dramatically the care of critically ill veterans and
veterans with tobacco-related diseases, diabetes, hypertension,
and so forth.
The third point is that the V.A. research produces really
outstanding science. These findings can be found in the top
journals, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the
American Medical Society, and so forth.
I will give you one example at my own V.A. I have a group
that is involved in alcohol-related research and its'
relationship with the lung. Until the mid-1990s, there was no
known association between those two. Now, because of this
group, we know that chronic alcohol abuse increases
susceptibility to acute lung injury, which kills about 50
percent of the people who develop it.
This group, over the past decade, has found the mechanism
by which this happens, has found a receptor that affects--that
relates to alcohol in the lung, and is looking very carefully
into potential therapeutic targets to treat that. So whether it
is alcohol abuse, lung cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's,
V.A.'s researchers are looking into that.
And, lastly, the V.A. research program is good for
veterans. Its program is devoted to taking care of diseases
that have--or that affect the veteran population.
What is the problem? Well, one of the problems--one of the
dark spots here is the infrastructure in the V.A. aging
facilities. The V.A. research labs are woefully out of date.
The sub-par research facilities are making it increasingly hard
to recruit and retain top-flight physician researchers into the
V.A.
The ATS greatly appreciates this subcommittee bringing
attention to this area by supporting and developing a report
that will look at the V.A. infrastructure. Unfortunately, the
funds are really needed now so that we don't continue to
neglect V.A. research labs. Funds to refurbish V.A. research
are desperately needed in 2010. ATS strongly recommends that
$142 million be provided to rehabilitate the existing
laboratory space.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear that V.A. research
provides a lot of good things to a lot of good people for a
little money. I hope you will continue to support the nation's
veterans to provide $575 million for the V.A. research program
and $172 million to improve its infrastructure and space
rehabilitation for 2010.
Thank you. And I will answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Jesse Roman-Rodriguez follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.056

Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. No questions. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. How many research facilities are there?
Dr. Roman-Rodriguez. Around 52 or so, one or two per state.
Mr. Farr. And $142 million will take care of that, huh?
Dr. Roman-Rodriguez. It will go a long way to improving the
research laboratory structure, yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony, Doctor.
Dr. Roman-Rodriguez. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Next witness is Joe Barnes, who is the Fleet
Reserve Association's national executive director. He is also a
senior lobbyist and chairman of the association's National
Committee on Legislative Service.
Thank you for being here today.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION

WITNESS

JOE BARNES, USN, RET.

Statement of Joseph L. Barnes

Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Congressman, Ranking Member Wamp. It
is a pleasure to be here.
Thank you for the opportunity to present FRA's legislative
goals. My name is Joe Barnes. I am the FRA's national executive
director. And with me today is Gerald Brice, a constituent of
Representative Wamp's, and FRA's southeast region vice
president from Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Mr. Farr. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Barnes. He is here to participate in FRA's Hill
business day, in conjunction with our national board of
directors meeting tomorrow and Saturday.
A continuing concern for FRA is ensuring that wounded
troops, their families, and the survivors of those killed in
action are cared for a grateful nation. This includes adequate
and sustained funding to ensure quality health care, support
and benefits, medical and prosthetic research, and a smooth,
seamless transition for veterans transitioning from DOD to the
V.A. for care.
There is progress towards these goals, and FRA sincerely
appreciates the strong support from this distinguished
subcommittee in achieving this. FRA appreciates and firmly
supports the administration's plan to submit a 2010 V.A. budget
of $113 billion, which is $15 billion higher than this year's
budget.
Much of the significant increase in discretionary funding
will go to V.A. medical care. And FRA notes that the proposal
exceeds the Independent Budget recommendations by $1.3 billion.
FRA also supports legislation to authorize advanced
appropriations for V.A. medical care and, if approved, urges
adequate appropriations to support this initiative.
FRA also supports the timely enactment--or appreciates the
timely enactment of the 2009 V.A. budget, which was the first
time in 15 years that this legislation was passed on time.
The association also supports increased funding to support
improvements to the Veterans Benefits Administration paperless
system and to expand access to additional Priority Group 8
veterans seeking care in the V.A. health care facilities.
The administration's budget outline also references the
importance of further expanding the concurrent receipt of
disability compensation and retirement pay for those medically
retired from service.
Full concurrent receipt for all disabled military retirees
is a longstanding FRA priority, and the association strongly
supports adequate appropriations to support this initiative.
FRA continues its strong opposition to enrollment fees for
lower priority group veterans seeking care in the V.A. health
care system. There are approximately 1.3 million veterans in
Priority Groups 7 and 8, and the association supports adequate
appropriations to prevent shifting costs to them for care they
are earned in service to our nation.
Although not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee,
FRA also continues its opposition to TRICARE fee increases for
military retirees and believes there are other cost-saving
options which must be implemented to help address funding
challenges.
The association salutes Chairman Edwards for his leadership
on this issue and strongly supports the Military Retirees
Health Care Protection Act, H.R. 816, which, along with
adequate V.A. health care funding, is being addressed by our
association's leadership during nearly 40 visits to various
members of Congress today. We also appreciate Ranking Member
Wamp's co-sponsorship for this legislation.
FRA strongly supports adequate funding to support medical
and prosthetic research and to reform the antiquated Veterans
Benefits Administration paper claims system to help address the
chronic claims backlog.
Regarding military construction and quality-of-life
programs, FRA appreciates the tradition of inviting senior
enlisted leaders to testify before this distinguished
subcommittee each year. This is the only opportunity for these
leaders to testify on Capitol Hill regarding important quality-
of-life programs.
As noted by MCPON Rick West and Sergeant Major of the
Marine Corps Carlton Kent, family housing and barracks
construction and childcare facilities are top concerns and
directly relate to the morale of our servicemembers and to
ensuring family readiness.
FRA strongly supports funding for these important programs,
which includes the Navy's home port ashore and other housing
and barracks projects, and the expansion of childcare centers.
In closing, allow me to again express the sincere
appreciation of the association's leadership for all that you
and members of this distinguished subcommittee and your
respective staffs do for our nation's servicemembers and those
who served in the past.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Joseph L. Barnes follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.065

Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Real quickly, I want to thank Mr. Barnes, but
mostly Gerald Brice back there. Every one of us has somebody in
our district that is a true veteran advocate that you hear from
all the time and follows all the issues, who beats the drum,
who wears you out, and that is him.
So I am honored that you are here in this room today. So
thank you for coming today and supporting Mr. Barnes' excellent
testimony.
I think the issues that you bring to us, this subcommittee
is fully committed to. We just need to keep working together to
push the ball further down the field.
So thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Barnes. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. Perhaps you could give the committee your input
on TRICARE fees. There is strong opposition to TRICARE fee
increases from military retirees and there are other cost-
saving options which must be implemented.
Could you give some examples of those cost-savings?
Mr. Barnes. Well, yes, Congressman. The drastic proposal to
increase TRICARE fees has been proposed for the past 3 years by
the Department of Defense. We firmly believe there are other
cost-saving options, such as expanding use of the more cost-
effective mail-order pharmacy, wellness programs, which are
addressed in this year's defense authorization bill, federal
pricing, for example, which is being implemented, results in
significant savings, and there are other options.
I can get a more complete list----
Mr. Farr. Yes, I would like--helpful, as we do this whole,
big health care bill, we are going to have to find those cost-
saving options. And your recommendations would be very helpful.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.067

Mr. Barnes. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much. We really appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Barnes. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. The next witness is from the National Association
for Uniformed Services, Rick Jones. Mr. Jones joined the
National Association for Uniformed Services as its legislative
director in 2005. Before this position, he served 5 years as
the national legislative director for AMVETS. He is an Army
veteran who served as a medical specialist during the Vietnam
War.
Welcome back.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES

WITNESS

RICK JONES

Statement of Rick Jones

Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Vice Chairman Farr.
Appreciate being here.
Thank you, Ranking Member Wamp.
We want to, first of all, express our deep gratitude to
you, Vice Chairman, and Chairman Edwards, and Ranking Member
Wamp, and all of the members of this subcommittee for your deep
concern and your expressed interest in assuring that veterans
were a number-one priority over the past 3 years.
You have done a superb job of marking up the bill and
providing the funds that are needed to care for our men and
women who serve this country and defend our cherished freedoms.
Thank you so very much.
Mr. Farr. And we will continue to do so.
Mr. Jones. I was pleased also to hear your interest in
sustaining TRICARE. As Mr. Barnes presented, I know that is not
an issue that is before you, but we are very pleased to hear
your interest. It is a very important earned benefit for those
who serve more than 20 years in the military and the uniformed
services. Your attention is deeply appreciated.
On military construction--and we strongly recommend that
you continue to develop BRAC realignment accounts, which
included housing and barracks, medical facilities, childcare,
training facilities, make sure they are in place, please, for
our returning troops.
If facilities are not ready, as you know, and funding
construction will be delayed or deficient, there will be
insufficient housing, insufficient barracks. Childcare will go
wanting. So these are needed when they are needed, and we trust
that you will understand this, as you have in the past provided
adequate funding in these accounts. There are more that need to
be done. There is more that needs to be done.
While we haven't yet received the full budget from the
administration regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs, we
can't really build on the comments and recommendations of the
president, but we can, however, and do endorse the Independent
Budget document, which has been formulated by four of the major
veteran service organizations and vets, Disabled American
Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of
Foreign Wars, which you will hear from later today in this
hearing for public witnesses.
At a minimum, we recommend that you increase the Department
of Veterans Affairs' budget approximately to $54.6 billion.
That is an increase of $4.3 billion over current funding, about
as much is being requested by the Independent Budget.
I recognize that the administration's initial outline of
this budget increases the funding an additional billion
dollars. We are yet to see those details. And what details we
have seen to this date have been somewhat suspect. One of those
details was the third-party funding for war-injured wounded
veterans, which we are thankful has been taken off the table,
so we have been informed.
We also support research initiatives in the areas that have
directly benefited not only veterans, but the public at large.
And we also support lifting the ban on access to V.A. health
care for our Priority 8 veterans. And denying access really
only devalues the service of those who seek care.
And we do recognize and are pleased to see the additional
funding that has been provided for some 550,000 Priority 8
veterans over the next 3 years, but more can be done. There are
many priority veterans--Priority 8 veterans who can't identify
private or public health insurance. And we would like to see
that insurance brought into the system. We think that is one
way to bolster funding for the care of these Priority 8
veterans.
We urge this subcommittee to take action to honor our
obligation to these men and women and not force V.A. to ration,
deny or delay care.
At the close of March, regarding disability claims
benefits, VBA had more than 697 claims pending. That is a
30,000 claim increase over this time last year. We recognize
that there are problems over there, and there are deep
problems. We recognize that you have provided funding, and
additional claims adjudicators are in process to deal with
these claims.
But yet we need to pay attention to that and not fall
backward on the advances that you have made already to date in
providing the funding that is necessary to upgrade the benefit
claims process.
Seamless transition. The president has made himself very
clear on this issue. We are very pleased to see the president
and yourselves in line regarding the electronic health record.
You know, this goes back to Chuck Percy, a senator from Ohio,
who in 1982, directed the Department of Veterans Affairs and
the Department of Defense to come together and provide this
sort of electronic health record.
The stove piping in the Department of Defense has been a
very serious problem and one that hopefully you will take care
of.
Again, I thank you so very much for giving us the
opportunity to testify today. We deeply appreciate your care of
the men and women who serve this country.
[The prepared statement of Rick Jones follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.080

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wamp.
Thank you for your service. I wanted to ask one question
that was very comprehensive. In my district, we have 28,000
veterans. And we have a great veterans clinic. We also have
over 6,000 men and women in uniform. We are trying to do a
joint DOD-veterans clinic. And a lot of the recommendations in
here, I think, were very helpful to try to do that.
One thing I would recommend that you look at is that with
the bases that are growing, the new bases in the realignment,
you put in your testimony about childcare and medical
facilities and barracks, but it is also schools that are going
to be needed.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. You need funding sources for that, this committee
is learning.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. The marriage rate is way up, and that
means children. And your understanding of that is wonderful to
hear.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
testimony.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Farr. I would like to now welcome back John Maupin, who
is president of the Morehouse School of Medicine and is
testifying on behalf of the Association of Minority Health
Professions Schools.
Welcome back, and thank you very much. We have your
testimony for the record. And if you could just summarize it,
we would appreciate it.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY HEALTH PROFESSIONS SCHOOLS, INC.

WITNESS

JOHN E. MAUPIN, JR., DDS, MBA

Statement of John E. Maupin

Mr. Maupin [continuing]. I have provided a corrected copy.
And I will give you a quick summary.
First, let me say thank you to the committee as a whole and
to yourself, Congressman Farr, and to, of course, my friend,
Congressman Zach Wamp. Your involvement and engagement with the
V.A. and encouraging them to have greater collaboration with
the minority medical schools, specifically our AMHPS schools,
has really gone a long way in terms of progress in our
endeavors for full integration into the V.A. system.
Their recent report provides, as you asked, provides an
overview of activities. While it does provide an overview of
activities, it doesn't quite hit on some of the issues that
still remain, if we are going to have an optimal relationship
within the V.A. system.
In fact, I would just highlight for a moment, in one of
their reports, on their report on--table one, they talk about
all of the historically black colleges and universities where
students and residents receive V.A. clinical training.
That report, quite frankly, is a list of all the
historically black colleges that are located in a V.A. city,
but that does not mean that all these schools have
relationships with V.A.
So it is a little misleading and a little disconcerting
that they would make that inclusion, as if there is a greater
level of activity when it is not. So that shows that we still
have a lot to learn about each other.
My comments today are really to provide you with some very
specific recommendations that we believe will go a long ways to
fostering a greater involvement of our institutions within the
V.A. system.
We believe that the national V.A. should extend its efforts
beyond the division level to the hospital relations level, to
the hospital leadership level in each of these areas.
We know, for example, that without strong advocacy and
sustained involvement of V.A. leadership at both the V.A. and
the medical center level, normal competitive tensions between
schools, where one institution has a longstanding relationship,
the V.A. personnel often have difficulty in engaging in new
collaborative relationships.
Where there have been successes, it has clearly been at
both the V.A.--at the division level and at the hospital
leadership level, as well.
We want to continue to encourage an increase in the number
of residency positions and to ensure greater integration of our
schools into core residency programs, such as medicine and
surgery, and other procedural services.
We have had great involvement in primary care areas, in the
out-patient areas, but very little involvement still in the in-
patient areas, in particular surgery and internal medicine. We
have in-patient psychiatry, for example, at Meharry, but not
involvement in in-patient surgery.
There are plans for in-patient surgery, but that has been
slow, in-patient medicine, that has been slow, but--and we have
had very little, if at all, discussions about in-patient
surgery. There is still a lot of pushback of our integration in
those key areas, from an in-patient perspective.
We would also like to encourage that there be appropriate
funding for attending physicians within the V.A. so that we
could have both full- and part-time individuals. Right now, we
have residents that are engaged in the V.A., but they are under
the supervision of the existing pool of faculty. And so we
believe that there ought to be an opening up of the opportunity
for us to also have faculty that are a part of the V.A.
There has also been a restriction in part-time faculty use
in the past by the V.A. I think it is an opportunity to expand
without the full cost of full-time faculty. And so we would
encourage the committee to encourage the V.A. to reconsider its
restrictions on part-time faculty.
In addition, we hope that we will be able to play a
leadership role in the new initiatives that the V.A. has been
involved in. We are encouraged that the V.A. has made progress,
for example, in women's health, and they have involved Meharry
Medical College and the leadership of the established men and
women's health program there in the Nashville area.
But we also know that there are other opportunities that we
are uniquely suited for and have national leaders in the
various disciplines, that if given the opportunity, we would
love to be involved in opening up new initiatives in those
areas.
We also hope that we are able to facilitate the full
participation and the expansion of subspecialty services. One
of the things we ran into was an additional restriction. Our
schools are primary-care focused, and we have generalist
training.
But even in the generalist training, we have subspecialists
that are on our faculty that can provide services. There is a
restriction that you cannot be involved in those areas unless
you have a subspecialty training program. We think that
restriction is not in the best interests of providing care and
does not particularly help us, in terms of the recruitment of
new faculty.
There are other areas which are in my document, and I would
love to take questions from you. We have made progress. We have
a lot more to do. Your involvement has meant a lot to what has
happened. We need the V.A. national, division, and the local to
be engaged and fully understand that this is something that
must occur, in terms of full integration of our schools into
the V.A. system.
[The prepared statement of John E. Maupin follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.098

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming back
this year. And, again, your testimony is very helpful.
Mr. Wamp. All I would say is that I support Dr. Maupin's
request. As a matter of fact, it is on my Web site, a written
request for the coming years that these things are honored by
this committee and that everyone is encouraged to do exactly
what he just testified.
Mr. Farr. Okay, thank you. We will put your revised copy in
the record.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards has arrived, so he will chair his committee.
Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Let me first thank Mr. Farr and
Mr. Wamp for keeping this subcommittee in good hands. I was
working on a project that has been 68,000 years in the making.
A lot of mammoths had to die in my district nearly 70,000 years
ago, and we are trying to protect that with the National Park
Service.
I am very glad to be back. But thank you for conducting the
hearing this morning.
We are honored to have Patrick Campbell with the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America. Appreciate very much your
service to our country and your continued service speaking out
on behalf of America's veterans.
And I would like to recognize you for 5 minutes at this
point.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA

WITNESS

PATRICK CAMPBELL

Statement of Patrick Campbell

Mr. Campbell. Well, thank you.
This is a new thing for me. I have never been down here
before. I feel----
Mr. Edwards. It is much more comfortable----
Mr. Campbell [continuing]. Much more comfortable----
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Than the other----
Mr. Campbell. Actually, it is a little more intimate, a
little more intimate than the other hearing--well, if I am here
to say anything--I read a lot of the testimony; you have
probably about 500 pages worth of paper to read after all
this--and that is to say thank you.
You know, the people that I represent are men and women who
are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who are thinking
about what it is going to be like when they come home. And for
the last 7 years, we have been fighting a war, but this country
hasn't been prepared to deal with those people coming home.
And 2 years ago, this Congress said we are going to make a
commitment to veterans. And you started fully funding the V.A.
for the first time in 77 years. And I just want to say thank
you for that commitment, because that commitment is making all
the difference.
Unfortunately, it was just the beginning. I mean, right
now, as you know, we surged into Iraq, and we are surging into
Afghanistan, but soon that soldier is going to be coming home.
And what that foundation that you have built over the past 2
years of fully funding the V.A. is just building a baseline.
This is not the end point. We need it to keep growing and
keep building, because we have one opportunity to get in front
of these veterans and give them an opportunity to transition
into, you know, a good future.
As you know, I served in Iraq in 2004-2005. And even to
this day, I am still suffering from some of the issues that I
dealt with over there. It has a profound effect on my work and
an even more profound effect on my relationships.
And I utilize the V.A. I utilize the veterans centers as an
opportunity for me to transition back into the world that I
left.
The soldier that is coming home, we have one opportunity to
get ahead on traumatic brain injury. We need to develop through
the centers of excellence an effective screen before and after
so that we have an idea, when someone like myself drops a tank
hatch on my head--I didn't tell you I was the smartest person
ever--when I drop a tank hatch on my head and I knock myself
out for a minute, that I don't find out that, you know, through
some random test that I take on later that I am suffering from
severe short-term memory loss.
I should be finding that through the V.A. When I go access
the V.A., they should be testing me, saying, ``Did you have any
explosions?'' When I was in Iraq, we got blown up 13 times. I
was in five car accidents, and I dropped a tank hatch on my
head and knocked myself out, but I have never once been
screened by the V.A. for the traumatic brain injury. I think
that is a problem.
It took members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee
staff to convince me to go get counseling. I think that is a
problem. And we are not creating a problem where the V.A. is
actually reaching out and getting veterans and bringing them
into the system. The V.A. is still a passive system, sitting
and waiting.
The V.A. has started to put its toe into the waters of
doing outreach. You might have seen the bus ads that they had
around here, but it is still kind of almost an afterthought.
And if I could ask any one thing about this committee that
you haven't already been paying attention to is that we need to
have a direct line item for outreach, and it needs to be a part
of everything that we do, where the V.A. is aggressively
marketing the benefits that already exist.
The other thing that we need to work on--and this is
something I know this committee is getting into the
jurisdiction of is we will start giving the V.A. the resources
and the opportunity to spend those resources effectively.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, you and I have talked about
advance appropriations before, and I think that this is the way
in which you help veterans like veteran Marine Ray Real in
southwest Texas, who has to drive 6 hours to go to his PTSD
appointment.
When Ray wants to set up an appointment, he has to call
like a U2 concert ticket on the first day of every month to
sign up from the 2 days a week that they have PTSD counseling,
and he has to drive 6 hours once he actually does get that
appointment.
And if he misses out on that appointment, if he doesn't get
that appointment then, he has to wait a whole other month.
Now--all of a sudden make sure he gets it, but that might
mean they will have one more day. They will be able to use
their dollars, stretch them a little bit wider and maybe
provide one more day of services for someone like Ray Real.
And to take this even farther, Ray--he tried to get an
appointment recently. And he was denied, because they didn't
have space. And recently he got in a fight, and, unfortunately,
killed the person he was dealing with, and is now spending the
rest of his lifetime in jail. This is someone who reached out
for help and was turned away at the door.
So this is something that, if we don't deal with it now, we
are going to lose these veterans as we go along.
We need to make sure that we are taking care of our female
vets, which was something that is new to this generation.
Eleven percent of Iraq and Afghanistan vets are female, and we
need to make sure that they have the facilities they need.
And, obviously, I care a little bit about the G.I. Bill. We
need to make sure that the G.I. Bill is done right. I know that
the actual benefits itself are not done through this committee,
but giving them the resources they need to implement it is done
through this committee.
And thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Patrick Campbell follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.100

Mr. Edwards. Patrick, thank you for your testimony and,
obviously, we will do a lot of follow up to the points you have
made. I just want to say you complimented this committee. The
accomplishments we have had over the last several years, you
and your organization have certainly been a critical part of
that. So thank you for the difference you are making.
And I was under the impression now that V.A. did screen
every veteran coming in, for whatever reason they are coming in
to the V.A. hospitals, that they are being screened for TBI and
PTSD.
Mr. Campbell. Only if you go to a V.A. medical center, and
it is a paper screen. This gets back to, we have not developed
an appropriate screen that actually effectively detects. But if
you go to a vet center, you don't do that screen. And so, you
know, lots of people are using--I call the vet centers the
gateway to--you know, into the V.A. And, you know, we need to
be expanding those programs for the vet center.
Mr. Edwards. We will follow up on that.
Any questions, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Gratitude for Patrick and all the people he
represents. No questions. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. You have been a great spokesman for
our veterans.
Any questions?
Mr. Farr. Yes, one. Thank you. Your testimony and your list
here is very helpful. We certainly will implement it.
I would like to follow up on why we can't get that veteran
PTSD services in his hometown.
Mr. Campbell. I agree.
Mr. Farr. There is no reason you have to go that far to our
clinical psychologist who can provide that service.
Mr. Campbell. All it takes is a standard. And right now,
the V.A.--it is individually based that says, you know, each
regional officer gets to make a decision on whether or not that
is too far to drive. And when you make it individually based,
you know, people are going to do what they can to save money.
And--if you drive over 70 miles to get counseling, that is
too far. You know, I am not going to say something that is
going to cause everyone here--we need to privatize health care,
but what we do need is we need a clear, bright-line standard:
This is too far to drive. This is too far to go.
And then give them the discretion for anything that is
closer. And that will help answer, so everyone will know what
is appropriate and what isn't.
Mr. Farr. It is a good suggestion. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
We would now like to call Dr. Stanley Appel with the ALS
Therapy Development Institute.
Dr. Appel, thank you for being here today. I would like to
recognize you for 5 minutes.
And I think it has been said, assuming everyone was here
and heard it, that your full testimony will be made part of the
record. And then we ask each witness to limit their comments to
5 minutes.
Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Appel.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

ALS THERAPY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

WITNESS

STANLEY APPEL, MD

Statement of Stanley Appel

Dr. Appel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to thank you and the subcommittee for allowing me to talk about
one of the scourges of our servicemen coming back from their
service, namely Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's
disease.
I also want to acknowledge the support of several of your
colleagues, Congressman Capuano, who has been tireless in
championing a therapy program for ALS, Congressman Brown of the
Veterans Affairs Committee, Chairman Spratt have also
recognized the value of a targeted therapy program, and they
are both friends of General Mikolajcik of South Carolina who,
unfortunately, has ALS and couldn't be here today.
And I would also like to acknowledge that Congressman
Patrick Kennedy sits in the Appropriations Committee with you
and has a personal interest in ALS.
Let me make several points. One is, the importance of ALS
to the military. It turns out that, if you served in the first
Gulf War, you have twice the chance of developing ALS than if
you served any place else, an incredible statistic.
If, in fact, you serve in the military, you have an
increased likelihood, a 60 percent likelihood of developing ALS
than if you didn't serve in the military.
Now, what is ALS? ALS is the most horrific, devastating
disease. I happen to have been chairman of neurology at Duke
University and Baylor College of Medicine for 27 years. I chair
the department of neurology at Methodist Hospital in Houston
now. And I will tell you, of all the diseases we take care of,
nothing matches ALS with the devastation.
You can't walk, so you are in a wheelchair. Then you can't
use your arms. Then you can't talk. Then you can't swallow.
Then you can't breathe and you die in 3 to 5 years.
And we have no cure for this disease, and it is over-
represented in our military, and that is the major point that I
want to address to your subcommittee, because it is key and
critical that we have a comprehensive approach.
It doesn't mean that, in my laboratory, which is basic
science and applied, that we aren't doing individual things as
goes on and my colleagues at Hopkins, at Harvard, et cetera,
but it does mean that there is no comprehensive approach to the
development of therapies. There is no comprehensive approach.
So ALS Therapy Development Institute in Boston is a
nonprofit, almost biotech-like company in developing therapy
development approaches. It is a group of 30 scientists who are
culled from pharmaceutical companies who have a passion and
motivation to solve this.
Pharmaceutical companies aren't interested in this. This is
``an orphan disease.'' They are not particularly interested
whether it affects more military people than anyone else, but
they themselves hopefully will be able to get some of the
developments that go on at places like ALS TDI to our patients,
because, once you have got a drug or a good drug, then they
will spend $100 million or $200 million that is necessary to
take it there.
But we absolutely need to declare war on ALS. And that is
something--NIH hasn't declared war on ALS. But because it is
overrepresented in the military population, I really urge you
all to consider that.
We have a lot of servicemen coming back from Iraq,
Afghanistan, the Gulf War, and many of them will develop ALS,
and we have very little to offer them. So I urge you to
consider a comprehensive program like this.
I am not here to ask for funding for ALS TDI. What I am
here to do is to ask you all to develop a comprehensive
program. ALS TDI does it, but there are other ways. But it is
most critical that you focus on this very needy population of
our veterans coming back.
They have been in the battle. Many of them have won the
battles. They are losing this.
ALS is not an incurable disease. It is an underfunded
disease. These folks coming back are, in fact, in a war, and
they don't have the tools, they don't have the ammunition to
get the enemy, namely ALS.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Stanley Appel follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.101

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.102

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.103

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.104

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Dr. Appel. Could I ask you, is
there speculation or has research indicated why men and women
serving in the military would have such a higher percentage of
having ALS than those who have not served?
Dr. Appel. It is absolutely key and critical that there are
environmental factors that are triggering this. I would like to
tell you from all our investigation, epidemiologically or
through the V.A. registry, that we have identified those.
We have identified some of them, maybe the toxins that our
servicemen were exposed to in the Gulf War, but it is not clear
that that is the sole environmental factor. So it is key that
they are encountering environmental factors.
And the second issue, obviously, there is some
susceptibility. And we have recognized. We have done genome-
wide--what we call SNP, single-nucleotide polymorphism, looking
for this. And we have identified 50 or 100 genes, but it is not
at a point where we can apply it through our V.A. to our
servicemen to identify that. So it is a complex mixture, and
yet it is factual.
But you don't need to identify the cause. Penicillin has
cured an awful lot of people before we understood how it
worked. We need to have a comprehensive program that will
target therapy development, and that is what we don't have in
the United States, and we don't have in our V.A. system.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well, just briefly, if you take the numbers of
veterans that we have and you assume that there is some similar
outcome with the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as you
had with Desert Storm, what kind of population are you
expecting to end up with ALS, based on our current warfighting
strength?
Dr. Appel. I don't have the specific answer to that,
because that is a great question that requires a specific
number based on this. But if you look in the United States,
there are 40,000 patients living with ALS.
This disease everyone thinks is a rare orphan disease. It
is not. It is because the patients die so quickly that, when
you sample the populations, you don't see them. But we will try
and get those numbers for you, because I think that is
important information.
[The information follows:]

Your question is somewhat difficult to answer, as the reasons for
the increased incidence rate of ALS in military veterans are not
understood. For now, I can tell you that the lowest possible number of
future ALS diagnoses of those who have served in the War on Terror
would be about 100. That number clearly understates the potential
magnitude of the problem. We do not yet know what is causing this
increase in incidence, and we do not know the time interval between the
exposure and the development of first symptoms. That latency could be
as much as several decades. As a result, the figure will be
considerably higher since exposures in this particular region, or
factors of contemporary warfare may have more of an effect on these
soldiers than we presently realize. In the 2008 Report of the Research
Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, the panel expressed
its ``great concern that the full impact of this disease on Gulf War
veterans might not be known for decades.'' When you consider that the
incidence around the world is 1-2 cases per 100,000 individuals, I am
certain you can appreciate that even 100 cases represents an extremely
large cohort. To put this range into perspective it is important to
note that during this same period there have been roughly 1,000
amputations resulting from combat.
I ask you to remember, too, that research has also found that ALS
is striking veterans at considerably younger ages than the national
average.

Mr. Wamp. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much.
Dr. Appel. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Sam.
Mr. Farr. Just one question.
Dr. Appel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. In the comprehensive strategy that you are
urging, is there another modality, another disease where we do
have that comprehensive strategy?
Dr. Appel. There are a number of diseases where it is
financially profitable for the pharmaceutical company to invest
the kind of resources that would do it. Heart disease, stroke,
hypertension, hyperlipidemia, but not in a disease like this,
where those aren't the risk factors and where hundreds and
hundreds of millions of dollars are not being invested----
Mr. Farr. A comprehensive strategy?
Dr. Appel. Well, we are talking about $100 million program
at a minimum, in terms of doing it. And yet the benefit for our
servicemen is they will have a disease-free future. And that is
something that I think all our servicemen should be promised.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Appel.
We are very honored to have a city council member from
Vicenza, Italy, Ms. Cinzia Bottene. Help me with the
pronunciations, and forgive me for any mispronunciations.
But we know that your community has been a partner with the
United States in defending Europe, fighting for security
throughout the world, and we are honored to have you here.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, VICENZA, ITALY

WITNESS

CINZIA BOTTENE

STATEMENT OF CINZIA BOTTENE

Ms. Bottene. Thank you, Chairman and members of the
committee.
My name is Cinzia Bottene, and I am a city council member,
and I am here representing the citizens opposed to the new U.S.
military base in Vicenza, Italy.
Since I don't speak English very well, Stephanie Westbrook
will read my testimony and help with any questions.
We welcome this occasion to illustrate the concerns of the
citizens, meeting with members of the Congress over what we
think is a serious mistake.
We ask you not to make this mistake, because Vicenza is a
city of 120,000 people. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and
showcase of architect Andrea Palladio, whose work inspired
icons of American democracy, such as the Capitol building.
The site of the new base is located in a residual area,
completely surrounded by houses, and just one mile from the
historical city center, with 35 Palladian buildings. The area
is the last remaining open space in our city, and this alone is
reason for it to be protected and reserved for public use.
We ask the members to try to imagine building a military
base in Central Park or right here on the mall. One look at the
photo included with our testimony should be enough to
understand just one of the many reasons for the opposition to
the base.
We ask you not to make this mistake, because the site also
lies just a few feet above one of the three most important
groundwater sources in Europe. The project for the new base
includes thousands of pylons that will go over 80 feet into the
ground, as you can see in the photos included, and this poses a
serious risk to our water source.
We ask you not to make this mistake because the location of
the base is in violation of a number of European Community
directives on protected natural habitats, and cases are
currently pending before the European Community.
Despite having been formally requested several times by the
mayor, and by the citizens of Vicenza, an Environmental Impact
Assessment has been continually denied.
The initial negotiation for the new base dates back to
2001, though the citizens and most city council members were
kept in the dark until May 2006. The information concerned
together with this lack of transparency led ordinary citizens
of all ages and from across political, social and cultural
boundaries to mobilize in opposition, which has continued for 3
years now.
There has been an endless succession of nonviolent
demonstrations, bringing as many as 150,000 people to the
street. Citizens have been back on lobbying trips to Rome, to
European Parliament in Brussels, and twice before to
Washington, D.C.
The widespread opposition to the new base also led to a
political shift in Vicenza. In April 2008, after decades of
governing the city, the ruling coalition was voted out. The new
administration ran on a platform opposing the base, promising a
vote in city council and a local referendum.
In July 2008, city council voted with 25 opposed to the
base and 2 in favor. The local referendum was 13 October, 2008.
Over 95 percent voted against the base.
We ask you not to make this mistake, because Vicenza
already has seven U.S. military installations, including Camp
Ederle, dating back to 1955.
Numerous Defense Department publications highlight the
importance of maintaining good host nation relations, but how
can you possibly think to maintain good relations knowing that
the new base has already caused a deep divide between the
Vicenza community and the U.S. military?
Imposing this decision will do nothing but create an
inhospitable climate. How can you proceed knowing that the base
will be built in a protected natural habitat directly above an
important groundwater source and without any environmental
impact assessment?
We ask members of this committee to respect our city and
territory, to respect the wishes of local residents, to respect
our children's future. We ask that Vicenza be treated with the
same respect as any city in your country where a similar
project would be unthinkable.
After 3 years of investing more time and energy than you
can imagine in opposing this base, I am more convinced than
ever the people of Vicenza will simply never accept it. Even
yesterday and today, people in Vicenza are demonstrating
against the base, even now, while we are sitting here in front
of you.
We strongly ask this committee to block funding for the new
base, to reconsider the entire project, and find an alternative
solution that takes the concerns of the local population into
account.
On behalf of the citizens of Vicenza, I thank you, Mr.
Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to appear
before you today. And I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Cinzia Bottene follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.105

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.106

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.107

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.108

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.109

Mr. Edwards. Let me first thank you for coming and for the
excellent testimony.
The fact that you have come this far to make this statement
certainly is an expression of the strength of your feelings.
And I know those feelings must obviously represent many
citizens in your community.
Ms. Bottene. Can I tell----
Mr. Edwards. Please.
Ms. Bottene. Thank you.
We thank you that we have been able to express deeply how
serious the problem is in our town. The photo we enclose and
the water source that you can see in the enclosed photo can
express very well which is the product of the problem.
And there is another photo very important which shows how
close--this is Basilica Palladiana, and this less than one mile
from the city center.
Mr. Edwards. How far away are our present military
installations in the Vicenza area?
Ms. Bottene. Six miles.
Mr. Edwards. Six miles?
Ms. Bottene. Yes, but there is no Air Force there.
Mr. Edwards. Is the local community support the present
military installation there?
Ms. Bottene. Yes. Camp Ederle is there from--since 1955.
And the relations between the community and the military have
always been perfect, but now, since we know that this--there
will be another military base and so close to Vicenza, to
citizens, and on the water source, of course, citizens are
moved in another direction.
Mr. Edwards. Has there been any sort of agreement signed
between our two federal governments?
Ms. Bottene. Yes, surely some. But the first step was
between the Bush administration and the Berlusconi
administration. Then in Italy, we had Prodi administration, the
other side. And in that moment, they told us that there would
be a sort of reconsideration of this problem.
So the Parisi, the defense minister, spoke to Spogli, which
was the ambassador of United States in Rome. And after that,
Spogli gave a sort of ultimatum to Vicenza to say yes or no.
And in 9 days, we had to give an answer, and the answer to
agree, because it is difficult, you can imagine, for our
country to say no to United States.
Mr. Edwards. Let me ask Walter, can you update us before we
address any other questions, any other members of the
committee, can you update us on your understanding of this
installation, where we are in the process? So the project is
underway? Okay.
Well, let me see if Mr. Wamp or other members of the
committee would like to ask any questions.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. No, I had the opportunity to have them in my
office. We spent over an hour and got very concerned about
this.
I thought it was going to be used as an air base, but it is
a housing base. And it is very difficult but I share their
concerns.
One question I have, though, in the architecture. Does the
city get to approve the architecture? Do you have any
involvement in that so that it----
Ms. Bottene. You mean in the project?
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Ms. Bottene. It is not a problem of project of
architecture. It is a problem of sight and of being so close to
the city center. It doesn't matter what is the architecture.
Mr. Farr. But these are houses. These are houses around
here, are they not? It is for housing.
Ms. Bottene. Yes, only----
Mr. Farr. The base will be used only for housing.
Ms. Bottene. That is not true. We have some numbers here.
Mr. Edwards. What other purposes would the base be used
for? Would it be used for military exercises or as an airport--
--
Ms. Bottene. It is an old Air Force base that is being--it
is abandoned airport. It is being revitalized for housing.
We--we have left, you can see there are--the new basing--
140,000 square meters--facilities complete with approximately
860,000 square meters of parking and more than 1,000 heavy
vehicles. In addition, the projects comprises two multi-story
parking garage with a capacity of more than 1,600 vehicles.
Mr. Edwards. You know----
Ms. Bottene. And there is also a space for plane.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Ms. Bottene. Yes.
Mr. Edwards. I don't know what the probabilities are of
changing the decision, given that this project initially
received local approval and construction has begun.
But I was not aware of the local opposition, and perhaps
other members of Congress were not. We will be happy, out of
respect of the partnership your community and our country have
had for many years, to ask the leadership at the Pentagon about
this.
Ms. Bottene. The leadership?
Mr. Edwards. The leadership of the Pentagon, key people,
key people at the Pentagon----
Ms. Bottene. Yes.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Whether they took into account
local opposition. We will ask the Pentagon whether it is being
reconsidered or if they are moving ahead.
But we ought to treat each other with respect. And we will
certainly make a good-faith effort to try to get answers.
Ms. Bottene. So you are--I am sorry. I say it back to you
to be sure I have understood. You are trying to ask the
Pentagon people to reconsider the project and----
Mr. Edwards. No, I don't have enough information today to
make a recommendation yes or no on the project. But out of
respect to your visit here----
Ms. Bottene. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. And the fact that you represent your
constituents as we represent our constituents, we will ask the
Pentagon how far along this project is. Have they taken into
account the local opposition to the project? And is it possible
to stop or are they committed to moving ahead?
So we will raise questions. I don't know if we can change
the outcome, but we will ask questions and then communicate
back with you.
Ms. Bottene. Thank you.
We thank you very much. And we hope that intelligence also
allow to understand when a mistake is committed. So this could
leave room and place for discussion for reconsidering
everything and, most of all, for listening to what local people
are definitely saying in the last 3 years.
Mr. Edwards. Well, thank you for speaking up on behalf of
your citizens. Thank you. It is an honor to have you here.
Thank you. Thank you for your excellent presentation.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Michael Houlemard, who is
president of the Association of Defense Communities. He is also
executive officer of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority, guiding the
planning, implementation, and financing of the redevelopment of
the former Fort Ord military reservation, an issue of great
interest to Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. I think this committee knows about everything
there is to know about Fort Ord, but you haven't heard what it
is like for a community, as Mr. Houlemard represents the
association of space reuse communities.
---------- --
--------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

ASSOCIATION OF DEFENSE COMMUNITIES

WITNESS

MICHAEL HOULEMARD

Statement of Michael Houlemard

Mr. Houlemard. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Chairman Edwards, Vice Chairman Farr, Ranking Member Wamp,
Congressman Berry, thank you very much for the opportunity to
speak today. I very much appreciate this opportunity, because
the key issues that are facing the defense communities of this
nation are severely impacted by the economic downturn that the
nation is experiencing right now, and communities across the
country have asked that we, on their behalf, speak up loudly
and succinctly about what their problems are.
First of all, a little bit about the association. We have
1,200 members. And those members provide a home to our nation's
troops, their families, the veterans, and the others that are
the civilian support network for our military.
We are the nation's premier organization supporting those
communities with active, growing, and closed installations,
especially about mission enhancement, realignment, community
installation partnerships, all the private partnerships that
are going on across the nation. We have been doing that for
over 30 years.
The testimony I am going to give today is going to focus on
three areas that I think are of particular interest to us at
this time.
First--and I think the subcommittee is well aware of this
from other testimony it has received and what other colleagues
have said earlier today--the BRAC 2005 round, as it is the
largest and most complex round of base closures and
realignments, is very important to the nation.
Now, we are reading a recent Government Accountability
Office report. And in that GAO report, they describe several
significant challenges which will adversely impact the
department's ability to complete the 2005 round of closure,
especially by the September 15th deadline.
In particular, we are concerned that, to ensure the
services can accomplish the deadline that ADC recommends, that
they get full funding for the programs included in the BRAC
2005 account.
What I am particularly concerned about and what we received
a lot of comment about has to do with growth communities and
the potential massive local infrastructure requirements,
especially for schools, that will be required as part of
realignments and reassignments in the 2005 closure and with
soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Second, the Department of Defense has estimated it has
about a $3.5 billion backlog in environmental remediation work
that has to be done for properties across the nation. Local
communities have been working on redeveloping these lands,
working closely with the Navy, the Air Force, the Army, the
Corps of Engineers, and the Marine Corps on how that
environmental restoration is going to take place.
Certainly, the military's use of those properties were at a
military time, but they are now potentially proposed for
civilian reuse, requiring a significant amount of activity--and
I will call it restoration activity--for them to be used for
productive purposes for our communities.
I am particularly concerned that those environmental
remediation activities focus on the safety of the adjacent
communities. Those communities have existing veterans and
ongoing experiences with facilities that are still supporting
the military's work, and our children are still exposed to
remnant hazards, including munitions and explosives.
It is important that the full environmental requirement be
funded for these properties to be transferred to local
communities. The House of Representatives recommended $300
million in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That
funding did not survive the joint committee's recommendations,
and so therefore it was not included.
That $300 million is only a small part, but that $300
million needs to be restored, and our members would suggest
that it should be carried forward in the 2010 budget. If the
House can do that and this subcommittee could recommend, we
would appreciate it.
My third point promotes the expeditious transfer of closed
military installations to federally recognized local
redevelopment authorities with an emphasis on using the no-cost
economic development conveyance mechanism available in law. We
are asking that it be emphasized more than just be a part of
multiple opportunities for transfers.
As a little bit of background, the BRAC commission was
created to consolidate and increase efficiency in DOD
facilities. Part of that commitment to Congress was that the
BRAC process would help closed bases transition in a quick way
so that they would be available for local reuse.
Over five rounds of BRAC have occurred, and hundreds of
military installations have been decommissioned or downsized
with the expectation that these properties would be available
to local communities for economic recovery and economic
development.
However, despite reports to the contrary, recent evidence
continues to support our 1999 testimony that the inconsistent
and uneven and time-consuming transfer process by the military
department still leaves thousands of acres of former
installation property unused, with fallow acreage hampering
many other community economic redevelopment activities.
In fact----
Mr. Edwards. Could I ask that you take about 30 seconds to
finalize? And I apologize for----
Mr. Houlemard. I certainly can. On this particular point,
Chairman, we have a very distinct philosophical difference with
the Department of Defense, because they are emphasizing market-
rate sales, and we are emphasizing local economic recovery and
job creation. We have to have the land to be able to do that,
and that is our emphasis.
I would like to say, on behalf of all of ADC in the nation,
we really want to thank this subcommittee for its continuing
work and support for veterans, for the soldiers, and for their
families. Defense communities are at the core of what our
program does. And you have heard others say what we need done
in both BRAC and in the investment in environmental
restoration.
So I appreciate the time, sir.
[The prepared statement of Michael Houlemard follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.113

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.114

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.115

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.116

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.117

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.118

Mr. Edwards. Well, thank you. And as someone who
represented Fort Hood for 14 years, I have seen firsthand the
importance of our defense communities. And thank you for
leading them, for what you do. Thank you for sending Sam Farr
to Congress. He has been a great spokesman for our communities
on this issue and the issue of transfers.
I have a feeling this is going to be an issue we are going
to do a lot more talking about.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well, we spent all morning on BRAC yesterday, and
he is exactly right. And I think we are going to follow through
on all of it, so I thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Houlemard. Appreciate the time, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Yes, what is the one thing you think that DOD
could do to ease the growth pains? And is one service better
than the other at transferring property?
Mr. Houlemard. I am biased because I work mostly with the
United States Army, but I think all of the services will show
you models of success. All services can also show you areas
where they would have wanted to do better.
So I can't say that I would point to anyone better than the
other, but I will say this: With respect to growth communities,
sir, there is current authority under law that the Department
of Defense could provide support for communities for the front-
end infrastructure and schools needs that would help.
When soldiers return and their young children need to find
places in classrooms to be in and other facilities to get
back----
Mr. Farr. So Mr. Bishop was here yesterday. And his problem
is that he has a growth community. There is no funding for
schools. The Department of Defense says, ``Well, that's taken
care of in the local infrastructure funding.'' Many of us on
this committee disagree.
And you say there is a tool that DOD can use to up front
this----
Mr. Houlemard. There remains authority in law for the
Office of Economic Adjustment to provide for capital needs.
This was done before. It was created when the Trident submarine
program many years ago, I think both in the state of Washington
and the state of Georgia where that was deployed, and that
authority still exists today.
So this is always a question of priorities, sir, but I
can't imagine a better priority than for the communities now
left to provide educational services for soldiers, families, as
they return from overseas.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Ben Redmond, with the
National Association of OEW Contractors.
Mr. Redmond, welcome. And I would like to recognize you for
5 minutes.
Thursday, April 23, 2009.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OEW CONTRACTORS

WITNESS

BEN REDMOND

Statement of Ben Redmond

Mr. Redmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
I am honored to be here today to represent the National
Association of Ordnance and Explosive Waste Contractors,
commonly known as NAOC. NAOC is a trade association for firms
involved in the detection and cleanup of unexploded ordnance on
active military bases, formerly used defense sites, and base
realignment and closure sites.
It includes 65 member companies, employing more than
250,000 people in every state of the union. Our member
companies participate in the entire spectrum of cleanup, from
development of detection technologies to the actual cleanup of
UXO sites.
I am here today to speak about the environmental
restoration and cleanup on BRAC sites. According to the 2007
defense environmental program's annual report to Congress, over
the past 10 years, Congress has provided $5.8 billion for
environmental activities at BRAC installations.
Annual appropriations for cleanup of BRAC sites have
remained consistent. However, the total amount for
environmental cleanup on BRAC sites is only approximately $60
million per year for military munitions cleanup. This is a
rough number, as there is no requirement to report funding or
expenditures for munitions cleanup separately from traditional
hazardous waste cleanup.
This funding, however consistent, is woefully inadequate to
address the problem. Currently, there are 92 legacy BRAC sites,
and there are 37 current BRAC 2005 military munitions response
sites, with a total cost to complete of almost $1 billion. A
detailed list is included as an attachment to my testimony.
The backlog on cleanup of legacy BRAC sites is a problem
that has been addressed by this body itself. The problem was
specifically addressed in a Senate report and House report,
which accompanied the fiscal year 2009 Military Construction
and Veteran Affairs Appropriations bill.
When installations are closed, the local economy has little
chance to recover until these sites have been transferred to
allow safe use for their intended purpose. Limited funding
delays that require cleanup, which delays the transfer of this
land from the Department of Defense to private entities and
municipalities for nonmilitary use and tax-generating economic
activities.
With a weakening economy and a possible prolonged
recession, the timely cleanup of transferred and transferring
sites which protect the public and provide for economic
development is extremely important.
Though some BRAC sites have been transferred, previous
reports from the Government Accountability Office have noticed
that environmental cleanup requirements present the primary
challenge to transferring the properties. A good example is the
BRAC installation that has remaining sites to be cleaned up is
Fort Ord, which is one of the most beautiful sites in the
country, with high-value real estate ripe for redevelopment.
Fort Ord was closed in BRAC 1991, with expectation to clean
up and turn over the site within a few years. This has not
happened.
Other high-value sites that need additional funding which
could be redeveloped and bring new jobs and increase the tax
base include sites in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Tennessee,
Texas, Louisiana, and many other states.
An area of concern that NAOC has identified is there is not
a detailed aggregation of data on BRAC sites. Currently, site
data is not collected and reported at a precise enough level to
allow for proper budget formulation and cataloging of sites.
We believe this has hampered funding, privatization, and
contributes to an underestimation of the remediation required
in associated backlog. NAOC recommends that DOD be required to
collect data in smaller data sets, such as a county or the
individual state's equivalent of a county for all MRP sites.
In summary, it is in our national interest to appropriate
funds for the timely, complete cleanup of unexploded ordnance
on BRAC sites for both legacy BRAC and for BRAC 2005.
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak with you on
behalf of NAOC about this important issue. I want to thank
Chairman Edwards for his leadership and for holding this
hearing.
I would also like to thank Ranking Member Wamp for his
service on the committee.
In addition, I would like to thank Congressman Farr for
championing these issues.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Michael Houleward follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.119

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.120

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.121

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.122

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.123

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.124

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.125

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.126

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.127

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.128

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Redmond, thank you very much for your
testimony and also for what you and the members of NAOC do, the
important work that you do.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. No questions, thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. You know, I have one. Mr. Redmond, yesterday we
heard from DOD that you can't absorb any more funding, that
they are moving as fast as you can possibly clean up, and that
there is no need to put more money into it because it can't go
any faster than it already is.
Can you comment on this?
Mr. Redmond. Yes, sir, I can.
Secretary Beale over at OSD--he has since moved on--but he
asked NAOC 3 years ago, how much additional funding could we
absorb with the personnel we currently have? With the slowdown
of operations in Iraq, that number is over $2 billion a year.
The current funding is around $500 million a year. So NAOC does
not agree with the Department of Defense----
Mr. Farr. Would you get us some specifics on that?
Mr. Redmond. Certainly.
Mr. Farr. I really appreciate it. We have got to get that
into the record. I mean, it is too bad they are not here today
to respond.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.129

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.130

Mr. Redmond. Yes.
Mr. Farr. But they were adamant that, ``We are just doing
as fast''--you know, I don't believe that. It is the same thing
we heard with public works, is that we couldn't fund--no more
building of roads because there weren't enough tractors and
personnel out there to do it. But it seems to me there is
capacity and the government is underestimating that capacity.
Mr. Redmond. Well, I think the stimulus program is
currently showing with the construction of new roads, there is
capacity that is unused. And certainly within NAOC, there is
capacity which could be applied immediately, if the funding was
available.
Mr. Farr. And that is job-intensive.
Mr. Redmond. It is labor-intensive, yes, sir. It creates
jobs. And it is a small investment for the return, because when
these lands were returned to the communities, they can be
redeveloped for industrial use in bringing even more jobs and
increase the tax base. It is a good deal.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Redmond. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Redmond. Appreciate it.
I would like to now call forward Steve Robertson with the
American Legion.
Steve, welcome back.
Mr. Robertson. It is good to be back.
Mr. Edwards. Did somebody twist you too hard?
Mr. Robertson. I wish I could say I did something
glamorous, but it was pure clumsy during a visit of a college.
I missed a step and landed on all fours.
Mr. Edwards. That elderly lady that you saved from falling
down those steps----
Mr. Robertson. That is now--I will swear to that, if you
will.
Mr. Edwards. Welcome back to the committee, and thanks for
all your work and the Legion's work with our committee in the 2
years that I have had the privilege of chairing the committee.
And I would like to recognize you now for your opening
statement.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

THE AMERICAN LEGION

WITNESS

STEVE ROBERTSON

Statement of Steve Robertson

Mr. Robertson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like my
full testimony to be submitted for the record.
Mr. Edwards. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Robertson. I wanted to start with thanking the
committee for the funding that we got last year. And the most
important part was that we got it on time. I can't begin to
tell you how much we appreciate that. The entire veterans
community, I think I can speak for them, to say that we greatly
appreciate having it on time to give us the full year to be
able to spend the resources.
We also appreciate the supplemental that brought in money
to the V.A. for a lot of the work that needs to be done
throughout the system.
Now, as you are well aware, we have a team that goes around
the country visiting V.A. medical facilities and on-site
inspections to kind of get a feel for what areas are working
well and what areas need improving.
And I can tell you that we are in the middle of following
up to see how the money is being spent. We are trying to follow
up on non-recurring maintenance issues to make sure that those
are being addressed in a timely manner.
We are also still concerned about CARES, the projects that
we were supposed to have underway, seeing what kind of progress
were being made on that.
We are also visiting the regional offices to see what kind
of progress is being made in the claims adjudication area. I
can tell you, from a couple of visits that I have made
personally, that they are hiring the new claims folks. Again,
it is going to be the process of getting them trained up to
where they can take on the more challenging cases.
So the morale is improving at a lot of the regional
offices, just the fact that they know that they have got the
folks online. The problem is, is you are replacing guys and
gals with 30 years' experience, and you just can't replace that
experience that quickly.
Again, we are once again asking about the issue of advanced
appropriations. We appreciate having it on time this time, but
we would like to have it 2 years in a row. We see a big
difference in the veterans world. And if it is possible to
advance the idea of an advanced appropriations for the medical
care, we would greatly appreciate that. We are going to
continue to ask for that throughout the year.
I am going to cut this short, so if there are any questions
that you all would like to ask, I will be more than happy to
try to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Steve Robertson follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.131

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.132

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.133

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.134

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.135

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.136

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.137

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.138

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.139

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.140

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.141

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.142

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.143

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.144

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.145

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.146

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.147

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.148

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.149

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.150

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.151

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.152

Mr. Edwards. Thanks for your testimony. And thanks for your
oversight.
You know, I said I wanted three goals to pursue when I
became chairman. One is to provide more funding for the V.A.;
two, exercise more oversight; and, three, encourage innovation.
And you are a partner in all three of those, but particularly
in oversight.
While we have plused up significantly the inspector
general's office, they can't compete with millions of veterans
out there every day that are seeing what is going on firsthand
in the hospitals. So thank you.
Mr. Robertson. With the number of volunteers, that is the
other area that we get a lot of input. We have so many people
that work as volunteers day in and day out. A lot of times,
they will tell us when there has been a position that has been
held open for a long period of time without being filled or a
problem with one of the facilities that they know needs to be
replaced or equipment that is on backlog.
So we have a lot of assistance out there.
Mr. Edwards. And let me just say, in regard to advanced
appropriations, that decision hasn't been made yet, but I know
that, because of the interest and the priority shown on this
issue among our veteran service organizations, including the
Legion, there are a lot of serious discussions going on about
seeing how that could be put into place.
So the concerns expressed repeatedly by our VSOs have been
heard and are being, as we speak, being considered.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Total respect for the American Legion. Appreciate
Steve, as well. You are a great advocate, and thanks for the
testimony. And we will be with you.
I understand the desire to sometimes take us out of this
picture, but I do think that Chairman Edwards' leadership has
proven that we can annually allocate these resources in an
effective way and get the money to you on time and use this
process to make the V.A. more accountable. And I know that
forward funding sounds good, but to me, it will make the V.A.
less accountable.
I don't want to get in that fight today, but I do see the
pressure from these hearings, from this process helping right
now. So I totally understand where you are coming from with the
constant flow of dollars, but I also think if they don't have
to come here, the pressure is off.
I have seen it in other directions, other agencies. There
are other agencies--frankly, like the Tennessee Valley
Authority that used to receive federal appropriations. And I
guarantee you, they are less accountable today to the taxpayer,
the rate payer, and the Congress because they don't receive
appropriations than when they did annually.
And that is just one example. There are many.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. Thank you for your
leadership and partnership.
And, Sam, we did get a bill passed on time last year, and
we are going to make every effort to do so this year.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. No questions, just thank you. Longest testimony
we have, and thank you for doing it within a short period of
time.
Mr. Robertson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Farr. You are doing a good job, Steve. Really
appreciate it.
Mr. Edwards. If you would sit there and let the Independent
Budget group come up. And then we will have you back to the
table if there are any questions and answers after the
Independent Budget presentation.
Could I now ask those of you that are here with Independent
Budget, Ray Kelley with AMVETS, Kerry Baker with DAV, Carl
Blake with Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Christopher
Needham with Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Thank you all. Thank you again for the incredible
partnership that you have been an important part of over the
last several years. We have passed historic and unprecedented
increases in V.A. funding. You have been a terribly important
part of that successful effort, and we thank you for that. And
thanks for being here.
I would like to recognize you in whatever order you would
care to.
Mr. Blake. Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess sort of the way we
have normally done it is, we speak on the health care piece.
PVA has responsibility for that. And then I will defer to DAV
on the benefits.
Mr. Edwards. And, Carl, for the transcription, if you would
just--as you begin your speech, if you would say who you are
and what you are representing.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET AND PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

WITNESS

CARL BLAKE

Statement of Carl Blake

Mr. Blake. Yes, sir.
Chairman Edwards, Ranking Member Wamp, Mr. Farr, I would
like to thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on
behalf of the Independent Budget on the fiscal year 2010
budgetary needs of the Department of Veterans Affairs health
care system.
I am Carl Blake with Paralyzed Veterans of America. I want
to echo the sentiments of Steve from the Legion. We certainly
appreciate everything the subcommittee has accomplished in the
last 2 years. I don't think we would be where we are at without
your leadership and, really, the support of the full
subcommittee. So we certainly appreciate that.
We were pleased to see that the initial information from
the administration suggests what will probably be a significant
increase in the budget once again. It really will be a truly
historic budget, if we get what has been proposed by the
administration.
We will withhold any final judgment on that until we have
much more details. I think we are anxiously awaiting it, just
like I am sure you and your staff are, as well.
For fiscal year 2010, the Independent Budget does recommend
approximately $46.6 billion for total medical care, which is an
increase of about $3.6 billion over the fiscal year 2009
operating budget level.
Our medical services recommendation includes approximately
$36.6 billion, which includes $34.6 billion for current
services, $1.17 billion for an increase in patient workload,
and $790 million for policy initiatives.
I won't go into great detail about our breakdown for the
increase in patient workload, but it is explained in some
detail in my written statement, and it is also explained in
more detail in the full Independent Budget, which I believe
your committee staff has received already.
Our policy initiatives include about $250 million to
continue to expand the mental health services within the V.A.,
approximately $440 million to close the capacity gap for long-
term care services that currently exist between what is
mandated by the millennium health care bill, which is Public
Law 106-117, and what the V.A. currently maintains, and then
$100 million for prosthetics.
For medical support and compliance, the Independent Budget
recommends approximately $4.6 billion and, for medical
facilities, approximately $5.4 billion. This includes an
additional $150 million for non-recurring maintenance.
The PVA, along with the Independent Budget, would like to
thank you for your work on the stimulus bill and the funding
that was included in that.
We recognize that that bill included a significant amount
of money directed towards non-recurring maintenance, which I
think we have identified in recent years as being one of the
major problems in the V.A. funding stream because of the lack
of funding and because that, in the past, was always one of the
accounts that was cannibalized when transfers were needed and
funding was needed to come up with in shortfall years.
But, again, we thank the subcommittee for the work on the
stimulus bill and the money that was provided. We were
disappointed that there wasn't some funding directed towards
major and minor construction, but we look forward to seeing
what the administration proposes to add funding to those
accounts for fiscal year 2010.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we all support
H.R. 1016, the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and
Transparency Act. I won't go into any details about our
position other than you know where we stand, and we would
appreciate hearing what you have to say about the consideration
being given to it.
As you probably know, the president did reaffirm his
commitment to it about 2 weeks ago in a press conference where
he had all the veteran service organizations there, so that has
just emboldened us a little more, I believe.
And so we are going to continue to work on that issue, and
we look forward to having more in-depth discussions about that
alone with everyone on the subcommittee, if you would like, at
a later time. We will be testifying on this issue and, I guess,
broader funding reform issues before the House Committee on
Veterans Affairs next week.
So I would encourage you to take note of that and listen in
to see what we have to say, as well.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the
subcommittee for all of your work. And I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Carl Blake follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.153

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.154

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.155

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.156

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.157

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.158

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.159

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.160

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.161

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.162

Mr. Edwards. I don't have a question, but let me just
suggest something. I think one of the things I would recommend
that you consider presenting to the subcommittee is how the
subcommittee, if we went to 2-year funding for the V.A., how we
would maintain not only the same level, but an increased level
of oversight, what the pluses and minuses are.
I think the questions raised by Mr. Wamp are very
legitimate. We all want to keep the hammer over the V.A. to see
they are spending every dollar wisely.
Mr. Blake. Sure.
Mr. Edwards. Which is why you need timely funding, but
address the question--not right now, but if you would in the
weeks ahead. We will talk some more about that.
Mr. Blake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Okay, go ahead. Who is next?
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET AND AMVETS

WITNESS

RAY KELLEY

Statement of Raymond C. Kelley

Mr. Kelley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ranking Member Wamp, Mr. Farr.
I am Ray Kelley from AMVETS, and I will be discussing the
NCA issues, as it appears in the Independent Budget.
In fiscal year 2008, $195 million was appropriated for NCA.
That was $28.2 million more than the administration's request,
so I thank the committee for that.
Something to note out of that is only $220,000 was carry
over in that budget. So they spent their money--they awarded 39
of the 42 minor contracts that they had planned to award and
granted $37.3 million of the $39.5 million in the state grants
program.
They also, out of that budget, used $25 million to invest
in the national shrine commitment that we have advocated for
the last several years to increase to $50 million a year for a
5-year period.
NCA has also almost hit the mark on the percentage of
veterans who fall within the 170,000 veterans 75-mile radius
for burial benefits, make sure that they have access to burial
benefits. And the Independent Budget is requesting that that
model be changed, be reduced from 170,000 veterans down to
110,000 veterans.
The reason is, is that, over the next several years, there
will be no other areas in the United States that will qualify
for a national cemetery under this current policy. Reducing it
will immediately open it up to, I think, five or six different
areas that have a need already, that almost meet that 170,000
veteran qualifier.
Again, our total number will be $291.5 million, and that
includes the $50 million for the shrine initiative. And I want
to thank you for the $50 million in the stimulus package that
will go towards the shrine initiative.
And talking to NCA, they have it on good authority that
they will spend that within the fiscal year 2009, so I will
stick to continue to need $50 million in the 2010 budget for
that.
Mr. Akaka has introduced a bill--it is S. 728--which will
provide a supplemental burial and memorial benefit to veterans.
And it matches what the Independent Budget had asked for in the
past with the increased plot allowance and burial benefit
allowance.
And it comes really close to matching what past I.B.s have
recommended, but it is a supplemental. And it is predicated on
appropriations. So I support the bill. It will provide a
substantial increase to veterans to help them in their final
resting place.
And thank you again for holding this hearing. I am happy to
answer any questions you have at this time.
[The prepared statement of Raymond C. Kelley follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.163

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.164

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.165

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.166

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.167

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.168

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.169

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.170

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.171

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.172

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.173

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.174

Mr. Edwards. All right, thank you and AMVETS for all you do
on behalf of veterans. Thank you for being here today.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET AND VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

WITNESS

CHRISTOPHER M. NEEDHAM

Statement of Christopher Needham

Mr. Needham. Mr. Chairman, my name is Chris Needham. I am
with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to testify today.
We handle the construction portion of the Independent
Budget, so I will limit my remarks to that.
Our major concern with respect to major construction is the
growing backlog of projects. Because V.A.'s projects are funded
on a multistage basis, there are a large number of projects
that have opened that have not received full funding. That
total backlog is about $2 billion.
So as V.A. moves forward, that represents a challenge, that
these projects need to be funded before we can necessarily move
on to some of these other projects and other priorities that
V.A. needs filled.
Overall, we look at the construction budget in terms of
recapitalization, that major-minor maintenance, they all sort
of tie together to provide the overall capital budget. Now, the
standard for that that industries use is about 5 percent to 8
percent of plant replacement value.
V.A.'s most recent estimated plant replacement value is
about $85 billion. So, accordingly, that means that the total
capital budget should be in the range of $4 billion to $4.25
billion, a little above that, perhaps.
In the last fiscal year, the administration's request was
about $3.6 billion. And the increase that this committee helped
push through brought V.A. to in line with what the
recommendations are. We sincerely appreciate your efforts on
that.
The other issue is with respect to minor construction. And
that is another issue where you guys have really done a great
job to increase funding.
Now, minor construction has sort of grown in importance,
because a lot of minor construction goes to helping non-
recurring maintenance issues. And those are the simple things,
sort of the one-time issues that need to be fixed to help
maintain facilities and keep them running.
It could be something as simple as maybe changing the
flooring or repairing walls, but it is also important safety
issues such as, you know, fire and sprinkler systems,
elevators, just those one-time things that help make sure that
these buildings last as long as we need them to. So the
increases in minor construction help take care of non-recurring
maintenance.
And as Carl spoke of earlier, we definitely appreciate the
stimulus bill and the $1 billion included in that for non-
recurring maintenance. It really does help, because V.A.'s
estimates are of about--it is about a $4 billion backlog in
maintenance issues.
And that $1 billion goes a long way towards fixing that
backlog, but it also attests to the need that we need to
continue to address these projects and these priorities.
One other small issue I will get to, with respect to minor
construction, is medical research. Medical research projects
right now have to compete with direct health care projects, in
terms of prioritization. And as a result, often medical
research falls far below some of these other priorities.
The Draft National CARES Plan identified about $142 million
in laboratory improvements. And we would like to see these
funded.
Now, these are important, you know, mostly for--not just
for safety and health concerns, but also for recruitment and
retention, that if you are showing a doctor around, you know,
somebody you are trying to hire, and he sees a laboratory from
the 1960s, you know, he might run in terror.
But what we need to do is we need to have high-quality,
first-class, modern research facilities, both for recruitment,
but also so that V.A. can continue to do its wonderful
research.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Christopher Needham follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.175

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.176

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.177

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.178

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.179

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.180

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.181

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.182

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.183

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.184

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.185

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.186

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.187

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.188

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.189

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.190

Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much.
----------

Thursday, April 23, 2009.

THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET AND DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

WITNESS

KERRY BAKER

Statement of Kerry Baker

Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kerry Baker.
I am with the DAV. And today I will focus on issues affecting
the Veterans Benefits Administration.
On behalf of the VBA, we have come before you for many
years requesting additional funding to reverse its chronic
history of understaffing. You have answered that call. In just
the past few years, V.A. has hired approximately 3,000
additional claims processors. In fact, the V.A. is still hiring
additional personnel because the monies allocated during the
past couple of years.
Congressional actions to increase staffing have provided
VBA a major tool in stopping the chronic increases in claims
processing and, we hope, a tool for regaining some control over
the backlog.
Nonetheless, the claims backlog struggle is nowhere near
its end. V.A. received approximately 888,000 rating claims in
fiscal year 2008, or 88,000 more than they had anticipated.
It estimates they will decide over 942,000 claims in 2009.
However, it may actually received nearly 1 million claims in
2009.
Because of the unknown long-term impact of VBA's increased
staffing, we are not prepared to seek additional staffing and
subsequent funding, other than cost-of-living increases for VBA
at this time.
However, to help improve the claims process, the Congress
must do more to upgrade V.A.'s I.T. infrastructure. It must
also be given more flexibility to manage those improvements.
Despite problems in the claims process, Congress has
reduced funding for I.T. initiatives over the past several
years. In fiscal year 2001, Congress provided $82 million for
I.T. initiatives. And by 2006, that funding had fallen to $23
million.
Congress has, however, noticed the disconnect between the
I.T. and improvements in the claims process. Section 227 of the
Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 places new
requirements on the V.A. to examine all uses of current I.T.
and comparable outside I.T. systems with respect to claims
processing.
V.A. must then develop a new plan to use these and other
relevant technologies to reduce subjectivity, avoid remands,
reduce--in regional office rating decisions.
All I.T. initiatives are now being funded through V.A.'s
I.T. appropriation and tightly controlled by the CIO. However,
VBA initiatives include expansion of Web-based technology and
deliverables such as Web portal and training and performance
support systems, virtual V.A. paperless processing, and
enhanced veterans service and access to benefits, status,
delivery, and data integration across business lines.
The I.B. VSOs believe a conservative increase of at least 5
percent annually in I.T. initiatives is warranted. V.A. should
give the highest priority to the review required by the
Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 and double its efforts to
ensure these ongoing initiatives are fully funded and
accomplish their goals.
Further, the impact of I.T.'s centralization under the CIO
should be examined and, if warranted, shift appropriate
responsibility for their management from the CIO to the
undersecretary for benefits.
Another area of concern is Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment. A cornerstone of several new initiatives is VR&E's
five-track employment process, which aims to advance employment
opportunities for disabled veterans.
Also, increasing numbers of severely disabled veterans from
ongoing conflicts have benefited from VR&E's independent living
program. Independent living specialists provide services that
empower service-disabled veterans to the greatest extent
possible, to live independently in the community.
VR&E needs approximately 200 additional full-time
employment coordinators and independent living specialists to
provide these services to eligible veterans.
Furthermore, the I.B. VSOs believe VR&E needs approximately
50 additional FTE dedicated to management and oversight of its
increasing reliance on contract counselors and service
providers, as well as for program oversight and support. The
additional FTE would support national initiatives recommended
by the VR&E task force and would provide support to decrease
the growing caseload and allow for more intensive services to
be provided to severely disabled veterans.
V.A.'s fiscal year 2008 estimate for total FTE in VR&E has
reported in its fiscal year 2009 budget submission is 1,185.
However, the total FTE for 2009 has been decreased to 1,179,
which is even a decrease from 2007 figures.
This decrease in FTE for such a vital program is
inexplicable, considering the increased need for VR&E due to
the ongoing combat operations. Therefore, the I.B. VSOs
recommend that the fiscal year 2008 total of 1,179 FTE for VR&E
be increased by 250 to a total of 1,429 FTE.
And that concludes my statement. It has been an honor to
testify before you today.
[The prepared statement of Kerry Baker follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.191

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.192

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.193

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.194

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.195

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.196

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.197

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.198

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.199

Mr. Edwards. Great, thank you. Thank you very much for all
that the DAV does every day on behalf of America's veterans.
Let me ask one question. In relation to the Independent
Budget for fiscal year 2009, where does President Obama's
request for the V.A. compare? Is it the same? Is it above it?
Is it below it?
Mr. Blake. The president's budget request compared to this
current year's--or this current year's request versus the I.B.
was actually over the I.B. request by about $1.3 billion, I
believe.
As best as we can tell, the administration assumed about
$3.4 billion in collections initially in that number, and the
I.B.'s recommendation turned back to what the 2009 number was,
so it was about $2.6 billion. So there is some of the gap
there.
Honestly, I couldn't tell you why there is a difference. We
are certainly pleased that it is above the I.B. I mean, we make
no bones about saying that we are the standard. I would be
interested in seeing the details and figuring out where they
may have made some plus-ups.
I would honestly say that I can identify at least a couple
places where we were probably conservative. One example would
be in the education service, in the veterans benefits side, or
in GOE.
We didn't recommend any increase in FTE, and yet everyone
always asks us why not, given the new G.I. Bill coming online
and that. And I think it is partly because we weren't really
sure how the V.A. was proceeding at this point, and we didn't
feel really comfortable in recommending an additional FTE level
for that, so there is some loss there.
So there are some areas I could identify even within the
I.B. that we were probably conservative on. But the short
answer to the question is, they are above the I.B.
Mr. Edwards. Steve, let me ask you to come up.
And, Tom, come on up, too. We would love to have you here.
You have been a great partner in this.
And as I do that, I am going to have to ask your
understanding. The Fleet Reserve Association was to give me an
award because of the great work that Mr. Wamp and Mr. Farr and
this staff and committee have done, but they chose me, I guess,
to get the award. So thank you all for making me look better
than----
Mr. Wamp. You can accept it on our behalf.
Mr. Edwards. Obviously, we are going to have a number of
conversations as we go through this appropriations process. So
today was primarily focused on what you put into the formal
record, your highest priorities, concerns, questions, and
comments.
I am going to turn the gavel back over to Mr. Farr for
whatever time he and Mr. Wamp would like to address questions.
But thank you. Please see it as no sign of disrespect. I don't
want to disrespect the Fleet Reserve Association by not being
there when they offer that award.
Mr. Farr, the gavel is yours. Thank you for doing this
today.
Mr. Wamp, thank you----
Mr. Farr. Mr. Wamp just wants to have a picture taken with
that award that you----
Mr. Edwards. He deserves it, and so do you.
Mr. Farr [presiding]. Well, congratulations. Thank you very
much.
I guess it is just opening up for questions now.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well, I don't really have any questions. Either I
am getting old or veteran group activists and representatives
are getting younger. So, I mean, I look at you all, and I
think, ``Gosh, you all are a young group of people,'' including
you, Steve.
Mr. Robertson. After 21 years, sir, I take that as a
compliment.
Mr. Wamp. I know you have been at it a while, and you do a
really good job.
The only question I would have is, in the post-9/11 world,
I have followed this closely and watched it, especially over
the last couple of years. It seems like the Independent Budget,
while there used to be almost a rub between the Independent
Budget, the authorizers, the appropriators, and OMB, is like a
four-corner, you know, conflict.
It looks to me like everybody is growing together as the
Congress and the administration make more commitments to
veterans. Is that just the general perception, that there is
not the kind of competing interest with the Independent Budget
that we used to have?
You are sitting here having a conversation with the
chairman about the president's budget exceeding the Independent
Budget, which used to just be almost the other way around all
the time, correct?
Mr. Blake. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Mr. Robertson. Mr. Chairman--Steve Robertson with the
American Legion for the reporters--I think one of the big
differences is the quality of care. The V.A. has definitely
taken a turn in the time period I have been in Washington--when
we moved from a hospital-based system to more of an integrated
health care delivery package, and with the community--
everything else----
Mr. Wamp. Right.
Mr. Robertson [continuing]. I think even OMB--and I never
thought I would compliment OMB on anything--but I think even
OMB realizes that they are getting the best bang for the buck
and, if the rest of the health care industry would take a lot
of the initiatives that the veterans community has taken, I
think they would realize a lot of savings, as well.
So I really think that a lot of the things we have been
advocating have become a reality. For example, we never had
enrollment of the V.A. until 1996, 1997----
Mr. Wamp. Yes.
Mr. Robertson [continuing]. Before we actually knew what
population we were going to be taking care of. We weren't
having people make payments into the system and bringing their
health care dollars with them, which was something that was
new.
And just the fact that we are delivering better care, we
are able to compete with the rest of the world and attracting a
lot of our veterans to the system who may have never used it
before.
But the rest of the health care industry is changing, as
well. And we are being the health care of choice, by a lot of
the veterans that have other options.
Mr. Blake. Mr. Wamp, what I would say is, where you have
really started to see together--grow together is that the
administrations have come more towards--or the administration
has come more towards where I thought Congress and the veterans
community was more closely aligned, mainly because I feel like,
between the pressure from the committees and the folks on the
Hill and the veterans community, we have managed to get a lot
of the gimmicky stuff that used to be part of the budgets and a
lot of the things that covered up true needs have been removed.
And, I mean, you really sort of get to a truth in budgeting
point. And I think that is where we are starting to kind of
come to that point now, where, you know, we are close enough
that we all recognize that the--you can't really fudge the
needs in the end. And so we are getting to that point now.
Mr. Baker. I would like to add something on the benefits
administration. I know that, you know, we have probably come
before this committee and a lot of others year after year after
year about the claims backlog and how there wasn't enough
benefits processors to get that backlog worked out.
And I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, Chairman
Edwards asked last year, if you get that--still going to ask
for more people. Well, we got what we asked for.
And so the fact that it takes 2 or 3 years sometimes to get
those claims processors up to speed, sure enough, this year, we
are not asking for any new claims processors. We understand the
president's budget may actually contain that.
I think that we indicated to the chairman last year that,
if we could get enough, we could focus on policy within VBA to
try to get the claims process a little smoother. But you can
never do it until you have enough people to work within the
system.
Now that you do--and that is what we have focused on this
year in the I.B.--is try to improve some policies so that those
people could be used to the best advantage.
So I think you are 100 percent correct when you say those
corners are coming together.
Mr. Wamp. And I think--we have had 20 witnesses. I can't
remember who mentioned the CARES. You still had some questions
about CARES. Steve, that may have been you.
And I am just wondering, because, obviously CBOC, Super
CBOC centers have all helped tremendously, but then I am still
wondering, too, about some of the CARES recommendations, as to
whether or not they are going to be implemented, whether they
are just kind of dead, and things go in a different direction.
I thought when CARES was first proposed that there might be
a movement of some of the facility strength from the upper
east, where veterans have fled, to the southeast, in my area,
where veterans have heavily populated. The rivers and the
streams and the cost of living is lower, and they have moved
towards the sun, also.
But CARES hasn't really done much about closing facilities
or realigning things as much as V.A. health care has tried to
take the health care services to the point of need where the
veterans are more.
Mr. Robertson. Well, I think CARES was really a blueprint,
because we had some concerns because of the lack of study on
the long-term care and mental health issues, a lot of the
recommendations on facilities to be closed were places where we
had mental health services being provided in a great demand.
So I think it was supposed to serve more as a blueprint,
and we were supposed to develop it more as we went along. Well,
Katrina kind of took care of a couple of issues for us. They
wiped out basically two facilities that are still in the
process of being built.
The Denver project has been going on now for almost a
decade, of replacing that facility. Las Vegas, they are finally
making some headway on that. So, you know, the major
construction that the CARES talked about, I think, are still
moving in the right direction. It was a lot of the minor
construction consolidation things that had to be looked
closely.
And if I am not mistaken, the Veterans Affairs Committee is
scheduling a hearing in the near future on CARES to see where
we are and what adjustments need to be made.
But the veterans community was pretty much concerned
because of the lack of information on long-term care and the
mental health issues. We weren't really sure that the CARES had
adequately taken that into consideration with some of the
recommendations, Waco being a classic example of one of them
that was supposed to be closed. And that is probably one of our
best mental health facilities in the whole system.
Mr. Needham. One of the strengths, I think, of the CARES
process is, is it sort of made, I guess, V.A.'s approach to
construction management much more professional, in that it sort
of forced them to identify models and identify procedures and
identify the process.
It is not to say it is a perfect process. I mean, as we
have seen with, like, Denver, that has been, you know, 10 years
in the making, and we are at about, you know, version number
six of which kind of hospital we want. So, I mean, there are
always certainly heartaches.
But if you look at the totality of the projects that have
been done and how many of them were involved in the original
CARES process, it is actually much more sizable than it would
seem in initial glance.
But, also, as Steve was saying, in terms of, you know, the
minor issues it is identified, you know, we talked about, you
know, the need for minor construction, but also the research,
and those were all things identified and brought forward by the
CARES project. So in that aspect, it was valuable.
Mr. Robertson. And the rural health care is still a major
issue. And I think that most of the veterans community knows
that the secretary has the authority to contract out services
in areas where it is not feasible to build a facility, and we
strongly advocated that over the years.
This is the American Legion, Steve with American Legion. We
have concerns over the voucher system. We think that is a
disaster--to happen for a number of reasons.
Mr. Blake. And I think, to be fair, when CARES was
conducted, rural health care--I feel like rural health care has
really become a front-and-center issue that it wasn't during
the CARES process. And it sort of changed the dynamic beyond
what CARES looked at.
And so I think the V.A. has been thrown a new challenge,
and it is sort of balancing what the needs were identified
under CARES with a whole new aspect on how the care can be
delivered, particularly with the Guard and Reserve in rural
settings. So----
Mr. Robertson. The war, with the activation of Guard and
Reserve units, brought more National Guard and reservists into
the health care window than before----
Mr. Farr. Well, keep pushing, because it isn't going to
happen without you. I mean, I think what we represent civilian,
military, veterans, the whole community. And the best kind of
care is quality care delivered close as possible.
I think there is going to be with health care reform a need
for us to find a lot of savings, which is probably going to be
at the administrative level. And it seems to me that we have
got all these silos of health care that, if we had a better job
of integrating, we could get a better bang for the buck and we
could move those savings into providing higher-quality care in
the rural areas.
But we are going to have to fight every inch of it. And the
veterans are way ahead, because, you know, everybody is moving
in the direction the Department of Veterans Affairs is going.
Mr. Robertson. Well, the telemedicine--I mean, there are a
lot of things that V.A. is doing----
Mr. Farr. Yes, it is fantastic.
Mr. Robertson [continuing]. That is on the leading edge
that we would like to see the rest of the health care industry
try to emulate.
Mr. Farr. I have one question, Mr. Kelley. I appreciate
your testimony on veteran cemeteries. I agree with all your
recommendations. I have been fighting this for 15 years. We had
a military base close. We have land set aside, for a veteran
cemetery, but because we are within 70 miles of an existing
cemetery, we have a problem. It is really more--it is only 70
miles as the crow flies, not as one drives.
So nobody wants to get buried in the existing cemetery. It
is in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley. And so we went the
state route, but the state of California is saying, ``We are
not going to do cemeteries.'' They have refused to do it.
So we invented a third way using state legislation to
create essentially a private investment that would then
guarantee the state's role. And the state will apply for it. I
mean, we are not inventing a new application process, but we
are indemnifying the state.
And so we have this land all set up for the feasibility
study, and it is about 105 acres, and it is on Monterey Bay.
The idea was to put a civilian cemetery next to a veteran
cemetery. The profits are made off the civilian cemetery and
can be used to maintain the veterans cemetery.
Mr. Kelley. Right.
Mr. Farr. So we are looking for a developer. If you have
anybody that wants to go and have a place on the Monterey
peninsula to help us build a first-class veteran cemetery,
where the federal part is all reimbursable.
I would love to try to change all the law, but it is
probably going to be easier to get this thing built this way
than it is to be able to get Congress to waive the 70 miles and
do all that other stuff.
Mr. Kelley. It looks like--what I have is an evaluation of
the burial benefits. And they did a very in-depth study of how
to change this. And that is where my recommendations came from,
is pooling some of their recommendations. And to serve the most
veterans, it was to reduce the veteran population.
Mr. Farr. Where did you get a copy? Did that just come out?
Mr. Kelley. It came out in August of 2008. And----
Mr. Farr. Do we have that? Can we work with you to get
that?
Mr. Kelley. Sure. And to serve the most veterans, it seemed
more feasible to leave the 75-mile radius, but reduce the
number of veterans in that area. It would immediately open
access. I don't think it will help you.
Mr. Farr. No, it won't help us.
Mr. Kelley. But there were studies that----
Mr. Farr. But, see, what they are doing in California, the
department has decided to go up through the San Joaquin Valley.
But if you put a cemetery in Bakersfield, and put one up in
Santa Nella, and you put one up by Sacramento, 70-mile radius
goes from Nevada out into the ocean.
Mr. Kelley. Right.
Mr. Farr. Now, the problem is, there is no support
facility. None of these communities or areas have ever had any
history of military presence.
Mr. Kelley. Right.
Mr. Farr. So you are going to have a burial without
anything military anything, whereas in our community, we have
the longest, oldest military base in the United States, still
operational. And we have got seven military footprints there. I
mean, it is a closed military base.
No matter what the merits are to this project, you can't
get over the 70-mile rule. So, I mean, I am just asking if you
know anybody who is interested financially, there is an ideal
piece of real estate for development.
Mr. Kelley. I will look into it for you, sir.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I don't have any more questions. If
anybody has the last shot, you want to--yes, sir?
Mr. Zampieri. Can I get the last shot----
Mr. Farr. You can have the last shot.
Mr. Zampieri [continuing]. Director of government
relations, and I appreciate it. In the Independent Budget, in
other VSOs that testify, I just wanted to draw your attention
to that the NDAA included in 2008 and 2009 that--they create
various centers of excellence.
And you probably know where I am going. For TBI, PTSD,
vision loss, hearing loss, and orthopedic, sort of the five
centers, and--there has been some significant challenges, is
the term that I keep getting told, in implementing all of those
centers.
If you were to diagram the chart and look at--funding and
program operations of those centers, you would be astonished, I
think, at the lack of----
Mr. Farr. What do you want?
Mr. Zampieri. The vision centers of excellence and the
hearing and the orthopedic centers, I think if you could work
with the Defense Appropriations Committee on ensuring that DOD
is implementing all of those and working in cooperation with
the V.A., because there has been some problems.
The House V.A. Oversight Subcommittee had a hearing on
March 17th. And they uncovered some big problems there.
Hopefully, again, I think if you can just check with the
Defense Appropriations Committee, it was Mr. Young and Mr.
Murtha. And in the course of having DOD witnesses coming over
and testifying--centers, make sure they are explaining what
they are doing and----
Mr. Farr. Okay.
Mr. Zampieri. They have admitted under oath, for example,
they have spent a total of $7,500 on the vision centers of
excellence--that is sort of unconscionable.
Mr. Farr. We will have our staffs check with those other
committee staff and see if we can address that.
All right? Thank you very much. Thank you for your time.
All of you, thank you for your service and for being here
today. We appreciate it.
The meeting is adjourned.
Thursday, April 23, 2009.

RELATED AGENCIES

WITNESSES

CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS
CLAIMS
GENERAL JOHN W. NICHOLSON, U.S.A., RETIRED, SECRETARY, AMERICAN BATTLE
MONUMENTS COMMISSIONS
TERRENCE C. SALT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE ARMY
(CIVIL WORKS), ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
TIMOTHY C. COX, ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I would like to call the
subcommittee to order.
Chief Judge Greene, welcome back to the committee.
Chief Judge Greene. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. And thank you for your work on behalf of
America's veterans.
I am going to be very brief in my opening statement. Our
first panel is the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims. The budget request for fiscal year 2010 is $27,115,000,
of which $1.8 million is for the pro bono program.
The request is a net decrease of $3.86 million when
compared to the fiscal year 2009 appropriation, which included
a onetime appropriation associated with GSA expenses for a new
judicial center.
And, Judge Greene, we have introduced you many times so I
won't go through your whole bio, but thank you for your
distinguished career in the Army and your continued service to
our country at the court now.
Chief Judge Greene. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp for any
opening comments----

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Just to thank you, Chairman, for the way you run
this committee, the way we got our work done on time, the joint
commitment to doing that again this year and these witnesses
this afternoon.
This hearing is important, and I know you want to move
along so that we don't hold them any longer than we can.
And with that, I will just yield back and get started.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Judge Greene.

Statement of the Honorable William P. Greene, Jr.

Chief Judge Greene. My turn?
Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wamp, I certainly am
very pleased to be here again with you to talk about the budget
for the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
I think you pretty much have capsulized the budget for
fiscal year 2010. We are in the unique position this year of
asking for less money than we were appropriated last year
thanks to your great support and putting the money in motion to
kick start the project for the courthouse for our veterans.
There are, however, some increases in the budget if you
take away that $7 million that I need to bring to your
attention. With the addition of the pro bono representation
program budget, they are requesting an extra $120,000 over last
year's budget.
Our increase can be focused essentially on $1.5 million to
anticipate the incurred costs of taking care of two additional
judges that have been authorized by Congress to assist us in
this mission. And if Congress confirms and the president
appoints these individuals after December of 2009, then three-
quarters of the year will require us to be able to adequately
financially support two judges and the accompanying staff.
The other part associated with that is the fact that
because of our growth with the two additional judges and
because of the conditions that we are in now, we will need to
expand space--available space--and that would be moving some
employees out to another location and leasing space there.
And so the cost associated with that, plus the build-out
and the other moving expenses, will be about another $2 million
to cover that cost.
Other than that, we have the regular increases that are
associated with financial services and security and the like.
I just need to say that the court is very grateful, again,
for the demonstrated support that you have provided reference
to the courthouse. We have transferred that $7 million to GSA
to get the ball rolling.
We have identified a site on 49 L Street SE, but there are
issues that have to be addressed and answered before we can
firmly commit to requesting the specific funding requirement
other than the $7 million. There are soil contamination issues,
the ability to acquire an additional adjacent lot, setback
issues for the building, and then whether or not there is
sufficient overall size for putting a courthouse on that
location.
Mr. Edwards. It is never easy, is it?
Chief Judge Greene. It is never easy. And if this doesn't
work, then we will have to go to other alternatives.
But you can rest assured that as soon as those answers are
given that I will diligently move forward to providing you a
very fully-funded request.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable William P. Greene,
Jr., follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.200

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.201

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.202

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.203

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.204

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.205

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.206

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.207

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.208

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.209

Mr. Edwards. Okay. Great. Thank you, Judge Greene.
And obviously your full testimony will be submitted for the
record.
I think we have a minute or two left on one vote with one
more vote to follow. So this shouldn't take long.

RENOVATING AN EXISTING BUILDING

Judge Greene, let me ask if there is any possibility with
the market turning down and a lot of real estate developments
really in a cash bind, is there any option that there might be
a building that is already built that becomes available that
could be renovated in Washington? Or does GSA keep its eyes
open for those kind of opportunities?
Chief Judge Greene. Yes, sir. GSA is identifying sites like
that and, of course, we are helping them identify sites as
well. Quite frankly, I have looked at the National Building
Museum because that is the old Pension Building. And you walk
in there and you see nothing but things associated with
veterans coming in there to receive their pensions for their
service. There is plenty of space in there. Certainly that is a
very attractive option in the absence of having your own
independent courthouse like the other courts have.
The Arts and Industries Building run by the Smithsonian was
part of the feasibility study. The problem there, of course, is
it is going to take probably $200 million to just rehab it.
Then you have got to retrofit it to a courthouse.
Mr. Edwards. Sometimes renovations can be more expensive
then building from scratch.
Chief Judge Greene. And, of course, the feasibility study
was really directed at us staying in the current commercial
office building that we are leasing.
The kick there was that to turn that into the courthouse,
you would have to displace two other federal tenants. There are
associated costs with moving them out and finding them another
place and then retrofitting the rest of the space in Indiana
Avenue for the court.
Mr. Edwards. Well, are you satisfied that the planning for
the site that they are looking at is moving ahead? I know there
are hurdles and potential roadblocks, but they are moving
expeditiously.
Chief Judge Greene. I am, sir. And from, at least from my
Army experience, I would like to have many, many options going
at one time, alternatives.
One thing that might have delayed it was that when the
feasibility study was submitted we had identified, quite
frankly, property on the Capitol complex that was used for
Senate parking, and we wanted to mirror the project that had
been used for the Thurgood Marshall Building, which would have
provided more parking for Senate staff and what have you. It
would have been an ideal location as supported by many of the
veterans organizations.
But I am informed that that is not available. So we then
divert to the other options that GSA has identified.

DECREASE IN CASE FILINGS

Mr. Edwards. My last question is, you had a decrease of
case filings of about 43 per month in 2008 versus fiscal year
2007. Do you see that as a trend or was that just a onetime----
Chief Judge Greene. A decrease? Yes, it has been a
decrease. We certainly are still looking at 4,000 to 5,000 a
year, though. I think we received for instance, starting for
fiscal year 2008--October 2008 to March 31, 2009, we have
received 2,200 cases already and have terminated 2,000. We are
at half year so we are still on that trend.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.

INCREASE IN JUDGES

Mr. Wamp. Well, did you say, and I missed it, why the
increase in judges that you have added are temporary and not
permanent?
Chief Judge Greene. I did not say. That, I think, quite
frankly, was a legislative compromise. That is not an unusual
thing. In Article III courts sometimes Congress will
temporarily increase the number of Article III judges for a
particular jurisdiction.
The idea is that apparently after 2013 there would not be
any authority to increase the court beyond the seven. And that
13 is probably gauged towards anticipated retirements like my
own.
So I don't think it appreciates that in 2013 you could be
receiving 6,000 cases.
Mr. Wamp. That is all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
I have some additional questions I will submit in writing.
But those are all the questions I have. But thank you. Please
keep us informed how the planning is----
Chief Judge Greene. Oh, absolutely. You will be the first
to know. [Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Judge. Good to see you.
We now have the American Battle Monuments Commission, and
representing the commission are Brigadier General John
Nicholson, U.S. Army, retired. He is the executive secretary of
ABMC, and he also has with him, accompanying him, Brigadier
General, retired, William Leszcyznski, the executive director
and chief operating officer.
And I am going to forego introductions because the two of
you have been before this committee several times. In the
interest of time, I want to give you an opportunity to jump
into your testimony.
So, General Nicholson, if you would like to proceed, I will
recognize you for 5 minutes.

Statement of John W. Nicholson

General Nicholson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
General Nicholson [continuing]. And members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
Since the administration has not cleared me to discuss the
detailed fiscal year 2010 appropriation request, I can only
talk about the work that is ongoing within the commission.
The commission has served as a guardian of America's
overseas commemorative cemeteries and memorials since 1923. Our
mission is to preserve for future generations the 24 cemeteries
and the 25 monuments, memorials, and markers that we maintain
around the world to honor America's war dead. Those missing in
action and those who fought at their side.
The Fiscal 2009 appropriation of $59.5 million for salaries
and expenses allows us to execute our mission and supports our
requirements for compensation and benefits, rent and utilities,
maintenance, infrastructure, and capital improvements,
contracting for services, procurement of supplies and
materials, and replacement of equipment.
To support this level of effort, our staffing requirement
is 409 full-time equivalent positions.
The fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $17.1 million into
our foreign currency fluctuation account has brought that
balance up sufficiently to defray losses resulting from the
changes in the value of foreign currencies against the dollar
and allows us to maintain purchasing power in an uncertain
financial environment, a critical factor when 80 percent of our
annual appropriation is spent overseas using foreign
currencies.
Last year, you wrote language into our appropriation for
this account that reads, ``such sums as may be necessary.'' We
thank you for your visionary leadership in making this
fundamental change in how this critical account is managed. We
have always taken our stewardship responsibilities seriously,
and the ``such sums'' language does not lessen that
responsibility. It does, however, reduce the risk to our
operations, ensuring access to the funding we need when we need
it, to maintain buying power if the U.S. dollar becomes weaker
than originally estimated, and for that, we are very grateful.
As you have seen on your visits, our overseas cemeteries
and memorials are tangible representations of American values
and our own nation's willingness in two world wars to come to
the defense of our own freedoms and the freedoms of others.
These magnificent national treasures instill patriotism, evoke
gratitude, and teach important lessons of history to all who
visit.
ABMC's first chairman, General of the Armies John J.
Pershing, promised that time will not dim the glory of their
deeds. To fulfill that vision, we have a responsibility beyond
simply maintaining beautiful and inspirational commemorative
sites. We also must perpetuate the stories of confidence,
courage, and sacrifice, that those we honor can no longer tell
for themselves.
We reported to you last year on the opening of the Normandy
Visitor Center. Following completion of that project, the
commission recognized that the war dead at Normandy are not the
only American war dead buried overseas that deserve to have
their stories told. In that spirit, we plan to adapt the
interpretive techniques used so effectively at Normandy to our
other visitor buildings around the world.
But we do not intend to build new facilities like at
Normandy. Instead, we will renovate existing visitor buildings
to accommodate the types of exhibits and visitor services that
have been so well received at Normandy. We have recently
conducted site surveys of five prototype cemeteries to help us
determine how best to do this and where to start.
We are well into exhibit design for Pointe du Hoc where the
emphasis will be on low-profile panels placed along a self-
guided walking tour of the battleground, which appears much as
it did when the rangers captured the Pointe on June 4, 1944.
Minimal displays and interactive programs will be placed in the
small French-owned visitor building near the Pointe.
Concurrently, the Pointe du Hoc restoration project is
advancing well. The French government made a public
announcement of the project on March 3 and emphasized support
from the French and American governments. On April 15, we
submitted the required environmental impact study and
contingent permit request to the French, which will begin the
official permit process.
By French standards, this project is moving very quickly,
and we continue to enjoy enthusiastic support from French
officials. We will keep you and your staff apprised of our
progress.
In concert with these important initiatives, we continue to
work diligently to attract many more American and foreign
visitors to personally experience these inspirational and
educational commemorative sites. As always, we welcome and
encourage your visits to see for yourselves the manner in which
we use the resources you provide to us and to experience
firsthand the pride of living in a nation that so honors those
whose service and sacrifice have kept us free.
I would like to close my remarks by introducing the members
of my staff that accompanied me here today. As you mentioned,
Brigadier General Bill Leszczynski, U.S. Army, retired, the
executive director and chief operating officer of the ABMC; Tom
Sole, director of engineering and maintenance; Mike Conley,
director of public affairs; Alan Gregory, director of finance;
and Matthew Beck, the budget officer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my prepared
statement. I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of John W. Nicholson follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.210

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.211

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.212

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.213

Mr. Edwards. General Nicholson, thank you. And let me say
at the outset, I know this is far more than a job and a
position to each of you. It is a passion and a labor of love,
and I thank you for that. You are the stewards of some of the
most hallowed and sacred grounds anywhere in the world, and we
are grateful to you and to your dedication, and I say--when I
say to you, I mean to you, General Leszczynski, and to all of
you.

NORMANDY VISITOR CENTER

General Nicholson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Let me ask you about the Normandy Visitor
Center. How many people do we estimate visit that a year? Any
broad estimate?
General Leszczynski. About 500,000 right now is the number
of people that are actually going through that center a year,
sir.

POINTE DU HOC

Mr. Edwards. Okay. Secondly, in terms of the effort that
you have made, this subcommittee has funded to prevent Pointe
du Hoc from literally falling in the ocean, which, to me, would
be akin to allowing the Statue of Liberty to fall into New York
Harbor. How is that going? Are you now confident that that
historic site, meaningful site, hallowed ground can be
protected?
General Nicholson. Yes.
Mr. Edwards. So the technology is there. Now you are
working and I know you have been working very closely with the
French which you reference in your testimony. But the--the
engineering, the technology is there. It is feasible. We have
the cooperation, the partnership, and the resources. It can be
done.
General Nicholson. Well, I would say yes, but I would like
to defer to the engineer who is really hands on that issue.
Mr. Sole. Sir, as you know, Texas A&M----
Mr. Edwards. For the record, could you identify yourself?
Mr. Sole. Yes, sir. Tom Sole, director of engineering and
maintenance for the American Battle Monuments Commission.
Mr. Edwards. Tom, why don't you come up here a little
closer to the microphone?
Mr. Sole. Sir, as you know, Texas A&M spent a couple of
years doing a very in-depth study of that site to examine the
causes of the instability. Now all of their work has been
reviewed by two French technical organizations to validate
their work. And they have basically concluded that their work
is sound, and so that has given us great confidence that,
indeed, we are on the right path. And I think it has also given
the French great confidence, and that is why they support it so
strongly.
I think the work is important not only because of the
stability, but it also protects the historical nature of the
site, as well as its environmental aspects, because it is an
environmentally protected site for the French. So I think Texas
A&M did a great study. They gave us great insights. And I think
that right now the solution that they kind of laid out in their
study is the one that we are pursuing, although we are going to
go out to contractors soon to see what the contractors can
actually do to give us the final solution. But we are confident
that we will be able to remediate much of that----
Mr. Edwards. Great, great.
And I also salute you on your interpretive programs. I
think you are right in referencing them as public diplomacy
efforts. It is a way of reminding the world when they come
visit our cemeteries overseas of the sacrifices Americans have
made on behalf of the world.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well, two questions.
General Nicholson, you look to me like you are thinner this
year than you were last year, and my first question is did you
mean to do that. [Laughter.]
General Nicholson. You are very observant. Four pounds
slimmer.
Mr. Wamp. That is all?
General Nicholson. Yes, I gave up whiskey for Lent.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wamp. Well, being from Tennessee, I am not going to
tell you what to do. [Laughter.]
General Nicholson. Lent is over.
Mr. Wamp. In the legislature in Tennessee about a month
ago, they declared milk as the official drink for the State of
Tennessee. And so, as I was traveling the state for 17 days, I
made several points to tell folks that I didn't realize they
started putting George Dickel and Jack Daniels in milk----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wamp [continuing]. And it is the only way I could
explain what they did, the legislature.

INTERPRETIVE TECHNIQUES

You talked about interpretive techniques, and I have been
at Pointe du Hoc, and I have been at Normandy, and it was one
of the most moving experiences of my life. And, you know, I
came back after seeing Theodore Roosevelt's cross at Normandy,
and then I was at the Pentagon for the Medal of Honor
recognition of both the father and the son, and that is just an
extraordinary thing, tying our sacrifices together.
But you talk about interpretive techniques, and I am
interested because you talked about some of the things you are
doing at Pointe du Hoc with the walkway and the panels. Are
there other measures that you are going to do? What have you
done at Normandy that is different for the visitor that is an
experience that you might use in other places? Is it
interactive? Are there kiosks? What is it? Because I haven't
been back. I wish I could go a lot. But what interpretive
techniques under your testimony are different?
General Nicholson. Well, that is a good question, and I
will ask Mike to give you the detail, but we are doing several
things that you did mention on a different scale, not as
intensively as at Normandy.
Mike, you have been----
Mr. Conley. Mike Conley, director of public affairs,
American Battle Monuments Commission.
Sir, in answer to the question, Normandy is the first of a
kind for us. We have visitor buildings at all 24 of our
cemeteries. If you have been to the cemeteries, you know that
they are really throwbacks to the eras when the cemeteries were
built. They are more like receiving rooms in a funeral parlor,
and when you consider that the first visitors were the mothers
and fathers and spouses of the war dead, that made a lot of
sense. But as we start transitioning away from those
generations, and trying to attract younger generations, trying
to incorporate more modern techniques.
When you go to the visitor center in Normandy, you will
find very powerful films that tell the story. You will find
campaign interactions where you can actually follow the flow of
the divisions through the Normandy operation, the landing, then
the ensuing operations, and then, the standard exhibit with
text.
But what we really tried to do is focus on individuals. You
will find a series of vignettes on individuals buried in the
cemetery or who served alongside of them and survived to try to
allow people to make that personal connection. And what we are
really trying to do--before we did the visitor center, clearly,
going to Normandy was a moving, inspirational experience, but
what we are now able to do is to provide the historical context
for why that cemetery came to be put there, how and why those
individuals buried there died, and for what they died, so that
you really understand the context of that sacrifice.
As the secretary said, we don't intend to build anything on
that scale because, quite frankly, the visitorship at the other
cemeteries wouldn't warrant that. But using the films, using
the interactives, using the database searches, and using the
personal anecdotal stories, we can still tell the story at all
of our facilities, and that is the direction we are moving.
Mr. Wamp. Without taking anything away from the raw and
awesome simplicity of the site itself. I mean, that, to me, is
the most overwhelming thing about Normandy, is just the
crosses.
Mr. Conley. Absolutely.
General Nicholson. They don't take anything away from it.
Mr. Wamp. Don't take anything away from that.
Mr. Conley. In fact, the facility itself was intentionally
designed to be set off by itself, low profile, so it did not in
any way, architecturally, detract from the solemnity of the
cemetery. And we know we get a million--about a million
visitors to the cemetery. The executive director talked about
half of those maybe going through the visitor center. That is
okay. The destination is the cemetery, not the visitor center.
The visitor center provides context for the visit to the
cemetery.
Mr. Wamp. That is great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Well, I just visited your cemetery in Manila. I
was just overwhelmed. It is on the most beautiful piece of real
estate in all of the Philippines, and it is probably now the
most valuable piece of real estate in the country. It is on a
beautiful hill surrounded by cities.
And I mean, I don't have any questions. I just want to tell
you that it was--I loved the way all the battles of the South
Pacific were displayed in art and tile, and it was fascinating.
And then to look for your family names of ancestors you never
knew that may have been related. I found it very touching and
very, very powerful. I just wish we could get a cemetery built
in my own district.
Mr. Edwards. Does anyone else have a question or
observation?
Mr. Farr. General Nicholson always looks young, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Edwards. Absolutely.
General Nicholson. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Well, I don't have any additional oral
questions. We may have some follow-up written questions, and,
obviously, once you have officially released the 2010
administration budget for ABMC, then please come back and let's
sit down and talk with our staff and figure out what that
budget implies and whether we need to adopt it or whether we
need to add to it or do some fine-tuning.

FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATION ACCOUNT

Mr. Farr. I do have one question.
I was reading your testimony about the foreign currency
fluctuation account. I was very interested in trying to help
the Peace Corps out because we had to cut all the positions
because of their costs overseas, with the valuation of the
dollar. We never got that money in.
It was about $17 million for the whole program, and we
failed to get it in last year, and they had to cut a bunch of
volunteers and then eliminate some programs. And I notice we
did fund your account. Is that account a permanent account that
just deals with fluctuation of the dollar?
General Nicholson. Yes, but the chief financial officer can
give you a real detailed explanation of that, but the answer is
yes.
Mr. Farr. Does it earn interest or anything? Is it a fenced
account? I knew nothing about it, though. I just read the
testimony.
Mr. Gregory. Alan Gregory, the chief financial officer.
Funding for our Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account is
appropriated every year, and it has been for the last 4 or 5
years. It was established by Congress in 1988 and seeded with
$3 million, but up until that time, there wasn't much
fluctuation, much need for use of a premium to operate
overseas.
As General Nicholson said in his testimony, about 80
percent of our funding is spent overseas. We operate with a
premium that costs, right now, 30 percent extra spend for goods
and services and contracts overseas. So that the account
stabilizes our cost requirements.
And--but the way that the account works, we can move money
from the foreign currency account to our Salaries and Expenses
account. And if we ever needed to move it back, which we don't,
we could move it back to the foreign currency account. The
account doesn't draw interest. Our statute limits us from
obligating directly from that account.
Mr. Farr. So you just draw from the account. You have a
maximum amount of money that you can draw.
Mr. Gregory. That is correct.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Any additional questions?
If not, thank you both. Thanks to the entire staff and all
your representatives for the work you do. Thank you.
General Nicholson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. See you, General.
General Nicholson. You bet.
Mr. Edwards. Take care.
Members, we are now going to review the Department of the
Army's Civil Works Program for Cemeterial Expenses. Our witness
today is Secretary Terrence Salt, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Mr. Salt. Sir.
Mr. Edwards. Secretary, it is good to have you here. And
accompanying him, as we know before this subcommittee, Mr. John
Metzler, the second generation of his family as superintendents
of Arlington National Cemetery. We are grateful you are both
here.
And Mr. Secretary, I would like to recognize you for 5
minutes of opening comments and we will certainly put your
entire statement in the record.

Statement of Terrence C. Salt

Mr. Salt. Thank you, sir. I would also--with me today also
are Ms. Claudia Tornblom of our staff at the Army, Mr. John
Parez, also from my staff and other staff from Arlington
National Cemetery.
Sir, since the administration has not yet released a
detailed budget for fiscal year 2010, my testimony is limited
to providing an update of our various ongoing projects and
activities.
Mr. Edwards. Oh, come on, you can tell us. [Laughter.]
Mr. Salt. You have to ask me first.
Mr. Edwards. We won't put you in an uncomfortable position.
I understand.
Mr. Salt. Sir, there are two items that are of particular
significance that I would like to highlight for the
subcommittee. The first is the Millennium Project which
consists of the development of 36 acres of land into gravesite
areas, roads, utilities and columbarium walls; actually
approximatly 14,000 additional gravesites and 22,000 niches
will be provided when this development is complete.
In the long term, this project is very important to extend
the useful life of Arlington Cemetery. In the short term, it
will alleviate crowding at funeral services that is occurring
in concentrated areas of the cemetery.
The subcommittee staff recently visited the cemetery to get
a first-hand look at this project. I certainly would extend an
invitation to the entire subcommittee for an on-site briefing.
As I made my trip the other day, there were 32 funerals
going on and they are all concentrated in this one area. It is
just a very concentrated part of the cemetery.
The second item that we are considering is the development
of a new master plan for Arlington Cemetery. The current master
plan was published in 1998. Due to post-9/11 force protection
issues regarding Fort Myer and other considerations, a new
master plan is being considered to evaluate a full array of
options to address the management of the cemetery in the
future.
The options would include capital development, land
management, burial eligibility and consideration of another
burial site. This master plan would be developed in a
transparent process with the public and with full consultation
with the Congress.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for
its strong support to maintain Arlington National Cemetery and
the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, to provide
services for our many visitors, make capital investments needed
to accommodate burials and most importantly, to preserve the
dignity, serenity and traditions of the cemeteries for the
nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of these cemeteries. We will be pleased to respond to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Terrence C. Salt follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.214

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.215

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.216

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.217

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.218

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.219

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And Mr. Metzler,
again, thank you for you and your father's labor of love in
Arlington Cemetery. What a legacy in life to be a steward in
the most hallowed of hallowed grounds in our nation.
I would like to begin by bringing up an issue that I know
Secretary Geren has raised with each of you. And I would like
to ask unanimous consent to have entered into the record two
notes; one is a memorandum for the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, subject ``Niche Wall at Arlington
National Cemetery,'' from Secretary Geren and then the other is
a letter to me from Secretary Geren on this issue.
If there is no objection, we will enter that into the
record. I would like to read part of the letter because frankly
it reflects my thinking on this and then we will go from there.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.220

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.221

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.222

Mr. Edwards. Secretary Geren's letter in part says that
Arlington National Cemetery is a treasure that is a final
resting place of legions of our nation's most cherished sons
and daughters. It is their final resting place, but it is that
and more.
It is our nation's most sacred memorial. A memorial to
those who, but for their service and sacrifice, there would be
no nation.
In our stewardship of ANC we must do justice to both
missions: honor the fallen and comfort their families, and
maintain the memorial that is ANC so that it will forever speak
to future generations of the debt we owe to those who have
borne the battle for us.
Pending the development of the new master plan, I have
directed that any cemetery construction along the perimeter be
accomplished in such a manner that the existing viewscapes must
not be compromised further. I have done this to ensure that we
properly consider and weigh both missions of Arlington, burial
and memorial.
Let me just say for now that I do not know all of the facts
involved in the process of deciding to build the niche walls. I
don't know all of the future plans. I intend to go out and
visit in person sometime soon to go over that.
I always, on any issue, maintain an open mind to hear all
points of view and all facts before making any conclusions. But
let me say, long before I spoke to Secretary Geren I have made
it the habit for the last 5 years that every day when I drive
to the Capitol rather than coming down George Washington
Parkway, McLean to the 14th Street Bridge, I purposely exit at
Memorial Bridge because I am inspired every single morning by
the sight of that hallowed ground and those who hallow it.
Long after I am gone, I want to be sure that tens and tens
and tens of thousands of people who drive that road daily, many
of them men and women who have served in the military and
continuing to serve at the Pentagon, are not prohibited from
being inspired as I feel inspired every single morning when I
drive by the cemetery.
And I just want to say and I am just speaking for myself
here that I feel very, very strongly and we may consider
putting this into our appropriation bill, too, but just what
Secretary Geren has done that I would like to see no additional
encumbrance of visual access to that hallowed ground from the
public's point of view until we have had further discussions on
it.
And I know there is always a balance. I know there are
sometimes competing needs, but I wouldn't want a wall built
around Arlington Cemetery anymore than I would want a wall
built around the Lincoln Memorial or the Jefferson Memorial or
the U.S. Capitol. And frankly, of the four sites I consider
Arlington Cemetery more hallowed than all the others.

MILLENNIUM PROJECT

Having expressed for the record my strong and passionate
views on this, I would welcome any insights you might have. But
I would like to specifically ask you whether there is any
intention in any way in the months ahead to move ahead with any
additional construction other than that which has already been
completed?
Mr. Salt. At the present time, we have one project that is
being worked on and that is the Millennium Project. Now the
Millennium Project is adjacent to Fort Myer, inside of
Arlington Cemetery to develop the last 36 acres of property
that we have on the western side of the cemetery.
That does call for a niche wall to be placed onto that
boundary as well.
Mr. Edwards. Do you have a map for the cemetery with you?
Mr. Salt. I have maps--certainly.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.223

Mr. Farr. What do you mean by niche wall?
Mr. Salt. A traditional stone wall and on the inside has
columbarium features so that you would be able to place remains
at that location at the same time.
Mr. Farr. But this is not a force protection wall?
Mr. Salt. No. These are not force protection walls. If you
go to the top of the map where you see the blue dots, number
two, Fort Myer, that is the area that we are referring to. And
that hash mark right below the blue dots, is the Millennium
Project. Now this is a combination of three pieces of land, the
old picnic area on Fort Myer, our old warehouse and then part
of the National Park Service property which was transferred to
us a few years ago.
So this particular area has been designed. It has not been
fully funded yet so we are working on that with our budget
submissions to the committee. The rest of the cemetery as you
look around it, these are all proposed areas and as you look
where the solid red lines are we would not be able to put
additional niche walls there. The existing wall would stay or
it would be improved if you will. These are all very old walls.
So only where you see the blue dots are potential areas for
additional niche walls.
Mr. Edwards. So significant areas. How high would that
niche wall be in the Fort Myer area?
Mr. Salt. Approximately six feet from the road and then
when you go on the inside, it is a different height than it is
on the outside.
Mr. Edwards. Which is part of the problem. Some of the
roads--depending on which side of the cemetery you are on, a
six-foot wall might as well be a sixty-foot wall in terms of
you know tens and tens if not hundreds of thousands of people a
day having an opportunity to see this hallowed ground.
Do you interpret, Mr. Metzler, or Mr. Secretary, do you
interpret Secretary Geren's memorandum as a prohibition on the
building of this niche wall until----
Mr. Metzler. I think we obviously need to revisit the
issue.
Mr. Salt. Sir, I spoke to the Secretary this morning on
this. I received his memo last night. To me it is very clear
that my guidance and my direction to Jack will be that we build
no niche walls that interfere with the viewscape.
And so we will go back and we will re-look at all of our
plans for niche walls and we will ensure that there are places
where the road is, the terrain is such that you don't have a
view of the cemetery anyway. And there are places where it
would be appropriate to have a wall there with a niche wall.
There are other places where the cemetery is lower, and a
niche wall would interfere with the view that you were talking
about. And that is what the secretary is talking about, right?
Mr. Edwards. So your interpretation is the secretary--does
the secretary's memorandum have policy effect?
Mr. Salt. What, sir?
Mr. Edwards. Or is it just seen as just a recommendation or
is it seen as a policy that Secretary----
Mr. Salt. No, this is direction; this is the policy
direction.
Mr. Edwards. So to be clear that means that as you
interpret that directive of the secretary, this niche wall
could not be built unless there is a change in the policy?
Mr. Salt. Could not be built--only that part could be built
that would not affect the existing viewscape. That would not
affect, the point that you made earlier----
Mr. Edwards. What would be the earliest possible time if
you didn't have Secretary Geren's directive in place? Mr.
Metzler, what would be the earliest possible time that the
niche wall along the Fort Myer area would be built?
Mr. Metzler. Well at the present time, there is a need for
an additional $35 million to move forward with this project. So
until that funding is in place, nothing would be done.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Metzler. It has been designed but no construction has
been done.
Mr. Edwards. Now am I correct in understanding that $35
million would come from this subcommittee----
Mr. Metzler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Or do you have any other source
of funding that would pay for that?
Mr. Metzler. It would come from this committee.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Salt. And just in context, the funds for this year are
largely for earthwork on the site and so I don't know what the
schedule would be when you get to the wall, but it is in the
out years which haven't been identified for funding yet, sir.
Mr. Metzler. Sir, we are not going to put a wall up there.
Mr. Edwards. I want to spend a lot of time on this but in
the meantime until this full subcommittee has had a chance to
carefully review this and listen to all perspectives and
interests, I would like to see nothing further done. You know
for example, this area along 110 to me that is one of the most
moving areas of the cemetery to see. And I see that is a
proposed wall there.
Would that be proposed at six feet?
Mr. Salt. It would be. I mean if we were to build any niche
walls, the only height would be a six-foot height. That is the
standard if you will for this type of development.
Mr. Edwards. And the purpose of niche walls is to be able
to place cremated remains there?
Mr. Salt. That is correct, and to continue the life of the
cemetery for burial.
Mr. Edwards. Well that is the intended purpose. The
intended or unintended result is to block visual access to this
hallowed grounds for an awful lot of Americans.
Mr. Salt. Well, the Secretary's guidance says we are not to
do that and so we are not going to--and there are two parts of
it. There is the initial part of don't--we are instructed, we
are directed not to build any walls that would interfere with
that view. And number two, as I mentioned in my testimony or my
oral statement about the master plan, that we will be looking
at options in the master plan that would also try and address
that.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. And I hope again I know you are--I am so
grateful to both of you for your dedicated stewardship over
Arlington National Cemetery. And I know, as you know, one goal
is to provide as much possible space for as many possible
burials.
But I hope in the master planning, I hope part of the
process takes into account that important value of this
hallowed ground is to be a cherished memorial for Americans and
an awful lot of them, tourists and otherwise. People working at
the Pentagon drive by that every day. And add me to that list.
They are inspired every single day.
But anyway I think you answered my question. I appreciate
that and I look forward to sitting down with you and talking
about it.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Well I had also talked to Secretary Geren, Mr.
Chairman, and your words, your sentiment and your inquiry were
exactly mine. So I have really nothing else to add except that
everything you said was exactly where I was going, exactly what
I was going to say.
But I also feel like there is a keen awareness of the
sensitivity of this for everyone, but I do think we all play a
role to make sure that the right thing is done over time. And I
think you said it extremely well and I stand with you 100
percent.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. In this master plan, do you have to
adjust anything for force protection requirements?
Mr. Salt. I will start and then I will let Mr. Metzler
finish. The existing master plan included some assumptions for
land acquisition at Fort Myer that had been affected by BRAC
decisions and force protection requirements at Fort Myer. And
so that is one of the key reasons for the initiation of a new
master plan to deal with that change.
Mr. Farr. There is one type that call for force protection.
As we get others, it is sort of risk analysis and they are
fortressing in the middle of my town.
Mr. Salt. Sir, this is more of a consolidation of joint----
Mr. Farr. So it is all dealing with you having to comply
with all of the security----
Mr. Salt. Sir, it is mainly facilities required as a result
of the BRAC process and the consolidation of facilities at Fort
Myer and to operational requirements that are needed for those
facilities. Now----
Mr. Farr. That is not additional security.
Mr. Salt. If I may, sir? Inside the cemetery we are not
dealing with force protection issues. We are not hardening the
cemetery.
Mr. Farr. Okay.
Mr. Salt. It is the result of Fort Myer and what they are
concerned about is they are our neighbor and we share a fence
line. So what Fort Myer does has an effect on us. Some of the
lands that we may have looked at in the previous master plan
that may have been potential expansion areas now are being used
as setback areas and they don't want to develop that land
because of their needs for force protection.
It has nothing to do with Arlington Cemetery----
Mr. Farr. But they are not going to use that land, right?
They are just going to leave it as a setback.
Mr. Salt. Part of it is they are going to use as their
mission on Fort Myer is changing since the master plan was
developed in 1998 and part of it is that they----
Mr. Farr. But do you still have to then or you have to
access the cemetery through Fort Myer.
Mr. Salt. We do. We have a checkpoint----
Mr. Farr. So if they make it more difficult to get into
Fort Myer, it is going to make it more difficult to get into
the cemetery.
Mr. Salt. As Fort Myer improves its force protection, the
people who are entering the cemetery through Fort Myer have to
go through whatever Fort Myer sets up to get to the cemetery.
Mr. Farr. And as I read here, you expect in fiscal year
2009 an estimated 4,170 interments. And you don't do those on
weekends, do you?
Mr. Metzler. No, sir. We are averaging about 27 funerals a
day.
Mr. Farr. Yes. And you are going to have, you know between
17 and 27 a day assuming you do it every single day of the
week----
Mr. Metzler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. For a year. And all of those targets
as I have had to do have been at two funerals out there. I mean
isn't there another way to get into the cemetery. Isn't there a
better way to get the families and parties into the cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. The challenge is when you use Fort Myer for
your funeral at the chapel or for your reception after the
funeral, you have got-----
Mr. Farr. (OFF MIKE)
Mr. Metzler. Right. And you are forced to go onto the Fort
Myer property, and then do whatever force protection issues
they have. If you stay in the cemetery or if you only just go
to the chapel and don't go back to Fort Myer, then it is much
easier to go in through the cemetery and you don't have to go
through the vehicle inspection and all the things Fort Myer
makes you do.
Mr. Farr. I know I have heard various officials tell me
what they think. I think the purpose of the master plan is to
flush all of that out and to come back to the committee to have
a public process to go through these very issues. And our part
of it is the cemetery master plan process. Some of the issues
you are raising are concerning.
Okay. The security that the base is going through is one-
size-fits-all and it just doesn't make sense. To require these
people and families to come in to go through the military
checkpoint--I mean it wasn't very hard for us but I had a
congressional flight.
I hope in the master plan you will think about that access
and egress. Maybe the chapel ought to be in your domain and not
in the force domain.
Mr. Metzler. Well it was the reception afterwards back at
the officer's club or back to the community center. That
presents its own unique problem because then you are trying to
get back to the cemetery----
Mr. Farr. Why don't we build one for you?
Mr. Metzler. Sir, whatever your direction--I mean that
typically is not what we do. That is typically not our mission
to have receptions and such at the cemetery.
Mr. Farr. But it is also awkward there. You have got a
club. It has, you know, it has got a bunch of rooms in it and
there are other parties going on.
Mr. Metzler. I guess the overall challenge, too, is we have
very limited space left in the cemetery, and our focus has been
to try to maintain the open space that you have for burial and
not get distracted from other things that would take away from
it.
Mr. Farr. I guess it is a good thing we are going to do a
master plan.
Mr. Metzler. Sir.
Mr. Farr. Thank you----
Mr. Metzler. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Can I ask, who will be on the master plan
committee? Do you actually have names of members of that
committee now?
Mr. Salt. I don't know that we do.
Mr. Metzler. We don't. What the normal process would be is
that we would hire the Baltimore Corps of Engineers to develop
a master plan. In turn, they would hire engineers, landscape
architects, the right team. They would put a team together,
issue them a contract and then we would go through a set of
specifications where we would address the various issues that
this master plan should address.
Mr. Edwards. And will there be military retirees on this?
Will there be----
Mr. Metzler. It will be stakeholders. We would--once we
developed a team, we would then develop a list of stakeholders
and that would include local representatives, obviously this
committee and anyone else who is showing an interest. We have
had other stakeholder meetings in the past and we would dust
those lists off and incorporate those individuals as well.
The National Park Service, the Commission of Fine Arts,
National Capital Planning Commission are typically members of
this committee.
Mr. Edwards. If you can keep us in close touch, Mr.
Metzler, with, you know, how that process is going, who is
involved at each stage, when you know who is involved. I would
love to stay involved in that.

TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER

And my final question is what is the status of the Tomb of
the Unknown Soldier and potential renovations there?
Mr. Salt. Sir, we are planning this year to grout/re-grout
the cracks. Later this spring, Mr. Metzler will go to inspect a
possible block of marble that is being considered as--possibly
be donated. We are not sure about that yet. But this----
The intention is to possibly bring it back and to store it
in a secure site. Obviously, there is a lot of interest and
views as to that; the issue as to what we might do with that.
And we have made no decision beyond seeing that this particular
block is suitable or not.
Mr. Edwards. Okay----
Mr. Wamp. I have no additional questions----
Mr. Edwards. Well, let me end as I began. Thank each of you
for your----

BURIAL EXPENSES

Mr. Farr. Excuse me, sorry. I just wanted to ask you
whether the burial expense is adequate? If not, is $300, is
that an adequate amount? And it may be outside your lane but--
--
Mr. Metzler. It actually does not apply to us at Arlington
Cemetery. We charge no money for anything that is done inside
the cemetery. An honorable discharged veteran who is entitled
to a ground burial at Arlington Cemetery is not charged nor is
their family charged.
So everything we do at the cemetery is a benefit without
cost to them.
Mr. Salt. What you are referring to is if you bury someone
in a private cemetery, the Department of Veterans Affairs, if
you are eligible, would pay up to $300.
Mr. Edwards. In fact, that raises a quick question I would
like to ask. Do I understand that Secretary Geren or the Army
may have changed the policy in terms of burial of enlisted
personnel?
Mr. Metzler. What has changed, is not the burial policy for
enlisted personnel, but the military honors.
Mr. Edwards. The military honors? Okay.
Mr. Metzler. On January 2nd, 2009, Secretary Geren issued a
policy that directed us that anyone who was killed in the line
of duty by the enemy would now be entitled to full military
honors if the family so chose. The difference between full
military honors and standard honors, if I will, standard honors
would be the firing party, the casket team and the bugler.
If you were to have full honors, it would be the Caisson
Military Band and an escort in addition to the elements of
standard honors.
Mr. Edwards. And that is all paid for by you.
Mr. Metzler. It is all paid for by the Department of the
Army. So again, there is no cost to the family.
Mr. Edwards. Is that in every cemetery or just----
Mr. Metzler. Arlington Cemetery is only the one that has
that opportunity to provide those honors.
Mr. Edwards. Prior to that policy change, you could have
died in combat; If you were enlisted receive posthumously the
medal of honor but you would not have been given----
Mr. Metzler. Well the medal of honor was one area----
Mr. Edwards. That was an exception.
Mr. Metzler. That was an exception.
Mr. Edwards. Silver Star and you would not get full
military honors.
Mr. Metzler. That is correct. You would get the standard
honors based upon your rank for enlisted people, firing party,
casket team, bugler.
Mr. Edwards. Are there any budget implications for your
budget on that policy----
Mr. Metzler. No.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Metzler. It is really a scheduling issue for us.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Well again let me just end as I began.
Thank you both for your dedicated service to protecting this
hallowed ground. And we are grateful you are here and look
forward to following up with you on the wall issue.
Mr. Salt. Certainly.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Salt. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Metzler. Look forward to your visit.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Metzler. Just make sure it is a vertical visit.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Cox, welcome. Welcome back. Is it Mr.
McManus?
Mr. McManus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Welcome to our subcommittee.
Members will now have testimony, Armed Forces Retirement
Home. The witness, once again before the subcommittee, will be
Mr. Timothy C. Cox, the Chief Operating Officer, and he is
accompanied by Mr. Steven McManus, the Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Cox, good to have you back. Your entire testimony will
be submitted for the record, but I would like to recognize you
for 5 minutes for any summary comments you would care to make.
Mr. Cox. Great. I do have some. Just trying to turn off my
phone here so it doesn't go off, right? Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. You bet.

Statement of Timothy Cox

Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as the
Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, I
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Since the administration has not cleared me to discuss the
detailed fiscal year 2010 appropriation request, we can only
talk about the work that is ongoing within our home. I also
want to update you on our progress that we evolved to meet the
needs of a next generation of heroes.
AFRH is modernizing to promote this aging-in-place
philosophy and to uphold the central promise to care for our
residents. Under our controls and financial performance--couple
of points for you--we are particularly proud that, for the
fiscal year 2008, AFRH has once again received an unqualified
audit opinion from an independent external auditor.
This marks the fourth consecutive year AFRH has received
this distinction through our partnership with the Bureau of
Public Debt, starting in the middle of 2004, our financial
statements have had no material weaknesses since our very first
audit in 2005. Our successful audits are a reflection of
renewed emphasis on internal controls.
We experienced a stable financial year throughout 2008
despite an array of changing economic conditions all around us.
We have consistently shown market growth in our trust fund over
several years. In fiscal year 2008, the trust fund balance
reached $167 million, and is expected to reach $171 million in
2009. This is quite a rebound from its lowest level of $94
million in 2003.
The Scott project we discussed last year: we continue to
need modernization in the D.C. campus--$5.6 million in trust
fund money was requested, and approved, to begin planning for
the design/build phase of our dormitory called Scott, built in
1954 and has had no major renovations since that point.
Completion of the Scott project will provide significant
operational savings. About 54 percent of O&M now go into that
building on our campus.
We appreciate the $800,000 asked and provided--appropriated
to us by Congress in fiscal year 2008 for the study of funding
sources for the trust fund to determine the long-term viability
of that trust. Thanks to your support, we are modernizing our
Washington campus and rebuilding our Gulfport campus. Our team
of key experts, consultants, through government as well as
private industry, the final design concept for Scott, rather
than rehab, as we talked about last year, is to replace.
Replacing it with a new commons building and a new health
center, it shrinks our campus and also gives us a building that
will be LEED-certified at least silver, if not higher, and
reduced the footprint of that building by about half, which is
appropriate for the size of who we are.
The opening of Gulfport is also part of our ongoing
efforts. I am pleased to let you know that we remain within
budget and on track for a July 2010 completion and resident
occupancy in October 2010.
Design is 100 percent complete. Finishes and final color
selections are being reviewed. Furniture, fixtures and
equipment procurement packages are being prepared. We had a
topping-off party for construction workers, community leaders
and others on February 27th.
An update on our master plan here in D.C.: External forces
are at work in our local, as well as global economy. We are
mindful of these developments and want to update you on where
we are for that financial challenge in our master plan.
We reached a major milestone in 2008 with the approval of
our master plan from the National Capital Planning Commission.
However, with the changing market, new challenges came up. We
had selected a professional preferred developer, and we decided
to stop negotiations because the benefit to the veterans was
diminished in what they were offering us.
So we have a plan that is approved. We don't have an
agreement. We didn't have an agreement with the developer. At
this point, we are talking with the two hospitals that are
neighbors to see if we should just do our master plan by parcel
rather than doing it all at once.
And last point, we recently were awarded a 5-year
accreditation for the first time by the Commission on
Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, known as CARF, a
nationally recognized agency responsible for accrediting
facilities and providing continuing care retirement
communities.
This, along with the DOD Inspector General's Office
preparing to come in this September, because the DOD Inspector
General is required to come on the years we don't have a
national accredited body accreditation inspection. They will
come in September to do the same thing.
And I thank you, committee members and all of Congress, for
all the support you give us, and I am honored to serve the
veterans.
[The prepared statement of Timothy Cox follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.224

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.225

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.226

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.227

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.228

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.229

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.230

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.231

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.232

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.233

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.234

HOMELESS VETERANS

Mr. Edwards. Great. Thank you, Mr. Cox, for your testimony.
Mr. Cox. You are welcome.
Mr. Edwards. Where are we on the homeless issue that came
up last year?
Mr. Cox. About the homeless issue that came up last year;
those residents were all placed in appropriate D.C. facilities
with the voucher that Councilman Barry worked on for them. So
they aren't in the temporary building anymore on our campus,
and all have been placed.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.

REVENUES FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. SITE

On the development issue at the Washington site, you
weren't projecting any revenues from that until 2013 or 2014.
Mr. Cox. 2014. That is correct.
Mr. Edwards. So it doesn't put any immediate financial
pressure on you. You don't feel any immediate financial
pressure to do a fire sale agreement?
Mr. Cox. None whatsoever.
Mr. Edwards. I mean, it would be good for a developer to do
a deal in a down market, but not good for the----
Mr. Cox. Correct. No, and that is why we backed off. It
wasn't a fair deal for the veterans that we serve.
Mr. Edwards. Okay, so you feel no further pressure to do a
deal until you feel----
Mr. Cox. No. We did our long-range study through 2018, and
we show a dip because of potential funding that may come out of
that for a project we can't talk about. But through 2018, we
see the curve going back up.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Cox. So yes, so we can very well sit on that, and that
is where you are going on that, and not have to develop it at
this point.
Mr. Edwards. Good.
Mr. Wamp.

WAITING LISTS

Mr. Wamp. Well, I have been at both of these sites. I was
down on the Speaker's trip when we went to the Gulfport site,
and I was amazed at how impressive it was, even after the
storm, and I knew we were building it back. Now, we built it
back with supplemental funding, right?
Mr. Cox. That is correct, sir. We did.
Mr. Wamp. And it houses how many veterans when you re-open
July 2010?
Mr. Cox. Five hundred eight-six.
Mr. Wamp. About 586. And the waiting list is how long?
Mr. Cox. We have four different categories of a waiting
list. One-A and B are people who lived in Gulfport and moved up
with us since the beginning. Two and three are the categories
of people who maybe didn't move with us, but came back. We had
a deadline that they had to live in D.C., so we would move them
back by December of last year.
And then, category three are people who were there but
chose to live somewhere else because they left before Katrina.
Category four is just a waiting list. We have over 600 people
on those four waiting lists.
Mr. Wamp. Right. So, it is a prized possession in the
veteran community to be able to go there and live.
Mr. Cox. Yes.
Mr. Wamp. And it is probably 10 times nicer than it was
before, and it was nice before.
Mr. Cox. It is, 100 percent. The rooms are----
Mr. Wamp. It was built back under these new hurricane
standards, I assume?
Mr. Cox. Hurricane V standards? Yes.
Mr. Wamp. And everything else on the Coast there is, too,
probably by now, including all the casinos that are now all
masonry and built to last?
Mr. Cox. When I was down there at the end of February, it
looked like everyone is building up at least a level for a
wash-through.
Mr. Wamp. And so what kind of waiting list do you have on
the Washington side?
Mr. Cox. Washington, about 6-month's worth. And again,
Washington now we have a thousand. When Gulfport goes back, we
will do the new Scott project, it will be about 600 here, 600
there.

HOMELESS VETERANS

Mr. Wamp. Now, the other issue that came up last year, and
this is my last question, the overall homeless issue, not just
Washington, D.C. Sam Farr and I have talked a whole lot at
these meetings about how unfortunate it is, whether the number
is 140,000 or 100,000 or 180,000. It is somewhere in that range
of homeless veterans down on the streets of our country.
But beyond the two facilities that you run and that we
support, any other action to try to open up other facilities or
modify other facilities for the veteran population that is on
the streets?
Mr. Cox. Because we are an independent agency, we don't go
through the VA for those things. But we actually have some
proposals through DOD to talk about changing our way to be able
to appropriately serve many more veterans.
Mr. Wamp. Okay. That is all I have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Sam.
Mr. Farr. In dealing with DOD, can you work on that? I
mean, I don't know what the answer is. I know that some of our
local communities build homeless shelters. And I mean, for a
small community, we have done an incredible job out of local
money, but I have heard that they can't get reimbursement
because of some kind of veteran department issue.
And it seems to me, if we are going to be dealing with
permanent care of veterans, whether it be done in the homes or
being done by somebody else providing it, there ought to be
some way of giving some financial aid for that housing cost.
You know what we do with people that are on the street,
when you can get them into care, what you do is you enroll
them, even if they are indigent. It is indigent care. There is
money to pay for that. They may qualify for Medicaid, and the
providers want to get that reimbursement.
But to me--and maybe I need to do some more homework in
this area, but I think that we don't do that for homeless
veterans. They may be eligible for the healthcare needs, but
they are not eligible for the housing needs.
Mr. Cox. That is correct.
And unfortunately for us, Congress set the four criteria of
admission. So if they don't fit our four criteria of admission,
we can't help them no matter what, because our rules are pretty
narrow.
But there are several ways, and we actually have some
suggested legislative language out there.
Mr. Farr. (OFF MIKE)
Mr. Cox. In DOD, as a ULB right now.
Mr. Farr. Can you get me some copies of that?
Mr. Cox. As soon as I know--yes, I can. I can.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. As a draft? Just as a draft from my agency?
Mr. Farr. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Cox. Yes.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. You are welcome. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Do you need additional questions?
Mr. Wamp. No.

GULFPORT FACILITY

Mr. Edwards. You answered several of my questions. And the
one question--just one last question about Gulfport. The cost
of rebuilding that is how much?
Mr. Cox. The cost is $240 million, of which $20 million
will come from the trust fund, because we were going to build
64 new units, and we set aside that money in the trust fund. We
did the design work, but we didn't start that building, so
Congress asked if we would contribute that toward it.
We haven't contributed that toward yet because that is the
last part to go, but so far they are on budget, and the budget
is expected to use that money.
Mr. Edwards. They are on budget?
Mr. Cox. Yes, so they are on that budget, and the $20
million is part of that budget.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Future hurricanes, as you referenced
earlier, it will be able to withstand the wind and floods?
Mr. Cox. Yes. Category five, so that is wind and as well as
floods.
Mr. McManus. I believe it is 35-feet high.
Mr. Edwards. Is it, 35-foot tidal swell?
Mr. McManus. Where the main body is. It will wash through.
There is stuff on the ground level. I will call it the ground
level, but it will wash through that.
Mr. Cox. There is no living. There is no kitchen. There is
no storage like we had in the old facility. Our generators are
much higher up than that. So we should be able to survive.
Mr. Wamp. The problem is, now that the barrier islands are
gone, every storm that comes ashore is going to be devastating
because you are right there.
Mr. Cox. Right.
Mr. Wamp. The barrier islands is what used to slow it down
as it came in and allowed for less protection, but they don't
have any choice. If you stay there, you have to build there
now.
Mr. Cox. Well, we have a lot of gun-shy residents who
actually--staff was working with Camp Shelby down there to look
at a place to have safe evacuation when it is a hurricane
category three or more. And of course, there is a funding
issue, things like that, but they certainly have the space to
do it. Because we could survive, like you said, in the
building, but there will be no support services if it is a bad
storm. So we don't want----
Mr. Wamp. With all due respect, you all need to see this
building. Anybody that qualifies would be crazy not to go.
Mr. Cox. Thank you. We appreciate your support. Thank you
very much. We have worked hard to get there. We look forward to
hosting any time.
Mr. Wamp. Great.
Mr. Edwards. I have no additional questions. We will have
some written questions to follow up with.
Mr. Cox. Great.
Mr. Edwards. But if the members have no other additional
questions, we will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning, when
we have General Petraeus.
Mr. Wamp. In the other room, in the big room.
Mr. Edwards. Yes, in the big room.
Thank you.
Mr. Cox. Thank you.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Wamp.]

CAVC

Question. Could you explain further the temporary increase in
judges for CAVC? Is there a reason why the increase in judges is
temporary and not permanent?
Response. The statute governing the composition of the Court (38
U.S.C. Sec. 7253(a)) states that the Court shall be composed of ``not
more than seven judges.'' That provision, however, was amended in
October 2008 to authorize the number of judges on the Court to increase
to not more than 9, effective December 31, 2009. That amendment makes
the expansion temporary by also stating: ``Effective as of January 1,
2013, an appointment may not be made to the Court if the appointment
would result in there being more judges of the Court than the
authorized number of judges of the Court specified in subsection (a).''
When requesting authorization from Congress for additional judges,
the Court did not request that these positions be temporary. My
understanding is that there was some disagreement as to this request,
and the temporary provision was the result of a compromise. There is
precedent in some Article III courts for having temporary judgeships.
The Court will certainly assess its needs as the sunset provision
approaches, although based on current trends we do not anticipate a
decrease in the number of appeals filed over the next several years.

New CAVC Courthouse

You say in your testimony that GSA is looking into a property that
it owns in Southeast D.C. for the new courthouse.
Question. When do you anticipate their study on that property to be
complete?
Response. Although we do not yet have a time line of events, in May
2009 the Court transferred $7 million to the General Services
Administration (GSA) and I met with the GSA Regional Commissioner for
the National Capital Region to discuss the ``next steps.'' GSA reported
to me that over the next several months it will draft a ``scope of
work'' document, identify a project manager, identify the specific
requirements for the program, and set out a milestone schedule for the
project. The GSA project manager will then orchestrate necessary
studies including the development potential of the parcel in Southwest,
D.C.; a massing study to determine possible setback and building site
configurations; and an investigation into possible soil contamination
on this site and 50 526 1955 any necessary environmental remediation.
During this same time, the Court will engage the services of an in-
house project manager who will oversee the Court's participation in the
process. Accordingly, it is my hope that in the fall of 2009 we will
have a much clearer sense of the project costs and timing.
Question. The GSA also recommended that the CAVC courts be located
near other Federal courts. Have all location options near other Federal
courts been ruled out as possible locations for a new courthouse?
Response. Over the past 5 years the Court has worked, both in
collaboration with GSA and independently, to investigate possible
courthouse sites in the Judiciary Square vicinity. That search has
included consideration of commercial, federal, and D.C. owned buildings
and land, keeping open the possibility of new construction or
refurbishing or retrofitting an existing structure. Although we have
investigated several potential sites, no option adequately meets the
project goals of providing an appropriate setting to convey the
Nation's gratitude and commitment to veterans in a courthouse of
adequate size, with appropriate accessability and security, in a
fiscally responsible manner.
When I met with the GSA Regional Commissioner last month I
discussed this subject with him. We discussed the unique configuration
and build out requirements of any courthouse, and how the Court's
unique space and layout requirements make finding and retrofitting an
existing office building a challenging and expensive proposal. GSA
assured me, however, that until a location is definitively selected,
they will continue to assess other potentially suitable sites in the
Judiciary Square area.
Question. When would you be able to give us a cost estimate for the
construction of the new courthouse?
Response: Because of the unforeseeable contingencies and studies
that may be involved in the advanced planning stage we are currently
in, I am not able to predict when I will have a cost estimate for the
courthouse construction. As previously stated in my testimony and in my
written response above, I am hopeful that by the start of fiscal year
2010 I will have received from GSA a more concrete sense of the costs
and timing of the project, and I will certainly provide these details
to the Committee as soon as I get them.

Electronic Management/Electronic Case Filing System

The electronic management and filing system went live 7 months ago.
Question. How many of your cases use this system?
Response. The Court's electronic Case Management/Electronic Case
Filing (CM/ECF) system has 2 components--case management and case
filing. All cases currently pending at the Court use CM/ECF; however,
to what degree depends on the parties.
As to the case filing component, as of October 2008 when CM/ECF was
fully implemented, all represented parties, absent a waiver from the
Clerk, are required to register as ``Filing Users'' and to
electronically file all documents with the Court. These documents
become a part of and are accessible through the Court's electronic case
record. The Secretary of VA, who is a represented party in every case,
is always a Filing User and required to file electronically.
Self-represented appellants, unless they are granted permission by
the Clerk to become a Filing User, are required to file all pleadings
and documents conventionally. The Court then scans those documents to
create an electronic record that is entered into CM/ECF and that may be
electronically accessed. The Court transmits its orders and decisions
to Filing Users electronically through CM/ECF. For self-represented
parties, the Court prints its orders or decisions and serves them in
hard copy. Generally, between 20-25% of the Court's cases include a
self-represented appellant. Therefore, in approximately 75% of our
pending cases, all filings are received electronically and all
decisions are issued electronically. With regard to the case management
component, the Court uses CM/ECF for every pending appeal.
Question. How has it helped in managing the Court's caseload more
efficiently?
Response: The Court and its practitioners have seen several gains
since implementation of CM/ECF. Both have benefitted from reduced
mailing and courier costs, and the reduced Court storage space now
needed to retain records has been a welcome hiatus for our public
office, which has been bursting at the seams for several years. The
benefits to all users of remote 24-hour filing access, the opportunity
for multiple simultaneous authorized users, and the efficiencies of
instant filing and notification are self evident and allow our
employees and practitioners more flexibility in ``when'' and ``where''
they can accomplish tasks. We are confident that as our staff and
members of the Court's bar become more familiar with CM/ECF, we will
reap further administrative benefits.
Question. How many more cases will the courts be able to handle
this year due to the electronic management/electronic case filing
system being in place?
Response. The Court currently ``handles'' all appeals that are
filed, and as stated above, all current cases are entered into CM/ECF.
Thus, the phrasing of this question does not request an accurate
measure of the benefits of CM/ECF. Although perhaps not easily
quantified, the goal of CM/ECF is to create smoother case processing
for the parties and the Court. It is our hope that we will then see a
reduction in the overall time from case filing to case disposition,
resulting in shorter waits for veterans to receive decisions on their
appeals. It is our hope that the efficiencies of electronic filing will
save resources and also enable Court employees and practitioners to
complete tasks more quickly and efficiently.

American Battle Monuments Commission FY 2010 Budget Request

Question. Now that the dollar has rebounded somewhat against the
euro can you tell the Committee how much the Commission will use under
the Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account for the current year?
ABMC Response. Since the annualized trend of the US Dollar and the
Euro is expected to be slightly lower than estimated, the Commission
expects to use approximately $15,500,000 from its Foreign Currency
Fluctuation Account to offset exchange rate losses and to satisfy
expenditures relating to our overseas operations during FY 2009.
Question. What is the FY 2010 estimate for the Foreign Currency
Fluctuation Account?
ABMC Response. Based on amount requested by the Commission for its
FY 2010 Salaries and Expenses Account, the Commission estimates that it
will need $17,100,000 appropriated in FY 2010 to replenish its Foreign
Currency Fluctuation Account.
Question. How many projects, including maintenance, were planned
for FY 2009 at our European battle monuments?
ABMC Response. ABMC currently has 71 projects planned at all sites
for FY 2009.
Question. Will a stronger dollar allow the Commission to increase
the number of projects that it will carry out in FY 2009 at our
European battle monuments? If so, how many?
ABMC Response.
No. The number of projects that the Commission can initiate is
dependent on the level of funding appropriated into our Salaries and
Expenses Account.
The purpose of the Commission's Foreign Currency Fluctuation
Account (FCFA) is to offset the cost of exchange rate imbalances. If,
however, the Commission did not have access to funds in its FCFA to
offset currency exchange rate imbalances, then the relative strength or
weakness of the US Dollar would have a profound affect on the number of
projects that could be undertaken during the fiscal year.

DoD Cemeterial Expenses/Arlington National Cemetery/FY 2010

OVERCROWDING

Question. Last year Mr. Metzler testified that mitigating the
overcrowding of ceremonies was a high priority for ANC. With an average
of 27 funerals per day, this is understandable. How has that situation
changed, if at all?
Answer. Mitigation of overcrowding, primarily of funeral services,
remains a high priority for ANC. The number of funerals and ceremonies
has remained about the same over the past year. ANC continues to have
an average of 27 funerals per day and over 3,000 ceremonies a year.
Overcrowding is primarily a problem with funeral services (not the
other ceremonies) that are held from Monday through Friday because the
funerals are concentrated in the southeast corner of the cemetery where
most of the open land is available for in-ground burials and where
niches are located for the placement of cremated remains. Construction
of the Millennium Project has begun in the northwest corner of the
cemetery and Phase II is scheduled to be awarded this fiscal year (FY
2009). However, based on the current schedule, this project will take
approximately seven years to complete. Until the project is completed,
overcrowding will continue to increase.

TOMB OF THE UNKNOWNS

In your testimony, you mention that the Army is looking at a
donated block of marble to replace the block currently on the tomb. The
August report on the condition of the current block stated that it was
unknown when the current marble block would be beyond repair; however,
it also stated that the kind and size of marble needed may not be
available further down the road.
Question. If the donated marble meets the requirements, what would
happen next?
Answer. If the donated marble is determined to be suitable as a
potential replacement for the original block of marble, the Army
intends to take possession of the donated marble in order to secure and
protect it. However, no decision to replace the original marble has
been made, and any such decision will be made in accordance with the
provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Question. If it is to be replaced, what would happen to the block
currently on the tomb?
Answer. No decision regarding the disposition of the existing
marble has been made, should replacement be selected for the long-term
treatment of the Tomb Monument. Any decision regarding the disposition
of the existing marble will be made in accordance with the provisions
of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

TOTAL CEMETERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/DIGITIZING RECORDS

Question. The idea of digitizing records at Arlington is a great
one. Where does Arlington stand on the implementation of the Total
Cemetery Management System?
Answer. The Total Cemetery Management System is approximately 35
percent complete. Version 3 of the Interment Scheduling System will be
launched in July 2009. This system will upgrade ANC's funeral
scheduling application that will allow ANC to provide funeral tasks to
the military services electronically and to order headstones from the
Department of Veterans Affairs in an automated manner. Completed
projects also include the scanning of all burial records and grave
cards. All of the cemetery burial records have been entered into a
database and will be used for the next phase of the plan.
Question. As of today, is there a way for the public to look up
records and/or geographical information of burial sites electronically?
If not, is that something ANC is considering?
Answer. Currently the public can look up burial records that date
from April 1999 to the present by using a locator/kiosk in the
visitor's center. The system provides the location but does not provide
geographical information at this time.
In FY 2010 ANC will start a triple validation process to validate
burial records, grave cards and burial maps against the actual physical
location of each gravesite. Each grave site will be able to be located
by using the Global Positioning System. After the project is complete
this data will be available for the public on the ANC website.

WASHINGTON D.C. CAMPUS

Question. Your testimony states that the partnership with a
developer at the Washington Campus fell through. What is your plan
going forward for the mixed-use development at the Washington Campus?
Answer. The approved AFRH Master Plan will serve as the blueprint
for the redevelopment of the AFRH campus. At this time, AFRH is seeking
development partners for implementing the plan, and is considering
numerous options, including incremental development of the site with
multiple developers. Despite the difficult market conditions, there is
still significant interest in the site from the development community,
and AFRH is diligently working to assess the best opportunity to move
forward with.

SCOTT DORMITORY RENOVATION (D.C. CAMPUS)

Question. How will the DC Campus handle the rebuild of the Scott
Dormitory with the least disruption to the Washington campus
population?
Answer. Working with the Resident Advisory Committee (RAC) we are
forming new committees for the Gulfport Stand up and Scott Projects.
These committees will serve as a voice for the residents and be
critical to our efforts. Coordination will be critical and, because the
two projects are so interconnected, many of our same staff members will
be working on both projects. Again, good communication will be
extremely important in keeping these two projects balanced and moving
forward. The Scott Project, unlike moving into the new facility in
Gulfport, will involve the movement of residents and services from the
Scott building while it is being demolished, and establishing temporary
quarters or places of operation. Demolition and construction will be
taking place around us, as we go about the business of our day, so we
will stress and be mindful of safety. Placement of services such as
dining, the wellness center, the library and other activities will be
temporarily displaced to our Sheridan Dormitory and Sherman building,
which are easily accessible to residents. We will use multiple means of
communication, such as the newly established committees, our in-house
television station ``Channel-99'' for updated information, the Weekly
Bulletin, monthly Communicator, AFRH website, and flyers and notices
will be used to get the word out about changes going on in and around
our Home.
Question. In your testimony you alluded that the Gulfport facility
will be reopening at about the same time the Scott Dormitory will be
closing for renovations. Do you intend to move any residents from the
Scott Dormitory to Gulfport?
Answer. Yes. Over 200 prior Gulfport residents have requested to
move back to Gulfport. These residents have rooms in both our Scott and
Sheridan dormitories.

ADMISSION CRITERIA

Question. Last year you testified that spouses are not allowed to
come into a facility unless they independently qualify. Has there been
a re-evaluation of the criteria by the Armed Services Committee?
Answer. No, to the best of our knowledge there has not been a re-
evaluation of the criteria for spouses by the Armed Services Committee.

FRAUD AND ABUSE

Question. Last year there was concern about healthcare management
and oversight to GAO which led to the development of the fraud and
abuse hotline. How many calls has the hotline received in the last
year?
Answer. The AFRH hotline has received 13 calls for assistance or to
report an allegation of fraud, waste or abuse from May 2008-May 2009.
In all cases, either assistance was rendered or an investigation was
conducted to bring each case to a resolution. The AFRH hotline was
initially established in 2004, prior to the concern that was reported
to the GAO. Reports of fraud, waste or abuse can be reported through
the AFRH hotline, email or face-to-face to the AFRH Inspector General.
Information pertaining to the reporting of fraud, waste and abuse is
posted in every common area in the buildings at the AFRH, as well as on
the AFRH website.
Question. What is the annual cost to operate the hotline?
Answer. The annual cost to maintain the AFRH hotline is $192.60.

FINANCIAL STABILITY

Question. With regard to your financial stability, how has the
current economic situation affected your facilities?
Answer. The current economic situation will slow Trust Fund growth,
but should have limited impact on our facilities as a result of reduced
infrastructure costs.
Over the years AFRH grew and spread across over 272 acres of
infrastructure and historical buildings. The infrastructure was
engulfing our resources and funding. Multiple studies had been
completed between 1995 and 2002. Every study focused on the excessive
cost at the Washington Home and recommended changes for success. At the
heart of each study, results focused at excessive staffing and
infrastructure costs. Over the past five years AFRH redefined our
``footprint'' on the Washington Campus. Our buildings began to serve
multiple purposes. Administration buildings were vacated. Slowly we
vacated numerous buildings totalling over 600 thousand square feet
across 102 acres. After completion of the Scott Project we will have
vacated over one million square feet. By reducing our ``footprint'' we
began to realize savings we had not experienced before. The overall
impact was sustained growth to the Trust Fund. In five years we have
been able to grow the Trust Fund by $73 million with a Fiscal Year 2008
ending balance of $167 million.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.235

Friday, April 24, 2009.

CENTRAL COMMAND

WITNESS

GENERAL DAVID H. PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND, UNITED
STATES ARMY

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards. Good morning. I would like to call the House
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations
Subcommittee to order.
General Petraeus, welcome to our subcommittee. It is good
to have you here. I want to thank you for your 35 years of
distinguished military service to our Nation and especially for
your leadership at this time of great challenge in such a
critical region of the world.
The purpose of today's hearing is twofold. First, we want
to hear General Petraeus' strategic overview of operations in
Central Command's Area of Responsibility. This information will
assist the subcommittee as we begin to mark up the fiscal year
2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill and the 2010 Military
Construction Appropriations bill. Second, we want to review the
$947 million supplemental request by the administration for
military construction funding for CENTCOM. Of the 45 projects
requested, all but one are to be located in Afghanistan.
I would like to recognize our ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for
his opening comments.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Well, I want to thank the chairman first for this
hearing and for his leadership here on the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. Most of all, I
thank General Petraeus for his presence here today.
I want to thank you on behalf of all the people of
Tennessee where you have a storied history as well, everything
from commanding the Screaming Eagles of the 101st Airborne to
having the surgery at the hands of Senator Bill Frist and a
little bit of everything, I think, in between.
I have had the privilege in the last 15 years to meet kings
and to become personal friends with prime ministers and with
Presidents and to hold Mother Teresa's hands and pray with her
in the Capitol, and I consider your presence here today one of
those high moments in my service. We are honored. You are one
of America's greatest living citizens, and we are so grateful
for your service. You are the premiere soldier of our
generation, and we thank you for what you have done and for
what you continue to do and for your willingness to head up
CENTCOM at a critical moment where success is imperative and
where our presence in the world is very necessary. I thank you,
and I look forward to your testimony and to the questions and
answers. On behalf of everyone on our side and on our
subcommittee and in the Congress, we will stand with you in a
bipartisan and unified way until you are successful on every
front.
Thank you, General.
Mr. Edwards. Well stated. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
General Petraeus, your full written statement will be
submitted for the record. Now I would like to recognize you for
any opening comments you care to make.

Statement of General David H. Petraeus

General Petraeus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Congressman Wamp, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you,
not just for the opportunity to provide an update on the
situation in the U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility,
but thanks to each of you for all that you have done for our
soldiers and their families over the years, in recent years in
particular.
I would like to begin this morning by discussing the way
ahead in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as these countries contain
the most pressing transnational extremist threat in the world
and, in view of that, pose the most urgent problems set in the
Central Command Area of Responsibility. I will then discuss
Iraq and the status of our major efforts elsewhere in the Area
of Responsibility.
Disrupting and ultimately defeating al Qaeda and the other
extremist elements in Pakistan and Afghanistan and reversing
the downward security spiral seen in key parts of these
countries will require sustained substantial commitment. The
strategy described by President Obama several weeks ago
constitutes such a commitment. Although the additional
resources will be applied in different ways on either side of
the Durand Line, Afghanistan and Pakistan comprise a single
theater that requires comprehensive whole of governments
approaches that are closely coordinated.
This morning, I will briefly discuss the military aspects
of the new strategy, noting, however, that, while additional
military forces clearly are necessary, they will not by
themselves be sufficient to achieve our objective.
It is equally important that the civilian requirements for
Afghanistan and Pakistan be fully met. To that end, it is
essential that the respective civilian elements be provided the
resources necessary to implement this strategy. In particular,
I urge Congress to fully fund the State Department, USAID, the
Office of Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, and
the interagency Civilian Response Corps to enable this overall
strategy.
Achieving objectives in Afghanistan requires a
comprehensive counterinsurgency approach, and that is what
General David McKiernan and ISAF are endeavoring to execute
with the additional U.S. and Coalition resources being
committed.
The additional forces will provide an increased capability
to secure and serve the people, to pursue the extremists, to
support the development of host nation security forces, to
reduce the illegal narcotics industry, and to help develop the
Afghan capabilities needed to increase the legitimacy of the
national and Afghan local governance. These forces will also,
together with the additional NATO elements committed for the
election security force, work with Afghan elements to help
secure the national elections in late August and to help ensure
that those elections are seen as free, fair, and legitimate in
the eyes of the Afghan people.
A major focus of our efforts in Afghanistan is building the
Afghan security forces so that they are capable of assuming
full responsibility for their country's security over time.
Your support for generating, training and equipping Afghan
national security forces continues to be critical to our long-
term success, just as your support has proven to be of such
importance in the case of the development of Iraqi security
forces.
As was the case in Iraq, additional forces will only be a
value if they are employed properly. It is vital that they be
seen as good guests and good partners; not as would-be
conquerors or superiors, but as formidable warriors who also do
all possible to avoid civilian casualties in the course of
combat operations.
As additional elements deploy, it will also be essential
that our commanders and elements strive for unity of effort at
all levels and integrate our security efforts into the broader
plans to promote Afghan governance and economic development. We
recognize the enormous sacrifices of the Afghan security forces
since 2002 and by the Afghan people over the past three
decades, and we will continue working with our Afghan partners
to build the trust of the people and, with security, to provide
them with new opportunities.
The increase in our forces in Afghanistan has created new
critical infrastructure requirements. Expanded contingency
construction authorities for Afghanistan and across the AOR
serve as important interim solutions because they push
construction decision-making authority to our engaged
commanders in the field.
We appreciate your support for expanded CCA, and increasing
the operations and maintenance construction threshold for minor
construction in support of combat operations would also be
helpful.
The situation in Pakistan is, of course, closely linked to
that of Afghanistan. The extremists that have established
sanctuaries in Pakistan's rugged border areas not only
contribute to the deterioration of security in eastern and
southern Afghanistan, but they also pose an ever more serious
threat to Pakistan's very existence. Al Qaeda's senior
leadership and other transnational extremist elements are
located in Pakistan and have carried out an increasing number
of suicide bombings and other attacks. In addition, they have
carried out terrorist attacks in India, in Afghanistan, and in
various other countries outside the region, including the
United Kingdom, and they have continued efforts to carry out
attacks in our homeland.
In response to the increased concern over extremist
activity, the Pakistan military has stepped up operations in
parts of the tribal areas. Everyone recognizes, however, that
much further work is required, and the events of recent days
underscore that point. Given our relationship with Pakistan and
its military over the years, it is important that the United
States be seen as a reliable ally in assisting with that work.
The Pakistani military has been fighting a tough battle
against extremists for more than 7 years. They have sacrificed
much and have suffered very tough losses in this campaign, and
they deserve our support.
The U.S. military will focus its assistance in two main
areas:
First, we will expand our partnership with the Pakistani
military and help it build its counterinsurgency capabilities
by providing training, equipment and assistance. We will also
expand our exchange programs to build stronger relationships
with Pakistani leaders at all levels.
Second, we will help promote closer cooperation across the
Afghan-Pakistan border by providing training, equipment,
facilities, and intelligence capabilities and by bringing
together Afghan and Pakistani military officers to enable
coordination between the forces on either side of the border.
These efforts will support the timely sharing of intelligence
information and will help to coordinate the operations of the
two forces.
These efforts to build the capacity of the Pakistani
military would be aided substantially by the Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Capability Fund. Pakistan is a unique
situation that requires unique and nuanced authorities.
Ambassador Holbrooke and I have determined that we need both
foreign military financing and PCCF to accomplish our mission,
along with the other categories, such as 1206, 1207 and 1208.
PCCF will allow us to focus, as well as expand our security
development plan with Pakistan.
In addition, we support the continued use of Coalition
support funds as a tool for supporting the operations of our
Pakistani partners as they confront extremists who operate in
Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan, and we believe the
expansion of outreach and exchange programs will enable the
establishment of stronger relationships with Pakistani leaders
at all levels as well.
Within the counterinsurgency construct we have laid out for
Afghanistan and together with the support provided to Pakistan,
we will, of course, continue to support the targeting,
disruption, and pursuit of the leadership basis and support
groups of al Qaeda and other transnational extremist groups
operating in the region. We will also work with our partners to
challenge the legitimacy of the terrorist methods, practices
and ideologies, helping our partners address legitimate
grievances to win over reconcilable elements of the population
and supporting promotion of the broad-based economic and
governmental development that is a necessary part of such an
effort.
As we increase our focus on and efforts in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, we must not lose sight of other important missions in
the CENTCOM AOR. There has, for example, been substantial
progress in Iraq, but numerous challenges still confront its
leaders and its people, and we have seen some of those in the
past couple of days. Although al Qaeda and other extremist
elements in Iraq have been reduced significantly, they do pose
a continued threat to security and stability and, again, we
have seen that recently.
Beyond that, lingering ethnic and sectarian mistrust,
tensions between political parties, the return of displaced
persons, large detainee releases, new budget challenges, and
the integration of the Sons of Iraq, as well as other issues,
remind us that the progress there is still fragile and
reversible, though less so than when I left Iraq last fall,
especially given the conduct of provincial elections in late
January and the recent election of the Council of
Representatives Speaker.
Despite the many challenges, the progress in Iraq,
especially the steady development of the Iraqi security forces,
has enabled the continued transition of security responsibility
to Iraqi elements and has enabled further reductions of
Coalition forces and the steady withdrawal of our units from
urban areas. We are, thus, on track in implementing the
security agreement with the Government of Iraq and in executing
the strategy laid out by the President at Camp Lejeune.
A vital element in our effort in Iraq has been
congressional support for a variety of equipment and resource
needs, and I want to take this opportunity to thank you for
that. In particular, your support for the rapid fielding of
mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles and various types of
unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as for the important
individual equipment and for the Commanders Emergency Response
Fund, has been of enormous importance to our troopers. Your
continued support for these programs, capabilities and
equipment, as well as for the expanded intelligence and IED
defeat capabilities, will continue to be important as we expand
our operations in Afghanistan.
Iran remains a major concern in the CENTCOM AOR. It
continues to carry out destabilizing activities in the region,
including the training, funding and arming of militant proxies
active in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq. It also continues its
development of nuclear capabilities and missile systems that
many assess are connected to the pursuit of nuclear weapons and
delivery means.
In response, we are working with partner states in the
region to build their capabilities and to strengthen
cooperative security arrangements, especially in the area of
shared early warning, air and missile defense, and the
establishment of common operational pictures.
Iran's actions and rhetoric have, in fact, prompted our
partners in the Gulf to seek closer relationships with us than
we have had with some of them in some decades. We are also
helping to bolster the capabilities of the security forces in
Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, the Gulf States, and the Central
Asian States to help them deal with threats to their security,
which range from al Qaeda to robust militia and organized
criminal elements.
In addition, we are working with partner nations to counter
piracy, to combat illegal narcotics production and trafficking,
and to interdict arms smuggling activities that threaten
stability and the rule of law and often provide funding for
extremists. Much of this work is performed through an expanding
network of bilateral and multilateral cooperative arrangements
established to address common challenges and to pursue shared
objectives.
As we strengthen this network, we strive to provide our
partners with responsive security assistance, technical
expertise and resources for training, educating and equipping
their forces, and for improving security facilities and
infrastructure. Exceptional funding programs that provide
training, equipment, and infrastructure for our partner
security forces enabled our successes in Iraq, and are of prime
importance if we are to achieve comparable progress in Pakistan
and Afghanistan. Lebanon and Yemen also warrant similar
attention. We believe significant gains result from these
activities, and we appreciate your support for them.
Finally, in all of these endeavors, we seek to foster
comprehensive approaches by ensuring that military efforts are
fully integrated with broader diplomatic, economic and
developmental efforts. We are working closely, for example,
with former Senator Mitchell and Ambassador Ross as they
undertake important responsibilities as Special Envoys in the
same way that we are working together with Ambassador Holbrook
and the United States Ambassadors in our region.
In conclusion, there will be nothing easy about the way
ahead in Afghanistan or Pakistan or in many of the other tasks
in the Central Command area. Much hard work lies before us, but
it is clear that achieving the objectives of these missions is
vital, and it is equally clear that these endeavors will
require sustained substantial commitment and unity of effort of
all involved.
Over 215,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast
Guardsmen are currently serving in the CENTCOM Area of
Responsibility. Together with our many civilian partners, they
have been the central element in the progress we have made in
Iraq and in several other areas, and they will be the key to
achieving progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan and in the many
other locations where serious work is also being done.
These wonderful Americans and their fellow troopers around
the world constitute the most capable military in the history
of our Nation. They have soldiered magnificently against tough
enemies during challenging operations in punishing terrain and
extreme weather, and they and their families have made great
sacrifices since 9/11, as I know the members of this
subcommittee know very well. Nothing means more to these great
Americans than the sense that those back home appreciate their
service and their sacrifice.
In view of that, I want to conclude this morning by noting
my gratitude for the extraordinary support the American people
have provided to our military men and women and their families
and by thanking the members of this subcommittee for your
unflagging support and abiding concern for our troopers and
their families as well.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, General Petraeus.
[The prepared statement of General David H. Petraeus
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.236

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.237

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.238

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.239

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.240

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.241

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.242

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.243

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.244

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.245

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.246

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.247

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.248

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.249

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.250

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.251

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.252

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.253

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.254

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.255

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.256

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.257

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.258

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.259

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.260

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.261

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.262

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.263

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.264

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.265

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.266

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.267

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.268

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.269

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.270

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.271

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.272

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.273

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.274

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.275

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.276

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526C.277

Mr. Edwards. In terms of the process, we will abide by the
5-minute rule, which will include the time for the questions,
comments and the answer.
General, if I gavel you down, please finish the thought. So
if a member wants a 15-second answer, he or she can ask a 4.75-
minute question, but we will try to adhere to that in order to
maximize the number of questions, of answers, and discussion.
To all here, let me say everyone is welcome. This is a
public, unclassified hearing. We welcome everyone. I would only
ask that you respect the process itself, and allow the
testimony to move ahead expeditiously.

AFGHANISTAN

General Petraeus, let me begin my questions with the issue
of enduring installations in Afghanistan. Our policy in Iraq
was to have, technically, no permanent U.S. bases. Obviously,
concrete lasts a long time, but the idea was that we would not
be permanently in Iraq, and we wanted the world and the Iraqis
to understand that. There has been some discussion of
potentially two enduring installations in Afghanistan.
If that is correct, if that is the policy, could you
explain whether the term ``enduring'' means physically the
construction of the bases will be such that they might last for
decades, whether we are there or not; or does ``enduring'' mean
you would expect a permanent U.S. presence in Afghanistan?
General Petraeus. It would be the former, Mr. Chairman.
Again, the fact that concrete might endure a lot of C-17
landings and hopefully endure beyond our departure, in fact,
does not reflect any kind of commitment to an enduring basis or
enduring presence.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Good. May I ask you about benchmarks?
Where are you in terms of public benchmarks so that a year from
now, this subcommittee and the Congress, 2 years from now or 3
years from now, can judge whether we are making the progress
that we would hope to make in Afghanistan?
General Petraeus. There is, in fact, a process ongoing, Mr.
Chairman, in the administration to develop a set of benchmarks
that will be done in consultation with the Congress. It is an
interagency effort. We have visibility involvement in that from
CENTCOM. The Intelligence Community is also very highly
involved with it. I talked to Admiral Blair about it, for
example, the other day, and at that point it had been agreed
with all the interagency and on the Hill, and I am sure that
those will be brought forward.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. On military construction vis-a-vis the
supplemental appropriation bill, I will never ask you in public
whether the funding request is adequate. The request has been
made. That is official administration policy.
I would like to ask you, in terms of process between now
and the time we get to the conference report on the
supplemental appropriation bill, if conditions change in Iraq
or Afghanistan in a way that you would on short notice see need
for new construction projects that were not envisioned when you
put together the supplemental request, would you feel at ease
to make those additional proposals to the subcommittee?
General Petraeus. I would, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Great.
Finally, let me ask, in terms of roads, much of your
supplemental construction request for Afghanistan is for roads.
Are roads in your opinion an effective way to protect the lives
of our troops from IEDs?
General Petraeus. First of all, roads are important in a
host of different ways, not just to ensure that you can spot
where it has been disrupted and an IED has been planted, but
also in terms of the comment that, where the road ends, the
insurgency begins. Of course, with the ability of the road to
tie together the revival of commerce and business and so forth,
Afghanistan, for example, has substantial mineral reserves. The
challenge is their extraction and then getting them to the
market that could use them. So, again, roads are important.
With respect, Mr. Chairman, let us provide you, again, if
we could, those items that will be constructed with the
supplemental funds in particular, because the bulk of them
really, I think it is correct to say, are for logistical
infrastructure. I suspect we are putting as much concrete into
runways as we are into ramp space and pads for sleeping
accommodations for our troopers and mess halls and so forth,
actually, as we are with that. I think the funding for roads
may be a good bit more on the AID side and in other categories,
actually, than in the construction, which we are really doing
to accommodate the additional forces that are coming into
Afghanistan.
Mr. Edwards. Great. Thank you, General.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Petraeus, two days ago at Harvard and in your
testimony today, you seem to feel the need to prepare Americans
for the next 12 to 18 months as we transition from Iraq to
Afghanistan. You have mentioned the issue in Pakistan, Somali
pirates, Iran, other elements in the region.
Can you lay out what our objectives are and what Americans
can expect in the next 12 to 18 months, particularly in
Afghanistan? If we are successful with this surge of troops,
what are the opportunities that we might see there in terms of
longer-term security when we are successful?
General Petraeus. Congressman, our foremost objective in
Afghanistan is to ensure that transnational extremists are not
able to reestablish the kinds of bases and safe havens that
they had and from which they were able to conduct the 9/11
attacks. That is, obviously, a vital national interest for us
that was highlighted very clearly in the President's
explanation of the strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Again, it is imperative that we ensure that conditions not
return to the way that they were where, again, transnational
extremists were able to establish that kind of presence--
training camps, essentially--the global headquarters, if you
will, for that particular movement.
Clearly the security situation has deteriorated in
Afghanistan over the course of the last 2 years, particularly
in certain areas of the Pashtun insurgency, the Pashtun belt in
eastern and in especially southern Afghanistan. It is important
that we stabilize those areas, that we arrest the downward
spiral of security and, indeed, then roll back in some respects
and improve the security for the Afghan people so that the
other progress--and there has been considerably a great amount
of other progress, whether it is in telecommunications, again,
road construction, access to health care, the spread of
education, you name it--but in many areas of this, in
particular Pashtun, insurgency has been challenged and/or
reversed.
To do that, we are obviously deploying additional forces.
We are accelerating the development of the Afghan National Army
and its expansion. There will be an increase in the police
forces, and there is an increase in the NATO security forces as
well, especially for the upcoming elections that will be held
on 20 August.
As all of these forces are brought to bear on this problem
and on this situation, they are going to have to take away from
the Taliban, take away from the extremist syndicate in the
east, safe havens and sanctuaries that have been established in
some cases in league with the illegal narcotics industry and
traffickers. As in Iraq with the surge, when we deployed
additional forces and those forces began fighting to take back
those sanctuaries and safe havens that al Qaeda in Iraq and
some of the militia extremists had established, they will fight
back; and so this will be a tough road that lies ahead, but it
is also a vitally important road that lies ahead.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I will come back during the next
round. I do not want to exceed my 5 minutes.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, thank you for your public service, for your career
and particularly for your emphasis on academic training.
I began my public service in the Peace Corps. I now
represent the Naval Postgraduate School and the Defense
Language Institute. I have been very interested in my years in
Congress to try to create a civilian capability in the U.S.
government made up of the best and brightest civilians we have
to do stabilization work. I authored the Reconstruction and
Stabilization Civilian Management Act, that you have mentioned,
to authorize the State Department to set up the coordinator for
reconstruction and stabilization, and we created this Civilian
Response Corps.
I just want to personally thank you. We would not have
gotten that bill out of the Senate if you had not made the
phone call to a certain Senator, and it amazed me because I did
not know you were aware of the bill. It was Senator Coburn,
actually, who told me that you had made a call, and I want to
just personally thank you, because I really think you
appreciate and understand the need to build this civilian
capability.
General Abizaid, years ago before this committee, said
something that I think was really profound. He said, America
will never be able to sustain the peace until we learn to cross
the cultural divide.
I think you understand that extremely well, probably better
than anybody else, as to what it takes to cross that cultural
divide. So my question is, has the military and CENTCOM Area of
Responsibility worked or partnered with the State Department's
Office of Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization? To
your knowledge, what is your assessment of the work that they
are doing? Is it slow in getting started, particularly in being
able to pull together a Civilian Response Corps? Do you have
some ideas for the training expertise that you think they ought
to have?
General Petraeus. Well, Congressman, I am actually very
strongly committed to this, as you noted, and we are working
with the Office. We did seek to encourage people to support its
construction, and the reason is that, frankly, when I was on
the ground as a division commander, as a major general in
northern Iraq, I turned around and said: Okay, where are all
these folks who were going to help us, who were talking to us
when we were down in Kuwait before we went through the berm?
Where are all the experts? Where are all the assistants?
There were not many. In fact, there were none for a while,
and the pool that eventually emerged was thin, I think, and
that is why our soldiers ended up doing nation building. It was
necessary. We embraced it. We had to do it. We got after it.
We appreciate your enabling us with CERP, for example--
which proved to be a hugely important component of that because
we had such a vastly greater capability and capacity to
actually do nation building than did the elements of our
government that arguably could be said to actually have that as
their primary mission rather than as an additional duty.
So, again, we want the Office to succeed. We want the
Civilian Response Corps to grow rapidly, to expand. We want to
see the kind of education, training and preparation for
deployment that I think we have worked very hard in the
military and have had a reasonable degree of success with.
Although I want to go on with this because, as you may
know, I actually supervised DLI when I was the commander of the
Combined Arm Center, we were in charge of all of the
commissioned and noncommissioned officer education courses, the
National Training Center scenarios, the doctrine. That is how
we were able to do the Counterinsurgency Field Manual. DLI was
actually under us in that role, and I was a huge proponent of
it. And frankly, we desperately need the language skills; and
to that degree, the cultural skills are also trained out there
because, as you know, it takes more than just a sheer academic
knowledge of the language. You have to have an understanding of
the context and the culture in which you actually employ that
language.
I actually went to Admiral Blair the other day after we did
the CENTCOM assessment, the overall assessment that we took
several months to do with a couple hundred people looking at
the overall region, the subregions, the functional areas. In
the functional area of intelligence, the major finding was that
we do not have the capacity nor do we have the capability in
the Afghanistan and Pakistan region in particular, and we
shared that with Secretary Gates; with the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen; and with Admiral Blair.
Admiral Blair is going to take steps to appoint a very
senior individual to oversee that effort. He agrees with it
completely. As you know, he also has a very strong commitment
to learning as well as doing. He is a Rhodes scholar and,
again, an extraordinary and intelligent man on top of all the
other qualities. So we need to expand that.
We also, actually, need to expand just the basic knowledge
of Afghanistan and Pakistan among our forces. We were, over
time, able to do this in Iraq. We were able to have recurring
assignments, repeat tours, bring units back, sometimes actually
where they served before, and to develop the kind of nuanced
and granular understanding that eventually enabled us to do the
kind of sophisticated reconciliation processes that turned out
to be so important in Iraq.
Some of those will necessarily have to take place in
Afghanistan. You cannot kill or capture your way out of an
industrial-strength insurgency such as we had in Iraq or such
as exists in Afghanistan.
So, again, you have to have that kind of real feel and
appreciation and sophisticated understanding of the local
context, and that can only come by experience, by study, by
continued learning, and by capturing information and sharing
it.
We will take steps, in fact, to develop this pool of people
and then to try to keep them in that field while still ensuring
their professional development and promotion and so forth. Over
the long term, we have to get very serious about the true long-
term development so we are not just filling slots right now and
then keeping them in it for the short midterm. We need to make
a much bigger commitment. And I think that is reflected in
Secretary Gates' overall concept for the defense budget. It was
also reflected in guidance that he gave last year to develop
the real language expertise and the cultural understanding and,
again, the assignment process that allows us to develop the
experts in the State Department, in AID and in the military, so
that we can be as effective as is possible in local conditions.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Judge Carter.

TALIBAN

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, welcome. We are really proud to have you here
today.
General, there is a story out today that the Taliban forces
consolidated control of two northwestern Pakistan districts and
went into a third district. These districts are within 60 miles
of Islamabad. Do you have the necessary tools to counter the
Taliban as they move closer to the capital city? Your comments
on this.
General Petraeus. Well, Congressman, first of all this
highlights, I think, and it underscores the importance of what
Secretary Clinton has said on the Hill in the past 2 days, and
that is the imperative that the Pakistani leaders not only
recognize that the most important, most pressing threat to the
very existence of their country, is the threat posed by the
internal extremists and groups such as the Taliban and the
syndicate of extremists in the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas. That is the most pressing threat that they face right
now.
Not only is it important to get that, if you will,
intellectually, but then of course you have to act on it. The
institutions have to reflect that. Military forces, over time,
have to be configured for that kind of fight, for that kind of
threat, rather than strictly focused on the conventional threat
that has been traditionally the focus of the military to their
east, in India.
In fact, one reason that we have requested the Pakistani
Counterinsurgency Capability Fund is to have a source of
funding similar to that provided by the Iraqi Security Forces
Fund or the Afghan Security Forces Fund that has the
flexibility and responsiveness that the Office of Defense,
Representative, Pakistan, needs in the same way that the
training equip elements had, again, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That does not mean that we do not need, again, the traditional
mechanisms with the same kinds of authorities for DoD when it
comes to 1206, 1207, 1208. We do not need Coalition support
funds or FMF or access to FMS. All the rest of these are
certainly very much needed. IMET, again, is another one.
The fact is we need, again, a source of funds that has this
responsiveness, that has the flexibility, that can enable us to
focus the effort on the training and equipping and development
of forces that will conduct counterinsurgency operations as
their primary objective. And we have been doing that on a small
scale, providing assistance to the forces, for example, of the
Frontier Corps and to the 11th Army Corps, which are the
elements operating mostly in the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas and in the Northwest Frontier Province.
In fact, there was a small element of those forces, 300 to
350 members of the Frontier Corps, that moved to Buner, which
is one of these districts in which the Taliban had located. So
this capability will help us enormously. Again, that is why we
requested it.
Mr. Carter. Do you perceive that there is a will to start a
change of direction in as far as the counterinsurgency effort
is concerned so that our money will be well invested?
General Petraeus. Well, there is certainly a will on the
ground among those troopers who are fighting, again, in the
FATA. I mean they know what this enemy represents, and they
have sustained very substantial losses. So, again, the
Pakistani Army has taken significant losses in this fight over
a number of years now, and that is why in my statement I said
they deserve our support. They not only need it. I think they
have earned our support.
What we need to see, of course, over the weeks and months
ahead, is the kind of whole-of-government approach that would
result from a complete commitment by the Pakistani senior
leaders to enable their forces. So, again, you do not have a
situation where it is only the Frontier Corps and the Army that
are doing counterinsurgency operations. That is not possible.
Again, military by itself cannot do it, and they are actually
studying our counterinsurgency manual. Their director of the
joint staff is working with their interagency to develop a
counterinsurgency concept and policy. There is encouragement in
that. But, again, what has to happen is we have to see that
actually manifest itself. We have to see it operationalized
over time and to see the kind of commitment and will that will
be necessary to face up to what is, again, an existential
threat to Pakistan.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Mr. Salazar.

AGRICULTURE POTENTIAL IN AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, thank you so much for everything you do for this
country. We are very proud of you.
I was an Army man myself and never got to the four stars,
but I was an enlisted man.
Mr. Dicks. You got to Congress, though.
Mr. Salazar. Yes.
Let me just ask you--I know, the last time that we were in
Iraq and you were still there, we visited about the potential
in Afghanistan in reference to agriculture. I understand that
we have to build an economy before you can actually really
build a society.
Could you maybe comment about that potential and what you
are seeing and what role the USDA could actually have in
helping you achieve those goals?
General Petraeus. Well, it could have an enormous role. In
fact, Ambassador Holbrooke and I are very seized with the
agricultural potential in Afghanistan and in helping them
redevelop it. As you know, this was once a very fertile country
until it entered 30-plus years of war. The irrigation systems,
the vineyards, the fields--all of these that take years or
sometimes decades to fully mature and develop--were destroyed
over the course of that time. And there has been an enormous
effort to rebuild those, but it still has a very long way to
go.
So we are very keen to see the kind of interagency support
for this that can help it. But we have already, in fact, again
gone to our uniformed services. In this case, the National
Guard stepped forward and said, you know, we have folks in our
ranks in agricultural States who are willing to volunteer to
give their agricultural expertise to the Afghan people and to
the Afghan farmers. These agricultural teams have been of
enormous help and of enormous value over there. In many cases,
these are true agricultural experts. They are both farmers and
academic experts who can do the kind of soil analysis, crop
analysis and then end-to-end market analysis that could enable
real progress if we can ensure that the security situation does
not disrupt it.
So, again, Ambassador Holbrooke and I are very, very keen
on this. It is a recurring theme if you hear him talk about
Afghanistan, and we hope very much that the interagency can
contribute substantially to it.
Mr. Salazar. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back so that other members can ask
questions.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, General. I am sorry I missed you at
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I have a subcommittee
that I have to chair myself, so there was a total conflict.
I remember going over with Congressman Lewis in 2003 when
you were commanding the 101st, and then came back in 2007 when
you were getting ready to do the surge with General Odierno. I
just want to compliment you on your extraordinary work. If we
had followed the lead of what you were trying to do in the
north throughout the country, I think we would have been in
better shape.

ILLEGAL DRUGS IN AFGHANISTAN

I want to ask you one thing about the drug issue, you know,
the heroin. I see this as just a cancer that is in Afghanistan,
and we have not been dealing with this forthrightly, I believe.
And I hope that the new administration is going to have an
aggressive strategy to deal with this issue.
The other thing I will mention, just to follow up on Mr.
Farr, is I have been a supporter of the Olmstead program, of
which General Abizaid took a year off as an Army officer, went
to a country, learned the language, learned the culture. And I
thought this was such a great program. Then I asked the Army
how many people are in the Olmstead program. I think they said
six or seven. So that is of concern.
Because of Mr. Edwards' sharp eye on time, I would like to
know what you think about this piracy problem. What do you
think we should do about it? How do we respond to this?
Thank you.
General Petraeus. Sir, first of all, the illegal narcotics
industry in Afghanistan is a cancer, and it not only eats at
the rule of law of Afghanistan and provides substantial
resources to the insurgency, as do some other activities, but
it is one of the top two or three primary sources of funding
for the insurgency. It also, of course, causes enormous
problems throughout the entire region. It is, in fact, one of
those areas in which we actually have common interests with
Iran and with Russia and certainly with all of the other Asian
states, none of whom want to see the already substantial
numbers of addicts that they have in their countries increase
nor to see the expansion of the illegal aspects of this and the
Mafia-related types of activity that it gives rise to.
By the way, with respect to these opportunities for our
soldiers to go to foreign countries for school and experience
and to graduate school and all the rest of that, really to
provide them, out of their intellectual comfort zone
experiences, which are so important when you are doing the kind
of work that our troopers are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan, I hope that as our end strength increases and as we
are able to bring our numbers down in Iraq that, again, our
officers, in particular, can take more advantage of this, but
also some of our noncommissioned officers and warrant officers
as well.

PIRACY

With respect to piracy, there are a number of actions that
need to be taken. Among them, it is important that the maritime
shipping industries get more serious about this problem. I have
just reviewed with Vice Admiral Gortney, who is the Naval
component commander for Central Command--it is his forces, by
the way, that were on the Bainbridge that were augmented by the
Navy SEALS.
Mr. Dicks. And we want to compliment the SEALS and the
whole operation.
General Petraeus. So they did a magnificent job.
The work by the crew of the Bainbridge, by the conventional
sailors and our special operations sailors was fantastic, and I
saw some of their leaders yesterday, I might add.
With respect to this problem which, of course, stems from
the fact that you have an ungoverned space, essentially, at
this point in time, and that has severe poverty and economic
problems and a lack of rule of law and all the rest of that,
those are the conditions, of course, that give rise to this
kind of illegal activity. But we need the maritime shipping
companies to do more than they have.
We started off by saying, if you would just speed up when
the pirates approach you, that will help. If you take evasive
action, that is even better. If you unbolt the ladder that
allows the pirates to climb onto your ship before you set sail,
you get extra credit for that. These were not being taken
before. This was strictly viewed as a business proposition up
until recently. They figured, well, we will go park if, you
know, only less than 1 percent of the ships get pirated.
Anyway, if it is, they have insurance, and it would just go and
park off Somalia, and they would negotiate.
Well, that price is going up, and of course the violence is
going up, and the pirates have moved farther and farther and
farther out. As you know, originally it was in the Gulf of
Aden, just south of Yemen and between the Horn of Africa. Now
they are as far out as 450 nautical miles off the coast of
Somalia proper.
So I think that they are going to have to take a very hard
look at not just taking additional defensive preparations in
terms of just simple things like Concertina wire to make it
hard to climb over the side or, again, up over a railing, but
also in looking at the employment of armed guards or security
forces on those. We have put them on many of the ships that
have our equipment on them. Again, I think that is something
that they are going to have to look hard at.
There is no way that the limited number of vessels from the
U.S., the Coalition maritime force that we have, NATO, EU, and
even others is going to be enough, given the thousands of
vessels that transit that area and the vast size of it. There
are disputes about how many times the size of Texas that
actually is. I would defer to the Chairman on that. Again, this
is a problem that we have to get much more serious with.
Also, you can do a risk analysis. You can look at the ship.
There are certain characteristics of a ship that make them more
vulnerable to piracy. Again, I think the maritime shipping
industry is going to have to look very hard at whether they
keep those ships going through these particular waters. And
there is a variety of others. We are going to do a review of
this with the leadership in the Pentagon over the course of the
next couple of weeks and with the interagency, and then we will
propose going back.
Mr. Dicks. What about training the crews?
General Petraeus. Well, sir, you could. Of course, some
crews have been trained. You heard about that in the case of
this Maersk ship.
Mr. Dicks. Yes.
General Petraeus. The arming of crews is another aspect. Of
course, they need to be trained in the use of those weapons
then as well. That has to be another element of this.
Certainly, the defensive preparations can work. You can have
water hoses and others that can make it more difficult. But as
someone observed the other day, it is tough to be on the end of
a water hose if the other guy is on the end of an RPG. So you
have got to think your way through that calculation as well.
Mr. Dicks. I yield back my remaining time.

INTERAGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Mr. Edwards. I thank the gentleman.
General Petraeus, you have spoken today in your testimony,
orally and in writing, and repeatedly that you cannot win a
counterinsurgency effort by simply a military effort alone. You
have to have civilian support. You have to win the hearts and
minds of the people of that region or of that country.
You spoke of the need for full funding of State Department,
USAID, perhaps USDA, the Department of Commerce, and other
programs. Is funding the constraint? I guess what I would ask
is: If you have the funding, do we still have problems with
getting those people from those particular agencies to go to
Iraq and Afghanistan?
General Petraeus. It is a mix, Mr. Chairman. Based on my
experience when I was a commander in Iraq and, before that, the
training equip commander--because we drew on a number of the
different interagency elements during that time--there are
certain organizations that are ready to help.
I have to single out the Department of Homeland Security,
for example, which was willing to provide border tactical
officers, customs agents, and other experts on border security,
which was something that was desperately needed in Iraq, even
as it is of course needed in our own country. But they had
those assets. They had the capabilities. They were willing to
provide them, but they ran into both authority and
authorization issues.
I think they did not have the funding for it, and I am not
sure they had the authority to shift other funding to do that.
So, in some cases, we were able to use training equip moneys
for that, because it fit the language that was provided by
Congress for that; but in other cases, we did not, and we just
had challenges with that.
There are other cases with other interagency elements where
they just do not have the capacity to provide the people, and
that, I think, is a serious challenge. It may well be.
There have been reports, public reports--and I think that
Under Secretary of Defense Flournoy talked in a conference
about this the other day--that as the augmentation of civilian
members of the effort in Afghanistan goes forward, that it may
be necessary to provide some uniformed members to augment that
effort. We had to do that in Iraq as you will recall. You know,
it is just a lot faster to give someone in the military an
order, one who is already prepared for deployment and who has
weapons training, preparation and so forth, or who can get that
in relatively short order, than it is to bring someone in from
the outside and go through the entire process and clearances
and everything else if they are contracted or hired in some
other fashion. So it may be. That is certainly an option that
Secretary Gates is looking at, although there has not been a
commitment or numbers assigned to it yet.
Mr. Edwards. Do you have any kind of broad estimate today
in Afghanistan and in Iraq, if you had all of the civilian
employees from the various Federal agencies--USDA, the
Department of Commerce--as to how many military troops you
could free up for their military mission?
General Petraeus. I think, in truth, that freeing up would
be relatively small in number because, again, if you come back
just for example to the agricultural area, we could send home a
few agriculture teams if we had more agricultural experts. In
many cases, though, I think what it would do is it would enable
our soldiers to focus more on their primary responsibilities of
providing for the security of the people, securing and serving
the people, and focus less on these other duties that they end
up having to get into because of the lack of additional
capacity in the civilian arena.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Edwards. Clearly, our goal ultimately is to have the
people of Iraq and Afghanistan be self-sufficient and providing
for their own security. It has taken an awfully long time to
try to build up the forces, the police and security forces in
Iraq.
Is there any reason to believe, for whatever differences or
learning curves or experiences in Afghanistan, that we will be
able to move that process forward more quickly than has
occurred in Iraq?
General Petraeus. Well, we have certainly tried to take
lessons from Iraq and apply them appropriately with an
understanding of the significant differences in Afghanistan. In
many respects, Afghanistan represents a more difficult problem
set. It does not have a number of the blessings that Iraq has
in terms of the sheer oil, gas, land of two rivers, the human
capital that Iraq built up over the years, the muscle memory of
a strong government, albeit one that was corrupted over time by
Saddam Hussein. But, again, it had a large number of advantages
and extraordinary natural blessings in comparison to
Afghanistan, which is much more, obviously, landlocked,
mountainous, rugged, rural, with a 70 to 80 percent illiteracy
rate. You have the challenging situation of policemen who
cannot read or comprehend the laws that they are enforcing.
These kinds of difficulties make Afghanistan very, very hard.
We have seen that, and we will continue to see that. This
is why up front I said this is going to take a sustained
substantial commitment, and I have provided that in each of the
testimonies that I have had on this, and certainly to the
military and civilian leadership of our country.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To follow up on that line of questioning, General, there is
no question the surge was successful in Iraq and that great
gains have been made, but your testimony said that those gains
are ``fragile and reversible.'' As I said to you earlier today
in my office, my nephew is a marine right now, and I am
interested in the question of Iraq.
There was a bombing there yesterday of significant
proportion, still. Yet some Members who have been there in the
last 3 weeks have said that the policing versus the warfighting
is the primary problem, and that law enforcement there is more
the issue than a lack of our warfighting capabilities.
So, as we transition more and more out of Iraq and into
Afghanistan, give us a feeling, from your perspective, of how
much security and warfighting capability is still necessary for
us in Iraq to leave it in the condition that those security
forces in Iraq will be able to maintain the progress that has
been made so that it is not fragile and reversible.
General Petraeus. Well, that is a very good question.
Again, obviously, there has been, clearly, very substantial
progress in Iraq. When you go from 160 attacks per day to now
an average of 10 to 15, obviously that represents a significant
degree of progress.
Having said that, for all the reasons that I mentioned in
my opening statement, which include the resilience of al Qaeda
in Iraq--although considerably diminished, it retains a
capability, and it does retain a desire to reestablish its
networks, and it does periodically still have the capability to
carry out the kind of horrific attacks that it carried out
yesterday.
I talked to General Odierno, in fact, not long before
coming over here. They are obviously going through the
intelligence, doing, you know, a very, very rigorous job of
trying to determine which network was reestablished, how it was
able to carry out the attacks that it did. In some respects,
some of this is actually a bit of the result of the relaxed
security, to some degree, over the very, very tight security
and the innumerable checkpoints and walls and barriers and all
the rest of that, some of which has been taken down over time
as, in fact, the security has been improved.
General Petraeus. And so, maintaining the vigilance and the
discipline in the actions, particularly of local Iraqi Security
Forces who are the ones on the checkpoints and securing these
very sensitive locations, is very important.
We have seen in this case, we do know that, for example, a
network that provides foreign fighters from Tunisia through
Syria to Iraq was reactivated or reestablished after the
foreign fighter network inside Iraq was damaged very
significantly over the course of the last 6 months or so. And
we know that, for example, four of the suicide bombers in the
past couple of weeks were Tunisians and we captured one of the
facilitators. There may be some others that have come through.
Again, this is the kind of intelligence focus that is
taking place to determine again what network has been able to
carry these out and what actions need to be taken against them.
Those actions will be taken though with considerably larger
and more capable Iraqi Security Forces. They are carrying out
the vast majority of the security operations at this point. We
are well into the process of withdrawing additional forces, the
remaining coalition forces going home, gradually coming out of
the cities in anticipation of the deadline this summer in the
security agreement, and continuing on with the other aspects of
security agreement.
The Iraqi Security Forces number some 600,000 now. Again
they are considerably more capable than they were just a couple
of years ago. But there will be continued attacks of this type
over time. It is going to take a considerable time for Iraq to
eliminate all of the remaining elements and you see in fact in
that region periodic attacks of this type even in countries in
which there are relatively small cells of extremists, and so
forth.
So this is why we say the progress continues to be fragile
and reversible, and it is why we say that it requires continued
vigilance and continued effort. And again we think the policy
adopted for this is the appropriate one, it is something that
General Odierno and I and Ambassador Crocker supported.
Mr. Wamp. I want to pursue Pakistan and FATA, but I will do
that on the third round.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, I want to continue with the
discussion of crossing that cultural divide. I think you are
able to understand the need to do that better than anyone. It's
ironic that there are protest signs in this room that say ``no
military solution'', and you are essentially saying the same.
There is no military solution. It has got to be a civilian
solution, and we need to work on diplomacy and it ought to be
in the future words, not war.
So this hearing is really in the interest of trying to find
how do we for the first time really begin that transition of
developing the civilian capacity.
The Naval Postgraduate School has a center for post
conflict stabilization and reconstruction. Where they do
exercises with people from the U.N. and NGOs, U.S. civilian
agencies and military, and foreign military officers. The
exercises try to find out help plan how you really do
stabilization and reconstruction in a war torn areas.
There is also a course being offered to military officers
in that field, but there is very little interest in going into
it because there is no MOS. There is nothing to do with this
degree and expertise that you are developing. Yet you
established in your answer to the first question that there is
lack of expertise. I think we agree we need to develop it, but
the Department of Defense is not yet there in developing the
career path for these specialists.
Are you using FAOs, and are they well trained? Is there
something beyond that specific to linguistic and culturally
expertise, region by region around the world? And do these
teams train together so that they--as we do in a disaster
mitigation--can go in and do the ounce of prevention before we
need the pound of cure.
I am interested in your thoughts about how we can further
develop that professionalism. And is the State Department
coordinator for reconstruction in dialogue with you?
General Petraeus. The answer to that is yes. If I could go
back, because you have actually touched on an area that I have
enormous interest in actually. When you talk about changing an
institution, which is what we are talking about here, to
appreciate the need for a particular skill set in vastly
greater number than we have right now. Any time you change an
institution, though, you need the big ideas and then you have
to of course educate the organization on the big ideas and
hopefully they embrace the big ideas. And if they don't, you
help them put their arms around the big ideas and squeeze them
with them.
And then you implement the big ideas, if you will, in the
military we practice them, sometimes we implement them in real
operations if those are ongoing, as they are right now, and
then you have a feedback mechanism. And we actually proposed an
interagency engine of change in a briefing one time to an
interagency--and I would be happy to provide that whole
briefing to you--on how you would go about that.
We were talking about actually getting the interagency to
embrace the concept of counterinsurgency because in my view and
another the biggest of the big ideas that came out of the
CENTCOM assessment was that the construct, the intellectual
construct for the war on terror, at least within the CENTCOM
area of responsibility, needs to be a counterinsurgency
construct, not a narrow counterterrorism construct,
counterterrorism being, as you know, special mission units,
precise intelligence, intelligence agency activities, and very
specific operations. It needs to be much broader than that. It
needs to be not just special operations forces, but
conventional forces, indigenous forces, and it needs to be
broader that that. It needs to be economic, political,
diplomatic, informational, educational and all the rest of
that. And that is the ANACONDA slide that we briefed to the
Congress in April of 2008 when we were explaining that within
Iraq you couldn't do in al Qaeda in Iraq with just
counterterrorism forces. It took a holistic approach. It takes
corrections, too, by the way, because you have to separate the
irreconcilables from the reconcilables there as well.
But I think what you are talking about, I mean, you have
the big ideas right there, and the question is how to get the
institution in a sense educated, the organizations educated on
them and then to actually implement them, and then to follow it
up and have lessons learned, then to help you refine the big
ideas and the education of those and any implementation.
With respect to the FAOs, we do have very good FAO
programs. They involve language training, oftentime in a
country or a region before they actually serve, and then
repetitive tours in those. If anything, though, I think we have
to be careful not to eat our young in this field, and make sure
they don't run up against glass ceilings where all of a sudden
they can advance to a certain point but now they can't go
beyond that. There are exceptions to that and some significant
ones, and I think we have to ensure that we do enable that kind
of opportunity and embrace again people who have had these out
of their intellectual comfort zone experiences.
As you may recall, 2 years ago there was a promotion board,
and the Secretary was pretty clear about who was on the board,
and there was a reason I think to ensure that certain kinds of
officers were in fact selected, although of course there is
very clear instructions, there is a legal process, and so
forth.
So we have to again ensure that there is real opportunity
for these individuals that they feel highly valid. It is ironic
that just yesterday afternoon I sent an e-mail to the Chief of
Staff at CENTCOM down in Tampa, and I said I want you to look
at the coding, the personnel coding, of the spots in the J5
section, which is plans and policy and strategy, and make sure
that they are FAO slot coded so that we are using the FAOs and
the experts, so we don't bring in somebody who has never been
the country and is all of a sudden the country director for our
plans and policy. Instead, we need the folks that are the
experts.
Now you need both of course, and you also need the
operational experience piece has to inform this, and we have to
get a balance in there as well. But again obviously this is
something that I feel pretty strongly about, and I appreciate
the opportunity to----
Mr. Farr. The point is you are going to need some career
development there and you are going to need some of those MOSs,
as you say, developed.
General Petraeus. Sir, again when it comes to the conflict
prevention that one I have to put my thinking cap on and figure
out. We are actually pretty good now in the FAO field, and
again there is a revamping in the Army personnel system some
years back that again does pretty well up to certain levels.
But we have to take it beyond those levels, I think, as well.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Petraeus, I
like to read history and I have been reading a little bit of
Afghanistan history, it seems to me that the Afghan people
don't like invaders very much, and they certainly don't like
conquerors, the entire population turns on the conqueror. I
think the junkyard Soviet equipment that is in Afghanistan
today gives a pretty good indication of that.
As we ramp up forces in Afghanistan, how do we do that
without giving that perception that we are an invader. I think
right now we are still perceived as a helper, but I think that
is a fine line that has to be walked. I am asking you if you
perceive any indication of that in Afghanistan and in turn what
assets or infrastructure you might need to assist us, assist
our forces so that we are able to continue to be perceived as
helpers and not as invaders.
General Petraeus. Well, you are exactly right, Congressman,
that the Afghan people do not take kindly to conquerors and
they have shown that over the centuries. And so that is why it
is not just having additional forces, it is employing those
forces properly. And they cannot be seen to be there as
invaders or conquerors. They have to be there to be seen as
helping to secure and serve the people, to be partners and,
while being tough warriors, still being very sensitive, for
example, to civilian casualties, which is probably the single
most important issue and the single most challenging issue and
sensitive, because in fact the Taliban in particular will
literally create conditions in which there is a high prospect
of civilian casualties, disregarding the risk that they are
putting the civilian population of a local area to by their
actions in certain occasions.
So it is something that we have to be keenly sensitive to.
And in fact General McKiernan and I issued tactical directives
on this issue. And his recently released counterinsurgency
guidance highlights this, I think we gave a copy of this to all
the members before the hearing. If not, I will make sure that
we get it to you right after this.
Mr. Carter. The last time I was over there, the only smiles
I got from people were when they were traveling down a new
highway that was being built or under construction and then you
saw it. They don't smile a whole lot over there, but they were
smiling about that. So I happen to agree with the discussion
that as we ramp up our forces and we do them intelligently, and
I trust you very much to do that, we also need to make sure
that they think we are there to help because then it will be
different. Alexander the Great was the first one to learn this
lesson, and everybody has been learning it ever since.
General Petraeus. Absolutely right.
Mr. Edwards. Judge, thank you. Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. General, the transition from our soldiers in
Iraq to Afghanistan, what additional training are you putting
them through? I know we face different challenges and the
preparedness may not be the same as what it was in Iraq. We are
fighting in different territory. Could you address the
challenges that we might have? And how can we help you better
prepare our soldiers for that?
General Petraeus. Well, Congressman, we actually--the best
example of this I think is to look at the National Training
Center at Ft. Irwin, California, which is one of the primary
sites at which we prepare units. That is where we conduct the--
in a sense the final exercise, graduation exercise, the
culmination to the road to deployment, which now starts, by the
way, with a counterinsurgency seminar, and that has been the
case now for a couple of years. And that seminar is tweaked,
but then the entire road to deployment is tweaked to have an
Afghan focus, rather than an Iraq focus.
At the National Training Center it is a much more rural
setting for these kinds of exercises, rather than for in Iraq
where we have literally built up a lot of small urban areas in
the desert, in the Mojave Desert, to get them up into the
mountains there more, out again in the Mojave Desert which has
some pretty good little peaks out there as well. Everything is
done and I mean literally of course we have Afghan natives,
often Afghan Americans, but the Afghan Americans replace the
Iraqi Americans. In every respect that we can, we try to
replicate the situation in Afghanistan rather than of course
the situation in Iraq.
Needless to say, there are always going to be limits. We
haven't found a way to bring 10,000 and 12,000 foot peaks into
the Mojave Desert, but they do have again have several thousand
foot peaks out there and they can get the sense of that as
well.
There are language differences again for those that are
going to get some of the language training; the cultural
training again is obviously different. And again this is all
hugely important, because what worked in Iraq where we
literally would move into a neighborhood, right into the
neighborhood, right into a deserted house or a deserted factory
or a looted governmental facility. In Afghanistan out in those
rural areas that is not done, and so you literally have to sit
with the tribal elders, with the local mullahs, and work out an
arrangement. Typically we provide the security, the persistent
security presence that is so important in partnership with the
Afghan forces by being just outside a village rather than right
in the center of it.
So again, that is the kind of changes that we make to
ensure their soldiers are prepared for that.
Now in some cases we have had to send soldiers literally
from Iraq to Afghan, in some other cases to divert them from a
deployment plan from Iraq to Afghanistan. Needless to say, the
sooner we can do it the better, but inevitably there are
requirements that emerge, and we just went through that. We
just had a period where General McKiernan requested additional
forces and those that had the sufficient dwell, the only ones
were either in Iraq or en route to Iraq, and we had to make
some very, very tough decisions, and we did it in coordination
with General Odierno and with General McKiernan in full
visibility to the Secretary and the Chairman, but at the end of
the day had to make some very difficult choices and had to send
3,500 or so over in a couple of different decisions of so-
called enablers. And these are the very highest demand, low
density elements, construction engineers again to get the
infrastructure going, route clearance teams, joint tactical air
controllers, military working dogs, a whole host of
intelligence, command and control, and other elements that
again with dwell time the only place we could find them was in
Iraq or en route to Iraq and we had to divert some of those to
Afghanistan.
This, by the way, is what the Secretary's budget is
designed to address. His budget is, as has been observed, a
warfighter's budget and it gets at the shortages and the
enablers in particular, these forces that everyone needs.
I met with the Special Operations Command Commander
yesterday, Admiral Olson, and the most important topic of that
conversation was again these enablers that the special
operations forces need from the conventional side to help their
forces be effective. They are also the same ones that are
needed by conventional units to ensure that they can be
effective.
And again, that is the concept of the Secretary's budget.
Also, then those items that everybody can't get enough of, such
as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms,
and a variety of other intelligence-related items.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Secretary Gates said--when he was out at Camp
Lejeune, he said that the civilian side of this equation is not
coming into place. This is the same problem we had, as you
talked about earlier, in Iraq.
General Petraeus. Right.
Mr. Dicks. And now the same thing is happening in
Afghanistan, according to Secretary Gates. How do we deal with
this? How do we get the State Department and these other
agencies to come up with the people that we need or are we
going to just have to rely on reservists to volunteer? How do
we deal with this?
General Petraeus. Well, in part this is again Vice Chairman
Farr's point of developing the capability and the capacity,
much greater of each in the interagency, and in particular in
those agencies that have as their primary mission some of the
tasks that we were having to do with folks in uniform. That is
the first issue.
Mr. Dicks. Is there anybody inside the government to get
people together to try to work out a strategy about how we are
going to do this?
General Petraeus. Sir, that is going on. Again, this is
very much ongoing. It started, I think, a couple of years ago.
In fact, I think this conference that I talked about at which
we presented the idea of the interagency engine of change was
in fact one of the early catalysts for that overall effort, and
it is actually gradually coming together.
But the other issue, that is an issue of just having the
sheer capacity and capability. The other effort is then having
the deployability on fairly short notice, and that is a quality
that the military has of course that is fairly unique. We have
that ability to either take someone who is already serving or
could be called up on very short notice and in a very smooth
deployment process. They already have all their paperwork done
and clearances and basic levels of training and equipment and
everything else. And you can just add to that, relatively short
order, as you know, put them through an existing deployment
process and then get them down range. And that is part of that,
the overall effort that needs to be looked at as well.

PAKISTAN

Mr. Dicks. Now, you know there was a lot of objection on
our side when the government of Pakistan made this arrangement
in Swat and put their forces in the barracks. Are those forces
still in the barracks in Swat? And is this what has led to this
collapse?
General Petraeus. Well, there was an agreement again to
allow essentially sharia law, and at the heart of the dispute
had to do with the lack of what is termed speedy justice, and
there was a complete and utter dissatisfaction with the pace of
resolution of relatively small level conflicts, but ones that
were tying local communities in knots. And that was not
provided, and over time that led to, that was the cause on
which the Taliban was able to build, among some others. In
fact, there is a very good article, I think in the New York
Times the other day, that talked about the other social
situations, inequities, and so forth, that persisted there on
which the Taliban was able to play and to generate local
support for them assuming greater control over the area than
the governmental authorities whose control was eroding.
And then it was also pursued with some considerable
employment of threats, force, intimidation, murder, and so
forth. All of that combined to enable them to get in a position
where they could push this agreement through, and then the
greater political dynamics in Pakistan led eventually, after
considerable stalling and regret, I think frankly, to an
agreement to it.
And then the big concern after that was the movement beyond
that particular Swat district into Buner and some of the other
areas, from which they supposedly have now withdrawn with the
arrival of the Frontier Corps Forces.

IRAQ

Mr. Dicks. I am going to give you this article. I am not
going to get into it, but it says rape, beatings and bribery,
Iraqi Police out of control. The London Times story of April
24th. It sounds very, very discouraging about their police
force, their security people.
General Petraeus. Well, again the police in Iraq do have
first of all a checkered history. They were part of the
sectarian violence, as you will recall. The national police
when we went in with the surge in very short order, with Prime
Minister Maliki's action really, not just his support, but he
was the one that pushed this through, replaced the national
police commander, both division commander, every brigade
commander, and 80 percent of the battalion commanders, and then
had to replace those replacements a couple of times in some
instances.
Over time they became a considerably better force and a
much more effective force, but the memories that some of them
have of how to do things are bad, and the practices that were
employed in history, going back into the time of Saddam and so
forth, which is what many of them know, those are certainly not
in line with the rule of law as we understand it and as the
Iraqis want to implement. And so again there is no question
that there is more work that needs to be done.
Having said that, I think it is only fair to acknowledge
the enormous sacrifices that have been made by the Iraqi
security forces as they have taken considerably many times more
casualties than our forces have in the course of the effort to
reduce the security threats and challenges in that country.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

KYRGYZSTAN

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
General and members, I believe we have time for one more
round of questions, and let me begin by asking regarding the
supplemental appropriation request. There is a $30 million
request for Kyrgyzstan, given that government's decision to
remove U.S. forces from Hamas airbase. Can you tell me what the
rationale is for that request?
General Petraeus. First of all, Chairman, if of course it
came that we were to leave obviously we would not invest in
that particular air traffic control improvement. I don't want
to get ahead of things, but we need to give this time still, I
guess would be the best way to say.
Mr. Edwards. Okay, that answers the question. There was
another additional $36 million funded last year from our
subcommittee to improve the airfield there, and that has been
put on hold, as I understand. So if there is an opportunity to
continue discussions with the government----
General Petraeus. It is our hope, Chairman. In fact, it is
our hope that actually all parties in the region, and this
includes Russia, could see that the great game, the new great
game in the Central Asian states should be replaced with a
broad partnership against transnational extremism and the
illegal narcotics activities. It is in everyone's interest to
unite in that effort, and we think that that can be done. There
are some signs of recognition of that. Certainly I visited
every one of the Central Asian states as part of the effort to
establish the northern distribution network with--together with
the TRANSCOM Commander who did a phenomenal job with his team
there and our joint logistics teams.
We have now, for example, three different routes into
Afghanistan from the north. Russia is allowing--two of those
routes go through Russia. They will ultimately end up going
through Uzbekistan, which why it was important I had that visit
that I talked to you about in your office. And it is our hope
that all the countries again in the region are going to see the
wisdom of working together against these common threats rather
than competing for influence in a continuation of a zero sum
approach that has characterized activities in the region in the
past.

DRAWDOWN OF TROOPS IN IRAQ

Mr. Edwards. Thank you. My last question would be in
regards to the drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq. Do you have a
timetable at this point of when our forces will be out of
various locations in Iraq? And also what is the implication in
terms of Camp Victory, for example? Do we still have some
forces there or will all forces be removed from Camp Victory?
General Petraeus. Sir, we are actually in the process right
now. There is quite an aggressive process of either handing off
to Iraqis, after removing everything that we can that would be
serviceable and useful and so forth and all of that process, of
either handing off to Iraqis or closing out in some cases the
dozens and dozens of patrol bases, combat outposts, joint
security stations, and so forth, that we built during the surge
and during the embrace of the counterinsurgency principles
about securing the people by living with them.
For example, in Baghdad alone we created 77 additional
locations in which our forces were located to ensure the
security of the people with our Iraqi partners. And we do
indeed with a very detailed schedule that shows when we will
either close out or hand off these various small installations.
We are doing that with some of the bigger and medium size as
well and gradually pulling to some of the--and I don't use the
term ``enduring'' to imply again an enduring commitment or an
enduring presence, but again there are places in which we will
be until our eventual withdrawal from Iraq. And of course you
are familiar with the time line in the security agreement in
that regard.
Mr. Edwards. Right. Thank you. Mr. Wamp.

INDIA

Mr. Wamp. To set up my final question, let me say that we
heard from the Pacific Command a few weeks ago how pleased we
were with India's response to what happened in Mumbai on their
western edge.
But then Pakistan on your eastern edge is my greatest
concern in the world having been on the ground there a few
months ago, because they are the sixth largest country in the
world they have nuclear weapons and from Zardari to Gilani the
leadership is not as secure as it should be. And as a result
you get to the FATA and you see sharia law and you talked about
the education levels. The closer to the heart of the troubled
areas you get, the less they are educated. I mean it goes down
to a level at which they are frankly not at all educated.
So knowing your capabilities and your success and I think I
am reading clearly what our Commander in Chief desires, I
believe you can win in Afghanistan, but what concerns me is the
FATA, and how in the world you ever leave that situation secure
enough that, speaking of fragile and reversible, you would not
invest this kind of commitment in Afghanistan and ultimately
have to leave it even more fragile and reversible. And I know
that is a $64,000 question, but that is my last one.
General Petraeus. Well, Congressman, it is very important,
first of all, to come back to what you highlighted at the
outset. In fact, there are people who have rightly said that
Ambassador Holbrooke's title should be Afghanistan, Pakistan
and India. Now let me just tell you his portfolio very much
includes India, and in fact the Central Asian states and the
other neighbors there. But it is very important to reduce the
tensions between India and Pakistan so that again Pakistan can
both intellectually and physically focus on the most pressing
threat to their existence, which again is the internal
extremist threat rather than the traditional threat of India,
and especially when you look at the number of forces tied up
with that, the percentage of their defense budget that is
devoted again to that standoff in the same way that we sort of
had a standoff with the Warsaw Pact for so many years.
India did indeed show impressive restraint in the wake of
the Mumbai attacks. That was a 9/11 moment for them, and in
fact they did not ratchet up the tensions. And in fact, I think
many observers correctly assessed that they played a very
constructive role in avoiding further increase in tensions that
might have been understandable, in fact, given the death
inflicted on their innocent civilians in their financial
capital.
Ambassador Holbrooke and I have in fact met with the Indian
National Security Adviser, the Indian Foreign Minister, others.
And we obviously work very closely with the PACOM Commander
when we are doing this on the military side. But Ambassador
Holbrooke's first trip to the region, for example, didn't
include just Afghanistan and Pakistan; it then continued on
into India. He had my deputy with him for those and then it
brought the PACOM deputy out in fact to do the final two stops.
So we worked that very hard.
But we should observe that the Lashkar-e-Taiba, LET, that
carried out the Mumbai attacks, again we think they are trying
to do more damage and they are trying to carry out additional
attacks. And one would think that again extremists that are
trying to cause that kind of tension and also to take the focus
off of the internal extremist threat would indeed strive to do
that.
The FATA, as you mentioned, is indeed the location of al
Qaeda senior leadership headquarters. It is the location for
the other transnational extremist groups that form the
syndicate with them. That is the syndicate that is of most
concern outside the borders of Pakistan. It certainly causes
significant problems in Afghanistan, although obviously the
Afghan Taliban is also a huge concern, as are some other
elements. But it is the organization that of course has carried
out attacks in the U.K. And is trying to plan and execute
attacks in other countries, including our own.
And over time, dealing with that, again is going to become
a real bellwether, if you will, for the--not just the capacity
and capability of the Pakistani forces, but also frankly the
seriousness of the overall effort focusing on the internal
extremist challenge that they face and that we all face.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I was impressed
with your opening remark asking this committee to make sure
that we fully fund the State Department's needs as well as the
Department of Defense. Unfortunately, that account is not in
this committee, and I hope that you will make that same
recommendation to Mr. Murtha's committee.
General Petraeus. I did, sir.
Mr. Farr. I don't know whether you are going to be up here
before Chairwoman Lowey's committee. She is the Chair of
Appropriation Subcommittee on State Department and the Foreign
Ops.
General Petraeus. Right.
Mr. Farr. That is where the money is. I am interested in
following through to build that civilian capability. I don't
know what is in the President's budget. We haven't seen those
numbers yet. But it seems to me that we are right on the edge
of developing that skill set.
A couple of questions. What are the skills that you need
from your civilian partners that you don't have right now? Is
it numbers or is it specific skills? And secondly, you have of
the 215,000 military personnel serving in CENTCOM, many of
those are National Guard and Reserves. Do those folks receive
the same kind of cultural awareness and foreign language
training that the active duty soldiers and officers receive?
So essentially what I am looking at here is the skill
development both from the military side and from the civilian
side that will enable you to make this transition, working
ourselves out of Afghanistan and out of Iraq?
General Petraeus. Mr. Vice Chairman, again I think you are
right that there is recognition of the need for these skills
for the capability, for the capacity. And in answer to your
question, I think we need all of the above. I mean, we need,
clearly need more numbers, but in those numbers we need
individuals that have the kind of technical expertise in
certain functional areas. So in some cases it will be health,
it might be education, it may be local governance, there will
be financial kinds of treasury skills, and again really all of
the different governmental organizations. And then as you work
your way on out to local levels, again sufficient expertise for
those, but then to be effective in another culture it is not
enough to know about those functional areas or have that
technical expertise for our system or our cultures. It is
important to know how they work in the culture in which you are
actually going to operate. So there has to be this--and it has
to be very significant in some cases. For example, in the Iraq
situation, Iraq has a very good legal code actually. Yes,
Saddam perverted it for his own use during his time as the
leader there, but the basic foundation was quite solid, but we
needed the expertise in it. I mean we literally needed people
who were certified, you know, the equivalent of the Iraqi bar
or something like that, but we needed some of them from our own
side. And then it was an enormous plus if you could get someone
who had all of that and was a near native Iraqi Arabic speaker,
and that is sort of the trifecta when you get that, and those
individuals are extraordinarily valuable.
Now, with respect to the preparation of our reserve
components, we certainly do provide culture and language and
that kind of thing. But again, I can't sit here and say that an
active force in which there is a yearlong, say, road to
deployment, that all of that that is done during that time can
be compressed into the shorter period of preparation for our
reserve component units. And I think we have to just be again
forthright as we assess that to ourselves, and then ensure that
we provide them everything that we can as they are in their
final preparation, in their left seat, right seat ride, and
then in their early months because they will develop expertise.
The fact is once you are down range and you look at a soldier,
airman or Marine, there is no difference. You can't look at
someone, you can't even see them operate and say necessarily
this is clearly a reservist.
Mr. Farr. The Post yesterday said that we were perhaps
going to use the Guard and Reserves as the civilian----
General Petraeus. Oh, I am sorry, that is a different--I
thought you were talking about just in strictly the military
tasks. I was talking about combat--unit combat service support,
what have you.
No, there is--and we did do this for Iraq as well. In our
Reserves in particular, but in the National Guard as well, but
in the Reserves we have people that actually are city
administrators, they are certainly lawyers. We have
construction expertise in those units. It is really
extraordinary and of course they do it full time. So you take
someone who really does this all the time, put them in uniform.
But you do then need to give them the kind of preparation that
is required, and that is something again that we work to do,
but I am sure that we could do that better frankly. Again,
there has to be an investment in them.
We have a limit with the reserve clock, and we have to keep
that in mind, and I think that we have limited it to a year
right now. And so every bit that we take off the front end of
that for predeployment, you are going to pay back in terms of
the amount of time on the ground. And so you have to do a real
weighing again of the risks. Is it better to get the individual
out there, allow him or her to get on the ground and just
experience it, and learn on the job, and particularly if you
can get a long right seat, left seat ride where the person he
or she is are replacing is going to be there. That is the ideal
situation, I think.
Mr. Edwards. I am going to have to ask the police to remove
anyone who would interrupt the proceedings. I appreciate the
respect with which the citizens here have allowed us to
continue on with this hearing.
Judge Carter.

KASHMIR

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Petraeus,
going back to what Mr. Wamp was talking to you about, it seems
that someone has some vested interest in keeping the Kashmir
dispute, the old historical dispute between India and Pakistan,
going because of the Mumbai attack and others. As we were
talking before, I was thinking, is there anything we could do
to beef up of the Pakistani forces for counterinsurgency if we
could get an international diplomatic effort to try to solve
the issue in Kashmir?
General Petraeus. I think that that is--first of all, it is
something that is being looked at, and of course if you could
resolve that conundrum or even again reduce the tensions, again
that could contribute to an ability to focus more again
intellectually as well just sheer forces physically on the
internal extremist threat.
Now there are some organizations though that of course want
to prolong that. They have built their existence on the basis
of the need, if you will, to continue to carry out violent
activities. So again, if that could be done, frankly in the
same way that we look at the Mideast peace process, frankly.
That colors everything that takes place in the CENTCOM AOR,
certainly in the western portion of it. And we are very
encouraged frankly to see the appointment of Senator Mitchell,
met with him on several occasions already, and supporting very
significantly one of his deputies as well.
The kinds of political overarching issues that so affect
everything that we do, when those can be resolved or even
attended to, they can help enormously.
Mr. Carter. I agree, that seems to be something that ought
to be tried. This is a quick final question, as we draw down in
Iraq, there is going to be some presence that is going to be,
at least some kind of short-term presence of American troops
over there. Are we leaving enough infrastructure in place for
them to have the recreational, medical and housing facilities
they are going to need?
General Petraeus. Absolutely, absolutely. Look, I have to
tell you that the medical infrastructure in particular that you
all have provided for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines
has been extraordinary. And I think the number now is something
like 90 percent of those who are hit survive, which is the
highest in history, and it is because of advances of course in
battlefield medicine, but also the facilities that are
available within that golden hour and the whole Medevac process
and the equipment and training of our medical personnel.
As you may know, we have also provided a substantial number
of additional helicopters to Afghanistan because of concerns in
fact that we ensure that we have that same kind of
responsiveness there, which is even more challenging given the
very rugged terrain and the high altitude. And one of the large
elements of the additional forces is an entire combat aviation
brigade, of which we only had one in the country before, and
then also some additional Medevac aircraft on top of that
particular brigade.
Mr. Carter. Thank you very much for this really tough job
that you are doing. We appreciate it.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Judge Carter. Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. Mr. Chairman, I don't really have any more
questions. I just wanted to thank the General. Thank you very
much for your service.
And I will yield my time to you, Mr. Chairman, if you have
any additional questions.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. And thank you all, all
members for being here. General Petraeus, thank you for your
service. And I would like to finish my comments as you finished
your opening testimony by saluting the men and women who serve
under you and your command, not only those who wear the
uniform, but those married to the uniform and the children who
sacrifice every day. And how grateful I am that because of them
and because of leaders such as yourself, we live in a country
where citizens can come to an open forum and even in their own
way express their personal opinions that might agree or
disagree with the opinions of those of us that sit on this
subcommittee.
Thank you. And any way we can continue to work together
please let us know. The committee now stands adjourned. Thank
you, General.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.001

Wednesday, May 6, 2009.

ARMY BUDGET

WITNESS

GENERAL GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Good morning to everyone. I would
like to call the subcommittee to order. We are privileged today
to have with us the 36th Chief of Staff of the Army, General
Casey, and also the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army--
thank you very much for being here today.
I am going to be keeping it very brief in my opening
statement just so we can maximize time for questions and
answers.
Chief, let me thank you for your leadership during such a
critical and challenging time for the Army. I don't know of any
other institution, public or private, that could have handled
facing multiple warfronts, transformation, growing the
institution as much as growing the forces has meant to the
Army--global reposition, that amount of change, given we are
facing multiple warfronts, it is a real testament to you and
every soldier that serves under your command, from general
officers and to privates. And we thank you and everyone you
represent here by your presence here today.
It is good to have you both here, and we look forward to
the testimony and questions and answers.
At this point I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp our
ranking member.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, Secretary--thank you for being here, thank
you for what you do for every soldier in the United States
Army. They have taken more casualties, done more, growing
still, asymetrical, many challenges. You have served us
incredibly well.
General Casey, you are a good man. I appreciate our
relationship. We have had a good one. And it carries forward. I
know that we can't talk about everything in the budget request
today, but I am looking forward to hearing as much as we can
hear today.
I need to say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that tomorrow
morning, 8:30, my son graduates from college in Knoxville,
Tennessee. And there is really bad weather coming tonight, and
I may have to miss the hearing this afternoon, in order to make
sure that I am there. If I have to crawl, I am going to be
there--we will make sure that we have someone in this chair
this afternoon in the event I am not here. I want to say, for
the record, early, it is for a good cause--thank you Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. You bet. Congratulations. Thank you, and I
congratulate you for putting first things first for your
family.
You have been an incredible partner in this entire process.
I don't think you have ever missed a committee hearing----
Mr. Wamp. Not yet.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. For the entire time serving
together as partners. I wish you a safe, safe trip.
General Casey, your full testimony will be submitted,
without objection, for the record, but I would like to
recognize you now for any opening comments you care to make.

Statement of General George W. Casey, Jr.

General Casey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman--Thank you
for the kind words on the performance of the men and women of
your Army, but I will tell you, we couldn't do what we have
done were it not for the support of this committee. And I
welcome the opportunity to give you an update on what we have
done over the last year and to talk a little bit about a way
ahead.
You may recall from last year's testimony that I said that
the Army was out of balance, and I have really been saying that
since the summer of 2007. And by ``out of balance,'' I mean
that we are so weighed down by our current demands that we
can't do the things that we know we need to do to sustain this
all volunteer force for the long haul and restore strategic
flexibility to do other things.
In 2007 we put ourselves on a plan to put ourselves back in
balance by the end of 2011, and it centered on four
imperatives: sustain our soldiers and families, continue to
prepare our soldiers for success in the current conflict, reset
them--when they return, and then continue to transform for our
uncertain future.
I would like to just give you an update where we are on the
six major objectives that will put us back in balance and then
say a little bit about some programs we have in each of the
imperatives. First of all, our first objective was to finish
our directed growth that the President directed in February,
2007--taking the active Army to 547,000 and increasing the
Guard and Reserve by 8,000 and 2,000, respectively.
Originally our plan was to complete that by 2012. With the
Secretary of Defense's support we moved it to 2010. I can tell
you that as of today, each of the components of the Army has
met their end-strength targets, and that is a big lift for us.
Now, we still have to build units to put about 20,000 of those
soldiers in, but having completed that growth is very important
for us.
Two other aspects to that: First of all, one of the reasons
it is important is it allows us to begin moving off the stop-
loss this year, and the Secretary of Defense has announced our
plan to do that, and the Reserves will begin coming off,
deploying units to that stop-loss in August, the Guard in
September, and the active force in January of 2010.
Mr. Edwards. So it means you can't call up Congress----
General Casey. This is one of our key objectives, because
all along, as we convert to modular organizations operating on
a rotation cycle, our goal has been to be able to deploy units
without stoporders. And so we will meet that goal, I believe,
by 2011.
The other thing I know may cause some concern to the
members of this committee--as part of this budget the secretary
has announced that we will not build the last three brigade
combat teams that we were originally scheduled to build.
Members of the committee should know that there has been no
final decision on where those brigades will come from, and we
will address that as part of the ongoing quadrennial defense
review as part of our overall force mix discussions. And we
recognize that some of the communities that were expecting to
receive those units have already made some significant
investments, and we surely will take that into consideration as
we finalize our decisions.
Second key point, and that is to increase the time the
units spend at home between deployments, and this is critically
important from three perspectives: One, it gives them time to
recover; two, it allows them to have a more stable preparation
period for the next deployment; and three, frankly, it gives
them even more time to equip and train them so that they are
properly trained and equipped.
Originally, I expected with our growth and holding demand
steady at about 15 brigades. I expected that we would not quite
get to 1 year out, 2 years back in 2011.
With the president's drawdown plan, if that is implemented
as scheduled, we would get to almost 2\1/2\ years back in 2011.
And that is a very positive thing for us, because if we have to
increase the time the soldiers spend at home if we are going to
sustain this for the long haul.
Third, we are well on track and moving ourselves away from
Cold War formations and organizations to organizations that are
far more relevant for the operations that we are conducting
today. We are 85 percent done with the conversion of the Army
to modular organizations. That is about 300 brigades that have
been or will be converted by 2011. We are 85 percent done with
that.
We are almost two-thirds of the way through rebalancing our
force away from Cold War formations, again, to formations more
relevant in the 21st century. An example--we have stood down
around 200 tank companies, artillery companies, and
interdefense companies. And we have stood up an equivalent
number of engineers, military police, special forces, and civil
affairs units. It is their units that have been directing that
today.
Together, that is the largest organizational transformation
of the Army since World War II, and it has been done at a
period where we are deploying 150,000 soldiers over and back
every year. So it is a significant accomplishment, and we are
on track to deliver on that.
Fourth, we are posturing ourselves and we are putting the
whole Army on a rotational cycle, much like the Navy and the
Marine Corps have been on for quite a while. This is a big
change for us.
Before September 11th we were largely a garrison-based Army
that lived to train. Now we are rotating on a cycle, and we are
going to have to sustain this rotation for a long time to
ensure that we can provide trained and ready units for whatever
contingencies come up, but also to give soldiers and families a
predictable and stable deployment level, and we are on our way
to doing that.
Fifth, we are about halfway through our basing and
realignment effort, and I think the committee knows what a
significant accomplishment this is because when you take
realignment and closure, and the modular and the growth of the
Army, that affects about 380,000 soldiers' families and
civilians--and again, your timely funding of all of those
accounts has enabled us to keep this on track. All of that is
very tightly and closely interwoven.
And lastly of it all, is to restore strategic flexibility,
and to have units trained for the full range of missions. And
the longer we have units at home--18 months or more--the more
they will have time to begin training for other things.
So I would tell you that we have made good progress toward
all six of our objectives, but we are not out of the woods yet.
And I expect the next 12 to 18 months to continue to be tough
as we actually increase the number of forces we have deployed
as we shift from Iraq to Afghanistan--
So that is just an assessment of where we are: good
progress, but not out of the woods yet.
A few quick words on each of the imperatives: First of all,
sustaining soldiers and families. This is the area where the
military construction budget really, really makes a difference,
and the support that we get in housing, barracks, child
development centers, youth service centers, work transitioning
units, and administrative facilities, is absolutely critical,
and it sends such a strong signal to the men and women of the
Army and all the armed forces that the country is concerned
about their welfare.
And so this budget gives us what we need from the military
construction side to continue to put this Army back in balance
by 2011. We continue our focus on families. In October 2007 we
issued the Army Family Covenant and we doubled the amount of
money we put towards family programs. We have sustained that
investment in the 2010 budget.
On the prepare side, we have continued to make great
progress in equipping our soldiers and training them for the
realities of combat they are going to encounter. I will tell
you, probably the most significant accomplishment since the
last time I spoke to you is the fielding of almost 10,000 MRAPS
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I was in Afghanistan a week or so ago, and got direct
testimony from the soldiers about the value of it. Sometimes
they don't like the way they handle off road, but anyone who
has been blown up with an IED and survived thinks they are
pretty good. We have got enough there now where we are actually
beginning to bring some back to the United States for training,
and that is an important plus.
On the reset: We have adopted a 6-month reset model, where
the soldiers come home and they basically stand down for 6
months and they are manned and equipped at a level that
begins--starting their training at the end of that period. This
is part of putting the whole Army on this rotational model, and
we are making pretty good progress with that.
Lastly, transforming: We believe that we, as a country, are
facing an era of what I call persistent conflict: protracted
confrontation among state, non-state, and individual actors who
are going to continue to use violence to accomplish their
political and ideological objectives.
And we are posturing the Army to deal with that. And I
believe we are going to have a substantial number of ground
forces--Army and Marine Corps--deployed for the next decade or
so. And so we have to set ourselves up to do that.
And we are building a versatile mix of brigade combat teams
and enablers that can leverage mobility, protection,
information, and intelligence in precision buyers to accomplish
any mission across the spectrum, and we are well on our way to
being able to do that.
Let me just wrap up here by saying that the secretary of
the Army and I have designated this year as the year of the
non-commissioned officer. Because as we looked around the Army
it was clear to us that our non-commissioned officers are the
glue that is holding this force together at a critical time and
allowing us to accomplish the near-impossible every day. And
one of the members of this committee is non-commissioned
officer Bill Young--he is an Army non-commissioned officer--and
hopefully you can all join us on the 19th of May when we
recognize all the members of Congress who have been non-
commissioned officers over at Fort Myer.
To give you an example of a non-commissioned officer that
we have today, let me just tell you a story about a young
sergeant who won the Distinguished Service Cross for his
actions in Baghdad in April of 2007--Staff Sergeant Christopher
Waiters. He was on a patrol when a Bradley in front of him hit
an improvised explosive devise and caught fire.
He suppressed the enemy that was surrounding the site,
realized there were two men trapped inside that burning
Bradley, ran across 100 yards from the Stryker, pulled two of
them out and dragged them back to his Bradley all under fire.
He realized after he treated them that there was still another
soldier left on the vehicle.
He ran back into the burning vehicle, this time while the
ammunition was cooking off off inside. He found the soldier
dead.
Back to his vehicle, picked up a body bag, and went back
and recovered his fallen comrade and dragged him out of the
burning vehicle. That is the kind of men and women that you
have in your armed forces--and that is the kind of non-
commissioned officers that we have in our Army.
So thanks very much, Mr. Chairman and all of you, and I
look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of George W. Casey, Jr., follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.015

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, General Casey. And what a
compelling story of heroism, which is one of the reasons the
members of this subcommittee are so deeply committed to quality
of life issue, to see that soldiers and their families are
treated with the dignity that they have earned and deserve.

BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS

I may start with the questions, and we will use a 5-minute
rule here today, as we do, traditionally, in this committee.
Let me ask your thoughts in terms of how we handle military
construction for fiscal year 2010, given we have had the
uncertainties of 45 brigade combat teams that you referenced,
rather than 48, and then we have the uncertainty of what the
Army is going to do with the two brigade combat teams in
Germany, whether they will be left in Germany or not.
Certainly the last thing we want to do--well, two things we
don't want to do: We don't want to have troops come back home
and not have housing for them and quality facilities for them;
at the same time, we don't want to spend money for housing or
other facilities that won't be needed. Can you tell me what the
timing in the QDR is and whether the administration's 2010
budget is going to somehow take into account the possibility of
not needing certain facilities that have been projected?
General Casey. We are very cognizant of the timing of the
funding, especially for the projects that are on there in 2010.
What I would ask, Chairman, is that we work with the committee
here to figure out which one of those budgets need to continue,
because they are all the requirement on all three of those
installations for forces that are on the books for later--for
2011, 2012, and the out years.
And I believe we can work together to prudently look at
what is on the books and determine what needs to continue and
what doesn't. But I would ask that we guard against the notion
that just because those three brigades may not go to those
bases, we should take all that money and put it someplace
else--there are still valid construction requirements on all
those installations that can be met though projects that are on
the books. So I just ask to work with you----
Mr. Edwards. We would like to work with you. If there is
anything we can do--smart planning, things that have to be
done, whether or not a combat team moves to an installation or
not--to start construction on a housing project, for example--
--
General Casey. I would hope--by the summer--we would have a
much clearer picture of where we are with regard to the base--
--
Mr. Edwards. By the end of the summer--and then the time of
the QDR--when does that QDR----
General Casey. Yes, yes. It is not due back here until
February of 2010, but there is a push to get it done by the end
of the summer so that we can influence the 2011 budget. So, we
will see where that goes. We need to come to closure on this,
and we recognize that.
Mr. Edwards. My second and last question on this first
round is--Army hospitals. I am very proud of the fact that this
subcommittee has taken initiative--not the Senate or the
administration, but this subcommittee has taken the initiative
to modernize our Army hospital system, our DOD hospital system.
In the last 10 months we have put in two separate bills
$2.3 billion for new hospitals. As you know, Riley and Denning
and Hood have been selected for those three projects for the
Army. We are looking at making an effort in the supplemental
appropriation bill and additional funding for more hospital
modernization.
My question to you would be, is there still a need out
there. Certainly Bliss is going to be going immensely, and I
don't know how a hospital designed for 18,000 soldiers can meet
all the health care needs of installations two or three times
that size. I visited Knox, where, you know, they had 400
soldiers in the middle of the summer, and through the cafeteria
and then outside to get an MRI because the hospital
infrastructure is so old it can't even support an MRI.

HOSPITALS

Could you address, generally, is there still a need for
more modernization of Army hospitals out there?
General Casey. There is. And I will tell you that the
committee's efforts in this regard are recognized across the
Army. And when you look at five hospitals over the last 25
years, and five in the last 2--speaks volumes to what you have
been able to do for our soldiers and their families. So we very
much appreciate that.
As you mentioned, as we look to the future our priorities
are Fort Bliss--phase one of that is funding for women and
child care center, and that is wonderful--but we need to look
at the long-term replacement for Beaumont medical facility out
there.
You also mentioned Hood. There is a phase one program on
that, and I believe we need to continue that. As you know, that
is one of our larger bases there that supports quite a large
number of families.
Our third priority would be upgrading Landstuhl to allow
them to accomplish a UCOM, AFRICOM, and Central Command mission
that they do. We are not looking for the wholesale
refurbishment of the hospital there, but they perform
significant mission for those three combatant commands because
of where they are located in Germany.
And then lastly, Fort Irwin and Fort Knox would be our
fourth and fifth priority. Fort Irwin because of its isolated
location and Fort Knox because of the state of its facility
that you already mentioned. But, yes, there is still a need
there.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much.
Zach.

UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Wamp. General Casey, I know you can't talk about some
of the specifics--but is there anything that is a priority for
you that is not in this request?
General Casey. Not an immediate priority, Congressman. As I
said, this 2010 request BRAC military construction what is in
there for family housing allows us the flexibility to keep our
plan on track with--obviously anything like barracks, training
barracks, family housing, is going to get done over time, but
right now I believe we are funded at an appropriate track.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Mr. Wamp. You talked about BRAC--in your opening statement,
is there anything on BRAC from the Army's perspective that we
need to know about? We had studies, hearings a month ago where
our 2011 deadline is going to be met for the most part, but
there are some sites that are going to slip, somewhat. We found
that out along the way. But from your perspective, BRAC is on
track, and the Army has what it needs in terms of the
realignment?
General Casey. We do. And the only thing I would ask the
committee to look at is, we need the 2010 BRAC funding on
schedule. If we get that on schedule we will meet the target.
Mr. Wamp. On time.
General Casey. On time--in October.

SUSTAINABLE PERFORMANCE RATIO

Mr. Wamp. And you talked about predictable performance.
Catch us up. We had General Petraeus several weeks ago and how
the Commander in Chief made the decision that he has made
relative to Iraq and Afghanistan. Catch us up on what you
foresee where ratios of performance for men and women in the
United States Army, this year, next year, the year after. I
know last year you said 3 to 1 is what is sustainable. We are
nowhere near that. When do we get there? When can we get to a
more sustainable performance ratio for our troops based on the
new paradigm in the Obama administration based on the published
statements that we know or the changes that we have already
seen?
General Casey. I alluded to that a bit in my opening
statement, Congressman, but our original plan was that we would
sustain about 15 brigade deployed--based on that plan and on
our growth--we estimated that we would get not quite to 1 year
out, 2 years back ratio.
If we execute the President's plan, we will actually, we
would be about the same in 2009, in terms of ratio--we will
actually get almost to 2 years back and almost to 2\1/2\ years
back in 2011. It doesn't quite get us to the 1 to 3 that I
would like to be at, but it gets us to a more sustainable ratio
faster than I thought we would. Now, you always think that
there is something else out there, and we know that other
combatant commanders have requirements for forces to do things
that they have not been able to meet because they have been
deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So that is where we have work to balance. But right now,
knock on wood, draw-down plan executed about on schedule--we
are in a much better position from a ratio--than we would have
been without it.
Mr. Wamp. That is it for me.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Farr.

IMPACT OF DECLINING CONSTRUCTION COSTS ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, General Casey, for your lifelong career and
public service in the military and for your leadership, and
frankly, for your really well and concise briefing of the
committee this morning. I wanted to follow up on the chairman's
question on the FYDP. Is there going to be some slippage of
construction projects that will be needed in a timely fashion.
When will we know that, because what we have been able to
do in the past is move other projects up? And I guess
intertwined with that is, what is the impact of the economy on
this as far as the decline in construction? How is that
affecting the cost of military construction?
I think it was just last year that you were talking about
the fact that the prices of materials had just accelerated
along far greater than the bids and expectations, and I
wondered, now, is that a reverse now? Are those prices coming
down? Is it more affordable to do construction now?
General Casey. If I could ask you to take the second part
of that question--on the first part. What we would like to be
able to do is sit down with the committee and look at the
installations. And that these three brigade combat teams are
going to go to and identify the projects that need to continue.
Basically, could be in effect, going forward from the out
years--still needed to billet soldiers and units at those
installations. And then probably by the end of summer, I would
hope, we would be able to come back with a final, a more final
basing plan. So that we could effect the rest of this. But we
would like to work with you on that as we go forward.
Mr. Farr. When do you think we will know that? I mean,
before our final markup?
General Casey. When do you plan to mark?
Mr. Edwards. Well, we don't know for sure, but our goal,
for the reasons you have mentioned in terms of the importance
of timing, our goal is to definitely have a bill to the
president by the first of October. So we will do markup
possibly some time this month. Do we have a date set up? Okay,
more likely, then, June, for markup, but we will still have
time in conference committee to adjust that as late as,
potentially, September.
General Casey. I would think that by September we should be
able to have a more concise laydown of where we are going to go
with this. I believe that we can work together to do the right
thing for the--and the installations--and the soldiers so those
places are not at a disadvantage.

JOINT DOD-VA CLINIC IN MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Farr. We believe so strongly in the quality of life and
talk about it in this committee. We have probably 6,000 or
7,000 uniformed people on the Monterey Peninsula who are either
going to DLI or to the Naval Postgraduate School. And we have
been trying to develop a joint clinic with the Veterans
Administration and DOD. I would really appreciate it if you
could put in a good word--this clinic is really cost effective.
The Army is doing a cost analysis right now. The VA is going to
build it, and I would really love to see it as a joint clinic.
But there are questions of whether you are going to do this
jointly.
It makes a lot of sense to be built right in the footprint
of where the Army community is, where the military community
is, and it really is part of providing full service to the
families of the soldiers there.
General Casey. I know that we have been looking at it. I
know there was a team out there in April--working with the V.A.
I am told that by June we should be able to take this to the
next level.
Mr. Farr. Okay. Thank you. By June?
General Casey. By June, that is what I am told.
Mr. Farr. Maybe you can put in a good word and move it up a
little. Thank you.
I have some other questions regarding DLI, and Naval post-
graduate school, but I will put those in the next round.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, first of all I want to say how glad I was to
see you in Germany--and had a nice visit, and that was very
nice.
General Casey. Were you on the broken plane?
Mr. Carter. I was on the broken plane. We appreciate the
visit we had.
We thank you for what you do. You do a great job.
I think this is part of what they are saying, I couldn't
hear what people were saying on this and, so I guess I am
getting old.

ARMY FUNDING PRIORITIES

The--expenditures we are talking about--BRAC implementation
grow the Army, and FCS--I couldn't hear what you were saying.
You were talking about prioritization of those sometime in the
fall, so we can get some idea of how the Army will prioritize
these major programs?
General Casey. I would tell you, Congressman--BRAC is the
law, so we are going to do that before we do anything else. But
I would tell you, the BRAC, the new posturing, the growth of
the Army, and the modular conversions are all so tightly
intertwined and on such a tight schedule of units deploying
over and back that it is really hard to prioritize beyond that.
And we are really at the point now where we are executing, and
any change to the priority or inside of that model has second-
and third-order effects; it just will drive us crazy. So we are
in execution mode right now, and all of this is so closely tied
together, and we can deliver on the schedule that we are
looking for here, getting BRAC done by 2011.

ARMY POLICY ON PROSELYTIZING

Mr. Carter. Well, I appreciate that answer. I guess they
are all priorities, is what you are saying, and that tells us
where we have to go. And I appreciate that. I am going to have
to recognize the quality of life issue that came up today in
conversation in a meeting I had. About the fact that the United
States Army seized a bunch of bibles--in Afghanistan and
destroyed them. Can you tell me the Army's policy on destroying
religious works of all faiths?
General Casey. I am not familiar with the event. Our policy
in the Army is certainly not to destroy bibles. The issue----
Mr. Carter. Actually--I raise the issue with a soldier who
shipped bibles to Afghanistan--he brought them to a bible
study--printed in the Afghan language--they were seized and
shredded and burned, I understand. So I was wondering if there
is a policy to destroy religious works if they are being used
for proselytizing?
General Casey. I would absolutely check on that.
Mr. Carter. We need to be fair across the board with all
religious documents. I do have a problem with destruction of
these bibles.
General Casey. I will look into it and get back to you----
Mr. Edwards. Is that all--okay.
Mr. Salazar.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And General Casey, thank you so much for your service to
our country. I think you and I have visited a little bit about,
you know, what your thoughts are on the stay in Afghanistan,
how long it has going to be, or what your thoughts are on that.
Do you see us building permanent medical facilities in
Afghanistan over the next few years? And also, if you could
also address, during this transition time do we have adequate
medical facilities to treat our soldiers--warriors?
General Casey. I don't see us building any permanent
facilities in Afghanistan. I believe we may upgrade some of the
medical facilities that are there now to a more durable
commission. But our policy is not to build any permanent
facilities.
With regard to your other question--is there adequate
medical support there--I believe there is, and I believe with
the addition of the additional troops there will be sufficient
medical assets that come in with them to make sure that all
soldiers in Afghanistan have adequate medical support.
You should know that we have been working on issue on
Medivac and whether or not the same--there was a similar
standard in Afghanistan to Iraq and what the ongoing combat--
brigade--there are additional medical evacuation helicopters
with that unit that will help us to get the ratios--and so, we
the services, pride themselves in their battlefield medical
care. And 90 percent of the men and women who make it to a
medical facility survive their injuries. And it is major
improvement, and it is absolutely critical to sustain this
force over the long haul. And so I am confident that we will
have the appropriate medical facilities there for all of the
forces that go in.
Mr. Salazar. And, sir, do you think we are doing an
adequate job of transition of our soldiers here and training
them properly to go to the new front of Afghanistan? I mean, it
is a kind of different warfare than it was in Iraq, so----
General Casey. I do. In fact, I was at the joint-readiness
training center less than a month ago looking at one of the
units that had been remissioned from Iraq to Afghanistan. And I
just visited in Afghanistan the 3rd brigade of the 10th
mountain, who was the first unit to be remissioned from Iraq to
Afghanistan, and they were already there. And we were able to
adapt their training plan after they had been through their
major training exercise, to give them the skills they needed.
And the leaders that I have talked to have felt that they have
had the skills to succeed in Afghanistan.
The environments are different, but the ways of operating
and the tactics are quite similar. And the other thing that
helped the 3rd brigade of the 10th mountain was that a third of
the folks had been there before. And so they understood the
environment. We continually adapt our training at our training
centers to ensure that they stay relevant to the environment
the soldiers are going to. I am confident that our soldiers are
getting the training that they need.
Mr. Salazar. Well, we appreciate that very much. And also,
I just want to commend you on the importance of our soldiers
being able to stay home for a certain period of time before
they are redeployed, and I do appreciate that very much. I know
it is really important to many of our troops.
Once again, thank you very much, and I yield back.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Crenshaw.

JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, thank you
for your service. It is awkward since you don't have the
numbers for the--this year's budget. It is a little
disappointing--we are going to hear from the Navy this
afternoon too without having budget numbers.
I know you can't talk specifically about things, but I want
to ask you--there is a program called the Joint Cargo
Aircraft--and it is about a $3 billion program. There are a lot
of rumors flying around that it is only going to be funded at
maybe half the level--half as many airplanes as originally
talked about. And it is a joint program between the Army and
the Air Force, and the Army, it is probably more important, and
I think the Air Force is going to be in charge, and the rumor
is that the Army should be in charge--that you have to have as
many planes under the supervision of the Air Force. But, can
you tell us, how, in your view, what requirements, what needs
that the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) fill.
General Casey. I can't, and you are right, I can't confirm
or deny the rumors. The requirement was designed to fill what
we call the last tactical mile. The ability to get into a
smaller airfield than a C-130 with supplies to resupply our
brigades. That requirement for the Army still exists. I will
tell you my personal view, and it is one I have shared with the
chief of staff of the Air Force, is that I don't, the Army, I
don't necessarily need to fly those missions; I just need to
have the service. And so there has been the discussion, really
for the last 18 months or so between us and the Air Force about
what is the best way to do this. And we have not resolved that,
but we are continuing toward that.
Mr. Crenshaw. We would, I guess, in Afghanistan, it would
be, in places like that, really important----
General Casey. Absolutely.
Mr. Crenshaw. The helicopters--they don't do it as well--
there is so much demand----
General Casey. We are spending about $8 million a month to
contract with that type of aircraft support in Afghanistan. And
so, again, the requirements exist.
Mr. Crenshaw. So nothing is really--nothing has changed in
terms of your requirements and needs.
General Casey. That is correct.

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you. A quick question about the
National Guard. Actually, about how important they are to the
Army's all-volunteer force. And their undertaking a lot of
missions that we didn't ever imagine them undergoing. It is an
incredible job. And also I can tell you, from states like
Florida, they have a lot of work that they need to take care of
back home, in terms of disaster relief, hurricanes. I don't
think we would have recovered from the hurricanes we had had it
not been for the National Guard.
Can you tell us--we talked about the equiping levels for
the National Guard--to about 60 percent. Has any progress been
made? And what would you say the equipment level is today?
General Casey. Progress has been made, Congressman. And I
would just tell you that we could not do what we are doing
today without the contribution of our Guard and reserves. And
there are, I believe the average is between 60 and 70,000
Guardsmen and reservists mobilized over the last year. And it
has been that way for several years--45 percent of our Guard
and reserve are combat veterans. That is a fundamental
equivalent. And we are working closely with the Guard,
particulary, on their equipment. We have developed a program of
identifying what we call ``dual-use equipment.'' And that is
equipment that we need to work on mission, but also used for
state needs. And that has been our priority. And I want to say
we are about 80 percent--so we have got to about 80 percent of
the dual-use equipment average across all of the states. We are
headed toward at least 90 percent, and we believe when we get
there, that combined with something that we are trying to do--
and this is really hard--but we are trying to array the Guard
units on the rotation chart in a way that leaves a sufficient
proportion of soldiers in every state in the event of state
emergencies.
And that is a Rubix Cube. So I commit to working on that.
It is not going to be 100 percent. But those two things, I
think, combined, are going to give the governors the support
they need to do missions while we continue to employ the Guard
overseas.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Bishop.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Welcome, again, General. I would like to follow up on Mr.
Crenshaw's inquiry regarding the C-27, the Army and the Air
Force.
You mentioned $8 million a month for contractors. Is that
adequate in order to provide a timely supply for our troops,
particularly in Afghanistan?
General Casey. Our troops are getting the supplies that
they need.
Mr. Bishop. At the additional expense?
General Casey. At additional expense. And frankly, we are
doing a lot of it with our CH-47 helicopters. And so, any kind
of fixed-wing support takes the load off of our helicopters.
Now with the new aviation brigade going into Afghanistan, there
will be more of those available, as well.
I am not concerned with an immediate problem of improving
support to our troops in Afghanistan. They are getting the
support that they need, and that is a good thing.
Mr. Bishop. All right. We will visit at another time.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Back to BRAC. In your testimony you describe in detail how
important BRAC is to the effectiveness of the Army for the
future, and I agree with you. But I am concerned that the
Department of the Army has somewhat ignored and underfunded
some of the major infrastructure needs, particularly school
construction for communities, that are upticked as a result of
BRAC.
This has grown repeatedly urgent as the time comes and as
our troops are beginning to move and their families are
beginning to move. Yet we still seem to be in a logjam with the
Department of Defense and what they are doing to help these
communities with school constructions. Can you tell me whether
the department really feels that it is its responsibility or is
it being passed off to somebody else? Because it would seem
that there is a moral responsibility on our part and on the
department's part to help these local communities.
General Casey. Well, we don't have a direct role in--all of
these installations that are affected by BRAC--what I have is a
very good joint effort between the base and the community in
terms of identifying numbers of children coming in and out.
Mr. Bishop. Right. But the amount of Impact Aid is
minuscule compared to what the community needs are, and that is
the point. The Education Subcommittee controls Impact Aid;
Defense and MILCON deal with the other parts of the logistics.
Somehow we must break that logjam. I think this
subcommittee, along with Defense, is really working on it, but
I just want to keep it on the table.
Let me move to another----
General Casey. And are very supportive of that, because
educating our children is a critical element in terms of
sustaining this force.
Mr. Bishop. That is quality of life, and it relates to a
lot of the other issues--suicide and mental health for child
dependents of our military.

HOSPITALS

The other matter I want to touch upon is the recently
funded rebuilding of Martin Army Community Hospital, which is
one of the oldest in the Army's ongoing inventory. There is a
large veterans population in that area, and Mr. Farr mentioned
the co-location of DoD and V.A. facilities.
We have been in discussions with V.A. as well as with the
Army about the possibility of expanding the mission of Martin
Army to be a co-located hospital for the DoD, the Fort Benning
community for active duty and retired and families, as well as
for V.A. Can I get you to put in a good word for that, also?
General Casey. As a result of the war transition effort, we
work very closely with all of our hospitals in the Veterans
Administration. I am not particularly familiar with the
relationship at Fort Benning, but I will put in a good word for
that.
Mr. Bishop. We have talked with the military medical folks
and the V.A. medical folks about it. They all seem to consider
it an idea worth exploring. An inquiry by you as chief of staff
of the Army would be helpful, and certainly a good word, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, General. I am sorry I missed your
opening statement.
First of all, I wanted to say that we appreciate very much
the funding for the Warriors in Transition Complex at Fort
Lewis.
I guess it is in the supplemental, right Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Edwards. That is correct.
Mr. Dicks. In the supplemental. And, you know, we have the
same problem out at Fort Lewis that Congressman Bishop is
talking about. We have a growing force; we have schools that
were built by, I think, the military. I think we have the
Office of Economic Adjustment coming out there.
These schools now are 50 or 60 years old, and they need to
be repaired, or they need to be fixed or replaced. So I think
this is a bigger issue than can be handled by Impact Aid in the
defense budget, which is about, what is it--$15 million. That
is not anywhere near adequate to take care of the problem.
So I am concerned that we have to focus on this. You know,
whether we have to go into authorization or how we have to do
this, but we are getting to a point where these schools are no
longer adequate, and these are the schools that the Soldiers'
children are going to.
And there have been issues about ownership, that some of
them are owned by the Department of Education and some of them
are owned by the local school district. The bottom line is,
this is now becoming a problem that I think deserves your
attention. So I want to weigh in with this, because it is a big
problem at Fort Lewis.
The other thing I just wanted to mention, something I have
been interested in over the years, is the George and Carol
Olmsted Foundation. Are you aware of this? Olmsted. O-L-M-S-T-
E-D.
As of 2008, the foundation has a goal of selecting 10
officers each from the Army, Navy, and Air Force and five from
the Marine Corps. I think they selected a smaller group. But I
would just mention some things about the Olmsted scholars.
Abizaid was an Olmsted scholar.
They learn a foreign language fluently, experience a
foreign culture in depth--they spend a year in the country--
study formal subjects broadly, earn a master's degree
routinely, travel a foreign country and region extensively,
meet foreign citizens continually, and understand fully how
others view the United States, and prepare thoroughly to be
effective as future leaders, Abizaid being an example. What do
you think of this program?
General Casey. I think it is a great program. I think it is
one of a number of programs that we are actively seeking to put
our junior officers in. Because as we look at the complexities
of the security environment that we are facing now, and we are
sure to continue to face in the future, we need leaders that
aren't just competent in their core proficiencies, but are
broad enough to do a range of things. And everything you
mentioned that those fellows do, it speaks of a broad vision.
And that is exactly the type of officer that we are trying to
create.
Mr. Dicks. Is the foundation completely supported by the
family foundation, or does the government put some money into
this?
General Casey. I don't know the answer to that. I can find
out.
Mr. Dicks. It just seems to me this is a worthy program.
This might be something that would benefit from some federal
support--and no one has ever asked me to even consider this--
but, I think this is a great program. I think for a small
investment we might be able to ensure this opportunity is
available even if the value of the foundation declines because
of the economic circumstances. It might be something that we
can help from the Government's perspective. But you take a look
at that.
What about future combat system? You have been a huge
supporter of it. You know, the Secretary of Defense has made
certain statements. What can you tell us about where we are
with this program?
General Casey. I can't tell you more than the secretary has
said publicly until you get the budget. But he has directed us
to continue with what we call the spin outs. Basically,
continue with the network and anything in the program except
for the manned ground vehicle--and he has directed us to stop
the manned ground vehicle and relook the requirement and then
restart it. And so that is what we are doing. As you can see
from his statements, he was not convinced that we had fully
taken into account the lessons of 7 years at war in building
the manned ground vehicle.
Again, he supports every other element of the program but
that. And so that is the direction that we will proceed. And we
are on a track to redo that requirement, starting from a blank
piece of paper--not completely blank--because we have leveraged
significant technological insights from the program. And we
know what the safe technology with respect to any kind of
ground vehicle technology. So we will build on that, and we
will develop a requirement by the end of this year and put it
out for contract. Meanwhile, we will continue with the rest of
the program. We feel the rest of the program will affect all of
our brigade combat teams, which I think was one of the major
sticking points when we started in this program. We intended to
spend an awful lot of money for fewer than 15 brigade combat
teams. And as we looked at that ourselves, that didn't appear
to be the right way to go. So now we are affecting every
brigade combat team in the Army with the technologies that have
come out of this program. So we have got an awful lot of good
out of this. We will get a ground combat vehicle from the
program with the restart.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.

DRAWDOWN OF TROOPS IN IRAQ

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
We will now begin the second round.
General Casey, let me ask about the present timing of the
drawdown of soldiers from Iraq. I assume that was not built in
the fiscal year 2009 budget request, because the new president
still was not in office and had not put in place the policy
that we have.
Did the fiscal year 2010 budget assume the present drawdown
rates of our troops in Iraq, mitigated by the buildup in
Afghanistan, in terms of troop housing and barracks?
Fundamentally, what I want to get to is this: Are we are going
to have troops coming back from Iraq that don't have barracks
to live in and adequate housing?
General Casey. No, let me explain. First of all, the
assumptions in the 2010 OCO take into account the--levels of
the drawdown. I am pretty sure of that. We are actually
getting, this week, from General Odierno, the specifics of, and
we will then take that back and put it against our construction
plans and to do exactly what you say. I can't tell you 100
percent that we are there yet because we are just getting the
specifics of the details.
Mr. Edwards. By the way, for the record, one of the reasons
sometimes we have these so-called commercial earmarks is,
military conditions change from the time the administration
budget is put together and our commanders on the ground support
the need for adjusted budgets, but because it wasn't in the
formal annual administration budget request it is defined as an
``earmark,'' and some of the citizens against government waste
groups then accuse Congress of adding unneeded projects. So, I
couldn't pass up that opportunity to get that into the record.

IMPACT AID

On Impact Aid, let me just follow up on what Mr. Bishop
said and Mr. Dicks said, because I know Judge Carter has faced
the same situation at Fort Hood as I did when I had the
privilege of representing Fort Hood. We have been kicking this
can around, and nothing has really happened as a result.
I remember at Fort Hood, for example, the cities of Killeen
and Copperas Cove literally were at the state maximum tax rate
allowed by state law. They couldn't increase the tax rate
anymore, and so while Impact Aid provides funding once the
students are in school and buy Part A, Part B reimbursement,
there is not part of Impact Aid that has any significant
funding for construction.
And perhaps we need to work with the Department of Health
and Human Services, or the Health and Human Services
Appropriations Committee to figure a way through this, because
while it is not under our jurisdiction, it certainly, as you
have referenced, it certainly impacts the morale of Army
families. They come back home from their third tour of duty in
Iraq and their kids are having to sit in a classroom of 45
students rather than 25 students because there just wasn't the
local construction budget.
So I hope we can work through this. I think there has been
a lot of talk about this over the last couple of years. I think
the problems are real; I have just not seen any solutions yet,
and your leadership would help there.
Finally--I will wait until the third round, if we get to
that, because there is not enough time. My question in the
third round would just be to get your general analysis, having
commanded both the national forces in Iraq, 2004 to 2007, what
is your overall analysis is of where we are in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. But I will defer that to the third round.
Mr. Wamp.

UNSOLICITED ASSISTANCE

Mr. Wamp. In January when I visited General Chiarelli--your
lovely wife, General Casey, and others, where we discussed the
statutory impediments to outside groups, nonprofits, and
businesses, in our country that want to help both wounded
warriers and military families. And it was actually said as we
were talking about ways for our free enterprise system, besides
the employers of the Guard or reservists, that very much want
to help our military families, knowing that this is an ongoing
struggle with unsustainable rotations in deployment. And they
want to help.
Apparently, there are still some impediments in the
statute. And I was wondering if this is the year for us to try
to include language or even a new free-standing bill that would
actually break down some of those barriers so that outside
entities can support our military if they want to. Now, we have
asked the Army to give us some language, and we have looked at
it. But there is still concern, I think, about sole source
contracting, and things that they are afraid it might violate.
And so, Public Law 109-148 in DoD 5500 7-R--enables injured and
ill service members and their family members to receive
unsolicited gifts from nonfederal entities.
We know this is law and no one argues this, but apparently
it is not enough. And that is what I want to try to get through
here. So we want to know what else the Congress can do to
remove these barriers to enable support. And then ask you,
General Casey, if you are able, when things are provided, to
provide logistics or transportation, lets say, if somebody
gives Little Debbie snack cakes. I don't know, that is what my
district does. But are you then able to support the transfer of
these goods to our military families or to our wounded
warriers.
Those are two groups that I know from listening that a lot
of people want to help. But apparently there are some
impediments in the law. And are we at a point yet of knowing
exactly how we can take that down. I know that the language
that you provided basically gives the authority to the
secretary to allow these things----
General Casey. You are exactly right. And I would like to
work with you to figure out what we need to do to change it.
Because I get this all the time, traveling all around the
country. Folks want to help. And we tie ourselves in knots
because of the laws that you refer to.
I would like to work with you personally to break these
barriers down. Because we have been doing this 7 years, and we
ought to be able to figure it out.
Mr. Wamp. And I still think the biggest issue is solicited
versus nonsolicited. I mean you can't go out ethically and ask
for a bunch of stuff. But if comes unsolicited, I mean, that is
where there is just a pent-up demand of assistance. And I know
that we can take more help. And when I go out and meet the
military families, there are a whole lot of needs that a lot of
people could fill without us having to appropriate the money.
And I sure would like to help close this. Mr. Secretary, do you
have a comment on this?
Voice. We will take it back and work on it. The appearance
of conflict issue--we haven't crossed----
General Casey. Let's do this. It will take us--we have been
playing with this for too long.
Mr. Wamp. Let's try to do it this year. We have the same
problem here. The pendulum swings back and forth. So long as
there is transparency. It is ridiculous that we can't go to
lunch with certain people, but that is the way it is. The
pendulum swings back and forth. Let's try to find some logical
middle ground. And then write some language that allows these
outside groups to contribute to these unbelievable Americans
and their families. Which is the main thing we are all about is
the families. You have got the troops under your command, we
are supposed to support these families. This is one way to do
it.
Okay. We will work together. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp. Good idea.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Yes, just to follow up on that. I hope you will
look into donations, for example, like books for schools, if
there is space available on aircraft.
We really had a hard time getting some books to schools in
the Peace Corps. Sometimes the military could take it and other
times it couldn't. I would appreciate it if you looked into
that.

LANGUAGE TRAINING

We have had some interesting hearings. We had General
Abizaid here a few years ago, and he said something really
profound that I think you would agree with. He told the
committee that we can not win the peace until we learn to cross
the cultural divide.
And there is a lot of, ``Now, interesting, but how do we
cross the culture divide?'' One is by understanding the
languages and the country.
General Patraeus was here a couple weeks ago and saying the
same thing. There is this whole of government effort to build
the civilian reconstruction and stabilization corps, and corps
competency.
The military and the Army, for a long time, has had foreign
area officers, FAOs. The Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey
has a center for FAOs. Do you know where you are training Army
FAOs and is there any possibility that you could look into
sending more of those folks to the Naval Postgraduate School?
With the Defense Language Institute also located in Monterey,
albeit with different missions--the Defense Language school is
for basic language training, whereas the Naval Postgraduate
School is post-graduate education.
We also have a Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction
Studies there so it seems to me, that we need to get them all
integrated and what we need is the Mos. I wonder if you have
any thoughts on, do you know where the FAOs are trained now by
the Army?
General Casey. Well, as a former FAO, I can speak from
personal experience. I was originally, actually, scheduled to
go to BLI for Japanese language training right out of grad
school. And about half way through grad school I get changed to
go to Yokohama, at the foreign service institute there, to
study the Japanese language there. I didn't wind up going, but
that is the kind of the things that we do. I will get back to
you with exactly where we train our candidates for language
training, but I think we try to----
Mr. Farr. It is not just language training. It is the area
studies as well.
General Casey. For example, in my area of studies, I went
to--and I would prefer to do that because of the exposure that
it gives to things outside the military. And, I know we
graduate students at a lot of different schools.
Mr. Farr. The Navy school has been curious to why the Army
hasn't sent more students.
General Casey. We actually, special forces has a program
where they send special forces out there----
Mr. Farr. The other issue, I was briefed on earlier in this
year by the Army civilian leadership is that in the out-year
projections for the DLI starting in 2011 and 2012, there is
going to be a student enrollment decline. I can't imagine why
there would be declining enrollment in a time when we need
these languages more than ever. And to grow the Army, I think
this is part of your ad,----
General Casey. My staff passed that on, and I checked it,
and there is no----
Mr. Farr. It is a rumor?
General Casey. I would categorize it as a rumor. Again, I
checked the data and was told that they are not expecting to be
in decline.
Mr. Farr. I would hope that we would be growing linguists.
How do you feel about this contracting out for linguists. This
is becoming very controversial.
General Casey. Right now, I don't think we have any choice;
I guess we build up our pool of people who have the critical
attributes. One of the interesting programs that we have just
started here is being able to enlist with us soldiers, people
who are green card holders, who have critical language skills
in the critical areas. And bring them, and allow them to come
in immediately for citizenship. And I just enlisted about a
dozen of those folks up in Times Square in New York about a
month ago. These are folks that have, out of a dozen, there
were four masters and eight baccalaureate degrees. And they all
spoke at least two languages. So it is a good deal.
Mr. Farr. Good. Congratulations. I appreciate that.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
Members, just to clarify the order of questioning on round
two, we will go to Mr. Crenshaw next, then Mr. Dicks, then
Judge Carter, and then Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. I have nothing to add.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Why don't we go to Mr. Bishop? I think he was
ahead of me.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. In round two we base it on what order
you appear, but if you----
Mr. Dicks. I would yield to him.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Dicks. He had a grimace that I was worried about.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Bishop.

EVACUATION TIME FOR WOUNDED SOLDIERS IN AFGHANISTAN VS. IRAQ

Mr. Bishop. I was unaware of the grimace. But thank you,
Mr. Dicks, for yielding.
General Casey, I would like to ask you to discuss for a
moment the medical evacuation pertaining to our wounded
warriors in Afghanistan as compared to Iraq. For some time now,
we have been aware of the fact that, because of the terrain and
the district's requirements in Afghanistan, the evacuation time
to get wounded warriors to the hospital is significantly longer
in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
We were informed that steps were undertaken to shorten that
timeframe. Could you update us on where we stand on that now?
How will that be impacted by the additional flow of troops?
General Casey. This is something that the secretary of the
Army actually picked up on, oh, 5, 6 months ago. And, frankly,
there were not enough helicopters in Afghanistan to allow them
to meet the standards. But having done this in Iraq, it is just
a function of helicopters. It is where you position your
surgical teams, and it is how you risk assess every mission.
And so with the deployment of the second combat aviation
brigade into Afghanistan, the resources that they need to bring
the time from pickup to the level one station will come down.
So we will be in much better balance.
Mr. Bishop. You have had to utilize, for the Army and the
Marine Corps, call service like Air Force medevac units. Is
that not so?
General Casey. Sure. We want to use all of the capabilities
that are available to us.
Mr. Bishop. That will deplete the capacity for those
particular units to perform their Air Force missions, would it
not? Do we need to concentrate more on that? Do we have enough
personnel? Do we need more people to specialize in that in the
Army, or do you think that the joint supply is okay? The Air
Force is now beginning to be stretched also, with regard to the
deployments of medevac units, which takes them away from some
of the other missions that they have been working on.
General Casey. I can't speak for the Air Force, but I--two
months ago directed a study of--basically it was a relook of
the whole Army aviation package, based on the lessons that we
have learned in the last 5 years. We did one in 2003. And that
was pretty good. But boy, as you suggest, we have learned an
awful lot over the last 5 years, and so I thought we needed to
take a look at it and update it, and medical evacuations by
helicopters is one of the elements.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Casey, back to what Mr. Crenshaw was talking about
a minute ago. We have just come back from a dialogue with the
EU, and it proves that we are still the sole military aircraft
for manned troops for NATO and the EU, many of which have a
large portion of that duty, but doesn't the United States
military provide that service for our allies?
General Casey. I can't speak to whether we do it for all
the allies. I know we do it for some allies. That is why I
couldn't speak to the scope of what you were addressing.

MILITARY HOME SALES AND BENEFITS

Mr. Carter. But there is a conversation in the EU about
whether or not they should start buying those kinds of
airplanes.
Another thing, I met with some folks on Saturday night, and
they were talking about home ownership among our soldiers--and
the fact that they are being transferred. We recently put
together a mortgage package that was passed through this
Congress,--and it is my understanding that language in the
package--restricts our soldiers from qualifying to get the
$8,000 new house benefit because they lived in the old house
less than 3 years.
They are being transferred because of BRAC and other
reasons. They bought a house less than three years ago and are
having a hard time disposing of that house. Then they move to
the new base and they are not getting the benefits of the
mortgage package that we in Congress put together. I was
wondering if you had heard of anything about the saleability of
their homes, and if they could take advantage of some of the
benefits we put forward in our most recent mortgage package or
their inability to utilize those benefits?
General Casey. I have not heard that specific problem. I
have heard of folks having challenges, particularly with that
July 2006 date, where you had to buy your house prior to that--
--
Mr. Carter. The fact that you have to have bought the house
before that. That is a real issue because an awful lot of them
bought after then, and yet they are required to move and sell
and get back into the market.
General Casey. Yes. I have heard that. I know that we are
working on the implementation instructions in the Army Corps of
Engineers, there is the executive agent for the department, and
I think we expect to have those things out shortly.
Mr. Carter. You think that should be something we should
address, maybe try to amend what we did?
General Casey. Let me get you the particulars so that we
don't launch on something here that is maybe taken care of in
the instructions.
Mr. Carter. Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Carter, any questions? Okay.
Now the very sensitive and emphatic Mr. Dicks is
recognized.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you. Thank you.
General, on page two of your statement you go though a
discussion of the situation we are facing with failing states
and terrorism, and we know that our forces are being trained
for counterinsurgency, basically. What isn't being done? I
mean, when you talk about readiness to fight a major
conventional war, do we have any unit in the Army that is
training to do that, or is everybody training for
counterinsurgency?
General Casey. No. The majority of folks are working on
counterinsurgency. But, in Korea, I visited the----
Mr. Dicks. Yes. Of course.
General Casey [continuing]. Standard North Korean scenario,
conventional scenario. I visited them up in December and saw
their after action revue. Recently, General Sharp conducted at
one of his major annual exercises, the 3rd Corps from Fort
Hood, went over there and played the counter-attacking corps.
And so we are taking the opportunities when we can to keep
those high-end conventional skills trained.
Mr. Dicks. But it is pretty minimal, at this juncture----
General Casey. Absolutely.
Mr. Dicks. I mean, of these 45 brigades, how many of them
have trained for full spectrum warfare, or conventional
warfare?
General Casey. By--first of all, at low levels, company
platoon and below, combat is pretty much combat, and so, we
have a combat-seasoned force. And boy, there is great, great
value in that. Where you get into the significant differences
is at battalion level, lieutenant colonel level, colonel level
and above. Where in counterinsurgency operations things play
out very slowly, and you have to figure out trends over time
rather than making snap decisions against an ememy formation
that is attacking you. And you mass your fires very precisely
against individual targets, where in conventional war you mass
them against enemies and enemy formation. Those are the high-
end integration skills that we are not training.
Mr. Dicks. Things like artillery, I think, would that be
part of----
General Casey. Artillery integration is a great example of
that. And so as we get more time at home, what I have told the
Army is that if you are home for 18 months or less stay focused
on the regular warfare. If you are home for 18 months or more,
take some time to rekindle your conventional warfighting
skills. But to do it in simulation because we have very good
simulation--do it in a way that doesn't drag the troops back
out to the field, unnecessarily.
And so, we will, as we expand our time at home, we will
gradually rekindle those skills. But it will be faster, because
this is combat-seasoned force.
Mr. Dicks. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
Members, I think we have time for one more round. I still
want to ask about Afghanistan-Pakistan, but something Mr. Wamp
was talking about, citizens who want to help, prompted me to
think about something I have wondered about for some time now,
and I am not sure of the answer. Is there any federal program,
or DOD program that ensures college tuition for the children of
the troops killed in combat or in service of the country?
General Casey. Beyond the V.A. benefits that come for
schooling in general, I couldn't say that there is one----
Mr. Edwards. So if they haven't qualified with the new G.I
bill--maybe they died, maybe they are a private and maybe they
died after only 2 years of active duty, and they wouldn't
qualify for the new G.I. bill.
I was just at an event several weeks ago where we dedicated
a new Post Office in honor of the Marine veteran Sergeant John
David Fry, and after he finished his tour of duty in Iraq,
seven days from going home, he volunteered to go out and
diffuse one more bomb--and the third bomb he diffused the enemy
had hidden another bomb underneath that third bomb, and after
serving, finishing his duty, his bags were packed, he gave his
life for the country, his three children, all of whom were
under the age of 10 when he died what about their college
education if they choose to go to college.
So I may follow up on that. It wouldn't be under the direct
jurisdiction of this committee, but again, this committee is so
committed to quality of life issues. So it is something that
maybe we could put together a public or a public-private
partnership on that.

AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN

With the 3 minutes I have, I know that is not much time,
but could you give us an overview of your analysis of where we
are in Afghanistan and in Pakistan?
General Casey. Well, I think what we are seeing in
Afghanistan are the beginnings of the shift of emphasis from
Iraq--emphasis of priority from Iraq to Afghanistan. The first
of the brigades that were sent in to ensure that, to secure
elections this August, is already on the ground there--and I
must say, the folks on the ground there did a great job of
preparing their bases, preparing their equipment, because they
came in on the planes, got on their equipment, and went right
into the fight, and made a significant difference.
Down south, in the Khandahar area, the forces are
continuing to come in. They will be in there prior to the
August elections.
Based on my experience, I believe that we have put
sufficient forces there to ensure that there are secure
elections in August. And I think that that will be a big plus
for the Afghanis.
As I look to the future, the Afghan army is about, size-
wise, is about where the Iraqi army was in 2005. They are the
same size country and about the same size population. The
police, in Iraq, in 2005, were about a year behind the army. In
Afghanistan, they are several years behind the army. So we have
a way to go to build up their security forces. There has been
money put against that, so I would expect that to proceed. I
expect it will take us 3 to 5 years to bring the Afghan
security forces to the point where they can take over. And the
additional forces that we have there plus the existing Afghan
forces, I think, can hold the levels of violence down to
acceptable levels so that progress there can continue.
On the civil side, and there has been some discussion about
the civil support here, I mean, we need the political and
economic investments there to move the whole process forward.
We have all been saying for years, you are not going to do this
by military means, alone. And we need that political and
economic investment to help them move along.
Afghanistan is a several decade proposition. So my thought
is that we need to bring the Afghan security forces to the
point where they can take over.
Mr. Edwards. Just to clarify, you don't mean massive or
significant numbers of U.S. troops being in Afghanistan for
several decades?
General Casey. I don't. But that is what I am saying. We
have to bring the Afghan security forces up so that we don't
have to do that.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Casey. You mentioned Pakistan. That is a critical
part of the Afghan-Pakistan strategy. It is a much tougher nut,
on the one hand because of the Pakistani desires for
sovereignty. It is a sovereign country. And so they are
wrestling with how much of our help they can accept. And they
are going to have to do things their own way. And so it will
just be a tougher challenge. My Pakistani counterpart was here
a month or so ago. We had some discussions, and he is focused
on doing more in the frontier provinces there against the
terrorists. You read the papers like I do, and you can see what
is happening there now. It is something that we all have to
watch carefully.
That is probably the toughest change that we have on the
security front for the country.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for your overview. I know it is
limited time, but that overview is very helpful.
Mr. Wamp.

CASUALTIES IN IRAQ

Mr. Wamp. General Petraeus said to us--based on the
increase in troops in Afghanistan the situation will get worse
before it gets better.
[Off mike]
How many KIAs have we had since Memorial Day--how many
combat related? Are we still sustaining in Iraq? It seems like
the bombings are mostly directed at civilians and not
necessarily our troops.
General Casey. The casualties in Iraq are significantly
down. I can't tell you in exact numbers, but everybody sees
that, that they are significantly down. We are over 4,000
killed and 31,000 wounded since the war started there. And we
all appreciate the sacrifices of the men and women both in Iraq
and in Afghanistan. As you suggest, the casualties in Iraq are
down substantially from where they were a year ago.
Mr. Wamp. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.

IMET

Mr. Farr. I had one question. It was interesting reading
your background. How important to our Defense Department is the
International Military Education Training program, where
foreign officers come to study here?
General Casey. It is hugely important. Every time I have a
foreign counterpart visit, they ask for more folks. And I have
focused on getting majors into CGSC and getting lieutenant
colonels and colonels into our war college.
Mr. Farr. General Patraeus said the same thing, and
everybody says the same thing. The problem we have is that
program for foreign military officers that is not funded by the
Defense Department. It is funded by the State Department. We
passed a budget that really squeezed the State Department's
budget. And I just told Norm that maybe we ought to use some
Defense money to pay for the IMET program.
General Casey. General--from the Pakistani--chief of staff,
is a graduate of Leavenworth. We just inducted him in the
Leavenworth hall of fame. And he went out there, I think with
10, 12 of his classmates, and inducted him in. And that is the
kind of relationships that we have--well, we just got lucky on
that one. But there are many, many more like that out there.
Mr. Farr. Well, the king of Jordan studied at the Naval
Postgraduate School under that program--and I think it has
incredible benefits, and I would hope that you might want to
speak to Secretary Clinton about it because it is in her
budget. And we need to figure out a way to get that program
funded and without squeezing other programs.
Along that same line, we have created--the military got
ahead of the State Department in being able to create this
Center for Training Stabilization and Reconstruction using
NGOs, using our civilian forces and military, both ours and
foreign military officers.
You have got to come see this program. Send more officers
for training.
What is interesting is the Postgraduate School has this
course set up for getting a Master's degree in S&R, and there
is a lot of interest particularly for officers coming back from
Afghanistan and Iraq, because they see this program as a good
career investment.
The problem is the military hasn't created an MOS for thie
career parth. And what I keep hearing is, we have got people
who want to come and then they look at the future and they say,
``I got a master's degree and this incredible background. Where
do I go?''
General Patraeus said it is a real problem for him because
they want to get that training. And I wondered if you would
look into that. I talked to Secretary Chu about it and he said,
``You know, you have just got to figure out a way to--career in
MOS''--it is like an FAO----
General Casey. It is kind of civil affairs.
Mr. Farr. But it is not.
General Casey. But it is not exactly----
Mr. Farr. I would appreciate it if you could look into
trying to get an MOS for people that have a master's degree in
Stabilization and Reconstruction studies.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you----
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Bishop.

AFRICOM

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just ask you about the Africa Command, AFRICOM. Last
budget cycle I think we funded some renovations to the
headquarters in Germany, which were not all expended, as I
understand, partially, because there is no decision made
regarding whether the headquarters there will be permanent.
I understand that the construction money will remain there.
I am told by General Ward that regardless of whether AFRICOM
moves to another location for headquarters, some utilization
will be made of facilities there, thus justifying leaving that
construction money in place. Of course, I am concerned about
how that construction money will be spent. Also there were
conditions for the ARCs--the area centers within Africa
Command--but none of those countries was willing to allow us to
do it; I understand whatever construction funds are there for
those are not expended either.
What do you see as the developing importance of the Africa
Command, and how do you see the military construction needs
developing in light of the 3-D policy--defense, diplomacy, and
development? How will that impact us in terms of funding
construction?
General Casey. I think the short answer is--I don't know.
But I was with General Ward in Mombasa, Kenya 10 days ago. And
we were participating in a seminar with troops of armies from
Kazakhstan all the way down to--and it was a handoff meeting
between the African countries from Central Command, who were
now moving over to Africa Command.
And he personally has been all over that continent talking
to the leadership, explaining to them that Africa Command does.
And I thing you know they got off to kind of a rough start
because people thought we were coming in to take over. And he
has been tamping that down, and I think making very good
progress.
I went from there up to Djibouti to the Joint Task Force on
Africa. And there are about 1,400 folks there and they are
affecting every country in the Horn of Africa by deploying
small teams of, really, noncommissioned officers, out there--
treating cattle, treating people, drilling wells, and it struck
me that that is the role of AFRICOM. I think that is where----
Mr. Bishop. For development and diplomacy?
General Casey. Development and diplomacy. But small numbers
making a big difference, and I have been very impressed with
that. We talked briefly about the long-term plans for the
headquarters, and I think, at best, I think that they are not
done. At that time, Kip didn't give me any indication that they
were any closer to finding a place to go. Either for
headquarters or for the regional commands on the continent. So
I think that will probably be some time. But I don't want to
speak for him.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Members, any additional questions----
If not, General Casey, thank you for your distinguished 39
years of service in the Army and your leadership as the chief
of staff of the Army. You were here as a resource witness
today, and we know how hard you have worked every day on behalf
of the quality of life and military construction issues that we
deal with, so we look forward to continuing to work with you.
Thank you both for being here. We are adjourned.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009.

U.S. NAVY, U.S. MARINE CORPS BUDGET

WITNESSES

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

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I will call the subcommittee to
order.
And, Admiral Roughead, General Conway, thank you both for
being back here. You certainly don't need any introduction to
this subcommittee.
The only thing I would add to that is just, on behalf of
our subcommittee and my family and all our families, thank you
both for your incredible lifetimes of service and leadership to
our country. We are deeply grateful to you.
And, by the way, you would have been thrilled. Right after
our morning meeting with General Casey, we had 32 World War II
veterans in Texas that had come to Washington.
There is a group that helped pay for them to come and see
the World War II memorial, those that have never been here,
never seen the World War II memorial. And I now know how we won
World War II. Those guys are incredible, incredible--but you
carry on in that tradition. And thank you.
I would like to recognize Mr. Crenshaw, the ranking member,
for any comments he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to add my words of welcome to you all. General,
Admiral, thank you for your years of service.
For me, in my district, the Navy and the Marines have a
strong presence, I get to see these guys from time to time. And
I appreciate all you do for the Navy and Marine Corps
community.
I think this subcommittee, everyone knows, tries to work
together in a bipartisan way. Last year, we finished on time,
and we look forward to doing that again.
I must say, I am a little disappointed that we are having
this hearing when we don't have the Fiscal Year 2010 budget
request, but that is just a function of the way things are
going. But I am sure we will have a good discussion, and I look
forward to working with you all to develop the kind of bills
that we have in the past that provide for the families and men
and women, our heroes.
So thank you again. And I look forward to your testimony
and questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
And for the record, your full testimony will be submitted
for the record. I would like to recognize Admiral Roughead for
any opening comments you would care to make.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. And then we will get into questions and
answers.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.

Statement of Admiral Roughead

Admiral Roughead. Chairman Edwards, thank you. And--Mr.
Crenshaw, thank you.
Mr. Crenshaw. You can call me the ranking member.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Roughead. Okay, the ranking member. I will do that.
Mr. Crenshaw. You know, I don't get called that very often.
Admiral Roughead. I will intersperse my comments many
times. But it really is my honor to appear before you today and
represent the dedicated Sailors and the civilians and our
families of the United States Navy.
And I appreciate the opportunity to testify about our
Navy's shore infrastructure and how essential it is to carrying
out our Navy's mission. Our families thrive, and our Sailors
deploy, and our ships sail from our infrastructure ashore.
For years, our increased operational demand, rising
manpower costs, and aging fleet has compelled us to underfund
shore readiness. Today, as a result our future shore readiness,
particularly the recent recapitalization of our infrastructure,
lags behind where I would like to be.
This year's military construction budget prioritizes
critical requirements focusing on fleet readiness, quality-of-
life issues, the elimination of excess infrastructure, quality
standards across all installations, the maintenance required to
achieve service life and low life-cycle costs, and, finally,
the integration and refinement of shore planning capabilities
and processes.
On the issue of quality of life for our Sailors, Navy
civilians, and Navy families, I am very thankful for your
support and pleased with the progress that we have made in
housing for our families. I am also extremely pleased to report
the opening of our first unaccompanied housing privatization
project, Pacific Beacon in San Diego.
These quarters, Pacific Beacon, are the best enlisted
bachelor quarters I have ever seen in my time in the Navy. With
your support this year, we will construct new bachelor housing
at Naval Air Station North Island, as well.
I also want to thank you for your strong support for Navy
children. Our Navy is leveraging Overseas Contingency
Operations funding, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
and the fiscal year 2009 budget to build 17 new childcare
development centers.
In addition, with commercial contracts and military-
certified in-home care, we will be able to increase childcare
spaces by 7,000 and respond to requests for childcare within 3
months and at 25,000 hours childcare and youth services, a
resource that is invaluable to the families of our deployed
Sailors.
Beyond quality of life, our bases must adequately support
the most sophisticated fleet in the world. We will perform
major repairs for drydocks, Navy operational support center
facilities, barracks, airfields, and utility infrastructure
throughout the Navy to keep our shore facilities ready. These
projects are possible thanks to your tremendous support
throughout the--or through the ARRA.
I will also be personally involved as we conduct our
Quadrennial Defense Review, as the Navy considers Naval Station
Mayport as a carrier homeport. This review in no way diminishes
my support for either Norfolk or--of course, none of our
infrastructure or equipment would run without energy. We have
focused on energy-related projects that will develop
alternative and renewable energy sources and improve energy
efficiency in all of our facilities.
Most recently, the Recovery Act has enabled us to begin
installation of advanced photovoltaic systems in Hampton Roads.
We are going to continue to invest in energy research and
development.
With the 2010 budget, we will have the necessary resources
to maintain the readiness of the fleet.
I thank you again for your time today and for your
continued support of our 600,000 Sailors, civilians, and our
families who support us back at home.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Admiral.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Roughead follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.023

Mr. Edwards. General Conway.

Statement of General James T. Conway

General Conway. Sure. Chairman Edwards, ranking member, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. Thank you
for the opportunity to report to you on the state of your
Marine Corps.
Our pledge is always to provide you a candid and honest
assessment, and it is in that spirit that I appear before you
today.
Since testimony before your committee last year, progress
in the Anbar Province in Iraq has been tremendous. Indeed, we
think our Marines there are moving into the most long-awaited
phase of operations, the reset of our equipment and
redeployment of the force.
In February, we had a Change of Command of the Multi-
National Force-West in Anbar province. The commander of the
Multi-National Corps, who was present at the event, commented
that he believed this will be the last rotation of Marines in
Iraq. We tend to agree.
Having recently returned from a trip in theater, I am
pleased to report to you that the magnificent performance of
our young Marines and Sailors in the province, regardless of
their task, continues.
In Afghanistan, however, the Taliban have increased their
activity. The 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, a force that
will number over 10,000 Marines and Sailors, is en route and
will meet the 30 May latest arrival date.
The 2nd MEB is deploying as a Marine Air-Ground Task force.
They will operate under Regional Command South, primarily in
the Helmand province, where 93 percent of the country's opium
is harvested and where the Taliban have been most active. This
part of the country also includes a wide open stretch of border
with Pakistan.
We consider the operating environment in Afghanistan as
well suited to our expeditionary ethos of being fast, austere
and lethal, with emphasis on the austere. As our numbers grow
in Afghanistan, Marines and their families have refocused their
resolve to yet another crisis area on the map.
There are many challenges ahead, but your Marines
understand the effects of operations there will make this
country safer.
Our force remains resilient, despite an average deployment
to dwell tempo that is slightly better than 1 to 1 in most
occupational specialties. With your support, our growth of the
force by 27,000 Marines has proceeded ahead of schedule. We
will easily reach the level of 202,100 Marines in our active
component before the end of the fiscal year.
Our growth has been achieved with no change in standards.
Indeed, more than 96 percent of the young men and women who
enlisted in our Corps during fiscal year 2008 had earned their
high school diploma, a rate that exceeded the standard for the
Department of Defense, at 90 percent, and our own self-imposed
higher standard of 95 percent.
We attribute our accelerated growth to four factors:
quality recruiting; exceptional retention levels; reduced
attrition; and, not least, an incredible generation of young
Americans out there who welcome the opportunity to fight for
this country.
The growth of our force does not just include personnel. It
includes infrastructure, as well. In the past, we have placed
operational priorities ahead of good housing for all Marines.
With your support, we have recently been able to reverse that
trend by expanding our efforts in military construction.
Our warriors have no hesitation about life in an austere
and expeditionary environment when deployed; however, they want
their families to enjoy quality housing, schools and facilities
while they are away. Single Marines rightfully expect to have
clean and comfortable quarters when they are back home.
Our number-one priority in military construction is now
building new barracks to provide adequate bachelor housing for
our entire force by 2014. We do appreciate the continued
support of Congress toward this effort.
We are deeply committed to the care and welfare of our
wounded and their families. Our Wounded Warrior Regiment
reflects this commitment through all phases of recovery.
To assist in the rehabilitation and transition of our
wounded, injured or ill, and their families, we have a Wounded
Warrior Battalion on both coasts, at Camp Pendleton and Camp
Lejeune. The headquarters of our Wounded Warrior Regiment is in
Quantico. I would like to thank you all for your personal
visits to our wounded warriors around the country and also
overseas.
Our great young patriots have responded magnificently and
have written their own page in history. They know, as they go
into harm's way, that our country is behind them. Military
construction that is commensurate with their needs and
demonstrates a commitment to their families and is a tangible
way of recognizing their sacrifice.
On their behalf, I thank you for your enduring support. We
pledge to be good stewards of the resources you provide and
remain committed to the defense of this great land.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to report to you
today, sir.
[The prepared statement of General James T. Conway
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.037

Mr. Edwards. General Conway, thank you. And I am going to
take part of my opening 5 minutes just to mention the name of a
great Marine. You mentioned al Anbar Province, and--great young
Marine in my mind. We dedicated a post office in his honor just
a few weeks ago in my district, just a few miles from where I
live, Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry.
And he was a demolition expert, went out during his time in
Iraq--I think he defused literally hundreds of bombs. And he
had his bags packed, was less than 7 days away from coming
home, had three children under the age of 10. And the call came
in asking for a volunteer to go out to al Anbar Province and
defuse some bombs that had been located at a roadside there.
And he went out. And the third bomb he defused had a fourth
bomb hidden underneath, which killed him. And as I looked at
his three young children that day at the post office, I just
thought this was why every one of us is so dedicated to
supporting the quality of life for these great Americans.
We know we can't ever begin to replace those little
children's father or that widow's husband, but we are going to
do everything we can to provide the kind of quality of life
that their families deserve. So thank you.
I know that reflects the kind of spirit that we see in the
Navy and the Marines throughout our country and throughout the
world.

INADEQUATE HOUSING

I just have one question that I would begin of each of you,
and that is, do you have a number in terms of number of
barracks and/or family homes that don't meet your respective
Navy or Marine standards for----
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. We, in the area of our family
housing, have made the investments that we will be able to
rectify all of the inadequate housing with the investments that
we have made. So family housing, we are in good shape.
With respect to the substandard category for our
unaccompanied housing, I put that at about 42 percent. And that
doesn't mean that the accommodations are unsanitary or unsafe.
They may be not sized properly or the square footage that we
want, but I put the number at 42 percent of bachelor enlisted
housing.
Mr. Edwards. And on the present budget glide path, when do
you think the money will be committed to bring those up to
standard?
Admiral Roughead. My intention, Mr. Chairman, is that we
will have that done by 2016.
Mr. Edwards. I hope, with some good luck, maybe this
committee could compress that. I certainly hope so.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
General Conway. Sir, about 96 percent of our family housing
at this point is PPV (Public-Private Venture). Of those units
transferred, approximately 4,400 remain that are considered
inadequate and these are being renovated, replaced or otherwise
demolished by our partners. When completed in 2014, there will
be no PPV housing units deemed inadequate. Of the remaining
Marine Corps owned inventory, only two would by definition be
considered inadequate. These are General Officer quarters,
deemed inadequate by definition that they require more than
$50,000 for repairs, but are fully habitable.
And we estimate that we have roughly 2,700 spaces which
constitutes less than 4 percent of our total inventory that we
would label as inadequate. As I said in the statement and as
you have heard me say before, that has become a real priority
for us, because we have waited until we were in extremis, I
think, to respond to needs.
We have over the FYDP about $1.52 billion of requests for
construction associated with our barracks and family housing.
If those requests are supported, then we will solve our
problem, we think, by the end of the 5-year plan.
Mr. Edwards. In fact, Admiral Roughead, if you wouldn't
mind, if you could give me a similar number for the Navy. What
would it take to get all of your bachelor's quarters up to
Navy's standards?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. It would sure be nice for us to know what that
goal is. And perhaps we can compress some of these----
Admiral Roughead. Sir, the figures that we are using is on
or about $85 million in MILCON and then about $80 million a
year throughout the FYDP for the maintenance costs that would
be associated. So it is not an insignificant amount of money.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Crenshaw.

HOMEPORTING NUCLEAR CARRIER AT NAVAL STATION MAYPORT

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Not only the ranking member this afternoon,
but a great member of this subcommittee.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you very much.
We are going to start out, Admiral Roughead, you mentioned
in your opening statement the decision that the Navy made to
homeport a nuclear carrier at Naval Station Mayport.
And I know you made that decision after a 2.5-year study.
You weighed all the strategic, operational, environmental
consequences of the decision.
And that report stated in pretty strong language that it is
in the best interest of national security to have a second
nuclear carrier homeport on the East Coast and that Naval
Station Mayport was the best place to do that.
I was a little disappointed--I got a call right before
Easter from the Deputy Secretary of Defense that said that, in
spite of the Navy's decision, that that decision was going to
be further reviewed as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review,
(QDR), which is disappointing, because of all the study had
gone into, decisions made.
Last time I got a phone call like that was right before
Christmas a few years ago, when the former Deputy of Secretary
of Defense, who at the time was the Secretary of the Navy,
called me to say that they were thinking about decommissioning
one of the carriers and it could very well be the one that was
in Mayport,--so when I get these kind of phone calls right
before holidays, I have a new policy at my office now. They
don't accept calls from high-ranking military officials
anywhere near a holiday.
But I know that the nuclear homeporting decision is going
to be made as part of that QDR. And we don't know exactly when
we are going to get that. And we don't know whether there will
be some budget requests this time, because we haven't seen it
yet, in terms of some of the upgrades needed.
But if you don't mind, I wanted to ask you just a couple of
questions about that.
But, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just see if it is possible
to submit the Navy Record of Decision in final Environmental
Impact Statement on the proposed homeporting of additional
surface ships at Naval Station Mayport, Florida, in the
official record?
Mr. Edwards. Without objection.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.069

Mr. Crenshaw. I am going to give you a couple of quotes
from that report and just to see if that is still your view, if
that is okay with you, sir.
One, there is a quote that says, ``Homeporting a nuclear
carrier at Mayport would reduce risks to fleet resources in the
event of a natural disaster, manmade calamity, or attack by
foreign nations or terrorists.'' Now, do you still believe that
statement to be accurate?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Crenshaw. I don't want to sound like a lawyer, but it
is hard for you to comment on a lot of these things, because
they involve a bunch of FY 10 budget requests.
Just two more questions. One other quote, it says, ``The
aircraft carriers of the United States Navy are vital strategic
assets that serve our national interest in both peace and war.
The President calls upon them for their unique ability to
provide both deterrence and combat support in times of
crisis.''
``Utilizing Naval Station Mayport to homeport a CVN
enhancing operational readiness. Operational readiness is
fundamental to the Navy's mission and obligation to the
commander-in-chief.''
And I guess my question is: Do you still believe that
statement is accurate and correct?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. I believe the ability for us to
have flexibility in the positioning of our force is a good
thing. Much of my perspective is based on having commanded out
in the Pacific, where there were several options for basing a
variety of our ships out there. And I think that flexibility is
a very good thing.
Mr. Crenshaw. And this last statement alludes to that, as
well. It says--the quote is, ``The consolidation of CVN
capabilities in the Hampton Roads on the East Coast presents a
unique set of risks. CVNs assigned to the West Coast are spread
among three homeports. Maintenance and repair infrastructure
exists at three locations, as well.''
``As a result, there are strategic operations available to
Pacific Fleet CVNs should a catastrophic event occur. By
contrast, Naval Station Norfolk is a homeport to all five of
the CVNs assigned to the Atlantic Fleet, and the Hampton Roads
area is the only East Coast location where CVN maintenance and
repair infrastructure exists.''
``It's the only location in the U.S. capable of CVN
construction and refueling. There are no strategic options
available outside the Hampton Roads area for Atlantic Fleet
CVNs should a catastrophic event occur.''
And so the question, again, is: Is that still your view? Is
that accurate?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir, it is accurate. All of our
nuclear carrier infrastructure is now--on the East Coast--is
now all in the Hampton Roads area.
Mr. Crenshaw. And time for one more question? Before I came
to Congress, I was involved in providing financing for various
companies around the country. And one of the things that we
always used to look at was a cost-benefit analysis, and it
involved evaluating risk.
And so the question, based on that report that took 2.5
years to come up with and was very thorough, the question
becomes, when you decide--and we don't know the number yet,
because we don't have the budget request, but, it is not
inconsequential the amount of money that it is going to take to
upgrade Mayport to be the homeport for a nuclear carrier.
But is cost part of your risk analysis? I think I have
figured up somehow, if you take the total cost of our carrier
fleet, the total cost for MILCON and recurring cost is less
than 1 percent. It would be less than 1 percent of the total
value of our aircraft carrier fleet that you would be spending
to avoid some of the risks that you talked about.
Does that make sense to you in a cost-benefit analysis?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. Those are the similar numbers
to what we looked at as we were going through our analysis.
And, clearly, I think the QDR will dig into those numbers, and
the analysis will be further examined.
But those are the similar numbers that we developed as we
were going through our----
Mr. Crenshaw. And I assume all that will be part of the QDR
review, all the hours--that is great. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Admiral and General, good to see you again.
Tell me, what was the--where did the Mayport CVN
homeporting decision--how did that get started? What is the
history behind this?
Admiral Roughead. Well, the history behind it, Mr. Dicks,
as I mentioned, having served out in the Pacific, and put some
thought into the strategic dispersal of our forces out there,
and I was involved in the decision as to where the additional
aircraft carrier that was moving to the Pacific would go.
So when I came back to the East Coast, to Fleet Forces
Command, and then on to my current position as Chief of Naval
Operations, I wanted to take a look at not just the
distribution of our forces throughout the Navy, but also a
similar look on the East Coast.
And that is when I got into looking at where the various
types of ships were based and particularly the aircraft
carriers, because of the one base structure that we used in
Norfolk. So that----
Mr. Dicks. Well, I think that is a very legitimate matter.
We are all concerned about military construction costs, how
much it costs to do these things. But I think what we did on
the West Coast was the right decision. So I better understand
it.

GUAM

Congresswoman Bordallo--I have been meeting with her,
trying to help her a little bit, as Chairman of the Interior
and Environment Subcommittee. Guam is going to be under a great
deal of pressure, and I am very concerned about it.
I understand that the Joint Guam Program Office held an
industry forum on Guam last week. You know, we are going to put
a lot of troops into Guam, and I am just worried that we may
not have the infrastructure there to deal with it.
And, you know, and people would say, ``Well, the government
of Guam should do it.'' They may not be capable financially of
doing it.
Has anybody looked at this from the Navy? And the Marine
Corps is involved in this, too.
Do you have any concern about this?
Admiral Roughead. Well, my interests for Guam are primarily
to be able to support the Marine Corps, but also an interest
that I have in some flexibility for carrier--what I call a hub,
where you could put a carrier in for short periods of time that
would be operating out in the western Pacific. But I think the
bulk of the----
Mr. Dicks. You have got the SSGNs there, too, coming in.
Admiral Roughead. We do. The SSGNs come in. But the bulk of
the activity is----
Mr. Dicks. The Marine Corps.
Admiral Roughead [continuing]. Really supported by the
Marine Corps, so I----
General Conway. Sir, there are several issues, as you
highlight. And it is going to be examined, I believe, in the
Quadrennial Defense Review. This whole issue of global laydown
is one of the topic matters, and there is a group already
working it.
The question will be, how much overseas infrastructure can
the Nation afford? There are issues in Korea. There are issues
in Europe and, of course, the Guamanian issue.
Our estimate is that the early estimates are way short. We
have talked in terms of $4 billion cost to the U.S. government.
We think it is going to be much more than that when you look at
all the considerations, infrastructure, training opportunity,
all those types of things.
So I think--in the first instance, the Department is going
to have to come away with a prioritized list and a certainty
with regard to what--more of a certainty as to what those costs
may be.
You are exactly right with regard to the ability of Guam to
support our early estimates. And these are also some of the
JGPO estimates, is that to stay on the timeline that we are on,
which would have completion roughly around 2014, that there
needs to be about $3 billion a year of contractual effort that
goes into work there.
Our estimate is that the territory itself can only do about
half of that. So we are already concerned that we are not going
to make the timelines that are established out there.
And there are other issues. We are going to put potentially
8,000 to 10,000 Marines out in the middle of the Pacific. We
have got to make sure we can train out there.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
General Conway. The USD policy has promised us that they
will see to our concerns and that the proper EIS will be
accomplished before we conduct some of those moves that would
land us in a place without the ability to train.
But we are concerned about that. And we are going to engage
very strongly, I can assure you, in the QDR with those
concerns.
Mr. Dicks. And some of these are pretty serious
environmental issues. They have got a dump that has to be
closed down and a number of other things. I just was worried,
that, you know, we are really committed to Guam, apparently,
and it doesn't look to me like they have the capability to do
all the things that I think we are expecting them to do.
So I hope you all will get the Department motivated to look
at this. And I just want to also say that, on the housing, we
still--we don't have anybody living on--I mean, the enlisted
people still living on--what were those things?
The one at Birmingham was called the ``Guppy.'' You know,
this is where they--the Sailors, when they came in, they get
off the ship. They go there. I think we have them all in
barracks now.
Admiral Roughead. Well, we--throughout the Navy, we do not
have all of our Sailors who are afloat, we do not have spaces
for them ashore, all of them. At the end of the----
Mr. Dicks. What is the shortfall?
Admiral Roughead. It will be 5,000, Navy-wide, at the end
of 2010. So we have a plan to make the investments in bringing
our Sailors ashore. We will be investing in that throughout the
FYDP, and the objective is to get all of our Sailors off the
ships by 2016 so that all of our Sailors who are afloat have a
place ashore.
Mr. Dicks. Has my time expired?
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Mr. Farr and then Mr. Kennedy.

STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION MOS

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
General Conway and Admiral Roughead, thank you very much
for your service and for your leadership. Welcome to the
committee where every member thinks they are a garrison
commander.
I want to commend your leadership and mention that in
previous hearings we have had here--Admiral Mullen before you
and General Petraeus--we have created a Center for
Stabilization and Reconstruction studies at the Naval
Postgraduate School.
Its capability--it has been doing a lot of gaming in the
sense of bringing together NGOs, international NGOs, U.N., our
military, foreign officers that are there through the IMET
program, and so on, to look at how you deal with issues of
stabilization and reconstruction.
NPS has designed a training program and offers a master's
degree in it. We are finding a lot of officers who are coming
out of Iraq and Afghanistan who really want to get into this
career. It is a new career.
But the Defense Department hasn't created an MOS for it
yet. And General Petraeus was saying we really need these skill
sets.
And I know you have indicated your interest. I am asking
all the combatant commanders and the commanders here to do what
it takes to create a career path.
I have talked to Secretary Chu about trying to get a sub-
specialty code designation for stabilization and reconstruction
career positions. I had hoped that you could bring that up as
an issue to discuss, because the desire to get the training and
master's degree is there, but why get it if you don't have a
career path?

S&R AND FAO EDUCATION AND TRAINING

And it is kind of intertwined with the FAOs. And I know the
Navy and Marine Corps are sending students to NPS for FAOs
education. But I don't think that there is any requirement that
they go through this stabilization and reconstruction training.
I think there needs some sort of leadership here to bring
the two together. They are both at the same school. Well, one
is funded under Homeland Security. Excuse me. The Stabilization
and Reconstruction program is funded by an earmark. And the FAO
is in your budget.
I would like to see how the Navy could bring those two
programs together using the Center for Stabilization and
Reconstruction as part of the curricula for your FAO positions.
And, also, I am asking the Navy to POM the Center for
Civil-Military Relations. It is of high value to you.
So if you could look into that, I would appreciate it.
I wondered if you know whether the demand for Navy FAOs
matches the number of students that are in the pipeline.
Admiral Mullen's was encouraging people to get this training,
and then--I don't know. Do you----
Admiral Roughead. Well, we have placed a significant
emphasis on our Foreign Area Officer (FAO) program. And we
have----
Mr. Farr. These are Foreign Area Officers.
Admiral Roughead. Foreign Area Officers. And their training
will be a combination of language training and then
assignments. I know that, within the Navy, I have caused our
major headquarters to look at restructuring their organization
so that we have a career path flow for Foreign Area Officers.
I have been in the Navy long enough to have seen us attempt
FAO programs on a couple of occasions, and they have not
succeeded simply because we didn't provide for the career
progression for these young men and women who have a passion
for the regions in which they are going to work and then not
being able to realize the type of career progression.
So we are working on that. But I am pleased with where we
are with our FAO program. In fact, we are getting ready to do
another screening board for FAOs here in June to select another
group of Foreign Area Officers. And I believe that we are on a
good path----
Mr. Farr. Would you be able to name the naval postgraduate
school the Center for FAO Education, if you could designate
that. I don't know what it takes, but----
Admiral Roughead. Sir, well, I would say--we don't send all
of our officers to P.G. school. Some----
Mr. Farr. Go to regular----
Admiral Roughead [continuing]. Go to other colleges and
universities. And then, as we get into, particularly in the FAO
program, I think being able to tailor where those individuals
can go based on their backgrounds, future assignments.
But I do believe that the post-graduate school is an
extraordinary capability----
Mr. Farr. See, you have the DLI there, the Defense Language
Institute.
Admiral Roughead. Exactly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. Monterey Institute of International Studies----
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. You have this consortium of intellectual capacity
in Monterey that could really do well in producing the
curriculum and adjusting it to global needs. And if you created
the FAO center there, I think we could really get a better bang
for our buck.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
General Conway. I certainly support the idea, sir, of the
stabilization and reconstruction degree. And I think that we--
our approach is a little different. Because our commanders have
wound up doing this so often in the absence of other elements
of American power, we tend to decentralize the effort, and we
give everybody some.
I could still see the value of a special staff officer that
had this MOS, though, and this capability. So we certainly, I
think, want to take a look at that.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
General Conway. Our FAOs go to different places for
language school. Many do go out to NPG, but some study right
here in Washington, D.C. So we would have to look at
percentages, I think, before we could perhaps build the lever
on that beam, a center for all FAOs, unless we have different
qualifications or qualities in our officers.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy.

DDG-1000

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, and welcome. Admiral Roughead, it is a pleasure
seeing you. General Conway, thank you both for your service to
your country.
Admiral Roughead, first, if you could, just comment briefly
on General Gates' plan to truncate the DDG-1000, complete the
third ship, and what you envision to be the future service
combatant moving forward with the technology that we have
invested in so far in that ship. How do you foresee us moving
forward for the Navy, in terms of that future service combatant
ship?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. As you know, Secretary Gates,
in his announcement, he mentioned the truncation of three ships
and then the restart of DDG-51 line. And that also included an
alignment of the work, the construction work, with the ships,
the DDG-1000s going to bath for construction, to be able to
take advantage of the efficiencies that are there.
As I have discussed before--and we have had the opportunity
to talk about it--I think the technologies that are in the DDG-
1000 are going to help us inform not just future combatant
classes, but I think we will be able to inform other ship
classes with that.
Improvements that can be made to the DDG-51 will also allow
us to take that information, what we learned from the DDG-1000,
and help us better approach future combatant designs. So that
is how I see that playing out in the future.

NAVY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Kennedy. Terrific. I know what a champion you are of
education. Obviously, professional development is so crucial.
Can you tell us a little bit about how you see the
evolution of professional education in the Navy, as we see
special warfare becoming so much a bigger part of modern
warfare, and how your leadership is bringing in and ushering in
a whole new sense of kind of strategic thinking, in terms of
the individual Sailor, and how they have critical development
skills and how they have leadership training skills and the
importance of having that as opposed to just the doctrine
training that they have had maybe in the past?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. And I am very proud of the
institutions that are in the United States Navy that get to
that. All the service--or all the services have their Service
Academies, and I am very proud of what we have done with the
Naval Academy.
But what we have done with the Postgraduate School of what
I call raising all boats, let the rising tide raise all boats,
getting some more structure at postgraduate schools, standing
it up as a Naval Station so that we can focus on the
educational and development process and work the infrastructure
with another piece.
But I am also extraordinarily proud of what we have been
able to do with our Naval War College, which I consider to be
the center of maritime thought in the world and naval thought
in the world. We have at the War College established a new look
at the operational level of war, the training that we have
going on there.
We have put significant emphasis into our international
program at the War College. And in fact, just last week, I
hosted all of the international students here in Washington.
That experience and what we are able to expose our personnel to
is absolutely extraordinary.
And as you know, we are going to be hosting the
International Seapower Symposium up in Newport, make all of
that as part of an educational process.
What we have also done in Newport is that we have taken our
Senior Enlisted Academy and aligned it more with the War
College. Not that I am trying to teach every master chief how
to become the greatest strategic thinker in the world, but
rather to be able to take that educational and intellectual
effort that takes place at the War College and have our senior
enlisted benefit from that.
We are also incentivizing additional language capability
among our force. We talked about the FAO program and aligning
our command structure so that, when somebody comes out of the
field, they have a place to go and apply that which they have
learned.
So I think that the way that we are coming at our
intellectual and development of our Sailors is to take those--
what I consider to be three extraordinary institutions--and
make sure that we are looking at them as a set, resourcing them
in ways that allows them to maximize the value they have to the
Navy and the nation.
And so that is what my approach has been. And I think, in
the year-and-a-half that I have been CNO, we have made some
significant changes at the Postgraduate School. We have made
some significant changes at the War College.
But it all has to tie together, and that is what I have
charged my Vice Chief of Naval Operations who now sits on a
coordinating board to make sure that we are not just doing
each's, but that we have this incredible capability and we are
using it in unison.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, I really, again, once again, appreciate
your service. And thank you for that description. I think you
are absolutely right. It is really proving to be a big success.
I also appreciate your work for diversity in the Navy and
in the special forces, too, seeing the importance of that, and
it is being reflected, and it is very important. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Crenshaw.

HIGH RATE OF DEPLOYMENT IMPACT ON MORALE

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you. This is maybe a question for both
of you all. This higher rate of deployment, obviously, impacts
the Soldiers, the Sailors, their families, the equipment,
operational facilities.
And so the first question, I think, is just maybe could you
comment on how the morale of the Sailors and the troops have
been impacted by this high rate of deployment? Let's start
with----
General Conway. Sir, we are pretty pleased. We check about
a dozen what I call indicators or metric each month to
determine resiliency of the force, and we are pretty pleased
with what we see.
Now, I would offer that we have some cultural advantages
over the Army, which is the other ground force and whose
deployment to dwell approximates ours. And we do 7-month
deployments, and our troops really like that. Our families
really like that.
And after a Marine has been in the operational forces for
about 3, maybe 4 years, we rotate them out to do something
else. We send them to the headquarters or to a training command
or to recruit or something else. And that is giving them a
break and having them spend some time with his family and his
children, so that when he comes back at the end of that time,
he is sort of raring to go. And that seems to be working very
well for us.
The leading-edge indicators, I think, as to whether or not
we are accomplishing what we want to do are re-enlistments of
both the first-term force and the career force. And I can point
to with some pride, I think, that we closed out our first-term
re-enlistments 2 months ago, and last month we closed out our
career force. That is on the fiscal year.
So halfway through the fiscal year, you know, we are
getting all of those that we want. And those numbers are way up
compared to what they used to be. They used to be about 25
percent of the first-term force. Now it is about 35 percent.
So it tells me, the families are happy. They are enduring
it well. They sense that we care. We are building the types of
things to make quality of life satisfactory for them. And so
that is sort of the good news side of the story.
Now, I will tell you that there are some trends that we see
with--very recently with divorce, which is slightly up this
year. In the 7 war years thus far, we have led the other
Services with the lowest percentage of divorces, but suddenly
this year we are leading them in the other direction. And I
want to watch that closely.
Suicides were up last year. It runs a bit of a sine wave,
but last year we had 42 suicides, most of them as a result of
failed relationships.
And I will be honest with you: just in preparation for
coming before this committee, I note apparently alarming rise
in what we consider driving under the influence. So it may be
that our Marines are drinking more.
Whether or not that is related to dep tempo and the war, I
don't know yet. The DUI at this point encompasses two
categories. One is, you know, you had too many sips of
champagne on the way back from the wedding and you got pulled
over because one of your lights was out. The other one is, if
you had a .20 and you in no way should have been on the road.
We have got to cull those stats down to see what is what here.
But there are a couple of things that we have got to dig
into to make sure that we keep a resilient force and we don't
embarrass ourselves.
Mr. Crenshaw. Admiral.
Admiral Roughead. We watch our deployment ratios very
closely. And for us, by and large throughout the Navy, we are
deploying and providing the time back home for our Sailors that
meets a very good standard for us.
There are some communities that we have that are being
pressed harder than others. Clearly, our SEALs are very busy.
Explosive ordnance disposal are busy. Intelligence officers are
in great demand, because they are able to support more than
just the Navy.
But I am pleased with what we have been doing and how the
tone of the force is reflected in surveys that we do quite
frequently.
Similar to General Conway, good positive trends. Retention
is extraordinarily high. Attrition is down. I will also tell
you that the economy is a factor in that. But we see trends
that really go beyond the economy.
In our case, for some of the things that General Conway
mentioned, we have seen a slight rise in suicides. And in the
month of February, we had more than we had seen in any given
month, but now we are back down to the norm.
So I have a group that looks at that from many different
perspectives, and we are trying to better understand it,
because our suicide demographic is very different than the
other services. It tends to be more senior. And we are getting
our arms around that.
We have seen significant declines in vehicular accidents,
remarkable declines in vehicular accidents. And we have also,
you know, contrary to the Marine Corps, we have seen a drop in
our DUIs in recent months.
So the trends that I see are good. And the tone of the
force is good. I never take it for granted. We always have to
be looking, and then, whenever we begin to see an indication,
we have to get into it, peel the onion back, and figure out
what is going on.
Mr. Crenshaw. When you have got these kind of strains in
terms of deployment, does it leave you in a position, say, with
infrastructure or operational facilities where you are asking
for funds for higher combat priorities? Do you sense there is
any less money for some of the infrastructure or some of the
facilities?
It is a question I would ask you--I can't ask you to
comment on a budget request, but are there things that aren't
in there that maybe ought to be there because of the way the
priorities are right now, in terms of combat deployment?
Admiral Roughead. Well, I would say that the--through what
this committee has been able to do, you know, taking care of
our kids is huge. And what you have allowed us to be able to do
to increase the number of childcare facilities is significant.
We have taken extra money because of the strains that we
have seen not just on deployments, but also kind of
anticipating the economic effects on our force. We have
increased in our Family Service Centers the number of
counselors, and we have seen the utilization of those
counselors go up. And as a result of that, we have seen our
people, I believe, making better decisions.
So we are trying to lead the target, get the things in
place that allow our families and Sailors to better address the
issues that they face as a member of the U.S. military and just
as an American citizen.
So I think we have been able to target those investments in
ways that we have been able to minimize and mitigate some of
these pressures that they are under.
General Conway. I will give you a two-part answer, sir.
There is not a Marine that wears this uniform that doesn't want
to go to Afghanistan now, and that includes our married guys.
But we realize all along that the families are the most
brittle part of this whole equation. I mean, the Marine will go
do what he is trained to do, but our families determine whether
or not we keep that resilient force because, if they are going
back to Texas, they put young Johnny in a heck of a strain, you
know, to decide, does he go or stay?
So we have probably put more resources than ever before
against our families and against quality of life and
professional family readiness officers, increased childcare
center, base infrastructure that makes quality of life that
much better, you know, while the Marine is gone.
And it sent a strong signal. I mean, it is a psychological
signal as well as a tangible signal when they see that crane,
you know, over the site.
But all in all, I think it has been very healthy for us.
And it is because money has been made available, I think,
commensurately recognizing the need.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.

DOD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION

General Conway, this subcommittee--and I am proud of this--
took the initiative to see that we need to recapitalize,
modernize our DoD health care system. So it wasn't an OMB
request, but it was this committee's request. I think it
reflected the needs we were being told by commanders in the
field for new hospitals.
Part of that $2.2 billion is going to Pendleton and
Lejeune, as you know. Would you just say for the record whether
that money is needed and those hospitals do need modernization?
And will that be a significant service to your Marines and
their families?
General Conway. Happy to do so, sir, because it is a
tremendous, first of all, capacity that our families will be
able to take advantage of at our two major bases throughout the
whole Marine Corps.
Secondly--and it gets back to the ranking member's
question--it sends a tremendous signal to our families that,
hey, we get it.
The Navy is doing wonderful work for us, forward-deployed
as they are, with the docs and the corpsmen. They are right
where we need them to be.
But in the meantime, our families are suffering a little
bit. The specialty doctor that is tough for the Navy to
contract to go to Jacksonville, North Carolina, is just not
always there.
The lines are longer for virtually any kind of care because
the numbers of providers are less. So I think that these
hospitals are going to be tremendous adds to our Marine Corps
and Navy community that live there with us. And it is money, I
think, very wisely spent, is the way I would categorize it.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for that.

GUAM

My final question would be to follow up on Mr. Dicks'
questions about Guam. The increased cost for infrastructure at
Guam, has that been reflected in deliberations on the fiscal
year 2010 budget request? I know you can't tell us what is in
that budget request officially, but will those numbers reflect
that additional cost? Or is there going to have to be more work
done and then later adaptation to what the real costs are going
to be?
General Conway. You are right, sir. We were asked not to
speak about the budget. I think it drops soon, and we will be
able to talk more.
But there was X amount of money that was applied to Guam.
And I think that money is--pending the discussion and QDR.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Conway. I think, again, as I answered Congressman
Dicks' question, there are competing priorities. The department
is going to have to decide, in conjunction with the national
treaties and agreements and so forth, which should take
priority and which need to be funded.
So the real costs are in the out-years. And so nothing, I
think it is fair to say, would be done in 2010 that would
anchor us one way or another. So the QDR discussion, I think in
that regard, is very timely.
Mr. Edwards. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Farr.

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION TRAINING PROGRAM

Mr. Farr. How important is it to both of you to have the
International Military Education Training program, where we
bring foreign officers to study at----
Admiral Roughead. Hugely, Mr. Farr. There, in my mind, as
we seek to work with other militaries around the world, there
is probably no other program that allows us to be able to
develop the types of relationships that we need with foreign
militaries.
I was in the Pacific when the tsunami of 2004 hit. As you
know, we had had a hiatus with our IMET with Indonesia. That
was the largest relief operation the U.S. military has ever
undertaken, and we had people that we knew, that we had worked
with, that we had built up trust with in the various countries
in the region that we could call. And it set the wheels in
motion.
When we tried to contact individuals in Indonesia, it was
as if we didn't even know where to start. And it is the trust.
You cannot--there isn't--the only switch there is for trust is
to turn it off, but you just can't flick a switch and turn
trust on. It is built over time. It is built over lifetimes.
And I can't endorse IMET enough.
Mr. Farr. Our problem is it is funded through the State
Department, not through the Department of Defense. And that
budget has been so squeezed and competes for everything else
the State Department is doing. I just passed a note to Mr.
Dicks that I think it is important for the DoD to fund it.
General Conway. If I can, sir, I will emphasize the point
with a negative. I visited General Kiyani twice in Pakistan.
And it is considered that we have lost, in his terms, a
generation of Pakistani officers who have cordial or even
friendly relationships with the United States because we did
not do that for a number of years with the country of Pakistan.
Now, look to how important that country is to us today.
The military undergirds relationships when, you know, our
relationships with other nations may be rather sine wave. That
military connectivity is always there. It is always pretty
good. And it sometimes takes time, but it almost invariably
comes back. That is the value to it.
And where it does not occur, such as in a situation like
Pakistan, we find ourselves scrambling to try to regain it. And
there is always going to be a little bit of reluctance do that
because the trust just isn't there.
Mr. Farr. Well, I hope that you will also make your
concerns known to Secretary Clinton, whose budget has it.
You have the Cooperative Strategy for the 21st Century
Seapower, which speaks to fostering and sustaining cooperative
relationships with international partners. I wondered what you
are doing to increase the student enrollment in that program.
They both go to the War College, following up on Congressman
Kennedy's statement, and to the Naval Postgraduate School, and
what we need to do to get more countries to be sending students
to that program.
Admiral Roughead. Sir, I would say that it is--when I look
at the navies with whom we work, I encourage them to take
advantage of the Postgraduate School. For many of the
countries, that can be a fairly expensive proposition. So I
think, you know, how we can reach out to those countries who
perhaps don't have the resources and then how they can be
funded----
Mr. Farr. And that is funded separately from IMET, right?
That is in your domain, in the Defense Department's domain?
Admiral Roughead. I would like to get back to you on all of
the specifics, because there are many different--I have someone
to lay out all of the various funding mechanisms that we have
to engage with foreign countries. And it becomes a pretty
complex roadmap.
But I think there is--what we do at the Postgraduate School
is important, the international program at the War College. We
have started our Surface Warfare Officer's School, an
international course for department heads. That is extremely
important, because that brings them in at the lieutenant level.
That means that they have a whole career of having a
relationship with the United States Navy.
I have also invited navies to participate in even some of
our shorter courses, executive business courses, where we can
bring some of their young leaders in to see how we do things
within our Navy and in the business of the Navy.
We also have foreign officers that go through flight
training. So we are always looking for opportunities to do
that. Moreover, we have been deploying ships--for example,
right now, off the west coast of Africa, we have one of our
large amphibious ships that we call Africa Partnership Station.
For 6 months, it is working with the regional navies there.
The hospital ship USNS Comfort is now on its way down into
South America. All of those add up in this building trust and
building cooperation that I think is so important for our
future and for the future of all countries around the world.
General Conway. That is the point I would make, sir. It
needs to be outside just the formal education process. It has
to be constant. It has to be in earnest, and you have got to
work at it.
We recently had a sea-basing conference, which we think is
an exciting new concept, and we invited 16 different nations to
come in, because we think that coalition warfare is the way of
the future and that they ought to understand what we are doing
and see if it has value to them.
I think in every case we got good comments from these
people in terms of how they might see the value of seabasing,
how they might plug in, and it has caused us to alter our
thinking some, in terms of how we would fold in a coalition
type of effort.
So it is those types of things just repetitively across the
calendar and throughout the Services that I think really start
to cement those bonds.
Mr. Farr. Well, I appreciate it that support I have learned
in Congress that we always fund warfare, but when you get down
to the educational component, that is at the bottom.
And I think what is becoming increasingly clear in the last
few years is that we need to plus up our education, the
relevancy of education, and the training to go with it. And it
is a challenge because it is not the way we designed these
programs to be on top rather than on bottom. And I think it is
going to take your leadership to prioritize it.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Well said.
Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Admiral, I wanted to also say, we appreciate
your coming out to the state of Washington on a couple visits.
And it has been very well received out there.
And, at the Bangor base, we not only have a lot of Sailors,
but we have some very good Marines, by the way, General.
General Conway. I was out there about 2 months ago.
Mr. Dicks. Yes, and they have increased the numbers out
there because of the security issues. And it is very
interesting to see how you are protecting those submarines
going in and out of the Trident Base. I think it is a good
plan.

USS HARTFORD

Let me ask you this, Admiral--what plans does the Navy have
in place for repair and return to service of the USS Hartford?
Admiral Roughead. The USS Hartford is making her way back
from the gulf. She is in the Mediterranean right now. USS
Hartford is the submarine that collided with the USS New
Orleans.
And we have been looking at a series of options for her and
the cost of that repair to her. And she will likely be repaired
in a private facility. That is the way we are leaning now. And
the contractual vehicles will be firmed up.
Mr. Dicks. The submarine force has realigned its focus to
the Pacific AOR by implementing a 60/40 split on homeporting
plans. Does the surface force intend any kind of similar
realignment?
Admiral Roughead. What we have looked at, Mr. Dicks, as you
know, we have realigned our carriers, realigning the
submarines. This look that I did on our strategic posture, we
believe that the surface ships right now are about right.

MAINTENANCE

Mr. Dicks. Okay. A recent INSURV inspection indicated that
Navy maintenance at its currently funded level may not be
keeping pace with the increasing strains imposed by our tempo
of operations. Does the Navy intend to increase its--well, you
can't talk about that. I mean, are you concerned about that? Do
you think we are keeping up with naval maintenance?
Admiral Roughead. What I would say, sir, is that the INSURV
report that is being discussed in the press is one that is on
its way up to me now. But when you look at some of the
information, the trends and the performance is not alarming. It
is pretty consistent with where we have been.
But one of the things that we have done, a few years ago,
we did away with the organization that took an engineering life
cycle approach to our surface ship maintenance. We have a very
structured way of looking at our aircraft carrier maintenance.
We have a very structured way of looking at our submarine
maintenance. And we stopped doing that with the surface ships.
Because of some things that I was seeing as a fleet
commander and then coming into this position, I have re-
established that structure and that organization, and we are
now going to be putting our conventional surface ships into
that engineered approach.
I do believe that, once we get into that, it will likely
indicate that we will be seeing more resources required for
ship maintenance. But I want it based on a good engineering
approach.
Mr. Dicks. And one final thing. You know, I come from
Bremerton, Washington. We have the shipyard there. You know, I
think we have done a lot on buildings and there is a lot of
concern about earthquakes in our part of the world. That is
serious--but I worry a little bit about it. Are we modernizing
the shipyards with the kind of equipment that is necessary to
do the work in the future years? Do you think we are putting
enough into that, I mean, kind of the infrastructure of these
yards?
Admiral Roughead. I believe that our investment plans for
our industrial facilities are keeping pace with the ships that
we are doing, the types of maintenance that we are doing. We
are always looking for new technologies, better ways to do it.
And I think as those technologies and approaches become
available, we should take advantage of it, because we have to
look at total life cycle cost. We simply just can't ignore
that.
So I will continue to look to ensure that we are making the
right investments for our shipyards.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
I have two parochial questions, but some general ones, too.
The general ones are on the Medical Corps, whether you have
concerns about whether you are getting enough doctors, nurses,
and so forth in the Medical Corps to serve your Sailors and
Marines.
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir. A couple of years ago, we were
challenged with our medical recruiting. That has turned. We put
a tremendous amount of effort into that, and we are seeing
really good numbers this year.
Mr. Kennedy. Good.
Admiral Roughead. So, again, we have to keep on that. Plus,
we are also growing our medical capabilities for Marine Corps
growth.
Mr. Kennedy. Terrific.
Admiral Roughead. So right now, we are doing quite well.

EDUCATION

Mr. Kennedy. You know, my good friend, Sam Farr, was
talking about it, education. It seems as though we do so much
to educate the best and brightest in our country in the
military. It would be so great to think about ways to keep them
in some way after they leave the military and tying them into
civil service of some kind and ways of--and education system
and tying them to our communities.
I know so many of them continue to serve our communities in
so many ways. But to make sure that we keep track, we are
trying to navigate the transparency just in medical records
between, obviously, the active DoD and the V.A. But it would
also be great to have transparency between our servicemen and
women who we have invested so much in and we put such great
stock in, as the continuing assets that they are for our
country, after they have served us in the armed forces, to
continue to be there as an asset, if you will, in civilian life
in some form.
With this great, new national service bill that we passed,
it might be interesting for us to look at ways that we might be
able to tap into all that they have to offer, in terms of the
great education that they have received and all that they have
to offer, in terms of their experience leadership-wise, you
know, and education-wise.
When you think about all of the young people in our
communities who could benefit from them as role models, it
would just be tremendous. I know just in the mentoring area, we
are working so hard in our inner cities to tie up some of our--
you know, young people into mentors in the community, if we
could just facilitate, if you will, some of these veterans with
some of these kids who are, maybe in need of a role model.
It would just be terrific. And it might not be anything
more than just making that introduction to a local Boys and
Girls Club or something of that sort.
I know that the Junior ROTC program is fantastic in my--
Newport you would think is, white bread and America's first
resort. We have the highest public housing in the state, and it
is the greatest opportunity for kids who never would ever--you
would never have the opportunity to see the ocean, to get out
there and go sailing all summer long.
And if it weren't for the Navy's base there, there are many
kids in the inner city, and they consider Newport inner city.
They would not otherwise go to the shoreline.
We actually have kids from Providence come down and
participate in the Navy ROTC program, never would otherwise
have a chance, in a state that is called the Ocean State, to
participate in being able to sail on Narragansett Bay.
They learn discipline, and they learn leadership, and they
get an introduction to the United States Navy. So I would just
encourage continued Navy ROTC. To the extent that you can do it
in areas where there isn't maybe, easy access for, folks that
may have a legacy of Navy--maybe like my community--but maybe
other communities of diversity, that would be great, because we
all know that we need to have more diversity wherever we can,
especially for the newer demands on our Navy that will
invariably come in the developing world.
We need to look like the developing world that we are going
to be going into and, working in. With the countries that we
are going to go to, we need to look like those countries that
we are going to be going into.
And so it basically behooves us to inculcate early that--
and I can tell you, 85 percent, 90 percent of my applications
for the Naval Academy are all legacy kids who have been--whose
parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were in the
Navy. And that is great.
But I want to see more kids from the inner city who have
never heard or had one of their family members been in the Navy
before think about the Navy as an opportunity in terms of their
future and the opportunities that it holds out.
If the Navy ROTC was out there more, I guarantee that more
of them would think about the Navy as an opportunity.
Admiral Roughead. Sir, if I could, this past year--because
I share your passion on this--I took some money from our
personnel account and I stood up 20 additional Junior Navy
ROTC----
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you so much.
Admiral Roughead. A modest number, but we targeted those
areas that you are talking about exactly. Where can we allow
young men and women to see the Navy, see the opportunity that
the Navy offers? Whether they elect to come in or not, that is
their decision. But at least they are exposed to it.
We also sponsor a program called Starbase Atlantis----
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Admiral Roughead [continuing]. That brings middle-school
kids in to expose them to space and aviation.
And there is another program that I am very interested in
working with the initial organizers of it. It is called Naval
Operations Deep Submergence, where you take middle-school kids
and teach them about what it takes to operate submarines, not
the warfare aspect, but navigation and oceanography and things
like that, because I really do believe that we have great
things to offer young people.
Those are the ways we do it. And I have been able to
realign some money, and I am very pleased to----
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you so much. Thank you so much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members, let me ask you. We can do this two ways. We can
submit any additional questions in writing and adjourn. There
will be three votes. Or, if anyone has a question you would
like to follow up with in person, I will be glad to come back.
What is your----
Mr. Crenshaw. I would be happy to submit the questions in
writing.
Mr. Edwards. Anybody have any questions you would like to
ask them first?
If not, Admiral Roughead, thank you.
General Conway, thank you for----
Admiral Roughead. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could, earlier
question I said that we would be beyond our substandard BDQs by
2016. That is when we are going to have everybody ashore. And I
would like to take for the record when we will have cleared
that, but I just wanted to correct that before----
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for that.
We stand adjourned.

[Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards to
Admiral Roughead]

Barracks

Question. Will you formulate a master plan for buying down the 42
percent of barracks that have been assessed as substandard? When will
such a plan be completed?
Answer. I will formulate a master plan to address substandard
barracks in PR-11. My objective is to eliminate substandard barracks by
2020, however that will depend upon balancing available funding with
competing Navy priorities.
Question. What is the Navy's definition of standard barracks?
Answer. The Navy uses the DoD standard for permanent party
barracks, which sets a minimum of 90 square feet per person and
requires each Service member to have his or her own sleeping room.
Question. Do you have a target date for bringing Homeport Ashore
barracks up to the DoD standard of 90 square feet per person?
Answer. Our current priority is to achieve the Homeport Ashore goal
of getting all Sailors currently living aboard ships into
accommodations ashore by 2016 at the Interim Assignment Policy (IAP)
standard of 55 square feet per person. The Navy's long-term bachelor
housing goal is to comply with the DoD standard of providing a private
sleeping room for each Sailor at a minimum of 90 square feet per
person. Our plan to achieve that standard will be developed in POM12.
Question. Will you seek an expansion of barracks PPV authority
beyond the three authorized projects?
Answer. To date, the Navy has executed two of the three authorized
PPV pilot projects and is conducting a business case analysis to
determine the most cost effective approach to meeting projected
Bachelor Housing requirements through the third PPV project. The
business case analysis will inform future decisions regarding
additional PPV authority.

East Coast CVN Homeporting

Question. With regard to CVN homeporting on the east coast, what
specifically will the QDR address? Is it simply a question of
validating the Navy's preferred alternative?
Answer. The 2010 QDR will address the need for strategic dispersal
of the carrier force in the broad context of future threats, future
Navy force structure, and cost effectiveness.
Question. What is the Navy's most up-to-date one-time cost estimate
of implementing the preferred alternative? Please break down your
response by military construction, OMN, PCS, etc.
Answer. The Final Environmental Impact Statement, issued in 2008,
estimated one-time MILCON costs for implementing the preferred
alternative at $456M, including:
P-187; Dredging ($48M)
P-186; Foxtrot Wharf Improvements ($39M)
P-250; Controlled Industrial Facility ($139M)
P-251; Ship Maintenance Support Facilities ($157M)
P-502A; Parking Garage ($28M) and P-503; Road Improvements
($15M)
Planning and Design ($30M)
P-187 channel dredging would provide dredging of Wharf F, the
Mayport turning basin, entrance channel and Jacksonville Harbor Bar Cut
3 to a depth of 52 ft to allow safe navigation and vessel
maneuverability for all ships that currently dock at Naval Station
Mayport. The cost of this project was updated and included in the
FY2010 President's Budget Submission for $46.303M.
In addition to the one-time MILCON costs, there is an estimated
$85M one-time maintenance cost for Management & Industrial Plant
Equipment and an estimated $24M one-time cost for Permanent Change of
Station associated with relocating personnel.
Question. What are the new recurring costs of the preferred
alternative?
Answer. The Final Environmental Impact Statement, issued in 2008,
estimated the total recurring costs would be $20.4M. This amount
includes Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization/Base Operating
Support (SRM/BOS), operations, and maintenance costs and also reflects
a reduction in BAH as compared to housing the CVN ship's crew in
Mayport area vice Norfolk area.

End Strength

Question. On April 6, 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates announced a
series of budget and policy decisions for the Department, which
included a decision to halt reductions in Navy end strength. What was
the Navy's planned end strength, and how does the decision by Secretary
Gates affect that?
Answer. In FY09, Navy's active duty end strength was on a planned
glideslope to 322,000 personnel by the end of FY13. The FY10 National
Defense Authorization Request seeks to stabilize the force at an active
duty end strength authorization of 328,800 personnel for Navy.

Outlying Landing Field for East Coast Carrier Landing Practice

Question. When does the Navy expect to produce a Record of Decision
for the new OLF site in Virginia/North Carolina?
Answer. A Record of Decision for the new OLF is currently planned
for the latter half of 2010. Navy is currently working with multiple
federal and state agencies to complete data collection and analysis to
ensure we have done the due diligence necessary to make an informed
decision.
Question. What is the Navy's target date for commencing operations
at the new OLF?
Answer. The target date for commencing operations at the new OLF is
CY 2015.

[Questions for the record from Chairman Edwards to General
Conway]

Barracks

Question. What is your total deficit (after accounting for all
currently funded military construction) of adequate barracks spaces?
Answer. The Marine Corps' total requirement for bachelor enlisted
quarters (BEQ) is 93,300 spaces. With the $1.168B and over 12,000
spaces funded by Congress in FY 2009, the Marine Corps' remaining
adequate BEQ space deficit is approximately 7,000.
Question. As you noted in your testimony, you will meet your target
end-strength of 202,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009. Clearly the
Grow the Force military construction program has not proceeded at the
same pace. How will you accommodate the bigger force until the GTF
MILCON program is fully completed? Will you seek to accelerate your
barracks modernization program?
Answer. The Marine Corps is handling the acceleration of its force
growth through use of temporary facilities and other measures such as
delaying demolition of older facilities. With the increased retention
rates, the enlisted demographic within the Marine Corps has shifted to
a more senior force with the ability to live on the economy.
Additionally, at their discretion, local commanders may use tools such
as allowing junior NCOs to live on the economy or assigning more than
two Marines per room for temporary periods. Current deployment cycles
have also helped alleviate ``space crunches'' across our installations.
The Marine Corps is accelerating its barracks modernization program
and will soon reap the benefit of an aggressive FY 2008 and FY 2009
construction schedule.
Question. Do you have a standard for training barracks? If so, what
is the deficit of adequate training barracks spaces, and what is the
estimated MILCON requirement to buy this down?
Answer. An adequate barracks for recruits is an open-bay barracks
in good repair.
Congress has provided both MCRD Parris Island and MCRD San Diego
Military Construction funding in FY 2009 for Recruit Barracks. At MCRD
Parris Island the funding will complete the replacement of the 3rd
Recruit Battalion barracks and provide additional recruit barracks
spaces that will support the increased throughput generated by our end-
strength growth. At MCRD San Diego the Recruit Support Barracks and the
Recruit Remedial Fitness Center will free-up recruit barracks space at
MCRD San Diego by consolidating injured recruits into their own
barracks. We are grateful for the additional recruit barracks you added
to our program in FY 2009.
Approximately $140 million in Military Construction is proposed in
FY 2010 to complete the improvements at our recruit depots to fully
support recruit quality of life. These improvements include two
additional barracks projects and a new mess hall proposed at Camp
Pendleton, Edson Range (where we also train recruits from MCRD San
Diego) as well as a mess hall addition at MCRD San Diego. Thank you in
advance for your support of our FY 2010 program.
At the completion of these projects (approximately 2012) all
barracks at MCRD Parris Island and MCRD San Diego and Edson Range at
Camp Pendleton should be adequate.

Guam

Question. You stated in your assessment that the U.S. MILCON share
of the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam will be ``much
more'' than $4 billion. What specific needs have been underestimated,
in your opinion?
Answer. It is important to understand the context of the original
$10.27B cost for relocating Marines to Guam. This cost estimate
represents only the infrastructure and facilities development costs for
the relocating Marines. It was developed at the very early stages of
the proposed relocation before any significant planning had occurred or
comprehensive assessment of the existing conditions on Guam, including
detailed project site locations or engineering and environmental data.
As planning has advanced, we have been able to more completely
identify many of the costs involved in the relocation. These costs
remain fluid as we continue our planning and environmental efforts.
With regards to construction costs, for example, the compressed
construction timeline (7 years to 4) along with the need to import many
of the construction workers requires workforce housing and logistics
support for the massive workforce that will be required on Guam during
the short duration construction build up. This is anticipated to cost
approximately 8% of the primary and supporting facilities costs.
Additional construction costs include the new Navy requirement that all
new facilities in the Department of Navy be constructed to a LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver certification.
This requirement typically increases the facilities construction costs
by approximately 8.5%. There is also a Guam Gross Receipt Tax assessed
on all construction projects. This may result in an assessment of 4% on
the sum costs of the total primary and support facilities for all
construction projects. Finally, as the planning develops, it appears as
if the project will require major improvements to existing roads and
utilities.
In addition to these additional construction costs, as we have
evaluated alternatives and assessed their various impacts as a
consequence of preparing the Environmental Impact Study, we may have
unknown mitigation costs and the need to acquire additional land to
insure adequate training capacity for the force laydown for the
associated training ranges and infrastructure, and to compensate for
environmentally protected lands. Finally, there are the numerous
requests by GovGuam that remain undefined, with much or all of the
discussions being interagency.
It is anticipated that the net change from all of the above will
add up to several billion dollars in construction costs over the
original $10.27B estimate. Since GOJ's investment is capped, all
additional construction costs will be funded via the U.S. government.
Question. What specific questions will the QDR address with respect
to the Guam realignment?
Answer. The SECDEF has directed the QDR's Global Posture working
group to consider two issues related to the Guam realignment: 1) The
Asia-Pacific Training shortfall, to include shortfalls on Guam, as well
as, joint training shortfalls across the Pacific and 2) Grow the Force
implications on the Guam agreements and PACOM.

Blount Island

Question. The Marine Corps has indicated a need for about $125
million in MILCON improvements to Blount Island. What is the importance
of this installation and the identified requirements?
Answer. Blount Island is a national strategic asset and key to
Marine Corps expeditionary capability and future force regeneration.
The Marine Corps' acquisition of Blount Island in 2004 offered the
Marine Corps substantial opportunity for realizing the full potential
of the installation and its logistics support facilities. The Marine
Corps has already expanded the use of the installation from its
traditional role as the ``home of United States Marine Corps
prepositioning'' to service as the logistics hub for all Marine Corps
equipment returning from OIF/OEF. Additionally, it has most recently
served as the deployment platform for Marine Corps equipment deploying
to OEF utilizing the facility as the Seaport of Embarkation as well as
the Seaport of Disembarkation.
Blount Island will play a major role in Marine Corps equipment
reset efforts. The most important facility requirements to support
reset efforts at Blount Island include approximately $155 million of
projects to improve existing operational capacity and maintenance
operations, provide adequate storage and supply space to properly
account for equipment, improve efficiency of ship on load and off load
operations, and increase throughput capacity.
These construction projects are tied directly to the war effort and
are consistent with the projected volume. Construction improvements
include wash rack expansion, hardstand expansion, container staging
space, warehousing, hazardous material handling, expansion and
improvements to ship berthing and additional depth dredging in order to
accommodate larger ships. These requirements were previously identified
in the installation's long range facilities plan to improve the
installation's efficiency in executing its preposition mission.
However, these projects are needed sooner to support critical near term
reset efforts.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

WITNESS

HON. ERIC SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I would like to call the committee
to order and want to welcome Secretary Shinseki and your
leadership team to our subcommittee. It is good to have all of
you here, and thank you for the work you do on behalf of
America's veterans.
The purpose of today's hearing is to hear the
administration's budget request for fiscal year 2010. We have
seen the raw numbers on that and look forward to hearing some
of the specific details behind those budget numbers.
I will make a very brief opening comment before recognizing
Mr. Wamp and Mr. Lewis for any opening comments they would care
to make.
Let me begin by saying, it is the responsibility of this
subcommittee to ensure that we are not only saying thanks to
our heroes, but providing for their earned needs, as well. I am
proud of the work this subcommittee has done on a bipartisan
basis since January of 2007.
I want to thank Mr. Wamp for his close partnership a every
step of the way.
With this, we have been able to increase health care and
benefits funding for veterans over the past 2 years by $17.7
billion, $9.9 billion more than requested by the
administration. These funding increases will mean a number of
things: improved access to needed health care services at our
V.A. medical facilities. It will mean all Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans will be
screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injury.
The increase will mean that the Department of Veterans
Affairs will be able to address its significant backlog in
facilities maintenance to ensure that our veterans are cared
for in a safe and healthy environment.
It will mean fewer veterans will be homeless, and I know we
all long for the day where there is not one homeless veteran on
any street of any city in America.
Our increases over the past few years will mean our
veterans will receive the benefits they have earned much sooner
than otherwise. And it will mean that this generation of
veterans will receive a greater education benefit than at any
time in our history.
Yet, despite all of that work together, we know that much
work remains to be done.
I would like to, again, thank all the members of this
subcommittee on both sides of the aisle for our work over the
past 2 years and look forward to continuing that work together
as we craft in the weeks ahead the fiscal year 2010 budget for
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The administration's budget request for fiscal year 2010
totals on the discretionary side $53 billion and an additional
$55.8 billion in mandatory spending. On the discretionary side
of the ledger, the amount requested represents an increase of
$5.4 billion over the fiscal year 2009 appropriation, an
increase of over 11 percent.
And, again, we look forward to hearing more of the details
and the rationale behind those budget proposals.
At this time, it is my privilege to represent our partner
in this effort, Mr. Wamp, our ranking member, for any comments
he would care to make.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership and for that partnership.
And, Mr. Secretary, I always like it when you come, because
we get to come to the big room here as opposed to the smaller
room over in the Capitol, as much as we enjoy that.
And I want to first applaud President Obama for your
selection, which I think was a very wise one and an early one.
And, of course, you had a long and storied history before the
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee here in
all aspects of your life. And for your whole team, we are
grateful for your service to our country.
I also want to say that I thought that Secretary Peake did
a very good job. Both of you have unique skill sets and
experience and knowledge and understanding that is very, very
helpful to all of our veterans. And I think, frankly, this is
somewhat of a seamless transition, even though change is
underway.
I also want to say what I said to a group of realtors that
were just in my office when they asked me about this privilege
I have to be the ranking member on the subcommittee that I am
grateful that, in a bipartisan way, we can say that we are
doing more and more for our veterans, in terms of funding,
creating efficiencies and more accountability in the V.A., and
in a bipartisan way we have met at the water's edge, so to
speak, on this issue and continue to do so.
And I applaud our chairman and the leadership of the
Congress and the executive branch over the last 3 years
particularly, as is manifested in this budget request, making a
greater commitment to our nation's veterans at a time where it
says all the right things and it actually does all the right
things.
And there are many fears out there that our country is not
honoring our veterans. And I can actually look people in the
eye today and say, ``That is changing rapidly.'' And I really
believe that. And that is a good thing.
Now, in your testimony, Mr. Secretary, you mentioned 28
times some form of the word ``transformation.'' So I want to
ask you a little later about that, because I do think that
sweeping changes are still in order and I do like that spirit
that you are coming in, that you want to change things and
transform the V.A.
I am a little puzzled still about what this
administration's position is on advanced appropriations. We, as
appropriators, think that there is a lot of value in this
annual process of scrutinizing budget requests and that,
frankly, that is how you bring accountability. And without it,
the executive branch could just run the country without any
oversight from the people, which was guaranteed under the
Constitution.
And I would like for you to clarify that as we go through
today and then maybe even speak to some of the new positions
that you have proposed and created in the V.A.
The V.A. is a very necessary, very necessary agency, but it
is a large bureaucracy. And one thing I would like to see is
that it doesn't get any larger when we have so many new and
efficient ways to deliver health care, particularly to our
nation's veterans. Growing programs might not necessarily be
the way.
But having said all of that, I just can't thank you enough
for your service to our country for so many years in so many
different, very valuable ways. And I do stand united with the
leadership of this Congress, committed to every man and woman
that you represent as you sit here and testify today.
And I yield back.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp, for your comments and for
your work day in, day out on behalf of America's veterans.
It is certainly a privilege when we have the opportunity to
have the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, here.
He is no stranger to anyone who has ever worn our nation's
uniform, because he has spent so many years of his life in
Congress fighting for servicemen and women, their families, our
veterans, and their families.
He is now the ranking member of the full committee, having
served as chairman of the full committee, chairman of the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
And, Mr. Lewis, we are honored to have you here, and I
would like to recognize you for any opening comments you care
to make.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I don't intend to make an extended statement, except to say
that, unfortunately, I am going to have to go to the Rules
Committee in a while--the supplemental appropriations bill on
the floor tomorrow.
But I did want to come to recognize the great people who
are beginning to lead this agency in a new direction. I think
my colleagues would be interested to know that the first time I
met Eric Shinseki was when he--the day he was being sworn in as
chief of the Army. And he and his wife, Patty, and Arlene and I
have become friends over these many years.
I really do believe he has the experience and the
capability of giving an entirely new direction to the agency,
which I think really does need that new direction.
So it is a pleasure to be with you. I may have a chance to
ask a couple of questions in a moment.
Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
General Shinseki is no stranger to this subcommittee or any
of us on the committee, but this is his first time here as
Secretary Shinseki. So, for the record, let me briefly
introduce him in saying that he is the seventh secretary of
veterans affairs, sworn in on January 21, 2009.
As Mr. Lewis referenced, he served as chief of staff with
the United States Army from June 21st of 1999 until June 11th
of 2003. He retired from active duty on August 1st of 2003
after 38 years of service.
And thank you and Patty both for those many years of
service to our Army.
His previous assignments as a leader in the Army included
commanding general, U.S. Army Europe and 7th Army, commanding
general of NATO Land Forces Central Europe, commander of the
NATO-led stabilization force in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
He served two distinguished tours of service in Vietnam and
has a degree from West Point, 1965, and a master's degree from
Duke University.
And as Mr. Lewis referenced, his wife, Patty, I think their
family commitment to our troops and their families is indicated
by her leadership in creating the Military Childhood Education
Coalition, which has been a very, very important and effective
voice on behalf of the children of our servicemen and women who
make so many sacrifices every day, even as we speak.
Mr. Secretary, your full printed testimony will be
submitted, without objection, into the record. I would like to
recognize you now. Thank you for bringing your leadership team
with you. I would like to recognize you now for any opening
comments you would care to make.

Statement of the Honorable Eric K. Shinseki

Secretary Shinseki. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you Ranking Member Wamp and the other
distinguished members of this committee, for holding this
hearing and allowing us to be here.
And, Mr. Wamp, thank you for those kind remarks for Jim
Peake. He is an old friend. I picked him to be the Army Surgeon
General while I was still serving, never regretted that choice,
and he went on to do great things here. I am honored to be
following him and continuing many of the good things he
started.
I am pleased, also, to be joined today by V.A.'s senior
leadership. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if you
don't mind, I would like to take a moment to introduce them.
I will begin on my far left, Undersecretary Pat Dunne from
Benefits Administration. Next to me, Dr. Gerald Cross, acting
Undersecretary for Health, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Management Rita Reed, Acting Undersecretary Steve Muro from the
National Cemetery Administration, and Acting Assistant
Secretary Steph Warren from the Office of Information and
Technology.
I thought having all of us here would enable us to address
many of the questions that may come up today.
I would also like to acknowledge the leaders of our
Veterans Service Organizations who are also part of the
audience and partners and advocates for our nation's veterans.
We thank you for this opportunity to present the
President's 2010 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Let me also thank you for your unwavering support, as the
chairman indicated, on this committee for our veterans through
previous generous appropriations to our budget and for the
stimulus funds you authorized for the department.
V.A. has begun to lay down the groundwork to implement
President Obama's charge to us to transform V.A. into a 21st-
century organization. V.A.'s 2010 budget request increases
V.A.'s resources to nearly $113 billion, up 15 percent from our
2009 resource level, the largest percentage increase for V.A.
requested by a president in over 30 years.
With this budget, V.A.'s transformation begins by
increasing our investment in information technology, by
undertaking organizational reforms, by ramping up the training
and leader development of our workforce, and by other
initiatives which are intended to improve the ways in which we
serve veterans. These are essential if we are going to improve
client services and enhance responsiveness to veterans' needs.
Information technology is vital to achieving the
president's vision for a 21st-century V.A. I.T. enables almost
everything we do at Veterans Affairs. More than $3.3 billion in
funding is needed to support our I.T. requirements and will
allow V.A. to invest in new and emerging technologies to create
an informational backbone which will enable efficient,
effective and client-focused services.
The 2010 budget provides resources to establish a new
office for the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics
and Construction, the importance of which is underscored not
only by the budget's $1.9 billion in capital funding to
resource it, but by the more than $13 billion in products,
services and V.A. contracts that are handled each year. We need
this office to bring all of that together in a smart way.
There are few higher priorities before us than to ensure a
seamless transition from active military service to civilian
life. V.A. will continue to collaborate with the Department of
Defense on transition initiatives, including development and
implementation of a joint, virtual, lifetime electronic record,
a presidential priority.
This budget request funds health care for a new and
changing veteran demographic. Women veterans, for example, are
increasingly reliant on V.A. The budget provides $183 million
to meet their specific health care needs.
The budget includes $440 million to improve access to care
for veterans in rural and highly rural areas and $5.9 billion
for both institutional and non-institutional, long-term care
services.
This budget makes important commitments to newly qualified
priority group eight veterans and to the expanding numbers of
combat veterans from ongoing operations. We are requesting $2.1
billion to meet the health care needs of veterans who served in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
And thanks to the leadership shown by Congress and the
commitment expressed by President Obama, we will implement an
expansion of eligibility to health care for priority group
eight veterans beginning in this summer through the next 4
years, implemented over time.
Our 2010 budget requests nearly $4.6 billion for expanded
outreach and enhanced services for mental health and traumatic
brain injuries. This budget also provides $47.4 billion in
total resources for V.A. medical care, an 11 percent increase
over the 2009 resource level.
And, importantly, it increases V.A.'s investments in
research, patient-centered health care, and technology to
support our commitment to client-focused health care services.
The president is committed to expanding proven programs,
which include joint initiatives with other cabinet agencies and
nonprofit organizations to combat homelessness and requests
$3.2 billion to address the estimated 154,000 veterans who
sleep on our streets every night.
The $1.8 billion provided to the Veterans Benefits
Administration is 25 percent higher than in 2009. Our primary
focus is to strengthen our investments in a paperless
infrastructure to leverage ways to decrease waiting times for
veterans' claims processing.
V.A. provides continuity of care until veterans are laid to
rest. To properly honor them, the president's budget request
includes $242 million in operations and maintenance funding for
the National Cemetery Administration.
Veterans are V.A.'s sole reason for existence. In today's
challenging fiscal and economic environment, we must be
diligent stewards of every dollar if we are to deliver timely,
high-quality benefits and services to the men and women we
serve.
While we recognize that the growth in funding requested for
2010 is significant, we also acknowledge our responsibility for
being accountable and showing measurable returns on this
investment.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I assure you I
will do everything possible to ensure that the funds Congress
appropriates will be used to improve the quality of life for
veterans and the efficiency of our operations.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable Eric K. Shinseki
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.090

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.
We will begin questioning under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Lewis, I know you have responsibilities at the Rules
Committee. I don't know how tight that schedule is, but I would
be happy to recognize you if you would like to begin the
questions, which would free you up to----
Mr. Lewis. Let's go to the ranking member. Regular order is
fine.
Mr. Edwards. Are you sure?
All right, I will begin with Mr. Wamp.
Go ahead, Mr. Wamp.

TRANSFORMATION

Mr. Wamp. Well, I just want to jump right in with what I
said, Mr. Secretary, on the transformation and exactly how you
see that playing out. You know, my history here goes back to
having high expectations with CARES and what it might lead to
and had hoped that maybe, by perception at least, some of the
more antiquated facilities in places like the Northeast, where
veterans still live, but more used to live, and then they move
to places like where I live, where the land is cheap, and water
is abundant, and the climate is good, and--a little Chamber of
Commerce promotion there, but we are growing in our veteran
population in the southeast, in the mountains and lakes of East
Tennessee.
And we don't have the facilities that they do in other
parts of the country. And as I said to you in my office when
you honored me and came last week, we had hoped that CARES
might lead to more facilities. I know that the CBOC approach is
very helpful, very good. Super CBOCs move in more and more
programs and benefits into the super CBOCs for the veterans.
But how does the transformation, you know, from CARES to
what your plans are now going forward, how does it play out?
What are the big initiatives? How does it shape the
infrastructure and the face of the V.A. for the veteran, in
terms of what they will see and the benefits that they will
actually derive?
Secretary Shinseki. I would say transformation is a
journey. It is hard to describe it as a destination. And I will
tell you where we are starting.
We start by looking at everything we do, every line of
operation, to make sure we understand what the relationship is
to the mission we have, which is care of veterans.
And we know we have some hiccups here. We don't process
claims quickly enough; there is an inordinate amount of waiting
time for veterans.
We know that--at least in our house, I.T. is sort of the
elephant. So much of what we do is tied to I.T., whether it is
electronic health records, which has been a tremendous shot in
the arm for not just V.A.'s medical services, but for folks who
have also borrowed that electronic health record, it has been
very helpful.
But there are so many other aspects of what we do in V.A.
that is still paperbound and caught up in processes. We don't
know how to get beyond that until we put in I.T. backbone that
fully links what we do and what we say we should be doing.
Part of looking internally is also looking at ourselves and
ensuring that--I wouldn't call it efficiencies, but it is that
what we do day to day counts towards the execution of that
mission. I can tell you that, in the 3 months here since our
arrival--we cancelled some conferences and meetings that didn't
quite meet that definition.
And so we have begun to strip away some of those probably
good ideas at one time and maybe a good idea at some time in
the future, but for right now, for where we are and what we
expect out of our own organization, we are challenging all the
assumptions about what we do, how we spend money, and what the
payoff for the mission is.
Internal to that look is looking at how we develop our
people. The V.A. is not unlike some of our service departments
where people come in at an entry level and stay for a career,
20, 30 years. I met a lady who was in the elevator the other
day that has been there 50 years.
The challenge to us is to understand that we have a
development process, a training program, an education effort
that takes people who are going to be with us for that extended
period of time and grow them, leader development skills, and
prepare them for upward mobility in the organization so that we
are gaining from their experience of serving with us.
Nothing magical here. Good organizations do this. They
invest in their human resource element, they grow their talent,
and they benefit over time from those investments. I think that
is the start point.
We have asked questions about why 40 years after Vietnam we
are still adjudicating Agent Orange, why 20 years after the
Gulf War we are still wrestling with Gulf War illness. My sense
is that these answers are best derived--at least we think that
historically we felt that they are best derived through the
scientific method, which is collecting a lot of data, writing
papers, having discussion, and at some point agreeing that this
is probably service-connected.
Unfortunately, that invests a lot of time. Veterans, on the
other hand, don't have all that time. About 3 years into their
first reunion after combat operations--Agent Orange stopped
being used in Vietnam in 1970--my sense is, the veterans who
sat around the table and compared personal notes realized they
had afflictions that were similar, and probably came to a
conclusion much faster that something was wrong.
It has just taken us much longer to come to the same
conclusion. And over that 40 years, we have acknowledged that
soft tissue sarcoma, respiratory cancers, on and on and on,
are, yes, tied to Agent Orange.
So part of challenging our assumptions is going to be, is
this the way we want to continue to do this? Because we know
where history has brought us, still adjudicating Parkinson's
disease today as a connection to Agent Orange.
If it is the way we choose to continue to do this, then 20
and 40 years from now, the injuries from this war will still be
being adjudicated. And I think we owe veterans a better
response, a quicker response. And this is part of this effort
to transform--it is to challenge the assumptions we have been
operating with for 40 years.
Mr. Wamp. I will follow up in the next round.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.

INTEROPERABILITY

Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to follow up on Mr. Wamp's questioning. We are
really going to miss him when he leaves this committee. He
really, I think, senses where the rubber meets the road.
I just want to think through the big picture. A person
cannot be in your files in the veterans department unless you
have first been in the files of the Department of Defense,
right? I mean, it is an assumption that there is a starting
point in the Department of Defense, and after you get out of
the Department of Defense, you get into the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
So a lot of the initial data is really there. And it seems
to me that is the area that the VA is very much aware of, but
we in Congress need to know more how we can push to make that
data interoperable.
Interoperability is a big word around here. You coined it
many years ago in the military, then it got into the civilian
side through law enforcement. Essentially, it means you could
have communication that works between law enforcement and fire
and other kind of first responders.
I think it is also now carried to the next phase of
information sharing. It seems to me that we have not yet made
the Department of Defense's information interoperable with the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
You told us the VA is the world leader in setting up
electronic medical data, and yet when you go to get all the
medical information from DoD their files won't move over.
I am really interested because, as I see Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, soldiers come back--and
they are going to go back to these communities all over the
United States and in our territories--are you assessing what
that impact is going to be on the ground? And how do you do
that?
And, for example, if you decide to build a CBOC clinic that
Mr. Wamp was talking about, how long does it take to get that
clinic online? What can we do to make sure that this process
can be improved? How does the V.A. handle the excesses in
demands in the meantime?
And if, indeed, we were going to provide services to
priority six, seven and eight veterans in fiscal year 2010,
would there be sufficient funding for the CBOCs to handle the
increased demand? And how long would it take the V.A. to meet
that demand?
Secretary Shinseki. Let me take the question about CBOCs.
The amount of time I think is a function of--it depends, the
size of the facility and the demand. It can be as quickly as a
couple of years start to finish in the process, where patients
are being seen. I think 2 years, there is a fast-track method
for doing this.
But otherwise, if it is a normal, routine decision to stand
up a CBOC and it fits into a pattern, it will go into the queue
and could be a little longer than that.
Mr. Farr. Yes. Will every veteran you receive, say, for
medical purposes have with them the military medical record?
Secretary Shinseki. First of all, Mr. Farr, not every
member of the military leaving the service necessarily comes to
enroll as a veteran. And hence, this is part of the effort--to
answer your question, they do have one--my recollection of my
own time, we carried around our own paper set of records as a
backup.
Both DOD and V.A. have electronic health records, but they
are not totally integrated. You can take information out of
one, but they are not totally useful in terms of passing
records.
Having said that, however, Secretary Gates and I have
personally been working on this issue. We have met four, maybe
five times and have set into motion the process by which our
agreement to create something called uniform registration,
where a member joining one of the military services today is
automatically registered----
Mr. Farr. That is cool.
Secretary Shinseki [continuing]. In the V.A----
Mr. Farr. That is smart.
Secretary Shinseki [continuing]. That decision, that
agreement between us is really a forcing function for both
departments to put their assets and their brain power together
to come up with that single, joint virtual electronic record
that President Obama publicly announced here a couple of weeks
ago with both Secretary Gates and I present.
The intent is to have exactly what is being described here,
and this is the seamless transition. The problem has been that
seamlessness between midnight or the day the uniform comes off
and 8 o'clock the next morning doesn't exist. And so we are
attacking it over time.
When that youngster puts on the uniform, some have asked,
why is the V.A. reaching so early to create this joint record?
Well, when that youngster puts on the uniform, servicemen's
group life insurance that is mandatory for every member in
uniform, administered by the V.A., if that youngster chooses to
take out a college loan and get education on their own,
administered by the V.A., guaranteed home loans, administered
by the V.A.
So the perception that you suddenly become a veteran with
entitlements to benefits and services when the uniform comes
off is a little misleading. Those entitlements are there well
before that, which argues that we ought to have this sharing of
information. As we do this, we will begin to solve some of the
issues that you are----
Mr. Farr. And then to bring those CBOCs online, how long
does that take?
Dr. Cross. There are several types of CBOCs. If we were
doing what we call an outreach clinic, which is really run by
the VISN, the regional command, so to speak, they can do that
fairly quickly, perhaps even in less than a year, and have a
small part-time clinic and a leased facility located in that
area.
But typically, as the secretary said, a couple of years in
the planning process, the budgeting process, hiring, setting up
the clinic, getting the outreach to our veteran population to
let them know where it is going to be situated and so forth.
And may I say, sir, I am a patient at the V.A. And you talk
about the interoperability. Progress has been made. And on my
last visit, they pulled up my military record and my lab tests
from when I was in Georgia as a soldier and compared it to my
current test, and that was very valuable.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
Mr. Lewis.

HOMELESS VETERANS

Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Some years ago, Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of
essentially chairing a piece of this committee when I was
responsible for V.A.-HUD. And during those days, I probably
didn't have the best relationships with the VSOs as I might
have wanted, in no small part because it was my view that,
while we had very fine bipartisan support here within the
Congress to get funding for veterans' efforts, servicing our
veterans, we had great difficulty following the money down to
where the veterans lived, to the hospitals, et cetera.
And the VSOs did a great job here with us, but the need for
following to the community and insisting that there be real
change has taken a long time. I am pleased to say there has
been progress there.
It took us a long time, for example, within our committee,
also, to get the Navy and Marine Corps to be able to
communicate with each other. We have made progress there, but
we are far from perfect, so that the effort that you are
talking about, communicating with those who are serving the
soldier in uniform and the veteran who overnight changes his
position, is a very worthwhile effort, but a very, very big
challenge.
I must say that, in your testimony and in the chairman's
comments of concern about the homeless, there is demonstration
there of an area where we might make great, great progress. In
California, we made a big change, because we used to solve
people's mental problems by throwing them in hospitals. We
decided that we would make it tougher to put people in
hospitals with the promise that there would be clinics in the
communities where they could get their medication and thereby
begin to rebuild their lives. We made it tough to enter the
hospitals. We never built the clinics.
This is a place where, in terms of the homeless, your
administration could have a huge, huge effect, if we take our
basic hospital system and make clinics more readily available
with a design to deal with those soldiers who long served who
now are in a desperate circumstance, we might get a very
significant percentage of those homeless off the street.
So I would be interested in your reaction to that. And I
think you know--it is my intention to have us work very closely
together. Thank you.
Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Lewis, thank you for that question.
The homeless issue is a particularly vexing one. I mean, I
can tell you that 154,000 veterans are homeless tonight--today,
men and women, and veterans from every generation, including
the ones who are currently in operation in Afghanistan and
Iraq, so that is devastating, this area is.
Our effort is to prevent the first step of homelessness.
And so it isn't just about, going and finding the ones that are
on the street today. It is, what are we doing with VBA's home
loans to prevent foreclosures and working with veterans who are
in the financial tough times, sometimes not of their making,
just the economic conditions, giving them every option to stay
in their habitations? If we can do that, we have prevented that
first step.
But once we are dealing with folks who are homeless, they
fall in a category of joblessness, homelessness, depression,
substance abuse, potential suicide. Veterans lead the country
in those statistics.
And in the past several years, we have been successful in
reducing the homeless number. And this is an estimate; I will
grant you that. It is 240,000 down to 154,000 today.
We have made progress and we think we have some good ideas
on how to break the cycle of homelessness, 80 percent of them
after the first year are still living--after they finish our 2-
year program--are still living successfully independently.
So we think we have opportunities here, and we do intend to
go after that. We are putting $3.2 billion against this area in
2010 budget. But we know we can't do it alone.
This is one of those issues that sitting in an office in
Washington with a 1,000-mile screwdriver to fine-tune something
does not work. We have to reach out and create partnerships
with people in the communities that deal with these issues.
Every community in this country has part and parcel this larger
issue.
Twenty-six million dollars we are going to use to partner
with Housing and Urban Development, with Labor, with Education,
Health and Human Services, Small Business Administration to put
together a package of tools in which we get folks off the
street, we wean them off whatever substance may be there, and
then we begin the process of bettering this 80 percent record a
year later.
Mr. Lewis. I believe that the veterans base of personnel
could be a fabulous place, of course, to make breakthroughs
relative to medical research, providing better service to all
Americans, but particularly to veterans. Like you, veterans
often come out of service and their paper--all their background
stuff is in paper in a folder.
Well, it wasn't so long ago in my own veterans hospital
that our staff found that veterans were walking around the
hospitals with those same folders and there was no real
information base. They didn't get service because the records
weren't straight and nobody could ever find them.
That is changed. It is very significant that we have seen
that change.
Well, I would hope that we recognize that dollars do not
reflect all of our solutions. And if we can better coordinate,
as you suggest, with NIH, with the research hospitals, as the
Pettis Memorial Hospital does with Loma Linda, the work they
are doing in terms of breakthroughs for prostate cancer and
breast cancer treatment, for example, is pretty phenomenal, and
it is because of the exercising of work between the veterans
being served and research hospitals.
So with that, the thrust of your testimony is very pleasing
to me, and I would hope you would exercise those pathways.
Secretary Shinseki. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Israel.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on Mr. Lewis'
eloquent words about homeless veterans. And, Mr. Secretary, I
want to thank you for visiting my office 2 weeks ago. I enjoyed
the visit immensely.
You know, when we talk about 154,000 homeless veterans, I
think it is important to put a face on that, because it doesn't
really resonate. People can't appreciate the scope of the
problem unless they understand what a homeless veteran is all
about.
And I told you the story, Mr. Secretary, of Joe Sukup, who
came to my office on Long Island. He had fought in Vietnam, had
PTSD, received medals from his service in combat in Vietnam,
but ended up living in a truck, and on Valentine's Day, on a
snowy night, decided to kill himself.
And whether it was divine intervention or maybe something
else, he decided to drive to the Northport V.A. And he went
into the Northport V.A., and he said, ``I was thinking of
killing myself tonight.'' And a caseworker there said, ``Joe,
we are going to help you.''
And to this day, he would say that is the first time
somebody from government said, ``We are going to help you.''
And they put him on a trajectory to get help, and we got him
his retroactive payments. And Joe Sukup is actually now, Mr.
Chairman, organizing clinics for veterans on Long Island who
have PTSD.
So that is a story of failure turned to success, but that
is only 1 out of 154,000.
I commend you, Mr. Secretary, and the administration for
putting this critical focus into homeless veterans. One of the
concerns I have is that $3.2 billion, is it enough? Of the $3.2
billion, $2.7 billion is going to health care and $500 million
will go to supportive services.
In a climate of tight budgets and fiscal responsibility, I
understand the pressures to make sure that we are safeguarding
every dollar. But it seems to me that homeless veterans ought
to be an absolute priority. And are there other things that we
could be doing, in your view?
Are there innovations that we should be looking at? Could
you do more if this committee or subcommittee were to increase
the level of resources that you have to make sure that all of
the Joe Sukups are being treated, identified, and put on the
trajectory that he found?
Dr. Cross. Sir, I appreciate those remarks. There is always
more that can be done. Our view is that no veteran should be
homeless, no veteran needs to be homeless. We have the programs
that, if we can bring them to bear for that veteran, we can do
something about that.
The core issues, of course, are mental health and substance
abuse, and those are what we have to address. That is the
typical reason why they are homeless.
Two broad categories of things that we are doing relate to
Grant and Per Diem and the work that we are doing there, but
particularly I want you to know that in transition housing we
are moving from--we now have 11,000 beds and are expanding over
the next several years to 15,000 beds.
And in the HUD-VASH program, our plans are right now----
Mr. Israel. I am sorry. The HUD----
Dr. Cross. HUD-VASH, V-A-S-H.
Mr. Israel. Okay.
Dr. Cross. Expanding from about 10,000 to about 20,000 in
the near term, I think that will make a difference. And as the
secretary said, I think we have already made some progress over
the past couple of years as we measure it, and it is hard to
measure it.
But this is something that we are committed to and that
everyone of us, I think, on the staff feel that no veteran
should be on the street.
Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Israel, if I could follow up, I
think the reason that the allocation of funds goes the way
described here is so much of it what appears to be medical
services, it is because that is the first step in beginning the
process of recovery.
If we can't get through the substance abuse and some of the
other mental health issues that may be present, it is hard to
get to the education, the job counseling, and the rest of this.
And so it essentially begins as a sort of a medical services
issue.
Mr. Israel. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. I know
this is a front-end investment, and I am sure that most, if not
all, of my colleagues are interested in continuing to work very
closely with you so that we can grow our focus on homeless
veterans from here on.
And I thank you very much for your leadership.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Israel.
Mr. Crenshaw.

TRANSFORMATION

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I know
that you have got a tremendous background of dedication and
taking care of the men and women in uniform, and I know you are
going to take that same dedication and commitment in this new
job. So thank you for all of that.
And it is really good to hear you talk about
transformation. There is an old saying that change is
inevitable, but growth is optional. And I think you recognize
that in the sense that, change is going to come, but it is what
you do with that kind of change.
And I think the growth part is the transformational part.
And I think, as you pointed out, when you have got a big
bureaucracy like you have got, you have got to start looking at
yourself and looking from within.
And one of the things I saw that you are going to have is a
new office of the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition,
Construction and Logistics.
And so I wanted to ask you, in terms of this
transformation, this new office, this new department, can you
tell us what your, view of the role it will play. Maybe tell us
what some of the functions are that are being taken care of by
existing departments--and, obviously, some are going to be
brand new--and then maybe talk about how, what kind of control
you will have within that to make sure that it is conducting
oversight.
Secretary Shinseki. This is to formalize a new office that
was stood up here recently where acquisition, logistics and
construction are co-located as a subject area.
We contract in a variety of places. We do acquisition in
different formats and different places. And we need a single
point where we can see what our priorities are, how the money
is being invested, and what the returns are. Right now, that is
a little difficult to see.
And I am used to a structured acquisition process in which
there are objectives to be met prior to a decision to acquire
something and then there are deliverables over time.
When you don't have that kind of a process, you go 3 or 4,
10 years, and you find out something doesn't work. And there
has been just one too many example of that in the history of
our experience. And we need not to do that anymore.
And we need to put together a disciplined acquisition
process where all of this comes together, you have to make your
case for why this is important, what it is going to cost, and
then deliver. But it is to discipline our processes.
We are looking at 16 people for this--to be added to this
office, to create this new office for the assistant secretary.
And we have provided some budget resources for them to begin to
stand up the office.
But it is to discipline our process that covers 152
hospitals, 755 outpatient clinics, 230 vet centers, and 50
mobile vans, and 57 regional offices. We need to discipline the
way we see our priorities and also how we spend money on
acquisition.
Mr. Crenshaw. So it would be fair to say right now, some of
that happens, but it is piecemeal, and this is trying to bring
things together, have one office specifically review and
analyze all those projects and bring about a better result?
Well, thank you, sir. And I think that is a great program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Salazar.

FITZSIMMONS ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. And
appreciate all your hard work over the last several years and
your dedication to this country, and always want to tell you
that I appreciate your promptness when we call you for a
meeting or a phone call, as well as Undersecretary Muro.
Let me just ask you--and thank you, first of all, for the
Fitzsimmons Army Hospital. I guess we will be breaking ground
on that shortly, or you have already broken ground? And can you
tell me where we are on the fiscal year 2010 budget for that
facility?
Secretary Shinseki. This is the Denver hospital?
Mr. Salazar. Fitzsimmons, yes, sir.
Dr. Cross. Sir, we have for funding for 2010 $119 million
in the budget. Future funding would be $493 million. And that
is the information.

INFORMATION SECURITY

Mr. Salazar. Okay. I do appreciate that.
And one other thing. I know that my work through the
Veterans Affairs Committee over the last several years, we have
encountered some problems in V.A. with identity theft or with
identity compromise, where we had lost those computers--one of
the members.
With your push on I.T., what are we doing as far as
cybersecurity? Could one of you address that?
Dr. Cross. We are working closely, sir, with our I.T.
colleagues to make sure that security among our physician staff
and our nurses, where that hasn't always been the foremost
concern that they have focused on, it does become something
that they think about, that we make it a part of our culture.
And I think that is the key for us. We are making a
difference in terms of the people who use the I.T. in terms of
their culture, making this something that they think about that
is a routine part of their practice every day. And that has
been a bit painful at times, but we are working through that,
and I think we have made some progress.
Mr. Salazar. So are you committing certain resources to the
security portion of the I.T.?
Mr. Warren. Yes, sir. To give you a laydown on how we are
approaching information--how we are dealing with cybersecurity
and information protection at the department, there is
approximately $120 million in the fiscal year 2010 request to
fund those programs, not just at the technical level of putting
systems and controls into place, but also training for the
staff, so having annual security awareness training and privacy
training for all employees at the department so they understand
that obligation to be a steward of the veterans' data.
The approach that we have taken is fixing the liabilities
that we are aware of, the things that have been identified as a
result of I.G. investigations, of GAO audits, monitoring our
systems to understand if we are in an insecure condition and
what we need to do to protect it.
So active monitoring, we have a network and security
operations center that monitors 24/7 what is happening at our
perimeter, are folks doing bad things, and then responding to
that.
We are standardizing our desktop computers and our systems
to make sure that, when things get out of balance, when you
have all these different unique systems, it is hard to protect
them. So standardizing those so we can put the controls in
place to make sure we are able to secure them and secure them
at a reasonable cost.
We are controlling the use of sensitive data in terms of
tracking where it is and putting policies and procedures in
place to make sure that the employees understand, if you are
sending something that has personally identifiable information
in it, we need to encrypt it when you send it and you do not
send it off to somebody who is not an employee or is not
authorized to access it.
Again, I spoke to enhancing training and awareness, a very
active engagement with the staff, national training programs,
videos, trying to be creative in reaching out to the V.A.
employees so they understand it is very, very important to
husband that information and to protect it.
We are also making sure that, as we develop new systems,
that we are building security into them, that they are not an
afterthought.
Hopefully that gives you a sense of how we are taking on
information protection at the department, sir.
Mr. Salazar. So how have you changed it from or has it been
changed from, you know, 2 years ago?
Mr. Warren. The way we have taken on your question of what
has changed, when the incidents took place, there was a dearth
of policy, in terms of how you should approach it. It was very
fragmented. So with some areas, it was understood how you need
to deal with it. In those areas, there may have been policy,
but no procedure, or even folks not doing what they needed to
do.
So tremendous effort went into making sure policies were
put in place to explain to folks obligations, and then
procedures to change how we do things, and then down to the
level of at the sites making the changes and fixing the
systems.
I have a dashboard on my desk that tracks all the open
findings and progress made location by location, where are
they, so I have a constant update, what is happening, and if I
see things going out of kilter, being able to reach in and say,
``You are missing your focus here. You need to get into that.''
Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, I would just add a
comment here to Mr. Salazar's questions. Two things: We begin
our day, 8 o'clock every morning, with an update on exactly
these kinds of issues. It is a daily brief on where we stand,
what do we have to do the rest of the day to assure information
security and our links are working?
If I might, let me go back to the question you initially
asked about Denver, just give you a little more information:
$119 million this year, but in the near future, in order to
stay on our timelines to deliver that hospital by summer of
2013, we will have to work project funding for another $493
million in order to complete the project.
Site acquisition is complete. They begin moving dirt
shortly, if they haven't already started. Vertical construction
begins fiscal year 2010.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Salazar.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MEDICAL CARE FOR VETERANS IN RURAL LOCATIONS

Mr. Secretary, it was great talking to you in the office
the other day. When we were talking, we spoke about the
possibility of adjusting the rural clinic eligibility circles,
bringing the V.A. health services to more underserved
communities like Stephenville, Texas. We also spoke about the
possibility of use of part-time or mobile outpatient clinics.
I see the budget includes a request of $440 million to
continue improving access to medical care for veterans in rural
areas. Can you talk about how that money will be spent toward
the goal of bringing services to rural veterans without having
them to drive 100 miles or more? Is there a plan to utilize
some of that funding to re-analyze the VHA strategic planning
process through which the community-based outpatient clinics'
locations are selected?
Secretary Shinseki. I can't answer specifically for that
location, but I will have a better answer for you.
Mr. Carter. Well, really I am just looking at a rural
veterans in general, and what plans do you have for those folks
who are a little outside the circle?
Secretary Shinseki. Yes, I just would like to tell you that
the budget includes $440 million to improve access to medical
care for veterans in rural and highly rural areas, including
the use of health resource centers that may be available out
there or mobile clinics, rural health consultants, and outreach
clinics.
And the whole intent is to ensure that we are not medical
center--and that has been the migration over the last decade.
Great medical centers, but then, how do we get that moved out
to where veterans live?
And there are three definitions that sort of, in the V.A.,
governs the geography of this country. There is urban; there is
rural; and there is highly rural. So two-thirds of our
definitions acknowledge the fact that we are dealing with an
unusual circumstance, smaller numbers, but we still owe them
the services we provide in the urban centers, and this is part
of our attempt here to close that gap.
Mr. Carter. I not only have an interest in this area
because of what we talked about with Stephenville, but on the
Transportation Subcommittee, of which I am a member, we
discussed the servicing of rural areas with a transportation
network, up on the East Coast and the New England area, and it
is really designed to get veterans places, because they are
scattered out in small counties around everywhere. And they use
a bus system.
I sat down with a map of Texas, and in reality, there would
be no profitable bus system that could go pick up one veteran
in one county in the western part of our state.
So we have got to be aware that there are a lot of veterans
in west Texas, but they are scattered out over a wide area.
I thank you for what you can do, and we discussed it at
length in my office. W have to take care of the veterans that
also like to buy land and get away from things, as a lot of
them do, but we are still responsible for their health care.
So I know you will keep that on the front burner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Judge Carter.
I believe we have time for Mr. Dicks to finish his
questions before we need to recess for three votes.
Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Secretary, we have a great confidence in
you, and I appreciated our chance to talk the other day. And I
also appreciate the fact that we put in a clinic in Port
Angeles, Washington. It is not a full-fledged clinic, but it is
a partial clinic. We have one in Bremerton, too.
A lot of veterans, though, have to get up at 2 o'clock in
the morning up at Clallam Bay and drive all the way to Port
Angeles, all the way down across the Hood Canal Bridge into
Seattle. It takes about 5 or 6 hours. And all they have is a
volunteer--to drive the truck.
So I don't know if we can do any better than that. I think
we put--I think the administration put money in here to keep
working on this rural issue. People really appreciated the
clinic. We didn't have one in Port Angeles, so for a lot of
those people, being able to go there was a big step forward.
I think there was also a clinic--another small area at the
Elwha, an Indian reservation. They just put in a new health
care clinic, and we are using that as well.

BACKLOG

You and I talked about backlog. And I know there has been a
tremendous effort to get the backlog under control. What is the
backlog on people who were trying to get in to the hospitals--
and how long do they have to wait? I am sure it is different by
district or VISN area. And I think we are VISN 21.
Do you have any idea what those numbers are?
Dr. Cross. Yes, sir, we do. We measure nationwide. We
measure by VISN and by locality. And I can certainly have my
staff or I go over it with your staff any time and give you the
very specific numbers that we have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.092

But our standards are for mental health that a new patient
is to be evaluated within 24 hours. And that may be done by
phone or it may be done in person, and that is 7 days a week,
and that is our standard.
Our second standard is that, once that is done, they are to
have a comprehensive mental health evaluation by a mental
health clinician within 14 days.
We are measuring that right now. And across the board,
including your area, 95 percent of the time we are meeting that
standard of 14 days.
Now, for primary care and specialty care, across the board
right now, it is running 97 percent and 98 percent, primary
care 98 percent, specialty about 97 percent, meeting our 30-day
standard.
Mr. Dicks. Well, that is good. I know you are working on
that and trying to keep that at a high level, which we
appreciate.

HOMELESSNESS

You know, we just built or revitalized a facility at
Retsil, Washington, and I know they now have a capability to
handle some homeless veterans. Do you do that a lot with the
states, I mean, when they are building their veterans homes,
state veterans homes, to have them make it accessible to
homeless veterans? Or should we be doing that?
Dr. Cross. Well, we have a couple of programs. We have the
Per Diem program, where we work with a local community to
provide transitional housing, and then we work with the HUD-
VASH program to provide vouchers for what we want to be long-
term solutions.
Mr. Dicks. See, this is a state veterans home.
Dr. Cross. State veterans nursing homes are based on
medical conditions and those situations more so than being
homeless.
Mr. Dicks. Well, in this one, they must have worked out
some way to do it, because they do have homeless veterans
there, as well. I think using the existing facilities, if you
can, makes sense. This was a $35 million upgrade of this
facility. It is a very nice facility.
Secretary Shinseki. We have used a number of venues using
excess capacity, and dedicating it to a homeless population is
one. Another is, we partner with some of the nonprofits out
there, Catholic charities. You know, in Chicago we have got a
terrific partnership working, and it just so happens that that
homeless shelter is next door to one of our outpatient clinics.
So the availability of health care for those homeless
veterans, good fit. And then, on a second floor, we have a vet
center, which is run by vets, and so they have this camaraderie
effect. And inside the vet center, there is a bank of computers
for job searchers in which there is a counselor helping folks
with that part of it.
So dealing with the homeless issue has many hats to it. And
we find great success when we can bring to include folks in the
community together to help us. We get a better return on the
investment.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
Members, we have got about 6 minutes, but not many members
have voted yet, so we have got time to get over. We will stay
in recess until after the end of the third vote. If we could
try to get back as soon as possible, for those that can come
back, we would appreciate that.
Thank you
[Recess.]
Mr. Edwards. I would like to call the committee back to
order.
Mr. Secretary, thank you, and all of you, for the
inconvenience of having us go vote. I have often said this job
would be a good job if it weren't for having to vote. But we
appreciate you staying here.

ADVANCE APPROPRIATION

I would like to begin my first round of questioning by
addressing the issue of forward-funding for the V.A. A decision
has not been made as to whether in the fiscal year 2010 budget
we will also include forward-funding to fiscal year 2011, but
the administration supported that, and the budget resolution
allows that.
Mr. Wamp has raised a question that I would like you to
address. I think it is a legitimate and important question to
ask, and that is, what would be the impact of congressional
oversight of the V.A. budgeting process if we went to forward-
funding like that?
I would like to ask you, if we are going to do this, we
obviously would need input, detailed input from the
administration over the next few weeks as to what we would
propose for fiscal year 2011. Could you say for the record
where the V.A. is in that process of looking at a budget
submission for fiscal year 2011?
Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, I would just reinforce
with you that both the President and I feel very strongly that
funding for Veterans Affairs and the impact that has on our
veterans who come to us for health care shouldn't be hindered.
And, you know, timely budgets are a great thing, but if we
look at our history, they are a rare event. And a continuing
resolution has created a host of other issues for us. And for
that reason, he and I have agreed that advanced appropriations
is--you know, is a reasonable way to look at this.
I think you know that, within the V.A., we have a modeling
process that looks forward. It is based on the Milliman model.
We contracted with them. This model looks out 20 years. And I
would say year one is great. Year 20 is probably not worth
much.
But we have gone and looked back at the second year of that
process, went back and looked at how the second-year modeling,
compared to what was enacted and executed, very favorable. So
we think we have the basic tools to be able to look beyond the
first year.
Timing and implementation--I mean, this would be
significant. When we did take this step, we would hope that all
the details had been worked out. And what I would like to do is
come back and work with you and the committee and your staff on
exactly what that implementation timeline would be so that it
would be a good fit the first time we do it.
But in terms of modeling, the information is there. For 84
percent of, you know, what we do in VHA, that modeling is
there. And then the other 16 percent, we have to do other
efforts.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. I would welcome that. And the sooner you
could do it, the better, once you have the data you need,
because if we are to implement this for fiscal year 2010 and
2011, we would have to see those numbers pretty quickly.
In fact, you know, taking a look at those numbers might
allow us to determine which way we want to go. If we feel good
about the numbers and believe we could continue oversight with
the V.A., despite a 2-year budget, then we might move ahead. If
we feel the numbers are rushed and not well put together, then
it might cause us to second-guess that.
And Mr. Wamp might want to have some follow-up comments on
that.
I would like to read one thing into the record that usually
we don't talk about. Mr. Muro, with Memorial Affairs and your
representation of that important part of the V.A., I am very
proud--and I hope everyone that works in Memorial Affairs at
the V.A. is proud of the fact that, according to the records I
have, that the V.A.'s national cemetery system has received the
highest rating in customer satisfaction for any federal agency
or private-sector corporation ever surveyed as part of the
American Customer Satisfaction Index, a 95 out of a possible
100 points.
Is that a correct statement of the facts? And when did that
rating occur, if it is?
Secretary Shinseki. I would just like to affirm that that
is accurate, but let me let the individual who is responsible
for much of that provide some detail.
Mr. Muro. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Yes, it is accurate. And we actually accomplished it two
times, in 2005 and in 2007.
Mr. Edwards. Well, I want to compliment you. And please
pass on this subcommittee's compliments to everyone who had a
hand in earning that level of respect from--I am sure the vast
majority of those in customer satisfaction survey were family
members of veterans. And what a great show of respect to our
service men and women.
In a town where you only make the front page of the
Washington Post if you have done something wrong, how
refreshing it is to be able to at least speak publicly in this
committee hearing about the V.A. having done something that no
other federal agency or private-sector corporation has done.
Thank you. And I salute you in the V.A. and its employees
for that.
My final question will be asked in the next round. I am
going to try to follow the 5-minute rule.
I would like to recognize Mr. Wamp for any questions he
might have.
Mr. Wamp. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have basically three lines of short questions, but I want
to first read into the record quotes from the GAO study, April
29, 2009, about advanced appropriations, just so the committee
and the secretary can absorb what an independent analysis of
this request might entail.
It says the provision of advanced appropriations would
``use up'' discretionary budget authority for the next year and
so limit Congress's flexibility to respond to changing
priorities and needs. While providing funds for 2 years in a
single appropriations act provides certainty about some funds,
the longer projection period increases the uncertainty of the
data and projections used.
If V.A. is expected to submit its budget proposal for
health care for 2 years and lead time for the second year would
be 30 months, this additional lead time increases the
uncertainty of the estimates and could worsen the challenges
V.A. already faces when formulating its health care budget.
It says providing advanced appropriations will not mitigate
or solve the problems we have reported on regarding data,
calculations, or assumptions in developing V.A.'s health care
budget, nor will it address any link between cost growth and
program design. Congressional oversight will continue to be
critical.
So you make a great point, but just because the Congress
has not done its job funding programs in a timely manner
doesn't mean you have to go and change the constitutional
process of annual oversight and appropriations from the
legislative branch.
I think we need to be real careful here, but I also think
we need to use this as an incentive with the leadership to
remind them, relative to these most important Americans, the
men and women who put themselves in harm's way on our behalf
and stand between a threat and our civilian population, the
most important Americans cannot have their needs met unless we
do our work on time.
And this chairman has done that. And this leadership right
now has done that. But it has to continue or this becomes a
real wedge issue between the executive branch and the
legislative branch.
And I know, when we were in the majority, I was more
inclined, obviously, to try to support the administration, all
their requests, and now you have that burden, Mr. Chairman. But
I hope that you will remember always the importance of this
legislative prerogative. And it is not just a prerogative. It
is a requirement. So that is all I will say about advanced
appropriations.

TRANSFORMATION

Let me go back briefly to the transformation piece that you
were talking about, because when you were answering my first
question, I got a lot of process response on the
transformation, and I am really looking more for the bigger
piece, like contracting. I want to know where that fits in to
any transformation you have.
And I used to think of contracting--of adding options to
veterans' toolbox for their benefits. And I am not talking
about a voucher, because I know that is like taboo, but I know
that my veterans will say this in Chattanooga, Tennessee:
``Man, we love our outpatient clinic, and it is better than
ever, and they are so needed, and we get great benefits, and
you are expanding it, and thank you, and we love it, and we
need it, and don't take that away.''
And they say, ``And the hospital in Murfreesboro is
necessary. They do just about everything. And you have got
long-term care, and mental health services.'' And you talked
about one of your employees. There is a person in the long-term
care wing of Murfreesboro that has been there over 60 years. A
person has been in that hospital for over 60 years.
So it is an amazing benefit. So I am not talking about in
any way eroding the V.A. delivery system, because that should
be guaranteed for our veterans that they have this. But there
are cases where contracting makes a whole lot more sense than
driving 2 hours to get inpatient care. And it is a huge burden
on the family to have to drive 2 hours to see their loved one
who is inpatient, receiving the treatment.
And if we are not going to build new facilities because we
can't, and because the new model is, take the health care
system to the veterans through CBOCs and the new facilities,
okay, I understand that, but what about those other cases where
contracting services are creating an additional option for the
veteran makes more sense, is that part of your transformation?
Dr. Cross. A couple of comments----
Secretary Shinseki. I will bat clean-up here.
Dr. Cross. A couple of comments related to that. The
transformational model that will have an impact on this is the
HCC, the health care center, an example of that being in
Harlingen, Texas. And the idea is that we shouldn't have to
drive 5 hours to get to get a colonoscopy.
Mr. Wamp. Right.
Dr. Cross. And, by the way, if you have to go through the
preparation for that and then drive 5 miles, that is not a good
day. So if you are having a heart attack or something like
that, in this HCC concept, you would get it taken care of
locally, because that is a time-related element.
If you have something like a knee replacement or something
that can be scheduled, that is scheduled long in advance, you
make all of the arrangements, well, certainly we would want to
centralize that on a regional basis and take care of that for
the veteran.
But it is a combination of those factors: working with the
local community, but still preserving the veteran system--
health care system in its regional basis, providing primary
care locally, as well.
So it is primary care locally, time-sensitive things go to
the local community in that HCC concept, other things that are
planned long in advance can be regionalized.
Mr. Wamp. Are you keeping a healthy inventory of
specialists in the V.A., from radiologists to other people that
you need? How is that going?
Dr. Cross. Well, thanks to Congress and the physician and
dentist pay bill, we have been very, very successful and had
the best years in hiring for the past couple of years that we
have ever had, as far as I know. And I think last year we
hired, at least for part time, over--probably about 1,500
physicians and over 4,000 nurses.
Mr. Wamp. Wow.
Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Wamp, if I could just add to that,
if we were to go up 50,000 feet and look down on our health
care delivery system, I hope that what you would see are, a
population of veterans and then, within that, a medical center,
first-rate medical center some place in the midst, and then a
health care center that is a step below that, and the
difference being all the same services are provided and just no
inpatient care.
And then, below that, the large outpatient clinics, and
then the community-based and veterans, and then--vet centers,
and then the mobile vans, all of that intending to address the
problem you are talking about, which is access. And for the
last decade-plus, the effort has been to reach out.
In those communities where patients would have trouble
making the drive, be it in the wintertime or be it anytime just
because of the long distances to get to the medical center
where specialized and inpatient care is available, there is an
opportunity to provide on a fee-basis arrangement contracting
in the community, where a quality hospital may also provide
inpatient services, and so that arrangement is there.
I guess the only hitch here is that we would try to provide
V.A. services, because we know what our standard is and we are
pretty meticulous about it. But where that standard is also
available in a community and it is to the benefit of the
veteran not to have to make that drive, I mean, that option is
there. And we do, do that.
There are some communities and rural areas where they don't
have that capability. And so we try to put a larger facility in
that area or, ultimately, you know, we have to ask them to make
that long drive for just the inpatient care.
Ninety-five percent of what veterans would need on a day-
to-day basis--shots, lab work, medication, x-rays--is handled
by any of these other than medical center facilities. So the
attempt is to address those needs and those concerns.

ADVANCE APPROPRIATION

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Farr, before I recognize you, I would like
to follow up on something Mr. Wamp said, a couple of points
that I think were very important, one on the advanced funding.
I think that is an important decision to make, and I would
reiterate, we have not made that decision. And I think we need
to sit down with our respective staffs and go through that,
once we see some numbers on what fiscal year 2011 would look
like, and then talk about the question, do we delete our
oversight authority?
And on the second point--that I think is a good point--when
you say there is a natural tendency as a Democratic chairman of
this subcommittee to want to work with the administration, I
think I would use the analogy of a spring scrimmage for
football, a college football team. They are all on the same
team, but to make themselves better, they play against each
other and challenge each other in spring scrimmage.
And so, while I have the greatest respect for everyone at
this table and have known Secretary Shinseki since he was at
1st Cav Division at Fort Hood, what we are--maybe 90 percent of
the time we are absolutely partners on the same team, on the
same side of the line, I do take seriously, as I think we all
should, the relative balance, checks and balances our founding
fathers intended in the Constitution.
So I think we ought to be very vigorous on a bipartisan
basis in not necessarily attacking, but in challenging the
administration to show the facts, show the data.
And one area that you brought up, I think, would be a
perfect example is with some of the proposals, the innovations
to bring about transformation, you do propose several new
offices. And I would hope, at the end of the first year, there
would be some metrics by which we could judge. Do we just
create new bureaucratic positions, or did they actually meet
metrics of saving taxpayers' dollars?
I am glad the ranking member brought up these points. I
think they are both very important points, and I look forward
to working with you on that.
Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, may I just add----
Mr. Edwards. Please, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Shinseki [continuing]. I would just offer to
you--and, you know, to Mr. Wamp's point, there is great value
in the competitive arena where people with initiatives and want
to compete for funding need to come and present their case. You
know, I couldn't--I am a firm believer in that based on
previous jobs I have had.
But I do think that you would expect me not to take the
attitude that, if advanced appropriations were to be enacted,
that there is a bye on the second year. You would expect and
you could count on me to provide the arguments for what
validates what is being asked for in that second year. You will
have a chance to look at that. It is a competitive process.
I would also offer that, as good as we might put together
this implementation plan, the second year is always challenged
with the unknowns, you know, whether it is an H1N1 virus or
whether it is a Katrina. And so I would look for an opportunity
to find a way to create a mechanism for the second year that
could be adjusting for those unknowns, unanticipated, or maybe
even bonehead calls. What we want to do is get it right for our
veterans.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Farr.

VA/DOD JOINTNESS

Mr. Farr. Thank you.
I am very pleased to see that Admiral Dunne is here.
Admiral Dunne was the superintendent, the commander of the
Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey before his retirement.
And what I want to----
Mr. Edwards. Is that in your district?
Mr. Farr. You wouldn't know that, would you? It is probably
mentioned in every hearing.
What we have at former Fort Ord is the Defense Manpower
Data Center. And I don't know if anybody in V.A. knows about
it, but it is essentially the Department of Defense's one-stop
for every kind of information need on any personnel in the
Defense Department and the families of the soldiers and the
defense contractors who are maybe overseas.
And it seems to me that that I.T. is something that maybe
the veterans department could work on. I am really keen on
jointness, because essentially--and I am working on how we can
work with you on this--I mean, the Defense Department has the
luxury of essentially operating out of bases. So all the
personnel are assigned to a base, and they operate out of a
base.
But when people get out of the Defense Department and go
into the veterans department, they are scattered all over the
world. And then your line of support isn't on campus, on base.
Your line of support is in the community.
And I think that is the thing that Mr. Wamp and I are
really keen on, is how can we integrate more what is good in a
community, sort of in the civilian sector on community support
systems and specialists that are there. Then, when veterans do
need some help, we don't have to go hundreds of miles in order
to get that help. We could find that there are resources in
their own community.
And along those lines, what I would just like to have you
comment on, we still have over 6,000 uniformed personnel on the
Monterey peninsula either at the Defense Language Institute or
the Naval Postgraduate School, or at the Navy lab, or at the
Fleet Numerical. I mean, it adds up. We have seven different
military footprints on the Monterey peninsula.
We have just finished all the housing on the RCI housing,
and we are now trying to do a joint clinic with the DOD. And
the V.A. is leading the effort here.
And I would just like to have you tell us the importance of
meeting this critical, unmet health care need for both the
local veterans population and the active-duty dependent
beneficiaries through using your new health care center
facilities act, the private-sector funding. I mean, I know you
have mentioned that.
But what I see is, we couldn't get this facility built
without using that modality, because the line to be in the FYDP
would take too long, several years. And we are going to incur a
lot of costs, unnecessary costs.
And with this critical ability to get it privately funded,
it just seems to me a win-win. And I wondered if you had any
comments now, that doesn't work in every community, but where
you do have significant Defense Department presence and a
significant veterans community living there, we ought to have
that jointness.
They have the jointness when they go on to base to use the
privileges of the P.X. or use the privileges of a gas station.
But they don't have that, privileges to go into a joint medical
facility.
Secretary Shinseki. Well, I will let Dr. Cross talk about
the Fort Ord health care system. But I would just lead into
this by saying, we have a history of DOD-V.A. joint facilities.
We do it in New Mexico with the Air Force; Alaska with the Air
Force; Leavenworth, Kansas; El Paso, Texas, with the Army; Key
West, Florida.
So there are a number of these that suggest we have a
history of doing this and doing this well. And in the case of
Chicago, Great Lakes, Naval and Northern Chicago V.A. Medical
Center, we have integrated it to the point where a V.A.
director and an active, serving naval captain are working
together. One is the director; the other is the vice director,
if you will, fully integrated. And we hope that that
partnership is going to, you know, go forward this fall.
With that as background, we have some history here. We have
some experience on how to do this right. Let me ask Dr. Cross
to talk about the potential here.
Mr. Farr. The key to this is you have a new methodology of
having private-sector funding for the facility----
Secretary Shinseki. Right.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Which is essentially what we did
with RCI housing.
Dr. Cross. Mr. Farr, there is good news here. And although
this project did not go forward as a JIF project for a joint
clinic between DOD and V.A., we are moving forward with this as
a lease project in the V.A. 2010 budget. And this is to make it
a new health care center, just as I was describing it for the
Texas venture.
And this project will construct a new health care center to
provide primary care, specialty care, mental health, expanded
diagnostics, and ambulatory surgery, and activation is expected
probably by the end of fiscal year 2012.
Mr. Farr. Admiral Dunne, it is nice to have you back on the
team.
Mr. Dunne. It is great to be here, sir. And I would like to
take the opportunity to thank you for all your efforts to make
sure that the Postgraduate School could celebrate its 100 years
this year.
Mr. Edwards. And, Admiral, let me assure you, he doesn't
pass up an opportunity to emphasize the assets of that----
Mr. Farr. You are all invited to the celebration.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
Mr. Carter.

CLAIMS ADJUDICATION

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I sent out 220,000 questionnaires to my
constituents. And there was a line of that questionnaire that
says, ``If you aren't able to communicate some of your
concerns, you are welcome to call the congressman.''
Last night, I spent my time talking to these constituents,
and one of them was a veteran. In fact, there usually are quite
a few veterans who take advantage of calling me or me calling
them.
And I promised him, if I ran into you all, I was going to
talk to you about this, so I will. It is just luck that it
happens to be today.
He served in the military for 20 years or 30 years, and
then went to work for the Texas Veterans Commission, which
helps veterans work through the system. Now he is working a
claim through the system for himself, and he says the
perception is--he believes it to be a reality--that the people
who process claims, adjudicate claims, are working on a
piecework quota system that they have to do so many claims to
get promoted to the next promotional level and they have to
meet a quota every week.
He is convinced that, when they get behind in the quota,
that sometimes they just deny a claim to get the number of
cases dealt with that week to meet their quota, which throws it
into the appeals system, which then, he says, the V.A. can
stretch out for a year or 2. In his case, it was almost 2
years, to which he had only 60 days within which to reply.
He thinks that something should be done about the fact that
there is a quota on these case workers, which would cause them,
rightfully or wrongfully, to think, ``Well, a couple of them
that I just let slide by will be taken care of in the appellate
process, but I will be able to get promoted.''
I would like a comment, maybe from you or one of the other
people, about whether that system or his perception of that
system is a reality. He claims his issue was arthritis. The
reason he questions this whole process is that he first went in
for arthritis, they said traumatic arthritis. He appealed it
and said, ``I have never had a trauma,'' and they did a restudy
and came back and agreed with him. And they awarded him for
arthritis in both his elbows and then later in his neck for
congenital arthritis.
Then it had moved into his shoulders. When he made this
request, once again, he got ``traumatic arthritis'' and was
thrown into the appeal system again. He said it was so easy to
see, if they had just taken the time to read the records, that
he had been through this whole process on his neck and both
elbows, but he felt like they just did it because they were in
a hurry and not because they were trying to deny him his claim
for any other purpose, but they were just in a hurry.
So I promised him I would raise this issue. I know it is
specific to one veteran, but it is important to him, and I gave
him my word.
Mr. Dunne. Sir, even if one soldier feels that way, we have
got more work to do. There is what is called a performance
standard for the rating representatives that work in the
regional offices, but there is also a quality standard.
And part of that quality standard is that the cases that
they work are reviewed periodically on a random basis. And if
they were to deny a claim that otherwise should have been
awarded, they would be held accountable for that. And so that
information would be back to their supervisor and factored in,
as well as the--simply the amount of cases that they do.
So from a supervisory level, simply volume itself is not
enough to achieve success. And we want to make sure that every
veteran who comes to us to get their claim adjudicated, that we
do it accurately, and that we do it right the first time, and
that there is no need for our veterans to appeal because they
feel that they didn't get a right--a properly adjudicated
claim.
Mr. Carter. I will call him tonight and tell him that.
Mr. Dunne. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Carter. You bet.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Mr. Kennedy.

MENTAL HEALTH

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, all of you.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thank you.
Secretary Shinseki, as you know, with Monday's tragic
events at Camp Liberty underscoring the critical epidemic of
mental illness amongst a number of our military and veterans,
too, climbing suicide rates and shortage of mental health
professionals and broken families seem to be common themes that
are always appearing in our newspapers for our veterans and
their families.
And the stories are constantly--we cannot afford to wait
any longer to staff up and reach out to those who are in need.
Could you tell us, how, with the integration with the DOD, we
are going to make sure that every single soldier that is going
to have the face-to-face interview coming out of the Department
of Defense, and every Guard and reservist and the like, to get
a face-to-face interview, so that when they are coming into the
V.A., we have a full assessment of their needs and are able to
hopefully prevent any onset of PTSD from ever happening?
Dr. Cross. A key point for us is, first of all, to make
sure that we have the people, the expertise in place to take
care of these veterans. And that is why, over the past several
years, we have added almost 5,000 new mental health
professionals. We have also expanded our vet centers.
But regarding the interview, I think that is very key. And
what we were finding was that, when they first got back from
overseas, that if we talked to them right then, didn't get much
of a response. They were focused on one thing and one thing
only, and that was going home.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Dr. Cross. So DOD actually took the initiative to do 90 to
180 days later the post-deployment health reappraisal. That was
actually a very successful initiative.
We wanted to buy into that, so I have taken our local V.A.
staff and our vet center staff, but mostly our vet center
staff, to be physically there, to be face to face with the
individuals when the units go through the PDHRA. We have done
boatloads of those now. They often end up making referrals
right then and getting them arrangements to get them into care
after that.
They are much more sensitive at that point. You have a much
better conversation, and it really did make a difference.
Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Kennedy, may I just add to that?
Mr. Kennedy. You bet.
Secretary Shinseki. One of our efforts in establishing this
relationship with DOD for the single joint electronic record is
to, first of all, have a registration for every serving member
in the military.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Secretary Shinseki. As you know, right now, not all who
leave the service come to enroll with the V.A., but this would
be automatic, so we now have a population that we can identify
and deal with.
And then, between DOD and the V.A., this face-to-face
interview that you talk about is what we intend to do. Some of
this may be done prior to the uniform coming off, but
certainly, for those that have been to Iraq and Afghanistan,
that is our priority, is to talk to them face to face and to
get this identification and begin the tracking process, even if
at that time there was no definite determination that PTSD was
a factor. If it crops up 6 months later, at least we have got a
point of reference to look back at.
Veteran service-connected PTSD has increased from 120,000
in 1999 to today we are carrying on our rolls 344,000 folks,
not all of them Iraq-Afghan veterans. These are PTSD cases that
have occurred over time. Vietnam veterans are probably the
hardest hit with this factor, just didn't know enough, and they
weren't being screened, and many of them are still carrying
those burdens.
Out of that number, as of February, about 53,000 Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans have been validated for service-connected
PTSD. So where we are able to get to that face-to-face, there
are assets in our health care system to be able to make those
determinations and begin the treatment process.
What we do know is, if diagnosed, we can treat. If we
treat, things generally get better. If we don't diagnose or
treat, they don't. Invariably, they get worse.
Mr. Kennedy. Obviously, we are in the midst of health care
reform. I am told that the best treatment for PTSD is
prevention and that it is really simply a matter of making sure
that they don't get PTSD. There are real known protocols to
take to keep people from falling into getting PTSD.
Rather than waiting for them to get it and then come in and
get treated, we ought to be pre-empting them from getting it by
having a welcome home strategy for them, a plan of action,
where we say, ``A, B, C, D, these are the things that we know
work to make sure you get yourself back on the ground and
rolling, and you get yourself surrounded by loved ones and
friends and community and family, and welcomed back home
properly.''
When you follow this protocol, your incidents of PTSD will
just drop, precipitously. And we just know that through the
study of PTSD.
But if you don't have those support systems in place, your
incidence, the possibility of your suffering from PTSD is just
going to skyrocket.
Now, why we would wait, one way or another for a soldier or
a veteran to fall into one of those categories where they are
lucky enough either to have a supportive family or not so lucky
enough to end up without a job, without a supportive community,
and without--when we, the V.A., and our country can, set it up
to me is beyond me, especially when it is going to be--cost us
a fortune, just financially, let alone, morally we shouldn't be
allowing it to get as far as that.
We should have this set up in advance, where we connect
them right away to whatever they need. We take the stigma right
away from it. We just say, ``You know, here's the Rolodex.
Here's the one, two, three, four.'' Then it is not about PTSD;
it is about connecting, these are the things that we are told
that make you, have the best chance ever of, getting your feet
on the ground.
That brings me to my next question is, why don't we have
best practices for mental health in our health care system in
the V.A.? We have best practices for every other health disease
group in the V.A. health system but mental illnesses.
Dr. Cross. We do.
Mr. Kennedy. No, you don't. I have been to two dozen of
your health clinics, and you do not have metrics base for
substance abuse, PTSD, anything. You practice different types
of treatment for substance abuse, for everything else. You
don't have a one-size-fits-all for--in terms of programs that
you know work that you take to scale like you would for MRSA,
for cancer, for cardiovascular disease. The same does not hold
true for mental health system-wide in your mental----
Dr. Cross. I certainly agree with you, Mr. Kennedy, that
one size doesn't fit all. That is why we do have different
types of programs. We are leading the way. We worked with the
Academy of Sciences to decide, what is the very best type of
treatment for PTSD? We are the leader in that.
Mr. Kennedy. And it is prevention, am I right?
Dr. Cross. For treatment, it is exposure therapy.
Mr. Kennedy. But it is prevention, to surround people--
people are the best solution to PTSD, loved ones, community,
and we are doing nothing to prevent PTSD. You have got
wonderful little clinics with 24 people in them. How are you
going to--you can treat people when they have acute PTSD, but
we have got to prevent them from getting PTSD to begin with.
Dr. Cross. I certainly agree with that. And I think,
actually, prevention occurs before deployment.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay, all right. How is the aversion therapy
going?
Dr. Cross. We trained 1,600 of our providers in this, based
on what the IOM recommended. And we are going to expand from
there. We are going to be into the thousands.
Mr. Kennedy. Good. Well, if you could submit to the
committee how that is going and whether you feel like you are
going to keep pace with the need, that would be great.
Dr. Cross. I would be very pleased to do that.
[The information follows:]

Responses

1) Provide Rep. Kennedy a report on aversion therapy usage by VA.
Aversion therapy involves repeated pairing of an unpleasant
stimulus with production of an undesirable behavior, such as giving a
patient in alcohol treatment an electric shock each time he or she
tastes alcohol. The only aversion therapy we use is the drug disulfiram
(Antabuse) in VA's alcohol treatment program. According to the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (http://
www.dpt.samhsa.gov/medications/disulfiram.aspx), disulfiram is ``[t]he
first drug ever approved for treating problem drinkers. Antabuse
(disulfiram) interferes with the metabolism of alcohol, causing
unpleasant side effects when alcohol is ingested.'' Although approved
by the Food and Drug Administration, its use has largely been
supplemented by other medications and therapies. However, some
providers and patients find it useful. Over the past 12 months, VA
filled 11,979 prescriptions for disulfiram for 3,741 Veterans.

Mr. Kennedy. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could indulge just one
more----
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Kennedy [continuing]. Question, are you co-locating
your TBI clinics with your other Centers of Excellence in
epilepsy and the like, neuroscience clinics?
Dr. Cross. We are working on some new Centers of Excellence
for epilepsy. I think, in the plan that we have at the moment--
I am not sure if it is the final plan--at least one or two of
them would be co-located with the polytrauma level one centers.
Some other ones would probably be elsewhere.
Mr. Kennedy. The only concern we have is, obviously, make
the most of the dollars we are spending by co-locating those
same neuroscientists.
Dr. Cross. I think that is a good point. Appreciate that.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

G.I. BILL

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Certainly an important
area to explore.
Mr. Secretary, could I ask, where are we on the
implementation of the new G.I. Bill? Are we on time and
schedule? Will veterans that have qualified for the G.I.
benefits start receiving those on time this fall? And will they
know soon enough to be able to make their plans for colleges or
universities this fall?
Secretary Shinseki. I am going to let Admiral Dunne provide
the detail, but, Mr. Chairman, upfront, in answer to your
question, very, very tight timeline. And I won't say lots of
risk, but there is some risk in the process. And we learn
something every time we put a new tool out there.
But I have been to the training center. I can tell you that
training has gone well. Highly motivated people, I asked them
if they could do it. There was a standing, rousing applause.
So on our end, you know, between leadership and providing
the information technology that will enable us to do this first
time as a manual process, assisted by computers, we are in a
good line. The issue is, we have to keep that line going.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Dunne. Mr. Chairman, we are definitely--it was never
any doubt that we had the right people to execute this program.
And they have been working very, very hard since last summer.
We brought on board 530 new people on schedule, and we
trained them on schedule in order to be able to process claims.
We were able to start processing claims on the 1st of May. We
already have received over 20,000 claims. They are coming in at
the rate of about 3,000 claims per day.
And so we are very pleased with the response that we are
getting from the veterans. We are doing everything possible, we
think, to communicate with them and make sure that they know it
is better to submit your application early, as the sooner we
get it, the sooner we can act on it.
And we are moving along with the testing of the other I.T.
systems that we need. And perhaps Mr. Warren could add more on
the I.T. side. But our folks are performing very well at this
point, and we are pleased with the response from veterans.
Mr. Edwards. So bottom line is, there should be no veteran
who is qualified for the benefits who would have a problem
getting approval of the funding for classes that start in the
fall, unless there are some bumps along the way between now and
the fall?
Mr. Dunne. We expect that--we have got many challenges
between now and the 1st of August, but we are on it every
single day. And if a veteran gets his application, we are going
to make sure that they get into class.

HIRING OF VETERANS IN THE CLAIMS PROCESSING SYSTEM

Mr. Edwards. Okay. Could I also ask you, while I have your
time, to address, how many people have you hired in the claims
processing system since, say, in the last 2 years? I know we
have provided enough funding, I think, to provide as many--if
you count the stimulus bill--it was as many as 6,000 or 7,000
new claims processors.
How many have you hired? How many yet to go? And I might
ask also on that, are you out looking or are you exercising any
outreach to look for combat veterans as potential employees,
particularly wounded combat veterans, to serve as employees in
the V.A. benefit system?
Mr. Dunne. Absolutely, sir. The first increment in
personnel, as you know, was 3,100. And we started that in
January of 2007, and we have completed that phase.
For 2009, we were authorized another 1,100, and we are in
the process of hiring those now. We are about halfway through
that hiring.
In addition, as you mentioned, with the stimulus package,
there was authorization for 1,500 temporary employees. We are
in the process now of hiring those. We have got 44 who are
already on board at the regional offices, another 86 who have
report dates within the next 2 weeks. And the remainder of the
jobs we are in the process of announcing and interviewing
potential personnel.
We are very anxious to--at any opportunity to hire a
veteran into the V.A., because we know what good employees they
are.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. Dunne. And when we have an announcement at one of our
R.O.s, the first place they go is right to the VR&E office and
see if there are any veterans who have completed their training
and are perhaps interested in working in the R.O.
I can tell you, as an example, I went to one of the RPOs
after we hired the 530 folks for the G.I. Bill. And I asked how
many in the room were veterans. And almost everybody in the
room raised their hand. And I asked about the three that
didn't, and they said, well, they are either relatives or
dependents of veterans.
So I think we can always do better, sir. We always need to
make sure we keep that focus on, that we are looking for
veterans. But I think we are doing pretty well.

VA SUICIDE HOTLINE

Mr. Edwards. That is good to hear.
And my final question in this round, Secretary Shinseki,
would be as a follow up to Mr. Kennedy's questions about the
mental health care issues and care.
Obviously, suicide is of great concern to all of us. Could
you update us on the status of the V.A. suicide hotline and how
that is working?
Dr. Cross. Sir, it is one of our most successful ventures,
quite frankly. We have received 120,000 phone calls since it
was opened in 2007. Over half of those phone calls, however,
were not veterans. We still help them.
Now, the key thing is----
Mr. Edwards. How do they find out the number? How do they--
--
Dr. Cross. The number--we tie it in--we decided not to go
it alone with this. We tied in with Health and Human Services
into an existing phone system. And so when you call up the
number, 273-TALK----
Mr. Edwards. How do you get that number? I am having a
problem. I am literally thinking about committing suicide. How
do I get that 273-TALK number?
Dr. Cross. We put it on the Internet. We put it on the
buses. We put it on the Metro. We put it out to the VSOs. We
put it on public service announcements. We have got Gary Sinise
from ``Forrest Gump'' doing public service announcements,
Deborah Norville--every way that we can, we are getting that
number out. And it must be working, because 120,000 people have
called.
So they call the main number. And then it says, ``If you
are calling about a veteran or you are a veteran, press one
now.'' So 120,000 people pressed one.
Then, out of that, the key number I would like you to
remember, we have done over 3,000 rescues. What that means is,
while the veteran was on the phone, while the caller was on the
phone, we sent an ambulance or police to the location where
they were at that very moment.
And I have just--if you would bear with me for a moment----
Mr. Edwards. Please. Take whatever time you need on this.
Dr. Cross [continuing]. The most spectacular thing happened
about 2 weeks ago. We got a call from a mother, and she was
talking to her son through her computer using, I think, a
program called Skype. And she was very upset, because her son
told her on the computer he was going to commit suicide, had a
gun in his hand.
And she called the hotline, the V.A. hotline in
Canandaigua, New York. And they called the Pentagon. The
Pentagon worked with the local Red Cross and their contacts.
And 20--I think it was roughly about 23 minutes later, she
watched or heard while a person arrived, talked to her son,
took the gun out of his hand. The soldier in this case was in
Iraq.
Mr. Edwards. Oh, my God. What an incredible story. Thank
you. Thank you for that. And I am so glad to know that the
hotline is being used and literally saving lives. Thank you for
that.
Mr. Farr. Can you just call 911 and get the same response?
Dr. Cross. Well, they would get the police. But many of
these cases that call the hotline are not calling because they
are immediately suicidal. Some of them just want to talk. And
then we put them in contact with our suicide prevention
coordinators that we have now located at every one of our
medical centers and sometimes several of them.
I think our hotline is the best, because we--instead of
using volunteers, we use psychologists, social workers, nurses
who have mental health experience. These are people who are
very experienced.
The second reason why we are the best, I think--and I admit
my pride in this--if it is one of our patients, we can pull up
their record electronically while they are on the phone, and
that has actually helped us save lives at times, because
sometimes they didn't want to tell us exactly where they were
at or what their situation was. And with a little detective
work, we were able to trace that back.
Mr. Edwards. Well, thank you for that. I hope those kind of
positive stories of saving America's veterans and, in this
case, an active-duty serviceman, those kind of stories need to
be told.
Mr. Wamp.

CLOSING OF CEMETERIES

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My final question of the day is on the cemetery front. And,
Mr. Muro, the chairman rightly gave you a high compliment
earlier based on the customer satisfaction.
And it is such a well-stewarded recognition, these national
cemeteries across the country of the sacrifices that have been
made. And they are solemn places. I will be there in 2 weeks to
keynote the commemoration at Chattanooga National Cemetery for
Memorial Day. And I am there often, several times a year.
But our cemetery, which has Civil War soldiers and many,
many storied internments there, is set to close on your
schedule in 2019, which I used to think 2019 was a long time
from now, but I used to think 2009 was a long time now, and it
got here really fast.
So that is a short period of time. Now, they have done
studies of ways they could change things around and extend that
somewhat, but there is also 15 acres that could be available
next to it. And it can only grow in one direction because of
streets and right-of-ways.
I don't know if you specifically know about this issue, but
I am interested overall in what the posture is of the V.A. This
is something that, at a time of war, people are really keyed
into. Are we going to guarantee this ultimate resting place?
And I don't mean in the next state over. I mean in the area. I
know you have like 100-mile, 120-mile circumference of each----
Mr. Farr. Seventy-five miles.
Mr. Wamp. Seventy-five miles. Okay, 75-mile circumference
of where these could be. But this is obviously a national
cemetery in Chattanooga, Tennessee, that would want to keep
open and preserve.
Can you give me an update about where we are with the
study? Assistant Secretary Turk was very, very helpful, in the
last administration. He came and physically toured the site.
The city is willing to cooperate in any and every way to take
the lead on assembling any land.
[The information follows:]

4) NCA should reach out to the local Veteran community to explain
its plans for extending the service life of the Chattanooga National
Cemetery.

NCA's Outreach Plan

In the summer months following Memorial Day 2009, NCA plans to hold
a series of Town Hall type briefings for the local community and
stakeholders to explain the preplaced crypt process being implemented
at the cemetery. This process will gain an additional 25 years service
from the existing cemetery property, extending burial availability to
the year 2044.
In addition to cemetery and Memorial Service Network (MSN) staff,
Subject Matter Experts from the NCA Office of Field Programs and Office
of Construction Management will attend the briefings to explain the
process and to answer community questions and concerns.

I have almost seen a posture around the country as I have
studied this that you wait until you are 5 years away from
closure to begin to act. And, obviously, that is not the way to
do business, in terms of long-term planning. It is much more
beneficial to begin the process much in advance of closure so
that you can take the necessary steps to actually secure the
available land.
Plus, if there is available land, you would want to secure
it while it is still available before somebody goes and builds
a new building on top of it.
Do you know anything about the Chattanooga Cemetery
expansion.
Mr. Muro. Yes, sir. Right now, we actually have, because of
our new burial policy and practice of pre-placed crypts, we
actually have enough land to last an additional 25 years above
2019 before we have to worry about looking for other land in
the area.
So we are good 2019 plus 25. And we are already going to
start planning the process to install the crypts there so we
don't run out. We try to stay--we have changed our policy. We
are trying to stay 2 to 3 years ahead of closure or--so that we
expand so that we don't close the cemetery.
And if we are going to close because there is no further
land to use, then we are looking for land. And last year, there
was appropriation for funds for that. So we are trying to stay
ahead of it.
Mr. Wamp. Well, I appreciate that. I would say, with the
VSOs in the room, that I hope you will communicate effectively
with the VSOs so that their membership will understand what you
are doing, because usually they don't find out except after
they make enough noise and their member of Congress then
engages as to what any policy may be that you were in the
middle of enacting.
And I can assure you that the veteran community that lives
there, they don't really believe this extra 25 years within the
fence because your stated closure date was 2019, and then, all
of a sudden, kind of miraculously, well, they can start pulling
rocks out of the ground and make room for more.
So help us, if you will, convince the veteran population
that you are going to stand behind keeping this cemetery open
at all costs, because that is basically all they care about.
Please assure them of that.
And then, if there is any way to go forward to secure that
land or even allow the city to hold the land until which time
you need it, that would be wise if there is any possible way
within your budget constraints to do so.
We appreciate your cooperation on that, and I yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am amazed that Mr.
Wamp and I have had the same questions on all day. I want to
talk about veteran cemeteries. I want to also thank you for
your career in this field and for your public service.
Mr. Muro. You are welcome. Thank you.

VA CEMETERIES

Mr. Farr. I would really encourage you, Mr. Secretary and
staff, to look at this 75-mile policy. It has been in concrete
for so long, and it is a dumb, dumb policy.
The population of California lives along the coast. So in
this wisdom of developing a 70-mile radius, and because of
congressional earmarks, you are building your veteran
cemeteries in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley. There is no
history of military in the San Joaquin Valley. You are building
three of them. One of them is already there. It is in Santa
Nella, which is a truck stop, no hotels, no people, no town, no
mayor, nothing.
And we are within 75 miles of that, the Monterey peninsula,
the oldest piece of military real estate in the United States.
It started with Spanish occupation, the Presidio of Monterey.
And Fort Ord, the land was acquired for the military in 1919,
still has a military presence there and a huge veterans
presence, and that is why you are going to build a clinic
there.
But we can't build a cemetery. We have had to go to the
state of California. The state of California says, ``We don't
do state cemeteries.'' So we are going to a third process, is
we are going to try to get a private developer to put up money,
we are going to give him some of the cemetery land, put enough
money in the pot so that the state can file for a state
application.
Now, I want to just think outside the box a little bit,
because I understand that--and I am sort of interested in
this--that of the 128 cemeteries that you maintain in 39 states
and Puerto Rico, as well as 33 lots and monument sites, it is
the Department of Army that maintains two of the cemeteries,
Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia and the U.S. Soldiers'
and Airmen's Home National Cemetery in Washington, D.C.
There are also a number of state cemeteries. And the
Department of Interior maintains 14 veteran cemeteries. If I
knew I could go to the Department of Interior and the
Department of Army and maybe gotten them to build a cemetery, I
would have done that, but I didn't know.
I don't know why it is that, one, that all of these
cemeteries aren't under just one--you know, under your
department. Maybe administratively they are, but why are they
being maintained by the Department of the Army and the
Department of Interior?
And why can't we think outside the box to figure out a
solution? The land is there. The title is in the Department of
Defense. The feasibility study for it is there. It is going to
take us forever to find a third party to put up enough money to
build the cemetery.
You have got the Presidio Monterey, the Naval Postgraduate
School. It is a destination, tourist area. People want to be
there. There are a lot of people that are holding ashes in
their home waiting for this cemetery to be built.
And, I mean, this is where California history began. It
began with military history. And it is still there. And I would
like to try to see if we could work some way to work in a
cemetery by your department or whether I have to go to the
Department of Interior.
Mr. Muro. Let me try to answer some of your questions,
Congressman.
First of all, San Joaquin Valley, when that cemetery was
built, the national cemetery system could only build on
property that was either donated or transferred from DOD. We
didn't have the funds at that time to purchase land, so San
Joaquin Valley, San Joaquin National Cemetery was a donated
piece of property and----
Mr. Farr. The Bureau of Reclamation?
Mr. Muro. Correct. So that--hopefully that answers that
one. In reference--
Mr. Farr. When President Kennedy, his uncle, was president.
Mr. Muro. Oh, all right.
Mr. Farr. It had nothing to do with anything functional for
a cemetery. It was just federal land in the middle of nowhere.
Mr. Muro. Right. And it was donated.
The other question, in reference to the Fort Ord cemetery
and the state project that we worked with the state to build
the other one, which is up in Redding, California, we are
working closely with the state, and they do have an application
in right now for that. So they are working with that
organization to try to get it.
Mr. Farr. For which?
Mr. Muro. For Fort Ord.
Mr. Farr. They have an application to you?
Mr. Muro. Yes, they have got the pre-application in right
now, and we are waiting on state legislation to pass it. And
then we----
Mr. Farr. No, wait a minute. State legislation passed it,
saying that they have to put the money up into an account with
the state before they will exercise it. And the Shasta veterans
department, that was a state senator. He insisted that they
couldn't pass a state budget unless they made that his cemetery
and up in little, old Shasta County. In a weak moment, the
legislature and the governor signed the bill, and then they
hired him as the secretary for veterans affairs in California.
So it was a real sweetheart deal. And the state said they
would never do it again. And Schwarzenegger says they won't do
state cemeteries, unless, in this case, the money is put up by
the private sector.
Mr. Muro. The other question was in reference to how V.A.
received the cemeteries that we have. In 1973, Congress passed
a law and transferred certain cemeteries over to V.A., was
where we started, and kept--Army kept DOD in the Soldiers'
Home.
Mr. Farr. The Interior Department doesn't run any
cemeteries?
Mr. Muro. They run--yes, they have 14 total cemeteries. Two
are open for internments; the rest are closed. They are Park
Service.
Mr. Farr. We will work on something, okay?
Mr. Muro. Okay.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
Mr. Kennedy.

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE BENEFITS

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If we could go back, Mr. Chairman, your question about
mental health, extent of services. The concern I have is the
Guard and Reserve, because their benefits really aren't as
great as, obviously, the standing military.
When they come out, they often don't have the access to the
TRICARE benefits. When they go back to their job and so forth,
they don't have access to the same benefits. And, of course,
their dependents, their family don't have any access to
benefits.
And so the--the real question is, a lot of those families
and Guard and Reservists are getting their services through
states, through their community mental health centers and the
like.
What I am interested in is what we are going to do as a
committee, given the fact that states are shedding all of their
mental health services because they are all in a free fall
economically, what are we going to do as a committee to respond
to the need at these community mental health centers of those
veterans who go into those community mental health centers
looking for services?
Because there are no services for them at the V.A., because
they are ``weekend warriors,'' but they aren't. They are now
part of our total force. But because of the nature of them
being Guard and reservists, they don't enjoy the same package
of benefits that the regular service does.
So can you all kind of answer for me, what are we going to
do about this whole new group of veterans that may not have all
the service-connected injuries and the like that are going to
allow them to get access to the V.A.? How are we going to
manage to make sure they get the necessary health care that
they need?
Dr. Cross. I strongly agree with you that, yes, that is a
real concern of ours, that the Reserve and National Guard come
back, they don't go to a military post. They don't stay with
their active-duty colleagues. They go off into the small
communities across the nation and the cities, and that is where
they live, and trying to return to their previous lives.
Congress, working with the V.A., just fairly recently
created a new benefit, and that was that returning from a
combat deployment automatically granted 5 years of eligibility.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Dr. Cross. That was a tremendous help. And we really
appreciated that.
It did several things. It also expanded the dental
capability by our timeframe, as well, from 90 to 180 days. That
made a difference, because it gives time now for that new
veteran to try and obtain eligibility through the C&P process,
they have got plenty of time.
They are still covered for their health care. They can
still be seen and taken care of, as long as it is anything that
is even quasi-related to their service overseas. And I want to
thank you for that.
Mr. Kennedy. Secretary Shinseki was talking about back in
the Vietnam War, there was always a challenge to Agent Orange
because there was a question, was this a real thing or not?
With this war, the combination of TBI, post-traumatic stress
disorder, being the signature wound, are we going to have a
bureaucratic process of challenging veterans when they come in
and saying, ``prove it''?
Or are we going to have an assumption that, if they have
been to three tours of duty, they have been out in their
combat, they have been out on the driving outside the Green
Zone every day, which we know would take any normal person,
knowing that they are taking their lives in their hands every
day when they drive outside that Green Zone, that that is going
to put any normal person in a position where they could suffer
from post-traumatic stress and say that they are going to be
eligible for veterans benefits, access to the health care
system?
Dr. Cross. For the health care component, we are happy to
see them. It is not a matter of trying to prove that they need
to be seen. If they say they need to be seen, they need to be
seen. And then, during that 5-year period, they have the
eligibility to do so.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay.
Dr. Cross. And I think, as I mentioned earlier, that gives
them time to engage with my colleagues in VBA, as well, to
start the process.
I will ask Admiral Dunne.
Mr. Dunne. From the benefit side, we are, of course,
charged with evaluating the need for compensation based on the
medical evaluation that is provided.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Mr. Dunne. And we are looking very carefully right now at
the process that we go through to--when a veteran claims PTSD,
the evidentiary requirements that are in place, we are
evaluating those to make sure that they are sufficient to
ensure that, during the time period when they have straight
access to VHA, that we are able to complete the medical
evaluation that is required so that, if necessary, we can
ensure that they get their compensation benefits in a timely
manner.

VOUCHERS

Mr. Kennedy. One of the concerns I hear about homeless vets
is that, while we are increasing the number of permanent
vouchers--and thank God. Finally we have permanent vouchers
instead of these temporary vouchers for these endemically
homeless vets.
We need more support services for these vouchers. In other
words, we need administrative personnel. I hear there are a lot
of vouchers in a lot of these different places because there
aren't enough staff on hand in various places to administer
these vouchers and get the support services wrapped around
these veterans who need these vouchers.
One case in point, my cousin, Bobby Shriver, is on the
council out in Santa Monica, says that there is a number of
excess vouchers. I had a hard time believing it, knowing the
number of homeless veterans out there. And he says it is
because there are not enough veterans, staffed to help
administer those vouchers. So maybe you could take a look at
that.
Secretary Shinseki. Let me take a look at that and then
come back to you with an answer on----
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.095

Mr. Kennedy. And if you could----
Secretary Shinseki. I was not aware of excess vouchers.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay. If you could also look at what
percentage of our V.A. medical centers, what the timeline it is
for folks to get help for mental health services and what the
shortage is for mental health professionals in all these
outpatient clinics and mental health centers.
We had those. There was a big study from--McClatchy did a
couple of years ago about how long it took for someone to get
served in a V.A. clinic. And in some places, it took X number
of days. Other places, it took just a few days. And it would be
nice to know kind of how that has gotten evened out, now that
we have plused up the accounts.
Secretary Shinseki. Sure.
Mr. Kennedy. Thanks.

HEALTH CARE STANDARDS

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
Members, I think we are getting close to a series of votes.
And I only have two other quick points.
One, I would like to ask Secretary Shinseki, either you or
Secretary Warren, whomever is appropriate, to address the
question of, as you are trying to develop DOD and V.A. medical
records that can communicate with each other and be passed
seamlessly back and forth, how does that work in with the
country trying to set up some sort of national standard for
private profit and nonprofit hospitals?
I assume we won't have V.A. and DOD accepting one standard
and the rest of the country going another way, because we need
records to be able to transfer from a V.A. hospital or DOD
hospital to a private hospital.
And is the development of a national health care reform
bill and a standard, does that slow down the DOD-V.A. process
in coming up with a medical records, electronic record systems?
Secretary Shinseki. This is an important question, Mr.
Chairman. The agreement that Secretary Gates and I have made
and which the President publicly announced, that there would be
one standard, now begins the hard work of exactly what is an
electronic record, what is the electronic health piece of it
and what is the electronic administrative or personnel piece of
it, what does it look like, and make that come together.
There is great interest in doing this quickly. And part of
the interest is to be able to come to an agreement on exactly
that requirement and be able to share perhaps with HHS, ``Here
is, you know--those of us who have been at this for a while,
here's a good start point for you,'' so that there would be
some synchronization, some linkage between the opportunities
that they will have to decide for the rest of the country and
the work that V.A. and DOD has already done for a couple of
decades.
A lot of hard lessons learned, some disappointing ones, but
we have come a long ways here. And so as we create this single,
joint, virtual electronic record, I think it is important for
us to link in with the secretary at HHS and just offer up a
model to consider.

HEALTH CARE INNOVATION

Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
And my final point would be this. We don't do earmarks in
the V.A., in many ways that is very fortunate. But what happens
as a result is that some of us, perhaps because we serve on
this subcommittee, have private entities, entrepreneurs come to
us and say, ``Here's a great idea that can help the V.A.
provide better medical care at a less cost to taxpayers.''
We don't really have the ability to evaluate whether those
make sense. And maybe 9 out of 10 of those proposals wouldn't
make any sense, but 1 out of 10 might be the one that could
save the V.A. millions of dollars and help save lives and
provide better care.
Does the V.A. have a system for evaluating good ideas and
separating those from bad ideas, in terms of health care
innovation? And, secondly, on that same point, is there a
system by which you can fund innovative ideas that might help
the whole country without taking that money out of the hide of
the O&M budget of the local V.A. hospital or the VISN?
I could see that if I am a VISN director, and I don't want
to take money out of my VISN or out of my hospital to fund what
could be a national pilot program that could help the entire
V.A. health care system.
I haven't found a thorough process. Maybe I heard it at
some point the secretary for health has some kind of a
discretionary fund, but is there any kind of a formalized
process for you?
Mr. Kennedy. Effective research. We should have it in our
CMS, too.
Mr. Edwards. Do you have a system of comparative effective
research at the V.A.?
Secretary Shinseki. Actually, I am interested in what the
acting undersecretary for health is going to say to answer this
question.
Mr. Edwards. Dr. Cross.
Secretary Shinseki. But it is--just to eat into this, it is
part of the reason why I am hoping that we will get your
support in setting up an office for an assistant secretary for
acquisition, so that we will have a single place where good
ideas can come and be vetted and, you know, avoid being
dissipated or being discouraged or frustrated, but where it
gets a professional vetting, because right now these things do
go on, but they go on in multiple places in the V.A.
Mr. Edwards. Right. And is that, Mr. Secretary, where these
ideas would be placed in the future, when you create that
office?
Secretary Shinseki. In the future. If we were able to stand
up this office, this is where this kind of innovative thinking,
creative thinking would have an opportunity to be aired,
evaluated, and then shared.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Secretary Shinseki. Let me let Dr. Cross answer what we do
today.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Dr. Cross. I am looking forward to hearing what I am going
to say, as well. [Laughter]
No, seriously, sir, there is some formal process. And let
me--it is a little bit different from what you might expect.
We do a lot of innovation, in terms of pharmaceutical, new
drug treatments, new surgical treatments, vaccines, the herpes
zoster vaccine, the shingles vaccine, worked with civilian
medical schools and the V.A. to make that a reality. And it is
now FDA approved and out there and used every day.
We worked with DARPA. And you may have seen the ``60
Minutes'' TV show recently where they talked about the DARPA
arm that the V.A. is working with them on a new prosthetic, far
more advanced than anything that we have seen before, an
ability to manipulate objects.
So in terms of research, we do a great deal too--you know,
but particularly on the health side, it is really
pharmaceuticals, new treatments, new devices. You know,
sometimes----
Mr. Edwards. What office evaluates those under the present
system, without the new acquisitions office in place?
Dr. Cross. What----
Mr. Edwards. Is that the undersecretary's office? Do you
have particular staff that do that? Or do you subcontract that
out to various parts of the country within the V.A. system? How
do you evaluate that?
Dr. Cross. The kind of things I am talking about go through
research protocols.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Dr. Cross. And our research office handles that.
Mr. Edwards. What if it is not a new drug, you know, it is
somebody coming in with a system for telephoning veterans to be
sure they take their drugs this morning and, if they don't call
back--that is one that came into my office, for example. I have
no idea whether it made sense or not.
But, you know, and if the veteran doesn't call back, then
it keeps calling them until they call back and say, ``Yes, I
took my prescription drug this morning.'' I mean, how about
that kind of device or other projects that aren't, you know,
the kind that you mentioned?
Dr. Cross. I think I know that project, by the way. Two
ways that that happens. Number one is they go to the local
facility, local VISN, and say, ``Listen, I'd like to try this
out locally. Would you be interested?''
Number two, they come to the central office and talk to
some of my staff and say, ``Listen, I have got this great idea,
this great product. Can I get a briefing?'' We do accept those
briefings, and we do accept some of these proposals after the
staff have looked at them to see if it makes sense.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. In the future, will that go through the
office of acquisitions? If, in the future, somebody like this
calls our offices, who should we refer them to?
Secretary Shinseki. That would be my preference, for all of
this to come into one location, and then from there to be
shared with the experts elsewhere on the staff.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Secretary Shinseki. A discipline process for evaluating the
goodness--they are all good. They are well-intended. But where
is the fit?
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Thank you for that answer.
Mr. Wamp, do you have any additional questions?
Mr. Kennedy.

SERVICE DOGS

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman, really cutting-edge piece
of high tech, and that is dogs. We talked about, Mr. Chairman
and Mr. Secretary, these dogs that help our veterans,
particularly, not only the guide dogs for those who are
physically impaired, but also those who are suffering from
PTSD, that take them out, so they have to go out for a walk,
help them calm their nerves when they are feeling an anxiety
attack and the like, that they can be trained in the prisons by
prisoners.
What is your feeling about us expanding the use of these
kinds of animal--use of animals to help out those many, many
veterans that you have identified as, having issues, anxiety
issues and PTSD issues?
Dr. Cross. The answer I am going to give you is a little
bit mixed, in terms of how we are responding to this. And so I
want to be frank that this is how we are approaching it right
now. I don't want to paint a picture that is different from
reality in any way.
Guide dogs have been part of our program for a long time.
Everybody knows that. We will accept it and often support it.
So now we are talking about a different category of dogs
called service dogs. Service dogs, we support them in a limited
fashion for physically and hearing disabled veterans under a
case-by-case basis.
We have worked with an organization--I believe it is called
the Assistance Dogs International. And we have an information
letter that we drafted to inform the field that only these
accredited dogs organizations who do not charge for the dogs or
their training should be utilized. V.A. then, in that
circumstance, will pay the veterinary bills and any hardware
the dog may require while performing the designated tasks.
I don't know how many that we are supporting at this time.
I don't think it is a large number, Mr. Kennedy, certainly not
compared to guide dogs. But I would be happy to have our staff
talk to you about this.
Mr. Kennedy. That would be great. I would love to get a
briefing on that. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

3) Provide Rep. Kennedy's staff a briefing on the dog assistance
program for Veterans. (PCS)
Thank you for your inquiry of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) regarding the provision of service dogs to our country's Veterans.
The Prosthetic and Sensory Aids Service will be happy to provide a
briefing at your staffs convenience. Please coordinate this request
through VA's Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs office.
Below is a summary of our service dog program.
VA has provided guide dogs specifically for the blind since 1961.
In 2001, Public Law 107-135 provided VA the authority to provide
service dogs for physically and hearing disabled Veterans. Over the
past seven years, VA has studied the effectiveness of service dogs
versus assistive devices. These studies focused on a dog's effect to a
Veteran's health, function, mobility, and independence. These studies
also focused on industry standards for service dogs, how the dogs are
trained, and how a Veteran best learns to work with a dog. On January
14, 2008, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs signed a decision memo
approving a plan for the provision of service dogs to our nation's
physically and hearing impaired Veterans.
VA is working with an international accrediting body, Assistance
Dogs International, to help develop standards for the provision of
these dogs. In the interim, individuals are reviewed on a case-by-case
basis and may be provided a service dog if they are able to demonstrate
that a service dog would effectively perform a task that cannot be
achieved through assistive technology or daily living aids. To remain
consistent with the existing model of procurement in attaining guide
dogs for the blind, VA will acquire service dogs through non-profit
agencies who do not charge for their animals, services, or lodging. VA
will provide veterinary care and hardware required for the dog to
perform its tasks such as a harness or a backpack.

Mr. Edwards. Well, with that, let me thank you all for
being here.
Secretary Shinseki, we look forward to working with you and
each of you, Admiral Dunne, Dr. Cross, Secretary Reed,
Secretary Muro, Secretary Warren. Thanks to each of you for
your dedication to our veterans.
And we may have finished our formal questioning, but one of
our colleagues who has done so much on behalf of veterans, Mr.
Buyer, from Indiana, who is the ranking member on the Veterans
Affairs Committee, former chairman of the V.A. authorizing
committee. And it is good to see Mr. Buyer here. And even saw
in the Washington Post, I believe, today about new legislation
you have introduced, Mr. Buyer, to help widows of those who
have served in combat and given their lives for our country. We
are glad to have you here and welcome you to this subcommittee
any time you are here.
So thank you for coming and what you do to support our
servicemen and women, and particularly the members of the
Guard. Thank you. We are honored to have you all here.
With that, we will stand adjourned.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards]

Construction Competition/Pricing

Mr. Secretary, a recent New York Times article highlighted contract
saving being experienced in the highway sector of the economy. In part,
the article noted:
``Construction companies, hungry for work in the dismal economy,
have slashed their prices to try to win the first round of public works
projects being paid for by the federal stimulus package.
``Pennsylvania officials said contractors competing for their first
round of road and bridge projects had offered bids 15 percent lower
than the state had expected. Utah officials said some of their bids
were coming in 25 percent lower than expected. And a bid to build a
4.7-mile extension of Interstate 49 from Shreveport, LA, toward the
Arkansas state line came in at $31.1 million, about $4.7 million less
than the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development had
estimated the project would cost.
``Officials in many states see the low bids as a sign that they are
in a buyer's market. A few years ago transportation officials in Utah,
concerned that there was little competition for their construction
work, put together a team to try to entice more companies to bid for
the jobs. Now, as the first stimulus projects get under way, they are
getting a half-dozen bids for each job--and many are coming in at 25
percent below their estimates.''
Question. Is the Department finding similar competition for
construction jobs and a similar increase in the number of bidders on
contracts? And are bids coming in at lower than your estimates for the
work?
Response. VA has been experiencing increased competition by firms
competing for major construction contracts in about one-half of the
markets where we have awarded major contracts during this fiscal year.
The increased competition has produced favorable pricing which has
enabled a contract award of the full design without taking any
deductions. In some cases, where designs had been restrained to
accommodate the prior robust economy, we are able to consider
restoration of items previously deleted from the design.
These recent experiences, coupled with periodic analysis being done
in the markets where we will be planning to procure major construction
services, have informed the estimates developed for the FY 2010 budget.
For the estimates used in the FY 2010 budget, we have included
significantly less escalation than would have been used in the FY 2009
budget, for example.

Transformation Review

Question. The budget submission includes funding for several
programs that you have identified as part of the Department's
transformation process. It is my understanding that the transformation
review is still ongoing. It is likely that, as this review moves toward
completion, additional issue will arise and changes to Departmental
operations will be identified. How do you think this will impact the
2010 budget request?
Response. The comprehensive organizational and management reviews
in process will generate additional transformation initiatives.
Departmental leadership will apply conclusions from these activities
that may result in adjustments to the budget request within the 2010
topline during the next several months. The results of this ongoing
management decision-making process--in partnership with Congress--will
be a budget that starts VA down a path toward becoming a 21st Century
organization.

Sustainability and Energy

Question. The fiscal year 2009 budget request and subsequent
appropriation included funding within the Construction, Major Projects
account for ``sustainability and energy'' projects. This year there is
no budget request for this effort. Can you tell me why there is not a
budget request and what that tells us about the Department's energy
efficiency program?
Response: VA did not request this line item in FY 2010, as the
sustainability and energy efficiency/renewable energy requirements of
major projects are now factored directly into the project design and
construction costs.
The Department's Energy Program is very robust and continues to
grow each year. For example, since 2006 VA has added approximately 90
facility-level energy engineers to serve all VA facilities. VA
benchmarks its medical and benefits office facilities quarterly using
EPA's EnergyStar Portfolio Manager, and is one of the few organizations
doing so via electronic data transfer. Twenty-seven VA medical centers
have earned EnergyStar labels since 2002. Five VA facilities have won
energy or water management awards since FY 2005.
VA is committed to expanding the use of renewable energy and energy
efficient technologies. In FYs 2009 and 2010, VA plans to obligate
approximately $126M for the following types of energy projects:
Renewably-fueled cogeneration
Solar photovoltaic
Wind
Geothermal/ground source heat pump
Energy infrastructure improvements
Facility metering
Environmental management systems
In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
provided the Department with $1 billion in the medical facilities
account (for non-recurring maintenance projects). Approximately $400M
(40%) of these funds will be dedicated to projects that feature an
energy efficiency or renewable energy component.

Departmental Administration

Question. The budget request for Departmental Administration has an
increase of over 17% compared to the fiscal year 2009 appropriation,
and an increase of about 6% in the number of full-time equivalent
personnel. Included in personnel increases are increases of 45% in the
Office of Policy and Planning and 31.5% increase in the Office of
Congressional Affairs. What would justify such significant funding and
personnel increases in administrative offices?
Response. A significant portion of the funding and staffing
increases in General Administration are needed to directly support a
number of vital transformation initiatives. VA will create a reliable
management infrastructure that expands or enhances corporate
transparency at VA and places much greater focus on improved client
services and enhanced responsiveness to the needs of Veterans and all
VA stakeholders.
Transformation initiatives supported by the 2010 budget are:
$8.5 million and 6 FTE to expand the VA-DoD Joint
Collaboration Office in the Office of Policy and Planning. This office
will provide oversight for the joint governance and strategic planning
process, and provide analytical information to support analysis of
policy and program issues that affect VA-DoD collaboration efforts,
including joint responsibilities in the continuum of care and services
from service member to Veteran status.
$1.5 million and 9 FTE to establish a Corporate Analysis
and Evaluation function that would analyze investment options for the
Secretary and provide an analytical basis for making investment
decisions on current programs and new initiatives.
$645 thousand to fund the new Office of Acquisition,
Construction, and Logistics which is responsible for overseeing the
resources, services, and projects that comprise VA's capital facilities
program, and directing the Department's acquisition and logistics
activities (Supply Fund). The necessity of this office is highlighted
by the $1.921 billion in capital funding in our 2010 budget request.
To implement VA's Paralympic program pursuant to Public
Law 110-389, $5.5 million is budgeted for grants to local providers to
help implement the program and for direct subsistence payments to
participating Veterans and service members. This program will be
administered by the Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs.
$2 million for Enterprise-wide training and Corporate-
level HR programs in the Office of Human Resources and Administration.
VA's Corporate Senior Executive Management Office is being established
to recruit, develop, and retain a cadre of people-centric and results-
oriented senior managers committed to serving Veterans and VA's
mission. VA will also move forward on establishing a Human Resource
Corporate Consulting Center. The corporate approach will allow VA to
move from a transactional based process to a consulting center that
provides expertise on training, adult learning, workforce and
succession planning, performance measures and evaluation, and VA's
business acumen.
$2.8 million and 24 FTE for crises management exercises
and VA readiness programs in the Office of Security and Preparedness.
This funding will allow VA to prepare and validate VA's ability to
perform mission essential functions during crises; provide for a
Personnel Security and Suitability Office to strengthen background
investigations; strengthen VA's police inspections program; provide for
a Personal Identity Verification (PIV) program office at Central
Office; and strengthen VA's special access program for classified
information.
$1.7 million and 12 FTE for the Office of Congressional
and Legislative Affairs to be able to respond to Congress in a more
timely way to the increasing number of requests from Congress and
stakeholders.

Federal Recovery Coordinators

Question. Witnesses at the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing
on April 28th indicated that there was a great need for the assistance
of Federal Recovery Coordinators for our seriously injured veterans
even after they had transitioned from the DoD health care system to the
Veterans Health Administration.
1. Can you tell me if the fiscal year 2010 budget submission
includes funds for additional Federal Recovery Coordinators?
Response. The FRCP received over $4.4 million from Patient Care
Services (PCS) for Fiscal Year 2009. The funding from PCS enables FRCP
to increase its budget should the need arise. This is the first year
that FRCP's budget has been tracked independent of the PCS budget. As
such, by the end of FY 09 we will know the total costs of this program,
including travel and training. Right now, it would appear that FRCP's
current funding of over $4.4 million is more than sufficient to support
its current operations.
Currently, FRCP has 14 Federal Recovery Coordinators. We are in the
process of hiring a third FRC to fill a current vacancy in the National
Naval Medical Center, Bethesda. This will fill all slots that are
currently in place for the program. FRCP is constantly assessing its
workload and with a weekly census of its clientele, is able to closely
monitor if the program will need more FRCs. The funding permits such
hiring should it be deemed necessary.
2. Can you tell me if you plan to provide Federal Recovery
Coordinators for all seriously injured veterans?
Response. The program is designed to assist severely wounded, ill
or injured recovering service members, Veterans, and their families
access the care, services, and benefits provided through the various
programs in the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, other
federal agencies, states, and private sector. Program eligibility
criteria were approved by the Senior Oversight Committee and include
those service members or veterans who are:
1. Receiving acute care at military treatment facility;
2. Diagnosed with:
a. Spinal Cord Injury,
b. Burns,
c. Amputation,
d. Visual Impairment,
e. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and
f. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD);
3. Considered at risk for psychosocial complication;
4. Self referred based on perceived ability to benefit from a
recovery plan; and
5. Command referral based on perceived ability to benefit from a
recovery plan.
In addition, the program has a strategy to reach out to those who
went through the system prior to the program's inception and who might
still benefit from a recovery plan and care coordination.

Medical Research

Question. Mr. Secretary, I note that the budget request includes a
substantial increase of $70 million this year for medical research, an
increase of over 13%. The recent review of the Medical Research account
by the VA Office of Inspector General confirmed that the research areas
funded by the Department relate strongly to the diseases and injuries
most prevalent in our Veterans population.
1. Can you please discuss the Department's plan for the $70 million
increase for Fiscal Year 2010 and how it relates to our Veteran
populations? How do you measure the success of VA research?
Response. VA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) funded
studies are relevant to our Veteran populations and address research
questions related to improved understanding, treating, and preventing
diseases and injuries, as well as improving healthcare delivery and
services. The additional funding requests are specifically targeted for
areas of high importance in which further studies are necessary for
specific needs including:
New research initiatives are planned that are related
specifically to the newest Veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq
(Operations Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Iraqi Freedom (OIF)), and VA
requests $20 million above the current base spending of $279 million
for this component. These initiatives will be directed towards further
understanding and treating physical and mental health problems
prevalent in OEF/OIF Veterans including National Guard and reserve
populations; however, many of these studies will provide results that
can be generalized to all Veterans, e.g., if a new therapy is shown
effective for PTSD or TBI.
New initiatives are planned to increase research to
improve access to healthcare and to better address rural healthcare
needs. This effort will be relevant to all veteran populations who need
readily available access to healthcare services wherever they live.
This request represents a $14 million increase above the current base
spending of $24 million.
Personalized medicine research initiatives represent an
additional $14 million above the current base of $40 million. These
studies will also be relevant to all veteran populations, as results
will better inform both the basis for disease and an individual's
treatment response to drugs that consider genetic make up. Discoveries
from personalized medicine research will transform health care in the
very near future, and research in this area will have a direct impact
on the health of all Veteran populations.
The remaining $22 million of the requested increase will cover pay
raises and inflationary costs associated with conducting medical
research.
VA research success is measured both internally and externally.
Internal evaluations include competitive renewals of programs that have
been evaluated as successful, research audits, and inspections, e.g.,
recent OIG finding that VA research is strongly relevant to Veterans'
needs. Examples of external evaluations include peer reviewed
publications and evaluations by the Office of Management and Budget. An
example of success from VA's research program is improved health care
options for Veterans. Following ORD supported research on PTSD among
women Veterans, VA's Office of Mental Health Services is now supporting
a national rollout of training in a therapy called prolonged exposure
therapy, which has shown real results in treating women Veterans who
suffer from PTSD. Women who received this therapy were more likely to
no longer meet PTSD diagnosis criteria and were more likely to achieve
total remission.
2. The Department of Defense has recently received significant
increases in research funding for TBI, PTSD and prosthetics. What
mechanism exists to ensure the two Departments leverage their research
dollars to achieve the maximum impact in shared areas of interest?
Response. While there is no formal mechanism for leveraging funding
between the Department of Defense (DoD) and VA, both agencies have
benefitted immensely from a close collaboration on research efforts in
the areas of TBI, PTSD and prosthetics, which is fostered through
regular meetings of VA and DoD research leadership and investigators
alike. The following are some key examples of these collaborations,
which are intended to prevent overlap in research funding and extend,
as far as possible, the valuable resources allocated to the respective
agencies for research:
VA ORD staff serve as advisors to the DoD research
offices, developing requests for proposals in the area of TBI and PTSD,
as well as provide advice for identifying key priority areas for
funding announcements. VA has worked closely with DoD Center of
Excellence for TBI and Psychological Health (DCOE) and Congressionally
Designated Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) on developing research
programs.
VA ORD staff serve as advisors on the Executive Advisory
Board for the newly funded DoD Clinical Consortium and is thus informed
about new clinical trial proposals and potential areas for
collaboration. The Director of the Executive Advisory Board is a VA
scientist.
The Deputy Chief of Research and Development serves on the
Board of Directors for the Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative
Medicine.
Key DoD research leaders participate actively in meetings
of the VA National Research Advisory Council.
VA staff have attended the strategic planning meetings for
the DCOE, including serving in working groups to develop research
targets and goals.
VA staff regularly participate as reviewers for DoD
scientific proposals--as peer review committee members, as secondary
level reviewers, and as Integration Panel members. All of these roles
serve to integrate the research efforts between the funding agencies.
VA and DoD have jointly sponsored large integration
conferences for TBI and Psychological Health (PH). One recent effort
was a conference designed for eight working groups to develop
recommendations for common data elements for TBI and PH, so that data
definitions and measures are more standardized across studies. The
results of this conference will be available during FY2010.

Information Technology Procurement

Question. Please provide the Committee with an assessment of the
state of procurement at your department.
Response. VA has implemented several significant steps to improve
the state of its procurement operations. As of May 1, 2009, VA is
midway through a process to implement several major organizational
changes, many of which are derived from the results of a comprehensive
study conducted by Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC). As a result of the
study, VA is implementing a plan to improve both the efficiency and
effectiveness of the acquisition function within VA. The major tenets
of this plan are as follows:
Leadership: In an effort to consolidate one central
authority for all VA acquisitions, the Secretary created the Office of
Acquisition, Logistics and Construction. In addition, the Secretary has
requested legislation to establish an Assistant Secretary who will
oversee all Department-wide procurements.
Personnel: While not directly attributed to the study, VA
established clearer lines of authority within the VA Central Office
buying units. In addition to existing offices in Austin, TX; Hines, IL;
Denver, CO; and Frederick, MD, a Technology Acquisition Center (TAC) in
Eatontown, NJ was established to focus primarily on managing
information technology (IT) contracts.
Training and Development: In August 2008, VA launched the
first civilian acquisition academy, whose size and scope is second only
to the Defense Acquisition University (DAU). Using OMB's Federal
Acquisition Certification (FAC) standards, the Academy will focus on
all aspects of acquisition workforce training which include:
Contracting Officers, Contracting Officers' Technical Representatives
(COTR), and Project and Program Managers (P/PM).
Further, in FY 2010, VA will launch a Competency Assessment Center
(CAC) as a precursor to any training and development. Ultimately, a key
measure to assess effectiveness is the degree to which an acquisition
professional closes a specific competency gap(s). The Office of
Personnel Management is working closely with VA to develop the CAC
since the concept revolutionizes the way VA (and government) targets
training opportunities and tracks the competency of the workforce.
Technology: VA has enhanced its contract management
systems with state-of-the-art technology in two primary areas. The
first area is the contract writing system, which systematically guides
contracting officers (CO) through the development of all contractual
documents. COs are mandated to use this system for all contract actions
over $25,000 and cannot issue a contract unless several key data fields
are entered. These changes alone will significantly improve the quality
of contracts and ability to track performance.
The second change is with reporting capability. By adding business
intelligence capability to the system, VA now has the ability to:
a. Measure process efficiency (e.g., timeliness),
b. Assess compliance with acquisition laws and policies, and
c. Predict whether a specific program is behind schedule so
corrective action can be taken.
These enhancements are being used successfully to manage and report
progress on over 1,300 separate procurement actions under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. In FY 2010, the
technology and process changes will be expanded to all procurements
managed by VA. In the future, VA will integrate the contract management
system with the Department's financial management systems to ensure
that proper reconciliation is done between commitments and obligations.
Structures and Processes: As the second largest civilian
federal agency, VA employs over 1,300 GS-1102 contracting officials,
obligates over $15 billion annually, and processes nearly five million
contract actions.\1\ Since 2003, VA has experienced exponential growth
(see Table 2) in both contracting actions (98 percent) and obligations
(280 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on FY 2007 data from the Federal Procurement Data
System--Next Generation (FPDS-NG).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526D.096

Conversely, the total number of GS-1102s has increased at a
significantly lower rate.\2\ This growth in volume and obligations
without an equivalent increase in the number of contracting officials
has put a significant strain on the workforce and on the acquisition
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It is noteworthy that continued growth in dollar obligations
and transactions is anticipated given the importance of VA's mission to
serve America's growing Veteran population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, VA has instituted aggressive strategies to change its
internal structures and processes to improve workflow efficiencies and
to implement a staffing and workflow plan that improves the quantity
and competency of its workforce. The primary goals are to ensure that:
1. VA COs are highly competent and qualified to manage the
burgeoning workload.
2. VA is structured in a manner that reduces process inefficiencies
and workload redundancies.
Given that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) manages nearly
80% of all procurements within VA, one task in the PwC study was to
recommend an optimum organizational structure to improve the quality
and efficiency of VHA's procurement function. Of the several
recommendations provided by PwC, VA adopted the one that realigns VHA's
acquisition management function from a largely decentralized structure
to a more centralized model. Under this recommendation, VHA's
leadership hierarchy will consist of seasoned acquisition
professionals.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C. the new structure will have three
regional directors with line authority over VHA field activities (e.g.,
Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs)). This is a significant
departure from the former decentralized organizational structure where
the VISN procurement officers reported directly to local leadership.
Under the new model, the Department's Senior Procurement Executive
delegates all authority and has oversight responsibility over VHA's
procurement operations.
By creating a contracting-centric organization and reporting
structure and requiring that senior VHA leaders be well trained and
experienced in the procurement field, the quality of acquisition within
VHA should improve significantly.
In addition to the organizational realignment in VHA, VA realigned
procurement operations within the VA Central Office (VACO). To help
attract talent from those non-VA procurement professionals who may live
in the Maryland area and do not want to commute into Washington, VACO's
operations are being transitioned to our Center for Acquisition
Innovation co-located with the VA Acquisition Academy facility in
Frederick, MD. Table 4, submitted in response to question number 3,
shows each buying unit, the FTE count, and the major customers.
Eventually, all buying for VACO customers will reside in that
facility. In addition, the aforementioned TAC in New Jersey will focus
primarily on IT purchases, an area that will experience significant
investment and growth over the next several years. The addition of the
TAC will help to relieve the significant IT workload which currently
resides in Austin, TX and the Cleveland Business Center.
Under the realignment, the National Acquisition Center (NAC) in
Hines, IL, will continue to focus on purchases for medical and surgical
equipment through delegated federal supply schedule authority granted
by the General Services Administration. The NAC supports the needs of
VA hospitals as well as the Departments of Defense and Health and Human
Services. Further, through a world-class intern program, which hires up
to 30 interns annually, VA firmly believes that building a new
generation of acquisition professionals is the soundest long-term
strategy. This new talent will receive high quality training,
development and on-the-job experience. The goal is to teach the interns
new and innovative ways of managing procurements. More importantly,
they will be nurtured and molded for increasingly complex leadership
roles in the future.
The major changes to the structures, processes, measurement systems
and information technology represent transformational steps toward
improving how goods and services are procured in VA.
Question. I understand that some of the procurement offices (Austin
and Cleveland) have stated that they will not handle any new
information technology procurements for the remainder of FY 2009
because they do not have the capacity. Is this true?
Response. Historically, program offices have randomly assigned work
to various acquisition offices without prior planning and acquisition
strategy. A consolidated strategy has been developed to meet the
priority information technology procurements for the remainder of FY
2009. The Center for Acquisition Innovation (CAI), in Austin, TX, is
slated to execute 111 contract actions for an approximate total of
$355M for the remainder of FY 2009. However, executable requirements
packages have not yet been received for some of these actions,
jeopardizing the timely award and obligation of funds. CAI Austin, in
coordination with interns from the VA Acquisition Academy, will
additionally award several simplified acquisitions in support of the
Office of Information Technology. CAI Austin does currently have 16
vacancies and recruitment efforts are underway to identify and retain
qualified contracting professionals. As requirements continue to
emerge, there is a real possibility that we will need to work with GSA
to accept contracting requirements to execute on behalf of VA.
Question. For the record, please submit to the Committee a list of
all procurement offices, which offices they service, as well as the
number of filled positions and vacancies for each.
Response. Profile of VA Workforce
Table 3 shows the distribution of the GS-1102 operational
contracting officers/specialists across the Department and the planned
number of new full time equivalent (FTE) positions.

TABLE 3--TOTAL NUMBER OF GS-1102S BY FISCAL YEAR (2003-08)*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
increase Total
Category 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 between projected
2003-2008 for 2009*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total GS-1102 Workforce............... 766 786 808 851 909 1167 +401 1407*
% increase from previous fiscal year.. ...... 2.6 2.8 5.3 6.8 28.4 52.3 17.1*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Includes 160 new positions at the TAC, 30 additional interns and approximately 50 positions in VHA.

Table 4 provides a breakdown of the total number of contracting
officials. Note that VHA represents over 65 percent of the total GS-
1102 workforce and approximately 82 percent of total dollars obligated.

TABLE 4--DISTRIBUTION OF THE GS-1102 WORKFORCE (AS OF MAY 1, 2009)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Administration/Office authorized GS- On board Number of
1102s vacancies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VACO \1\........................................................ 407 192 215
VHA \2\......................................................... 871 739 132
CFM \3\......................................................... 17 15 2
VBA \4\......................................................... 24 23 1
NCA \5\......................................................... 19 16 3
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL GS-1102s.............................................. 1,338 985 353
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes VACO staff offices, OALC Field elements (i.e., National Acquisition Center, Denver Acquisition and
Logistic Center, and the Centers for Acquisition Innovation), VBA, VHA, and most major systems procurements
for OIT.
\2\ Includes purchases for energy, local medical center procurements.
\3\ All major construction VA-wide.
\4\ Most buying is within the simplified purchasing threshold and orders under IDIQ contracts.
\5\ Manages services to support the national cemeteries and non-recurring maintenance.

Question. I understand that an effort is underway to assess and
prioritize IT procurements. What is the status of this effort, and what
is the way forward to ensuring that crucial IT procurements are handled
expeditiously?
Response. As a result of recent meetings between the Office of
Acquisition and Logistics (OAL) and the Office of Information
Technology (OIT), we have identified 625 OIT requirements for an
estimated $896M for FY 2009 execution. OIT Development has prioritized
its requirements and continues to work with the OAL to ensure that all
priority one requirements are assigned and executed. Joint acquisition
planning and execution efforts are ongoing, and OAL is pursuing
additional capacity through assisted acquisitions.
Question. What is your FY 2010 request for the Office of
Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction--how many new positions are
you requesting? Is this adequate given the continued emphasis on
complicated information technology procurements?
Response. The Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction's
(OALC) FY 2010 budget request is $50.7 million. Of this amount, $645
thousand is to support the Office of the Executive Director OALC, and
$50.1 million is to support the Office of Construction and Facilities
Management (CFM). The requested budget authority is an increase of
$5,485,000 from FY 2009 and adds 16 new FTE. The additional staff is to
support the increased major construction and leasing workload in CFM.
The Office of Acquisition and Logistics (OAL), which has the
primary responsibility of supporting the information technology
procurements, is funded through a self-sustaining revolving account
known as the Supply Fund which is non-appropriated funds. The FY 2010
budget reflects that the Supply Fund will support 662 FTE, an increase
of 30 FTE over 2009. The increases are primarily due to the
establishment of the Technology Acquisition Center and additional
acquisition interns at the VA Acquisition Academy. These resources are
adequate to meet our current information technology program and mission
needs.

Technology Acquisition Center

Question. I understand that your Department is working with the
Department of Defense to establish a Technology Acquisition Center.
Would you please give the Committee a brief overview of this new
Center? What do you hope to gain from this activity, and when will it
be fully operational? What is its mission--will it handle only IT-
related procurements?
Response. VA has recognized for some time the need to increase its
contracting officer population and has taken significant steps, both
near term and long term, to accomplish this. In addition to enhancing
its recruiting activities to draw from the ever-shrinking pool of
trained contracting professionals in the Federal workplace, VA's most
significant near term solution to increase quickly its number of
seasoned contracting officers is both resourceful and unique.
VA is establishing a Technology Acquisition Center (TAC) near Fort
Monmouth, New Jersey. The U.S. Army post, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey,
will be closed in 2011 under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
2005 implementation plan. Fort Monmouth is home to one of the premier
Contracting Centers in the Army. This contracting workforce contains an
experienced core of contract specialists and other acquisition
professionals that are dedicated to the acquisition of IT. VA has moved
swiftly to hire the current Army acquisition staff that desire to
remain in the area and continue their Federal service. By creating the
TAC in Eatontown, NJ, VA will acquire the skills and abilities of 167
acquisition professionals (over 80 of which are contract specialists)
in a very short period of time. This initiative is expected to be fully
staffed by August 2009 and the TAC will have three distinct functional
areas. These areas include contracting; an Acquisition Rapid Response
Office, which will assist in the development of acquisition documents;
and a Program Management Office, which will assist VA Program Managers
in the management of their programs. The staff will support the entire
acquisition lifecycle, not just the contracting piece as is
traditionally found in procurement organizations.

Office of Information and Technology Hiring Freeze

Question. Would you please tell the Committee why there is a hiring
freeze, when it was instituted, and what impact it is having on the
Department?
Response. There has been a hiring freeze within OI&T beginning in
early February 2009. The hiring freeze was implemented within OI&T
because funding for payroll was insufficient to cover on-board staffing
through the end of the fiscal year. As a result, VA requested a
reprogramming of $28 million within the IT Systems appropriation to
support payroll requirements. We appreciate the Committee's support of
VA's reprogramming request. The Department could not maintain its
strong commitment to Veterans to provide high quality and effective IT
operational services and development without obtaining the $28 million
reprogramming and lifting the hiring freeze.
Question. For the record, would you please submit to the Committee
a list of all offices within OI&T, as well as the number of filled
positions and vacancies for each office?
Response. The organizations within OI&T are as follows along with
the current staffing on-board as of April 24, 2009, and current
critical vacancies associated with each that have not been filled:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Information &
Technology: 1 staff, 0 vacancy
Office of Quality, Performance & Oversight: 200
staff; 2 vacancies
Office of Information Protection & Risk Management:
580 staff; 29 vacancies
Office of IT Enterprise Strategy, Policy, Plans &
Programs: 44 staff: 7 vacancies
Office of IT Resource Management: 92 staff; 2
vacancies
Office of Enterprise Development: 879 staff; 53
vacancies
Office of Operations & Field Development: 4,965
staff; 250 vacancies
Question. I am slightly perturbed at hearing about this hiring
freeze, because we tried to help you last year. Last year, our
Committee pointed out to VA that OI&T had a staffing requirement to
hire 1,990 additional FTEs, most of these in the field providing IT
support in the many medical centers. However, in responses back to the
Committee, the Department stated that VA only needed ``to hire an
additional 247 staff in FY08 . . .'' and you requested only 94
additional FTE.
Response. The 2010 budget request includes funding to support an
additional 800 FTE. In addition, OI&T, as part of VA's transformation
to the 21st Century review process, is completing a staffing analysis
to determine/validate the staffing needs of OI&T. See Table 1 below.
Question. I understand that your FY 2010 request includes funds to
hire 600 more IT people for the field, and another 200 IT for the VA
Central Office. Does your budget include enough funds to hire these 800
new people? Is 800 new staff enough?
Response. As shown in our budget submission to Congress, 600 FTE
will support Enterprise Operations and Field Development IT support.
Other field personnel include field development staff as well as field
security and information protection staff. 25 FTE of the 800 FTE is
attributable to VA Central Office. Sufficient funding is included in
the FY 2010 budget request to fund 800 additional FTE as well as
correct the payroll funding shortages (correcting the base) experienced
in FY 2009. In addition, OI&T, as part of VA's transformation to the
21st century review process, is completing a staffing analysis to
determine/validate the staffing needs of OI&T.

TABLE 1--OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY
[FY 2009-2010 FTE Distribution]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2009 FY 2010 Total
FY 2009 FTE FY 2009 FY 2010 FTE FY 2010 increase/
BA FTE reimb. total BA FTE reimb. total decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Operations and Field 4,747 1,781 4,925 5,347 178 5,525 600
Development (EOFD)..............
Enterprise Development........... 801 64 865 912 64 976 111
Information Protection & Risk 620 0 620 684 0 684 64
Management (IPRM)...............
OI&T Corporate Administration.... 370 0 370 395 0 395 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total OI&T FTE............... 6,538 242 6,780 7,338 242 7,580 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HealtheVet Integrated Master Plan

Question. What is the status of this effort and when does VA expect
to have a comprehensive Integrated Master Plan (IMP)?
Response. For over 18 months, the Office of Information and
Technology (OI&T) and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) have worked
closely to develop a HealtheVet integrated program plan (IPP). In the
wake of the issues that arose from the Replacement Scheduling
Application (RSA), VA is engaging in a full review of all HealtheVet
modules, materials, and plans. The outcome of this evaluation will
provide VA sufficient information to establish authoritative completion
dates for an Integrated Master Plan (IMP).
Question. Do enhancements and modernization projects allow for more
modular services or SOA type approach allowing for best of breed
modules which could be internally developed or purchased and then
integrated?
Response. VA recognizes the many benefits of implementing Service
Oriented Architecture (SOA) as part of enhancements and modernization
projects, and moreover, is in the process of incorporating SOA into
VA's planning and implementation activities. Implementing a service
oriented architecture offers VA significant benefits from both a
business and IT perspective. Among the major advantages of using SOA at
VA are greater flexibility and efficiency, as well as quicker reactions
to changing governance and compliance requirements and business
processes.
VA is currently in a strategic and sequential process of moving to
a service oriented architecture. The first major instance of VA's use
of SOA is within the long-term efforts of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
implementation, commonly called the Chapter 33 program. The Chapter 33
program will be the first reference implementation of SOA. VA is
currently developing a detailed roadmap and plan for SOA
implementation. VA anticipates completion of this roadmap by December
2009.

Additional Questions From Chairman Edwards: Information and Technology
Questions

Question. What projects are underway that define the VA's approach
to moving to a new hardware platform?
Response. OI&T has projects underway on several fronts to replace
the legacy hardware platform for the Veterans Health Information
Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA). There are three primary
components of the solutions which will be addressed separately. These
are the application servers, those on which client sessions run,
database servers, those which fetch data and return it to the client
applications, and the storage platform which holds the patient data.
Efforts to modernize these platform components are tightly integrated
into the National Data Center Project (NDCP), and the sequencing of
these initiatives is coordinated with the migration of VistA systems
into the NDCP.
The specifics of these projects to upgrade this hardware platform
are as follows:
Application Servers--testing has been completed on commodity x86
server technology running both LINUX and Windows. Production systems
running Windows are in place in VISN 23 and being finalized for testing
in the data center environment in Region 4. Production systems running
LINUX are in limited operation in the Sacramento Data Center.
Regardless of the operating system chosen to run on these platforms the
commodity nature of x86 platforms has been validated as providing
exceptional stability and performance for this component of the VistA
hardware solution.
Database Servers--testing is underway for the migration of this
component off of end-of-sale HP Alpha and on to Itanium technology.
This strategy will allow OI&T to continue to leverage the OpenVMS
operating system which offers the least complicated path for migration.
A production instance of VistA at the Cleveland VAMC has been brought
online with Itanium and is being evaluated. The results are early but
impressive. OI&T has begun to explore alternative platforms for this
hardware component to verify the best technology to provide this
solution. Current plans are to continue with Itanium while analysis is
completed.
Storage--the current storage infrastructure utilized for VistA
spans a series of mid-life and end-of-life technologies, based on when
the last facility-based technical refresh was executed. These
disparities will be addressed as VistA systems are migrated into data
centers. The current storage platform in the data center solution is
mid-life and has support and capacity for expansion, but is mid-tier
and cannot effectively scale to meet future demand. Testing has been
completed on an enterprise-class storage platform and funding to begin
the implementation of this more technically appropriate solution has
been budgeted in FY10.
Question. What is the Plan to modernize VistA, and will this plan
help coordinate software development efforts that would enable reuse of
existing legacy VistA components deemed valuable to the organization?
Response: HealtheVet is the technological plan to modernize VistA.
Joint efforts between the internal Office of Information and Technology
(OI&T) and Veterans Health Administration/Office of Health Information
(VHA/OHI) have been established to validate and document the scope,
business architecture and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) for the
HealtheVet System-of-Systems. These collaborative efforts are assisting
with the development of a comprehensive strategic plan that will
execute this major IT program, including cost models and respective
Integrated Master Plan/Integrated Master Schedule (IMP/IMS) necessary
to manage and sustain HealtheVet projects/products. Items in this plan
will not only allow the organization to understand the necessary
development efforts, but it will also eliminate duplication of
functional services, ideally maximizing the resources at VA and of
HealtheVet. At this time, we have identified some improvements to Vista
Legacy to support the immediate and critical needs, as well as continue
to define the future direction of HealtheVet.
Question. Is the VA looking at commercial best practices for
implementing clinical systems and integration of disparate systems in
the private healthcare sector?
Response. Yes. HealtheVet targets commercial best practices for
implementation, integration and evaluation.
Question. What is the incremental technology roadmap, starting in
2009, for sequencing modernization of the hardware and software for IT
modernization supporting VHA?
Response. The slides at attachment 1 present a high-level
technology roadmap for modernizing the software supporting VHA.
Question. What is the plan for improving VHA's ability to acquire
needed services like systems integration and customization for VistA
enhancement as well as modernization?
Response. VA's strategy for improving acquisition of systems
integration and customization is shifting to address not only the
acquisition process itself, but also new approaches to development and
program management. VA is working to establish project management
methods that center around agile development, frequent testing, and
substantial end-user involvement. Several pilot projects are underway
that utilize these processes, and initiatives like the HealtheVet
governance model and HealtheVet Acquisition Strategy include heavy
involvement from both technical and business staff.
VA continues to face acquisition and staffing challenges, both of
which impact program timelines. OI&T is working to adopt an Integrated
Project Team approach to software development, which features not only
technical, engineering, and business involvement, but also
representatives of key functions including human resources and
acquisitions. This approach engages acquisition staff earlier in the
development process, facilitating a more strategic approach to the
acquisition process that will help mitigate some of the challenges
faced to date. Challenges to IT acquisition remain, however, and VA
continues to investigate better and more permanent solutions to these
issues.
Question. What VA contract vehicles and VA contracting officers are
available to support maintenance and modernization efforts for
hardware, software and services?
Response. Available VA contracts: Currently, VA has few
``internal'' contract vehicles for the procurement of information
technology (IT) hardware, software, and services. In accordance with
federal acquisition regulations, VA makes maximum use of existing
Government-wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) and the General Services
Administration's (GSA) Federal Supply Schedules. Recently however, VA
has determined that the award of enterprise wide contracts would
enhance our ability to leverage our acquisition workforce and provide
us the opportunity to establish better terms, conditions, and pricing
than are generally available through existing non-VA contracts. VA
intends to begin the process of developing these new contracts in
fiscal year 2010.
Current VA contracts include:
a. Ten Global Information Technology Support Services (GITSS)
Contracts--ordering contracts for a full array of IT services
b. Blanket Purchasing Agreement (BPA) awarded under GSA IT Schedule
70 for lease of desktop computers, monitors, maintenance and
installation services
c. Eight BPAs awarded under GSA IT Schedule 70 for VistA Contractor
Services to maintain and support VistA legacy systems
In addition to these VA-awarded contracts, VA makes significant use
of the following GWACs and GSA contracts/schedules in acquiring IT
hardware, software, and services:
a. GSA Veterans Technology Services (VETS) GWAC, which is a
``preferred'' source for acquiring IT services per VA policy
b. NASA Solutions for Enterprise Wide Procurement (SEWP) IV GWAC,
which is a mandatory source for acquiring VA hardware, software,
maintenance and installation services per VA policy
c. GSA Federal Supply Schedule 70 for IT equipment, software, and
services. This is probably the most widely used IT procurement vehicle
throughout the Federal government.
VA contracting Officers: VA's Office of Acquisition and Logistics
(OAL) is the principal contracting activity within VA for the
procurement of hardware, software, and information technology (IT)
services. Within OAL the main organizations focused on the procurement
of IT are the Center for Acquisition Innovation (CAI), Austin, Texas
campus; and the newly created Technology Acquisition Center (TAC),
located in Eatontown, NJ.
VA has recognized for some time the need to increase its
contracting officer population and has taken significant steps, both
near term and long term, to accomplish this. In addition to enhancing
its recruiting activities to draw from the ever-shrinking pool of
trained contracting professionals in the Federal workplace, VA's most
significant near term solution to increase quickly its number of
seasoned contracting officers is both resourceful and unique.
The U.S. Army post, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, will be closed in
2011 under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 implementation
plan. Fort Monmouth is home to one of the premier Contracting Centers
in the Army. This contracting workforce contains an experienced core of
contract specialists and other acquisition professionals that are
dedicated to the acquisition of IT. VA has moved swiftly to hire the
current Army acquisition staff that desire to remain in the area and
continue their Federal service. By creating the TAC in Eatontown, NJ,
VA will acquire the skills and abilities of 167 acquisition
professionals (over 80 of which are contract specialists) in a very
short period of time. The TAC is expected to be fully staffed by August
2009. The TAC will have three distinct functional areas. These areas
include contracting, an Acquisition Rapid Response Office which will
assist in the development of acquisition documents and a Program
Management Office which will assist VA Program Managers in the
management of their programs. The staff will support the entire
acquisition lifecycle not just the contracting piece as is
traditionally found in procurement organizations.
Through the VA Acquisition Academy (VAAA) in Frederick, MD, VA is
training a cadre of acquisition interns for the future. The first class
of interns has successfully completed its first year of intensive
acquisition training, while VA is in the process of selecting suitable
candidates for its second intern class which is slated to start
training during the Summer of 2009. The VAAA has made significant
progress to ensure that future VA contract specialists/contracting
officers have the requisite training and certifications to support
critical program execution. In addition to the FAC-C training, the VAAA
is developing a project and program management development program that
exceeds the minimum FAC-Program/Project Management (FAC-P/PM)
requirements. The VA's FAC-P/PM program will be applied learning based
and address all levels of expertise with an expanded set of
competencies to ensure the VA's project and program managers are
capable of delivering the best value to the taxpayer. The VA's FAC-P/PM
program is addressing information technology project/program management
issues first.
The combined strength of the CAI and TAC contracting activities
will exceed 220 acquisition professionals focused on supporting the IT
requirements of the Department. In conjunction with VA's continued
recruitment and retention initiatives, and the development of its
future acquisition workforce through the VAAA, this number is
considered adequate.

[Questions for the record submitted by Ranking Member Zach
Wamp]

Transformation

Question. How will this transformation occur? Will transformation
occur in-house using policy directives set by you, or will you be
working with this Committee and the authorizing Committee on
legislative proposals to transform the VA? What role will Veterans
groups have in the process?
Response. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has begun to lay
down the groundwork for transforming into a 21st Century organization
that is Veteran-centric, results-driven and forward-looking. The
approach used to transform VA will employ leadership directives,
suggestions from Veterans and their families, Veteran Service
Organizations, employees, unions, and work with Congress and its key
committees to develop and enact legislative proposals to accelerate and
support transformation. Laying the foundation for transformation began
during the presidential transition period in listening to the concerns
and ideas from Congressional committee staff, Veteran Service
Organizations, and VA employees. It continued in February when VA
started developing a new vision statement with valuable input from key
stakeholders. VA interviewed Senate and House authorizing and
appropriating committee staff, conducted focus groups of Veterans and
their family members, and surveyed over 16,000 VA employees to learn
more about their vision and expectations for a transformed Department.
Numerous ideas have been proposed by employees and other
stakeholders. Several of these insights have been inserted into the
work of the Transformation Task Force (TTF). The TTF drives the
transformation initiatives through the VA governance process using an
iterative approach so that each proposal can be discussed, improved,
and ultimately approved. The governance process is a transparent method
allowing every organization in the Department to participate in the
decision making process on transformation initiatives.
Question. Give us an example of something as it is at the VA today,
and what it would look like under transformation?
Response. The development and implementation of a joint, virtual,
lifetime electronic record, which will ultimately contain
administrative and medical information from the day an individual
enters military service throughout their military career and after they
leave the military. Today, VA relies on reams of paper, which is
difficult to locate, housed in various locations, and is not integrated
with data owned by the Department of Defense.
This disparate and inefficient approach leads to negative
experiences when Veterans interact with VA and the possibility for
inaccurate responses and decisions. In the future, regardless of where
a Veteran is located his or her complete record would be available for
use by the Veteran, VA, and DoD.
Question. Your testimony says that resources are included in the
budget for this transformation that will take more than one year to
complete. How much is in this budget that is directly tied to the
transformation and what does it get us?
Response. The FY10 budget request submitted to Congress includes
funding to begin developing VA into a 21st Century organization. This
includes $144 million to continue moving toward the President's goal of
reforming the benefits claims process to make VA's claims decisions
timely, accurate, and consistent through use of automated systems. It
will strengthen service to Veterans by providing them the capability to
apply for and manage their benefits on-line. It will also reduce the
movement of paper files and further secure Veterans' personal
information. As additional transformation initiatives are identified as
a result of the organizational and management reviews, more funds
within the budget topline will be denoted as part of the VA
transformation over the next several months.
Question. Does transformation buy us a new Assistant Secretary for
Logistics, Acquisition and Construction? Is this just another layer of
bureaucracy?
Response. The FY2010 budget request contains funding for new
approaches to meeting emerging needs that will change the way VA does
its work. Funding for the new office of the Assistant Secretary for
Acquisition, Logistics and Construction is one of these new approaches.
Currently, VA contracts for goods and services in a variety of places,
using a variety of methods, which leads to little available enterprise
data about the use and purpose of funds. The new office of the
Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics and Construction is
designed to minimize added bureaucracy by elevating an existing office
that is charged with managing this portfolio for the Department.
Establishing the new office of the Assistant Secretary brings the
needed discipline to VA's acquisition, logistics and construction
processes, harvests efficiencies to spend VA budget dollars more
effectively, and improves management results for all organizations in
VA who use contracting services.

Advanced Appropriations for VA Medical Care

Question. When does the administration plan to submit its advance
appropriations for medical care proposal to the Congress? What is the
current thinking on what the proposal would be?
Response. The VA is currently working to finalize the details in
its plan for advanced appropriations. We will work with the Congress to
execute the plan this year.

VA Information Technology Risks

Question. How do you reconcile the substantial request for IT with
the testimony the IG provided to this Committee just a few weeks ago
that we should be concerned about VA's ability to effectively identify
and manage its IT capital investments, and ensure that annual funding
decisions make the best use of available IT resources?
Response. VA will address OIG concerns through the implementation
of an IT Multi-Year Programming Process. Our IT Multi-Year Programming
Process begins with the Chief Information Officer (CIO) publishing
official multi-year Programming Guidance, over his signature, to key
business stakeholders and subordinate deputies. The Programming
Guidance addresses investment priorities based on the VA Secretary's
strategic goals and objectives in the respective out-years.
Once new program or increased investment proposals are submitted to
the Office of Information Technology (OI&T), the CIO convenes the
Programming and Long-Term Issues Board (PLTIB), comprised of both
business stakeholders and OI&T staff members, to deliberate and provide
a Program proposal to the IT Leadership Board (ITLB), chaired by the VA
Deputy Secretary. Once the ITLB approves the Multi-Year Program, budget
year guidance is provided to the Budget and Near-Term Issues Board
(BNTIB) to develop the VA Secretary's budget request for IT to the
Office and Management and Budget (OMB). The BNTIB is comprised of
essentially the same organizations (business stakeholders and OI&T
staff members) as the PLTIB.
This process lays out a capital investment planning process that
provides a multi-year view, involves all stakeholders in the process,
and ensures the oversight of the senior leadership in the Department
regarding all long-term IT investment decisions.
Question. If you could pick one, what is the highest priority
increase in the VA IT Budget?
Response. Providing post-9/11 GI benefits by August 2009 and
supporting this initiative in FY 2010 remains the top IT priority.
However, the funding request for Paperless Delivery of Veterans
Benefits is the highest priority increase in the FY 2010 request, as
the funding increased from $1.5 million in FY 2009 to $143.68 million
in FY 2010, the largest funding increase for any single initiative in
the budget request.
Question. Do you believe that the proposed increase to the VA IT
account will ``right-size'' the IT budget request and that you will not
require a reprogramming of funds into IT in fiscal year 10?
Response. At this time, the increase will support VA's OI&T budget
requirements for FY 2010. The Secretary has initiated a transformation
process to prepare the Department to operate in the 21st Century. This
transformation process will take place over the next three months, and
may identify a potential reallocation of resources to support new
initiatives.
Question. How does this budget request better meet the IT needs of
VA?
Response. With the resources requested for FY 2010, VA will
strengthen collaboration with the Department of Defense with the goal
of improving patient safety and care, and expediting benefit claims
processing; automating the educational benefits assistance system to
handle the expanded benefits passed in the Post 9-11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Act of 2008; continue to develop Financial and
Logistics Integrated Technology (FLITE) as the next generation core
financial management system; and strengthen our IT workforce as well as
our aging and fragile IT infrastructure.

VA IT Staffing (FTE) Question

Question. How long will it take to hire, train, and fully integrate
800 new FTEs into the VA IT organization?
Response. It will take approximately a year to first hire, and then
train and fully integrate 800 new FTEs into the VA OI&T organization.

VA Benefits Claims Backlog

Question. Mr. Secretary you have been at the helm of the VA for a
few months now, and undoubtedly you have heard from various
constituencies about the claims backlog at the VA. Part of the issue is
there seems to be an inconsistent definition of what a backlogged claim
is exactly. We have put funding in this bill over the last two years to
hire an additional 3,000 claims processors. What is the current claims
rating backlog? Have you been able to establish a common definition?
Response. The Veterans Benefits Administration's entire inventory
of disability claims is frequently--and incorrectly--referred to as the
``claims backlog.'' While there are approximately 400,000 claims in our
inventory, the majority of these claims are not ``backlogged.'' The
pending claims inventory is dynamic rather than static. It includes all
claims received, whether pending for just a few hours or as long as six
months. Completed claims are continuously removed from the inventory
while new claims are added. We are averaging over 82,000 new claims
added to the inventory each month during FY 2009.
VBA's strategic target for completing disability claims is 125
days. The target allows for necessary time awaiting evidence or
expiration of statutory requirements including the Veterans Claims
Assistance Act. VA defines ``claims backlog'' as the number of claims
that have been pending longer than the 125-day goal. As of the end of
April 2009, 138,415 claims (34% of the inventory) had been pending
longer than 125 days and should therefore be considered ``backlogged.''
Since 2007, the number of field claims processing employees has
increased by more than 3,400 FTE. The increased staffing level is
having an impact, and performance improvements are being achieved. The
average days to complete claims Fiscal Year To Date (FYTD) 2009 is 164
days, the lowest level since the hiring initiative began in January
2007. In April, we completed over 86,000 claims in an average of 156
days. Our production this fiscal year is 10 percent above the same
period in FY 2008. However, while we are completing more claims, the
incoming claims volume through April 2009 is up 13 percent over last
year.

Specialty Mental Health Care and Rural Health Outreach and Delivery

Question. Why does the budget request propose to eliminate bill
language in the Medical Services account that sets a spending floor of
$3.8 billion for specialty mental health care and $250 million for a
rural health outreach delivery and initiative?
Response. A spending floor of $3.8 billion for specialty mental
health care was not requested by the VA in the FY 2009 budget request,
but was inserted by Congress in Public Law 110-329. The VA would prefer
not to have a specific spending floor established in law but rather to
ensure that the policies established in the Uniform Mental Health
Services in VA Medical Centers and Clinics Handbook are extended to
every Veteran to whom we provide mental health care. The FY 2010 budget
request of $4.564 billion is our current estimate of the cost of that
care.
The bill language of $250 million for rural health was also not
requested by the VA in the FY 2009 budget request but was inserted by
Congress in Public Law 110-329. The VA would prefer not to have a
specific spending floor established in law but to increase access to
rural health services for those Veterans who live in rural and highly
rural areas. The FY 2009 funding is available for obligation until
September 30, 2010 (two year funds), and the VA anticipates that $60
million of this amount will be obligated in FY 2009. The balance of
$190 million will be obligated in FY 2010. The VA has requested an
additional $250 million in the FY 2010 budget request, for a total of
$440 million available for rural health initiatives in FY 2010.

Rural Health Outreach and Delivery

Question. Please provide the Committee with the status of the Rural
Health Outreach and Delivery program that was funded at $250 million
for FY'09.
Response.
December 2008: Office of Rural Health (ORH) allocated
$21.75 million to Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs).
On May 21, 2009, VA announced that it had provided $215
million in competitive funding to improve services specifically
designed for Veterans in rural and highly rural areas. After a careful
review, the Office of Rural Health selected 74 programs, many of which
were either national in scope or affected multiple states. The press
release for the award of these projects is at attachment 2.
Question. How much of the funding has been allocated? How much do
you plan to allocate this fiscal year?
Response. VA allocated $21.75 million in December of 2008 and will
allocate the $215 million by mid-June 2009. We plan to obligate $60
million of the $250 million by the end of FY 2009.
Question. For the record, please provide FY '09 funding allocations
by state and provide a short summary of Rural Health outreach and
delivery initiative projects that have been/will be funded for FY 09.
Response. The $215 million for the rural health initiatives at
attachment 3 was distributed by Veterans Integrated Service Network
(VISN) and Program Office. A short summary of the Rural Health outreach
and delivery initiative projects is at attachment 4. A state-by-state
breakdown is not available at this point.
Question. How do you justify increasing this program by 663 percent
in fiscal year 2010 when you only expect to spend about $60 million out
of the $250 million appropriation in fiscal year 2009?
Response. The Department's budget reflects the obligation of FY
2009 appropriated funds for rural health initiatives over a two-year
period. VA appreciates the operational flexibility Congress has
provided to ensure the most effective use of these funds. VA is using a
two-year execution process to allow for deliberate planning and
execution. In FY 2009, we expect to provide $237 million to the VISNs
and Program Office which represents 95 percent of the appropriated
amount of $250 million. The remainder of $13 million (5 percent) will
be provided to the VISNs and Program Office in FY 2010. However, we
anticipate the VISNs/Program Office will only obligate $60 million of
the funding they receive in FY 2009 and will obligate the remaining
$190 million in FY 2010.
Question. Does the VA have the capacity to effectively grow this
program by such a large amount? Why has it taken so long to launch the
FY'09 program?
Response. Yes, ORH has this capacity, as shown by the fact that the
office has completed the establishment of a rigorous selection process
for rural health initiatives.
The FY 2009 program took more time because the office had to create
the process to ensure VISNs and VAMCs, as well as VHA program offices
submit projects and programs using very strict established guidelines.
ORH also created a very rigorous review to identify the most innovative
projects to enhance the health care of rural Veterans. Now that ORH has
a proven process for selection, FY 2010 obligation/execution will begin
earlier in the fiscal year.

Chattanooga CBOC Report

Question. The VA completed a report that said that the VA (TVHS)
was going to initiate efforts to re-establish contractual relationship
with local hospitals for some, if not most inpatient services in the
Chattanooga area. I know that the target date for the issuance of that
solicitation was October 1, 2008 but that slipped to April 3, 2009. Can
you tell me what the current status is of the solicitation and has the
contract been finalized? Please provide the contract deliverables for
the record.
Response. The contract has not been finalized; however, the
contract proposed statement of work and other initial documents were
completed on April 3, 2009. Currently, the solicitation is under
development, and once completed will go through the required review
process for legal and technical approval prior to being issued for
bids. The anticipated release of the solicitation is in August 2009.

Post-9/11 GI Bill Implementation Questions; Submitted by Ranking Member
Wamp

Question. What are the issues that caused the delay?
Response. During a National Training exercise conducted on March
25, 2009, the Chapter 33 Front End Tool (FET) returned error messages
which caused many users to lose access to the system. The errors began
when the number of concurrent users exceeded 400. Modifications were
made to the server and database the evening of March 25. On March 26
two additional exercises took place. In the first exercise, error
messages which caused many users to lose access to the system began
when the number for concurrent users reached 500. Further modifications
were made to the server and database before the second exercise that
afternoon. During the second exercise, the number of concurrent users
peaked at around 560. Only isolated error messages were reported.
Question. How is the VA working to resolve those issues or have
they been resolved?
Response. The issue has been resolved.
Question. Has the testing of phase 1 development and deployment
been completed?
Response. Phase I of the Front End Tool (FET), was successfully
deployed on March 9, 2009, to the four Regional Processing Offices
(Atlanta, Buffalo, Muskogee, and St. Louis) delivering the capability
to accept applications and electronically store eligibility and
entitlement information that claims examiners enter manually. Phase I
of the Front End Tool was completed on April 10. Beta testing was
complete on April 17.
Question. What were the results?
Response. The deployment was successful. The performance issue with
the FET Phase I was resolved and tests show response times within or
below the acceptable range of 5-8 seconds.
Question. Is there a comprehensive staffing plan in place?
Response. Yes, there is an Integrated Project Team in place.
Question. When will the Long Term Solution be put in place for
distributing these benefits?
Response. The Long Term Solution is scheduled to be put in place
for distributing benefits by November 2010.
Question. How does the budget request better meet the VA's needs in
meeting the processing needs under the new GI Bill?
Response. VA recognizes the difficult economic choices our Veterans
must make every day and seeks continued improvement in providing
quality service and secure access to our Veterans. As such,
implementation of Chapter 33 strives to ease the reentry of new
Veterans into civilian life by providing timely and accurate decisions
on education claims and continue payments at appropriate levels to
enhance Veterans' and service members' ability to achieve educational
and career goals.
The IT solution for the Chapter 33 program is of critical
importance to VA. The budget request will ensure that resources can be
consistently and seamlessly applied to the program's initiatives, which
is on target to meet the interim solution's August 1, 2009, deadline.
With the funding included in the budget request, VA resources and the
Chapter 33 IPT will continue to work to ensure that the long-term
solution is deployed in FY 2011. Planned accomplishments for FY 2010
include developing and testing the long-term solution.

VA/DoD Interoperability Plan

Question. What are the key interoperability issues facing VA and
DoD at this time?
Response. The key interoperability issues facing VA and DoD include
working to meet the mandate for full interoperability required in
Section 1635 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Additionally, VA and DoD are working to build upon the already
significant progress achieved toward sharing electronic health
information. This work includes enhancing the types of clinical
information shared through current data exchanges, such as the
Bidirectional Health Information Exchange (BHIE). This work also
includes identifying and implementing more robust data standards that
will support sharing interoperable information.
For the long term, VA and DoD are working to implement the Virtual
Lifetime Electronic Record to improve the integration of health,
benefits and personnel data to better support the full continuum of DoD
and VA shared operations (e.g., health care, disability adjudication
and claims processing, personnel and pay issues). This work will rely
in part, on updating existing infrastructure and technology, and
identifying and implementing a common services and architecture
approach.
Question. How are you working with the DoD to resolve them?
Response. To resolve key interoperability issues, per the mandate
contained in the 2008 NDAA, VA and DoD formed the DoD/VA Interagency
Program Office (IPO) in 2008. The IPO is operational and providing
joint management oversight of health and administrative
interoperability activities. The IPO works closely with the execution
offices within the departments to identify potential risks involving
the coordination, approval and development of information sharing
requirements and key interoperability activities, including development
and implementation.
In addition to the coordinated working relationships between VA,
DoD and the IPO, the departments remain fully aligned with the national
efforts led by the Department of Health and Human Services and the
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. VA and DoD
partner with both government and private sector resources to identify
and/or define information standards that will support nationwide
interoperability of health information. Additionally, the departments
continue to provide staff to key working groups within standards
development organizations and industry led panels to ensure that VA/DoD
accomplishments are fully leveraged in national efforts.
Joint initiatives that are identified and approved are managed at
the highest levels of both Departments by the DoD/VA Joint Executive
Council and the Joint Strategic Plan (JSP). The JSP contains those
milestones and measures by which senior leadership can ensure the
Departments continue to make forward progress toward achieving
interoperability goals.
Question. Has there been any progress in hiring the Director and
Deputy Director at the Integrated Program Office?
Response. Yes, in VA, the formal hiring solicitation for the Deputy
Director closed on April 17 and resulted in the identification of
several qualified candidates. VA officials are now convening a Senior
Executive Panel that will conduct interviews and select a final
candidate.
Question. Will the VA and DoD have full interoperability by
September 30, 2009 as required by law?
Response. Yes. VA and DoD are on target to meet the September 30,
2009, ``full interoperability'' target mandated by the FY 2008 National
Defense Authorization Act, Section 1635. VA and DoD have already
achieved a level of health information interoperability unprecedented
by other providers. To define ``full interoperability,'' VA and DoD
formed an interagency board of VA and DoD clinicians to identify the
capabilities necessary to support the full continuum of health care
between DoD and VA. This board, the Interagency Clinical Informatics
Board (ICIB), determined that DoD and VA are already sharing almost all
essential health information in viewable electronic format through
existing data exchanges (e.g., FHIE, BHIE and CHDR). To achieve ``full
interoperability'', the ICIB determined that six additional
capabilities must be achieved. Of the six capabilities, VA and DoD have
achieved the initial capability for two; the other four capabilities
are in progress.
Initial capability completed:
Social History--begin sharing the social history
data that is currently captured in the DoD HER with the VA--
initial capability completed.
Separation Physical Exams--Provide initial
capability to share DoD electronic health record information
that supports the separation physical exam processes with the
VA--initial capability completed.
Remaining capabilities on target:
Expansion of Questionnaires/Self-Assessment Tools--
provide all Periodic Health Assessment data stored in the DoD
electronic record to the VA in such a fashion that questions
are associated with the responses--requirements completed.
Expansion of Essentris implementation in DoD--DoD
expansion of Essentris to at least one additional site in each
military medical department--ongoing.
Demonstration of initial Trusted Partnership
Gateways (Secure Network to Support Health Data Exchange)--
Demonstrate the operation of the Partnership Gateways in
support of joint DoD-VA health information sharing--migration
to two gateways completed.
Document Scanning (initial capability)--Demonstrate
an initial capability for scanning medical documents of service
members into the DoD electronic health record and forwarding
those documents electronically to the VA--ongoing.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

WITNESSES

ROBERT F. HALE, COMPTROLLER
WAYNE ARNY, DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT)

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I would like to call the committee
to order and want to thank Secretary Arny and Secretary Hale
for being here. We know how busy you are these days.
I think the subject matter of this hearing is very
important to discuss: the Department of Defense fiscal year
2010 budget request for military construction, family housing,
BRAC, and other programs under our jurisdiction.
I want to thank you both for your long-time service to our
country and our military and our military families.
And, Secretary Arny, I don't know if we know how much
longer you are going to be in your position, whatever time
period it is, you spent a lifetime here, with 40 years of
service to our military and our country, and I want to thank
you for that.
And through this position and your previous position
overseeing installations and the environment for the Navy, you
literally have done something many of us don't do in Congress
most days or most lifetimes, and that is leave a lasting impact
that will improve the quality of life for some great Americans
20, 30, 40 years from now, when we are old men on canes--so if
that is not what public service is all about, I don't know what
is. I think it is.
So thank you for that. And I wanted to say that today.
At this point, I would like to recognize our ranking
member, Mr. Crenshaw.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member (presiding)

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you both for being here today.
And I will dispense with most of my opening statement, but
I wanted to--when I read, Mr. Hale's testimony, the points that
you did--the FY10 budget is going to be talking about, one,
reaffirming commitment to take care of our all-volunteer force.
I think that is great.
Rebalancing programs to institutionalize and enhance
capabilities to fight today's wars and defend against scenarios
we are likely to face in years ahead.
And, finally, reforming how and what we buy with a
fundamental overhaul in the way that DoD makes procurements and
acquisitions and in contracting.
And I want to ask you a little later on, you know, exactly
what that means and what the impacts are, but the one thing,
Mr. Chairman, that I am concerned about and--I think it is
probably something you are concerned about, too, that we have
all these projects that we are going to consider today, but we
don't know how they fit into the so-called FYDP, the future
years defense plan.
And as I understand it, this may be the first time that we
have had to consider projects that we are going to consider for
this year's budget, but we don't know how they are going to fit
in long range. So I am going to ask the witnesses--and I think
they will probably tell us--how all that fits in, because what
we don't want to do is end up--I would hate to see a project
today that we don't see as part of a 5-year plan or a future
plan.
So we are looking forward to the testimony, looking forward
to working with you all. And, again, thank you for your
service. And this subcommittee is committed to getting our work
done on time and meeting the needs of our military. And thank
you for the role you play in that.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. And I do look forward
to getting into the issues that you raised.
I won't offer a long introduction, but since this is
Secretary Hale's first visit to our subcommittee in his present
position, let me just mention, by way of background: he served
as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial
Management and Comptroller, 1994 to 2001, led the national
security division of the Congressional Budget Office for 12
years, and served for 3 years in the Navy as an active-duty
officer, and former executive director of the American Society
of Military Comptrollers, graduate of Stanford, and holds an
MBA from George Washington.
And in terms of introducing Secretary Arny, this is his
third appearance this year before our subcommittee. The only
thing I am going to add to what I have said is this: Thank you
for continuing your legacy of your family's service to the
country, with your two sons serving in the Navy.
Where are they stationed right now?
Mr. Arny. The oldest is here in town getting ready to go to
Warsaw as a naval attache in a year-and-a-half, and the other
is in the pipeline to be the commanding officer of----
Mr. Edwards. That is great. I have two sons and hope I can
be as proud of them someday in their career choices as you have
a right to be of your sons.
Both of your testimonies will be submitted for the record,
but I would like to recognize each of you for an opening
statement for any summary comments you care to make----

Statement of Robert F. Hale

Mr. Hale. Can I start by associating myself with your
remarks about Mr. Arny? Wayne has been very helpful for a lot
of years, but also in the last few months. And I appreciate his
staying around, particularly appreciate him being here today
with all the knowledge he has.
I want to start by thanking the committee for all the
things you have done on behalf of the men and women in our
armed forces. We really do depend on members of Congress to get
the resources we need to meet our nation's national security
requirements, and it is appreciated.
I am going to provide just a very brief overview of the
overall budget with a focus on military construction, and then
I will ask Mr. Arny to give you a few more details.
As you know, the President's base budget asks for $533.8
billion of discretionary budget authority, a $20.5 billion
increase or, 4 percent, which after you adjust for inflation,
amounts to a 2.1 percent increase.
This is a reform budget. I have worked with defense budgets
for a long time now, several decades, and I know we sometimes
use that term loosely or other similar terms, but I believe
this budget is one of a handful that really does qualify as a
reform budget. If it is enacted, I think it will change the way
we do business in the Department of Defense.
The base budget puts into action the three key themes that
Mr. Crenshaw mentioned. Let me just add a little meat to them.
It does reaffirm our commitment to take care of people,
particularly the all-volunteer force, clearly, the highest
priority of Secretary Gates and the chairman.
For example, it fully funds personnel costs of a larger
force in the base budget, avoiding--or minimizing the kind of
more volatile wartime budget. Second, the budget reshapes
priorities to focus on the kinds of wars we are fighting today,
especially regulation and conventional, but maintains a balance
of conventional capability.
We have added personnel to special operations with
significant increases in intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance. And, of course, there is a cost to those
initiatives. The budget does complete the program of record and
terminates production of the F-22 and C-17 aircraft.
And, third, it reforms what we buy and how we buy. There is
a personnel side to that, and we can talk more about this, but
increasing the capability of our Acquisition Corps is a key
theme in this budget, as well as moving the pendulum back in
terms of the focus or the use of contractors; therefore, we
have an in-sourcing initiative in this budget.
And there is a hardware side to changing kind of what we
buy, looking at troubled programs, and we have--where we felt
we had enough information, chosen to terminate a number of
them, and do some major restructurings, like the missile
defense program and Future Combat Systems.
Turning to military construction, the Department requests
$23 billion for MILCON and family housing. I think this request
assists or supports all of the themes, but perhaps particularly
taking care of people and the reshaping and modernizing.
Overall, the request represents an 8.4 percent decline in
military construction. That sounds ominous, but it really
reflects successful achievements in the Base Realignment and
Closure account as well as housing privitization. The BRAC
request is down by 14.8 percent, and family housing is down 38
percent, as a result of housing privatization success. If you
take out those two categories, there is a 3.1 percent increase
in the MILCON, portion.
The Department's base budget meets our key goal for
military construction: investing in facilities that support and
grow the force. We are close to completing that goal. The force
has grown. The Army and Marine Corps have their target end
strength, barracks brigade complexes, and quality-of-life
projects funded in this request.
The request also includes significant investment in
recapitalizing medical facilities and schools, and a
substantial investment in what we call a global defense
posture, which includes moving 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to
Guam.
Before I leave the base budget, let me mention the FYDP
issue. We want to provide a FYDP; however, we don't have a plan
beyond fiscal year 2010, and this is not without precedent. It
happened in 2001 and also in 1993. We need to complete the
Quadrennial Defense Review and the fall program budget review
in order to develop a 5-year plan. We will submit one next year
in its entirety, but for the moment we don't have one. I also
wanted to talk about a couple other portions of the budget.
The overseas contingency operations, or OCO--I like to call
it Washington's newest acronym--we are asking for $130 billion
for overseas contingency operations. This is part of the
budget. It is not a supplemental. We do not plan on submitting
a supplemental in fiscal 2010. But if policies or the wartime
situation changes, we need to retain the authority to recommend
one, if we need it.
The OCO budget includes $1.4 billion for military
construction, all for projects in Afghanistan. Given the
limited pre-existing infrastructure over there, we need to do a
lot, construct facilities to sustain, protect and house the
troops. The request funds operational facilities, runways,
parking aprons, and the like.
I also want to express my gratitude to the Congress for the
$7.4 billion we received in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, ARRA, easier to call it the stimulus bill;
$4.3 billion for facilities--and modernization, $2.2 billion
for military construction, homeowners assistance program, and
some energy investments, as well.
This funding will allow us to improve facilities we
wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. And I am happy to
report that there are 4,200 projects identified for stimulus
funding in DoD in all 50 states, a few territories, and the
District of Columbia. All the projects have been identified,
and we are moving as quickly as we can to implement them.
Projects will not only stimulate the economy; they will
also improve, we think, quality of life and let us catch up on
some of the backlogs--or reduce them, I should say--that we
wouldn't have otherwise been able to do.
And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I remind the committee that we
recently submitted--and now both houses have acted on or the
House has acted on in the supplemental request--covering the
remaining expenses of the war effort for 2009.
There is $0.9 billion in MILCON in there for Afghanistan
and another $1.4 billion for a variety of critical construction
improvements, such as more warrior in transition complexes.
We stand by to assist members and staff however we can on
the supplemental and on the fiscal 2010 request. And to help
our troops, we ask that you enact it by Memorial Day or as soon
thereafter as you can.
Again, on behalf of the men and women of the department,
let me thank all of you for your strong support and thank you
for the opportunity to testify. After Mr. Arny's statement, I
will be glad to try to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Robert F. Hale follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.004

Mr. Edwards. Mr. Hale, thank you very much.
Secretary Arny.

Statement of Wayne Arny

Mr. Arny. Chairman Edwards--I am honored to appear before
you today. I am just going to make some summary comments.
In the last 10 to 20 years, the Department has come a long
way in improving the facilities and infrastructure in which our
military and civilian workforce and their families work and
live. And we could not have progressed as far as we have
without the continuing support of Congress and in particular
this subcommittee.
Today, we manage over 500,000 facilities worth over $700
billion located on approximately 29 million acres. In
comparison, about 10 years ago, we had 115,000 more facilities,
which is in part a testament to our continuing efforts to
right-size the Department's infrastructure--to match our
operational needs.
The principal program that has allowed us to do that has
been the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) authority. And
using that, over the entire round, we have closed 121 major
installations and realigned 79 major ones after five rounds.
In the 2005 round alone, we affected over 800 locations
that included 24 major closures, 24 major realignments, and 765
lesser actions. As of the fiscal year 2010 request, BRAC
represents a $35.2 billion investment just over the period 2006
to 2011 and $4 billion in annual savings after full
implementation.
However, it is not enough just to close bases and move
functions. At the same time, we have to try to focus on how we
conduct business so as to become more efficient caretakers of
the taxpayers' resources.
An excellent example of our efforts towards efficiency is
joint basing. As part of BRAC 2005, we were required to form 12
new joint bases from 26 separate existing locations so that
installation management functions will be provided by one
component, not two or three, as it is currently.
The joint basing implementation process is complicated.
Almost 50 different areas of responsibilities on these bases
have been identified for consolidation, including food
services, environmental management, child and youth programs,
facility maintenance, and many others, but I can report that we
are well on the way to achieving success.
In January 2008, we began issuing a series of joint basing
implementation guidance documents and, for the first time,
established a set of common definitions and standards for the
installation support to be provided at each joint base.
We established a schedule that was divided into 12 planned
bases, joint bases, into two implementation phases. Each joint
base will develop a detailed implementation plan, including the
personnel and financial arrangements for the combined base.
Five joint bases involving 11 installations were placed
into phase one with an October 2009 milestone established for
full implementation, which includes the transfer of personnel
and funds to work the joint base.
The remaining seven joint bases, involving five
installations, were placed into phase two with an October 2009
Initial Operational Capability (IOC). The services have
assigned implementations for all five phase one installations.
We have reached IOC on those installations and are scheduled--
on schedule for reaching Full Operational Capability (FOC).
The remaining seven joint bases will reach IOC this October
and meet FOC milestones in October 2010, way ahead of the
statutory deadline in December 2011.
And this is just the beginning of where I see the
Department going in the application and full funding of common
levels of service across all our bases and between all the
services.
Switching to housing, a decade ago, we maintained over
300,000 family housing units, two-thirds of which were deemed
inadequate by the Military Departments. At the time, most
people felt that only--Services could provide housing that our
families needed, but with your help and vision, we put housing
privatization authorities in place.
The private sector responded by delivering modern,
affordable housing and, with appropriate oversight, we ensured
the federal government's needs are met. With this year's
request, over 98 percent of DoD's housing inventory in the
United States will be funded for privatization.
With regard to barracks, it was about 17 years ago that the
Military Departments began an ambitious modernization program
to increase the privacy and amenities in permanent party
bachelor housing funding. Using military construction funding
and a traditional government-owned business model, much
progress has been made, but there is still a need for almost
$15 billion to complete the permanent party buyout.
Even at the current program end state, a single family--a
single member quarters will pale in comparison to family
housing, due in part to building designs that do not have the
space and amenities of comparable private-sector housing and
also due to the challenges in adequately funding facility
sustainment.
For these reasons, we are looking to see how we can
leverage the success of family housing privatization by tapping
into private-sector experience to build, revitalize, operate
and maintain our bachelor housing.
We have seen recent innovative concepts where the Army has
added bachelor officer quarters and senior enlisted bachelor
quarters to its existing family housing privatization efforts
at Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart, Fort Drum, and Fort Irwin. A fifth
project is planned for Fort Bliss.
In contrast to the Army, the Navy is mainly focused on--
focusing its--on company housing privatization efforts to bring
shipboard junior enlisted sailors ashore using a special pilot
authority.
The first unaccompanied housing project was awarded in
December 2006 in San Diego. The second was executed December
2007 in Hampton Roads, Virginia. And a third project is
underway in the Jacksonville Mayport area that is under
consideration.
Both of the awarded Navy projects--pilot projects have
demonstrated that, with the authority to pay junior enlisted
members less than full housing allowance, privatization of
single junior enlisted housing is less costly on a life cycle
basis than a traditional government-owned model.
I view this as just a starting point and ask for the
subcommittee's support in the department's continued progress
in shifting towards those models.
This year's budget signals another banner year for
installations with about $23 billion in military construction
and about $8 billion in facility sustainment, restoration and
modernization. The $23 billion in military construction program
is very robust, especially compared to the $8 billion to $9
billion levels we were receiving just about 10 years ago.
Similarly, our sustainment budget this year is also more
robust as compared to 10 years ago. In those days, we used a
percentage of unsubstantiated maintenance and repair backlog to
come up with our budget request, but it didn't work.
Although much remains to be done, we have already made
steady headway over the last decade to improve the overall
condition of our facilities' inventory by using a programmatic
model. The development and use of the facility sustainment
model has given us a sound target to measure our sustainment
budget, and we have been able to defend for the first time our
requirements and increase overall funding in spite of
significant competing demands.
Recapitalization is more challenging. We moved away from
believing a single recap rate expressed in years applied across
a myriad of categories could provide a funding level that was
rational or defendable. We witnessed separate initiatives, like
what--when I was the Navy secretary, I personally observed the
inaccuracy of the recap rate as Hurricane Ivan hit Pensacola,
Florida.
The sudden infusion of restoration funds skewed the recap
rate for the Navy to a lower number than the targeted 67 years,
and yet we all knew that the condition of the rest of the
Navy's facilities across the board did not improve.
Since I was dissatisfied with the previous 67-year metric--
and others were, as well--I asked my staff to go back to basics
and reopen the dialogue on facility condition indices that the
Federal Real Property Advisory Group mandated federal agencies
including their real property records. These quality ratings,
or Q ratings, represent the health of our facilities. And I
firmly believe they have been long ignored.
This summer, my staff will be working with the Military
Departments and Defense Agencies to set up program guidelines
for determining which facilities require priority for funding,
reassessing how Q ratings are conducted and their frequency,
and, most importantly, re-establishing how the department views
and uses master planning at the installation level.
Also, in cooperation with our policy secretary, the Joint
Staff, the combatant commands, and the services, we hope to
initiate joint installation master plans at each overseas COCOM
region, as well.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this
opportunity to highlight the Department's management of
installation assets. And we are ready to take questions.
[The prepared statement of Wayne Arny follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.043

FYDP

Mr. Edwards. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Arny. Thank
you for all your work leading to so many of the improvements
that you referenced in your opening comments.
Secretary Hale, let me begin by asking you, do we not have
a FYDP because the administration wants to propose a reformed
defense budget and, therefore, it didn't want to basically put
into place the FYDP? Obviously, there is a FYDP within the
system that the administration could have projected in this
budget proposal.
Is it you are afraid of locking in--was the
administration----
Mr. Hale. No.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Not wanting to lock in to the
status quo and that is why it didn't put forth a FYDP?
Mr. Hale. No. I mean, the problem is, we feel we need to go
through the quadrennial review and the program budget review in
the fall in order to develop a FYDP. We don't have a plan
beyond fiscal 2010 that is worked out. Obviously, we have
extrapolations off last year that we are using as a base, but
none of them accord to either fiscal guidance or the out-year
policies of the secretary. So they don't represent current
administration policy.
You know, there is a time element to this, to be candid
with you. It takes 6 to 9 months to do this typically. We had
about 3. You have a choice. Either don't do a very good job, to
be honest, or an in-depth job, and this secretary clearly
wanted to make changes. And that meant, I think, we needed to
focus on fiscal 2010.
As I mentioned, the same thing happened in 1993 and 2001,
where there was not a current FYDP submitted. I understand it
is a problem. If I had it, I would be glad to give it to you.
It is not that we are trying to withhold it. We don't have it.
Mr. Edwards. Does the law not require it, 10 U.S.C. Code
221?
Mr. Hale. It does, and I like to obey laws. But I just
don't have a plan. I mean, I suppose if we were pressed hard
enough, we would say, go back to 2009. You have that one. It is
just that it doesn't reflect current policy or fiscal guidance.
That is the best we have.
Mr. Edwards. We are going to have to work closely with the
administration then. Because it makes it difficult when you
have a request for, you know, $800 million for an NSA project,
we don't know what the end cost is or what future requests are
coming in. It does create some problems.
Mr. Hale. We can certainly try to work with you on a
project-by-project basis. I mean, I think MILCON is an area
where it is particularly helpful to have a FYDP for a variety
of reasons. If I had one, I would give it to you.
Mr. Edwards. As well, there are certain areas that changes
are going to be made. There are other enduring installations
where you know what you are going to do, regardless of what the
Quadrennial Defense Review----
Mr. Hale. I think we can work with you on a case-by-case
basis and try to provide information.
Mr. Edwards. All right. All right.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Let me ask you about BRAC, Secretary Arny. The original
proposal was $21.1 billion. The proposal you mentioned today,
the budget number is at $35 billion-plus. Why did we go from
$21 billion to $35 billion?
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. By the way, as you are looking at those
numbers, I saw in the testimony--the written testimony that it
said the model used for projecting the original costs for BRAC
wasn't intended to be a budget-accurate model. I don't recall
ever being told that in the process.
Maybe we ought to put a huge asterisk on BRAC--going to
say, ``Here is our budget projection. This is the cost we will
use to determine a cost-benefit analysis, but this isn't''--we
know there always has to be fine-tuning. We live in the real
world, and we respect that, but to go from $21 billion to $35
billion is----
Mr. Arny. Let me explain----
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. A huge increment.
Mr. Arny. A lot of that--it does not have to do with the
Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model. Now, the COBRA
model is not budget level in that a particular bill--what it is
designed to do is compare apples to apples in a short period of
time. So when the folks studying BRAC say, ``Okay, I am going
to build an admin building,'' so the model gives them, you
know, an admin building, and they can say, ``Okay, if I go to
this base, I need this kind of admin building. If I go to
another, I need another one.'' They can compare apples to
apples.
Now, because when you look at adjusting COBRA for the model
output for inflation, of the $14.3 billion, that was $1.3
billion. So we had a problem in that COBRA locked us into, I
think, 2003. So by the time we got--when we are working the
2006 budget, those numbers were 3 years old. So we had regular
inflation to account for.
Also, the building that we ``designed'' with the COBRA
model doesn't have the refinements of location that, when the
engineers go out to actually design the building, we will get
cost increases because of that.
But let me hit the big number. Of the $14.3 billion, $10
billion of the number--so almost--probably 70 percent of it--
was for the construction of additional facilities that were not
included in the initial BRAC we had.
We had the forces coming back from Europe, which were not
included in BRAC, plus, for instance, at Bethesda, we added
almost $1 billion to Bethesda for wounded warrior and items
like that that were not part of the original BRAC model.
So I can give you the specifics. We had program management
costs that are not included in BRAC. It was like $600 million.
And another thing we do not include is environmental, because
we never include environmental in making a decision of whether
or not to keep a base open or to close it for a couple of
reasons.
One is, we have the responsibility of cleaning it up no
matter. Secondly, we don't want people to--you know, you could
envision where they might try to pollute a base in order to
have to get it--to keep it off the BRAC closure list. So we
just take that out.
And there was--I think the environment was--environmental
restoration was almost $500 million. And we had extraordinary
construction industry inflation, if you recall, during that
time, especially at some of the Navy locations down in the
southeast that amounted to another $1 billion.
But, again, $10 billion out of the $14.3 billion was
because we added construction for other capabilities to the
BRAC bill that were not part of the BRAC decisions.
Mr. Edwards. Well, it makes me wonder if we underestimated
the facilities that were needed. And I want to go on. We are
going to try to stick as close to the 5-minute rule as we can.
But one of the things I might ask you in the second round
or third round of questions would be, what lessons learned do
we take? Maybe we will be digesting BRAC 2005 for the next
decade.
And there may not be another round in the next decade. Who
knows? But if there is, it seems a lot like this is fresh in
our mind. We can come up with all the rationales, but we ought
to bill those changes into future BRAC models so that--I mean,
if you are going to do a--if BRAC is based on a cost-benefit
analysis and your costs are off by nearly 100 percent, then,
you know, that would change even some of the decisions you
would make.
So I would welcome your ideas, having gone through this
process, or your suggestions for the future.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just go back with the FYDP. My concern is that we
end up having projects in the President's request that, by the
time you finish the FYDP, they are not part of the FYDP
anymore. So I guess the question is, are you fairly certain
that all the projects that are in the request this year will
still be in that--plan?
Mr. Hale. Well, first, it is my understanding that, for
projects that are in 2010, the budget documents will give you
the full out-year costs of them. And if they don't, then we
will supply those.
Are you thinking of phase-funded projects, Mr. Crenshaw?
Mr. Crenshaw. No, just in general. I mean, as long--well,
there will be--the future requirements will be part of the----
Mr. Hale. If we started something--and especially if it is
phase-funded, that, I think--plans for the out-years. And, yes,
I would anticipate we will finish it. I mean, we are not going
to stop in the middle.
The problem is--and I know you used the FYDP, and it is
good that you used the FYDP to look for the changes you might
make--not that we advocate those changes--but if you are
considering them, I understand that is a problem. And the only
thing I----
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, how do you decide what the requests are
this year?
Mr. Hale. For 2010? Well, we went through a full review on
fiscal 2010 in all parts of the budget. And if you would like,
I can go through that process, but it certainly included
military construction.
So what you have in fiscal 2010 is worked out. It is
consistent with the administration's priorities. It is
consistent with the budget guidelines. So that is done, and we
hope you accept it. But it is 2011 and beyond that are the
problem.
Mr. Crenshaw. But if you looked at the 2009 FYDP, are there
projects in your request that were not part----
Mr. Hale. I am sure there are. I mean, there are always
lots of puts and takes.
Mr. Crenshaw. So I would assume there are not some things
that were in----
Mr. Hale. Yes, I am sure. I am sure. I mean, it--
unfortunately, the 2009 FYDP is--I just can't sit here and say
it is consistent with the administration's policy, not
necessarily.
Mr. Crenshaw. I understand. Everything is going to----
Mr. Hale. On the other hand, there are some projects in
there I am sure that we will go forward with, too.
Mr. Crenshaw. But you are going to overhaul----
Mr. Hale. We will make changes.
Mr. Arny. But, also, Congressman, there were--and I don't
know the specifics, but I will venture a wild guess that there
were projects in the 2010 column of the 2009 FYDP that those of
us who were putting the budget together before the
administration came in, changed when it went to 2010, as well.
So I am convinced we probably did not accept the 2010
column when we moved it from the 2009 FYDP to the 2010 FYDP.
Mr. Crenshaw. Could we just, for the record, have those--
the projects that were in the FY09 FYDP that aren't included in
the FY10 budget and then that are included that were not in?
Mr. Hale. What I can give you is the 2009 FYDP.
Mr. Crenshaw. No, just for the record.
Mr. Hale. Well, but if what you had in mind--I mean, there
were some notional plans done at the end of the last
administration. And those are just that, notional. And I think
those are pre-decisional, in our view. So that information I
wouldn't want to supply.
We can give you the 2009 FYDP. We will give you the out-
year costs of anything that is in the 2010 budget. If it is
phase-funded, we owe you, I think, a description of how the
phases would be carried out, because, after all, we are asking
you to approve the first phase.
Beyond that, the only thing I can suggest is if you have
particular projects, come to us and we will try to give you our
best sense.
Mr. Crenshaw. The only thing I am trying to get at is if
there is going to be an overhaul of what we have bought and how
we buy it and how that affects the MILCON projects. Can you
give us an example of this?

WORKFORCE

Mr. Hale. I actually was thinking about that last night
when I wrote this. And I don't--it is not MILCON that we are
primarily looking at in terms of process.
It is more the Acquisition Corps. And there is a people
side of it, as I mentioned. We need to rebuild or reinvigorate
our Acquisition Corps. We are going to add about 20,000
government civilians over the next 5 years to the Acquisition
Corps, so I am adding about 9,000, adding to its size, the rest
replacing contractors. And we are also looking at an in-
sourcing initiative.
Although contractors are and will always remain important
to the Department, we think the pendulum swung too far in terms
of their use. So we are for contractor support services moving
back from the level of about 39 percent today to more like 26
percent.
I am not aware of any significant MILCON process changes--
--
Mr. Crenshaw. I got you.
Mr. Hale [continuing]. That are being considered.
Mr. Crenshaw. Great.
Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Farr.

SUPPORT TO ALLIES

Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations--filling some incredible shoes in the
history of that job.
Wayne Arny, thank you for coming back and being here today.
I just wanted to make a comment that we have one of the
projects at the Defense Language Institute that is on that
FYDP. It has fallen off, but in discussions with your staff,
there is perhaps a way of getting it back on.
I want to shift to something else. I have been consistent
in all my hearings here with all of the combatant commanders on
several programs that I am interested in, and a lot of them are
based at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
We have this incredibly equipped military force that can go
anywhere at any time and do anything that it needs to do, but
has a very difficult time winning the hearts and minds.
One of the programs that we do have in this country that is
very impressive is the International Military Education
Training program, where we bring foreign officers over. For
example, the king of Jordan had a semester at the Naval
Postgraduate School.
That program, I didn't know until this year, is not funded
through DoD, yet it only benefits the Department of Defense,
NATO, and our allies around the world. It is educating foreign
military officers.
It is funded under State Department, which is a very
underfunded budget.
And according to the people who administer IMET, a lot of
poorer countries are not able to participate. If you are a
wealthier country, you pay full scale to come. If you are a
poorer country, we subsidize it. Unfortunately, there are just
fewer and fewer foreign military officers because of lack of
financial resources, not because of lack of interest in the
program.
And I wondered if there was any way DoD budget could
provide additional resources to IMET, if there has been any
thought about transferring some DoD money over to the State
Department?
Mr. Hale. Well, I can answer the question broadly. I can't
go to the specifics; I will need to take that one for the
record.
[The information follows:]

The International Military Education and Training (IMET) Program is
one of the State Department's foreign assistance programs.
Specifically, it is a security assistance program authorized by the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and funded through
Department of State's annual Foreign Operations Appropriation. Like
other security assistance programs, IMET is funded by the Department of
State (DoS) and executed by DoD.
Without specific authority, DoD cannot transfer money to DoS for
the IMET program. Such authority currently does not exist. DoD's
ability to transfer funds to other agencies for non-DoD missions is
very limited.
However, DoD can use its own limited authorities and appropriations
to conduct specific training and education for foreign military
personnel in certain areas such as training and education provided
under the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP).
As Secretary Gates has said on many occasions, the United States
should provide more resources to the State Department for programs like
IMET. IMET is very important at multiple levels throughout DoD. Your
effort to increase funding within the IMET account is the best way to
accomplish this objective.
It is imperative that we make every attempt to tie DoD programs,
such as CTFP, to DoD's mission, which is narrower than that of DoS
under the IMET program.
I recommend you support the Department of State in securing
additional resources for IMET and to support funding for DoD programs
that support capacity-building required to maintain Combatant Commander
missions and other DoD objectives.

But the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, has been
emphatic in saying that he believes there needs to be more
funding on the state side. He is thinking not so much IMET, but
more broadly in terms of support to our allies who are working
with us in our various wartime activities.
And he went so far--I believe he made a call--he is proud
of saying this, so I don't think he would mind repeating it
during the budget resolution, asking that the budget be
protected. I think he was at least partially successful.
On IMET, I need to take that one for the record. I am not
aware----
Mr. Farr. I am not even sure why it is in the State
Department. It seems like it ought to be a DoD function. But,
anyway, it is----
Mr. Hale. Well, I think we execute it, obviously, or do the
training. It must be on a reimbursable basis. Is that----
Mr. Farr. It is a highly successful program, and it is
suffering, and we shouldn't let it suffer in this time of
international friendship building.
The other thing that I wanted to talk to you about was a
program to train civilians. We have a lot of civilian
capabilities in the military reservists.
And General Petraeus talked about using those Reserves and
Guardsmen who have specific skills--skills that would help in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Is there any program being developed in DoD to use the
Guard and Reserve force, first of all, and secondly, how you
would coordinate them with the civilians that the State
Department and other federal agencies are putting together as
part of a whole of government stabilization and reconstruction
effort?
Mr. Hale. The answer there is yes, and in particular with
regard to Afghanistan. We are actively looking at using some
Reserve personnel and perhaps some of our own civilians to--we
call it the civilian surge--to provide assistance in
Afghanistan and everything from agricultural support to
financial support.
I am trying to figure out the numbers and working with the
State Department on kind of who pays what----
Mr. Farr. So you are coordinating that? There is going to
be some transfer? You have a soldier going in there because of
the security issues, but the win-win can be the soldier and
that civilian surge.
Right behind that soldier is somebody coming out of the
State Department--USAID or other appropriate federal agencies--
who could assume those responsibilities. Is there beginning to
be a coordination of those----
Mr. Hale. We think that is starting to happen. I mean, I
notice a great deal more--certainly, there is a lot more of
what we call soft-power funding now that really didn't exist
when I was in the building the last time. And consequently, I
think we are starting to work more closely with the State
Department.
We have a ways to go, to be candid, in terms of full
coordination. And some of that debate is being played out with
regard to the Pakistan counterinsurgency fund right now in the
Congress.
Mr. Farr. But what I----
Mr. Hale. We are committed to doing it better. And I think
we are moving in that direction.
Mr. Farr. I would really appreciate it if you would look
into this and see if additional resources are needed for this
transfer to civilian agencies. The manpower DoD is providing--
the military reservists who are carrying out the civilian
surge--need to transition to civilians being coordinated by the
State Department.
Mr. Hale. Right. Just if I can add one more point that may
be relevant here. On the military side, my understanding is--
and we will use this authority--that we can pay reserves to
provide civilian skills. We can pay those out of the DoD
budget.
There are civilian employees. I think, unless we got
specific authorization, we would probably need to be reimbursed
by the State Department.
But we are working with them. I am meeting later this week,
actually, with some of my counterparts at the State Department
just to try to, frankly, get to know them better and to try to
build up our capability to work with them financially. And, of
course, our policy organization works a lot with the State
Department.
Mr. Farr. But we need some interoperability.
Mr. Hale. I hear you. We have a ways to go. I mean, your
point is well taken.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Thank you for what you
do for our country.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Arny, the DoD guidance for Homeowners' Assistance
Program, HAP, to permanent change of station, PCS, or BRAC-
related military home sales require soldiers to have purchased
their home prior to July the 1st, 2006. When I asked about this
issue during the March 12th family troop housing hearing, the
response I received was that the stimulus request was put
together in a short amount of time and that issues like this
could be resolved in the rulemaking process.
However, it appears as though this criteria has survived
and is now part of the guidance portion of the DoD HAP Web
site. This is of great concern for numerous soldiers at Fort
Hood who have to sell their homes to move to Fort Carson with
the 4th Infantry Division. I am sure the problem will also
detrimentally impact other BRAC-affected installations and
numerous soldiers, sailors and airmen throughout the DoD who
have to PCS.
Can you explain the rationale for using the date? And how
many BRAC- and PCS-affected soldiers do you anticipate this
criteria may exclude from HAP assistance?
Mr. Arny. The date that we were given was statutory, so we
had no control over that, although I believe it was kind of the
peak of the market, but I am not sure. I would have to get back
to you on why they chose that date, but it was the date----
[The information follows:]

July 1, 2006 is the cut-off date identified in the statute. The
Standard & Poor's (S&P)/Case-Shiller and the Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA) Home Price Indices indicated a sustained, rapid, and
steep decline from peak home price levels in early 2006. People who
bought homes before this date were buying during a rising or stable
market and could not reasonably have known how or when home prices
would decline. Conversely, individuals who bought homes starting in
July 2006 knew (or should have known) that the national home market was
in a broad and steep decline.

Mr. Edwards. And if I could clarify--language DoD gave the
Congress in putting together the bill, so Congress----
Mr. Carter. Was it?
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Wrote in the date and statute
that--suggestion----
Mr. Carter. From DoD?
Mr. Arny. I will check on it, because there is, if I
recall, in the many briefings we have had on this, there was a
logic to that.
What we tried to do in allocating the funding for that is
to prioritize the recipients. Priority one was wounded warriors
and surviving spouses of military personnel killed in action.
Second was BRAC.
Now, the HAP program has been around for a while. It was
used in prior BRAC rounds, was my experience with it. But in
those rounds, in order to qualify for HAP, you had to prove
that the downturn in the market was caused by the BRAC
decision.
In this round, because, first of all, the markets were down
all over, so you--the lawyers would not attest that a
particular downturn was due to just BRAC--it may have been due
to the general market--so there was confusion there.
Secondly, in prior rounds, most of our closures were due to
a base being closed. I mean, most of the market impact was due
to a base being totally closed. This was the first round where
we had a number of movements from a base that stayed open to
another base that was already open. So this, I think, helps
bring some equity within the BRAC range.
Then, third priority was people on Permanent Change of
Station (PCS) orders. Now, you will notice in the HAP
regulations for PCS orders only, I think the deadline was
December? December 31st is the deadline for the move. So the
system is not perfect. There will be some haves and have-nots.
But we tried to catch people who were affected in those three
areas.
You have to be in a market using a general standard that is
acceptable across--you have to be in a market that dropped by
10 percent over that period of time. And surprisingly, some
markets did not. And your own home has to have gone down by 10
percent before you qualify.
Now, we do not make up 100 percent. We make up 90 percent
of the loss, and that loss goes from the price you bought it to
the price you sold it--other aspects of that.
Because we retain money to--in the pot to make sure we
cover all the wounded warriors and their surviving spouses and
also BRAC--we will get the PCS orders first.
I will also say that this is--we have no numbers to go on.
These are just pure estimates from the Corps of Engineers who
does the HAP program for the department. They are the executive
agency.
So a lot of this is guesswork in terms of--calculated
guesswork. I was given--here are the numbers. We think there
will be 540--again, pure estimates--in wounded warriors and
surviving spouses, 3,000 for BRAC, and 4,500 for PCS.
Now, what we have also said is we are going to continue
meeting on a monthly basis and taking a look at the corps' data
as they begin to execute the program to see if we are meeting
trends or exceeding trends. And we will come back to you to let
you know which way it is going. We are trying to do our best--
the program. And, again, I will come back to you on the 2006
date.
Mr. Carter. Well, I think I understand your analysis of it,
but I am going to start with that date of July the 1st, 2006.
How can you make an estimate of a market's decline or increase,
where the peak is, in this so-called recession we are in right
now, it just hit Texas about 2 weeks ago, okay?
So, if you are going to set a deadline based upon what
happened on the East Coast, Florida, and the West Coast, then
that day would have been so askew to have anything to do with
Texas, because it would have been about 8 to 10 months off.
We are just now starting to feel the effects of this
economic decline that we are seeing in the country right now.
Someone should do a market analysis on a regional basis, to
make a determination of a drop-dead date, because there is no
way you can compare the West Coast real estate market with
anybody else's real estate market in the United States.
It is just so skewed on the West Coast. Florida is close to
the same position. The real estate market in Florida goes
through the ceiling and sometimes it goes through the floor. It
went through the floor a long time before we had any reduction
in cost in central Texas, where Fort Hood is located, which is
what I care about.
Secondly, you are talking about these soldiers who are
standing up in harm's way on our behalf, you are talking about
their credit rating. You are talking about what it does to
their next possibility of buying private housing at the next
stop.
With the analysis we made with our presentation to BRAC,
there is a substantial difference between the housing market at
Fort Hood, Texas, than Fort Carson. It is like a 20 percent or
30 percent difference in the market.
So those who qualify in Texas with decent enough credit to
qualify, they are looking at a 30 percent increase to even
attempt to qualify in Colorado. Then if they fall after the
drop-dead date, they have credit issues.
I just wonder how we are protecting those soldiers and how
they cannot be worrying about themselves and their families
while they are standing over kicking in doors in foreign
country.
Mr. Arny. Well, as to your--as to the problem with going
from one area to another, there is a higher--I faced that as a
junior officer. We all wrestle with that.
But in terms of your credit rating, what we have tried to
do as fairly as we could is provide some relief, because--and
it was surprising to me--if a soldier goes bankrupt, declares
bankruptcy, then he is in danger of losing his clearance, which
I find amazing.
I am working to try and get that changed. I mean, it is a
legal proceeding. You go into it. You should not lose your--as
a matter of fact, I would think if you are that close to
bankruptcy, you need to use those legal procedures in order to
protect yourself and your family, that should not be a
detriment to you and--in your clearance and stuff.
So we are trying to prevent that from happening and also
trying to change those rules.
Let me ask the Corps of Engineers to come over, and we will
come over with them, to give you a specific briefing on how we
got that. We know it is not perfect, and we are going to have
to refine it as we go along, but we thought it was at least a
good start at trying to protect some of the soldiers and
sailors----
Mr. Carter. Because it looks like to me that maybe you
could work out some kind of recapture of the department's money
if you more liberalize this program, because ultimately, I am
talking to realtors who are telling me that we have thousands
of soldiers that are going to be affected by this at Fort Hood
because of that date and that the real boom of the market in
Texas came after that date.
Our soldiers were closing and getting into those houses
after that date. They can't do anything with it. It would seem
to me, those houses are going to be stagnant on the market for
a while, but it is not going to be forever.
When that market comes back and those houses are resold,
maybe the department could figure out a way that would capture
some of the money that they used to protect the soldier, as he
made that move. It is not his fault that they made a decision
to move him to Colorado. That decision certainly wasn't his.
I think it is a crime to create a class of people to whom
we would be automatically saying, ``Congratulations, you are in
the Army. You get to go bankrupt.''
When we fight a war, we recruit soldiers, but we retain
families.
Mr. Arny. Well, we will look at the Fort Hood situation,
because----
Mr. Carter. I am not just talking about Fort Hood. I just
happen to live there and am dealing with that. I know our
market very well.
I am sure that market isn't the same in Florida, because
they have real issues in the Florida market. You can buy condos
now for about $125,000 that sold close to $1 million a while
back.
There is a lot going on in the world, and we need to start
thinking about how we are going to really care about what
happens to our soldiers and our military.
Mr. Arny. I was reminded that date is statutory, so we will
take a look at the effect.
Mr. Carter. As the chairman points out, that statutory--
provided by the Department of Defense.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Mr. Bishop.

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me
welcome you gentlemen to the committee.
Mr. Arny, once again, I am still concerned about BRAC and
the impact that it has on our communities living at Fort Sill,
Fort Bliss, Fort Bragg, Fort Lewis, and, of course, Fort
Benning that I represent, among the many that will be impacted
upwards, in terms of BRAC and the influx of personnel and
dependent children for schools.
Mr. Arny, when you were here before, I think it was after I
had left the room. You were asked about DoD and the authority
to pay for community improvements such as schools. You did not
believe that DoD had any authority to do that.
You were going to verify that. Have you found that to be
the case?
Mr. Arny. We do not have the authority.
Mr. Bishop. I respectfully disagree with you. I believe the
law is found at 10 U.S.C. 2391(b)(2) for community impact
assistance. And the funds do flow through the Office of
Economic Adjustment to communities, as long as DoD gives the
money to OEA.
The authority is there. In fact, it has been done in, with
respect to Kings Bay in the fiscal year 1991.
That bill contained $10.3 million for construction of off-
base schools at the Kings Bay submarine base. It resulted in
approximately $60 million of construction. There was extensive
testimony by then-Representative Lindsay Thomas before the
Armed Services Committee justifying that.
In your BRAC account for the 2005 closure, you reduced your
request from 2009 of $9 billion to $7.5 billion, roughly. We
are very, very concerned about the impact on communities
affected by this influx.
I don't know how you reconcile the lack of authority with
that particular code section and the precedent.
Mr. Arny. Well, sir, because I did check on the Kings Bay,
and that was done strictly through special legislation that was
in addition to 10 U.S.C. 2931, 2931's grant authority, which we
use quite frequently for planning money for communities all
over the country, but we are not allowed to build schools.
Mr. Bishop. Sir, it says the Secretary of Defense may make
grants, conclude cooperative agreements, and supplement funds
under federal programs administered by agencies other than the
Department of Defense in order to assist state and local
governments in planning community adjustments and economic
diversification.
Mr. Arny. I agree with you on that. And----
Mr. Bishop. Not just planning money.
Mr. Arny. Grants for--and most of that was economic
planning and--to the adjustment, but not to build schools.
Kings Bay was specifically--if it is put in legislation, we
will build it. But Kings Bay was specifically put in
legislation that we did not request.
Mr. Bishop. Are suggesting that we simply need to get the
authorizing legislation?
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. I am----
Mr. Arny. I understand. And I have gone through this a
number of times with my folks. And the Kings Bay one was the
only one we found where we built the school outside of the
DoDEA system. And that was on--strictly done by legislation
outside of our normal process.
Mr. Bishop. We will revisit that, sir, because there are a
number of communities across the country that are impacted--
that are very concerned--who have come to us and said, ``This
is something that the Department of Defense has visited upon
us. We are not complaining, but we need help.'' The Office of
Economic Adjustment was set up to provide that help.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir, it was. And they work for me. But they
are set up to--and they provide tons of grants to communities
for planning--bases that are closed, but bases that are
realigned. And that--like I say, their money is quite
extensive.
Mr. Bishop. But (b)(2) says community impact assistance or
special impact assistance is not otherwise available, meaning
they can't pay. It says it is not just for planning.
Mr. Arny. I believe it is historically what we have done is
mostly planning and getting ready for the----
Mr. Bishop. But it is not that you didn't have the
authority. Rather, you interpreted planning in that limited way
so that you didn't have to do it based on your interpretation,
not that it couldn't have been----
Mr. Arny. We have--in a number of situations of which I am
familiar, we have provided land for schools. We have allowed
community schools to build on our bases. But we have never
built those schools, unless they were in the DoDEA system, both
in the United States and obviously overseas.
Mr. Bishop. Except in the case of Kings Bay.
Mr. Arny. Which we had special legislation.
Mr. Edwards. Any additional questions?
Mr. Bishop. No, sir. We will probably need to revisit that
and work with the authorizers to make sure that we can
collectively--with the appropriate subcommittees and
authorizing committees--get the necessary legislation. This is
a big problem not just for our area, but for a number of areas
across the country.
Mr. Edwards. In fact, I might follow up, Mr. Hale, and say
that since this is your first time before our subcommittee in
your position, this is an issue that has come up repeatedly.
And, obviously, communities that are upsizing are thrilled,
but I saw in years past when I represented Hood before
Congressman Carter started representing it, that you had
literally the local communities that have a low income tax
base, and they were at the state mandated maximum for the local
property taxes.
So even if they were willing to double their local taxes,
they couldn't raise their taxes one dime. And a lot of the
impact aid, particularly part A, if it is on post, starts
reimbursing at a significant amount once the students start the
school there, there is just not the help there for these
communities to build the schools.
And it seems to me that the Pentagon's approach is then,
you know what? That is the community's responsibility. But the
problem is that people who pay the price are the service men
and women, many of whom are on their third tour of duty in Iraq
and Afghanistan, when they move to a base that has been BRAC
increased.
And if I were such a parent and all of a sudden my third-
grade kid were put in a classroom with 45 students or put in
some makeshift classroom, it would certainly impact my morale.
And somehow we have to just stop kicking this can down the road
and take action. We would like to do it with the
administration's help and ideas.
What would be a rational approach? You know, you could
perhaps even maybe forward-fund impact aid, which comes through
to primary education, and perhaps the school districts have to
repay that over time. But they need the upfront help on the
construction costs.
I think Congress may just take the initiative and move
ahead on this. But if I could just say, if we could get
cooperation from the administration, we would like to do this
in a rational, reasonable way. We don't want the Pentagon
building every new school at every military installation, but
there are certain circumstances.
When you have Bliss going from--well, more than doubling or
tripling in size, you have Benning increasing in size, it seems
to me we could put parameters around it, and that is where we
would welcome your help. Without that help, we may just do what
Congress does, take the initiative, do the best we can.
But I think we could do a better job----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. So if people could work with us
on that, we would welcome that.
Yes, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, the particular law that was cited
does have some parameters in terms of the number of personnel
that are added to extend the size of the bases, which provides
some degree of definition regarding how much of an impact there
has to be in order for the Office of Economic Adjustment to
step in, in these circumstances.
As the chairman correctly suggests, if we were to work
closely and cooperatively with the department, I am sure that
we could formulate some workable criteria by which we could do
that.
Mr. Edwards. If you will take that responsibility, grab any
other members that have a direct interest in it, let's see if
we can work cooperatively with the administration and get some
help there. But either way, let's try to move forward.
Mr. Hale. I understand your point. I mean, I would ask for
parameters. There are limits on what we can spend, so if we
spend it here, we are going to have to do something--something
somewhere else.
Mr. Edwards. Right. Well, we look forward to working with
you.
We don't want to keep putting this off, because the BRAC
bases are about, you know, about to explode.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM BRAC

So, Secretary Arny, let me just take a minute-and-a-half or
so in the time I have remaining on my second round of
questions, go back to BRAC and lessons learned. What lessons
could we apply, in terms of the factors that caused this to go
from $21 billion to $35 billion on the BRAC estimates?
How can we apply those lessons to any future BRAC rounds?
We need a 20 percent, you know, fudge factor to say,
historically, the real costs have been 20 percent more than the
COBRA model. I could see us a few years from now just going
back to the COBRA model and making the same mistakes again.
Mr. Arny. One point I missed in my earlier discussion is
that the decisions were based on the military value, not on the
cost particularly. Cost was secondary to the military value of
the particular base.
Mr. Edwards. Was cost ignored or cost a factor?
Mr. Arny. No, cost was not ignored. It was a factor, and it
is compared, because you do look at--you know, will you save
something by going from X to Y? I won't name the particular
bases, but a friend of mine who ended up being significant in
the BRAC called about a particular base and said their military
value is higher than another base over here. And I said, ``But
the problem with Base A is it is not in the middle of the
Pacific Ocean.''
So it is location. It is the military--it is the----
Mr. Edwards. Sure.
Mr. Arny [continuing]. Military value for the services.
And, again, I go back to, of the $14 billion increase from the
$21 billion--I mean, to the $34 billion or whatever, $35.4
billion, is $10 billion of that was cost that we added to it
that you should take out of your comparison, because they were
things that not----
Mr. Edwards. What, were they training facilities needed
that weren't in BRAC? Or were they administrative offices,
those----
Mr. Arny. No, they were--if we had done--if we had taken
the $10 billion out, it would have--and built that--what the
$10 billion was for, a huge portion of that was for forces
coming from overseas, which are not part of your BRAC
discussion.
BRAC is only in the 50 states and the territories of the
United States. So we----
Mr. Edwards. But you are saying the overseas movement, that
all those costs are included in the $35 billion figure?
Mr. Arny. Yes. Yes, sir, that we did during this--for this
part of this round. We may move other things outside of that,
but--and I could probably give you--I know we have plenty of
data. I could show you which of those moves were.
Mr. Edwards. In fact, could you send us the list of what
specific facilities add up to the $10 billion?
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]

The FY 2010 President's Budget request will reflect an investment
of $35.2B over the FY06-11 implementation period ($34.2B for
appropriation within the BRAC Account, $0.8B funded by the Army and
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency from outside the Account, and
$0.3B for the FY09 supplemental request). This is a $14.1B (67%)
increase over the original $21.1B estimate which supported BRAC 2005
decision making.
While the dynamics causing the $14.1B delta overlap and are,
therefore, not discrete, they can be characterized/estimated as
follows:

Adjusting the ``COBRA'' model output for inflation................ $1.3B
Additional inflation from slower implementation of this round
compared to the faster profiles of the previous rounds assumed
in COBRA...................................................... 0.5B
Extraordinary construction industry inflation since 2005.......... 1.0B
Environmental restoration not included in COBRA................... 0.4B
Program Management Costs not included in COBRA.................... 0.6B
Additional O&M to support fact of life cost increases............. 0.2B
Construction for additional facilities to enhance capabilities
and/or address deficiencies--BRAC as a recapitalization engine 10.1B
______
Total......................................................... 14.1B

A breakdown of the $10.1 B where BRAC is used as a recapitalization
engine by improving facility configuration, equipment and capabilities
is as follows:
The Army increased its implementation investment by about
$4.0B, about half to recapitalize infrastructure to support larger Army
units, training ranges, and Quality of Life with the remainder for
furnishings and information technology. Adjusting that amount to
correct for double counting the factors above yields an actual increase
of about $2.9B.
When the Army submitted its FY10 Budget Estimate
Submittal, it reflected the need for an additional $800M in FY10 MilCon
construction. Reasons for this cost growth include: an increase in unit
costs (42 percent); and increase in construction scope (21 percent);
additional requirements (14 percent); and, other increases associated
with land acquisition and the shifting of MilCon projects between
fiscal years. They subsequently added an additional $53M in new MilCon
requirements for Fort Lee.
The Navy and the Air Force added approximately $0.8B and
$0.4B, respectively, to support facility scope increases and operations
and maintenance activities (such as funding information technology
improvements, and equipment purchases).
Defense Agencies experienced similar facility and support
cost increases:
WHS added about $0.8B for scope and additional
facilities for relocating OSD organizations to Fort Belvoir
(parking, remote delivery facility).
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency added
approximately $0.7B for specialized equipment and facility
outfitting costs.
DLA added approximately $0.5B for information
technology improvements, additional storage facilities, and
disposal of excess inventory.
TMA increased its funding by $2.4B for larger,
specialized medical facilities and their outfitting costs in
the NCR and the San Antonio medical complex.
Scope increases to enhance and accelerate the
schedule for the Walter Reed initiative add $0.7B, primarily
for construction/renovation at Bethesda and Fort Belvoir.

Mr. Edwards. In fact, if you had the information on just
the full cost overrun, how much was inflation. You know, I am
not here to beat up anybody. BRAC is an imperfect process. And
you are right: Military strategy drives it. But I don't think
we can ignore the cost factors, and you are not suggesting we
should.
But, for example, it is close to home to me. You have Fort
Hood that is an underutilized installation. And if we knew what
the full--and the BRAC commission knew what some of the full
costs were of making some of these changes, who knows? It might
have saved taxpayers a few billion dollars by fully utilizing
the present installation rather than expanding some others.
And could I ask, why are they now considered BRAC-related
and funded through BRAC as opposed to regular MILCON, the
overseas budget items?
Mr. Arny. What my counsel says is that the BRAC round
prepared--because we knew they were coming, and so we prepared
for it, but they weren't actually part of the BRAC decisions.
So we knew the forces were coming in, so that we were to
prepare the bases. And let me get you a more specific----
Mr. Edwards. I am not here to beat up on anybody for what
happened in the past. A lot of good things have happened from
BRAC. But I think we need to--as the military often does,
lessons learned and apply that.
Mr. Arny. And I do believe that one of the lessons learned
is we have to--we have to go into it understanding that the
COBRA model is going to be 2 or 3 or 4 years late in terms of
inflation and those factors, and just because of when you
freeze the model to make your decision and when you actually
have to start building buildings.
We have another factor of--I think it was $500 million, in
that we made assumptions in the planning that we would do
construction early. But in order to fit it in properly, the
construction moved a couple years later. So there is another
$500 million just because you delayed. It wasn't money you
didn't--you know, you had to spend more because inflation had
caught up with you.
And I will give you those factors. But I really do think
that the $10 billion represented decisions that were made that
were not in those continental states and territory issues where
you are bringing forces in.
You know that the base--that the BRAC commission--or the
BRAC in the building is looking at, are we going to have room
at these particular facilities to bring them? But those
facilities were not included as part of the U.S.----
Mr. Edwards. So you are saying we had, in effect, $4
billion----
Mr. Arny. Yes.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Cost run in BRAC rather than $14
billion or $15 billion?
Mr. Arny. And of the $4.3 billion, $1.3 billion was
adjusting the model for inflation from the time we froze it
until the time we did it.
Mr. Edwards. I think OMB dictated a ridiculous inflation
factor that didn't pass the laugh test. Does OMB still
determine inflation factors for military construction?
Mr. Hale. Yes, they do. Unfortunately, we have solved that
problem, though, Mr. Chairman, with the recession, I am afraid.
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
Mr. Hale. At least temporarily, but, yes, I mean, we
generally follow OMB's inflation factors. What is
extraordinary----
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Of the time when oil prices were
$4 a gallon, and that drove everything else up, and it didn't
even pass any----
Mr. Arny. What we have done is worked with them to get them
to allow us to do more parametric planning before we put our
stuff in the budget and accept that inflation.
And, again, part of the problem during BRAC was, we hadn't
done a lot of parametric. We were doing stuff on the fly. And
so they said, look, you can only use--unless you have hard
data, you can only use a flat inflation rate. And that hurt us
in some----
Mr. Edwards. If I could ask, if time permits and resources
permit, if before you leave your present position, if you could
do a summary, to give us a sense of your lessons learned so
that we can benefit from the next BRAC round, if there is one.
Thank you.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Arny, you would probably be disappointed if I
didn't ask you a question about Naval Station Mayport, which is
in my district.

AFRICOM

But before I do that, just a quick question about AFRICOM.
In fiscal year 2008, we put $20 million--they were going to fix
up some of the facilities at Stuttgart. And that was going to
be headquarters for AFRICOM.
And I have heard rumblings that was going to be moved to
Africa. Can either one of you all give us what your plans for
the future are? Because I don't know if that money has been
spent or if we are going to need some more money for a new
headquarters, but give us your idea of where we are headed.
Mr. Hale. Well, let me comment on it. I think there is no
question that they would like to move their command to the
theater of operation. I mean, there are political issues there
that need to be resolved, and I don't think they have been, so
I--maybe, Wayne, you can discuss the funding at Stuttgart.
Mr. Arny. I can get you a specific funding number, but that
number was used to convert buildings so they could move into
the space. And now the building is going--and we will look at
it in the QDR--on where is the ultimate location to have
AFRICOM?
I agree with Mr. Hale. Everybody would love to have it in
Africa, but since this is--you are taking your dependents and
stuff, there are very few places that you could do that kind of
command. And if you have CENTCOM in southern Florida managing
the war halfway around the world, there are a number of places
you could put the command and still be effective. So that money
is pretty well--if there is a change, there will be
additional----
Mr. Hale. And it won't be next year. It will be a longer
timeframe. Because I am told there is $100 million we have
spent in Stuttgart, including $25 million in fiscal 2009
provides temporary facilities that will take care of them until
some more permanent arrangement is made.

MAYPORT NAVAL AIR STATION

Mr. Crenshaw. Right. Well, I was hoping I wouldn't ask any
more questions about Mayport because, I think as you all know,
the Navy conducted a 2.5-year study, looked at the
environmental impact, strategic impact, concluded that, in
pretty strong language, 115-page, that we ought to have another
nuclear carrier homeport on the East Coast that can handle a
nuclear carrier, Mayport should be the place.
The CNO submitted his report. The Secretary of Navy signed
a Record of Decision--Secretary Gates wrote a letter saying we
have three homeports on the West Coast for nuclear carriers. It
certainly makes sense to do it on the East Coast.
And then, about a month ago, I got a call from the new
Deputy Secretary of Defense, who said we are going to put that
decision under the QDR. And I said, ``Well, you are not
reversing the decision?'' He says, no, we are just going to put
it under the QDR. I said, ``Well, wasn't there already a record
of decision?'' He said, yes, but we view that as a
recommendation.
So I thought it was over and I was never going to have to
ask you a question about it, but so it is still a question. And
I was disappointed to learn that, but that is the way it is.
Is the QDR going to be the firm and final decision to that
question of whether we need a second nuclear homeport?
Mr. Hale. I think we will make a decision. I mean, we need
to decide one way or another and move ahead.
The secretary has said that he stands by his letter, but
the fact that the price seems to be increasing substantially
led us to believe that we should look at this again.
There is $46.3 million, if I recall correctly, of dredging
money in the fiscal 2010 budget, so carriers will be able to
get in and out. The question is, do we build a repair facility
that will allow it to be a true homeport? That could be quite
expensive. Hence, part of the reason that we would like to look
at it again. But, yes, I expect we will make a decision.
Mr. Crenshaw. Where does it fit? I know the QDRs are
generally pretty--they are a general report. And I am a little
concerned that it maybe--that it is not going to fit----
Mr. Hale. Well----
Mr. Crenshaw. Here is the big question: If that decision
doesn't come out, when you are ready for the FY 2011 budget,
and let's assume that they reaffirmed what they decided all
along, then you have lost a year-and-a-half, because there is
some planning and design money that is on hold right now.
So, A, where does it fit? And, B, will we know something--
because as I understand it, the key to--you have a preliminary
answer in general sometime late summer, early fall, that if you
said, yes, that was the right decision, if you made that
decision, you would only lose about 6 months, in terms of the
plan design. If you wait until February and submit the 2011
budget, you would lose a year-and-a-half.
So, A, where does it fit? And, B, do you think we will know
something in time to keep on track?
Mr. Hale. I would anticipate--I mean, the QDR, we hope it
will provide recommendations by July to feed into the fall
program and budget review. But I think the final decision, as
most final decisions, are made in that fall program budget
review.
So I think we probably won't have a final decision on
Mayport until the fiscal 2011 budget. And we may lose some
time, I understand, but that would be my expectation. But I
think, by 2011, we need to make a decision one way or the
other----
Mr. Crenshaw [continuing]. Was--is it $46 million or--I
think that the estimate was $48 million for the dredging and
some--obviously, there are some other costs. And there is, $46
million in this year's request----
Mr. Hale. $46.3 million, you are right.
Mr. Crenshaw. Is that a better estimate than $48 million?
Any particular reason why it is not what was in the EIS?
Mr. Hale. I need help.
Mr. Crenshaw. Probably just--maybe a better--estimate.
Mr. Hale. We will get that one for the record. I am not
sure. I mean, I assume it is based on the corps' estimate. I
hope so. That was the intent.
[The information follows:]

The original estimate of $48 million for dredging was modified due
to a pricing adjustment by the Department, and was subsequently
requested at $46.3 million in FY 2010.

Mr. Crenshaw. There is also money in the request, as I
understand it, to upgrade one of the wharfs, not the one that
would be the maintenance wharf, but the other wharf.
And in just--again, for the record, I think right now a
nuclear carrier could spend the night at Mayport.
Mr. Hale. I am told they can only get out at high tide.
That sounds like not a very good arrangement, so----
Mr. Crenshaw. It was just--one was just there to pick up
some folks to go to Norfolk, but I don't think the question on
the EIS was whether or not you can park one overnight. I think
it was a question of whether you ought not put all your eggs in
one basket, that you ought to have----
Mr. Hale. I understand. I mean, this is a first step that
would at least give us some emergency berthing for them if
something bad happened at Norfolk. And that was the intent of
the dredging and allow you to get in and out with confidence.
But I think you can expect a decision with the 2011 budget.
Mr. Crenshaw. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Farr.

CENTER FOR STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION STUDIES

Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate getting
back to some of these issues that are on the cost of these
programs and how they can be better programs.
The fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act
specifically named the Center for Stabilization and
Reconstruction Studies (CSRS) at the Naval Postgraduate School
as one of two existing public institutions that will provide
training for the newly established active response corps, the
standby response corps, and the civilian response corps, the
whole government of field components of the State Department's
Office of Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization.
And since DoD policy recognizes the need for the
stabilization, reconstruction, education and training and CSRS
is the only classroom that brings together all the actors who
are in the field together, the military, the civilian agency
partners, the foreign military, the NGOs, and the I.O.s, can
you help me get this POM'd? Because it has had to survive on an
earmark.
Mr. Hale. Well, you know, help in the sense of get it
introduced? Yes. Help in the sense of, say, ``Absolutely you
have to do this''? I think that is not the right solution for
the comptroller. I mean, it needs to compete with others. And I
don't know enough about this one specifically to know why it
has not made it.
But I don't want to sit across the table from you and tell
you I am going to go and say, ``You absolutely have to fund
this.'' I think that wouldn't be appropriate to my job.
Mr. Farr. Well, can you tell me how that process works, to
work with it? You know, the combatant commanders come in here--
--
Mr. Hale. Sure. I mean, there are a number of inputs into--
normally we do a bottom-up process with the services making
proposals. And I could speak in more detail from the Air Force,
since I was there for many years. That one comes up through
their commands. There are a series of review processes.
Mr. Farr. Is this something Admiral Roughead has to do? Or
it is a----
Mr. Hale. Well, he can certainly play a role.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. School within a school that has
all----
Mr. Hale. Again, he can certainly play a role. But I would
hope he would say, if he were sitting here, the same thing,
that he would want to hear what other priorities there are.
Mr. Farr. Well, as you have heard, everybody loves it and
talks about it, but then it comes back to having to get an
earmark.
Well, we will have some further discussions about it.
Mr. Hale. Okay.
Mr. Farr. Also, I don't know if you are aware, but the
House of Representatives has created--I guess it is a
relatively new committee. It is called the House Democracy
Assistance Commission. It is not a standing committee of the
House, but its role is to work with our counterparts in other
countries, those countries' congress members, so to speak.
We also have learned that the Center for Civil-Military
Relations at the Naval Postgraduate School has a highly
relevant expertise and connections with all the countries that
HDAC is assisting. What I want to know is how we can bridge the
gap between your shop and specifically the Center for Civil
Military Relations and HDAC, because you have developed a lot
of education and research.
Members of Congress are working with the legislatures in
Mongolia, East Timor, Indonesia, which is a big IMET program
now, and Colombia, Haiti, Liberia, and others.
So with each of these countries, the Civil-Mil Center
already has relationships. So I am trying to see how we might
get a better bang for the buck.
Mr. Hale. If I understand you right, you are looking to use
an existing program and have this committee have access to it
or----
Mr. Farr. Yes, I think CCMR can be very helpful to the work
of HDAC but CCMR needs to get reimbursed.
Mr. Hale. Okay. Well, have them get a hold of my
legislative folks, Blaine Aaron and Pam Bain, and we will
figure out how we can get you in touch with the right people. I
mean, there is no reason we shouldn't try to be helpful.
Mr. Farr. I am not chairman of the committee, but----
Mr. Edwards. You are pretty close.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. But David Price is. And he is, I
know, keen on that.
Mr. Hale. Glad to try to be helpful.

DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

Mr. Farr. Another question the Army is funding this private
company called the Rosetta Stone, which is a Web-based foreign
language program.
Several years ago, the Army briefed that DLI, the Defense
Language Institute, which is your training center for foreign
languages, and develops the teaching material and the
evaluation materials--would provide oversight for the Rosetta
Stone to make sure Rosetta Stone meets the military needs.
And we were just told by the Commandant running the school
that the DLI does not have oversight over the Rosetta Stone.
There is a lot of money being spent for this contract for
Rosetta Stone. And I don't know how beneficial it is.
Because DLI is really good at developing the quality and
the effectiveness of language training, I am just interested in
ensuring that Rosetta Stone is supporting the mission
requirements and maybe requiring DLI at least to have some role
in it.
Mr. Hale. I am going to need to take that one for the
record. I am not familiar with it, but I understand your point.
Let's see if we can find out who has oversight on this issue.
[The information follows:]

Two organizations within the Army provide oversight of the Rosetta
Stone ^' program. The Program Executive Office Enterprise
Information Systems (PEO-EIS) is responsible for the delivery of
commercially-developed online training programs for our Soldiers. The
Army's Director of Training, also the Army's Senior Language Authority
(Brigadier General Richard C. Longo), is responsible to ensure online
language training provides the necessary content to meet the needs of
the Army. The Senior Language Authority (SLA) is advised by his staff
(including seasoned foreign language professionals) and the Army
Language and Culture Enterprise (ALCE). The purpose of the ALCE is to
provide advice to the Army SLA on all matters pertaining to foreign
language and cultural training. The Defense Language Institute, Foreign
Language Center is a principal member of the ALCE.
Rosetta Stone ^' is a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
training program available to all Active, Reserve and National Guard
Soldiers, and Army Civilians and has the potential for well over one
million users. Employing the COTS software required neither R&D
resource expenditure nor delay in the immediate execution/deployment of
foreign language training online. The intent of this online language
program in e-Learning is to provide foreign language familiarization
instruction to the non-linguist. The latest cumulative statistics
(April 2009) show 219,904 unique registered users, 208 average daily
new registrations, and a total of 1,095,419 hours logged training
online. During the month of March 2009, over 3,500 users studied the
``war zone'' languages of Arabic, Pashto, and Farsi. Additionally, hard
discs with multiple user site licenses are shipped to requesting units
for use in theater where no Internet access is available. Rosetta Stone
^' developed a military Arabic module for inclusion in the
Army program that is not available to commercial customers.
By offering Rosetta Stone ^' on Army e-Learning, Soldiers
have a tool at their disposal for enhancing their operational skills as
well as a tool for self-development. Courses offered through e-Learning
are tracked by the Army Training Requirements and Resources System
(ATRRS). Upon successful completion of Rosetta Stone ^'
modules Soldiers earn points toward promotion to the ranks of Sergeant
and Staff Sergeant. A total of 31 language courses are available
including English. The English module has experienced over 36,000 users
and 65,281 hours. This is a valuable tool for Soldiers who speak
English as a second language to improve their skills.
As an aside, the contract for online foreign language training is
currently out for proposals. Throughout the contract process we will
continue to provide online language instruction to the non-linguist.
The future vendor will be selected based upon a fair and open
competition process.

OVERSEAS HEALTH CARE

Mr. Farr. And do we have any reports--would your office
have any reports on the health care for civilian contractors in
Iraq and Afghanistan? The Washington Post came out saying that
the cost is more than $1 million a month for private
contractors providing health care to our military.
Mr. Hale. I am going to need to check that one, too. I am
sorry. You are asking me questions I just don't know. And that
is probably our personnel and readiness folks.
[The information follows:]

The military provides emergency healthcare for all US personnel--
soldier, sailors, airmen, marines, civilian employees and government
contractor employees--at theater medical treatment facilities. While
some legacy contracts still permit ``free'' healthcare to contractor
employees, all contracts are being standardized to comply with the
policy that allows for the provision of, and seeking reimbursement for,
emergency healthcare. The provision of healthcare in theater is a
military Service specific responsibility, funded with Overseas
Contingency Operations funding, and as such requires the Services to
develop billing process, protocols, data systems, info systems, etc.
that do not currently exist. The Comptroller and Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Health Affairs), the stateside medical billing experts, are
assisting the Services in developing the process to ensure that
prospective and retrospective billing can occur. The implementation of
this new process and the enforcement of contracting terms that comply
with the policy will ensure that the Department is fully reimbursed for
the provision of these medical services. Since DoD policy does not
permit provision of primary care services, several large contractors
have established primary care clinics in theater, and may have tried to
pass on the costs to the DoD. To date, any costs to establish these
clinics would be imbedded in the overall contracts and not easily
identifiable. The contracting officers are aware of this practice and
continue to look for any indication that these costs are being passed
thru to the DoD.

Mr. Farr. Well, part of it was that the DoD had failed to
collect payment for over the last 2 years from military
contractors for the emergency and primary health care. I guess
we are providing--they have their own----
Mr. Hale. Right, we provide it there.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. They have it in their own contracts,
in their own health care programs, but we are providing for
them----
Mr. Hale. That part I should be able to check out. I mean,
that is an accounts receivable. And I know we have had problems
collecting, not necessarily just from those contractors----
Mr. Farr. But you are trying to collect from them?
Mr. Hale. Yes, I mean, we track our accounts receivable
regularly. You may not think of that, but we do. We have a
number of people who owe us money.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Didn't know whether you had any--
indicate whether any effort had been made to collect that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Sam.

INCREMENTAL FUNDING

Secretary Hale, let me ask you about incremental funding
versus phased funding. Tell me what the administration's new
policy is and how that differs from the past and why you are
putting----
Mr. Hale. Well, I don't think it is a new policy. I mean,
first off, I support full funding in almost all cases. I think
it is the right way for both the Department of Defense and
Congress, in that it insists on transparency and
accountability. It forces us to face the full costs.
You know, there are probably rare circumstances, but I
think they should be rare, where we have pursued incremental
funding and, maybe even rarer, phased funding, although I
think, particularly in the phased funding, we have to worry
about whether we are affecting the efficiency of the operation
and we are building four air conditioners rather than one
because we are doing it in a phase is something we want to
avoid.
But, in general, I believe we should fully fund military
construction projects, in the Department of Defense budget. I
would like to see the Congress do it, too.
Mr. Edwards. We might need some more discussions on that,
because--well, for various reasons. But in terms of the phased
funding, you said you would like to avoid phased funding
whenever possible, but I think for the new health care facility
down at Lackland, you know, you have four distinct phases. And
I asked some of the people involved, does that literally affect
the architecture of the building itself?
And yes. I mean, you literally have to--four--as they are
proposing, four separate buildings now. And in San Antonio,
where land is relatively cheap, maybe in abundance, maybe that
is not all the problem, although I don't know. In a theoretical
case, someone is going from primary case over to inpatient, I
am not sure I want to walk out in 103-degree heat in San
Antonio if I am a wounded warrior, military service man or
woman, or their families.
Have you had a chance to look at the phased funding and
maybe use that as an example of, does this really make sense?
And I am not a building contractor. I was in commercial real
estate for a little bit back in the 1980s, but not enough to
learn the economics of contracting.
But I had to think that, you know, if I were to use an
analogy, contracting out to get somebody to fill the foundation
for my new home, and then, when that is finished, getting
somebody to build the walls, and then somebody else to build
the roof would be far more expensive than being able to make
that commitment up front and taking advantage of economies of
scale.
And it seems to be just the opposite of the--what the
administration has proposed and Congress is looking at on V.A.
funding. We want, you know, the economic advantages of knowing
what is going to be funded and not.
Any thoughts? I know it is not perfect no matter which
alternative you pursue, but do you have some----
Mr. Hale. Well, let me answer in general, and then I am
going to ask if you talk about Lackland, because I don't know
the details. I said, I believe we should fully fund these
projects up front. There may be rare circumstances where
something is so large that it would cause such spikes in the
budget as to be a problem, but I would like to avoid
incremental funding and I think, in general, phase-funding.
So let me ask you, Wayne, if you would comment on Lackland.
Mr. Arny. Well, Lackland was a case where it was
originally--again, I agree with Mr. Hale. If we could fund the
whole thing right up front, it would be the best way to do it.
But we were told not to do an incremental funding, so in
order to make it fit in the--within the budget constraints we
had, and given that we could do complete phases--and you won't
have to walk outside; there will be walkways between them--it
was designed as four phases.
Mr. Edwards. OMB, I guess, has adopted this policy of no
incremental funding, perhaps in rare cases. Instead of having
incremental funding, where you could have some economies of
scale, going to phase-funding? I don't understand that
rationale there.
Mr. Arny. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Mr. Edwards. Sure. I understand.
Mr. Arny. Again, we would not have phased funded this--
funded Lackland. Part of it is to avoid our phases, keep the
phases small enough that, when it comes to the Hill, they don't
get chopped and used for something else.
Ideally, the total of this would get $72 million--call it
$450 million--$467 million. We would rather just--fund that in
one year, and let it spend out.
And, frankly, as I have mentioned to you before, prior to
coming into the MILCON world, I just assumed no one did
incremental funding. In the 1980s, we tried to incrementally
fund the carrier, and we were kicked out of the Senate.
And so when I found that we were doing incremental funding,
I was a little surprised, but I will say--and I have tried to
convince OMB--that it does work in the MILCON world. They want
to stick with no incremental funding.
So in this particular case, with a building in which you
can--thank you--we pay like a 5-percent premium, but we can
phase this building, because we have the land available to
stretch out. They will be connected. No one will be walking
outside.
I think where you are really going to see it hurt us is
when we send over, probably in 2011--we have a big nuclear pier
up in Congressman Dicks' district that is probably going to be
$600 million, $700 million, $800 million.
And I have talked to the Navy. And something like that--I
said, ``Why can't you phase it? Give me 100 feet every year or
whatever.'' They said, ``No, I can't. That is not the way we
build piers. We set all the pilings in. And at the end of a
phase, it is not complete and usable.''
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. Arny. Whereas, with the hospital at Lackland, each
phase will be complete and usable.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. We might need to talk to OMB. You know,
I will give you an example of where the philosophy of no
incremental has hurt. We are so badly undercapitalized, in
terms of hospital modernization, in DoD. And the reason was,
Secretary England said, nobody ever presented to me in any of
these supplementals since the Iraq war began a need to do a
hospital at their base, so I concluded we just didn't need any
new DoD hospitals.
The reason is that commander would have been laughed out of
the room or kicked out of the room for offering a $500 million,
$1 billion project in one year in a supplemental. Consequently,
we have service men and women being taken care of in hospitals
that are so damn old that they can't even put MRI machines at
Fort Knox. They have to go out in 95-degree heat in the summer
and over to a trailer, their wounded soldier out there.
So I don't know. I guess we need to sit down with OMB. And
is this an OMB policy basically?
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hale. Yes.
Mr. Arny. Again, we could adapt to no incremental funding,
because we said no incremental funding, and we know, because as
you well know, we put an $800 million project into the budget,
when it comes over to Congress, Congress has said--all four
committees have said--subcommittees have said, ``It is our
prerogative to incrementally fund.''
And so the danger we face is we know that, you know, out of
an $800 million project, $650 million is going to go someplace
else, and then next year we are going to have to cough up that
money again.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. Arny. We will go either way.

INADEQUATE HOUSING

Mr. Edwards. Well, we will follow up on that.
And one last thing if I could ask your shop to do, I want
to support the new administration. I also want to hold them
accountable. Could your folks put together as accurate as you
possibly can the number of actual troops living, their families
or singles, living in housing that doesn't meet the respective
service's standards?
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.045

We kind of get numbers all over the place. If you could get
me a hard number. I am not interested in whether the process is
in place to build them a new home 15 years from now or 5 years
from now. It seems to me that should be the metric we ought to
look at each year. Are they living in housing?
For example, in your testimony, when you said, 95 percent
with this year's budget will be housing--and I assume you were
talking about family housing----
Mr. Arny. Yes.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Will be funded for modernization.
I don't know how that applies to, say, Chaffee Village at Fort
Hood, which I visited recently. And, I mean, I went into these
houses and they were not anything I would want my family living
in, much less a family sacrificing as much as our soldiers.
And if it weren't for the base commander taking that issue
up and pushing it and renegotiating with--the plan was to
modernize--to build those new homes in the year 2032.
So I come to this committee and I hear, you know, we are 98
percent funded for modernization, I go out in the real world,
and I see----
Mr. Arny. Let me check--I asked on the Chaffee housing,
because I asked about that. And, in fact, we may not--it may
not be required after a certain period of time.
And I know in San Diego, the Navy faced a problem where
we--we can't do this all in--we can't do all the modernization
in a week. And the Marine Corps especially was in bad shape,
but the Navy out in San Diego had some bad housing, real
housing that actually got some bad press.
And I had been out there right before. And it wasn't the
best housing, but the private-sector partner had gone through
and had cleaned it up, put new appliances, done carpeting, done
painting, and what was missed in the article was the families
that chose to go into Cabreo knew ahead of time that, if you
choose to go into Cabreo--which doesn't meet our standards, but
we are trying to do the best we can--you have first choice as
we build the new buildings.
So we are trying to make sure everybody is accommodated as
we make the shift. I mean, Congressman Farr is seeing what we
have done with the housing out in Monterey. So it is not all
there yet, but we are getting there.
Mr. Edwards. I think we have made tremendous progress in
family housing, and, clearly, barracks is an area we are
farther behind. It seems like every service has a different
number, every witness has a different number. Some of the
numbers assume, well, based on the present process, there is
funding available----
Mr. Arny. That is exactly why I changed. The money is in
place. I know how you feel about that. I don't want to say that
everybody is living in a perfect house. They are not, and we
are moving there. But we have the money to privatize 98 percent
of our housing in the United States. So some of it is not going
to get privatized because it is in really oddball locations,
but there is not much left that is not going to be privatized.
Mr. Edwards. Chaffee Village has been scheduled for 2032.
And that--they had some money for fixing it up a little bit,
but you talk about, you know, a waste of money. Fixing up those
houses, in my opinion, was truly a waste.
Part of the reason I want the metric is we ought to be able
to tell the taxpayers all the improvements we have made and how
many fewer. But it seems like we need to have one clear
definition.
To the service man or woman and their family, the only
thing that matters is, am I living in a decent house or not?
The process doesn't matter. The plans might matter in the
future, but today it is, am I living in decent housing or not?
Do we have the ability to provide those numbers? ``Are you
today living in decent housing or not?''
Mr. Arny. We can tell if it is inadequate or adequate by
the service's standards.
Mr. Edwards. Even though I disagree with the service's
standards, at least so we have a metric, and each year we can
clearly compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir----
Mr. Edwards. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT

Let me ask you all about this joint cargo aircraft program
I think between the Army and the Air Force. They were going to
buy 16 of those new aircraft, and then the request this year, I
think, in the budget is for 8. And I was told that they are
going to transfer, I guess, the control from the Army to the
Air Force. I don't know if that has been done or not. And then
there was going to be an assessment of the overall program.
And I guess the question is, what is the assessment going
to involve? Are they going to conclude--is that going to be
part of the QDR? Will they conclude we ought to buy the
original 16 or we are not going to buy--we are only going to
buy 8?
I mean, what is going to be involved in that assessment?
What is the reason for the assessment? And when will that kind
of be finalized?
Mr. Hale. Well, first, we won't change the fiscal 2010
budget. The issue is the overall objective.
First, I think this is a good news story. We had the chief
of staff of the Army actually go to the chief of staff of the
Air Force and say, ``This is an issue, and I think you can do
better, or at least I would like you to take over,'' because,
frankly, we have underutilized C-130s in the United States Air
Force today.
And if I remember the figure right, the C-130s can land at
about 99 percent of the runways that can be used by the C-27,
the JCA aircraft. So the Air Force is going to be able to
achieve some commonalities that will benefit the taxpayers.
With that in mind, we lowered the overall inventory
objective for the JCA from 78 to 38. That decision may get
revisited in the QDR, that is the overall inventory objective.
And I realize there are some important basing decisions here. I
am mindful of that issue.
But from the taxpayer standpoint, I think what we are doing
is getting better utilization of the overall assets that the
Air Force or the DoD has available. And that, in my mind, and I
think in Secretary Gates' mind, is a good news story.
Mr. Crenshaw. One of the--I know we had General Casey
before us. And we were kind of ramping up in Afghanistan. I
can't remember the exact figure, but I think he said we are
spending about $8 million a month leasing kind of airplanes
that are like the joint cargo. And that is a lot of money.
And so I guess you have the National Guard. If C-130s can
do all that, I don't know why they are not doing it right now.
But maybe I think I would just be interested in hearing what
the rationale--it is kind of like the aircraft carrier, when
you say, ``Well, we may have changed our mind.''
Nobody said you changed your mind. You just said, ``We are
just going to further review it.'' And then people say, ``Well,
maybe the cost has gone up.'' I don't know of anybody that said
the cost has gone up. I have heard it from you, but the Navy
did a study. They went through the cost--I mean, have they
changed their minds, said, ``No, it is going to cost more
than''--when I hear you say--I hadn't heard--I think I heard--
--
Mr. Hale. That is in Mayport now, right?
Mr. Crenshaw. In terms of change in--the Joint Cargo
Aircraft (JCA). You say, ``Well, we are going to build 16. No,
we only need 8, because C-130s do it.'' But we are leasing
planes that do what the (JCA) is going to do.
It just confuses me a little bit to hear you say--maybe
explain to me--where did the change in costs come from, whether
it is--we will say the (JCA), and also the nuclear carrier in
Mayport. Where did the change occur in terms of the cost?
Mr. Hale. I mean, my understanding on Mayport is that our
latest cost estimates are significantly higher. And----
[The information follows:]

I would like to retract my statement, ``I mean, my understanding on
Mayport is that our latest cost estimates are significantly higher.'' I
misspoke. Our cost estimates for Mayport are not significantly higher.
The FY 2010 President's Budget request for the Joint Cargo Aircraft
program reduced the total number of JCA from 78 to 38 and transferred
the direct support airlift mission supporting Army's Time-Sensitive/
Mission-Critical (TS/MC) air delivery to the Air Force. These changes
maximize the robust capabilities of our existing C-130 fleet and ensure
that the Department meets all intra-theater airlift requirements.
Adjusting roles and missions and assigning the Air Force greater
responsibility for delivering Army time-sensitive, mission-critical
cargo will free up Army assets such as CH-47 helicopters and crews that
are critically needed for tasks that only rotary aircraft can perform.
The FY 2010 President's Budget acknowledges that changes in the way the
Air Force and Army operate will yield efficiencies that reduce the
requirement for combined Army-Air Force intra-theater airlift compared
to how we execute today. The budget reflects improved effectiveness,
increased joint synergy and minimized duplication of effort between the
Services to maximize the utilization of the Department's intra-theater
airlift assets.

Mr. Crenshaw. But did you--tell me about those costs. Did
you do a new study?
Mr. Hale. I am not sure. I will need to--anybody--do you
know the Mayport situation in terms of the----
Mr. Crenshaw. I would love--if you could supply those new
cost estimates to the committee----
Mr. Hale. Sure.
Mr. Crenshaw [continuing]. Show the new costs?
Mr. Hale. We will be glad to.
Mr. Crenshaw. Because I think they considered the costs,
and they said, ``Look, you know, it is expensive, but we are
talking about national security.''
Mr. Hale. Right.
Mr. Crenshaw. And to make sure that we keep our carrier
fleet safe, we think it is a good idea----
Mr. Hale. Let me also run down the leasing in Afghanistan.
You may be thinking of the--we are leasing some commercial
aircraft to provide communications capability. And I am not
sure that is something the Sherpas could do, but I need to
check----
Mr. Crenshaw. Yes, I just remember him talking about that
we are doing more in Afghanistan.
But I think we are all trying to save taxpayers' dollars.
And if there is a demand--for any kind of cargo craft, whether
it is a National Guard--I know in Florida they do a great job.
They bring in supplies, hurricanes, things like that. And they
feel like there is a need for that. But I don't know if that is
built into the requirements document for that kind of aircraft.
But that would be great, if you could, just to help us get
a better idea of what all these costs are.
Mr. Arny. Also, sir, in answer to your earlier question, we
did--for 2010, we do a repair to wharf Charlie at $29.7
million.
Mr. Crenshaw. And that--I think that is the Charlie wharf
where, a carrier just was there to come in--so that thing--I
know that is in the budget for that repair. And I think the
maintenance wharf is--and the controlled industrial still--
those are the big items that, I don't think their costs--I am
not aware of any new study that said the costs had gone up, but
if there is one, we would love to see it.
Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Yes, just a couple questions. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Arny, in our discussion on how much money could be used
for cleaning up closed BRAC bases, I think you indicated that
the department was maxed out and the capacity out there was
being fully utilized.
We received a letter--Chairman Edwards received a letter on
May 12th laying out what the capacity was by the National
Association of Ordnance and Explosive Waste contracts. I think
what you indicated is that the amount is about--approximately
$500 million that is allocated, but the capacity for clean-up
within the industry is currently about $1.5 billion, about
three times as much as we are putting out.
It is just that if we are looking at the future and
thinking that we are meeting capacity, we are not. And, you
know, a lot of it is from--where the little bases are
interested in getting them cleaned up.
The other thing I wanted to revisit with you is the
Treasure Island, because you said something that struck me last
time that I thought was very interesting, that they couldn't
qualify for an EDC because there weren't enough permanent jobs
being created. How many permanent jobs does one need to create
to get an EDC?
Mr. Arny. I believe--I don't know the numbers of that.
Mr. Farr. Is there a threshold?
Mr. Arny. Under the rule--we will work with you on this.
But under the rules, they had to have permanent jobs and a
last--because they initially were looking at a no-cost EDC.
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Mr. Arny. So let me get back to the record.
[The information follows:]

In determining whether to grant an Economic Development Conveyance
(EDC), the Secretary concerned is to determine whether the EDC is
needed for purposes of job generation, including the extent of short-
and long-term job generation. There is not a threshold or a minimum job
creation requirement for an EDC due to the considerable variability of
our surplus properties and local markets impacting redevelopment
activity. Rather, the Secretary concerned has discretion and
flexibility to structure an EDC that can be tailored to local needs to
assist local job creation/recovery activities and base redevelopment.
This is done in close collaboration with the Local Redevelopment
Authority (LRA). Specifically, as set forth in the governing regulation
(32 CFR 174), the Secretary concerned will consider the following
factors, as appropriate, in evaluating the application and the terms
and conditions of the proposed transfer:
(1) Adverse economic impact of closure or realignment on the region
and potential for economic recovery through an EDC.
(2) Extent of short- and long-term job generation.
(3) Consistency with the entire redevelopment plan.
(4) Financial feasibility of the development, including market
analysis and need and extent of proposed infrastructure and other
investments.
(5) Extent of state and local investment, level of risk incurred,
and the LRA's ability to implement the plan.
(6) Current local and regional real estate market conditions.
(7) Incorporation of other Federal agency interests and concerns,
and applicability of, and conflicts with, other Federal surplus
property disposal authorities.
(8) Relationship to the overall Military Department disposal plan
for the installation.
(9) Economic benefit to the Federal Government, including
protection and maintenance cost savings and anticipated consideration
from the transfer.
(10) Compliance with applicable Federal, state, interstate, and
local laws and regulations.

Mr. Farr. I have an--they say that they can get--they are
going to have 2,629 permanent jobs. Those are not--in addition
to whatever the construction jobs, which are huge.
And I think you indicated maybe it was when we were walking
back to the office that there wasn't any firm appraisal on
Treasure Island.
Mr. Arny. There is a firm Navy appraisal, yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. There is a GSA-confirmed appraisal.
Mr. Arny. Right.
Mr. Farr. We are--$250 million?
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. Which I think the city has offered to pay. This
is what I understand. It is not in my district, but it is up
the street a little bit. But they----
Mr. Arny. I don't believe so, but let me get back to you on
the details of that.
[The information follows:]

The City of San Francisco has not offered to pay the appraised Fair
Market Value of $250M for Naval Station Treasure Island. The Navy has
offered payment terms at below market interest rates for the appraised
Fair Market Value to be paid starting in the later years of development
and paid over a period of two to three years. The City's compensation
offers have been centered on profit participation models where the Navy
is compensated after the developer realizes an 18-25% profit. The City
has offered to take over the remaining limited environmental work,
estimated at $19.3M, as part of the compensation under profit
participation models. Nevertheless, the Navy believes that the models
of profit participation offered by the City would likely result in
little or no return for the Federal Taxpayer.

Mr. Farr. We want to try to get this thing moving.
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. That is it. Thank you.

BRAC SAVINGS

Mr. Edwards. My last question will just be for the record.
Secretary Arny, you mentioned that there are $4 billion in
annual BRAC savings. I haven't looked at those numbers in quite
a while. My general recollection is that we know the costs of
BRAC are very hard, building buildings, moving people. The
savings sometime are a little bit soft, in terms of
efficiencies.
But someone came up with that $4 billion number. Could you
please ask your office to send over to our subcommittee the
list of how that $4 billion figure is derived? If we are saving
that much in the real world, we need to brag about it. If we
are not, we need to know that.
And, Mr. Crenshaw, do you have any additional questions?

GUARD AND RESERVE FUNDING

Mr. Crenshaw. Just real quick. The Guard and Reserve I
noticed last year was like $1.5 billion. This year it is down
to $1 billion. That is $500 million less, 30 percent reduction.
And they are still pretty active.
A, what is the reason for that? B, is there anything this
subcommittee can do, you know, to kind of help in that regard?
Is it----
Mr. Hale. I think if you go back and look at the trimble,
we actually submitted for the Guard last year--we have
increased that amount. The Congress typically does add money
for the Guard, which is your prerogative. And so we submitted,
I think, a little less than a billion in 2009. You made it $1.5
billion.
We have increased our submission, because we feel it is the
right amount for the Guard. I understand that we propose, you
dispose.
Mr. Crenshaw. Got you. I think we ought to--I didn't
realize that we had bumped it pretty good, but I think that is
something we ought to think about, because--I think they are
still very, very involved. Unless there is some kind of
reduction in their operation, they are going to need that kind
of support.
Mr. Edwards. You bet. You know, and I think traditionally
over the years administrations, Republican and Democrats alike,
tended to underfund Guard and Reserve MILCON knowing Congress
would add to it. The problem is, with the budget situation
being what it is, it is more and more difficult for us to, you
know, routinely add $1 billion, $1.5 billion----
Mr. Hale. I do--at least say for the record, we don't think
we underfunded. I understand.
Mr. Edwards. I understand.
Mr. Farr. Are any of those--interoperable, Guard, Reserve
and active duty? So can you go train on a National Guard base?
Does it meet your standards?
Mr. Arny. I think it depends. I mean, I had to leave my own
plane in Savannah International. And there were a huge--it is a
C-130 Guard operation, and there were a huge number of F-15s
and F-16s that were doing exercises out of there. And right
down the road, there is the Hunter Army Airfield. So they are
training.
Mr. Farr. Well, I am sure the Air Guard is, because they
are constantly flying, but it seems to me that those bases in
my district--I have a Reserve base, I have a Guard base, I have
an active duty base. And I don't know that they are even----
Mr. Arny. I know, when I was on active duty, we would go
from base to base and get training. And sometimes you would
have to pre-position equipment, like our F-4s couldn't use Air
Force F-4 starters, but we would train at other people's bases.
It depends on the facilities and what you are looking for. You
don't necessarily go to your own base.
Mr. Farr. No, but I think it is a MILCON responsibility--
maybe there is some report language we can look at to see
whether these bases are interoperable rather than just
expanding them, getting them to be used more efficiently.
Mr. Arny. We did an entire air wing operation----
Mr. Edwards. Makes sense.
Mr. Arny [continuing]. Out of Naval Station Mayport. I
mean, we have the entire airway, because the ship sank at the
pier, but that is another story. [Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. Any other additional questions? If not, let me
finish as we began.
Thank you both for being here and for what you are doing
for our country. Secretary Arny, we wish you Godspeed and all
the best to you. And let your sons know we appreciate their
service to the country, as well. Thank you for the legacy you
leave through your many years of public service.
And, Secretary Hale, we look forward to working dollars and
cents with you in the years ahead.
Mr. Hale. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
We stand adjourned.
[Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards:]

Inflation

Question. For the record, what is the construction price inflation
factor built into your FY 2010 budget request, and how does this
compare to the rates used by the private sector and other Federal
agencies?
Answer. The construction price inflation factor built into the FY
2010 budget request is 1.5 percent for FY 2010. The annual inflation
rates used by other federal agencies (as reported to DoD) range from
2.6 percent to 9.0 percent. Engineering News-Record (a common industry
source for cost indices) predicted an increase of 1.8 percent for its
Building Cost Index for calendar year 2008 (published in December
2007), and a decrease of 0.5 percent for calendar year 2009 (published
in December 2008).

Missile Defense

Question. Congress approved $151 million in FY 2009 to begin
construction of the bases that constitute the Ballistic Missile Defense
``third site'' in Europe. By last year's estimates, about $690 million
was required to complete construction. I understand that you are not
requesting additional funds for this initiative in FY 2010, as the 2009
funds have not spent due to a lack of parliamentary approval from the
host nations. What is your intention going forward on this project?
Answer. The Department is currently conducting the Ballistic
Missile Defense Review (BMDR) which will, among other things, review
the rationale and requirements for the third site and explore
alternatives that may exist. No final decisions have been made. The FY
2010 budget preserves the Administration's flexibility to arrive at a
future decision on missile defense in Europe. Remaining FY 2009 funding
will be sufficient for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to begin work
on the sites in the Czech Republic and Poland, should the
Administration make the decision to do so.
Initial review results will be available later this year and a
final report will be submitted to Congress in January 2010.

Overseas Contingency Operations Request

Question. The FY10 request includes $1.4 billion in additional
MILCON projects for what is now called Overseas Contingency Operations,
or OCO. Nearly all of this money is specifically for Afghanistan.
However, there is also $192 million for 11 MILCON projects in
Afghanistan included in the regular part of the budget. How do you
determine which Afghanistan projects are included in the main base
budget, and which are included to the OCO?
Answer. The construction projects in the FY 2010 base budget
support peace time mission requirements at locations where we expect to
have a presence after the contingency operations, such as Bagram in
Afghanistan and Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. The Afghanistan construction
projects in the FY 2010 OCO request are synchronized to the troop
announcements made by the President and reflect requirements driven by
wartime urgency. Although some of these requirements are at enduring
locations (Bagram and Kandahar), these projects are in direct support
of troop announcements/movements or require acceleration in support of
troop increases/movements. For example, the housing at Bagram in
support of the enduring requirements for the base population is funded
in the base budget. However, the troop housing to support the force
increase is funded in the OCO request.

BRAC

Question. During the hearing, you suggested that the overseas-to-
U.S. realignments encompassed in the Global Defense Posture Review
should not be included in a comparison between the original COBRA
estimates for BRAC and the current estimates. Yet the Department
incorporated these realignments and their costs into the BRAC program
primarily through Recommendation #10, Operational Army (IGPBS) and
Recommendation #4 for Fort Bragg. Could you please clarify what you
meant by this statement?
Answer. Yes, to the extent the costs associated with these
recommendations result from stateside relocation activities, they have
been incorporated into the BRAC program. The costs associated with
closing overseas units and transportation of forces to U.S. soil have
not been charged to the BRAC account, but rather have been more
appropriately absorbed by the operational accounts.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009.

FISCAL YEAR 2010 AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING AND
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROGRAMS

WITNESSES

GENERAL NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, CHIEF OF STAFF, USAF
MAJOR GENERAL DEL EULBERG, THE AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER, USAF

Statement of the Chairman

Mr. Edwards [presiding]. I would like to call the
subcommittee to order.
General Schwartz, General Eulberg, thank you both for being
here.
And, General Eulberg, I see in my notes that you are
retiring this summer after 36 years?
General Eulberg. Sir, 35 in uniform.
Mr. Edwards. Thirty-five, 35 years of military service. And
I want to thank, on behalf of all of us in Congress, you and
your family for your service to our country over those years.
You made a real difference, and we salute you for that service.
And thank you for being here today.
General Eulberg. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. I would like to just make a few very brief
opening comments, and then I am going to turn to Zach Wamp, our
ranking member, for any opening comments he would care to make.
And then we will proceed with the testimony.
We are here today to receive testimony in the Air Force's
fiscal year 2010 budget request for military construction,
family housing, and BRAC.
Over 1 year ago, the prior chief of staff of the Air Force
told this subcommittee that the Air Force had chosen to accept
what he called ``manageable risk'' in facilities and
infrastructure funding.
Although the active Air Force military construction request
of $1.145 billion represents an increase over both the fiscal
year 2009 request and the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, it is
still more than $200 million short of what last year's FYDP
projected for 2010. It, therefore, would appear to me that the
Air Force is still accepting some degree of risk in facilities
to meet other priorities.
I also am concerned that the Guard and Reserve MILCON
budgets are not keeping pace with the possible needs out there.
The Air Force certainly has many challenges and budget
issues to balance, so my goal today is to hope to better
understand the Air Force's views in relation to MILCON and
family housing in the context of all the other pressing needs
that you have.
Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like to turn to
Mr. Wamp, our ranking member, for any comments.

Statement of the Ranking Minority Member

Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for
your extraordinary leadership.
I welcome the chief today and certainly commend General
Eulberg for his outstanding career.
I want to thank Mr. Crenshaw, in his absence, for subbing
for me yesterday and for your understanding, Mr. Chairman. I
happened to have my 24th wedding anniversary Monday night, and
as many of those as I have missed over the last 15 years, I got
one in.
Mr. Edwards. You should not miss any of those for any
committee hearing.
Mr. Wamp. It was very worthwhile, and I am grateful for the
opportunity. I just want to say briefly--I don't want to repeat
anything the Chairman just said, looking at the reduced funding
levels I too am concerned about the level of risk the Air Force
is taking on.
I want to thank the Air Force for all that they do and
continue to do for our national capability. And I want to
especially thank you for allowing one of your finest, Major
Juan Alvarez, over my right shoulder, to actually help staff me
this year.
He has served the Air Force and his country extremely well
and certainly gives me a full and new, even better appreciation
of the United States Air Force and the quality of the men and
women that serve our country through the United States Air
Force.
So thanks for your presence today. I look forward to a good
hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
General Schwartz, since this is your first time before our
subcommittee in your position, let me just read into the record
a very brief introduction.
General Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the United States Air
Force, became Chief of Staff in August of 2008. He has served
for 36 years--that is where I got the 36 years, Major General
Eulberg--36 years of service since graduating from the Air
Force Academy in 1973.
And thank you, General Schwartz, for those years of service
and leadership.
He previously has served as commander, U.S. Transportation
Command, director of the Joint Staff, commander of the 11th Air
Force, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of Special Operations Command,
Commander of the 16th Special Operations Wing.
And he is a command pilot with more than 4,400 hours in C-
130s, MH-53s, and MH-60s. It is a little bit different from the
1,100 hours I have in a single-engine Cessna 210. General
Schwartz also served in Operations Desert Shield and Desert
Storm.
I want to, again, welcome both of you to the committee. We
will accept for the record your complete statements, but I
would like to recognize you now, General Schwartz, for any
opening comments you care to make.

Statement of General Norton A. Schwartz

General Schwartz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman
Wamp.
Thank you very much for allowing me to appear before you
today. The Air Force is dedicated to its role as a trusted
member of the armed forces.
And our infrastructure investment strategy supports our
core functions and ensures that the investments reflect
stewardship of the taxpayer's dollar and achieves strategic
balance in our current fiscal circumstances through five
priorities, the first of which is reinvigorating our nuclear
enterprise; the second is partnering with the joint coalition
team to win today's fight; third, to develop and care for our
Airmen, their families, and importantly, our wounded; fourth,
to modernize our air and space inventories and training
capabilities; and, finally, to recapture acquisition
excellence.
With this in mind, I would like to update you on military
construction, family housing, and BRAC as a part of our
comprehensive strategy to support the national defense with
global vigilance, reach, and power.
As you indicated earlier, I am accompanied by Del Eulberg,
our Air Force Civil Engineer, and I will have a few more
comments, if I may, at the conclusion of my remarks on that, as
well, who will sort of round out the details of the strategy.
And as we continue to focus today on today's fight and to
modernize our air and space inventories for tomorrow's
challenges, we recognize that we cannot lose focus on critical
Air Force infrastructure programs.
Air Force installations are key to delivering game-changing
air, space and cyber capabilities to our combatant commanders.
And our fiscal year 2010 investments directly contribute to
maintaining the infrastructure necessary to accomplish these
many missions.
At the same time, we are committed to quality of service
for our people. And that is consistent with the contributions
and sacrifices they make on behalf of our nation.
While the fiscal year 2010 budget for MILCON, BRAC, and
family housing and facility maintenance requests is in the
neighborhood of, as you indicated, $1.5 billion or thereabouts
for MILCON and $4.9 billion for the entire program, which is
somewhat less than last year's projection, we intend to
mitigate the difference in MILCON and facility maintenance by
intensifying our efforts in restoration and modernization of
existing plans, and managing our resources from an enterprise
portfolio perspective, optimizing facility utilization.
In addition to targeted demolition and aggressive energy
saving initiatives, we will continue to privatize family
housing and modernize dormitories, as well, to assure Airmen's
quality of service.
Air Force MILCON, family housing, and BRAC initiatives will
continue to directly support these overall priorities that I
outlined for you, sir. And we appreciate and we thank you for
your continuing support of our Air Force, and particularly our
Airmen and their families, who are devoted, I think, to
defending the nation.
I do look forward to your questions. With your permission,
sir, I would like to make off-script comments.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.063

Mr. Edwards. Okay.
General Schwartz. One relates to an observation for your
consideration, as I have traveled since moving into this
position last August, that on two trips to the U.S. Central
Command Area of Responsibility, on both occasions, the
limitation--the threshold of $750,000 for construction in the
contingency areas is too low. I would ask you to consider--and
Del can reinforce this--that in the neighborhood of $2 million
to $3 million is probably the right threshold for--given the
cost of construction, the availability of the material, and so
on, not asking for broader application of that elevated
threshold, but simply to the warfighting AOR.
The second point, sir, is, as you indicated, Del moves on
here shortly. He has brought a fact-based, analytical approach
to our civil engineering discipline, leadership to our
engineers and explosive ordnance disposal personnel.
His service has been truly notable, and Suzie and I honor
your service, as well. In fact, Del's wife is packing out
today, as he is here testifying before the committee, so
another indication of how this is a team sport.
So, Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for your compliment. And
I double your compliment to Major General Eulberg, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, General Schwartz for your
leadership and service, for your comments today, and for
honoring General Eulberg.
General Eulberg, most of us in Congress realize that, the
day after we retire, announce our retirement, the question then
about us is, who is going to replace us? And we are forgotten
pretty quickly. You will have left a legacy, in terms of
housing, quality of life, as well as training facilities that
will be serving our servicemen and women for decades to come.
So thank you to you and your family for the difference that
you have made.

INADEQUATE HOUSING

As we begin questioning, I might ask a question I like to
routinely ask all of our service chiefs and civil engineers,
and that is, do you have a number, in terms of how many Air
Force personnel are living in housing, whether it is barracks
or family homes, that are determined as inadequate, using the
Air Force's own standards? Not how many are planned to be
brought up to adequate, or the funding is in the pipeline, or
the process is ongoing, but, as of tonight, how many Air Force
families and single personnel would be going to bed in a home
or a barracks that doesn't meet your standards?
General Eulberg. Sir, if I might address that question. As
you are well aware, each time we testify before this committee,
who has great support for our quality of service of our Airmen
and their family, both of the dormitory plan, as well the
housing, the Air Force has a dormitory master plan that we
update every 3 to 4 years, as well as a family housing master
plan that formed the basis for assessments of existing homes,
as well as the investment needed to ensure that they are up to
the standards that our Airmen and their families deserve.
So with that as a preamble, we have just updated our dorm
master plan for 2008 and our family housing master plan, which
allows us to answer that question specifically.
In the 2008 family housing master plan, we have 9,000 homes
that are currently inadequate, of which----
Mr. Dicks. That people are living in?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir. And we have a plan most of
which--the majority of those homes have already been funded. In
fact, they all have been funded either with the overseas
investment that we are making in this upcoming fiscal year, as
well as what we have funded with housing privatization.
We have a significant effort in the coming year with funds
that we already have to privatize roughly 16,000 homes. And
with that, we will have taken care of all inadequate family
housing that are currently a part of the family housing master
plan.
Mr. Edwards. Can I ask you about that point----
General Eulberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Barracks? For example, we had
testimony regarding the Army, and they said, "Oh, you know, we
are taking care of these needs with the funding that we have."
But I visited Fort Hood recently, and they always call it
Chaffee Village. And under the public-private family housing
partnership program, it wasn't scheduled--those homes weren't
scheduled for demolition until the year 2032.
So you could say we have a plan in place to take care of
all the soldiers of Fort Hood to see they are living in
adequate housing, but if you look at the details of it, that is
not very comforting to somebody that hears Chaffee Village
won't be improved until 2032. And those homes, in my opinion,
probably should have been torn down already.
When you say they have been funded or plans to fund, did
you mean that the dollars are in the pipeline to see that,
within, what, the next 2, 3 years, or next couple of years, or
next year, that they would all be living in housing that meets
Air Force standards?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir. Great question. Let me just go
back and correct my last statement.
I had 9,000 right, but there are 9,000 scheduled for
privatization and about 2,000 overseas. So the total is 11,000.
I apologize.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. No, that is okay.
General Eulberg. I had 9,000 in my head----
Mr. Edwards. All right.
General Eulberg. But your question is a good one, in terms
of, how long does it take once funding is in the pipeline? What
we have found is it takes, on privatization, the developer
typically is given seven years for a development plan to take
place.
What we have seen over the last decade is the privatization
developer accelerates construction and renovation and our
average is about four years. Right now, our plan is that we
will have all inadequates' construction complete by 2015.
Mr. Edwards. 2015?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Is that for families and barracks?
General Eulberg. No, sir, just families.
Mr. Edwards. Just families, okay. And then since I
interrupted you on the family housing issue, in terms of
barracks, what are the numbers?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir. Let me just back up. The
dormitory master plan was just completed. We have 966
dormitories in the United States Air Force. Of those, 106 are
categorized as tier one dormitories.
We do a tiering system. Tier one is our worst condition
dormitories, which we would classify as inadequate, 106.
Now, as I testified last year--and as you have been and the
committee has been a great supporter in dormitories--in our
2004 dorm master plan, we were on a glide path to do away with
all inadequates by this year, which we accomplished based on
that plan. So the commitment to our single Airmen remains as
strong as ever.
So what we did in the proceeding years is expanded the
criteria in our dorm master plan. We have added a permanent
party officer living in unaccompanied housing, as well as
contractors, because contractors--all you have to do is visit
Thule Air Base, Greenland, which is supported by contractors.
They have been there, part of the mission, for a very long
time. And so we have to address those living conditions, as
well, especially in remote and isolated places like Thule Air
Base, Greenland.
So by adding those additional categories to our dorm master
plan, we have 106 dormitories that are currently inadequate.
Out of the----
Mr. Edwards. That is not 106 individual units; that is 106
dorms.
General Eulberg. Dormitories. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. So that could be--how many rooms would that
actually be, just approximately?
General Eulberg. Sir, it varies. We build them on different
sizes. Usually it is--our standard is 96 rooms per dormitory.
Now, sometimes they are larger. For example, as you know, our
request includes pipeline dormitories, as well as normal
dormitories.
Mr. Edwards. But using that number, approximately
ballpark--we don't need the exact number--10,000?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Personnel living in inadequate?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir, that is inadequate, ballpark
figure. We will submit for the record the exact number. But
that is roughly the figure.
[The information follows:]

Airmen Living in Inadequate Quarters

3,140 Airmen are living in Tier 1 ``inadequate'' dormitories. 400
contractors are living in Tier 1 ``inadequate'' dormitories. The Air
Force has 8,000 bed spaces in eight Basic Military Training dormitories
at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas that are designated Tier 1
``inadequate.''
The Tier 1 designation means that the facility has reached the end
of its useful life and is scheduled to be replaced or renovated. The
Tier 1 designation is not an indication of habitability. Tier 1
dormitories are maintained to be safe and comfortable.

Mr. Edwards. Well, thanks to you, the numbers are a lot
less than they were several years ago. I know we salute the
progress for that. But we want to keep track of those that are
still living in inadequate dorms or houses today, the fact that
we made progress doesn't mean much to you, other than maybe the
guy down the street has a better home than you do. But thank
you.
You were going to say something else?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir, if you don't mind. The Air Force
has invested about $1.4 billion in dormitories in the last nine
years. We have another $1.3 billion programmed in the Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP). But it doesn't stop there, in
military construction, now.
We have also developed what we would call a bridging
strategy, is where we have targeted restoration and
modernization funding against those dormitories to ensure we
don't take risk in that area. As you saw in the preceding four
years, we had some deterioration in the condition of
facilities, so we want to make sure we stop that.
So what has happened, since the end of last fiscal year,
the Air Force has invested $188 million in the last year alone
in O&M dollars, maintenance and repair funds. We have also set
aside $100 million a year for the next two years in O&M
restoration and modernization funds with a $50 million from
then on out in the FYDP.
These will be targeted towards the tier one dorms that I
discussed earlier, so what we are doing is a balanced approach
between O&M, maintenance and repair funds, and MILCON funds to
make sure that we stay on top of this critical quality of
service area.
General Schwartz. The strategy, I guess, could be explained
in a few words, is that the good ones stay good.
Mr. Edwards. Right. That is important, obviously.
My last question would be, you said 2015 is a scheduled
date to have everybody in standard family housing or better,
adequate housing. What would be the date for the dorms at your
present glide path?
General Eulberg. Sir, we have the same goal. By 2015, we
will have all inadequate dorms addressed either through
military construction or O&M funding, with one exception.
Right now, the funding that we have in will address all of
them except for Thule Air Base, and that is the unknown. Of the
106 inadequate dorms in our inventory today, 41 are at Thule
Air Base. And we have asked for some help from the Army Corps
of Engineers to come up with a new design standard, because our
standard dorms for Airmen, the quad concept, does not work at
Thule Air Base, Greenland.
And so we have asked for some help. That was built in 1951,
as you may know, sir, and that is a unique environment. So we
have asked for some support from the corps on coming up with a
standard just for Thule Air Base.
So with that as a caveat, not knowing when we are going to
be able to do that and how much the cost is, by 2015, we will
have----
Mr. Edwards. We will see if we can get Mr. Dicks up there
in February to take a look at that.
Mr. Dicks. I will be glad to--I have been there.
Mr. Edwards. In February?
Mr. Dicks. We went to the North Pole.
Mr. Edwards. Thanks.
Thank you very much, General.
Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the second straight year, Chief, the request has been
explained lower in somewhat the same verbiage. When you say
``mitigate potential shortfalls in MILCON facilities and
maintenance funding by bolstering our restoration and
modernization programs as much as possible,'' it almost sounds
like one of our press releases when something back home doesn't
go right, the way we explain it.
And I just wondered if this is a Pentagon, or OMB decision.
What filter is this coming through? I know that is a tough
question for you to ask.
General Schwartz. No, it is our approach. And this didn't
have anybody else's English on it.
You know, the budget--our facility effort here is part of a
larger tapestry of trying to deal with both people issues--that
is clearly the first priority--modernization demands and so on.
And so we think we have achieved a reasonable balance. And
it is true. If we had more funds, we might well invest
additional resources in infrastructure. But as you are well
aware, we have to make choices. And I think that the way we
have postured infrastructure certainly is solid relative to
some of the other choices we have made, let's say, on the
innovation side.
So I think this is a responsible proposal for your
consideration, sir.

GUARD AND RESERVE COMPONENTS

Mr. Wamp. Well, you give a good report on housing. And I
applaud your leadership there, given the resources that you are
working with.
Let me ask you about reserve components, particularly. You
have 30,000 Airmen total deployed as part of Operation Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The Air National Guard provides
almost half of the Air Force's tactical airlift support, combat
communication functions, aeromedical evacuations, and aerial
refueling, and has total responsibility for air defense of the
United States.
The Reserves, 33 flying wings, 7 groups, across 63
locations, 100 percent of the Air Force aerial spray and
weather reconnaissance capabilities, 60 percent of aeromedical
evac, 46 percent strategic airlift capability.
And according to the Commission on National Guard and
Reserve, the shares of the total U.S. Air Force budget, though,
for the Guard and Reserve are 6 percent and 3 percent.
So, based on your operationalized reserve components and
their contributions to this persistent conflict, what
guarantees are in place to ensure that both the Guard and
Reserve MILCON requirements are carved out and represent a fair
and equitable share of the entire construction request?
General Schwartz. There are three approaches on this that I
think are worthy of note. The first and most important is, if
there is new mission, if it is Air National Guard--and, for
example, there are several new unmanned aircraft systems--new
mission requirements for which the Air National Guard in
California and in Arizona, if I recall correctly, are getting
MILCON. New mission gets MILCON regardless, without
consideration to component.
The second aspect of this has to do with the amount of
physical plant. Now, when you are maintaining plant, you know,
we have an approach to try to maintain investment as a
percentage of the plant replacement value. And we do, I think,
a credible job in ensuring that the Air National Guard, as well
as the Air Force Reserve, obtain their fair share, if you will,
of that plant replacement value, relative to what the active
duty receives, too.
The third part, I think, is that there are new efforts
underway that really will make this problem less of an issue as
we go forward. It is called the Total Force Initiative. And,
for example, where the active duty and the Air National Guard
or the active-duty Reserves share the same facilities, whether
it be security forces or whether it be flying operations or
what have you, that the days of independent facilities on the
same installation are behind us.
And so where the components increasingly share facilities,
they will have exactly the same--you know, enjoy the same
quality of service as does their other component. Those are the
three major pieces of our effort, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions, but I will
wait for the next round. We have three other members on the
other end of the table.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Dicks.

JOINT BASING

Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General, good to see you again. I appreciated your
coming by to have a conversation.
Let me ask one general question. In our state of
Washington, McChord Air Force Base and Fort Lewis are going to
be combined into a joint base. And I know the Air Force had
some concerns about this; Secretary Anderson came in to see me
several times.
Can you kind of give us a status on this and how the Air
Force feels about these joint bases? And the concerns that were
expressed, about whether this would adversely affect your
ability to do your mission? And I would just like to know kind
of how you feel since you have taken over about this issue.
General Schwartz. We start big and get small----
Mr. Dicks. Right.
General Schwartz [continuing]. Sir. I favor those bases. It
never made sense to me on why we would have at Fort Dix, and
McGuire Air Force Base, or at McChord Air Force Base and Fort
Lewis, or other--Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base,
essentially adjacent installations, why we would have two
separate refuse contracts or two separate this or two separate
that, when there was the opportunity to have one contract that
served the adjacent military installation, presumably at some
savings to the taxpayer.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
General Schwartz. And there are many opportunities in this
regard, which I think are certainly a positive outcome from
joint basing.
Additionally, the reality is that each of the services is
looking for ways to maximize their installation dollar. And
partnering is a good strategy for achieving that outcome.
Now, the bottom line is, is that the platform--that, for
the Air Force, for sure--and this is probably what former
Assistant Secretary Anderson shared with you earlier--is that
our Air Force bases typically are the platforms from which we
operate, you know, the Army to a somewhat lesser extent, the
Navy to a somewhat lesser extent, so we worry about our
airfields and the places from which we project the nation's
power.
And early on, before this thing matured, there were some
issues with regard to, how prominent would mission be on a
joint base? Would it be accorded the same prominence that we
felt was necessary?
I think we have--the process has matured. We now have
common output standards for--that all the Services must meet,
regardless of who is in charge. And as you are aware, sir,
there are six joint base initiatives, six of which the Air
Force is in charge and six of which others have.
And in the case of Fort Lewis specifically, there was a
recent meeting in April where the two teams had reached
agreement. They will forward the memorandum of agreement, which
codifies this understanding between the two installations, on
who does what, who is in charge of what, who invests, who
supports, and so on, will come to the building at the end of
this month for final approval.
And my sense is that we are on the right glide path. I will
be candid: There was some anxiety that a three-star over a
colonel in the chemistry was--might be a problem. I think we
have sort of settled that.
You know, there is--we have enough attention on--the Army
has made an extra effort to ensure that the colonel commander
of the 62nd Wing at McChord Air Force Base has full access over
at Fort Lewis and can have his needs in the base and the Air
Force requirements presented and dealt with in a responsible
way.
So long answer to your short question is, my sense is, we
are on a good glide path there. And I favor the joint basing
initiatives.
Mr. Dicks. Good.
General Schwartz. Yes, sir.

MODULAR CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Dicks. Let me ask one quick question concerning modular
construction, The Army is using it. We are using it at Fort
Lewis. It looks fantastic. Now, there has been some issue
raised about how long it will last. What is your take on that,
General?
General Eulberg. Sir, as you well know, modular
construction has improved drastically in the last 10 years. And
so it just depends on a lot of factors on whether or not you
use it. The Army is pushing it for a number of reasons.
Mr. Dicks. They are doing it at Fort Lewis, and they are
probably going to do it at McChord, I would think.
Mr. Edwards. What kind----
Mr. Dicks. It looks fantastic. I went in these units.
General Soriano and the wives of the sergeants, they have said
it is the best housing they have ever had over 25 or 30 years
in the Army.
General Eulberg. Sir, if you are specifically talking about
the housing at McChord-Lewis, as you know, through your
leadership, we now have a joint venture, if you will, with
McChord Air Force Base part of Fort Lewis.
The construction there, they had some early on issues with
modular construction at Fort Lewis. The developer has corrected
those problems. We are getting a quality product, and the Air
Force is very happy with it.
Mr. Dicks. So you think this will be okay for McChord, too?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir, we do. As a matter of fact, we
have 150 Army families living in Air Force houses now. And as
you know----
Mr. Dicks. See, I wouldn't let them tear them down,
General. I just thought that the numbers of houses to be
demolished were too extreme. It was like 900 units. They were
going to go to 250, and I said, no, wait. You have too many
people who want this housing. And now the Army is in that
housing, and some of them, we had to take down, but we worked
it out.
General Schwartz. And this is what----
Mr. Dicks. It wasn't easy, by the way.
General Schwartz. No, sir, I understand.
Mr. Dicks. It was like the Air Force was fighting the last
battle. [Laughter.]
General Schwartz. As is often--change is difficult. I mean,
change is hard. And, you know, you have to get the right people
with the right mindset and the right oversight.
Mr. Dicks. I told the colonel out there, I said, ``Have you
ever been to Fort Lewis? Have you ever seen this housing?'' And
he said, ``No.'' And this is--he told me later, he said, ``I
drove down there, and I was prepared just to hate this housing,
and it was terrific.''
General Schwartz. One quick input, sir, just quickly.
Modular also has a potential place in administrative spaces.
And, again, it depends on how long you want the thing to last,
what its purpose is, and so on. So, again----
Mr. Dicks. What about that, on the life cycle? Is there a
difference between modular and other forms of construction, in
terms of how long they last?
General Eulberg. Sir, as a general rule, modular has
sustainment issues over the life cycle. Yes, sir. And so there
is----
Mr. Dicks. But this new stuff--it looked pretty good to me.
General Eulberg. Yes, sir. It is. And as I mentioned, a lot
of the quality issues, which you join certain parts of the
building together, is a critical aspect. And they have worked
all those issues out. So I don't anticipate any long-term
problems.
Mr. Dicks. Good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. How much cheaper is it to build a modular
home, the ones we are talking about, compared to the
conventional construction?
General Eulberg. Sir, it depends on location. However, as a
general rule, it is cheaper, anywhere from 8 percent to 10
percent cheaper.
Mr. Edwards. Eight percent to 10 percent cheaper?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Dicks. It was cheaper in this case, but people thought
it was better than anything they had ever had before.
Mr. Edwards. That is good to hear. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Crenshaw.

JOINT CARGO AIRCRAFT

Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today. I just have a
question about Joint Cargo Aircraft that originally was the
Army and the Air Force program together. And the 2010 budget
made some major changes, transferred, as I understand it, from
the Army to you all to head it up, and that they reduced the
number of planes they were going to buy by half.
And I think they wanted to buy 16 this year, and now the
request is for 8, and then, again, transferring the program to
you all. But they said that there was going to be an assessment
done.
And I wondered, well, what is the assessment going to do?
Is it going to tell you how many you should buy? Or is that
going to come in the QDR? But why all those changes and what do
you think is going to be the outcome?
General Schwartz. Congressman, thanks for the question--
what is going to transpire is a couple of things. First of all,
the Army and the Air Force have to get together on
fundamentals, which is transferring program responsibility.
That is not an instantaneous effort. That probably won't occur
until the fall of 2010.
So the Army is going to continue in the lead on the
procurement actions for this program, and we will be on their
wing. And then later, in 2010, there will be a transfer of
responsibility.
The other aspect of this is how the Air Force will support
the Army. In the end, that is what this is about. It is time-
sensitive, mission-critical re-supply of elements, and we
typically as an Air Force have operated on the notion of
something called general support.
General support is a very efficient way to run a railroad,
if you will. You look for full airplanes or the fullest
possible airplanes. You run an airline in a way to be as
effective and as efficient as you can.
On the other hand, direct support is dedicated support to a
particular maneuver unit, typically. And that maybe is not as
efficient, but it satisfies the need of that maneuver
commander.
We need to be flexible as an Air Force enough to do both.
And my commitment to General George Casey from the Army was
that, if this thing unfolds as it has, as the Secretary of
Defense decided, we will do the direct support mission in the
fashion you need it done, not the way we are comfortable doing
it necessarily, but the way you need it done. That is the
second piece.
The third piece--and I know there is a lot of angst about
this--there are 18 locations that had some stake in the Joint
Cargo Aircraft (JCA), 12 Army National Guard and 6 Air National
Guard.
And, obviously, when we went from 78 aircraft to 38, there
was some concern about what the footprint is going to be. And
we don't know the answer to that yet; that is still under
discussion both between ourselves, the Army, and the National
Guard Bureau, General Craig McKinley.
But I can tell you that the number 38, it is not less than
that. There will be ample opportunity through the QDR and in
follow-on efforts here that we have to do to decide what the
right number is.
The Secretary of Defense's view was that we could use
existing C-130s to do some of this work. He is probably right.
But we need to confirm how much that is. I am not sure it is
just 38 JCAs. So there is still more----
Mr. Crenshaw. So there is still--because again, we heard
yesterday--from Mr. Hale, the new DoD Comptroller, he said--I
asked him a similar question. He said, ``Well, 99 percent of
the work can be done by C-130s.'' And I am thinking----
General Schwartz. If that were the case, you know, the
helicopters wouldn't be working as hard as they are and we
wouldn't have quite as much contract lift----
Mr. Crenshaw. That is the other thing General Casey said
when he was here. I think they are spending $8 million a month
leasing this kind of aircraft--and, of course, I think General
Casey would say, look, it is not my job to figure it out. I
just know what I need.
General Schwartz. That is right.
Mr. Crenshaw. And somebody else has to decide whether to
build them or lease them. But if we are spending that much
money, then I think your point is that we are probably going to
need them.
General Schwartz. The number 38 basically came from
replacing the existing C-23 Sherpas. So there are 42 Sherpas in
the inventory; 38 was considered a fair sort of replacement.
Whether it is more than 38, though, I think it is still to be--
--
Mr. Crenshaw. But is that--do you know--I don't know what
assessment means, we are going to assess it. Do you think they
will come up with this assessment before the QDR?
General Schwartz. It will certainly be a result that will
affect the fiscal year 2011 budget process.
Mr. Crenshaw. I got you.
General Schwartz. Without a doubt.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Bishop.

MOODY AIR FORCE BASE

Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Welcome, Generals. I am particularly interested in Moody
Air Force Base. We have had a number of difficulties down there
with the construction of the privatized housing at Moody, a
real, real problem, especially for some of the subcontractors
who were not paid. And, of course, the completion has been
delayed.
It is my understanding that it is back on track now and
that some local contractors are being utilized to fulfill many
of the work opportunities resulting from the contract.
Can you give us an update on the status of how the claims
under the previous contract were resolved, and what the current
status is of the performance and the completion of the project?
Are small or disadvantaged contractors being utilized? Overall
in the Air Force, to what extent are small and disadvantaged
contractors utilized?
General Schwartz. Go ahead, Del. Why don't you----
General Eulberg. Sir, thank you for that question. And as
you know, there is a long history with this project, and we
have now awarded a new one. There was--or rather a sale of the
project. It is called the Air Force Falcon Group. And they took
over the--or the sale took place in November of last year.
It is part of a four-base group. Moody is one of them. All
the claims associated with all four bases that have been
justified through the contracting process and legal process,
all claims have been paid.
And the good news, also, is, is the contractor is making
great progress at all four bases, both Hanscom, Little Rock,
and Moody, and Patrick Air Force Bases. And specifically at
Moody Air Force Base, they are completing the site work on
units that were stopped in progress by American Eagle, so those
are underway.
General Schwartz. Same is true at Little Rock Air Force
Base.
General Eulberg. Same thing at Little Rock, Hanscom, and
Patrick Air Force Bases. So great progress, and the contractor
is doing a good job with all of that.
Sir, does that address your question?
Mr. Bishop. Yes. I understand from the local folks that
there are local contractors participating as subs.
General Eulberg. Yes, sir, there are.
Mr. Bishop. Regarding utilization of small and
disadvantaged businesses, I would be interested in hearing what
is happening at Moody and what is happening overall in the Air
Force there.
General Eulberg. Sir, we will have to take that for the
record.
General Schwartz. We will get that back to you, the exact
performance, both respect--with respect to this particular
project, but more broadly.
[The information follows:]

Small and Disadvantaged Contractor Utilization

Housing privatization is authorized by the 1996 National Defense
Authorization Act (Public Law 104-106). Projects under housing
privatization are real estate transactions, and not federal contracts;
therefore, they are not subject to Federal Acquisition Regulations.
Although the project owners, which are private businesses, may
subcontract with small and disadvantaged businesses, there is no
obligation to do so, nor are they required to provide the Federal
Government with information regarding the extent to which their
subcontractors are small and disadvantaged businesses. In these
circumstances, the Air Force has no authority to mandate quotas or
goals, or direct project owners to utilize small and disadvantaged
businesses on housing privatization projects.
The data below represents the Air Force utilization, in contracted
dollars, for small businesses (SB) and small disadvantaged businesses
(SDB) at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia and Air Force wide for fiscal
year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 year to date (YTD):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligible dollars Awarded to SB % Awarded SDB %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2008:
Moody AFB....................... $48,743,916 $39,638,936 81.3 $19,621,069 40.3
Air Force Wide.................. 57,181,926,908 9,345,356,505 16.3 3,556,482,418 6.2
*Fiscal Year 2009 YTD:
Moody AFB....................... 27,446,624 19,968,129 72.7 6,957,782 25.4
Air Force Wide.................. 40,909,206,246 5,197,461,346 12.7 1,843,956,787 4.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business utilization percentages for the first nine months of
fiscal year 2009 closely match the utilization percentages for the first nine months of fiscal year 2008.

Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, thank you for your service. General Schwartz,
I noticed you did two tours at Little Rock.
General Schwartz. I did.
Mr. Berry. It is good to hear that----
General Schwartz. I married--my wife comes from Little
Rock.
Mr. Berry. Is that right?
General Schwartz. That is right.
Mr. Berry. Well, I trust she turned out to be a good
Arkansas girl.
General Schwartz. She is still a Razorback fan and, in
fact--Razorback football----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Berry. But we do appreciate your concern and commitment
to the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. We
appreciate that very much. It is good to hear that we have
pretty much resolved the issues with that American Eagle crowd.
General Schwartz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Berry. It is good to know that it is back on track and
moving in a good direction. We appreciate what you do for
Little Rock Air Force Base. And I know that the men and women
that serve there appreciate it very much, and we thank you.

NUCLEAR-RELATED FACILITIES

Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Berry.
General Schwartz, in your written testimony, you talked
about one of your priorities is to reinvigorate the Air Force
nuclear enterprise. And you say, ``A critical aspect to this
effort includes the infrastructure and facilities providing
that necessary life cycle installation support to this vital
mission.''
I think you go on to say you are conducting facility
condition assessments of all nuclear-related facilities. Could
you--obviously, this is a terribly important responsibility of
the Air Force. We are all aware of some of the issues that
cropped up over the past year.
So where are you in that assessment? And is any of that
incorporated into your 2010 military construction budget? Or
will additional facilities or improvements in facilities be
pushed out to the 2011 or later budgets?
General Schwartz. I think the short answer on the mission
facilities specifically, launch facilities and so on, that
assessment is complete but we are still working assessments for
weapons storage areas and other nuclear related facilities. We
know the status of each of our missile launch facilities that
control facilities that are associated with it and so on, and
likewise at the bomber bases.
And we are okay on those mission facilities. In other
words, there is no major requirement other than maintenance and
standard maintenance required for those at the moment.
There are a couple of areas that are not in the MILCON.
Now, there is $45 million in the 2010 proposal, recommendation
to you, for this particular mission area. About four items are
included in that.
And, for example, at Minot Air Force Base, there is a
training facility MILCON, and also at Minot Air Force Base,
there is a munitions item involved. But there is also a
substantial commitment of $73 million, if I recall correctly,
that is related to and involves both security, armored
vehicles, weapons related expenses, and minor facilities
renovation related to the weapons storage area at Barksdale Air
Force Base.
We are reopening the weapons storage area at Barksdale Air
Force Base. And that is not MILCON dollars. That will be
essentially O&M or aircraft procurement, sort of special
equipment dollars.
But that is the angle that we are on. We have assessed the
mission facilities. We know what the status is. We have a plan
for maintaining those facilities and in the longer term,
perhaps, to replace them. It is not required right now. Right
now, the focus is on getting Barksdale Air Force Base re-
established with its weapons storage area, for example, and
taking care of some of the needs at Minot Air Force Base.
F.E. Warren Air Force Base and Malmstrom Air Force Base are
okay for the moment, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. So there are no important, immediate
needs out there? I would ask if those needs arise, given the
pre-eminence of that responsibility to be good stewards of our
nuclear weapons, if there are any needs that pop up after the
2010 budget has been put to rest, please----
General Schwartz. Understood.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Please let us know, because we
know that does happen when you have to start putting these
requests together months, if not a year, a year-and-a-half
before, and things change. And particularly in that area, we
don't want to cut any corners.
General Schwartz. And we won't cut corners.
Mr. Edwards. We don't have time to get into all the details
of storage of nuclear bombs. We are in an unclassified setting,
so there are probably some things you can't say.
But normally would you have tactical weapons in the same
storage area as nuclear weapons? Normally those would be----
General Schwartz. Segregated.
Mr. Edwards. We segregate them.
General Schwartz. Absolutely.
Mr. Edwards. So you have all the----
General Schwartz [continuing]. And you have training
devices also separated from the real ones, which was a problem
we had in one of the episodes last year. So, you know, that was
not so much a facility issue as it was a compliance issue----
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Okay. So subject to any additional
concerns that are raised by an ongoing review of facilities and
operations, you have what you need, in terms off facilities----
General Schwartz. We do.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. To protect our nuclear stockpile?
General Schwartz. And, in fact, in the broader sense, we
made sure that 100 percent of the requirements, whether it be
for facilities or operations, or whatever it was, training, you
name it, 100 percent funded.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
General Schwartz. So, I mean, we were not going to take any
risks there for obvious reasons.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
I reserve my other questions for additional rounds.
Mr. Wamp.

ENGINEERING

Mr. Wamp. General Eulberg, while we have you, I want to
hear from you about engineers. Obviously, this budget--and the
chief is right having you here to present this budget. This is
principally an engineering budget. And I think you have 60,000
people within the Air Force Civil Engineering career field, and
you have 3,000 civil engineers deployed between Iraq and
Afghanistan.
I represent the Y-12 National Security Complex, speaking of
the nuclear piece of the deterrent. But we have a guy there
named Kevin Smith, who has done an extraordinary job of
bringing young people into the military with a commitment that,
if you go and serve and get your training at the highest level,
you have a job here when you come back.
And we had the STEM initiative on science, math and
engineering, where we are just grossly deficient as a nation.
And I would think the United States Air Force may be better
than any other organization that is prepared to help us meet
those needs through the training, the experience that you
actually provide.
Give us the state of engineering right now, as you go off
into the sunset, I hope to enjoy the rest of your service to
others, but that has got to be a big thing, especially in your
heart, given your background.
General Eulberg. Sir, thank you very much for that
question.
We do have 60,000 personnel assigned in Air Force Civil
Engineering. They are part of an Air Force team and also part
of a joint team. And as you mentioned, we do have 3,000
engineers deployed currently in the area of responsibility
doing various missions, 43 percent of which are doing joint
expeditionary tasking alongside their other Service brethren.
So it is truly a joint undertaking. There has been a number
of initiatives on the joint side that--with the other
engineering services chiefs, we have been able to make great
headway in the last couple years.
But the civil engineering corps, as you know, is about half
civilians, and as well as enlisted and officer corps, and as
well as our contracting partners. And we are able to do what we
can, is because it is a team of civilians, military, as well as
contracting support.
So as we go forward, I will tell you, I am very, very proud
of the Air Force engineering community and their contributions
to the missions that our nation has asked us to perform. The
dedication of the young men and women are just phenomenal. We
have a number of wounded warriors coming back, as well as those
killed in action----
General Schwartz. In fact, I met one on Sunday evening who
came back who was in explosive ordnance disposal, a young man
who stepped on a landmine dealing with unexploded ordnance in
Afghanistan, an engineer. And he is thankful that his wife was
with him. It was good to get him back.
But it is an example of what these kids are doing. They are
on almost a one-to-one dwell. In other words, for the period of
time they are deployed, that is with their home, and they are
back into it again. That is a high-stress career field.
They are highly valued, particularly now as we build in
Afghanistan. There is not enough concrete in that country to
put the air down, and it is not just Air Force air. It is Army
air. It is Marine Corps air.
And so, in particular, the engineers are, again, with their
brothers, the Seabees and the Army folks, again, they are doing
horizontal construction. And I think it is a tribute, again,
that, you know, the people like me tend to get the credit for
what happens, you know, flying airplanes or whatever it is. And
the truth of the matter is, it is the--you know, it is the
folks that lay concrete that make is possible.
Mr. Wamp. But, General Eulberg, are more young airmen
interested in the engineering side than in the past? Do we see
a trend there?
General Eulberg. Sir, we have been very fortunate in the
Air Force, is that we have been able to meet all of our
recruitment targets and accessions across all enlisted Air
Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs), as well as in the officer corps.
And so we have been able to maintain that.
And so I don't see any problem in that. We went through a
retention issue a couple of years ago, where we had less than
50 percent of our captains staying in. It has improved since
then. But I don't see any major problems now or in the future,
sir.
General Schwartz. Just one example, Congressman. The new
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Chief Roy, who will
take over the responsibilities at the end of June, is a civil
engineering guy, just a case in point. That is where he started
out.

DONATIONS

Mr. Wamp. General Schwartz, I have asked all of our
services about this problem that I learned of from General
Casey, and that is some of the kind of regulatory hurdles of
just--of benefits being provided to wounded warriors and our
military from the private sector. And you have probably heard
about this.
But the joint ethics regulation enables injured and ill-
served members and their families and their members to receive
unsolicited gifts from non-federal entities.
Do you know of anything else that Congress can do to remove
barriers to enable support for our wounded warriors from non-
federal entities? And are you able to provide minimal
logistical support--transportation, donated items, warehousing,
or donated gifts--to assist these entities when they provide
resources to our wounded warriors?
General Schwartz. Congressman, I think there is a balance
in this. There are some things we don't do. We don't solicit.
We can't do that. And, likewise, we don't take cash donations.
I mean, there are some things we won't do.
But absent those sort of black-and-white sort of
distinctions, what we do now is simply run the proposal by our
ethics people. And unless there is some, you know, cause for
concern, we are okay, we are good to go.
So the way we practice this is the obvious things we--you
know, that are black and white, we won't do. And then we do
engage our ethics counselors to make sure that it is okay.
Now, with respect to transportation, I do have some
experience in this area. You know, we can't package things and
so on. We can deliver stuff to the theater--there are certain
exceptions to that, for example--movements, and if we move some
stuff to Afghanistan for Afghan refugees, and we will probably
do the same thing for Pakistan here coming up.
But in terms of donations for things that go forward, we do
provide minimal logistics support. And I think, you know, there
is no lack of willingness to do so.
Again, it is just trying to make sure that we don't favor
one category of donation or one agency more than another. I
think that is the basic sensitivity.
Mr. Wamp. Let me just say, as I close, I am in my final
term, eighth term here in the House, and I have not done too
much traveling, but I have done a significant amount. And I
think it is important that members of Congress fight through
the public disdain for that, because it is important that we
have 535 ambassadors for our country around the world, instead
of just the executive branch, making friends and building
relationships and understanding needs.
And so I have probably done a moderate amount of travel,
but I just want to thank all the men and women of the United
States Air Force for the way that they deal with members of
Congress, as we go and see the world.
You know, we are criticized for it, but it is unfortunate
that we are, because it is really, really important. And the
United States Air Force just does an extraordinary job taking
us places that we need to be.
And I have been to tough places like Islamabad, and it is
sometimes not easy to get in and out. But I have never had a
bad experience, and I have always been amazed. So I am
grateful.
General Schwartz. Well, sir, it is our Service. It is what
we do. I would mention, though, that I agree with you.
And I travel some, as well, because you do not--someone
once said that Washington, DC is the only city in the country
that is surrounded on all sides by reality. And so the effort
to get out of town and get ground truths is vital for me and,
of course, vital----
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Chief. Well said.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Berry.
And let the record show that Mr. Berry, in his previous
comments, said that, in good years and bad years, he is always
with the Razorbacks. Right? All right. I just want to be sure
the transcript--accurate statement that the gentleman----
[Laughter.]

LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE

General Schwartz, let me ask you about Lackland, where you
do your training for your Airmen. As I understand, earlier this
week, the Air Force announced that the preferred site for the
24th Air Force would be Lackland. Could you further explain
where we are on that process? And then add to that, at what
point we would know whether there are any additional military
construction needs tied into that decision?
General Schwartz. Sir, the key thing is that we announced
last week that, as you indicated, that Lackland Air Force Base
is our preferred alternative--Colorado Springs, Peterson Air
Force Base, is a viable alternative for environmental
assessment purposes. That environmental assessment is underway,
and we should have that back in the July timeframe.
And as you are aware, I know that there is a 30-day comment
period which follows the finalization of the environmental
assessment. And then, at that point, if there are no major
hiccups, in the August timeframe, we will finalize the
decision.
The process we have in the Air Force--and, frankly, it is a
maturing process--what we do, we have a set of criteria that we
use to sort of examine options for bedding down either a new
mission or relocated mission.
And it includes things like mission synergy that is one
place more conducive to performing the mission than another.
What are the facilities on an installation that could
accommodate it at least cost? Is there transportation access?
Is there human capital on the installation or in the adjacent
community that would, again, support that particular mission?
Those are the kinds of considerations. And what we do is,
we go to the major command that is responsible for that
activity, in this case, the Air Force Space Command. And they
got the criteria. They gave the Secretary of the Air Force and
myself a short list of installations that they felt were in the
ballpark with those criteria.
And there were six. And we went out and subsequently, after
the secretary brought into those six, to do actual site surveys
to assess physically the capacity of the installation to absorb
the mission, and so on and so forth.
That comes back up through the major command as a
recommendation, and, based on a criteria and a way to sort of
objectively score the assets and the liabilities of each of the
installations, comes back up to the headquarters for an
executive review, and then ultimately the Secretary of the Air
Force and I get together to make a call on what we think is the
best place.
And as you indicated, Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio,
was identified as the--what we think is the best place for this
new mission, subject to environmental analysis and so on.
What I would also like to mention, though--and this came
out of the preceding announcement on Global Strike Command,
that--in an effort to be transparent and open, one of the
unintended consequences of that was we began--when we had this
shortlist, we have created an incentive, unintentionally, for
communities to compete against each other. And that is not a
good thing.
And so what we are trying to do is to figure out a way to
be open and transparent, but to manage expectations in a way
that it doesn't force communities to mobilize and spend funds,
and do lots of different things to try to persuade us where to
go. That is not a good thing.
And so what we are going to try to do is thread the needle
on this, be objective, be as transparent as we can, and also
keep folks sort of breathing through their noses on not being
too aggressive in trying to market or sell their communities, I
mean, because what we want to avoid having a situation where
people feel like they desperately lost. And so we want to
manage this in a way that minimizes that likelihood.
So it is objective, sir. It does--the senior leadership
does apply some judgment. We did that in the global strike
case. And it was--the 24th Air Force case was much more clear-
cut. The scoring was not close. And, therefore we made that
announcement.
And, again, we think that we will have--the environmental
assessment for Global Strike Command was complete on the 12th
of May. We put that out for a 30-day comment period. So mid-
June, we should have a final on global strike. And I would say
probably mid-August, toward the end of August, we will have a
final on the 24th Air Force.
Mr. Edwards. Okay, mid-July. Thank you.
So you don't foresee, then, any MILCON requests----
General Schwartz. No.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Tied into that need for fiscal
year 2010?
General Schwartz. If there is anything--yes, sir, if there
is anything that we didn't get in that initial site survey, it
will be in 2011.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
General Schwartz. Part of the decision process was
minimizing MILCON requirements.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

My final question deals with BRAC. I am constantly learning
new aspects of BRAC. Let me just hypothetically say you are at
one installation, and BRAC 2005 moves you to another
installation.
The BRAC process itself didn't necessarily require the
Department of Defense, did it, to replace hangar for hangar,
facility for facility? I mean, for example, you could have X
number of aircraft with hangars at your present site in some
location in the world or in the country--say it is CONUS--and
then you are asked to move to another location.
Does the BRAC process, by requirement, have to replace that
same number of hangars? Or could you end up being--whether it
is hangars or whether it is other facilities, if we were fully
funding BRAC, you could still end up short facilities that you
need. Is that my understanding?
General Schwartz. Well, I can only--and Del probably can
give you the expert advice on this--but in my personal
experience, when we were at Scott Air Force Base at U.S.
Transportation Command and one of the BRAC moves was the Army
component to U.S. Transportation Command--it is called the
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command--and relocated from
three spots in Virginia to Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Schwartz. That was a fully-funded initiative, but
the definition of that initiative took some negotiation. You
know, there is some push-and-pull involved in that.
And all I can tell you is that we ended up with an $84
million facility at Scott Air Force Base for the new Army
command and some growth that we had within U.S. Transportation
Command that was quite satisfactory.
And, Del, would you like to expand on that?
General Eulberg. Yes, sir, if I might. Sir, relative to the
BRAC process, as you know, when we worked with the commission
and developed the recommendations for BRAC, it is done with a
very small planning staff, and they make assumptions to the
best of their ability.
But one of the fundamental assumptions is, it is not a one-
for-one ``build here, move there'' or ``move here and
replicate.'' It is based on capacity.
And so the services spend a lot of time analyzing and
providing input to say, ``What is the capacity of this
particular base to accept a new mission?'' So that analysis is
quite rigorous. However, it is based on assumptions.
And, as General Schwartz mentioned, whenever the final list
is released, we go out and actually then begin the detailed
site surveys. And that is where you begin to actually leverage
some great ideas.
And I was personally involved with U.S. TRANSCOM and the
consolidation efforts there. And a lot of great ideas came
forward as a result of that to make it even more effective.
And so bottom line is that is why we have--and I appreciate
the Congress's support on this--BRAC is not line-item managed,
per se, like the MILCON budget. And that gives the Services
some flexibility to leverage great ideas and to put the funding
where it is most needed.
But as a general rule, the business plans as developed are
fully funded. And there is some give-and-take, but----
Mr. Edwards. And to be clear, the definition of fully
funded might mean that you have some unfunded needs when you
move to a new installation? For example, you are doing
maintenance on aircraft outside. That is not a good idea in
most parts of the country, so that, in effect, BRAC--we are
trying--the point I am trying to get to, we are trying to take
lessons learned from BRAC so we can apply those to the future.
So am I correct in understanding that maybe one of the
things Congress should do is look at the projected BRAC costs
and maybe question whether you are really building all the
hangars you need at the new station? You can call it fully
funded, that is semantics.
It is not truly fully funded in the real world outside of
Washington, DC, if you have needs, basic needs, hangar space,
administrative space, other things?
General Eulberg. Sir, you are fully funded relative to the
business plans and the assumptions made at the time, fully
funded. And as you rightfully point out, one--as I mentioned,
there are some great ideas under--General Schwartz, when he was
USTRANSCOM commander, came up with good ideas on how to
consolidate a number of functions. Those were different
assumptions than just moving people, so it required additional
funds. And so we did an internal process.
But you highlight a great point, if the process was a
little more open--because this is a multiyear effort. And as
you move major units around, you discover things that weren't
part of the business plan up front.
And I will give you just a real simple example. You move an
Army unit to a base that requires a whole motor pool complex.
So your road structure, your gates have to be realigned.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
General Eulberg. Well, if you didn't catch that up front,
then you are going to have to give up mission facilities in
order to provide the infrastructure. So if there was a way we
could provide updates to Congress that would allow that process
to be adjusted, without opening the entire BRAC legislation, it
would be most helpful.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for that, that insight. Thank you.
Mr. Dicks.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Dicks. One of the issues that I know has been very
important to you, General, is improving the way the Air Force
handles nuclear weapons. I don't know if you have talked about
this or not yet.
Mr. Edwards. We talked some about it. I asked him, but
proceed----
Mr. Dicks. McChord Air Force Base took an exam up there and
did very well on this nuclear issue. And I know that Secretary
Gates has made this an ultimately high priority.
So could you tell us a little bit about how you are
approaching this, you and the secretary, to get this thing
under control?
General Schwartz. Sir, there are three major components to
it, but, again, to start at the strategic level. Over time, we
lost focus on this mission, and there are lots of reasons for
it, I mean, some of which are understandable.
We had two wars going on in the U.S. Central Command Area
of Responsibility. We had, within our Air Force being deployed,
had greater acceptance and a sense of value than being deployed
in place, like the folks who do the missile work in Montana,
Wyoming, and North Dakota. And, frankly--and this was
department-wide--the whole notion of deterrence sort of had
less traction than it has had in the past.
And for those reasons and a number of others, we, frankly,
got a little too casual. We lost the discipline and the focus
needed to do this right. I mean, perfection is the standard,
and good intentions are not good enough in this mission area.
You have to perform.
So one of the things we did, Congressman Dicks, was to re-
emphasize the cultural piece of this, compliance. You know, you
don't want to stifle imagination or stifle innovation, but
there are some things in the Air Force where you do it the Air
Force way. And that is certainly true in the nuclear realm. So
that was one part.
The other part was establishing this command we spoke of
earlier of the Global Strike Command. Global Strike Command
will consolidate all the nuclear parts, operational pieces of
the Air Force, into one organization, both the missile piece
and the bomber piece. It will have a single three-star
commander who will be responsible and accountable for nuclear
readiness.
Mr. Dicks. So you are going to bring all the weapons there,
all the missiles--not the missiles. They are in the silos.
General Schwartz. Right, right. And----
Mr. Dicks. But there are some----
General Schwartz. And the wings, and the operations, the
folks that do the nuclear operations, both in the missile wings
and the bomber wings, will be subordinate to this major
command.
The second piece of this was recognizing that there was a
sustainment part to this nuclear business, as well as the
operations. We had sustainment distributed in four commands in
the Air Force. Bad idea.
So we consolidated that, as well, in an organization called
the Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base in New
Mexico. And the end result now is that you have one accountable
party on the operations side, one accountable party on the
sustainment side, and their two belly buttons are very close
together. They are the folks that will keep us pristine in the
nuclear mission.
Mr. Dicks. There weren't any issues, really, with the
missiles----
General Schwartz. No.
Mr. Dicks [continuing]. The silo-based missiles?
General Schwartz. No, sir. There was not. This was a
process, procedures and compliance issue with respect to--one
of the occasions, you will recall, we moved weapons from Minot
Air Force Base to Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana----
Mr. Dicks. Right.
General Schwartz [continuing]. And lost track of them. Not
a good thing. And then the second incident had to do with what
we call--it is--I forget the exact name. In other words, these
are nuclear-related materials, but they are not nuclear
themselves, that this was the thing about the fuses that went
to Taiwan, you may recall.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
General Schwartz. They weren't nuclear themselves, but they
were related to a weapon. And so, you know, they get the same
attention, except this time. Well, no more of that.
And in another example of what we have done, over time, we
allowed the Defense Logistics Agency to take over some of the
responsibility for logistics oversight of that material. No
more. We are bringing it back into the Air Force at two
dedicated facilities at Ogden Air Logistics Center, at Hill Air
Force Base, and at Tinker Air Logistics Center in Oklahoma
City.
And we are managing all that ourselves now, not contracting
out to anybody else. We are accountable. We are going to do it.
Those are the major features, sir, of how we are going
about to rectify the problems and to sustain the culture that
we need.
Mr. Dicks. Did the Air Force do this by itself? Or did it
have oversight from the Department of Defense?
General Schwartz. These were largely internal initiatives
which certainly were vetted all the way up to the Secretary of
the Air Force and brought into by the Secretary of Defense.
And, incidentally, there were a couple of outside panels,
including the Schlesinger panel, that I am sure you are aware
of----
Mr. Dicks. Right.
General Schwartz. They vetted this, as well, and indicated
that they thought this was a sound strategy.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. Wamp, do you have any additional questions?
I have no further questions, so, General Schwartz, thank
you again for being here today and your leadership.
General Eulberg, we hope we got you out early enough to go
back and help your wife pack up boxes. I don't know what is
worse, packing boxes at home or testifying before Congress. But
thanks to your 36 years of service. And we wish you all the
best, and Godspeed in the years ahead.
And we will stand adjourned.
[Questions for the record submitted by Chairman Edwards:]

Infrastructure Footprint

Your ``20/20'' plan to reduce both footprint and installation
funding requirements 20 percent by 2020 indicates that the Air Force
has an excess of infrastructure.
Question. Do you believe that the Air Force has an excess
infrastructure footprint?
Answer. Yes, the results of initial space utilization surveys in
several major commands indicate the Air Force has excess infrastructure
footprint. The Air Force is proceeding with standardized service-wide
space utilization surveys to more completely describe our
infrastructure utilization. The estimated completion date of these
surveys is the end of fiscal year 2010.
Your ``20/20'' plan to reduce both footprint and installation
funding requirements 20 percent by 2020 indicates that the Air Force
has an excess of infrastructure.
Question. If so, why did BRAC fail to reduce this excess?
Answer. The Air Force fully intended to reduce excess
infrastructure when it recommended the closure of ten installations
(including three active duty installations: Cannon Air Force Base, New
Mexico; Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota; and Onizuka Air Force
Station, California) and the realignment of sixty-two other
installations to the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
However, during their deliberations and in its report to the President,
the BRAC Commission altered the Air Force recommendation and kept two
of the three active duty and many of the Reserve component
installations open and fully manned.
Your ``20/20'' plan to reduce both footprint and installation
funding requirements 20 percent by 2020 indicates that the Air Force
has an excess of infrastructure.
Question. When you say that you plan to reduce ``resources
required'' for installations, what specific Air Force accounts and
activities are you looking at?
Answer. When the Air Force plans to reduce ``resources required''
for installations, the Air Force is specifically referring to reduced
costs associated with facilities operations, facilities sustainment and
facilities restoration and modernization.
Your ``20/20'' plan to reduce both footprint and installation
funding requirements 20 percent by 2020 indicates that the Air Force
has an excess of infrastructure.
Question. Does your budget assume the savings leading to this 20
percent reduction by 2020?
Answer. The Air Force budget request does not reflect savings based
on the ``20/20 by 2020'' plan. The ``20/20 by 2020'' plan is an
acknowledgement of excess inventory and the lack of operations and
maintenance funding to properly care for all of it. Over the past few
years, the Air Force's budget has assumed greater risk in
infrastructure funding as it moved operations and maintenance to fund
the recapitalization of our weapons systems. As a result of these
funding reductions, the Air Force established the ``20/20 by 2020''
goal as part of the 2008 Air Force Civil Engineer Strategic Plan. The
goal is to offset the reduction in funds available for installation
support activities by achieving efficiencies and reducing by 20 percent
the Air Force physical plant that requires funds by 2020.

Air Sovereignty Alert

The GAO released a report this year raising concerns about the Air
Force's management of the Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) mission. The GAO
found that the Air Force had failed to treat ASA as a ``steady state''
mission for the purposes of planning and budgeting in accordance with
DoD guidance. The GAO further found that 45 percent of ASA unit
commanders identified ``facilities'' as a significant factor affecting
their ability to perform this mission.
Question. Has the Air Force identified all of the facility
requirements needed to support this mission?
Answer. There are 18 Air Sovereignty Alert locations. Two of those
locations will transition to the F-22 aircraft and four of those
locations will transition to the F-15 Golden Eagles (F-15s with
electronically scanned radar, infrared search and track, etc.). The
decision on the other 12 locations is not final, but it looks like they
should be F-35 locations, provided there is a high enough production
rate in the program. At this point in time, we are addressing our
facility issues through our standard military construction processes.
Projects proposed in support of these sites compete against other
existing military construction requirements on an annual basis for
funding.
The GAO released a report this year raising concerns about the Air
Force's management of the Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) mission. The GAO
found that the Air Force had failed to treat ASA as a ``steady state''
mission for the purposes of planning and budgeting in accordance with
DoD guidance. The GAO further found that 45 percent of ASA unit
commanders identified ``facilities'' as a significant factor affecting
their ability to perform this mission.
Question. Has the Air Force identified all of the facility
requirements needed to support this mission?
Answer. No. The Air Force developed an Air Sovereignty Alert site
activation guide identifying recommended facilities standards, but a
comprehensive study to assess the facility requirements has not yet
been undertaken at existing sites against these recommended standards.
The GAO released a report this year raising concerns about the Air
Force's management of the Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) mission. The GAO
found that the Air Force had failed to treat ASA as a ``steady state''
mission for the purposes of planning and budgeting in accordance with
DoD guidance. The GAO further found that 45 percent of ASA unit
commanders identified ``facilities'' as a significant factor affecting
their ability to perform this mission.
Question. How much MILCON is requested in the FY10 budget for ASA
facilities?
Answer. There are two projects supporting the Air Sovereignty Alert
mission in the fiscal year 2010 Air Force military construction
program. The munitions storage area at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland
has one active Air Force project and one Air National Guard project
which both support the ASA mission at a total cost of $23.3 million.

Air Force Road Map

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0526E.068

W I T N E S S E S

----------
Page
Appel, Stanley................................................... 784
Arny, Wayne..............................................237, 558, 1284
Baker, Kerry..................................................... 899
Barnes, Joe...................................................... 728
Billings, Kevin.................................................. 269
Blake, Carl...................................................... 854
Bottene, Cinzia.................................................. 791
Campbell, Patrick................................................ 778
Casey, General George W., Jr..................................... 1061
Casscells, S. Ward............................................... 503
Cohoon, Barbara.................................................. 674
Conway, General James T.......................................... 1114
Cox, Timothy C................................................... 962
Craddock, General Bantz J........................................ 374
Daigh, John Jr................................................... 129
Eastin, Kenneth D..............................................248, 577
Ferguson, Kathleen............................................... 600
Finn, Belinda.................................................... 149
Greene, Chief Judge William P., Jr............................... 918
Hale, Robert F................................................... 1276
Houlemard, Michael............................................... 801
Jones, Rick...................................................... 742
Keating, Admiral Timothy J....................................... 317
Kelley, Raymond.................................................. 867
Kelly, Heather................................................... 713
Kent, Sergeant Major Carlton W................................... 29
Kussman, Michael J............................................... 488
Maupin, John E., Jr.............................................. 757
McKinley, Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J......................... 62
Melvin, Valerie.................................................. 152
Needham, Christopher............................................. 881
Nicholson, Brigadier General John W.............................. 930
Nolan, Stephan J................................................. 693
Penn, B.J......................................................259, 589
Petraeus, General David H........................................ 987
Preston, Sergeant Major Kenneth O................................ 7
Redmond, Ben..................................................... 814
Regan, Maureen................................................... 150
Robertson, Steve................................................. 829
Roman-Rodriguez, Jesse........................................... 722
Roughead, Admiral Gary........................................... 1104
Salt, Terrence C................................................. 941
Schwartz, General Norton A....................................... 1363
Sharp, General Walter L.......................................... 329
Shinseki, the Honorable Eric..................................... 1188
Streim, Joel E................................................... 661
Toews, Galen B................................................... 654
West, Chief Master Petty Officer Rick D.......................... 48
Williamson, Randall B............................................ 130

I N D E X

__________

QUALITY OF LIFE

Page
Accessibility and Availability of Healthcare..................... 85
Army Family Action Plan.......................................... 104
Army Medical Action Plan......................................... 119
Basic Allowance for Housing...................................... 107
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1
Cross-Cultural Exchange--Horn of Africa.......................... 112
Cross-Cultural Training.......................................... 100
Demobilization Process........................................... 96
Education Benefits............................................... 93
Family Housing, Aging............................................ 109
Family Programs.................................................. 120
Financial Assistance Programs.................................... 98
Guard and Reserve Morale and Cohesion............................ 84
Guard and Reserve Quality of Life Issues......................... 96
Guard and Reserve, Employer Support for.......................... 97
Healthcare....................................................... 103
Homeowners Assistance Program.................................... 89
Homeport Ashore.................................................. 99
Housing Entitlements, Single Soldier............................. 126
Housing for Redeploying Soldiers................................. 124
Housing Privatization............................................ 111
Iraq, Rebuilding................................................. 103
Kent, Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W............. 30
Kent, Statement of Sergeant Major Carlton W...................... 29
McKinley, Prepared Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J... 65
McKinley, Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Rodney J............ 62
Mental Health Counseling......................................... 86
MilCon........................................................... 97
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder................................... 85
Preston, Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O.......... 10
Preston, Statement of Sergeant Major Kenneth O................... 7
Quality of Life Issues, Top...................................... 106
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 2
RCI Housing...................................................... 123
Recruiting....................................................... 82
Soldier Fitness, Comprehensive................................... 119
Suicide Prevention..............................................92, 118
Suicide Rates.................................................... 81
TRICARE Provider................................................. 115
TRICARE.......................................................... 104
Web-Based Psychological Counseling............................... 91
West, Prepared Statement of Chief Master Petty Officer Rick D.... 50
West, Statement of Chief Master Petty Officer Rick D............. 48

REVIEW OF VA CHALLENGES

Accountability Goals............................................. 162
Audits........................................................... 137
Backlog of Benefits Claims....................................... 222
Benefits Claims Processing....................................... 209
Budget Estimates................................................. 136
Chairman, Statement of the....................................... 127
Claims Processors, Hiring of..................................... 161
Community-Based Outpatient Clinics, Vet Centers, and Contracted
Care........................................................... 211
Community-Based Outreach Clinics................135, 139, 143, 147, 223
Daigh, Statement of John D....................................... 129
Data Security.................................................... 162
DoD/VA Computable Data........................................... 213
DoD/VA Transition to Care........................................ 212
Electronic Medical Records....................................... 144
Enrollment....................................................... 159
Federal Information Security Management.......................... 215
Fee-for-Service Care............................................. 164
Finn, Statement of Belinda J..................................... 149
G.I. Bill, New.................................................160, 209
Health Care Center Facilities.................................... 224
Homeless Veterans................................................ 140
Identity Theft................................................... 137
Interoperability................................................. 155
Joint Incentive Fund............................................. 225
Melvin, Prepared Statement of Valerie C.......................... 193
Melvin, Statement of Valerie C................................... 152
Mental Health Resources, Access to............................... 225
Multiple Award Schedule Advisory Panels........................158, 164
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder................................... 133
Prepared Statement of Office of Inspector General................ 166
Prescription Drugs............................................... 153
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 128
Regan, Statement of Maureen T.................................... 150
Telemedicine...................................................138, 147
Transition Assistance for OEF/OIF Veterans....................... 210
VA Information Technology Risks.................................. 214
VA Medical Procedure Problems.................................... 134
VBA Claims Processing Operations................................. 213
Williamson, Prepared Statement of Randall B...................... 177
Williamson, Statement of Randall B............................... 130

FAMILY AND TROOP HOUSING

Air Force Housing................................................ 295
Arny, Prepared Statement of Wayne................................ 239
Arny, Statement of Wayne......................................... 237
Barracks..................................................290, 296, 308
Billings, Prepared Statement of Kevin W.......................... 271
Billings, Statement of Kevin W................................... 269
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 235
Committee Support................................................ 293
Eastin, Prepared Statement of Kenneth D.......................... 250
Eastin, Statement of Kenneth D................................... 248
Eglin AFB Housing Privatization.................................. 284
Family Housing................................................... 307
Financial Challenges............................................. 289
Fort Huachuca/Yuma Proving Ground RCI............................ 308
FSRM Funding for Barracks........................................ 312
Government-Owned Family Housing.................................. 312
Grow the Force................................................... 286
Guaranteed Loss.................................................. 303
Guard and Reserve................................................ 310
Homeowners Assistance Program.................................... 300
Housing Privatization Standardization............................ 283
Housing Services................................................. 308
Housing, Inadequate.............................................. 287
Housing, Privatized.............................................. 282
Investments...................................................... 286
Korea Housing.................................................... 302
Marine Corps Barracks Modernization/Growing the Force............ 305
Market Liquidity................................................. 302
Navy Unaccompanied Housing....................................... 304
Non-Military on Base Housing..................................... 283
Penn, Prepared Statement of B.J.................................. 261
Penn, Statement of B.J........................................... 259
Pinon Canyon..................................................... 284
Privatization of Army Lodging.................................... 312
Ranking Minority Member.......................................... 235
Standard Housing, Dollar Amount Needed........................... 297
Stimulus Funding................................................. 287
Warrior Transition............................................... 311
Wounded Warrior Barracks......................................... 306

PACIFIC COMMAND

Accompanied Tours to Korea.....................................361, 364
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 315
Command-Sponsored Families....................................... 371
Guam Buildup..................................................... 365
Guam............................................................. 357
Humphreys Housing Opportunity Program............................ 370
Keating, Prepared Statement of Admiral Timothy J................. 320
Keating, Statement of Admiral Timothy J.......................... 317
Korea............................................................ 356
Korea, Force Levels in........................................... 371
Naval Postgraduate School and Cooperation with Other Countries on
Search and Rescue.............................................. 354
Naval Postgraduate School Diversity.............................. 353
North Korea and Oceanic Cooperation.............................. 351
Nuclear Powered Aircraft in Japan................................ 355
Okinawa to Guam, Moving Troops from.............................. 348
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 315
Realignment, Status of........................................... 370
Schools.......................................................... 362
Sharp, Prepared Statement of General Walter L.................... 332
Sharp, Statement of General Walter L............................. 329
South Pacific, Resources to the.................................. 361
U.S. Forces Korea Tour Normalization............................. 348
U.S. Dollar, Impact on the Value of.............................. 359

EUROPEAN COMMAND

Afghanistan...............................................467, 471, 474
Ballistic Missile Defense--European Site......................... 459
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 373
Command Structure at EUCOM....................................... 473
Craddock, Prepared Statement of General Bantz J.................. 376
Craddock, Statement of General Bantz J........................... 374
DoD Education Needs in Europe.................................... 475
DoDEA Schools in Europe.......................................... 482
Economic Downturn................................................ 461
Force Levels/Demands in Europe................................... 480
Germany, Military Construction Implications in................... 453
Infrastructure, Deployment and En Route.......................... 483
International Military Education in Training..................... 458
Missile Defense.................................................. 485
NATO Contributions............................................... 463
NATO Security Investment Program................................. 486
NATO............................................................. 470
Privatized Housing/Quality of Life............................... 477
Quality of Life................................................455, 477
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 373
Stabilization Corps.............................................. 464
Tajikistan....................................................... 476

DOD/VA MEDICAL TRANSITION

AHLTA--Upcoming Changes.......................................... 545
Casscells, Prepared Statement of S. Ward......................... 505
Casscells, Statement of S. Ward.................................. 503
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 487
Congressioal Support............................................. 549
Continuum of Care................................................ 540
Disability Evaluation System Pilot Program.....................530, 536
DoD/VA Data Sharing--Interoperability............................ 545
DoD/VA Data Sharing.............................................. 531
DoD/VA Health Care Collaboration in Monterey..................... 547
DoD/VA Medical Facilities........................................ 528
Electronic Health Records........................................ 537
Interoperability................................................. 543
Joint DoD/VA Facilities.......................................... 534
Kussman, Prepared Statement of Michael J......................... 491
Kussman, Statement of Michael J.................................. 488
Medical BRAC in the National Capital Region...................... 532
Mental Health Professionals...................................... 546
Mental Health.................................................... 529
Network of Care Website.......................................... 553
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 488
Telemedicine..................................................... 543
Warrior Transition Units......................................... 538
Wounded Warriors/Military Families, Public Assistance to......... 552

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

Arny, Prepared Statement of Wayne................................ 561
Arny, Statement of Wayne......................................... 558
Bethesda and Fort Belvoir, Congestion at......................... 636
Billings, Prepared Statement of Kevin W.......................... 602
BRAC Acres Pending Disposal...................................... 632
BRAC Implementation.............................................. 644
BRAC Money....................................................... 628
Brigade Combat Teams............................................. 621
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 555
Cleanup.......................................................... 629
COBRA..........................................................626, 641
Communities, BRAC..............................................619, 622
Community Support and Quality of Life Projects................... 644
Cost Estimates for BRAC.......................................... 613
Defense Access Roads............................................. 643
Discrete BRAC Actions............................................ 645
Eastin, Prepared Statement of Kenneth D.......................... 579
Eastin, Statement of Kenneth D................................... 577
EDC.............................................................. 633
Eglin AFB--Initial Joint Training Site for the Joint Strike
Fighter........................................................ 641
Eglin AFB--Relocation of the 7th Special Forces Group............ 642
Ferguson, Statement of Kathleen.................................. 600
Fiscal Year 2009 Army BRAC 2005 Construction Projects............ 646
Fixed Deadline................................................... 616
Fort Detrick..................................................... 643
Fort Ord......................................................... 617
FUDS............................................................. 638
Impact Aid....................................................... 624
Infrastructure................................................... 618
Joint Basing..................................................... 641
Lessons Learned................................................614, 625
Milan Army Ammunition Plant...................................... 644
Milan Arsenal.................................................... 635
Navy Business Plans.............................................. 646
Penn, Prepared Statement of B.J.................................. 591
Penn, Statement of B.J........................................... 589
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 556
San Antonio Military Medical Center.............................. 641
Savings and Reduction in Excess Infrastructure................... 643
Statutory BRAC Deadline.......................................... 640
Surveys and Investigations Report................................ 614
Treasure Island...........................................618, 632, 638
Vision Center of Excellence...................................... 634

OUTSIDE WITNESSES

Appel, Statement of Stanley...................................... 784
Baker, Statement of Kerry........................................ 899
Barnes, Statement of Joe......................................... 728
Blake, Statement of Carl......................................... 854
Bottene, Statement of Cinzia..................................... 791
Campbell, Statement of Patrick................................... 778
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 653
Cohoon, Statement of Barbara..................................... 674
Houlemard, Statement of Michael.................................. 801
Jones, Statement of Rick......................................... 742
Kelley, Statement of Raymond..................................... 867
Kelly, Statement of Heather...................................... 713
Maupin, Statement of John E., Jr................................. 757
Needham, Statement of Christopher................................ 881
Nolan, Statement of Stephen J.................................... 693
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 653
Redmond, Statement of Ben........................................ 814
Robertson, Statement of Steve.................................... 829
Roman-Rodriguez, Statement of Jesse.............................. 722
Streim, Statement of Joel E...................................... 661
Toews, Statement of Galen B...................................... 654

COURT OF APPEALS

Case Filings, Decrease in........................................ 930
CAVC Courthouse, New............................................. 979
CAVC............................................................. 979
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 917
Electronic Management/Electronic Case Filing System.............. 980
Greene, Prepared Statement of Chief Judge William P., Jr......... 919
Greene, Statement of Chief Judge William P., Jr.................. 918
Judges, Increase in.............................................. 930
Ranking Minority Member.......................................... 917
Renovating Existing Building..................................... 929

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION

American Battle Monuments Commission FY 2010 Budget Request...... 981
DoD Cemeterial Expenses/Arlington National Cemetery/FY 2010
Overcrowding................................................... 981
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account............................. 940
Interpretive Techniques.......................................... 938
Nicholson, Prepared Statement of John W.......................... 933
Nicholson, Statement of John W................................... 930
Normandy Visitor Center.......................................... 937
Pointe du Hoc.................................................... 937
Tomb of the Unknowns............................................. 982
Total Cemetery Management System/Digitizing Records.............. 982

CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, ARMY

Burial Expenses.................................................. 961
Millenium Project................................................ 953
Salt, Prepared Statement of Terrence C........................... 943
Salt, Statement of Terrence C.................................... 941
Tomb of the Unknown Soldier...................................... 960

ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME

Admission Criteria............................................... 983
Cox, Prepared Statement of Timothy C............................. 964
Cox, Statement of Timothy C...................................... 962
Financial Stability.............................................. 983
Fraud and Abuse.................................................. 983
Gulfport Facility................................................ 978
Homeless Veterans..............................................976, 977
Scott Dormitory Renovation (D.C. Campus)......................... 982
Waiting Lists.................................................... 976
Washington, D.C. Campus.......................................... 982
Washington, D.C. Site, Revenues from............................. 976

CENTRAL COMMAND

Afghanistan..................................................1034, 1044
Afghanistan, Agriculture Potential............................... 1040
Afghanistan, Illegal Drugs in.................................... 1041
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 986
India............................................................ 1053
Interagency Involvement.......................................... 1043
Iraq............................................................. 1051
Iraq, Drawdown of Troops......................................... 1053
Kashmir.......................................................... 1056
Kyrgystan........................................................ 1052
Pakistan......................................................... 1051
Petraeus, Prepared Statement of General David H.................. 992
Petraeus, Statement of General David H........................... 987
Piracy........................................................... 1041
Ranking Minority Member.......................................... 986
Taliban.......................................................... 1038

ARMY BUDGET

Afghanistan and Pakistan......................................... 1097
Afghanistan..................................................1084, 1086
AFRICOM.......................................................... 1100
Army Funding Priorities.......................................... 1083
Army National Guard.............................................. 1086
Army Policy of Proselytizing..................................... 1083
Base Realignment and Closure.................................1081, 1087
Brigade Combat Teams............................................. 1079
Casey, Prepared Statement of General George W., Jr............... 1065
Casey, Statement of General George W., Jr........................ 1061
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1060
Declining Construction Costs on Military Construction Projects,
Impact of...................................................... 1082
Hospitals....................................................1080, 1087
IMET............................................................. 1098
Impact Aid....................................................... 1090
Iraq, Casualties in.............................................. 1098
Iraq, Drawdown of Troops in...................................... 1090
Joint Cargo Aircraft............................................. 1085
Joint DoD/VA Clinic in Monterey, California...................... 1082
Language Training................................................ 1092
Military Home Sales and Benefits................................. 1095
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 1060
Sustainable Performance Ratio.................................... 1081
Unfunded Requirements............................................ 1080
Unsolicited Assistance........................................... 1091
Wounded Warriors in Afghanistan vs. Iraq, Evacuation Time........ 1094

NAVY AND MARINE CORPS BUDGET

Barracks.....................................................1181, 1182
Blount Island.................................................... 1184
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1103
Conway, Prepared Statement of General James T.................... 1116
Conway, Statement of General James T............................. 1114
DDG-1000......................................................... 1170
DoD Health Care System Modernization............................. 1174
East Coast CVN Homeporting....................................... 1182
Education........................................................ 1179
End Strength..................................................... 1182
Guam...................................................1166, 1175, 1183
Housing, Inadequate.............................................. 1130
International Military Education Training Program................ 1175
Maintenance...................................................... 1178
Morale, High Rate of Deployment Impact on........................ 1172
Naval Station Mayport, Homeporting Nuclear Carrier at............ 1131
Navy Educational Institutions.................................... 1171
Outlying Landing Field for East Coast Carrier Landing Practice... 1182
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 1103
Roughead, Prepared Statement of Admiral Gary..................... 1106
Roughead, Statement of Admiral Gary.............................. 1104
S&R and FAO Education and Training............................... 1169
Stabilization and Reconstruction MOS............................. 1168
USS Hartford..................................................... 1178

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Advance Appropriation........................................1228, 1232
Advance Appropriations for VA Medical Care....................... 1269
Backlog.......................................................... 1224
Cemeteries, Closing of........................................... 1242
Cemeteries, VA................................................... 1244
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1185
Chattanooga CBOC Report.......................................... 1271
Claims Adjudication.............................................. 1235
Claims Processing System, Hiring of Veterans in.................. 1240
Construction Competition Pricing................................. 1256
Departmental Administration...................................... 1257
Federal Recovery Coordinators.................................... 1258
Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center.................................. 1220
G.I. Bill........................................................ 1239
Health Care Innovation........................................... 1253
Health Care Standards............................................ 1252
HealtheVet Integrated Master Plan................................ 1265
Homeless Veterans................................................ 1216
Homelessness..................................................... 1227
Information Security............................................. 1220
Information Technology Procurement............................... 1260
Interoperability................................................. 1214
Jointness........................................................ 1233
Medical Care for Veterans in Rural Locations..................... 1222
Medical Research................................................. 1259
Mental Health.................................................... 1236
National Guard and Reserve Benefits.............................. 1246
NCA's Outreach Plan.............................................. 1243
Office of Information and Technology Hiring Freeze............... 1264
Post-9/11 GI Bill Implementation................................. 1271
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 1186
Rural Health Outreach and Delivery............................... 1270
Service Dogs..................................................... 1255
Shinseki, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Eric............... 1191
Shinseki, Statement of the Honorable Eric........................ 1188
Specialty Mental Health Care and Rural Health Outreach and
Delivery....................................................... 1270
Suicide Hotline.................................................. 1241
Sustainability and Energy........................................ 1257
Technology Acquisition Center.................................... 1263
Transformation Review............................................ 1257
Transformation...................................1212, 1219, 1230, 1268
VA Benefits Claims Backlog....................................... 1270
VA Information Technology Risks.................................. 1269
VA IT Staffing................................................... 1270
VA/DoD Interoperability Plan..................................... 1272
Vouchers......................................................... 1248

BUDGET OVERVIEW

AFRICOM.......................................................... 1342
Allies, Support to............................................... 1330
Arny, Prepared Statement of Wayne................................ 1287
Arny, Statement of Wayne......................................... 1284
Base Realignment and Closure Savings............................. 1358
Base Realignment and Closure.................................1327, 1360
Base Realignment and Closure, Lesson Learned..................... 1339
Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction Studies.............. 1344
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1275
Defense Language Institute....................................... 1346
FYDP.........................................................1326, 1328
Guard and Reserve Funding........................................ 1358
Hale, Prepared Statement of Robert F............................. 1280
Hale, Statement of Robert F...................................... 1276
Homeowners Assistance Program.................................... 1332
Housing, Inadequate.............................................. 1350
Incremental Funding.............................................. 1347
Inflation........................................................ 1359
Joint Cargo Aircraft............................................. 1354
Mayport Naval Air Station........................................ 1342
Missile Defense.................................................. 1359
Overseas Contingency Operations Request.......................... 1360
Overseas Health Care............................................. 1347
Ranking Minority Member.......................................... 1275
School Construction Funding...................................... 1336
Workforce........................................................ 1329

AIR FORCE BUDGET

Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 1400
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1361
Contractor Utilization, Small and Disadvantaged.................. 1393
Donations........................................................ 1397
Engineering...................................................... 1396
Guard and Reserve Components..................................... 1387
Housing, Inadequate.............................................. 1383
Infrastructure Footprint......................................... 1404
Joint Basing..................................................... 1388
Joint Cargo Aircraft............................................. 1391
Lackland Air Force Base.......................................... 1399
Modular Construction............................................. 1389
Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.................................... 1392
Nuclear Weapons.................................................. 1402
Nuclear-Related Facilities....................................... 1394
Ranking Minority Member, Statement of............................ 1362
Schwartz, Prepared Statement of General Norton A................. 1365
Schwartz, Statement of General Norton A.......................... 1363