[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
___________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida, Chairwoman
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
ED CASE, Hawaii DAVID G. VALADAO, California
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida TONY GONZALES, Texas
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Jennifer Neuscheler, Brad Allen, Nicole Cohen,
Nick Burton, and Luke Georgiadis
Subcommittee Staff
___________
PART 4
Military Privatized Family Housing Oversight ......... 1
Department of Veterans Affairs ....................... 181
Meeting Veterans' Full Needs: Update on Women's
Health, Mental Health, Homelessness, and Other
Programs .......................................... 267
Air Force Installations and Quality of Life Update ... 345
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-963 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KEN CALVERT, California
TIM RYAN, Ohio TOM COLE, Oklahoma
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DEREK KILMER, Washington ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, Utah
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAVID G. VALADAO, California
PETE AGUILAR, California DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey BEN CLINE, Virginia
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
NORMA J. TORRES, California MIKE GARCIA, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona TONY GONZALES, Texas
ED CASE, Hawaii JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023
----------
Thursday, March 31, 2022.
MILITARY PRIVATIZED FAMILY HOUSING OVERSIGHT
WITNESSES
CODY CALDERON, PRIVATE FIRST CLASS, MILITARY PRIVATIZED HOUSING
RESIDENT
RACHEL CHRISTIAN, FOUNDER AND CHIEF LEGISLATIVE OFFICER, ARMED FORCES
HOUSING ADVOCATES
NIKKI WYLIE, MILITARY PRIVATIZED HOUSING RESIDENT
PATRICIA COURY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HOUSING,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ELIZABETH A. FIELD, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
PHILIP RIZZO, CEO/COO, LIBERTY MILITARY HOUSING
BRIAN STANN, PRESIDENT/CEO, HUNT MILITARY COMMUNITIES
RICK TAYLOR, PRESIDENT, FACILITY OPERATIONS, RENOVATION, AND
CONSTRUCTION, BALFOUR BEATTY COMMUNITIES
CAROLYN TREGARTHEN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, LENDLEASE COMMUNITIES
MAJOR GENERAL AL AYCOCK, MILITARY PARTNERSHIP EXECUTIVE, CORVIAS
MILITARY LIVING
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing of the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee will come to order.
As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few
housekeeping matters.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on the bottom of your screen or
whatever device you are using that will show how much time is
remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn to
yellow. When your time has expired, the clock will turn red,
and I will begin to recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and
ranking member; then, members present at the time the hearing
is called to order will be recognized in order of seniority,
alternating between majority and minority; and, finally,
members not present at the time the hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing in any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Today, we welcome three panels to testify on the conditions
and oversight of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative,
or MHPI.
The first panel will feature two residents telling their
personal stories and challenges that they and their families
faced while living in privatized housing. They will be joined
by a privatized housing family advocate, who will be able to
speak broadly about the issues families faced in privatized
housing across all services and housing providers.
The second panel will include the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Housing, Ms. Pat Coury, and the
Director of Defense Capabilities and Management at the
Government Accountability Office, or GAO, Ms. Elizabeth Field.
These witnesses will be able to explain the oversight and
history of privatized housing, the partnerships between the
providers and the government, the steps being taken to address
systemic housing issues, and the future of housing resiliency.
The third panel will be representatives from five of the
largest private housing companies: Balfour Beatty Communities,
Corvias Military Living, Hunt Military Communities, Lendlease
Communities, and Liberty Military Housing. We expect this panel
to explain current challenges privatized housing faces, past
and current legal issues, steps being taken to improve service,
and the impact of the recently implemented Tenant Bill of
Rights.
As we all now know, beginning in August of 2018, Reuters
began publishing a series of articles chronicling health and
safety issues experienced by military families living in
deplorable, privatized military family housing conditions.
Many of us traveled to some of these privatized family
settings and were able to actually do walk-throughs and see
exactly the conditions that families were living in. Not to
mention that these companies have been engaged, in some cases,
in fraudulent activities being conducted by some providers.
These articles prompted a groundswell of similar stories
from diverse families of all services, ranks, pay grades, and
geographic locations. It became quickly apparent that these
issues were systemic.
Servicemembers and their families experienced mold
exposure, rodent infestation, water leaks, smells, broken
appliances, rude and dismissive housing management. And, adding
insult to injury, there was ineffective oversight of the
program by the services. The Department of Defense and the
housing providers they had entrusted to take care of our
servicemembers and their families had gravely failed.
The services reported that a lack of visibility on work-
order processing had contributed to the overall lack of
oversight. In addition, the system incentivized work-order
completion without respect to the quality of maintenance
performed, which led to poor workmanship and unqualified
personnel performing the work. Further, an overemphasis on
occupancy rates incentivized the quick turnover of homes,
which, in turn, can lead to a lack of preventive maintenance
and repairs between tenants.
The system was broken. Those who were bravely serving our
Nation and their families were being neglected, ignored, and
taken advantage of.
Since then, Congress and the Department of Defense have
taken key steps to remedy the crisis and right the ship.
Congress passed legislation as part of the 2020 National
Defense Authorization Act that included a Tenant Bill of Rights
which would ensure all servicemembers and their families were
given quality housing, responsive customer service, and the
right to challenge the system for wrongdoing without the threat
of retaliation.
In February 2020, the Department of Defense announced that
the Defense Secretary and the uniformed service secretaries
signed the Tenant Bill of Rights, implementing 15 of the 18
tenant rights. And, finally, on August 1, 2021, the Department
signed the updated bill of rights, implementing all 18 rights.
I was glad to see that all privatized housing partners
testifying today implemented these 18 essential rights for our
servicemembers and their families.
And we had a--at the beginning of this process, we had a
very comprehensive oversight hearing, like we are doing today,
to make sure that we could hear from affected families, make
sure that we could hear from the government, the governmental
agencies responsible for oversight, and also to hear from the
companies.
And there is clearly still much to be done, as we have seen
by the continued stream of negative stories making their way to
the press, which is part of the reason for calling this hearing
today, because we want to make sure, particularly because we
are responsible for the quality of life of these military
families, that we make sure that we are conducting the
oversight to be certain that the Tenant Bill of Rights, all 18
of them, are implemented and that we don't have, you know, a
regression when it comes to progress.
And that includes not only persistent issues with
inadequate housing conditions and quality of service but also
the troubling, shameful, and, frankly, infuriating revelations
of illegal incentive fee fraud committed by multiple providers.
I look forward to hearing some explanations today from
those privatized housing providers on how they are making
systemic changes in the operations and oversight of their
housing portfolio, and I know my colleagues join me in
expecting full transparency.
This is an important hearing, in which we will discuss the
state of military privatized housing, the progress made over
the last few years, the ongoing challenges faced by our
military families, and the crucial steps we must take moving
forward. I do want to thank all of the witnesses for attending
today and my colleagues for participating in what will be a
longer than normal hearing, and I am looking forward to an
informative, candid conversation.
At this time, I would like to yield to my ranking member,
who has been really a fierce advocate for military families,
particularly given that he represents so many of them, for his
opening statement.
Judge.
Mr. Carter. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You
know, I am pleased we are kicking these off, these hearings,
because it is great to get to work on the 2023 budget request.
We all know that safe and adequate military housing is key
to readiness. I want our soldiers and sailors, airmen, Marines,
Guardians, all those folks, to have good housing, sufficient
housing, so that they don't have the worries of what is going
on with their families when they are deployed. Nothing could be
worse. Active Duty and deployment are tough enough without
worrying about your family back home.
I am disappointed we continue to hear these stories about
problems in privatized housing. When I came on this committee,
Chet Edwards was the chair, and he was one of my colleagues
from back in Texas, and everybody was so proud of the new
housing program. And it is a crying shame that we are dealing
with these kind of issues with something we were so proud of
less than 15 years ago. So something is wrong, very badly
wrong.
And believe me, I know what mold infestation is, because
the first term I ran for Congress I had it in my house, and I
lived in my garage with my beautiful wife for 9 months while I
was campaigning. So you can't pull the wool over my eyes. I
know what it is.
I am looking forward to finding out about this. I want to
hear about what is going on with this at Fort Hood. And I am
looking forward to this hearing.
Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Judge. And thank
you for being the partner that you have been right through and
also for really providing the committee and me with the
legislative history about this. It has been important and
helpful.
So now we will welcome our first panel: Private Cody
Calderon, Ms. Nikki Wylie, and Ms. Rachel Christian.
This panel includes a servicemember, Private Calderon, and
a military spouse, Ms. Nikki Wylie, who are currently residents
in military family housing. They will describe the conditions
that they have encountered, the difficulties they face in
persuading officials to address serious maintenance issues, and
the problems with receiving adequate remediation.
They are joined by a military housing family advocate, Ms.
Rachel Christian, who can testify about the experiences and
treatment of servicemembers across all services and housing
providers.
We will start with Private Calderon, then Ms. Wylie, and
finally Ms. Christian. In light of the many witnesses that we
have today and the multiple panels, I would ask that everyone
keep their opening statements to 3 minutes. We certainly have a
lot of ground to cover today.
Private Calderon, your full written testimony will be
included in the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to
summarize your opening statement.
Private Calderon. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. I
really appreciate that. I am grateful for this opportunity to
speak today.
And the story I will share is not really unique, and while
I am going to fill it with the specifics to me, it is not
specific to me. I think of the hopeless, the voiceless, the
sick while I am speaking to you now, those that are willing to
literally sacrifice all, and the families who support them. And
I think about the heroism it takes to not sit idly by, for the
worst thing a human can do is turn a blind eye to injustice.
That is how I feel.
My name is Cody Calderon. I am a husband; I am a soldier.
Yesterday was the 1-year anniversary of my first day in the
Army, and today I gather the courage given to me by my wife, my
peers, my leaders to share my family's experience with
privatized housing in the military.
I was placed in Corvias housing on August 12, 2021. That
was 11 days after the revised military privatized housing
initiative Tenant Bill of Rights was placed into effect. My
wife, Alyssa, immediately knew something was wrong with the
home. We couldn't pinpoint it. We chalked it up to
environmental allergens or just the shock of a new lifestyle.
Being 32, I am afforded a few advantages over your typical
private first class. Firstly, I have dealt with these problems
in the civilian sector. I have battled landlords. I have fought
for housing. I have the confidence and conviction to take this
head-on. I am not afraid to fight for what is right, regardless
of the consequences, like I feel other servicemembers may be.
But a great leader told me to always choose the hard right over
the easy left, and I live by that.
So here are the hard facts. There is mold in my home. No
standard was followed to ensure safe remediation. And the Army
agrees to follow Installation Management Command, IMCOM,
standards, and they accept the Institute of Inspection,
Cleaning, and Restoration Certification--that is the IICRC--as
the guideline for proper maintenance.
And I need to stress, the implementation of the Tenant Bill
of Rights is not just a list of suggestions; they are a
standard that is required to guarantee the health, safety, and
rights of the individual.
And that is what we are fighting for here: the rights of
the individuals that put in a maintenance request, that have
the work performed that did not follow IICRC standards. They
are told that the home is safe to live in, and then they
subsequently get sick because of negligence. Corvias turns the
unit over to the next soldier's family, and this just happens
in perpetuity.
Now, both of the homes that we have been offered since this
issue with our original home, they have been riddled with mold
and maintenance issues. I have submitted dispute-resolution
paperwork, requested my schedule for a displacement per diem. I
have spoken with the military housing office, asked for
rightfully owed timelines. I have gotten nothing. I haven't had
any correspondence in 7 days.
My wife and I have gone from hotel to hotel over the past
month. We find ourselves now, as I sit here right now, in an
Airbnb 30 minutes from base, and I have to commute three or
four times a day, with $4-a-gallon gas prices--all of these
expenses coming out of my pocket because no one is taking
accountability.
This is a moral hazard at its worst, in my opinion. In the
Army, if a soldier fails to meet or exceed an expectation, they
are held accountable. But if a housing company fails, who does
the accountability fall on?
And I feel like, for too long, privatized housing companies
have operated with a sense of impunity, just leaving countless
families in the wake of their negligence. Each citizen puts
their faith in us to protect the standards of this country, but
what happens when the standard, the foundation that supports
those protectors, is built on these mold and sewage and lead
and pest issues?
If we are strong as our weakest and as fast as our slowest,
how ready are we, really, if we are as healthy as our sickest?
The Army's mission is to fight and win the Nation's wars, but
what do you do when we are fighting to win the war on safe and
habitable housing in our own Nation?
Thank you for the time.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
Private Calderon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Appreciate it, Private Calderon, and
we will look forward to engaging in some Q&A with you.
Ms. Wylie, your full written testimony will be included in
the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize
your opening statement.
Ms. Wylie. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Good morning, esteemed subcommittee members. I am Nikki
Wylie, wife and partner of Marine Corps Master Sergeant Trevor
Wylie for 12 of the 18 years he served on Active Duty.
In November 2018, after 4 months living between Airbnbs
while on the housing waitlist, we accepted a house in the
Shadow Mountain community in Twentynine Palms, California. The
disclosures we had to sign upon acceptance, including lead
paint, asbestos, and other potential hazards, were alarming,
but at this point we needed stability for our family.
As soon as we moved in, our previously healthy children
began experiencing breathing difficulties, skin rashes, and
allergy-like symptoms. Just 2 months into living in our home,
we experienced our first water intrusion incident, requiring
baseboard removal and an industrial blower, which caused my
then-1-year-old to exhibit symptoms almost instantly.
Over the following year, we repeatedly voiced our concerns
to LMH maintenance staff and their maintenance manager over the
presence of mold, the unsafe nature of the air we were
breathing, and the impact on my children's deteriorating
health. By this time, my 1-year-old had recurring pneumonia and
opacities on his lungs.
Their only consolations were to repeatedly use their
moisture meter and put it in my wall and tell me that, at this
given moment in time, in this particular area, their readings
weren't high; there couldn't possibly be mold present in my
home. Or they would offer Band-Aid fixes like caulking over
visible mold.
Finally, a turning point came in December of 2019 when we
had a gas leak. I detected it. I evacuated my family, and I
notified Lincoln. Their maintenance worker came in and told me,
all clear, there was no gas leak. By this point, I trusted my
judgement, my intuition, over Lincoln's definition of safety,
and I called in the base fire department, who determined we did
in fact have a gas leak that could have had lethal
ramifications.
Now, using this blatant disregard for our safety as well as
some other asbestos-related issues in the community, I
contacted an LMH executive, who passed my concern on to their
vice president. The VP finally set the gears in motion to
finally get my home tested for mold.
However, a Lincoln worker and maintenance manager came out
for a ``pre-inspection,'' wherein they cleaned my vents and
wiped away visible evidence of mold prior to the real
inspection.
The next week, a contracted company inspected my home and
acknowledged spots of water intrusion and mold verbally to me
but later refused to acknowledge the presence of mold in formal
reports. Upon my insistence, they did contain the impacted
areas, which included all three bathrooms, my HVAC unit, my
laundry room, and an exterior wall of my home. However, only
after excessive back-and-forth did LMH finally change out my
HVAC coils and ductwork.
We were out of our home for a total of 32 days, during
which time LMH continued to collect our BAH, as we were
shuffled between hotels before eventually being placed in
junior enlisted off-base housing. We did receive a $75-per-diem
check for the days we were displaced but not until well after
we were back in our home. Thus, it could have been a great
financial burden for a family without monetary reserves.
I would like to unequivocally express concern that
privatized housing companies are utilizing contractors and
subcontractors whose revenue is generated almost entirely by
the housing companies and so are, therefore, acting as a
mouthpiece for the housing companies' interests with a fear of
losing a large amount of their revenue if they disagree or even
abide by proper protocols. I witnessed this both first- and
secondhand throughout this process.
Additionally, throughout our housing issues, Lincoln
repeatedly attempted to discredit my husband with his
relationship with his command. I would ask that, moving
forward, no other family should suffer a detriment to the
servicemember-command relationship merely because they are
speaking out about their housing issues.
Families should not have to choose between living on base
and keeping their families safe.
Thank you for your time.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Ms. Wylie.
And last but not least, Ms. Christian, your full written
testimony will be included in the record. You are recognized
for 3 minutes to summarize your opening statement.
Ms. Christian. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member
Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, the
Armed Forces Housing Advocates are proud to represent families
living in privatized military housing across the Nation. Still,
we are dispirited that an organization such as ours is
necessary to exist.
My name is Rachel Christian, and I am co-founder of the
Armed Forces Housing Advocates along with Sarah Kline, Kate
Needham, and Noelle Pacl. We believe that readiness starts with
a safe home. The lives, health, and safety of our military
families are at risk daily, and even more egregious are the
continued disability rights violations that they face.
Today, we see environmental hazards and improper repairs
being completed; maintenance staff performing plumbing and
electrical work without training or proper certifications. At
Fort Drum, a family experienced a natural gas leak in their
home for 6 months. When the maintenance director was asked
about his team's qualifications at the site, he replied that
they had none and that none were required.
Many reasonable accommodations for families with
disabilities are being denied or ignored. The housing partner
often requests unreasonable amounts of information and puts
layers of red tape in place for even the most minor requests.
Requests for window fall-prevention devices are denied or
installed with extraordinary costs. Since 2019, seven children
at Naval Base San Diego have fallen from windows and suffered
traumatic brain injuries.
Sewage leaks are a common occurrence in military housing.
Housing partners will refuse to replace carpets that have been
soaked in raw sewage and will pump sewage into yards where
children play.
Faulty construction at Fort Leonard Wood left a military
spouse with a traumatic brain injury just within this past
year, and yet the company responsible is refusing to reply to
the request for assistance.
These examples are not unique and only a portion of the
problem. Under the Tenant Bill of Rights, an electronic work-
order system was implemented. It is clear that there are mass
discrepancies between the documentation in that system and the
work orders being placed by residents.
The Tenant Bill of Rights has also provided dispute
resolution to some military housing tenants. However, most
families are being turned away and denied access to the dispute
process for arbitrary reasons. The discretionary fashion of
this so-called ``right'' leads to more frustration and families
believing that they have no recourse. Rights are not rights if
the families cannot access or utilize them.
Military families should not have to turn to social media
to be heard. Families deserve an outlet that they can count on
when local housing management systems fail. H.R. 7144 would
create a public feedback tool for military families, which
Congress can use to identify issues and hold housing companies
accountable proactively.
Readiness starts with a safe home, and we are not ready.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much to all of you
for your opening remarks and for your participation today.
We will proceed in the standard 5-minute rounds,
recognizing members in order of seniority as they joined at the
beginning of the hearing, alternating between majority and
minority. And please be mindful of your time and allow the
witnesses time to answer within your 5-minute turn.
I will begin by just thanking all three of you for being
here today. Your experiences, whether they are living in
privatized housing personally or working with families that
live in privatized housing, are really going to help the
subcommittee understand the issues that have plagued our
servicemembers and their families and that continue to do so.
I do want to ask Private Calderon and Ms. Wylie if you have
anything to add that, you know, was not able to be included in
your opening statement in terms of the housing and the
challenges that you faced when you were trying to report those
issues to your service or to the private housing companies.
And, really, what I would be interested in knowing is, has
this gotten any better? I realize that all 18 Tenant Bill of
Rights elements weren't all implemented until last August, so
that is not that long a timeframe, but have you noticed any
improvements?
So are there any additional housing challenges, both in
terms of the problems plaguing your own home and the response
time and response quality from your service or the private
housing company?
We will start with Private Calderon.
Private Calderon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Urgency. I have felt like there has been no sense of
urgency. And this has been going on for well over a month.
It is disheartening because I also feel like my wife
doesn't have a voice in any of this, and she is dealing with
most of this while I am trying to do my job at work. They won't
listen to her. It would be really amazing if we were allowed
that sort of separation where our spouses could handle some of
these issues, but we have been shut down at every turn.
And I am also tired of not getting specific at least
timelines for what is going on. They are just leaving me in the
dark.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The company is leaving you in the
dark?
Private Calderon. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And how was your service's
responsiveness?
What we did in, I think, the last fiscal year--there really
wasn't an oversight layer at DOD, and we provided funding to
ensure that they could put in a layer of oversight at the
service level and then--you know, I know what they initially
did was, they put in, you know, base-level oversight.
Have you noticed a change since either of those oversight
measures were taken?
Private Calderon. I don't know if I am entirely qualified
to answer that, seeing as the short amount of time that I have
been in the service. So honestly, I would not be able to
accurately answer that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. That is fair.
Ms. Wylie.
Ms. Wylie. Thankfully, a lot of our major concerns were
abated. I will say, in the--I kind of avoid Lincoln primarily
right now in terms of calling--I am sorry, Liberty. They are
now Liberty. I don't call them that regularly if I can help it.
But in the couple of instances where I have had them in, I
have had a couple of minor things, like--well, not following up
with the water intrusion issue we had on December 25. I mean,
it was on Christmas, but they came into my home on that day,
and then there was never any followup. And in the work order,
it shows that the followup was canceled. I didn't cancel it, so
I would also say, things like--I am supposed to be having a
HEPA filter replaced monthly. That was a part of the
conditions, I guess, of me reentering my home when we did. And
that has not happened.
So I won't say that things are any better. Those are minor
concerns, but I am assuming that if I am seeing minor things on
a house that was, you know, kind of a big priority to them for
a while, that others are probably seeing much the same.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And from both of you, have you
heard--I assume you have--heard from fellow servicemembers with
similar issues in regards to reporting housing deficiencies or
requesting remediation or responsiveness from your own service
in order to--your own service's oversight of the housing
companies?
Private Calderon. At Fort Polk, yes, on a daily basis.
Ms. Wylie. Same.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So these are not unique. You are not
alone.
Private Calderon. Not at all, in any way, shape, or form.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, gosh, Private Calderon, since
you have only been here a year and we have engaged in passage
of the Tenant Bill of Rights and implementation of it, it is
disturbing that you wouldn't have at least seen some--at least,
if not noticed some improvement--what you are describing seems
identical to what we heard in the original hearing that we had.
And, Ms. Wylie, you have been around a while. It doesn't
sound any different for your family either. That is disturbing.
Okay. And then, Ms. Christian, I just have a quick question
I want to get in. Could you tell us about the work that your
organization does and the resources that you provide? And can
you give us a broad overview of the issues you have seen across
the board and the lack of responsiveness?
Ms. Christian. Sure.
So our organization is a grassroots nonprofit that, since
May, has assisted over 1,300 military families across the
country, spreading a variety of issues, from minor, you know,
incidents with housing all the way up to assisting families
filing Fair Housing Act complaints, seeking out their
Representatives.
But our main purpose is to help families work within the
current system that they are provided. So we have a step
process that teaches families how to go to their chain of
command, how to send emails out. Some spouses are alone and
have never sent a professional email. So we assist them in that
whole process.
And it is advocacy in teaching them how to advocate for
themselves, because we know this issue is going to be a common
one that they are going to have occur throughout their time in
the service. So we teach them, so that maybe next time, if they
have an issue, they are able to proactively do it for
themselves.
And I will say, we do get a lot of issues handled that way,
but we do still see problems, such that PFC Calderon sees,
every day throughout our work.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
My time has expired. And, gosh, I have a lot more
questions, but, you know, we will just submit those to you, if
you can answer them for the record. Because I really do want to
get as broad a sense from you all, the ones experiencing all
these challenges, as possible for the members.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Judge Carter, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. To the two witnesses in housing, their
residences, how old are those residences? Do you have any idea?
Ms. Wylie. I believe the Shadow Mountain community was--I
know was during the 1970s. I am not certain of the exact year.
Mr. Carter. Okay.
PFC Calderon.
Private Calderon. I know that my home was built in 1988,
but most of the other homes in my neighborhood are either from
1982 or 1979, I believe.
Mr. Carter. The truth is, we need to do new construction,
but we are having trouble with new construction too. So that is
another issue.
Do you know whether or not--well, you probably wouldn't--
when these things were built, there was a built-in maintenance
pot of money provided to the builders at the time they signed
the contract? Do either one of you know?
Private Calderon. No, sir.
Ms. Wylie. I know at the time that our homes were built
they were obviously not under the--they didn't fall under the
current system. They were military-owned. So I couldn't speak
to that either.
Mr. Carter. Okay. Well, I will ask the next panel.
Well, let me tell you, you have my sympathy. Because if you
hear how bad I talk, how much I cough, it has a whole lot to do
to a mold infection back in 2002 in my house, and I have never
quite gotten over it. So God bless you.
I yield back.
Private Calderon. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge. Thank you.
Okay. Mr. Case, you are recognized for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In all honesty, this is just a really frustrating hearing.
I am in my fourth year on this committee, and the very first
hearing when I joined the committee in 2019 was on privatized
housing. And I have the distinct sense that we just are still
not on track, in terms of where we are trying to get to.
And so, for me, I am trying to understand exactly what the
situation is, where the problem is right now, and see if we can
somehow go back and get our fingers on it. I mean, we have
moved on Tenant Bill of Rights, we have moved on greater
requirement of military engagement, and we have tried to move
on access to information and complaints, we have tried to move
on required timetables for repairs, and yet we have this
hearing. And so that is just deeply frustrating. And I
apologize to you for the fact that you are still in this
situation.
I guess I would like to understand--what I am trying to
understand is how widespread is the problem still. We have 78-
some-odd privatized housing communities throughout our country.
Private, I think if I understand your testimony correctly,
you have lived in one of those over 1 year, so obviously you
are experiencing issues there.
Ms. Wylie, you have lived in four? Is that right? I think I
read your resume and it said you have been in six different
places but two of them in your own home. Is that right? So have
you been in four communities?
Sorry, you are muted. You are muted.
Ms. Wylie. Technical difficulties.
No, I have actually only lived in two military communities.
And, as it would happen, they have actually both been aboard
Twentynine Palms at two different times we were stationed out
here.
Mr. Case. Okay. I understand that.
And, Ms. Christian, you obviously are advocating across the
board.
So here is the general question: Are we still talking about
a systematic problem across the system, in your view, or are we
talking about fairly isolated or at least narrowing communities
that are still highly problematic, or, for that matter,
companies versus, you know, a broader kind of indictment of the
entire system? That is what I am trying to get to.
Because, you know, I have many of those communities in
Hawaii. We have tens of thousands of military families living
in privatized communities in Hawaii. And there are issues, but
they don't seem to, at least, arise to the same level of kind
of systematic as is true in other parts of the country. So that
is what I am trying to just make sense of.
So let me just start--Private Calderon, you said you speak
for many other people, and I am sure you do. What is your sense
of it? Are we still dealing with a systematic issue here, where
we just have to go back to the beginning and talk about much
broader solutions? Or are we on the right track and narrowing
in on solutions? Or what is your assessment?
Private Calderon. I think, as a whole, we are on the right
track.
I think the most difficult part about this is people become
stuck in their ways. There are people that have worked for
these companies that have been there for decades, longer even,
so it is a difficult-to-teach-a-dog-new-tricks sort of thing.
They are used to operating in this way, and now we are
implementing these new standards, and they are like, ``Well, I
don't want to have to actually do my job now.''
I do think it does sort of need to be torn down. I think we
need people that are advocates for health and safety and not
profit. I think we need to prioritize that, generally and very
specifically.
And, yes, I do speak with people quite often--I just spoke
with a woman in my unit the other day who gave birth 2 months
premature. The child has health issues. She was working all the
way up through her pregnancy. Conceived and gave birth and
still lives in that same home. Says that her ceiling is
bubbling down, there is mold, the floor is creaky. It is just--
it is so upsetting to me that it is blatant disregard.
Mr. Case. Entirely understood. And I guess I am just trying
to focus in on how widespread is that situation, how widespread
is that sentiment still.
So, Ms. Christian, in the time I have remaining, what is
your assessment across the entire system, the 68-some-odd
communities? Is it still systemic? Or is this specific to
companies, you know, cultures of some companies, as the private
just said? Some companies have a harder time changing than
other companies. Or is this specific to older communities
versus newer ones? What is your answer?
Ms. Christian. It is absolutely systemic still.
And I will tell you that the issue is not necessarily with
the individuals on the installation level, but, rather, the
impact that they are truly able to have on the installation.
We now have a Tenant Bill of Rights where a government
housing office is dictating whether or not a family has access
to dispute resolution. They now have individuals coming in and
checking their homes and qualifying them as being safe or not
in between turnovers, which hypothetically is a great idea and
something that I would love to see if it was implemented in a
way with someone who is certified.
We just had a recent inspection go through, and an Army
family had two gas leaks missed in their homes by the
government housing office employee, and it is because they are
not certified or trained in this.
Mr. Case. Okay.
Ms. Christian. So I do believe that there is a missing
piece there that, if implemented, would change this.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Case.
And one of the frustrating things about Ms. Christian's
response just now is that part of the problem was that the
companies were sending in unqualified people just to get
through the tickets that have been submitted, rather than
actually send somebody in who knows what they are doing. I
mean, how do you not send in a specialist who knows how to
handle a gas leak?
I feel like I am stuck in 2019 and that there is--you know,
recognizing that the bill of rights implementation, you know,
is less than a year in, but--I guess we will ask our next panel
and the panel after that those questions. Forgive me.
Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
And, also, I know I have one other question for this panel,
so if anyone has a second round of questions, just let me know.
Mr. Valadao. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity. And I really do appreciate you getting this
hearing together. I think this is a very important topic.
I have personally gone out to some of the housing in my
district at the Naval Air Station Lemoore. We have had some
issues, ourselves, trying to work with some of these facilities
in improving houses, building new houses. I mean, the problem
is just across the board, and it truly is a frustrating thing.
So, Mr. Calderon, Ms. Wylie, Ms. Christian, thank you for
joining us today and sharing your stories. I really do
appreciate it.
Mr. Calderon, I sincerely hope that your immediate housing
concerns are addressed as swiftly as possible. And I think we
all need to hold these guys to a higher standard.
My question is to Ms. Christian. The Tenant Bill of Rights,
which we have talked about a little bit here, was implemented 2
years ago. And in your testimony you expressed a concern, and I
know that the chairwoman just mentioned it as well, lack of
training, the lack of qualified people, which we are seeing
across the country in all different segments.
But what do we need to do better when it comes to training
these advocates? I mean, what would you say are the most
important topics we really need to hit on? If you could talk
about that a little bit.
Ms. Christian. Training needs to be specialized to what
they are looking at, right? If you are in North Carolina and
you are a North Carolina-certified home inspector, that should
be the type of person you are seeking out to come and clear
these houses. These are going to be the types of people that we
want in these houses in ensuring that the safety is going on.
Tenant Bill of Rights did allow for an industry standard of
treatment in one of the rights, but there is actually no clear
definition of industry standard unless you dig deep down into
State law. And because of the lack of training across the
board, some of our installation commanders still don't realize
that State laws need to be followed on the installations with
the government housing office. And that is on the burden of the
resident to prove to the installation commanders, to their
government housing employees, and then also to the local-level
privatized housing partners.
So the training really needs to be specific to home
inspections. I don't believe that is an outlandish request, and
it sounds sort of simple, right? You would think that the
person coming in would be certified.
Say that you were checking the electrical in a home--
Georgia. Fort Stewart has a lot of electrical issues on their
installation, and they had non-electricians coming in and
certifying fire hazards that have caused fires throughout the
electrical wiring even though an electrician has said it was
not accurate.
So things like that really need to be put in place, and I
do think the system that you have implemented with the Tenant
Bill of Rights could work if we went that route.
Mr. Valadao. Okay. So, I mean, the training, making sure
these people are qualified, have a background in it.
And as far as us getting the information out, obviously we
have worked with some constituents of our own, and just making
sure that we go through the list of checkmarks. All right, did
you reach out to this person on your base? Did you reach out to
this person within the company that is supposed to be
overseeing? We always try to make sure they are doing those
things. But if they are sending people who aren't qualified,
obviously that is a huge problem for us. So, obviously, that is
one we need to focus on.
Again, I appreciate all the testimony. I don't have any
more questions for this specific panel, Madam Chair, so I will
just yield back the rest of my time.
So thank you again for your time.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Valadao.
Next up is Mrs. Lee.
You are recognized.
Mrs. Lee. I have no questions for this panel. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you so much then.
Mr. Bishop, are you with us?
All right. Seeing that Mr. Bishop is not here at the
moment, we will go to Mr. Rutherford.
You are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank
the panelists for being here this morning and sharing.
And I want to follow up and concur with the remarks by my
good friend from Hawaii, Mr. Case. I apologize. The pictures
that I saw that you all have provided is reprehensible. No one
should live in a situation like that--the black mold, the just
horrible conditions.
And so, Ms. Christian, if I could ask you, you know, when
you were describing the advocacy group's role, about training
the individual members to deal with their leadership on base,
is--should we maybe put more control or greater responsibility
on the advocacy group to not only train individuals who are
living in these conditions how to advocate for themselves, but
should we have some role that the advocates could play in
engaging leadership that is not getting these things done on
time?
I know, out of the recommendations that came through, I
think only 8 or 10 have been actually implemented so far in the
Lendlease (ph), but at least people are, I guess, delaying the
rest until they can renegotiate.
So should we look possibly at putting more power into the
hands of the advocates?
Ms. Christian. I honestly do not think so. I think that
this is such a--in the civilian world, this would be a simple
problem, right? You have a problem with your landlord, you
request a fix, and if not, you go to the next, which would be
either your county or your State. I think that the onus really
needs to be on that government housing office to be relaying
the information correctly up through their chain to the
installation level.
And, as well, on the privatized housing partner, they need
to see some type of recourse taken against their actions, which
has only so far been done in the public eye. This hearing is a
great way to do that, show that this is a problem, but there
has not been, on installation level, any type of immediate
recourse for employees or for government housing employees that
are denying families their rights.
So I don't think that adding another layer is going to make
it any better, simply because we don't have the initial base
for a structure to work.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah. Well, I am not suggesting we add
another layer. I am suggesting that we just put more tools in
your toolbox.
So let me ask this, because I can tell you, I have three
military installations in my district. Our housing at Naval
Station Mayport, NAS JAX, we don't seem to have these problems.
Ours are going pretty well, actually, according to our tenants.
So, when I see these photographs that were provided to us--
and we ought to broadcast those somewhere--but, in addition to
that, I hear you testify that nine children have fallen out of
windows? First of all, that was in San Diego. Can you tell me
what company that is?
Ms. Christian. Yes. That is Liberty. And that is just in
the past 4 years at one installation.
DOD is supposed to be sending the information on the number
of children falling from military housing units to you all. We
have been trying to get that information, because we do know
that the numbers being reported are extremely low in comparison
to the actual numbers of children falling from windows.
Mr. Rutherford. Now, you may not have this information, but
do you know how they are falling out? I mean, that seems like
an inordinate number of children, to me, to be falling out
windows. Are they windows that go ceiling to floor and they are
open because the air-conditioningis not working, or----
Ms. Christian. So there are several reasons, but a lot of
them occur because the windowsills are low on the second story.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
Ms. Christian. Evan's Law is a law that was put into place
after Evan English passed away in Hawaii falling from a window
unit.
And that is really the case--military families are moving
frequently; children aren't used to the environments they are
in. They have simple things like insect screens instead of--I
remember when--you know, when you are younger, if you are in an
older house, you could push on those screens on those windows
and nothing would happen. They are put in by duct tape or held
in incorrectly.
So just the requirement to, if requested, to put in an
actual window guard would be a wonderful addition and would
save the lives of children, honestly, in military housing.
We recently had a resident ask for window guards, and the
response was, ``There is a sticker on the window that says
`window fall risk.' '' A sticker is not going to save the life
of a child.
Mr. Rutherford. No, absolutely.
Madam Chair, I see my time has run out, but I want to thank
you for this panel. And we really need to continue to push on
this issue, and thank you, Madam Chair, for doing that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome. Yeah, something is
not working. And that is what this hearing is trying to get to
the bottom of. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
Okay. I don't see Mr. Bishop. Okay.
So, Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for your 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really
appreciate you holding this hearing.
I appreciate the testimony from the panel. And what you
will find is this committee is committed to solving this issue,
and it has been an issue for far too long.
I spent 20 years in the Navy, so when we talk about
housing, I have lived it. My friends have lived it. My loved
ones have lived it. And one of the things that comes to mind
is, every servicemember has a housing story, everyone.
I remember, one of my stories was, we had just had a new
baby, Daniel, and I was living in housing, and we couldn't use
our living room because it was as if we were sitting outside.
There was no insulation. It was really cold. We were in
Maryland at the time.
But there is always something. And I think it has gotten to
the point to where that has become the standard. And it should
not be that way. You know, here we have servicemembers deployed
all over the United States, and I would argue, if they are
worried about what is happening at home, they are not focused
on the job that they have to do. So it absolutely is connected
to readiness.
I have a couple questions, and I would love to hear some
comments. My first question is for Ms. Christian.
Do you have any feedback from families on using the
Interactive Customer Evaluation portal to provide comments or
complaints regarding their housing?
Ms. Christian. So, any time we have actually had residents
try to put anything into a portal that is run by the company,
we have had instances where the information is being changed on
the back end.
So I will give you an example. A family put in and said
they had a lead-based-paint hazard that needed an inspection,
and the company repeatedly removed the words ``lead-based
paint'' from the terminology. Even after multiple emails to
both the housing company and the housing office to get those
words back in there, they refused to do so.
So situations like that are not uncommon. That is just one
example that I am allowed, per that resident, to speak about.
But this is happening across the board, where those items are
not being tracked properly.
Mr. Gonzales. Yeah, no, thank you for that.
What I hear from not only my constituents--I have several
bases in the district, Fort Bliss, Lackland Air Force, Laughlin
Air Force Base--not only from my constituents but also from my
former shipmates and people I have served with all over the
country, essentially, the theme is one thing: They don't feel
as if they have a voice. They feel as if they are constantly
kind of shunned or pushed to the side. And regardless of their
pay grade, regardless if they are a PFC and their new to
service or if they are, you know, senior folks, they have all
kind of been pushed to the side.
I think that is one thing maybe we can work on. I would
love to work with your organization to try to come up with
maybe some real-time solutions, when somebody picks up a phone
and says, ``Hey, I need this,'' that they get a real-time
response.
Ms. Wylie, I have a question for you, and the question is:
You know, we have several other panels after this--you know,
the Secretary of Defense that is in charge of housing and then,
of course, the leadership of these different private housing
organizations themselves. If you were in my shoes, what would
you ask them?
Ms. Wylie. One question I would definitely want answered
would be, what portion of the contractors that they utilize
work almost exclusively for the housing companies?
I ask that because I am finding a lot of cases, both that
are personal and with other residents in my neighborhood with
issues, we are finding that the results they get when outside
testing occurs, vice when some of these contractor companies
that are the go-to companies, we are finding that those are not
necessarily aligning, and that almost across the board the
contractors that are the go-to contractors that have the bulk
of their revenue from the housing companies will align their
interests with the housing companies. And that leads to some
false reports, some not following proper protocols, things of
that nature. And I saw that firsthand throughout our process
for sure.
Mr. Gonzales. Great.
And I will ask one final question before my time is up.
This is for PFC Calderon.
Look, you look sharp, man. You look sharp in uniform.
Clearly, you are just starting your career off. I am really
excited for you. How does the quality of military housing
impact your decision on if you are going to stay in service or
if you are going to punch out?
Private Calderon. It is a tremendous impact. It has,
unfortunately, really pushed me away, because I--I got an
eviction during COVID, and I still have some utility bills on
my credit, and my wife has some debt, so we really can't rent.
We even went to go look at off-base housing.
And I feel like the issue with where we are, especially in
Fort Polk, is that they kind of know they have a corner of the
market that really lets them kind of do what they want, because
the options are so limited. There is one Airbnb in this area.
They are really not a lot of options.
So, for me, it kind of makes me feel, do I want to take
this gamble again? Which is really unfortunate. Because, as I
said, I am 32. I have lived a life. I have done a lot of
things. I have started companies, I have failed, I have tried
again. I really wanted to do 20 years. I don't think I could do
20 years of this. I don't think I could put my wife through 20
years of this just for a retirement. And that is the God's
honest truth.
Mr. Gonzales. Great. Well, thank you.
My time is up, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales.
That is so disturbing, Private Calderon. It seems very
basic, that your housing should not be a thought in your mind.
And the fact that it would drive you out of the service, a
career choice that you were trying to make, is just an
abomination.
For all three of you--and I think I am the only one with a
round 2 question--but for all three of you, if you could answer
for me, since the implementation of the Tenant Bill of Rights
and what we have been told is the layer of oversight on base
from the service, where they have supposedly put in place
someone that residents of privatized military housing can go to
that is employed by the service, that is responsible for, you
know, taking care of responsiveness or lack thereof, helping
you maneuver and interact with the company that is responsible
for fixing your issues, have you noticed any difference since
the implementation of that layer of oversight and the Tenant
Bill of Rights?
Do you have better response time? Do you feel like you have
a place to go if there is a lack of responsiveness? And are you
getting what you need in terms of the quality and speed of the
workmanship to fix any issues?
Private Calderon, you can begin.
Private Calderon. Again, I don't feel like I have too much
time and experience in, but from going back and reading
people's posts that they do reach out----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But you are experiencing problems
yourself.
Whether it was what happened before or not, do you feel
like you have a place you can go to get responsiveness from
your service when you are not getting it from the company? And
you have made clear what the problem is with the company's
responsiveness.
Private Calderon. I don't. I wish I could expand on that
more, but I--there is just this general sense of there is no
priority, there is no urgency.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Because there is not someone to go
to? Or because when you go to the person that is responsible
for that, they are not taking care of your needs?
Private Calderon. That is how I felt. That is how I felt.
So the military housing office is obligated to provide us
with an advocate who is supposed to work on our behalf, help us
through situations like this. In my case, that failed me. I had
to reach out. I had to find third-party advocacy, my wife had
to find third-party advocacy, because we weren't being guided
properly. We weren't being told what to do. We were making
mistakes, but nobody was kind of, like, holding our hand.
This is a complicated process. I don't know how to do it. I
am still learning how to do my job. So, yeah, I do feel failed.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wylie
Ms. Wylie. I will agree with a lot of what PFC Calderon
said with regard to, the government housing office has been of
very little assistance, unfortunately, with navigating this.
My husband actually ended up switching units after, you
know, command was really unable to--part of the switch was--we
are glad now that we are in a different command, because when
command wasn't able to help us, we had nowhere to go. We felt
very alone against, kind of, the giant that is the housing
company and their complicit contractors.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And, Ms. Christian, can you speak to
the experience of the families that you have interacted with in
terms of whether there has been improvement in where they can
go for assistance when they are not getting the kind of
response they need out of the company responsible for dealing
with their challenges?
Ms. Christian. I believe this is a really individual-to-
installation question. I do think that there are some advocates
on the installation in different locations that are doing an
amazing job trying to help residents, but their hands are tied.
So, regardless of if they have the ability and they are
doing their job, I will say that I only know of three
installations where the government housing office has
successfully helped residents in any meaningful way when they
have gone to them.
But I would say that, even if they do try to assist them or
give them information, they don't know State or local laws, and
they most definitely are very poorly versed on disability laws.
So when residents are asking questions as it relates to a Fair
Housing Act violation or whether or not the implementation of
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies on their
installation, that resident advocate does not know and has
nobody, really, to seek counsel from to get that resident an
answer.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Fabulous. Okay.
Judge Carter, do you have additional questions?
[No response.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I will take that as a ``no.''
Mr. Carter. No. Take that as bad operations.
We probably ought to kick some doors down. That is what we
ought to do.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. Yeah. That is the next step. I
don't how many--yeah. My patience has run out, and I know the
committee's has as well.
Well, thank you to the three of you for your courage,
particularly to you, Private Calderon. Know that we have your
back. The law that we passed that included the Tenant Bill of
Rights is designed to allow you to feel free to share with us
freely about the concerns that you have. And we want to make
sure that the last thing that should drive someone out of the
service--that was a choice they made, to serve their country--
is the housing that is supposed to be keeping your family
comfortable and safe and that shouldn't be a second thought.
I mean, we all experience problems with housing, no matter
where you live, but, generally, you should be able to take care
of that pretty quickly. And you shouldn't start with your
house; you are already in a dangerous situation with your job
every single day. It shouldn't be dangerous to live in your
military housing. And it is just unbelievably disturbing that
we are still at this level of danger and difficulty. I mean,
seven children fell out of a window and had brain injuries in 4
years? I am speechless.
Okay. Assuming no other members have questions of this
panel, thank you so much for your participation. We appreciate
your input and feedback. And just know that we will stay on top
of this as a committee.
Thank you very much.
Okay. We will allow for a few minutes to switch to our
second panel, and so the subcommittee will stand in recess
briefly for that purpose.
[Recess.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
We will now welcome our second panel: Ms. Patricia Coury,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Housing at the
Department of Defense, and Ms. Elizabeth Field, Director of
Defense Capabilities and Management for the Government
Accountability Office.
This panel will give us a background on the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative, the partnerships between the
providers and the government, and the now-implemented Tenant
Bill of Rights. They will also provide details on their ongoing
actions to remedy the inadequate oversight of the program and
their long-term plans to make permanent positive changes to the
program.
We will begin with Ms. Coury and then move to Ms. Field.
Ms. Coury, your full written testimony will be included in
the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize
your opening statement.
Ms. Coury. Thank you. Madam Chair Wasserman Schultz,
Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you to discuss the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the subcommittee's
support of the Department's efforts to improve the quality of
life for military members and their families and your efforts
to enhance the MHPI program. With this committee's support, the
Department is resourced to provide safe, quality, well-
maintained housing where our military members and their
families will want and choose to live.
The military departments have used the available funding to
increase their oversight by hiring more than 600 additional
housing personnel to provide enhanced quality assurance,
customer care services, and advocacy for residents.
Under the overall leadership and direction of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and
Environment, the DOD official designated as the Department's
chief housing officer, the Department has significantly
enhanced the MHPI program and our oversight of the private-
sector companies that own, operate, and maintain privatized
housing projects.
Since the February 16, 2021, MHPI hearing before this
subcommittee, the Department has remained focused on five key
MHPI program oversight areas: senior leader engagement to
collaborate internally and with MHPI companies on housing
issues and necessary corrective actions; rebuilding trust with
military members and their families; accountability at all
levels within DOD and by MHPI companies to perform our
oversight as originally intended at the outset of housing
privatization; transparency and more frequent communication
with MHPI tenants; and ensuring the long-term financial
viability of the MHPI projects and the MHPI program.
Central to our enhanced oversight, the Department issued a
revised MHPI Tenant Bill of Rights on August 1, 2021, that now
includes all 18 rights specified in section 2890 of Title 10,
United States Code.
Based on our work with the MHPI companies that own and
operate privatized housing projects, they have voluntarily
implemented these 18 rights at all but 5 of the nearly 200
installations with privatized housing. While the Department
continues to pursue agreements with the MHPI companies at the 5
remaining installations, nearly 96 percent of the military
families who reside in privatized housing have access to all 18
rights.
Our progress implementing the Tenant Bill of Rights
represents a foundational step in DOD's ongoing efforts to
improve the MHPI program and to rebuild trust and ensure a
positive living experience for military members and their
families.
In addition to issuing the revised Tenant Bill of Rights,
we have taken a number of other actions to improve our
oversight, to include implementing Department-wide quarterly
programmatic reviews of the performance of the MHPI portfolio
and the individual projects, establishing a new DOD uniform
housing standard and inspection requirements, and working with
the private-sector MHPI companies to accelerate project
investment to renovate or construct new housing units in MHPI
projects where feasible and to improve the condition of
existing privatized housing.
Our priority going forward is to focus on implementing MHPI
reforms intended to improve the safety, quality, and
habitability of privatized housing while continuing our
enhanced oversight of the MHPI program and projects. These
reforms include establishing enhanced standards for the private
MHPI companies that own, operate, and maintain privatized
housing projects through increased monitoring of the individual
MHPI project performance and ensuring the long-term financial
viability of the MHPI projects and program.
The Department of Defense is committed to working closely
with this subcommittee and the committee's staff to ensure our
military members and their families who choose to reside in
MHPI housing have safe, quality homes and a positive living
experience.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very
important topic and for your continued support of the
priorities of the Department to improve the quality of life for
our military members and their family members who are called to
sacrifice so much for us.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Coury.
Ms. Field, your full written testimony will be included in
the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize
your opening statement.
Ms. Field. Madam Chair, Judge Carter, and members and staff
of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on
GAO's work assessing the Defense Department's privatized
military family housing program.
This morning's hearing comes in the wake of announcements
from the Justice Department regarding allegations of fraud by
two of the private companies with the largest housing
portfolios in the program. In one case, the company pled guilty
to major fraud and is to pay over $65 million in civil and
criminal fines and restitution. In the other case, the company
agreed to a $500,000 settlement to resolve allegations of
fraud, with no admission of fault.
While different, both cases involve the performance
incentive fee, or PIF, which, under the program, the companies
receive if they meet certain criteria.
In our March 2020 report, we identified significant
weaknesses related to DOD's use of the PIF, including that the
metrics and the underlying indicators used to determine whether
it would be awarded were not closely tied to reliable measures
of resident satisfaction. Instead, they emphasized things like
responding quickly to work-order requests, regardless of
whether the underlying problem had been fixed. Moreover, we
found that the data in the systems used to track work orders
were neither accurate nor reliable.
We made a number of recommendations to address these
problems, including that the military services review the PIF's
metrics and indicators to ensure they provide an accurate
reflection of the condition and quality of the home.
I am pleased to report that DOD has taken steps to
implement this recommendation, including proposing significant
revisions to the PIF.
However, while many of the private companies have agreed to
these revisions, not all have. This demonstrates one of the
fundamental challenges inherent in DOD's military family
housing program. As is the case for all government contracts,
the military cannot unilaterally make changes to the project's
legal agreements. But, in this case, many of these agreements
are in place for 50 years.
We will undoubtedly have a robust discussion this morning
about the limits of the government's power within this public-
private partnership and why DOD has remained committed to the
program despite those limits.
I look forward to that discussion, but I would also like to
note three areas in which the Department can continue to
strengthen the privatized family housing program without
limitation.
First, DOD could do more to report timely and transparent
information on resident satisfaction with their privatized
homes. Second, the Department could strengthen its process for
setting the basic allowance for housing, a key source of
revenue for privatized housing projects. Third, DOD could do
more to validate work-order data.
We look forward to seeing the Department fully implement
these recommendations in the near future.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
Ms. Coury, my opening question is, did you watch the first
panel?
Ms. Coury. Yes, I did.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I know your testimony was
prepared in advance, but I am wondering if you noticed how
discordant your opening statement was with what we heard from
the first panel.
I mean, for me, it doesn't feel like there has been any
change at all in the 3 years since we had this oversight
hearing with the same three panels.
How has the layer of oversight--and in our previous
hearing, we were told by Mr. Cramer that progress had been made
to address the understaffing of offices charged with oversight
of the housing program. DOD clearly told us that they dropped
the ball, that they had left the oversight to the privatized
military housing companies, but, when it comes to that
oversight, there were still vacancies when we last asked.
Have those offices now been fully staffed? How many
positions are in these offices? And do you think that the
oversight that has been installed that was not active or there
before has done anything to improve the situation? Because the
first panel really gave us the impression that things are
exactly as they were before.
Ms. Coury. Well, I am always concerned when I hear
residents raise issues about the experience they have had with
housing, so I certainly will go back and look more into the
situations that they have raised.
In terms of what the Department has done, we have now--the
military departments have hired more than 600 additional
housing personnel. Some of those are quality assurance and
inspection-related; some are customer service and resident
care. So we have done that. And----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But can I--you know what? You
mentioned that. I want you to address some of the specific
concerns--and that is why I wanted the resident panel to be
first--some of the specific concerns they raised, where you
have, you know, non-expert, untrained individuals, who don't
know the State laws, who don't know, you know, how to guide a
resident through the myriad of issues that they have to deal
with when they are reporting particularly a serious problem
with their home that is sickening their family.
So, I mean, just putting a body in place isn't enough. So
how are you addressing the need for expertise to be able to
help a resident and really be an advocate for them to get their
problem solved?
Ms. Coury. So, for the housing staff and at all levels
throughout the Department, there has been a significant
increase in training. Obviously, some staff are new and they
are still being trained.
And there are probably locations, as was mentioned, where
maybe the on-base housing staff don't understand fully that the
State and local requirements do apply to privatized housing
projects. These are privately owned projects, the housing is
privately owned, and just operated on our installations.
And so we have work to do in terms of training, and we will
keep focusing on that. But we have implemented a number of
measures that should be showing improvement for not just the
responsiveness to residents but making sure the homes are in
better condition when they receive them.
For example, we have implemented inspection requirements
at--each house, before it can be reoccupied by the next family,
goes through a government inspection by qualified personnel to
ensure that it meets life/health/safety requirements and is
habitable. And it is holding up occupancy at locations where
maybe the landlord did not completely meet every requirement,
that they had to check another box. But we have done things
like that.
We have improved our installation commanders' understanding
of their role and responsibilities in terms of the oversight at
the installation level and having a stronger voice and
incentives and other measures to hold the project companies
accountable.
But, you know, the Tenant Bill of Rights has been in place
since August, and we know that there are places that there have
been hiccups along the way, as the housing offices are learning
how to follow new the policies and processes. And we are
committed to working through that and making this program the
best that it can be. And we think that we can do a great job
providing housing to the residents through privatization.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It certainly doesn't seem like
anywhere near enough progress has been made, and I am not sure
that the structure that you put in place is working or enough.
Ms. Field, can you answer the same question, essentially,
in response to what Ms. Coury said? Do you think that the steps
that the services, that DOD has taken to put in place, you
know, oversight that has enough expertise and a system of
responsiveness to advocate for these tenants is working
effectively?
Ms. Field. Well, it is a great question, and I have to say
that, unfortunately, I continue to hear from residents by email
or phone that they are having continued problems as well. We
have an ongoing audit right now trying to assess whether these
new steps are having their intended effect. That audit is not
yet completed, but I will note two things.
One is that, in the most recent report that the Department
provided to Congress--I believe it was just released last
week--showing some information on resident satisfaction, while
it could have been more transparent, it showed the scores going
down. So that is one indication that is a little bit troubling.
Albeit, it is somewhat outdated because it is fiscal year 2019
data, although it is the most recent data we could get.
The other point I would make is that there are so many
recommendations, actually requirements, from prior National
Defense Authorization Acts that the Department has not yet
fully implemented. And so that might be part of what is going
on here as well, is that the Department is still in the process
of taking those required steps.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Judge, I am going to just take an extra minute or so,
because we have a shorter group of members that want to ask
questions on this panel, and that will save maybe my second
round, if that is okay.
Ms. Coury, over the past few years, we have seen a plethora
of really troubling press reports about all of the housing
partners, but, as I mentioned in my opening statement, two
particular providers have faced high-profile legal woes due to
incentive fee fraud and whistleblower violations.
I would like you to explain exactly what that means and how
it happened. And in light of such egregious breaches in trust,
why can't the Department simply terminate the partnerships? And
what other options does the Department have in terms of
providing consequences to the providers, short of terminating
the partnerships?
Because, you know, in the real world, if that kind of
egregious, outrageous violations of the public trust would take
place, they would lose their ability to continue to have the
contract and continue to serve.
So how did that happen? How did the Department miss this
fraud? And what else can be done to ensure such fraud and
corruption doesn't happen again?
Ms. Coury. Well, that is an important question.
We know that, between 2013 and 2019, Balfour Beatty
Communities had employees that basically falsified information
so that the company would meet objectives for its performance
of maintenance and, therefore, meet requirements that would
give it performance incentive fees that it had not earned.
So, specifically, the employees altered or manipulated data
in the property management system and falsified that data such
that that would fraudulently induce the services to pay
performance incentive fees that they hadn't earned, meaning
actually the project companies themselves, but incentive fees
approved by the services.
BBC's corporate culture at the time and its internal
controls weren't adequate to deter and detect that. And,
frankly, the government at the time had also cut back our
staff, and so we weren't really staffed well to provide the
oversight that we should have, and we have acknowledged that.
The actual situation that happened with BBC was first
identified by the Air Force. So the Air Force was who
identified it and then reported it to the Air Force Office of
Special Investigations, and then it was referred to the
Department of Justice.
And so, once that was referred, we were aware of it and we
were tracking that with the information that we could get from
the Department of Justice. So we knew the investigation was
ongoing for 2 years, but we didn't know until they had two
employees that actually pled guilty in the summer timeframe of
2021. And then Department of Justice let the Department of Air
Force know in roughly mid-December that there was a pending
plea agreement, and that was announced right before Christmas
of 2021.
We are also aware of--in that same rough timeframe, in
early January, we learned that there was the whistleblower case
that involved Hunt Military Communities. That was a civil
settlement, civil situation, and was related to a whistleblower
case. So it was sealed by the court, so we really did not know
about that until about a week prior. The Air Force, I think,
did learn something about it, but we didn't know details until
it was announced in a press release.
So these situations are obviously concerning, but we feel
that--Balfour Beatty, for example, in their plea agreement,
they not only acknowledged and fully cooperated during the
investigation, but they also agreed to pay restitution--they
had criminal fines and fees that were assessed against them,
civil penalties assessed against them--and then have agreed to
a very complex and thorough corporate compliance adjustment to
improve their processes, policies, and procedures to deter and
detect any kind of fraud against the government. And, also,
they have to hire an independent corporate compliance monitor
for 3 years to watch what they are doing.
And so, for the Department, one of the things that we look
at is: Well, how did they respond? And recognizing this
involved allegations with a small number of employees from 2019
and before, BBC had immediately, once they learned of these
issues, taken action to start to change its own internal
processes and management. And we watched them, as they were
very transparent with us on that.
And the Air Force, as our lead department on this, given
that the situation started in the Air Force office, the Air
Force has felt satisfied with that and is working with BBC to
implement additional internal controls and performance
improvement plans and requirements to ensure that they are
doing the right thing and that they will not be in a situation
where they would fraudulently be claiming anything regarding
work orders in the future.
But in terms of the question about why are we so committed,
why wouldn't we replace BBC or a project company that would do
this, part of that is because of the structure of the program,
but--you know, I can talk more about that, but the big,
overarching thing is that we are very committed to the success
of this program. We have the potential that we could terminate
a deal or terminate a relationship with one of these project
companies, but that we don't feel is the right thing to do.
We watched in these cases how these project companies have
responded, how BBC and Hunt, which wasn't--they didn't plead
guilty to something, but how they responded in terms of the
whistleblower case. And we recognize that, you know, these are
projects that the project company owns the housing, and for us
to go through the process of trying to terminate the deal would
be a very expensive and impactful thing that might not actually
be as beneficial to the residents as it might seem, whereas we
feel we can work with these companies and, you know, they are
working in good faith. They are not trying to--we see their
reactions, at least, in how they respond to this and the
corporate compliance and things that they have agreed to, that
we have confidence that we can continue to work forward with
them.
So I can talk more about the actual deal structures if you
want to understand that, but some of that gets rather technical
for the amount of time available for the questions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. To simplify it, a company like BBC
is able to simplify it, since it will take too much time.
To simplify it, a company like BBC has made a cost-of-
doing-business decision. And so they know that they can
withstand the penalties and layers of oversight and the cost
added to their response and getting caught for defrauding the
government. And their contractual arrangement and the fact that
they own the housing and that these arrangements are so
complex, where they basically can act with impunity and not
really ever be held accountable and prevented from doing
something like this again, because it is so difficult to
unravel the complicated arrangement that has been made to
establish the privatized military housing program.
So that is really a terrible situation for the government
to be in. And I just don't understand how accountability is
even possible or preventing it from happening again is even
possible, and that is what is disturbing to me.
Okay. I apologize to my colleagues for taking so long.
Judge, you are recognized for 5 minutes and however long
you want to go after that.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Coury, how many people work for you?
Ms. Coury. My total team, if fully staffed, is 15,
including contractor support.
Mr. Carter. Fifty or 15?
Ms. Coury. One-five, including contractor support.
Mr. Carter. Okay.
And you do oversight. I watch what was on the border
between Israel and--I forget, someplace else. I was told that
the U.N. observatory doesn't [inaudible]. Well, they do. They
observe.
Well, when we have occasion to do oversight, it seems to me
we should be saying, not only look for the problem, but for
$200 million, fix the problem. I don't understand that. I just
don't.
We are pouring, once again, money and just saying money
will solve the problem. And 15 employees, you are understaffed.
And we have $200 million in the program in the last 2 years?
Something is wrong.
Ms. Coury. So my staff is not funded out of the O&M budget
that is supporting the military departments for the 600
additional staff that they have, plus their prior staff. So my
budget is very small. And----
Mr. Carter. Who funds your budget?
Ms. Coury. It is funded through the family housing/military
construction--the military construction budget. It is under the
Family Housing Improvement Fund. So the Family Housing
Improvement Fund for fiscal year 2023, the request is a little
over $6 million in support for my office. That does not fund
salaries. That is for contract support.
Mr. Carter. Okay.
OMB, GAO--Ms. Field, you handle suing on their behalf,
right?
Ms. Field. I am sorry. Do you mind repeating the question?
Mr. Carter. Your agency files lawsuits on behalf of these
issues?
Ms. Field. No. To clarify, we have not filed lawsuits
against the companies. Those are cases outside of the GAO
system. We are the legislative oversight agency for Congress.
And so those lawsuits were brought by members of the
public, whether they were servicemembers or others, employees
of the companies.
Mr. Carter. So where do the criminal fines go? Do you know?
Ms. Field. That is a good question, and Ms. Coury might
actually know where all of the fines go. I believe some of them
go back to the reinvestment account for the privatized housing
projects. But Ms. Coury might have more details on that than I
do.
Ms. Coury. Yes. I can answer that now if you want.
The Department of Justice required BBC to pay over $65
million in fines and restitution. And that included $18.89
million in criminal restitution paid to Air Force privatized
housing projects and to their restoration accounts, their long-
term sustainment accounts, to be spent as the Air Force
determines. The Air Force decided which projects received the
funds and how they will be spent. The total real damages to the
Department was a little under $13 million. So, again, $65
million in fines and restitution.
And then, separately, BBC entered a False Claims Act
settlement to resolve its civil liability for $35.2 million.
And the amounts paid there are credited against the amounts BBC
owes towards its criminal plea. BBC has already fully paid it
restitution amounts to the Air Force. The rest of that money
goes to the Treasury.
Mr. Carter. Goes to the Treasury.
Ms. Coury. It goes to the Treasury.
Mr. Carter. Okay.
My question is, I was looking at what we provided in the
last two appropriation cycles, 2020 and 2021, $200 million--
$141 million in 2020 and $60 million in 2021--for the services
to increase their ability to provide oversight.
The problem I have with the word ``oversight'' is that
means somebody is looking for problems. I am looking for the
people who solve problems. Who would they be? The Air Force?
The Army? The Navy? Are they supposed to take this money and
solve the problem or just look at the problem? Because we are
all looking at the problem, but when you send an idiot to fix a
gas leak, you are not solving the problem. And that is the
trouble for me.
Any comment from either one of you?
Ms. Coury. Elizabeth?
Ms. Field. I mean, it is a really important point about
oversight, that it is not just about understanding what
happened but how to fix it.
And I think, you know, that is why we have made over, I
believe, 30 recommendations to the Department of Defense to
strengthen privatized housing. Many of them have been
implemented, but not all of them have. And we really focus our
attention on recommendation implementation because that is
where the problems get fixed.
I think the bottom line here is that the Department did not
get into this problem overnight and so it is not going to get
out of this problem overnight.
Ms. Coury. And if I may, then, as well, you know, that
money right now is not just paying for staff but is paying for
inspections, for example. So we have implemented a new DOD
housing standard that requires an inspection of every home. We
also have inspections, as I mentioned earlier, at each change
of occupancy, for the government team to go and inspect and
ensure that that home meets the life/health/safety and other
requirements.
And the Department also, just in the last couple of months,
issued policy on managing environmental health hazards to make
sure that our government team understands what the standards
are, what they are supposed to be looking at, and whether
something is an issue or not, including the oversight that
needs to be provided to the privatized housing companies. So
that applies to both government-owned housing and our
privatized housing.
But we have done a lot of things at the field to increase
our oversight and ensure that we are doing better at monitoring
the work orders and so forth.
And, then, at the Secretariat level and at my level, we
have implemented quarterly programmatic reviews where we are
looking at data on all of these different things, various
metrics, to assess not only how the projects are performing but
the health of the projects from a financial standpoint, and
working with the military departments to determine if there is
a need for some kind of corrective action or some kind of a
restructure.
Over.
Mr. Carter. Okay. If all those people are looking at the
problem, I assume the housing ownership groups are supposed to
be fixing the problems, correct?
Ms. Coury. So some of those folks are helping to fix the
problem, in that they are resident care advocates and they are
the voice and the liaison between the resident who has an issue
and the project company.
We are aware--I mean, it is not--it has been a challenging
past year and a half for all the landlords, not just our
privatized housing landlords but all landlords, trying to find
qualified maintenance personnel with COVID, with the
competition in the job market right now. And we do know there
are locations where the project company has gone out and
contracted with a provider to ensure they had maintenance
personnel.
So the issues that were raised on the first panel as to
whether that makes too cozy of a relationship or whether that
contractor isn't necessarily working in the best interests of
the resident, that is something we need to look at, and I
appreciate that they highlighted that.
But we have put in place a lot of additional oversight. And
based on inspections that we have done--for example, at Fort
Belvoir, the Army did a pilot study and inspected 90 percent of
the nearly 2,000 homes at Fort Belvoir. They did not find a
systemic issue with the quality of the housing. The vast
majority was in good or excellent condition. And the issues
that they found were things that would normally be caught in
just routine maintenance and at the turnover of the homes.
We have had situations this past year with COVID where
residents have not wanted to report issues or have someone in
their home doing maintenance because of their concerns about
the health situation right now. So this has been a complicated
time for our project companies to try to address and improve
their performance and, you know, also for us in working with
residents, given the impact that COVID has had on interaction
face-to-face and being in the homes.
Over.
Mr. Carter. Well, still, you have to get an expert to fix
the problem. If you have a plumbing problem, you send a
plumber. If you have an electrician problem, you send an
electrician. And if they are not doing that, we are not taking
care of our people. That is real simple.
We seem to have various numbers of catch-22s in this issue.
We all read that book back in the 1960s about the Army. But,
seriously, somebody has to get down to doing the work, and
somebody has to be punished for not doing the work. It is just
that simple.
Ms. Coury. So, if I may, the military departments do make
decisions about how much of the incentive fees for property
management, for example, that the project companies earn. The
installation commanders have that first voice in saying and
monitoring what is really going on. And the issue of not having
qualified personnel do the work, that is important. That is
something to be considered. And there are projects where those
incentive fees have been totally withheld and where projects
have been put on performance improvement plans.
And so there are means by which the services are taking
action to hold the project companies accountable. And I, you
know, again, take very seriously the concerns raised today. But
out of the 205,000 or so family housing units, there are many
of those, the vast majority of those, that are very well-
maintained and we think the residents are getting a very
positive experience. But we certainly can do better.
Mr. Carter. I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
I just think that each of us should take the responsibility
to think about our role in addressing this issue as if we and
our families lived in privatized military housing. And I won't
ask you, Ms. Coury, whether you would want your family to live
in privatized military housing, but from what I have heard, I
wouldn't want mine. And that is unacceptable.
We should have a quality of military housing, no matter
where it is in the country or the world, that we would be
comfortable living in ourselves and having our own family
members live in it. And that is certainly not the case right
now. And the urgency to address this issue needs to be handled
through the lens of, what if it was your family? And it isn't.
It just isn't.
Okay. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Next up is Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Ms. Coury. You are in a tough spot here
today, and I don't doubt your and your team's commitment to
doing the right things here.
I am trying to listen between the lines to your testimony
and to your answers, and, frankly, I am just trying to
reconcile it with what I heard in the first panel. And I am
kind of back to the same questions I had for that panel, which
is: Are the concerns isolated or systemic still? Are they
focused on specific providers versus all providers? Are they
specific to geographic areas or to older housing on base? How
do you answer me on that?
I listened to you, and you said that you would go back and
look at these very, very specific, you know, concerns that were
raised by the people in the first panel, as you should, but I
didn't sense that you felt that the concern was broader than
that.
You mentioned metrics, and a sub-question would be, what
metrics are you basing your conclusions on?
Why don't I just get you to respond to that, and then I
have one more after that.
Ms. Coury. Okay. Sure.
So, you know, it is a very large program. This is
equivalent to the largest or second-largest portfolio of rental
properties, if you consider program as a whole, of one big
program, in the country.
And so, when we look at what is going on, there are
locations that have more problems than others, and there is a
variety of reasons for that. Sometimes it is because--and I
will remind you that the housing that these landlords now own,
the projects they inherited, we conveyed to them the existing
housing that had a $20 billion maintenance backlog.
Many of those units were historic units. Some of those
units are--you know, they were units you cannot replace,
depending on what the State historic preservation office
requirements are, and they pose challenges when you start
putting air-conditioning and more modern systems in there. And
over time, you know, the project companies have learned that
sometimes the two don't mix, a historic home and air-
conditioning. There is a way to do it, but you have to step
back and realize the building envelope is such that, if you
don't have the right ventilation, you could have mold.
But what I do with the military departments is actually
have them provide an array of data on each project, and then I
am looking at that. I am looking at, with my team, not just
occupancy but occupancy by military families; how many units
are offline for maintenance. Because the units that have the
most severe problems are either offline because they have
scheduled maintenance, because they were already planning to
replace the homes, or maybe they are offline because they are
trying to remediate mold or an issue that has been identified
in the last little while.
So we watch that and other measures of resident
satisfaction, work-order satisfaction. Residents now actually
have to sign off on the work order to say whether or not it was
completed and then to what satisfaction they had with that
experience. So it is not nearly as easy for the project
companies to manipulate that data and claim that that work
order was completed when it was not, and, again, the resident
has a voice about the quality of the work and can raise that
concern.
They also have other ways that they can raise concerns,
through the resident--to not just their property manager but to
the government housing office, and then the dispute process and
so on. But, in terms of our oversight, that is one of the
things we are doing.
The other thing I mentioned was that we have recently
issued the uniform DOD housing standard and the inspection
requirement that goes along with that. And that is from section
3051 of the fiscal year 2020 NDAA.
And the Army leaned forward and did a pilot inspection for
us at Fort Belvoir, and so we have data there. Fort Belvoir has
had a lot of press coverage. There have been residents that
have raised a lot of concerns there. The Army was able to
inspect about 90 percent of the homes. The other 10 percent,
the residents didn't agree for them to have access. But the
majority of the homes came back in good and excellent
condition. And----
Mr. Case. Okay. And----
Ms. Coury [continuing]. So we are looking at that and
saying, okay, there is a subset maybe of the homes, but it is
not all of the homes.
Mr. Case. Okay. Well, I think we would all concede that,
but what is a majority? A majority can be 51 percent or 90-
some-odd percent.
And, either way, there is still--I mean, people just stood
in front of Congress, at great risk to themselves and to their
careers, to tell us that they don't think it is going okay. And
how widespread do you think that is? That is my question. And
are we on the right track?
Because I am hearing you say, in all honesty, that--or at
least I am interpreting it that you think we are roughly on the
right track, and that doesn't reconcile at least with the first
panel. And so then the question is, well, what do we do about
that?
So that is the reason for the question. How widespread do
you think the problems still are, and do you have a solution to
it?
And you say in your testimony that we are going to need
time, and so did GAO. And we get that. You don't turn this on
the dime. But is it the necessary level of focus, solution,
expedition? Do you have the resources from Congress to pull
this off? Those are some of the questions that I have.
Ms. Coury. So the funding request for fiscal year 2023
includes the funds that the military departments need to
continue providing the oversight that they have committed to at
the levels that they should and does support the inspections.
Those won't all be completed in 1 year, but it is phased.
As they complete their inspections--these one-time, very,
very thorough inspections--they are still doing change-of-
maintenance inspections and other kinds of inspections that are
required, but section 3051 had a very specific requirement.
But if we say roughly there are 200,000 homes, you know, if
I gave you a ballpark, I think the problem is 1 to 2 percent of
the homes have an issue. And so, when you talk 200,000 homes,
that is still a lot of homes, a lot of families. From the
standpoint of a portfolio of homes, if you were a private-
sector landlord and you were looking at your homes--and me in
my individual home, occasionally we have problems. It could be
that you have a mouse infestation. It could be--I recently had
a leak in basement plumbing. You know, things happen, and then
how does that landlord respond and fix that problem?
So I don't expect that 100 percent of the homes are going
to be in perfect condition all the time. I do expect that those
landlords take appropriate action, that they are maintaining
them like they should, and that when something is brought to
their attention, that they then address it and they do it
right.
We do need the help of the residents, just like the ones
who spoke here. We do need residents to submit work orders. And
so we do find that there are locations where the resident has
first posted their problem on YouTube and, when the housing
office looks, there has actually not been a work order
submitted to it.
That is probably rare; it is probably a minority. But I
would just foot-stomp that we do need the residents' help to
flag the issues and, if they see something that looks like it
might be causing a problem, to let the landlord know early own
and let the housing office--government housing office team know
early on.
But we need to hold them accountable, and we need to expect
as close to perfection as we can get. But I don't think we are
ever going to solve this 100 percent of the time, and I don't
think we are going to keep 100 percent of the residents, you
know, fully satisfied all the time. We just have to strive for
that as our goal.
Mr. Case. Okay. Well, my time is up, but thank you for
expanding on that. Appreciate it.
Ms. Coury. Thank you.
Mr. Case. I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Case.
Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate,
again, this panel. This has been very informative.
So the chair bought up an earlier issue about staffing.
That is one that I was obviously very concerned with as well,
and I am glad that she made points she did. I just wanted to
make sure that you know that not just the chairwoman but all of
us are really focused on making sure that the staff is there
and properly trained.
My office has an ongoing case with an enlisted family at
NAS Lemoore who lives in base housing managed by Liberty
Military Housing. This family's house has had repeated major
leaks and mold, which has caused them to be displaced for days
to weeks at a time for repairs. This has happened several times
in the last 2 years.
I think it is important--because you talked a lot about the
resolution just now with Mr. Case's questions--that there are
work orders, that they are signing off on it, but this specific
case has been going on for 2 years. They are very unhappy. They
have obviously been reaching out to us.
And as I mentioned with the earlier panel, we do go and we
always recommend that the constituent goes through the chain of
command to try to address these to make sure that those
processes are working. For them to come to us and to ask us for
help, that is because, obviously, they are not working, things
aren't happening, they are not being done the way they are
supposed to be done, and this family is in jeopardy. We have
been asking for help on different fronts. They have been
responsive, but we have to do more.
So can you speak as to what metrics, if any, are used to
ensure that unsafe housing doesn't simply just receive
temporary repairs over and over again, leaving servicemembers
facing the same problem they did in the first place?
Ms. Coury. Thank you for that question.
So, for that level of review, I rely on my military
department counterparts. They each have their own programs to
be monitoring the actual work.
I will use the Army as an example again, where I know they
actually had their third-party inspections that they hired
separate from any of the other ones you have heard about, where
they went in and actually reviewed the work at installations to
see, were they only doing a cosmetic repair or addressing the
underlying problem? And when they found if there was an issue
where they hadn't actually addressed the underlying problem,
they flagged it and raised it as a concern to hold that project
company accountable.
So I have confidence that that type of review is happening
and that the military departments and the installation teams
better understand at the installation level their
responsibility for holding the project companies and their
property management accountable. And that is part of the reason
that we sometimes have where they withhold incentive fees and
put the projects on a performance improvement plan.
Mr. Valadao. So I would hope that your confidence is shaken
a little bit right now, because this is obviously an issue that
hasn't been resolved. They continue to do small cosmetic fixes.
And, again, the people that are living in these houses
aren't the top of the food chain. They are not the ones making
the top dollar. They don't have the resources to be able to
just move into another house, pay things out of their own
pocket. They are truly struggling and doing the best they can.
And all we are asking is to make sure that houses are
repaired in a timely manner, and repaired in a way that this
isn't coming up time after time after time, and that they don't
feel they need to come back to us.
I mean, we have no problem working with them, but if
Members of Congress have to step in in every single situation
and resolve these types of issues, that means that thereare a
lot of people within the different departments that just aren't
doing their jobs. And maybe the things that you are hearing
from some of your folks that work under you isn't accurate.
Ms. Coury. So I will take back this information, and we
will look into the situation at that particular installation.
I will just say that, you know, across the portfolio, there
are thousands and thousands of work orders entered every day.
And so I am disappointed to hear about any concerns where a
work order hasn't been handled appropriately, but I will stand
by my assessment that it is a very, very small percentage of
the time.
When an issue like this gets raised to me--and I
occasionally have people reach out directly to me that have a
concern--I go directly to my counterpart to ensure that the
military department leadership is aware and that they work to
address the concern with that particular project company.
Mr. Valadao. All right.
Then just one quick question on the complaint database, Ms.
Coury. When do you anticipate the Department-run complaint
database to be operational? What metrics will the database
collect? And do you need any additional funding for this
database project?
Ms. Coury. So the complaint database is very complex and
will be very expensive for the Department to implement; I will
just be honest.
I have met personally with the Consumer Finance Protection
Bureau. Senator Warren suggested we should meet with them to
learn about their complaint database as a model. And they do
have a wonderful database. But they have a very big budget for
that and they have a large staff to do that, because you have
to worry about Privacy Act issues and profanity that could be
on there, but more so monitoring if there is a complaint or a
request for service there, getting that to the right military
department and the right installation for work and then
tracking that.
Right now, I will admit, we are primarily focused on the
other reforms that we can do that will be impactful to the
residents quickly, recognizing that we already have a number of
ways that they can raise concerns and complaints, not just the
dispute resolution process that is identified through the
Tenant Bill of Rights, but for those five installations that
aren't abiding by that, they do have a dispute resolution
process defined in their lease. They can still go to the
government housing office. Everybody can still go to the IG if
they really feel unhappy, or the courts, not that that is
ideal.
Mr. Valadao. And I am running out of time; I just need to
push a little bit more on the one specific part of that
question. What metrics will the database collect? That is one
that I really think is important.
Ms. Coury. So, at this point, I don't know that I have
thought through the detailed metrics, but I am sure we would be
tracking how many concerns are raised at a given installation,
the type of concern that is raised, the responsiveness, whether
it was resolved to the satisfaction of the military department
and then also to the satisfaction of the member.
But that is something we are going to have to work through,
in terms of the details. Again, I am concerned about it causing
confusion to residents about where to file a complaint or how
to raise a concern, when we already have processes and methods
in place.
Mr. Valadao. All right.
Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
Okay. Next up is Mr. Rutherford.
Are you ready for your 5 minutes of questions?
I think he stepped away.
So, if not, then, Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for your
5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I will get right into it. I have many questions. The
first question is for Secretary Coury.
Two of the companies represented on the third panel, Hunt
Military Communities and Balfour Beatty Communities, have
either been found guilty of fraud or settled out of court for
alleged fraud within the last 3 years.
Since the conviction and settlement, DOD has expanded its
partnership with these companies to provide privatized military
housing. DOD continues to partner with these companies that
clearly put profits over servicemembers and their families.
Earlier, you said it was too expensive to terminate these
partnerships with these companies. Secretary, can you please
give me an example of what does it take in order to terminate--
what would these companies have to do in order to cause enough
damage in order for you to consider terminating their
contracts?
Ms. Coury. So termination for cause is different than
termination for convenience, and I assume you are talking about
termination for cause. I am not an attorney, so I am going to
have to defer the real detailed response to that for the
record.
I would just say that the housing is owned by these
private-sector entities, but their third-party financiers,
their lenders and bondholders do have a role in play. So, if we
were to try to remove the project company, there would be, you
know, a process that we would have to go through with the
lender and bondholder as well. And it is a very complicated
process.
It is not that it can't happen, but, again, we are not
focused on that, as we feel that is an extreme measure in cases
where we feel that we are comfortable moving ahead and holding
these project companies accountable. We are watching how they
respond, and we will be monitoring their performance and how
they enter work-order data and anything else that would be
indicative of a problem in terms of them having potential
future fraud.
Mr. Gonzales. Next question. Secretary, I retired as a
master chief, and, as a master chief, it was my duty to take
care of my sailors in all forms and fashion. Oftentimes, that
would require oversight from me. And there is a difference
between somebody else doing an inspection and when the master
chief showed up to do an inspection. And I am sure it is the
same in any organization.
The question I have is, I would love to host you at
Laughlin Air Force Base to do a joint walk-through where we
have Congress and the Department come together. You mentioned,
you know, a few of your different areas. You know, senior
leadership engagement falls right in line with that. I would
love for us to talk to families directly, to the trustability
in families, the transparency piece.
Would you commit to doing that, either hosting at Laughlin
Air Force Base or Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio?
Ms. Coury. Absolutely. I would love to join you there. And
I would do that for any Member that has a concern about the
housing at their local installations.
Mr. Gonzales. Fantastic. I am sure there are many members
on this committee that would also be interested in that.
My next question is, you mentioned lawsuits earlier. And it
seemed as if you were finding out after the fact. My question
is, do we know how many pending lawsuits there are? And, if so,
what installations are impacted?
Ms. Coury. So DOD is aware of one current investigation
involving one project company at one installation. I can't
share that installation name right now. We don't have further
information from DOJ about that ongoing investigation, but we
can provide more information as we become aware of it.
I will let you know that, actually, just Monday this week,
the Department of the Air Force received an anonymous complaint
regarding a separate company at a separate installation. So
that has already been referred to the Air Force Office of
Special Investigations, and we will be happy to provide an
update on that after we learn more.
But we don't always know about investigations if they are
conducted by DOJ or they are under court seal. So that has been
the complication for us trying to provide more information in
the past.
Mr. Gonzales. Okay.
My next question is question for Director Field.
You know, DOD currently only has 14 privatized military
providers. Are there barriers to entry for other companies to
compete with these providers?
Ms. Field. Thank you for that question.
So my understanding is that, when the projects were first
set up, they were competed like a normal contract would be,
even these are not Federal Acquisition Regulation-based
contracts. As I mentioned in my opening statement, these are
50-year agreements, and so those are in place for many more
decades to come.
I think the interesting question is, what is the Department
going to do if it wants to open new privatized housing
projects? And that is not outside the realm of possibility with
the Space Force having been stood up.
We have had a lot of conversations with Ms. Coury and her
colleagues about how they would think about structuring these
arrangements moving forward. So far, we have heard that they
wouldn't necessarily do anything different in terms of making
arrangements with the companies and negotiating their
contracts, but I think some clarity on that point would be
helpful.
Mr. Gonzales. Okay. Great.
I have other questions, but I am out of time, so I yield
back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales.
Next up is Mrs. Lee.
You are recognized for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you so much.
Thanks to the panelists for being here.
I represent Las Vegas, Nevada. We have Creech and Nellis
Air Force Base. And I am actually happy to report that, having
just visited those bases, that their privatized housing--we are
not hearing some of the stories like we heard earlier today. So
I want to direct some, I guess, higher-level questions to you.
In your testimony, Ms. Coury, you stated the importance of
rebuilding the trust in the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative, and I share that interest there. Can you expand on
your efforts of what you are doing actively to engage military
families about their concerns and also reenforcing the bill of
rights?
Ms. Coury. Sure. That is a great question.
So I would say, each of the military departments and the
services have done a lot to try to increase their engagement
with the families. And, of course, again, COVID has made it a
little more challenging for one-on-one engagement and in-person
townhalls, but there have been a number of web-based townhalls
and meetings where they can have an opportunity to talk to the
families at large.
But each of the military services have implemented a plain-
language briefing, which is one of the things required by the
Tenant Bill of Rights, but the resident government team has
somebody meet with each family when they are entering their
lease and then to touch base with them again at usually 30, 60,
and 90 days after lease-signing to answer any questions, make
sure they understand if there was a lead-based-paint issue in
the home that it has been remediated, and the family needs to
be aware of that so they understand that and have a chance to
ask questions.
And, again, they have also--the military departments have
identified resident advocates that are at every installation,
except in a few cases where it is a very small site with very
few homes and they might be sharing an advocate with another
site, and then that person might be kind of part-time between
two locations.
But we are trying very hard to make sure that they have a
voice and a way to get help and ask questions. The Army and the
Air Force also still have 800 numbers that residents can call
if they have questions. And that is separate from the property
management for the actual projects themselves, which also
operate 24/7 call centers and do have in-person maintenance and
housing management leasing specialists there, but, you know,
just focusing on the government side.
For myself, I do go visit sites. I do meet with families
when I go visit. Most recently, I was at Fort Meade. And I took
the opportunity to step away from the government team and go
meet, you know, a little more on the side with a spouse and
hear what her thoughts were and what was going on there and any
suggestions she had. And so that was very informative. And, you
know, I will continue to do that, and, again, welcome the
opportunity to go out with any of the Members to their
installations.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
Just one other question: We have been hearing back long
wait times for military families in some housing locations.
What is the department doing to respond to those needs?
Ms. Coury. So my counter-office, the Under Secretary of
Defense, Personnel, and Readiness, they have, as you are
probably aware, extended the temporary lodging allowances at
some locations and then, through October through December of
last year, gave temporary increases in housing allowances at
some locations where there was truly an issue with finding
affordable available housing, with all of the rental price
increases.
At the locations where we know there are issues, we are
looking at ways to either, you know, work with the local
community on trying to provide additional housing--I will
remind everybody that the Department relies on off-base housing
first. Seventy percent or so of our members are housed off-base
in the U.S. But, in terms of on-base, we do a housing
requirements assessment usually every 3 to 5 years. That is
looking at the longer term.
You know, I don't know whether what is happening right now
with COVID, if that is going to be a long-term impact or not on
housing availability, but that is the means by which we
identify if there is a longer-term need that we need to address
through MilCon or maybe additional housing at the installation.
Many of the locations, though, right now, the military
departments have been working with the project companies to see
if there is a way that the project can accelerate investment in
units and, if there are units offline, to accelerate repairs,
replacement, mold remediation, whatever it is, to make those
homes available again for families. And that is one of the
things I am tracking in my quarterly programmatic reviews.
Over.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
And I am finished. I will yield back, Madam Chair. Thank
you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Great. Thank you so much, Mrs.
Lee.
I don't see Mr. Rutherford officially back, because that is
not him on that screen.
Okay. I think that we have gone through our list of
members, but before we conclude this panel, I want to read a
summary of the situation of how privatized military housing
works and how complex and tied in knots the government is to
try to extricate themselves and use the ultimate
accountability, which is terminating a contract.
So, in general, contracts are for 50 years each. The land
is government-owned and leased to the provider for that 50-year
time span. The provider builds and owns the houses placed on
that land. Ownership of the buildings that were previously
built and owned by the government are transferred to the
provider.
In order to fund these housing projects, the providers rely
on lenders, accruing a significant amount of debt. According to
DOD, if the government were to break or modify these contracts
under one of the terminations clauses, it would, A, require the
government to buy all of the buildings on said land; and, B,
would not automatically terminate the partnership but, instead,
replace the privatized housing company with the lenders,
essentially making the lenders the partners of the government.
Those lenders are obviously not property management
entities. If the government wanted to terminate the contract
and buy out the housing creditors, it would cost more than $40
billion up front. That does not include creating a management
office at DOD and hiring thousands of personnel to perform
management and support duties. Additionally, that $40 billion
does not include legal fees and paying the bondholders the
agreed-upon premiums, which they get regardless of termination
of contract.
I mean, it goes on, but, as you can see, we are really--as
good an idea as this may have seemed to be at the time, this is
a real mess that no entity should want to find themselves in,
where there is very little ability, in my view, to hold these
privatized military housing companies accountable, because they
have us backed into a corner with almost no ability to hold
them accountable, terminate their contract. They know it. And
they are, you know, multibillion-dollar companies who can
afford to make cost-of-doing-business decisions.
So this is a fine mess we find ourselves in. And I just--I
am determined for us to help make sure that everyone
responsible for taking care of these residents who are serving
our country is putting their nose to the grindstone to make
sure that any element of accountability that we can add and any
consequences, both carrots and sticks, is absolutely critical.
Judge, do you have anything else to add before we conclude
this panel?
Mr. Carter. It is very frustrating.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah.
Mr. Carter. That is all I will say.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I just wanted to read that
description of the complexity of this because I was stunned
when I learned how complex it was and how difficult it was for
us to get ourselves out of this situation, if we got to the
point where we wanted to.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, because I think we all need to know
that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. You are welcome.
Okay. Well, we certainly thank you both for your service
and appreciate the difficulty of the challenge in front of you.
Ms. Field, thank you for your assistance in helping us with
the accountability piece of this and the job you and your
colleagues do every day.
And, Ms. Coury, we have a lot of work to do here. And I
trust that you are committed to it, but we are going to need to
continue to engage very closely so that we can get these
problems addressed.
With that, we will pause briefly to transfer over to the
next panel.
I thank the witnesses.
[Recess.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We will now welcome our third panel,
who are in an unenviable position. I look forward to hearing
their testimony and asking them questions: Mr. Al Aycock,
military partnership executive for Corvias Military Living; Mr.
Philip J. Rizzo, CEO and COO of Liberty Military Housing; Mr.
Brian Stann, president and CEO of Hunt Military Communities;
Mr. Rick Taylor, president of facility operations, renovation,
and construction for Balfour Beatty Communities; and Ms.
Carolyn Tregarthen, management director of Lendlease
Communities.
The witnesses will provide testimony on their efforts to
improve the conditions in privatized military family housing.
In addition, they will provide details on their ongoing actions
to remedy the inadequate management of the program,
improvements they have already instituted, challenges they
face, and long-term plans for future progress.
Witnesses will speak in alphabetical order, beginning with
Mr. Aycock, followed by Mr. Rizzo, Mr. Stann, Mr. Taylor, and,
finally, Ms. Tregarthen.
Mr. Aycock, your full written testimony will be included in
the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize
your opening statement.
Mr. Aycock. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member
Carter, and distinguished members of the committee, it is my
privilege to appear before you to discuss the status of reforms
for privatized military family housing and Corvias's role in
advancing these reforms.
As my written testimony is on the record, rather than read
the verbal comments, I will simply speak from the heart, first,
about why I am here and, second, about PFC Calderon.
I am Major General Al Aycock, military partnership
executive with Corvias, and I am personally familiar with
military family housing, as my family lived in on-post housing
managed by the Army in multiple homes managed by three
different MHPI partners.
Twelve of my last 13 years of service focused on leading
and operating Army installations while taking care of Army
families, from the garrison level to the Pentagon. I had two
family members who qualified as EFMP and understand that
program.
I could read you a long list of our accomplishments in
terms of implementing the Tenant Bill of Rights, customer
service awards for work orders and energy programs. However, I
think it is more important to say this: We believe every
resident is important, and while we are hardly perfect, our
people on the ground try hard to earn the trust of our
residents.
While we received the Army hygienist's report that PFC
Calderon's home was cleared from our work, we are also
concerned about the communication. I travel, and I intend to
go, on the next trip, to the townhall at Fort Polk. I offer PFC
Calderon my attention during that particular time. I would like
to speak with him. I would like to learn his side. We are going
to fully participate in the ongoing operation that the garrison
has to ensure that the informal dispute resolution process
completes itself as intended by Congress.
Our company truly wants to be a leader in this particular
area. I came to this job as a result of being a senior
executive civilian working for the Special Operations Center,
and when the crisis started, I was part of the Army's team as
an SES to try to help fix this. And when the opportunity came
to help fix the program back to the way I saw it, it was a
golden opportunity to do something that would have a lasting
effort. I fully intend to continue to keep that pledge to
myself.
And I will conclude my comments there.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Rizzo, your full written testimony will be included in
the record, and you are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize
your opening statement.
Mr. Rizzo. Thank you, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking
Member Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
And thank you for the invitation today to testify on behalf of
the employee-owners of Liberty Military Housing.
Our team, many of whom are veterans and military spouses,
understand, as mentioned by Judge Carter, that every mission
begins at home. At the same time, we understand we still have
work to do. We continue to listen to the voices of our
families, and when we fall short of expectations, like the
experiences shared this morning, we sincerely regret it and
will take steps to get better. Our military families deserve
exemplary service, and we are committed to delivering.
We appreciate your commitment to improving the lives of our
military families and, by extension, our national defense.
While we had industry-leading satisfaction scores in 2018, it
was evident from what families shared that the data did not
tell the whole story. So we took a hard look in the mirror to
analyze our processes.
At the same time, at the last hearing, it was clear from
you, Madam Chair, that we needed to move quickly from analysis
to action. Since the first housing hearing, LMH has executed a
reinvestment of $700 million, impacting thousands of homes and
military families. In the next 5 years, we will reinvest
another $700 million.
Following the 2020 hearings, we took additional steps to
increase our customer service training and added technology to
allow families to submit and track their requests. We also had
an environmental firm review our SOPs for addressing mold and
adopted their recommendations. We launched a proactive campaign
to reach out to all 36,000 families to see what more we could
do to better meet their needs, something that we now do every
year. We also fully implemented the Tenant Bill of Rights. And
with the impact of COVID being especially hard on our families,
we partnered to help close the food insecurity gap with grocery
pick-up events.
As a result of all these efforts to support and serve, our
families have responded positively. Their feedback we are
continuing to improve and rolled out new initiatives last year.
We reviewed our team's training where most companies average 35
hours annually; our team members now each complete over 150
hours, increasing our total annual training hours from 10,000 a
year to 160,000 in 2021.
We also have assigned staff to complete the AMRT and WRT
certifications to the IICRC PFC Calderon referenced. These
elevated certifications now give our staff the highest level of
understanding in addressing water intrusion and mold. Given the
frequent moves we have heard of the struggle that spouses have
had in finding careers, in response we have hired over 100
military spouses who are now proud owners with Liberty.
We renegotiated our business agreements as recommended by
the GAO so the fee structure now better reflects the needs of
our families. Lastly in 2021, LMH transitioned from being a
privately held partnership to an employee-owned company where
our newly revised incentives mean that our team members'
financial security is directly tied to our military family
satisfaction.
Creating a win-win that will ensure our interests are
aligned going forward at every level with exemplary service to
our families at the center. While we have made significant
strides in the last 2 years, we are not done. LMH continues to
welcome the oversight and these hearings to evaluate our
progress against your expectations.
On behalf of our employee owners and the work they do every
day, thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rizzo.
Mr. Stann, your full written testimony will be included in
the record. You are recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your
opening statement.
Mr. Stann. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member
Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, good
afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to be here.
My name is Brian Stann, and I am the president and CEO of
Hunt Military Communities. I have over 15 years of leadership
experience leading military units in combat and private sector
organizations after I left Active Duty. This includes building
a veteran employment assistance company, board leaderships and
advisement positions for several other veteran service
organizations, and the building of private single-family
housing companies.
I was drawn to Hunt Military Communities. I was drawn here
due to my love and admiration for servicemembers and their
families. I know and understand the sacrifices they make on a
daily basis.
Upon taking this role, I set four strategic priorities, all
intended to provide better service to our residents. First, we
are making process improvements in greater investments in
compliance across our portfolio. We brought on new leadership
team that shares my vision of promoting consistent, great
service to our military families. And we are focused on
improving all of our operational processes to give a more
efficient and consistent [inaudible].
Second, we are investing in technology to enhance the
living experience in our home, improve our communication with
our residents. I am not afraid of change. I refuse to sit back
and accept the status quo. I have personally developed and led
change in the property and management industry before, and am
excited about the opportunity to do so again.
Third, implementing a performance [inaudible]. We set
aggressive goals, accountability, and excellence. I will
personally set the tone at the top, and I am focused on
recruiting and retaining the best talent possible because that
is what our residents deserve to run this company.
My leadership team will personally walk our homes and do
[inaudible] Partner with our residents, and have direct
[inaudible], inspecting what we expect for our servicemembers.
Lastly, we are analyzing financial performance and
prioritizing reinvestment into our communities, along with the
internal improvements necessary to enhance the living
experience for our military families. In 2021 and 2022, we
expect to invest approximately $243 million in capital
improvement projects.
Before I close, I would like to address the company's
recent settlement with the Department of Justice, which I
understand to be of interest to the subcommittee. From my
perspective as someone who took over the leadership of this
company, three things were critical to me. First, these issues
were isolated to a single installation or not indicative of
larger issues across our portfolio. Second, the resolution
concerned legacy matters from 2013 to 2019 that pre-dated
[inaudible] Changes that we made to our compliance program over
the past 2-plus years.
And third, there are no findings of intentional fraud and
no admission of wrongdoing.
The company ultimately decided to enter into a civil
settlement with the Department for $500,000 in order to put the
matter behind us, focus on the future with a fresh start. Hunt
Military Communities is excited about the priorities in front
of us and the innovation we are undergoing.
Most of all, we are passionate about continuously improving
in order to provide the best service possible to our residents.
We take our role and force readiness seriously in providing
communities that are great places for our military families to
call home.
I thank you for your invitation to testify today, and I
look forward to answering questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Stann.
Mr. Taylor, your full written testimony will be included in
the record. You are recognized for 3 minutes to summarize your
opening statement.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Wasserman
Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of
the subcommittee. My name is Rick Taylor. I am co-president of
Balfour Beatty Communities. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
I want to emphasize that Balfour Beatty Communities is
committed to providing our Nation's servicemen and women and
their families safe, quality homes and responsive, professional
property management.
I served in the United States Navy as a civil engineer, so
I feel a personal affinity and strong sense of responsibility
towards our military members and their families.
The housing crisis was a wake-up call, and I truly believe
that MHPI and our company is better because of the
congressional actions that began 3 years ago. Before I get into
the initiatives we have undertaken over the last 3 years, I
want to address the DOJ criminal and civil investigations.
As you know, the company recently concluded legal
proceedings with DOJ related to specific performance incentive
fees. We cooperated fully with the DOJ throughout its
investigation and have been transparent on the matter with all
stakeholders, including DOD, our military service partners, and
the Congress.
We have worked to understand the root cause of employee
misconduct and undertook an in-depth review of our operations.
As a result of our findings, we took significant steps to
prevent this type of miscontact from ever recurring. We are
focused on moving forward and are committed to continuing to
improve the resident experience across our military housing
portfolio.
Over the past 3 years, Balfour Beatty Communities has fully
implemented the Tenant Bill of Rights, including providing a 7-
year maintenance history to perspective tenants and current
residents upon request. And since June 1st of 2021, we have
provided maintenance histories to more than 15,000 perspective
tenants, and have had just 19 decline the home they were being
offered. It is less than .2 percent.
Additionally, we fully participate in the Air Force, Army,
and Navy dispute resolution process, which provides
servicemember residents the ability to request rent withholding
pending an independent review of their claims. To date, we have
had just one resident complete a formal dispute resolution
process out of our portfolio of more than 43,000 homes.
We have improved our level of transparency and we are one
team with our military partners. Our unified approach is
powerful and ensures our military residents get the best
experience possible. We are partnered up and down the chain of
command with each of the military services from the
installation level to the Pentagon. This means we are
collaborating and solving problems together, and our metrics
show the approach is working.
Members of the committee, we ask you to help us explore
innovative ways to enhance the long-term financial viability of
the MHPI, including OMB scoring of new projects and project
refinancing, leveraging reinvestment account deposits, and
basic allowance for housing rate stabilization.
As a company, we have learned a lot and we are committed to
making things right. Our actions over the last 3 years are
representative of our commitment. We acknowledge there is more
work to do, and our teams are continuing to collaborate with
all stakeholders to deliver ongoing improvements. Our residents
deserve the best. We are determined to deliver for them.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
Lastly, Ms. Tregarthen, your full written testimony will be
included in the record. You are recognized for 3 minutes to
summarize your opening statement.
Ms. Tregarthen. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking
Member Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
my name is Carolyn Tregarthen. I am the managing director of
Lendlease Communities.
Madam Chair, we last appeared before you in March 2020.
Much has happened since then, including a global pandemic that
challenged all of us in ways we could not have imagined.
In March 2020, the fiscal year 2020 NDAA was recently
enacted with its many reforms to MHPI. Additionally, the fiscal
year 2020 appropriations bill from this very subcommittee was
just enacted, which included an additional $140 million for DOD
to hire more housing inspectors. Lendlease moved swiftly to
implement the reforms in the fiscal year 2020 NDAA, including
the Tenant Bill of Rights. Lendlease was one of the first
private sector partners to propose a dispute resolution process
when Congress first began debating MHPI performance.
We were the first private sector housing partner to provide
the 7-year history of the home to all our residents, and we
were one of the first private sector partners to introduce the
universal lease across our entire portfolio. As you know, the
MHPI program was enacted out of the critical need to modernize
all military housing that had fallen into disrepair.
Congress and DOD made the decision to partner with the
private sector to bring private capital and private sector
capability to help rebuild military family housing.
Since 2001, we have invested more than $7.4 billion to
build over 15,000 new homes, renovate more than 25,000 existing
homes across our MHPI portfolio. We are continuing this
historic private sector investment.
Last year, we announced new private financing that will
bring an additional $1.1 billion to make further housing
improvements across several installations in our Army
portfolio.
This new capital, new private capital, will allow us to
renovate more than 12,000 homes, build more than 1,200 new
homes, and demolish over 2,000 legacy homes.
Additionally, as part of our work in Hawaii, Lendlease is
modernizing energy and water systems for more than 8,200 homes.
That will reduce energy consumption by over 32 percent. While
we improve the housing at our installations, we are also
improving our own operations to better serve our customers.
Currently we are undertaken several care initiatives that will
make us an even more customer-focused organization.
As you know, we have created our resident advisory board
program, empowered our team members to address resident issues
on the spot, and focus on data analysis to look for trending
issues and quickly develop solutions. This is not to suggest
privatization is without its challenges. At Lendlease, we dealt
with a massive hurricane that hit Camp Lejeune in North
Carolina, Winter Storm Uri that hit Fort Hood in Texas,
remained on the job for our families through the COVID-19
pandemic, and supported our residents through the Red Hill fuel
leak that impacted the potable water in Hawaii.
Each of these situations is unique, but one common
denominator remains the same: Our families need our help and we
rise to the occasion. We believe these changes have improved
the quality of life for our residents and this is our top
priority. After all, our residents are our customers, but more
importantly, they are members of the Armed Forces of the United
States, and they expect and deserve our very best.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Tregarthen. I
appreciate the detail in your response.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Okay. So we will--thank you for all of your opening
statements. We will proceed in the standard 5-minute rounds,
alternating sides, recognizing members in order of seniority as
they were seated at the beginning of the hearing, and please be
mindful of your time and allow the witnesses time to answer
within your 5-minute turn.
My first question is really of all of you, and if you could
each answer somewhat briefly, but in detail. Except for Ms.
Tregarthen, all of your opening statements feel like pablum. I
don't feel like there was any substance, any effort to address
the very real challenges that still exist.
It doesn't feel like there has been any progress made since
the last hearing we had on this subject and I realize that, you
know, the changes that were made in the accountability that we
put in place, you know, really only was implemented fully, but
we shouldn't need any of these accountability measures.
You should already be doing what it is we are trying to
hold you accountable to be responsible for. That is what you
agreed to when the government entered into these contracts with
you to take over our military housing and privatizing from
which you profit, richly.
So I would like to know, without you suggesting that we
have only just implemented these accountability measures, why
this still is clearly a pervasive systemic problem with lack of
responsiveness, with lack of expertise, with people still
dealing with mold and other challenges in their homes that are
causing health problems?
Each of you, please, answer me why we haven't seen
significant change since the last time we had this hearing? We
can go in order of the way you gave your statements.
Mr. Aycock. Thank you, ma'am, for the opportunity. I will
start off with what has been done, and then what needs to be
done. We took the Tenant Bill of Rights and implemented them on
time. We made sure that we put money back into the program and
we were the first company to do so.
We ensured that we had a focus on customer service and all
of our customer service ratings had been at the level----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry. This is nonresponsive. I
am asking you why hasn't there been more progress, because
whatever you have done to this point, isn't enough. So why has
there not been--why are our military tenants still experiencing
horrific problems and not experiencing better responsiveness to
address those problems since the last time we had this hearing
with your housing?
Mr. Aycock. So, ma'am, I believe that the answer to your
question is going to rattle along these lines right here. We
are working extremely through challenging conditions. We have
had some hiring difficulties along the way as a result of some
of the issues with getting good work folks in, but we have
people on the ground who are doing that. It is not the quality
of the people; it is with the numbers of the people that we are
facing a challenge with.
We are working through that as quickly as we possibly can.
We are taking every effort we can to listen to our customers
and we will continue to do a better job of each of those
particular areas.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is nonresponsive also, but
okay.
Next.
Mr. Rizzo. Thank you, Chairwoman. I think one of the
challenges that we had as an industry and partnership with the
DOD was--and this came out in the 2019 hearings is looking at
things on the aggregate, looking at survey scores that were
high, looking at the annual resident satisfaction scores, and I
think we all thought we had solved everything.
And I think what highlighted for us at Liberty, then
Lincoln, in 2019 was to look at the exceptions. And so one of
the things that we put in place in the last 3 years was to
really focus on the number of survey scores that come under
three-five, under that unaccountable range, and have a
proactive approach to reach out to those individuals to find
out what happened and change our process.
I want to thank Mrs. Wylie, not just for her testimony
today, but for her husband's service, and, by extension, her
service. But I also appreciate that she mentioned that her
issues were addressed. I think she actually reached for me my
first or second week in this seat, and I immediately got her to
our regional vice president who contacted her, our senior vice
president of construction went out and was transparent about
our approach.
We have actually made improved changes since then. I think
we continue to find improvements and opportunities in finding
those exceptions as opportunities to get better and, again, I
appreciate the feedback and opportunity to do that going
forward. And that is our approach.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Mr. Taylor. Madam Chairwoman, I would offer from my
perspective, I think, notwithstanding the challenges that Mr.
Aycock talked about over the last couple of years, the data
that we are looking at and we look at a number of KPIs and we
look at it not just through our own lens, but we are sharing it
with our military partners.
And I would offer that when you look at the statistics of
how we have improved over the last couple of years, things are
getting better, but I grant you things are not perfect. And it
is incumbent upon all of us to identify, have the ability to
identify quickly where things are not perfect and have
actionable plans in place that we work together with our
military housing partners.
There is a very active engagement between our teams on the
ground and our MHO partners all the way up to Pentagon level
where we are----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry. I am sorry. You are too
far afield of answering my question. Why hasn't there been more
improvement since our last hearing? Why are we still having
lots and lots of people covered by Balfour Beatty, setting
aside the fraud that you engaged in and that you pled guilty
to, why are your tenants still having the massive problems that
they are complaining of?
Mr. Taylor. Ma'am, as I said, we are not perfect. We do
make some mistakes, but I would offer that we are seeing
improvement and we have got good anecdotal evidence to support
that. That doesn't mean that, you know--I don't know how many
of servicemembers are informing you where they are pleased, but
when we look at our customer satisfaction rates, they are
improving. But that--again, it is incumbent upon us to address
those areas where we are falling short.
We have got processes in place to be able to do just that
and we have diagnosed those not just, again, through our own
lens, we are engaged with our military housing partner to
address those. But the statistics that we are looking at, our
military housing partners are looking at are showing
improvement.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If they are anecdotal, then they are
not really useful.
Okay. Mr. Stann.
Mr. Stann. Chairwoman Schultz, I truly appreciate your
concern here, and I appreciate your question. Upon coming to
this company 9\1/2\ months ago, I injected a tremendous amount
of change that we are currently undergoing from leadership
changes to a focus on process improvement and compliance.
In the trailing 12 months, when you look at the [inaudible]
of this company, we have thousands and thousands of
interactions with our residents. It is a company that is run by
humans, and so we are going to be prone to human error. What we
need to do is continuously find systematic, hard and soft
controlled around our policies and procedures, so that when
human error does occur, we react much faster to address it for
our residents.
We have fulfilled 351,000 work orders in the last 12
months. Right around 90 percent of them were fulfilled on time
with an average survey score in a survey that we do not control
by our government partners, a satisfaction rate of 4.6 out of
five. That is the starting point from where we are starting at
Hunt Military Communities, and I will not rest and I will not
take for granted where we are right now, and only focus on
continuously improving that.
Through the implementation of technology that could rapidly
and instantaneously highlight when there is a miss, when a
customer is unsatisfied, so that we can very quickly deploy a
technician or someone to that home to address their issue. We
cannot rely on archaic processes and procedures, phone calls,
tracking through email inboxes, to address these issues.
We are currently in pursuit of those systematic
implementations utilizing technology and the best talent that
we can recruit and retain the business.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So your answer is that, those
deficiencies are the reasons--that have not been yet corrected
are the reasons that you still are having problems?
Mr. Stann. No. What I am saying is, when you listen to the
other executives of these companies, we talk about what has
been improved and as I showcased, that is not anecdotal.
351,000 work orders is not anecdotal. A completion percentage
on time around 90 percent and the resident satisfaction of 4.6,
it is real, but that does not mean that any miss, anybody who
is not satisfied, and when we have residents who testified
earlier, it is unacceptable.
We have to continuously improve our processes so when that
happens and we have an issue like that PFC mentioned with his
family, it is reacted to immediately, and the problem is solved
quickly and in satisfaction with our military partners and our
military residents.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And last but not least, Ms.
Tregarthen.
Ms. Tregarthen. So Chairman Wasserman Schultz, I would like
to emphasize a number of things that we have done I feel we
have improved over the last 2 years, and if I can just put
things into categories. Firstly, we are engaging in significant
development across our portfolio. As I mentioned, we have
secured 1.1 in private sector--$1.1 billion in private sector
financing, which we are investing across our Army portfolio.
In addition to that, we have approximately $600 million
worth of development going on across the broader portfolio, and
that is really focused on renovating homes and, where possible,
demolishing old neighborhoods and building new homes. We are
extremely engaged with our customers with a number of levels of
customer feedback starting from our resident advisory boards,
which are made up of residents who are elected by their
communities to serve on the advisory board and they meet with
both our leadership and local command leadership on a monthly
basis to talk through any issues. They also have direct lines
into both, again, our property and asset management leadership
and local Army, Air Force, or Marine leadership to talk about
issues that come up in between.
We have--we introduced in 2018 an app which can also be a
portal called Military Cafe where residents can, if they choose
to, load work orders. I would note that they can also call work
orders in to our maintenance solution center, which is staffed
by well-trained individuals----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Ms. Tregarthen, and I
appreciate all the effort that you are--that is being made, but
if you can just give me some window into why--is it just that
it takes time to implement all these significant changes to
improve? Why has there not been more progress?
Ms. Tregarthen. So, Madam Chairman, I would respectfully
argue that there has been progress, certainly on--I can only
comment clearly on Lendlease projects, but I would argue that
there has been progress. And I think we have much better
connectivity with our residents to understand when there are
issues and we are--we go about solving those issues as quickly
as possible, and in as much of a resident-friendly way as
possible to make sure that we are looking after our military
families in a much better way than potentially was the case in
the past.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Well, I would like some
evidence from each of you for the record to--that demonstrates
what your complaints are, and, you know, how quickly response
time is, how they are getting resolved, and make sure that, you
know, we are not just taking your word for it.
So if each of you could provide that information for the
record, and I will have my staff make sure that they are very
specific about what we are looking for.
I thank the committee's indulgence.
Judge Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions
or, you know, longer if you need it.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Okay. Why did this happen in the first place? From you and
your corporate entity viewpoint, why did we get behind the
eight ball on maintenance? Who are you laying the blame on? I
would like to hear it from each of you.
I guess they couldn't hear me.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Why don't you proceed in the same
alphabetical order, Mr. Aycock.
Mr. Carter. Okay, Rizzo.
Mr. Aycock. Ma'am, it was difficult to hear the question.
Could it please be repeated?
Mr. Carter. Okay. Why did this happen in the first place?
Did you get that?
Mr. Aycock. Yes, sir, I did. Sir, I would tell you that I
agreed with the other CEOs here. We have made a lot of progress
and when things along these lines happen, we believe they are
anomalies and we take action on the anomalies as quickly as we
possibly can.
In this particular case, we know that we did some of the
things right that needed to be done. However, at the end
result, we need to take and make sure that that communication
goes down to that particular level and so those are some of the
things that we can do to make sure this goes right.
Mr. Carter. I know what you are doing, or claiming you are
doing. I am asking you, why did it happen in the first place?
You have to have a discussion with your board somewhere saying,
Hey, did you read these reports? Why is this happening? If you
are concerned about the ordinary soldier.
Mr. Rizzo, what do you think?
Mr. Rizzo. Thank you, Judge Carter. I think, as I mentioned
to chairwoman, it really was a factor of where we were and I
grew up in military housing, the son of an Air Force officer, I
was Active Duty, and where we were 30 years ago to where we
were 20 years ago was a massive change. And I think what
happened was a lot of education around the initial time that we
privatized and I think we--it was a big gap between where we
were when it was completely government-owned and the work that
was done in the first couple years, and I think, honestly, we
believed our own press.
I think we own that as the managing member. We own that we
looked at the aggregate scores being 20 points higher than they
were in the 1990s and we thought, well, we have arrived. And I
think we didn't take, as I mentioned to the chairwoman, enough
attention to the individual issues that were coming up
repeatedly. And as Pat Coury mentioned earlier this morning,
that--that really can get masked when you are talking about
200,000 homes.
You know, if 10,000 people are unhappy, you say, Well, 5
percent of the people, isn't that okay? It is not okay. As Mr.
Stann mentioned, 1 percent isn't okay and one person isn't
okay. These are people who sacrificed and served, and we need
to deliver the service that they deserve every day. And so, I
think looking in the mirror 4 years ago, 3 years ago and
saying, Okay, let's look at the exceptions instead of looking
at the aggregate score. And I think going forward that will be
the solution, is not turning a deaf ear to these one-off
issues, but digging in and finding out where the gaps are in
our processes, so no one falls through them.
Mr. Carter. To save a little time, does everybody more or
less agree with Mr. Rizzo?
Mr. Stann. Ranking Member Carter, I appreciate the concern,
and if I might add some perspective being the newest member on
this panel, the institutionalization of single-family detached
real estate did not exist at scale prior to privatized military
housing. This program was the first attempt at doing something.
It did also did not exist in the private sector until post the
Great Recession in 2013 and 2014.
So, I think this industry has had to take the lumps of
being a first mover in a brand-new industry from the deal
conception and how these deals were constructed to how they
actually went about operating the business. Over the last 3
years, tremendous amounts of new companies have been borne,
specifically for property technology. Meant to help companies
like ours better manage single-family detached real estate
specifically in the areas of resident experience and improving
our service to our residents. How often we communicate with
them, how quickly, and how much we can track that
communication, how we can hold ourselves accountable, and how
much we can improve the service to our homes?
When we look at why this industry has had the stumbles that
it has had, I think that is a big part of it. And I think what
it is taking place in the Tenant Bill of Rights and the NDAA
and the new regulations that are put in place, I think that
these are working, they are improving things. The onset of
COVID and us having to change everything we do, specifically in
terms of maintenance. A lot of our residents of Hunt Military
Communities were not comfortable with people coming into their
homes to fix certain things. So there was a pause placed on
routine work orders that can then build into larger problems
that our residents may not know is available.
So everybody is catching up there, right, right now to get
these units back up online. And I would say that as right now,
I feel that Hunt Military Communities has reduced that backlog
of work orders that was borne from COVID, and as I used as an
example before with the 350,000 work orders responded to with
90 percent being on time completions that there is improvement,
but we cannot get complacent and will continue to improve at
all cost.
Mr. Carter. Thank you very much.
When my house got Stachybotrys mold, we were out of our
house for 8 months and my wife was not a happy camper, and she
kept asking me, why are they doing all this? Is it so it
doesn't look dangerous? I said, I don't know, but my guess is
that somebody just got a judgment against an insurance company
for not taking care of the mold problem down in Travis County
for $5 million, and they would rather spend $88,000 on our
house than $5 million on a lawsuit.
Are we going to turn the trial lawyers loose? Is that what
it is going to take? You might want to answer.
Mr. Taylor. I would just offer up that I think through the
past several years, I am sure that I speak for many of my
colleagues, all of them, to talk about, you know, the level of
scrutiny that we undertake with environmental issues. It was
alarming to us as well to see the number of issues that were
present in a lot of our military housing, a lot of it tied to
the challenging conditions that Ms. Coury talked about, aging
infrastructure and, you know, introducing, you know, HVAC to an
environment that has never been there. But we have taken a
redoubling of effort to make sure that we have got, you know,
much better processes, tighter processes, you know.
We take a far more conservative view than what--even what
49 of the 50 States require in terms of the way that we manage
mold issues relative to the size of the issue. So, you know, we
have, you know--we followed the guidance that government
agencies provide in managing those issues, but we have learned
that we need to be better than, you know, what the typical
States require in making sure that we have got, you know,
professional assistance along the way with mold assessors and
professional mold remediation companies to ensure that we are
addressing those issues as expeditiously as we can.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. Madam Chair, I have run out of time,
but I do have one more series of questions when we finish.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I do too. I do too. So we will do
another round when we go through. Thank you, Judge.
Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking
Member. This is such an important hearing to have today. When
we talk about our national security assets, nothing is more
important than our men and women who serve and their families
and making sure that they all have quality housing and resident
services. So I hope that we continue to work together to
improve that experience.
Mrs. Lee. I will say, I represent southern Nevada. We have
Creech Air Force Base and Nellis. And I must say, I have heard
from many families, that they shared some positive experiences
with their privatized military housing, especially the
widespread adoption of the bill of rights. So I just, you know,
I want to lay that out there but also make sure that we are not
complacent and we work so that we don't hear testimony like we
heard from the first panel.
To that end, I have a few questions to Mr. Stann, given
your leadership of Hunt Military Communities, which oversees
Nellis. You mentioned your efforts to invest in technology and
communication platforms to enhance the living experience for
Nellis families and also to improve communication. Can you just
expand on what that effort entails, please?
Mr. Stann. Absolutely, Congresswoman. And I appreciate very
much your concern, and I appreciate the question. I am excited
to talk about this.
We have already begun to implement a unified communication
platform across all of our installations, all of our community
centers and their sites, so that we could have centralized data
down to every single phone call and have that recorded so that
we could review it for customer service satisfaction levels and
for follow-on training with our employees.
This will give us an insight into data in terms of how many
phone calls we get at every office; how long people have to
wait until the phone is answered; if they left a voicemail, how
quickly we have gotten back to them. This is an investment in
an ability [inaudible].
In addition to that, we have built a new data architecture
that could allow us to centralize all of our KPIs and utilize
advanced forms of machine learning to automate exception
reporting to let us know when we are doing incorrect things or
if we miss--or we perform a work order and somebody is not
satisfied.
Having technology infrastructure that is also aligned to
the process and procedures that we conduct to serve our
residents, communicate to our residents, is instrumental in
scaling this across the board and alerting leaders to making
sure we can hold people accountable and, most importantly, so
that we can improve, so that we can measure ourselves and say,
okay, we are at a 4.6 out of 5 in terms of our work orders now;
how do we get that to 4.8? Because there is no stop, there is
no complacency. This team needs to remain vigilant in all that
we do.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. Is that information available? Like,
will we be able to see that data?
Mr. Stann. Representative, I can make that available, and I
will follow up with your office to send it to you.
Mrs. Lee. Great. That would be helpful.
Finally, I just want to focus on the housing allowance
that, you know, enables you to meet your needs. Does the
current BAH, is it sufficient for your housing needs and for
home repairs and construction?
Mr. Stann. Congresswoman, that is a phenomenal question,
and the answer is no.
More importantly than our ability to conduct maintenance
and reinvest in these homes, it is our servicemembers. As Ms.
Coury discussed, over 70 percent of our servicemembers live
off-base. And especially in southern Nevada and Las Vegas,
where rents have increased in double-digit numbers year over
year the last 2 years, that BAH has not been suitable for them
to find adequate housing when we have extremely high occupancy
rates and a long-term waitlist.
That being said, as it pertains to privatized military
housing, our expenses have all gone up in the current supply-
chain crisis, everything that we buy to maintain these homes,
the price we have to pay contractors--and the labor market. The
cost of a qualified maintenance technician with the appropriate
certifications to fix what is necessary in these homes now has
to be paid more than they used to. And those rates, along with
inflation, have increased a lot more than the basic housing
allowance.
If you look back at the modeling of this business at the
inception of the program, it was estimated that BAH would grow
at 3 percent a year when they designed this business. It has
been drastically under that annual increase.
But what concerns me most isn't our business. What concerns
me most is our force readiness and the fact that I have friends
who are still wearing uniforms, still serving, who can't rent a
home because they can't afford it, so they are coming out of
pocket to rent their homes, or they are getting boxed out
because the VA loan is no longer taken because our housing
market is so hot that sellers don't want to deal with the
process of the VA loan and those inspections.
Mrs. Lee. I had another question, but I am out of time. But
thank you.
I yield. Thank you.
Mr. Stann. I will follow up, Congresswoman. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mrs. Lee.
Next, Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Appreciate the panel for being on here.
I will start with Mr. Stann.
I know you served in the military, and I know you watched
the first panel with Private Calderon. My question is, do you
believe him?
Mr. Stann. I have--you know, first off, Congressman
Gonzales, thank you for your service. Obviously, I read about
your background. Anybody who does 20 years, obtains the rank of
master chief, that is just a phenomenal career, so thank you.
I appreciate that question. And yes. Anybody who has the
courage to come on camera and sit in front of us in their
uniform, I absolutely believe him. And we should believe him,
right?
The steps to solving that problem are sitting and
investigating it thoroughly, which, in my experience in the
9\1/2\ months that I have been here, the dispute resolution
process has worked very well to do that. As designed, we have
had a number of those cases come through, and they have been
successful.
Mr. Gonzales. Right.
We saw in the second panel Secretary Coury mention that
about 2 percent of the overall inventory is having issues. Do
you believe her?
Mr. Stann. I do believe her. That being said, in 9\1/2\
months, I want to see it with my own eyes. I think Pat Coury is
a phenomenal partner and champion in this industry and she does
a really nice job holding us accountable. But, as I stated in
my opening comments, I want to be on the ground.
Next week, I will be in your district. I will be in San
Antonio. I will be walking at Randolph and Laughlin to inspect
what I expect as a leader, walking these units and visually
making sure that the data I see through our technology systems
is actually what is taking place on the ground and in these
homes. And I will communicate with our residents. I will talk
directly to them.
Mr. Gonzales. So 2 percent of the overall inventory is
4,000 homes. That is a lot of people.
Last month, in Hawaii, there was an article that came out,
and I am going to read part of it:
``Single mom Christine Roberts rents a home at Radford
Terrace owned by Hunt Military Community. But the last three
months she and her three kids have been living in a Waikiki
hotel room. On Tuesday, she found out she still can't return
home because testing turned up a contaminant unrelated to the
Red Hill incident.''
From her: `` `They have taken so much from us,' said
Roberts, `but the worst thing they have taken from us is our
sense of safety.' ''
Do you believe her?
Mr. Stann. I absolutely believe her, and I think that this
incident took place is awful.
And some of the things that we have done to better serve
our residents out there is we employ a [inaudible] Like that on
our team--in fact, that live in our housing in Hawaii. And we
are also [inaudible] was within our control and work with our
military partners to get clean, potable water to our residents,
worked with them to make sure that they were aware of the
information, TLA, temporary living assistance, for them, and do
what we can to get them back in their homes, long term, safely,
and assisting our government partners in deploying all of the
operations they had to to clean and certify every single home
and their water sources prior to them moving back in.
Mr. Gonzales. Sure.
The article goes on to say--and I will stop here and
continuing the questioning. The article goes on to say, ``All
this time, Roberts said she has continued to pay her rent. And
now she's told if she signs a new lease to stay at Radford
Terrace past March, her rent will go up by $175.''
My question is, did that happen? Did you all increase the
rent on this woman's home while she wasn't in her home due to
contaminants that were found?
Mr. Stann. So, Congressman, I will have to take a look to
confirm what she said, but, at face value, I don't have reason
to not believe her.
We have afforded (ph) every resident with a home at Joint
Base Pearl Harbor to break their lease free of charge. If they
wanted to move out and find different housing, we absolutely
allowed that, and we helped them to do that, only if the
resident chose to do so.
In terms of the allotment to pay for [inaudible], that
money, the lion's share of that money, goes towards the
sustainment and reinvestment in these housing projects. And as
I mentioned before----
Mr. Gonzales. I will stop right there. These are the type
of situations that I get talked to about every day. Every day
somebody, in some form or fashion, will relay a story like
that, all across the United States. And, to me, it is wrong to
raise rent on a single parent when she is not even in her home;
you know, she is in a hotel due to no fault of her own.
I have many more questions. I would just say, like, these
are the type of things that are an issue. And it is a reason
why we are seeing, you know, military folks like Private
Calderon say, I am not going to re-up, you know? And it should
not be that way. It is so critical to our manning, it is so
critical to our national security.
Madam Chair, I have many more questions, but I want to be
respectful of the time, so I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales.
Okay, members, votes have been called. This first vote is
15 minutes, so we have some time, but if we can--Mr.
Rutherford, you are the last one to ask questions, and then I
know Judge Carter and I have another question. So I want to try
to get all of us in before we have to leave.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will keep
this brief.
So I thought, Mr. Stann, you made an interesting point when
you talked about, you know, this was a new effort that you all
were moving into. But my question is: Surely, before you went
into these negotiated contracts and all, did you all not make
stock evaluations of what these properties looked like before
you agreed to take this on?
Mr. Stann. Congressman, I think that is a great question.
Unfortunately, I wasn't here at the inception of this program.
What I can say is, to my knowledge, yes. That being said,
it is not just the financial modeling and the underwriting of
this, right? It is the operationalizing and institutionalizing
of detached single-family homes, which simply didn't, right? It
existed in multifamily and student housing, but it did not
exist in [inaudible], where it creates and takes a greater
level of expertise from a maintenance perspective to take care
of these homes.
Because of the variety of housing stock and some of the
historic housing, these homes each require a different level of
maintenance and reinvestment to keep them suitable for our
military families.
Mr. Rutherford. So let me interrupt you, because I am
trying to save some time here.
So do you have a window where you think that issue will go
away and you will know what your stock is?
And then kind of a followup to that--and I will yield back
after this. The basic allowance for housing is obviously an
integral part of this whole process. Do you believe that there
is a sufficient amount of capital to complete the DOD's
requested improvements to communities in a timely manner?
Mr. Stann. So, great question. What I would say is, we do
know our stock now. I was answering at the inception of the
program, where I couldn't answer that since I wasn't here.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
Mr. Stann. In terms of the housing allowance, I would tell
you that certain locations--we don't know how it is calculated,
but we have certain locations, to include Hawaii, which has
some of the fastest-growing real estate prices in the country,
that the BAH has been reduced, and we don't know why. So there
are certain locations and markets where, no, it is not
sufficient.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
And this will be my last question, Madam Chair.
Mr. Rizzo, I have to ask, Ms. Christian in the first panel,
from the advocacy group, mentioned one of your facilities in
San Diego having nine children having fallen out of windows.
And I apologize if this has already been gone over. I had to
step out briefly.
But, number one, can you tell me, is that truly happening?
And, number two, if it is true, what the heck are you guys
doing about it?
Mr. Rizzo. Yes. Thank you for that question,
Representative.
First of all, I want to thank the English family and their
advocacy in ensuring that Evan's legacy lives on with Evan's
Law. We have actually worked very closely with them to help
educate our families.
LMH takes window safety very seriously, and one child is
too many. And we have worked closely with the DOD and our Navy
partners since 2011 to promote window safety. The education at
move-in, the Navy added that to their in-brief, as well as the
Army and the Marine Corps.
And what Liberty has done in the last--actually, since the
2018 NDAA--there was language in there about window-opening
control devices being on new construction and new renovations.
Liberty actually took the steps of retrofitting 58,000 windows
in the last 3 years with the window-opening control devices
that help limit the opening of windows.
Mr. Rutherford. So all those events occurred before your
remodeling?
Mr. Rizzo. Regrettably, Representative, we have actually
had two incidents that have happened with windows that had
opening control devices on them. And the reason is, these
devices meet ASTM F2090, which allows them to be opened in the
case of a fire for egress, right? So we have far more fires
than we have these incidents. And I was surprised to hear that
there are, you know, 5,000 to 15,000 ER visits across the
country a year, which shocked me to see that number, not in PPV
but outside of it.
So I think, with the education, we have improved where we
are relative to the economy. We have a lot of work to do, I
think, in educating. The Navy has done a great job in helping
get out a campaign. We do window safety, which is actually next
week, so you will see promotions on that.
But that won't solve it. I will tell you that, if we put
window-opening control devices--which, you know, we are
trending towards--on every window, the fact that a child can
still open it--we had a 4-year-old open one of them, because--
--
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
Mr. Rizzo [continuing]. They have to be open in the event
of a fire. It is really about education and how can we better
communicate that to our families.
I appreciate the question.
Mr. Rutherford. You need to find a better remodeling, I
think.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford. We are
going to deal with this issue of children falling out of
windows as we develop the chair's mark, so----
Mr. Rutherford. Amen.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. That I can assure you.
Okay. I am going to ask my questions and then go to Judge
Carter. Because, lest we think that we are not going to address
the issue of the massive fraud that at least two of these
companies engaged in--one of which pled guilty; the other paid
massive fines--you would be mistaken.
And I am going to start with Balfour Beatty.
Can you please explain, Mr. Taylor, to the subcommittee
what happened that led to Balfour Beatty pleading guilty to
major fraud against the United States and being sentenced to
pay over $33.6 million in criminal fines and over $31.8 million
in restitution to the U.S. military, serve 3 years of
probation, and be required to engage in an independent
compliance monitor for a period of 3 years? And how deeply did
this fraud go? And do you really think that the few staff you
fired really encompassed the entire scheme?
And, then, Mr. Stann with Hunt, in November of last year,
Hunt Military Communities received a letter from the Air Force
expressing concern over continued challenges that they saw with
Hunt Military Communities' performance under the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative and your company's failure to
implement remedying mechanisms proposed in a 2017 Air Force
get-well plan.
The Air Force went on to say that, unless they saw prompt
improvements in performance at all of Hunt's 26 privatized
housing locations, that they intended to initiate formal
action. And that is to say nothing of the $500,000 fine that
you had to pay.
So can you explain to the subcommittee why you failed to
correct inadequate performance even after receiving an Air
Force get-well plan in 2017?
We will start with Balfour Beatty.
Mr. Taylor. Yeah, Madam Chairman, I fully expected you were
going to want to delve deeper into this.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I knew you did.
Mr. Taylor. Absolutely. And I think it is fair game,
obviously.
If you read the plea agreement--and I trust you did--it
identified that the wrongdoing that took place within the
company was between the years of 2013 and 2019. And that is
when the--the DOJ investigation ensued shortly after that.
As I have reported previously to this subcommittee, also
with the House Armed Services Committee on their hearings,
twice--we have been very transparent about what was
transpiring. We have not shied away from sharing the
information, as much as we could, about the investigation----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I really only have time for
you to answer my actual question. How deep did this fraud go,
and do you think that the few staff you fired really
encompassed the entire scheme, and how did this happen?
Mr. Taylor. As part of the plea, it identified the
individuals that--DOJ conducted a very thorough investigation.
We also employed third-party consultants to conduct our own
investigation. We shared that information along the way with
DOJ investigators.
They identified--collectively, they identified the root
cause of the issue, the individuals that were implicated in
that scheme, as you call it. And we took appropriate action to
either remove those individuals or, those that may have been on
the periphery, ensure that disciplinary actions were taken
against those individuals.
That is information that we have shared transparently with
the Congress. We have shared that with our DOD partners.
Do I think that we have gotten to the root cause of that?
As a consequence of all of the actions that--or the root causes
that we have identified? We have put in place very aggressive
remedial steps over the course of the last 3 years.
Again, we haven't done it in isolation. We have shared with
our partners along the way the things that we have done to
prevent, you know, those sorts of actions occurring again in
the future.
As part of the plea agreement, as you point out, there will
be a third-party compliance monitor that will be assigned upon
selection by the DOJ. We trust that, you know, they are going
to come in and look under every single stone at whether or not
we have a good compliance regime in place to identify were any
potential actions to occur in the future.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Mr. Taylor. We look forward to engaging in constructive
dialogue with that third party.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Stann.
Mr. Stann. Yes. I am going to address, I believe it was,
your second question, about the Air Force dissatisfaction,
first. I am not sure what your first question was. If you
wouldn't mind repeating it. I apologize, Chairwoman.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It was one question. Can you explain
to the subcommittee why you failed to correct inadequate
performance even after receiving an Air Force get-well plan in
2017?
Mr. Stann. Okay. Thank you very much, and appreciate that
very much.
I think one of the first steps towards improvement was
obviously my arrival. I wasn't here during the last hearings,
and I came on board in July of 2021.
I have been working very closely with the leadership of the
Air Force in putting together an improvement plan in
conjunction with them where we have significant detail on lines
of execution under every area of our operations. We actually
meet in San Antonio next week to go over it again, one on one.
And we have already satisfied several areas and lines of
execution as our progress towards that.
We have work to do. We are committed to doing it. And we
are going to do it arm-in-arm as a partner with our Air Force
leadership.
And these improvements that were going to pertain to our
Air Force portfolio, these aren't things that are just
localized there. These are company-wide improvements that we
want to undertake and change and innovate for all of our
residents.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thatis not an answer. You
haven't done it. They have had to threaten you that, you know,
they would take formal action.
Mr. Stann. So, based on that threat and if you look at the
actions that were taken, a new CEO has been put in place in the
company. I have changed leadership teams and reorganized the
business in the short amount of time that I have been here, in
9\1/2\ months, and we have finalized and put together that
performance improvement plan.
If you look at the operational metrics at our Air Force
installation, you will see good progress towards improvement in
change-of-occupancy management, the passing of their
inspections, and work-order performance.
So the changes are underway, the improvements are underway.
And I can assure you that I will not take those for granted,
and this company will remain vigilant in the progress in that
improvement plan with our Air Force partners.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. It is very clear to me that we
are going to need to have a much tighter oversight process than
we have been engaging in. I am not going to wait another 3
years, because we have to stay on top of this.
Judge Carter, I am done. You are recognized for your
questioning.
Mr. Carter. I just have kind of one local thing.
Ms. Tregarthen, Lendlease just announced significant
investment in housing at Fort Hood. Are you familiar with that?
Ms. Tregarthen. Yes, I am. Yes, I am, Congressman.
Mr. Carter. Okay. How is it going? Is it on schedule? And
could that investment plan be used for other locations?
Ms. Tregarthen. So thank you for the question. I am very
happy to talk about the--it is a total of $1.1 billion in
investment across our Army portfolios, and, as you rightly
point out, approximately half a billion of that is being spent
at Fort Hood.
And that work is underway. And if I could just walk through
some data so we know what is happening.
We are replacing nearly 1,500 HVAC or air-conditioning
units, and, of that, 950 are complete.
We are renovating 820 homes in terms of exterior renovation
and painting; 140 of those are complete. We are replacing 2,600
roofs, of which 600 are complete.
We are completing 1,300 interior renovations, so kitchens,
bathrooms, flooring, that kind of renovation, of which 50 are
complete.
We are installing nearly 200 new driveway aprons and
accessible pedestrian infrastructure, and approximately 90 of
those are complete.
And we are removing and then building new, so we are
demolishing 580 homes and building 580 new homes, of which we
have started the civil work for the first portion of those,
which is approximately 50 homes.
So we are also engaging in community-wide work around
infrastructure and tree trimming, because clearly the community
that people live in is important as well as the actual home
they live in.
So we would welcome--I know, Congressman Carter, you have
visited Fort Hood a number of times, and we would welcome you
to visit again and have a look at the progress on that work.
There is also work going on across our other Army
installations, and that work is also underway, and I am very
happy to share and update with the committee of progress across
each piece of work.
Judge Carter. I will do that. I will visit.
Ms. Tregarthen. That would be great.
Mr. Carter. Finally, all of you can tell me, what can this
subcommittee do to help you serve military families?
Make it quick. We have to go vote.
Ms. Tregarthen. I am very happy to start.
I think where it would be wonderful to have this
committee's support would be around both the accurate
calculation of basic allowance for housing across all the
various parts of the United States--so both accurate
calculation and also a return to 100 percent basic allowance
for housing paid to the military members.
As I think has been mentioned already, that will be
extremely helpful in terms of providing reserves so we can
continue developing homes and improving homes in the on-base
housing, but it will also support the military families who
choose to live on the economy and make sure that they actually
have sufficient funding to be able to pay their rent and not be
out of pocket for just paying rent and utilities if they choose
to live outside the gate as opposed to inside the gate.
Mr. Taylor. I will go next, Judge.
I mean, Carolyn talked about the revenue side. You know,
the expense side Brian Stann talked a little bit about. But,
you know, the inflationary pressures on the project are
certainly substantial. We know Congress can't do anything,
necessarily, about inflation, but, you know, a big element of
that is insurance.
Global warming is real. We are seeing the effects of it
with increases in, you know, challenging weather that has, you
know, in one case, Tyndall Air Force Base, effectively
destroyed the entire base. And so, you know, there is
substantial pressure on our project finances just through the
insurance products that we buy.
So, you know, we have kicked around with our fellow
partners, you know, the potential aggregation of that. And
maybe, you know, some level of government involvement in what
that insurance product looks like, I think, can go a long way.
I also pointed out in my opening statement, along the lines
of what Carolyn talked about, being able to raise additional
debt. We have to make sure that, you know, the proper OMB
scoring rules don't frustrate our ability to go out and raise
additional capital that many of our projects need.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Anybody else?
Mr. Rizzo. Thank you for the question.
I will foot-stomp that on the BAH. I think one piece on the
expense side of BAH that gets left out is, the calculation
involves evaluating the utility costs in town, and then we pay
the utility costs from the installation. And, in many cases, we
are supplementing the Department of Defense and the Navy and
the Marine Corps in their actual expenses with BAH.
And so money that should be going to these sustainment
accounts is going to pay for fire and police rates at $1,000 a
door, as an example, or utility rates in the mid-Atlantic
region that are 50 to 100 percent higher than the market where
BAH is being based on. So the project companies and, by
extension, the families are paying an undue burden of the
government's operating costs.
Mr. Aycock. Judge Carter, I will add one point. This Al
Aycock from Corvias.
The system by which we calculate BAH is oftentimes an
onerous piece on the servicemember themselves. They have to
fill out a form that has all this information on it, and it is
manual. We need to go to a digital world. In a world where we
have real estate sites that can tell you how much a house costs
and rental costs, we ought to be able to do this digitally.
And we also ought to amend the system so that you have a
rolling average of the rentals in that area. Usually, when they
come down to do a rental survey, they are looking at the worst
houses that are left over from when all the good houses are
taken. That is a fault in the system, and we can fix it.
Mr. Carter. Well, thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
I will just do this as a matter of course. Without
objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit
additional questions for the record so that our witnesses can
answer.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We appreciate the witnesses' candor
and look forward to continuing this very important dialogue.
That concludes today's hearing.
I want to remind members that our next hearing is on
Wednesday, April 6, with Secretary Denis McDonough for the
fiscal year 2023 Department of Veterans Affairs budget hearing.
That hearing will be hybrid, with our witness participating in
person and an in-person or virtual option for members.
With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 6, 2022.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESSES
HON. DENIS R. MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing on the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee is called to order. This is a fully virtual
hearing, and I appreciate everyone accommodating the last-
minute change, and so we'll need to address a few housekeeping
matters.
For today's meeting, the Chair or staff designated by the
Chair may mute participant's microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. If I noticed when you are recognized that
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the staff to send you
a request to unmute yourself. Please then accept that request
so you are no longer muted.
I remind all members and witnesses that the five-minute
clock still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will
move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and you
will retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock
on your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At
one minute remaining, the clock will turn to yellow. When your
time is expired, the clock will turn to red, and I will begin
to recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order as
set forth in the House Rules beginning with the Chair and
Ranking Member. Then members present at the time the hearing is
called to order will be recognized in order of seniority,
alternating between majority and minority, and finally members
not present at the time the hearing is called to order.
Finally, House Rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That email
address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Today I'm pleased to welcome back the Honorable Denis
McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. We are glad to have
you here with us today to discuss the Department's budget
request for fiscal year 2023 and how we can best serve our
nation's veterans.
Let me start by saying how encouraged I was to see that
this budget continues investments in some of the areas this
Subcommittee has been extremely interested in, such as medical
research, mental health, and women's health. I'm also pleased
to see the VA is requesting more funding to support veterans
exposed to toxic substances during their service by increasing
research, evaluating available data, and allocating more
resources to address veteran claims for health conditions
resulting from toxic exposures.
At the same time, VA is undertaking--forgive me, I'm having
some technical difficulty here. At the same time, VA is
undertaking a number of significant department-wide initiatives
to help improve the delivery of care such as significant
investments in VA physical infrastructure, to build and
maintain modern facilities, and the continued implementation of
a new electronic health records system. It is incumbent upon us
to make sure that our appropriations to the Department and our
oversight activities address these efforts in a thoughtful,
reasonable way.
While VA's budget request includes large increases across
the Department, certainly the most significant piece of this
request is the skyrocketing costs of veterans' medical care. We
all agree on the importance of providing care for our veterans,
but this ever increasing number is crowding out other programs
that benefit veterans, both at VA and across the federal
government.
So, I look forward to discussing how we can account for
this funding in order to give VA the tools to continue to
provide world-class medical care to our veteran population.
This is without question a critical time for the Department as
we continue to recover from the pandemic and address the
backlogs of veteran claims, services, and medical care that
have built up over the past two years.
The additional funding that Congress provided last year in
the American Rescue Plan Act enabled VA to respond to the
pandemic and its ripple effects. For example, VA was able to
process a historic number of claims using American Rescue Plan
funding. And I'm proud to say that in fiscal year 2022,
Congress provided a record amount of funding for VA to help
ensure the prompt processing of veteran claims and to continue
reducing the claims backlog. That investment will help VA
continue its progress, and we hope to see similarly impressive
results.
There are a number of areas where I am eager to discuss how
the funding requested in this budget will help VA provide
quality, efficient, timely healthcare and benefits to veterans
and their families. I look forward to hearing from the
Secretary about the Department's priorities.
And I'm now pleased to yield to our Ranking Member, Judge
Carter, for his opening statement. Judge?
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman (sic). Last night I
talked to my wife, and she wanted me to tell you she's wishing
you a quick recovery from your illness. So am I. And we're
praying for you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
Mr. Carter. Get well soon.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. You're a real trooper, but you always are.
Welcome, Secretary McDonough, we're glad to have you with
us. When we met last April, I believe it was, to discuss the
VA's fiscal year 22 budget request, I remarked that its 82
percent increase was not the largest I had seen but still quite
large. This year, 20.4 percent increase for discretionary
programs, along with $7.5 billion for the second bite is
another eye-popping request.
While the--year after year you've given increases that may
have been substantial, we need to look at the big picture. In
fiscal year 2018, VA's overall budget has increased--since that
time, it has increased 53 percent. This is an increase of $104
billion from 197.4 to $301.4 billion, not counting emergency
funding. If expansive environmental exposure legislation is
enacted, this will add an additional $400 billion to the VA's
budget over 10 years.
For some time, Congress and the administration have
discussed how to appropriate appropriately the budget for
veteran's programs. This year, the President has proposed to
treat veterans' healthcare as a separate category for spending.
What exactly this means needs to be fully fleshed out. At a
time when we're spending trillions on other domestic programs
outside of the appropriations process, we should be more able
to take care of our nation's veterans than the normal top-line
allocations.
I am not yet convinced the new spending category is
necessary or advisable. I'll look forward to hearing the
administration's rationale.
I'm honored to serve the veterans and my tax-paying
constituents. Together we need to ensure VA uses its funding to
deliver quality healthcare, efficiency in processing claims,
and provide for burials to respectfully--as respectful resting
places, while meeting our other domestic and defense needs.
I want to encourage you to--at the VA to continue the
Congressional Fellowship Program. The VA Fellow provides
critical insight to congressional offices and quickly becomes a
valued addition to our staffs. Shareia Oliver is our VA Fellow
this year, and she's a real asset for my constituents and an
essential member of Team Carter, and I'm very happy to have
her.
Mr. Secretary, thank you again for being here.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the time, and I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter. And thank
you for your get well wishes, I really appreciate it. And from
your wife as well.
Secretary McDonough--well, I don't think we have Ranking
Member Granger here, and I know we'll be joined in a few
minutes by Ranking--by Chair DeLauro, who I'll recognize after
whatever member is speaking at the moment.
Secretary McDonough, your full written testimony will be
included in the record, and you are recognized for five minutes
to summarize your opening statement.
Secretary McDonough. Chairwoman Wasserman-Schultz, Ranking
Member Carter and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Chairwoman, add, please, the McDonoughs' prayers to the
judge's and his wife's for your rapid recovery.
I want to say to the subcommittee thank you very much for
your leadership in passing the omnibus, and for including in it
the RAISE Act, which will be instrumental in keeping VA's
fantastic nurses and physician assistants at VA, caring for
vets where they belong.
I would like to begin with a story about one of those
nurses, Paula Solaire. Early in the pandemic, Paula became the
lead nurse for a young veteran diagnosed with COVID-19. This
vet's case was bad. He could not breathe on his own, so he was
immediately put on a respirator when he arrived at the
hospital. Unfortunately, due to safety restrictions, this young
vet's family could not visit him in person. So from that moment
on, Paula took it upon herself to not only care for him but to
keep him in contact with his wife and one-year-old child. Every
morning and evening, no matter what, Paula sat with this
veteran and FaceTimed his family. Then one day, when the
veteran was really struggling, all of Paula's work culminated
in a moment she will never forget. During one of their
FaceTimes, this veteran's wife said to her husband, if you hear
me and love me, squeeze Paula's hand. Despite his dire
condition, this young vet did exactly that, with tears
streaming down his face.
Largely thanks to Paula, that vet eventually pulled
through. He became that hospital's first successful COVID
extubation and discharge, and now he is home with his family,
the family that Paula kept him connected to when it seemed like
he might not make it.
That is what fighting like hell for vets looks like, and
that is what VA employees like Paula do every day and have done
throughout this more than two years of pandemic. Their great
work has led VBA to process more than 825 veteran claims
already this fiscal year, the fastest pace in history. It has
led NCA to a point where we are approaching our goal of
providing 90 percent, 95 percent of vets with access to burial
sites within 75 miles of their homes. And it has led VHA to a
point where outpatient trust scores are above 90 percent, and
where studies show that we are delivering better outcomes than
the private sector. All told, we are providing more care and
more benefits to more veterans than ever before.
But make no mistake, employees like Paula cannot do that
work unless they have the resources they need to do it. And
that is why this budget is so important. It will not only help
us continue down this path but empower us to do even better for
vets, families, caregivers and survivors. Specifically, this
budget will help us get 38,000 homeless veterans into permanent
housing by the end of this calendar year. It will help us
deliver the toxic exposure benefits that veterans deserve as
fast as possible by researching military exposures, hiring
claims processors, and investing in claims automation. It will
help us save veterans from dying by suicide by expanding the
Veteran Crisis Line, getting ready to deploy the 988 line,
investing in Lethal Means Safety and funding local intervention
programs. It will help us deliver for all vets, including women
veterans, our fastest growing demographic, by investing the
highest amount ever in our women's health program which
delivers tailored, world-class health care to women vets and
works to ensure that all women vets feel welcome, safe, and
respected at VA. It will help us save lives by investing nearly
a billion dollars in VA's groundbreaking research, including
long COVID and cancer research. And it will help us invest in
our workforce, providing the money we need to recruit and
retain VA's great employees.
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this. The
number you see when you look at this budget request is $301.4
billion. But what this budget really means is health care for
an estimated 9.2 million vets, disability and survivor benefits
for an estimated 6 million vets and their families, and lasting
resting places for an estimated 135,000 heroes and family
members. What this budget really means is veterans' lives saved
or improved by the work this funding makes possible.
The President often repeats a quote from his dad saying,
show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value. Well,
this budget shows how deeply this President and our country
values veterans, their families, caregivers and survivors.
These heroes are the backbone of America. They deserve our very
best. And with this budget, that's exactly what we will give
them.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for your
steadfast, steadfast support of veterans and VA. I look very
much forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary,
and thank you for your well wishes. We appreciate your remarks.
We will proceed in the standard 5-minute rounds,
recognizing members in order of seniority, as they were seated
at the beginning of the hearing, alternating between Majority
and Minority. Please be mindful of your time and allow the
witnesses time to answer within your five-minute turn.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your overview and I just want
to say that there really are a lot--there is a lot of good news
in this budget. But we cannot ignore really what is the
elephant in the room, and I know you know this, and that is the
ever-growing cost of veterans' medical care. This year's budget
requests $118.7 billion for VA medical care, which is a 22
percent increase over last year's massive level. And of that
funding, a whopping seven and a half billion is a second bite
on top of what was already provided through advance funding.
And you are requesting $128 billion in advance funding for
fiscal year 2024, which is another $9.4 billion increase.
Mr. Secretary, I know we have talked about this in the
past, but it is important to sort of hash this out here
publicly. What is the long-term plan here? I mean, clearly, we
must provide for our veterans' health care. And we all are
passionate about that. That is part of serving on this
committee. But if we are going to keep seeing these exponential
increases year after year, we need to build a consensus on an
allocation adjustment, so that other discretionary priorities
are not affected, including the non-health care priorities
within VA.
So, in light of the administration's new top line display,
which I hope was a sign of Defense, non-Defense and VA medical
care programs, breaking those out, is that a signal that the
administration would support an allocation adjustment? And what
is your sense of how we are going to deal with this burgeoning
problem?
Secretary McDonough. Chairwoman, thanks very much for the
question. Let me work backwards on those.
One, yes, it is very much a signal that we would support a
separate allocation. I think it makes a lot of sense. VA,
frankly, is nested within the interagency budget, and for us to
continue to grow at the rates that we are growing, and that
coming at the expense of the rest of the non-Defense
discretionary makes us less effective overall than we might
otherwise be. So, I thought it was a very important innovation
from the White House, from the OMB, to separate veterans'
health care. I think it does lift it up, as we do the Defense
budget as a stand-alone piece of investment, but it also
recognizes that we are nested within the broader interagency.
That is point one.
Point two, the second bite, I know this is a source of
great frustration. I have to tell you that the two-year advance
appropriation for was an extraordinarily helpful innovation, so
we are grateful for that. And I also recognize that it causes
challenges for you and for your teams.
That said, because it is a 2-year assessment, estimation,
there is inevitably going to be variation like the type that we
are seeing. I want us to continue to work through to get better
at that. We are looking at the model, we are talking to you and
your teams about the model to see where we can get it better.
We are talking to OMB as well, and we will continue that.
Lastly, on the overall increases in the budget, especially
in the medical care account, this is a function of three
things. One is health inflation across the country, which is
a--has been now for years a real challenge. Two, the fact that
our veterans are increasingly reliant on and coming to us for
more complex care. And three, this is a vote of confidence in
VA. We are seeing that in a lot of different ways. But this is
a sign of demand at VA. And that is because I think VA does
better for veterans when they are in our care than they do--
than they fare outside of our care.
So, I know it is a source of frustration. We will continue
to be very transparent with you. And, you know, through things
like preventative services, through things like making sure
that we keep and maintain the experts that we have, I think we
can bring that number down over time.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
You know, I don't want to even cast this whole issue of the
need for increased spending on veterans' health care as a
negative. I mean, we know we need and want to take care of our
veterans. It just--the frustration is really over the
challenge. And the challenge is something that, you know, is
just part of our responsibility, and so working together is
really important.
Members, we are going to have a second round because I know
usually at this hearing, we all have questions we cannot get
to. But I do want to ask the secretary about the second bite,
because it is seven and a half billion dollars, and it is a
pretty significant increase over what was provided in advance
for this year, particularly compared to the second bites we
have seen requested in previous years.
What would these funds be put toward and why would these
activities be funded out of fiscal year 2023's second bite
instead of fiscal year 2024's advance? And, you know, if I put
it another way, is any of the second bite for new initiatives
versus needed adjustments to estimates? And do you anticipate
that fiscal year 2024 will have as high a second bite, or is
this an aberration?
Secretary McDonough. Thanks. Look, I hope it is an
aberration, but we will continue to work very closely with you,
as I said, both on our assessments but also on any changes that
come along. That is one. Two, we are having to move certain
investments that we have made with CARES Act money, for
example, into base budget. So, hires that we were able to make
early in the pandemic, investment in new technology that needs
to be maintained over time. So that is part of what you see in
here.
And again, recognizing that these are two-year-out
assessments, it does present a certain degree of variability
that unfortunately, especially with health care inflation being
what it has been now over the course of the last 15 years,
creates new challenges for us.
But again, I agree with you, the answer here, I see this as
a vote of confidence from veterans in our care. But we just
have to continue to maintain our transparency with you as these
changes come along.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And just to finish my
second bite focus here, the medical facilities second bite is a
billion and a half dollars. And that is significantly higher
than we have seen in prior years. And so, unlike the second
bite for medical services and community care, this is not an
adjustment based on an actuarial model; it increases support
for new maintenance projects.
So, can you help us understand why the second bite request
for medical facilities is critical and why the $7.1 billion
that Congress provided in advance fiscal year 2023 is no longer
adequate for that?
Secretary McDonough. Yeah, so remember that during the
course of the last two years, we have had to invest
significantly in our facilities to make them more ready for the
pandemic. So take, for example, zero-pressure rooms, which we
did not have any of, but which are critical to maintaining the
isolation required for a COVID-positive vet. So those
investments need to be maintained. So that is why you see in
the second bite that money in the facilities account.
Again, this is directly responsive to the challenges
presented to us by the pandemic. That is an example of it, as I
say, the zero-pressure rooms. And if we see more of that, we
will make sure we stay close to you on that. But that is the
kind of thing that, if you, you know, to your earlier question,
is this aberration or one-time, you know, slash, one-time
funding, or is this something new that is going to come back
again, I think this is a one-time increase necessary.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We just have to stay in close
coordination, hopefully that this is pandemic related, and we
get past this.
Judge Carter, if you do not mind, we have been joined by
Chair DeLauro, who I would like to recognize at this time, and
then I will come back to you.
Chair DeLauro, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you
very, very much, Judge Carter. I am chairing Labor HHS at the
same time, so we are all running back and forth. I really
appreciate this.
And welcome, Secretary McDonough. Thank you so much for
your testimony today.
Just last week, I held a forum with veterans in my district
to talk about information on the resources we included in the
omnibus, in the legislation through this subcommittee. And the
issue, and hearing from them the issues that they face on a
daily basis, one of the topics was about backlog faced by the
Veterans Benefits Administration. In the omnibus, we included
three and a half billion dollars for operating expenses for the
Veterans Benefits Administration, funding that will support the
work to decrease the claims backlog.
And as of January, it was reported that there were over
260,000 claims in VA's backlog, up from 70,000 backlog cases
prior to the pandemic. I understand the agency has made strides
to reduce the backlog. You mentioned the technology that the VA
will provide to support automating the disability compensation
claims process. Can you describe in more detail how you plan to
get the numbers down? Anyway, why don't I ask you to describe
your plans about getting the backlog down.
I think you're on mute, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary McDonough. Okay. I think I'm unmute--yeah. Okay.
I'm live here. Do you have me now?
The Chair. Yes, yes.
Secretary McDonough. Great. So, Chairwoman, thank you very
much. I thanked the subcommittee earlier for the omnibus, which
is very generous to us, especially the inclusion of the RAISE
Act, which is really, really important to our nurses and our
nursing assistants and our--several other categories of our
people. So, thank you very much for that.
Right now, as of yesterday, the backlog is at 236,000
claims. This year, fiscal year to date, we have processed
830,000 claims. That's the fastest 830,000 in the history of
VBA. The challenge is that we have received 840,000 claims this
year. Those are claims that include several claims related to
Agent Orange that Congress enacted year before last. It
includes Blue Water Navy, and it includes President Biden's
insistence that we begin to address toxic exposure claims, as
the first President in 30 years of war in Southwest Asia to do
that.
So our plan to bring that number down includes three very
significant steps.
First, through the ARP funding that you gave us, we are
still able to pay overtime for claims adjusters--claims
examiners. So, we are working overtime to bring that number
down. And in fact, that number is coming down especially for
things like the Blue Water Navy, such that we think we might be
able to beat the target of the end of this year that we had had
on the books to complete those claims.
The second thing we're doing is we are hiring additional
personnel. Using last year's money, we began hiring nearly
2,100 additional people. Seventy percent of them are hired, and
90 percent of the people that we have hired--so 90 percent of
the 70 percent--are in training or have completed training.
There is a tail on claims personnel to get them to a productive
level. We think it's between six and nine months. So, we're
moving that on the new hires. So, over time, new hires.
Third is automating--sorry. This budget for FY2023 gives us
authority to hire another more than 300 additional claims
processors. So we continue that process that we're under--
underway now into FY2023.
Last, we want to modernize the process itself. We're
looking very closely at whether there are things, steps in the
process that we can consolidate or that we can remove
altogether. For example, need we have additional examinations
for every filing?
The other modernization we're looking at is automation. We
have not--we have a goal of this year to automate three new
conditions each quarter. Our most recent addition is claims for
asthma. We have only had a handful of those in, but some of
those claims are resolved as quickly as in one day rather than
over--rather than in over several weeks. So, if this technology
bears out in the way that we hope it will and that it is
beginning to show that it can, we think we can reduce the time
per claim going forward.
So those are the three steps, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chair. Okay. I thank you very, very much, and I just
would say this. It's very critically important to us, and as we
look at opportunities in which we will look at those toxic
chemicals, like burn pits, et cetera, we know that there is
going to be an increased number of cases, of applications, et
cetera. So, we need to keep close attention to this.
And with that, I will yield back and again say thank you to
the Chair for recognizing me, and I want to say thank you for
your graciousness, Judge Carter. We really appreciate it. Thank
you so much.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate
it. The gentlelady yields back. You go get them at Labor H.
The Chair. At Labor H. Right. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thanks so much.
Judge Carter, you are recognized for five minutes for such
time as you may consume.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The FY23 budget request proposes to separate veterans
healthcare from non-defense discretionary spendings. We just
talked about that. Exactly how will this work? Is there a
specific legislative proposal? What is the President's
rationale for the change? Won't this just increase the amount
of funding available for other non-defense discretionary
programs? Is that spending justified, especially given the 6.4
percent increase provided in FY22?
With trillions we spend on the mandatory side of the
ledger, is it a good idea to allow more spending on the
discretionary side?
Series of questions.
Secretary McDonough. Judge, thank you very much, Judge, and
I appreciate your--all your partnership with the department,
and I am very grateful for that.
As to whether there is a specific legislative proposal, I
believe there is but I will confess to you, Judge, I don't--I
have not seen it. So I will get an answer to you on that and I
will come to you--come back to you on that express question
after consulting with the OMB Director.
Second, why do it? Well, I think there are three reasons.
One is, as I said before, I think it makes sense to separate
this from the broader account to underscore, as we do with
defense, the unique nature and the unique importance of
investments in veteran health. That is the first reason.
The second reason is I do think that it risks undercutting
our ability if we keep it consolidated with the non-defense
discretionary. It risks reducing the effectiveness of VA within
the interagency on things like the pandemic, where we have
worked very, very closely with our partners at HHS. And so
making sure that it does not--the important investments in
veterans do not come at the expense of other investments in the
federal government non-defense discretionary on which we also
rely for veterans health is a positive.
Third, I also think that our investment in veteran
healthcare does actually look and act a little bit like
mandatory investments, reflected elsewhere in the government.
Because this is something that veterans come to rely on. It is
something that increasingly veterans are satisfied with. And we
believe, especially if Congress continues with this important
effort on toxic exposure legislation, it could end up being an
important amount of additional enrollees coming into VA.
Lastly, I hope and I welcome that when this is set aside as
a standalone account that that engenders even greater scrutiny
of our practices and how we invest that money.
I endeavor to be very transparent with the Committee, with
you, Judge Carter, with Chairman Wasserman Schultz. I would
anticipate that as a standalone account, we would engender even
greater scrutiny. I welcome that as a challenge for us to be
even more transparent with the Committee.
Mr. Carter. Well, mandatory spending right now is driving
us over the cliff. If we don't do something about our current
mandatory spending, the projection is sometime in the early 30s
we are going to go over the financial cliff. It could change
the very nature of life in the United States.
So, to set up a situation where we may inadvertently be
creating more mandatory spending, to me, is not a good idea.
Everybody always treats VA like it is mandatory anyway. I
think both sides of the aisle, we may not like it, but we do
treat it that way. But it is not. And if we add it in as
mandatory, it just means more things that are going to have the
oversight of what we do in our Committee, and therefore, just
moves us closer to that time when we can't pay our bills.
So, if that is what we are trying to do, then that's a
situation where VA spending is mandatory, all of it. Quite
frankly, it's a bad program as far as I am concerned.
I thank you for your answer.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you, Judge.
Mr. Carter. This is worrying.
I yield back.
Chair Wasserman Schultz. Thanks, Judge.
Yeah, I think we are just going to have to have a deeper
dive conversation on how we are going to approach this in the
future. We really just have some challenges that have to be
addressed, and we can't just keep kicking the can down the
road. So I appreciate the opportunity given the President's
proposal to foster that discussion.
Forgive me. Next up is Congresswoman Lee. You are
recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. Sorry, I was not expecting that. Thank
you, Madam Chair. And I would like to thank the Secretary for
being here.
Secretary, I have been hearing some significant concerns
from veterans in my district about recent recommendations from
the Asset and Infrastructure Review Commission for facility
closures. And of specific concern is the recommendation of a
closure for the Laughlin Rural Outreach Clinic.
In southern Nevada this clinic has provided healthcare to
thousands of veterans in what is really an under-resourced
community. And while I appreciate the administration's efforts,
I just wanted to make you aware that this community, just so
you know--I want to paint a picture--it would ask veterans who
now receive care within their community to take transportation
across the bridge into Arizona to Bullhead City. And this is no
small task for veterans who are seriously ill or disabled or
lack the adequate transportation. And so I'm sure we can all
agree that we don't want to create additional barriers for
veterans to access care.
With that in mind, I just have some questions about this
proposal, which I sent a letter to you and the President on
March 18th.
In assessing these recommendations, how will the VA ensure
that veterans in communities see continued improvements to
healthcare access, especially if they lack transportation and
the broadband connection for telehealth?
You need to unmute, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary McDonough. I think I am--yeah, sorry. I am not
managing the mute button here. Sorry.
Thank you very much for that question and thank you for the
letter, which I reviewed very closely, and obviously talking to
our team about it.
The fact is we are early in this process. These are
recommendations. The commission, once the Senate acts, will
get--take a hard look at it. I think there is--I think you
raise a very interesting point that we are developing
programming on, which is transportation. We had a legislative
request--this kind of takes it from the future to the present--
we had a legislative request for last year on dramatically
increasing the rural transportation program that we manage. We
have the funding for that this year. We would like to get the
authority for that. I think that will end up being important
for a lot of rural communities.
The third thing I would like to say is we--obviously we
inherited, when we arrived, this data-collection effort going
back to 2018 and 2019 when it started. Much of the data on
which the decisions were made predates the pandemic. I think
that is a mistake. However, the statute being what the statute
is, there was not an option for me to stop this program.
So, what we will do is we will update the data on which
those recommendations are based and give that to the commission
during the course of its proceedings. I would encourage you to
do the same about what you are hearing from your veterans, and
I would encourage you--I would encourage the commission also to
make sure that they get to southern Nevada to hear from the
veterans there.
Lastly, the whole set of recommendations are designed to
try to get more care in a more updated fashion and more modern
facilities closer to our veterans. It sounds like that we did
not hit the mark in southern Nevada with this proposal that
vets travel to Bullhead City. I am happy to take a relook at
this, and I think we ought to make sure that the commission
itself takes a look at it, and then the President has a
decision to make as well at the end of the day.
Remember, these are my recommendations to the President.
The President gets to take a fresh look at these after hearing
from you and the commission and others about whether to proceed
with them or not, and then ultimately you guys get the same--
the same decision.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am pleased
that you will take that into consideration. It has been
something. As soon as you recommend a closure, you tend to
start to hear just how important that place is.
Secretary McDonough. I know.
Mrs. Lee. But it has been a clinic that has been really a
lifeline in that community, so I appreciate you taking another
look at it.
Thank you, and I yield.
Secretary McDonough. I would just say one thing, Ms. Lee
and Chairwoman and Judge Carter. What we see in reaction to the
recommendations so far, good and bad, is a desire for more
access to VA healthcare. That is a reassuring thing in my view.
And I would be the first to admit that I may not have gotten
every recommendation correct here, but I am gratified to see
the demand for greater access from our veterans. I think that
is a vote of confidence in our care providers, and I am proud
of them as well.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Secretary
and Ms. Lee. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Secretary, Mr. Secretary, for being at this hearing. You have
been a pleasure to work with. Your team has been great to work
with.
My first question is last year, this Committee appropriated
$150 million to construct a new VA healthcare center in El
Paso, Texas. This year I look forward to finalizing that
project. Can we--can you provide an update on the next steps
for this project?
Secretary McDonough. Yes, absolutely, Mr. Gonzales. Thanks
very much, and thank you for your partnership. You are always
available to us, and we have appreciated the ability to lean on
your cyber expertise too as we wrestle with that challenge.
We believe that El Paso is a groundbreaking new way for us
to get construction done more quickly, speed to market. So the
$150 million allowed us to do the initial site preparation for
that building where we will provide additional services
building on the existing VA healthcare center in El Paso,
including mental health services.
We anticipate in this budget another 550 million to
complete the construction of that facility. From soup to nuts
we anticipate this being a 51-month project. We want to
continue to hold ourselves to those timelines, the next
timeline being when the 150 million you gave us last year that
we are currently investing over the course of this year, that
550 million we anticipate beginning in April 2023, and then we
anticipate finishing in 2026 with the new facility. That is 51
months soup to nuts.
We think that is much faster than we have done in the past,
and we think that is kind of a pilot for us being able to
speed-to-market the kind of care that we need, including in a
growing community like El Paso where we are seeing significant
demand from new vets.
Mr. Gonzales. Yeah. No, thank you for that. Once again,
appreciate you prioritizing it. As you know, veterans are
growing in Texas; in particular west Texas is an area of need
that has been long forgotten. So, I appreciate your leadership
on that.
My next question is in regards to the border. So, Mr.
Secretary, as you know, my district spans more than 40 percent
of the southern border. Throughout this migrant crisis, the
communities I represent have been overwhelmed by a record
number of apprehensions that continue to happen in my backyard.
This response is only expected to accelerate. Just last
week the Biden administration announced it will be ending Title
42 on May 23rd. This change will multiply the number of
migrants encountered that we see daily. As a result, there are
reports that DHS has approached DOD with a request to assist in
a contingency plan to deal with the fallout of Title 42 at the
border and the record number of migrants that we expect to see.
There are reports that the VA--that VA medical personnel
will be dispatched to vaccinate migrants as they make their way
into the U.S. Can you confirm these conversations and offer any
further guidance on how the VA will be utilized in this border
crisis?
Secretary McDonough. Yeah, thanks very much, Mr. Gonzales.
I am not aware of any such conversations. I have seen the news
reports. There is no--I can't find any evidence of the
conversations.
I would say this. Over the course of the pandemic, at least
since I have been here, we have deployed VA healthcare
personnel to support other federal partners, including our
federal law enforcement partners, where we administered vaccine
to CBP and ICE personnel. And so maybe that is the--maybe that
is the basis of some of the rumor that you are referring to,
but I am not aware of any such conversations. I am proud of the
role that we have played in supporting our federal partners:
CBP, ICE, U.S. Capitol Police, Bureau of Prisons. I anticipate
we will continue to do--transportation, TSA personnel. I
anticipate we will continue to do that kind of work.
Mr. Gonzales. Yeah, no. Thank you for that response. And I
would just offer, if there is anything that comes up, like you
said, there is all these reports that are always out there. If
I could be included in----
Secretary McDonough. Count on that.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. Finding a way to be--to help
with this problem set, I want to be able to give the ground
truth of what is happening.
You started off this hearing giving a beautiful story about
Paula and all the great work she does for the VA. I just don't
want to see VA professionals pulled out of that role and get
sucked up into a different role where we are seeing veterans
kind of lose that quality of care.
But like you mentioned, I think there is a way where you
can absolutely be helpful to other agencies, just like you have
been, but there has to be a plan in place if and so that
happens.
So I am out of time, but I will yield back.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales. And just
for the public's benefit, the VA does have a fourth mission
mandate where they provide value added whenever it is
potentially warranted. And so they have done an incredible job
particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and I appreciate
that you are recognizing the need to work with the department
in the event that their fourth mission, for whatever potential
reason, needs to be implemented.
Secretary McDonough. Good point.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
Mr. Crist, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair, and know that you are in
my prayers, and I hope you have a very speedy recovery.
Thinking about you always.
Secretary McDonough, thank you so much for joining us
today.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Mr. Crist. Appreciate your presence and your service.
My office has a great relationship, and my district, with
Bay Pines Hospital. However, elsewhere in the VA we have
continuing issues of non-responsiveness to the point that
sometimes it seems like almost deliberate attempts to make it
more difficult to help my constituents.
For example, I have been told no information will be
provided over the phone or by email to caseworkers, including
just regular updates, but that will require the use of physical
mail, a process that can drag out for weeks or months when it
could have been just a quick phone call or an email
conversation.
It is disturbing to me that in 2022, this is the way some
VA offices would do business. Casework is something we all on
this subcommittee do, and at the end of the day, it is about
the veterans we represent, our bosses.
Are there any restrictions placed on VA offices and how
they are allowed to communicate information to congressional
caseworkers, and are VA offices allowed to communicate
information over the phone or email to congressional
caseworkers regarding active cases?
Secretary McDonough. Yeah, thanks very much, Mr. Crist.
So I reached out to the St. Pete Regional Office last night
to make sure that I understood what was happening there. The
Regional Office Director, who is one of our real high
performers, and I both commit to you that if there is some--if
there is a particular case, I hope you will--that you are
having trouble with, that you will raise it, your team will
raise it with me or with her directly. We will resolve that.
As to the modalities by which we can communicate, we take
incoming by phone, by letter, by email. We communicate same.
When we are providing PII, personally identifiable information,
we do provide that encrypted to--over email. And so, we are
obviously able to work with you in that fashion as well and
with your caseworkers.
And so again, if there is a specific set of cases that we
are hung up on, I hope we can just roll up our sleeves and get
at them. But there should be no limitation on the way we
communicate with your caseworkers. And surely, in the event we
are dealing with personally identifiable information for a
veteran, there we will need obviously a way to communicate that
in an encrypted fashion, as I think you would expect, and I
know we have ways to do that.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your
response very much.
Like many of my constituents, I was thrilled to see our
Blue Water Navy Vietnam veterans get access to the benefits
they have earned. Unfortunately, we are still seeing their
benefits being held up by some bureaucratic red tape.
To the best of your ability, how many Blue Water Veterans
have received their benefits since they became eligible, and
how many claims have been denied?
Secretary McDonough. That is a good--that is a reasonable
question. I should know the answer to it, Mr. Crist. I don't
have that information, even in my thick briefing book here. So,
if I can take that one, I will get you an answer by the end of
the day.
Mr. Crist. Okay. I appreciate that very much, Mr.
Secretary, and I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary McDonough. Great. I might just say one thing real
quick, Madam Chair, to Mr. Crist. This is not specific data,
which I will get you by the end of the day. But I actually
believe that because of the progress we have been able to make
over the course of the pandemic in getting digitized records,
ship logs and those types of things from NPRC, and digitizing
those records, I think we are--and our ability to invest in
overtime, as we have been doing thanks to the American Rescue
Plan and other investments from you all--I--we are ahead of
schedule on completing the Blue Water Navy claims.
As it relates to the specifics, I will get you those. And
then my reaction to the first question stands, which is if
there is a specific case you are worried about, I hope you will
make sure that we get in touch with that vet and we will get to
the bottom of it.
Mr. Crist. Yes, sir. Great. Thank you very much, Mr.
Secretary. Appreciate it.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Crist. The gentleman
yields back.
Excuse me. Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, thank
you very much for your time today. I have really enjoyed
working with you and obviously getting to know you a little bit
on the football field even this year. I am looking forward to
our next game coming up.
A couple of different issues I want to talk about, though,
is a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic in Bakersfield,
California, still hasn't been built. It has been 11 years since
Congress authorized its construction, but my veteran
constituents in the Central Valley still do not have an updated
facility. I know this case has been riddled by bureaucracy and
endless lawsuits, and I know that your department has been
doing their best on this one, but this is one that thousands of
veterans have been waiting--some have even passed away. And I
know the VA has been doing everything they possible can to get
this thing constructed.
But I want to know if there is something that we need to do
through Congress and legal changes, some regulatory changes,
that both of us, one of us can do to make sure facilities like
this get more--completed in a more timely manner. And our
veterans just don't have another decade to wait for this.
Secretary McDonough. Yeah. Thanks very much. I look very
much forward to the football game too, and I am going to
stretch more so I don't hurt myself in the practices.
I am excited about the Bakersfield CBOC. I have talked to
you about this. I have talked to Mr. McCarthy about it. It does
seem to me that what--as I understand it, the issue here is
some legal wrangling locally there on the ground. We are doing
our best to work through that.
One thing, though, in response to your question that I
would call your attention to is the way CBO requires--the way
we are required to clear by legislated authorization every new
lease we do, and then the way CBO scores those leases, means
that right now we are sitting on 31 leases that we should be
moving that we can't move because we don't have legislated
authorization yet. Again, because of the way CBO scores these
things.
So, I talked to the Senate last week. Our hope is as we
move something like toxic exposure legislation, which may
result in as many as two million additional enrollees at VA for
VA health care, we need to fix this lease authorization
question.
The Senate indicated some interest in including such a fix
in their version of a toxic exposure bill. At least we need to
get these 31 leases that are pending done, and if we could even
get a more permanent fix so we can just get these leases from
soup to nuts, so we can get vets into that kind of care, it
would be really important.
So that is a specific thing I would like to ask your help
on.
Mr. Valadao. Okay. Well, we will be in touch so we can find
a way to make that happen.
Secretary McDonough. Great.
Mr. Valadao. My next question, few weeks ago the VA
announced a pause on any expulsions from the Caregivers Support
Program. However, the VA has maintained the eligibility changes
to the program are necessary to endure financial solvency.
The fiscal year 2023 budget calls for a 30 percent increase
to this budget to meet current needs. Will you walk this
committee through the process you are utilizing to determine
the new criteria?
And will you be using the future Caregivers Support Program
enrollees?
Do you anticipate another significant increase in this
budget for this program and in future budgets?
Secretary McDonough. Great. Thank you.
I am really glad you asked about this. I think this is one
of the most innovative and exciting things we are doing. I
think the Caregiver Program, which Congress conceived of, is a
really good idea.
You are right that we said we would not suspend anybody
else from the program pending a relook at the screen through
which we run the legacy participants, one.
Two, in all cases, anybody who has been told that they will
not qualify for the program will continue to get the stipend
until April 2023, in any case. Okay?
So, no one stops receiving the stipend until earliest,
April 2023, so a full year from now. That is point three.
Point four, we are looking at the second part of the two-
part test that somebody needs to go through. The first part of
the test is did the injuries the veteran incurred, the
condition the veteran is living with, did that happen in war,
in defense of the Nation.
That is in statute. That is a yes/no question.
We use a proxy of whether a vet is 70 percent service
connected to get through that test. We cannot change that. That
is legislated.
The second part of the test is the percentage of activities
of daily living a veteran needs help from his caregiver or her
caregiver to carry out. That is a regulatory hurdle.
We are looking at now, in consultation with caregivers; in
consultation with VSOs; in consultation with members of your
staffs and staffs of the Appropriations and authorizations
committees in the House and Senate. We are looking at whether
there is a way, consistent with the statute, for us to be more
inclusive in that second test.
We have not made a determination as to whether we will
issue a new regulation, but if we are going to change it, we
would have to issue new regulation.
So, we are working that through now. We are doing that, as
I said, in consultation with VSOs and with you and your staffs.
In all cases, once we establish the second part of this new
test, whether we can do that with new regulation or need, can
do that of our own accord, then we will run everybody back
through that screen and make final determinations whether the
legacy participants stay in the program or go.
Even if they go, by the way, they continue to be eligible
for important caregiver programming from us, but not the
stipend.
Last point; October 1, we are determined to expand the
Caregiver Program to all era of vets. Heretofore it has been
mostly in and around post-9/11 vets. Congress has given us
authority to expand it to include vets going back to Korea.
We will do that in October. We are insistent on doing that.
So, we are going to get both pieces of this work done, getting
the legacy cases reviewed in a more inclusive way and expanding
the program back to the Korea War vets.
I hope that answered the question, Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao. Yes, I appreciate it. Thank you, and my time
is up.
I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Case, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
First of all, thank you for your efforts in my part of the
world, Hawaii and the broader Pacific. We, of course, share the
same concerns as the rest of the country, the same goals, but
it gets a little more complicated or at least a little bit more
varied when you leave the West Coast of the continental United
States at least and get out into the distance.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Case. And the question of how you handle island
jurisdictions versus, you know, being able to drive down the
road 100 miles.
So anyway, I just wanted to say a thanks because we have
many issues with you, and we have enjoyed the partnership.
We are excited about a brand new out-patient clinic, the
Aloha Project in Honolulu, and I just visited that about four
weeks ago when I was back home, and it is exciting to
physically see it coming out of the ground.
By the way, to Mr. Valadao's comments, we can certainly
lend some expertise at this point in terms of your leases
throughout the country, having done battle on those issues.
And so, thanks. We got that one done, but you are correct.
The system itself needs to be corrected really to accommodate
some of the unique qualities of VA leases.
I wanted to go back kind of nationally to the cost of
health care in the VA system as a driver of your budgets, and
you rightly noted that this was a concern. Now, you attributed
it to three factors. One was just general inflation in health
care costs across the country; number two, the specialization
of VA health care to a broader range of services, which comes
in many cases at a higher unit cost, I guess you could say.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Case. And then finally, you talked about the vote of
confidence and demand on that system from the perspective, and
so I took by that that you meant just more people in the system
because it is not a supply-demand equation in the sense of, you
know, shortages equal higher cost per se.
It is just--is that correct, first of all?
Secretary McDonough. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Case. Okay. So, do you know what your general
assumption was in the overall assumption on health care
inflation for the budget itself?
Because I was trying to piece it together here to figure
out exactly, you know, whether you are within the realm of
reasonableness in terms of keeping up with health care
inflation.
I guess I would hate to be in a situation where your
inflation calculation was somewhere down at three or four or
even five percent versus what is actually happening.
Secretary McDonough. I think it is a fair question, and it
is a logical question. It is the second one that I should have
actually been ready for that I am not.
So let me take and find out. We have an actuarial table or
actuarial model that we work these through. I do not know what
the base assumption on health care inflation is in that, but I
will get you that, and I will get it to you by the end of the
day.
Mr. Case. Okay. Yeah, I think it would benefit all of us
because we obviously have to evaluate whether the budget is
going to encompass those costs.
And then related to that, you know, I do not think any of
us would accept that we just have to kind of take it on health
care costs, and so the real question is with the VA expanding
not only its volume of services or volume of patients but range
of services, you are really encompassing under one roof, one
collective roof, a much larger portion of the overall health
care provision in the country.
And so you obviously have, you know, economies of scale,
and you have negotiating power, and you have the ability, I
think, within the VA umbrella to actually affect those health
care costs yourself.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Case. I think of a standard model, and you know, it is
an issue that we have been arguing over in Congress for a long
time about whether Medicare should be able to negotiate for
bulk purchases of drugs. That would be the clearest example,
and the VA has abilities.
But, I mean, what is the status of kind of the bigger
picture effort to use your size and extent and weight to
actually influence the inflation where that is not really a
particularly thus far effective option beyond the VA?
Secretary McDonough. I think it is a super interesting
question.
There are places where we can exercise some increased
influence not entirely as a price maker, but the place where we
are most influential is on our drug formulary, and because we
can negotiate, we see significant drug savings.
And veterans are sophisticated consumers of health care.
Many veterans have several options. Some have TRICARE for Life.
Some have VA some have Medicare, and some come to us for
different pieces. Many come to us because of the very
competitive pricing on our drug formulary.
And I think that is a direct combination of our skill among
our workforce in developing that formulary, and because we can
negotiate.
Another place where we are trying to exercise and increase
our economies of scale is on the supply chain. We have a
project called DMLLS where we are hopeful that we can generate
some economies of scale by pooling purchasing power with the
Department of Defense on things like PPE.
There are complications there. We have requirements in
statute that we give preferential access to veteran-owned small
businesses.
So we are working that through, but there are two places
where we can test this new model. One is in North Chicago in a
joint Navy-VA facility, and then one is in the Northwest of the
United States in what we call VISN-20.
It is not working nearly as well as I hoped it might, but
we will by the end of this year have something to report to
this committee and to the other committee up there, the
authorizers, about where we stand on supply chain and getting
economies of scale.
Third, the last thing I would say here is we are a price-
taker in a couple of important ways. If we do not get more
competitive on wages for providers, we are going to lose
providers.
So what you gave us in the omnibus for nurses is really
important, but we need relief on medical center or hospital
CEOs. We need relief on specialty doctors. We need relief even
on things like what we can pay and how many housekeeping people
we can hire.
So, we would like to be able to be in a position to be more
competitive there or we are going to lose people.
The last thing is an increasing amount, going back to the
MISSION Act in 2018, of our care is purchased in the community.
That number the CBO anticipated to be quite large when they
scored this back in 2018, as I understand the debate. I was not
here at the time.
We are outrunning those estimates for what we are paying
for care in the community. This is a place where we are a price
taker, too, and we are getting better at being a payer. Where
we used to be late and not accurate in our payments, we are
better now.
And I would like to see us begin to use innovations like
those available under the Affordable Care Act, like pay for
performance, like bundling, now that we have established
ourselves as a good payer in the community.
We will see if we can get there because this is an
increasingly large part of our budget, the amount of care that
we are referring veterans into the community to get, which
obviously we are going to have to get under control over time
if we are hoping to get these kinds of health care inflation
numbers under control.
I hope that is responsive to your question, Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. You absolutely did, but a lot more to go along
these lines, a lot of good avenues.
But I apologize for the time over, Madam Chair, and I
provoked it, and I yield back.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is okay. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Rutherford, you are recognized for five minutes of
questions.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. It is great to see you.
Secretary McDonough. You, too.
Mr. Rutherford. And I can tell you I am, being from the
Jacksonville, Florida area and having seen the recommendations,
we are very excited about the medical facility planned for our
area.
But it is a very diverse type of district. I have very
urban poor there around Jacksonville, where we have----
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Rutherford [continuing]. A massive number of veterans
living. Then we also have some very rural areas, and I am
curious not so much about my district but overall when the
Commission starts to look at equal or better, within the
context of things like telemedicine, which quite frankly I will
tell you I was not a big fan of prior to COVID, but I think
they have kind of won me over.
So, in the context of equal or better, which is the goal, I
understand, and so that is one element.
Secretary McDonough. Right.
Mr. Rutherford. But the other is this community care that
we were just talking about under the MISSION Act. Do they
perceive VA facility care?
You know, when they make those comparisons with the
community providers, I think it is also important that we look
at equal or better there.
Some of the challenges that we are having in my district
particularly, and you mentioned the large usage by veterans of
the community care model, and that it is even exceeding the
expectations. I can tell you it would be even bigger, I think,
if we could get those referrals in on time because there are
some real delays coming out of VA on getting these referrals
into some of the community care.
So, when we talk about equal or better, I think we ought to
be looking at some of those challenges as well, not just the
accounts receivable----
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Rutherford [continuing]. Which was so bad in my
district that, as you know, we actually had providers that
refused to work with VA.
Secretary McDonough. Right.
Mr. Rutherford. So, can you give me your opinion on those
issues?
Secretary McDonough. Yes. Mr. Rutherford, thank you very
much.
And I think just one broad or two broad questions and then
I will get to the timeliness of access. One is I think Florida,
in general, Texas, Nevada, Arizona, California, North and South
Carolina, what we saw as we looked at the trend lines for
veterans over time in these market assessments is that vets are
moving south and east, south and west, and due south.
So that is one of the things that we are wrestling with as
a system, but importantly, in the recommendations, we remain in
every market as a central coordinator of and integrator of care
for our veterans no matter if you are in Florida or you are in
Minnesota. We are staying in every market. That is one.
Two is the baseline, kind of the first cut of whether to
maintain a facility or build a new facility or modernize a
facility in a particular market was average daily census. How
many veterans are in a facility on any given day for in-patient
care, for example?
And so we set a cutoff of 20 ADC, average daily census, and
while I did not, with a team going back to 2019, set this 20-
person census, and under that we take a harder look. Over that
we see this is a facility that needs to be modernized.
However, I believe that there are certain communities
underserved, some in urban settings--one in particular was in
Alabama for me--some in rural settings--one was in Montana, one
was in Kansas--where the recommendation came to close that
facility. I thought that was a mistake because the availability
of other providers there was low, and historically, there were
not new providers coming in.
Which brings me to my third point. How do we assess
quality? We looked at Medicare and Medicaid ratings for
hospitals to make a determination of, is it equal or better if
somebody gets referred in the community?
If there was not a good facility that our providers felt
good about, we would not do it.
Lastly on timeliness, if you look at our average wait times
across the system, they are good. But it is a big system, and
we are coming out of a pandemic. So I fear that there are
outliers where people are waiting too long.
So, we are constantly trying to get better at finding them
and get them into referrals quickly.
Secondly, how we measure the wait times, I think we have
got to do a better job of that, and so we are working that
through now, and we will talk with you and with the committee
about that.
The last point, and I know I am going over time, but we
have to understand the impact of the pandemic on referrals as
well. Because of the pandemic, almost now every veteran meets
the standard to be referred into the community. Not every
veteran wants to be referred into the community, and so we have
to work that through on an individualized basis.
But because of the pandemic where so many facilities for a
period for safety reasons, you know, withheld care, we are in
this place where managing that case work inevitably means more
people go into the community.
The question is, are they going to come back to their care
system or are they going to stay in the community? That is a
big question for us strategically.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back. Sorry for going over.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Secretary, I think you are right particularly about how
we calculate wait time.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It has been a consistent problem.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And inconsistent across the board.
Secretary McDonough. I hope we have some news for you in
the next period on that. We are working really hard on it
because I am frustrated with it myself, to be perfectly honest
with you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I just worry that we send too many
veterans out of the system because the wait times are not
calculated really accurately.
Secretary McDonough. Yeah, and they cut both ways, too. So,
we owe you that work, and we will get it to you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Okay. Ms. Pingree, you are recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And I will add my best wishes to you. Hope you recover
quickly.
Secretary McDonough, it is so nice to have you before us
again.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you for being with us here today.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Ms. Pingree. I want to talk to you a little bit about the
concerns I have around military sexual trauma, but before I
jump into that I just want to say I had the great good fortune
a month or so ago or a couple of months ago to visit in the
Portland CBOC, as it was opening, and what a wonderful
facility.
You know, we spend a lot of time talking to the VA about,
you know, how underserved our veterans are and how bad some of
our facilities are, and to see this incredibly modern building
with, you know, state-of-the-art care, all of the room you
could possibly need, really thinking about every possible
concern that a veteran could have to respect their privacy, to
make it comfortable, you know, I commend any member of this
committee who wants to see what a really great facility looks
like to come and visit that facility, you know, and have
lobster while you are there.
But I just cannot even begin to describe it, and the fact
that you could sit in the dentist chair in there and be looking
out at the ocean and just sort of the idea of how calm that
would make you feel and how valued that would make you feel.
So, I am taking way too much of my time, but I just want to
say that was great. It was a wonderful moment to see that.
But let me jump into military sexual trauma because it is a
long and complicated topic, and I know we have discussed it
before, but I will try to summarize quickly.
We discussed the 2018 OIG report which found that----
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Ms. Pingree [continuing]. 49 percent of MST related
disability claims were inaccurately processed, and
unfortunately, in August, there was another report, and to
summarize, it said 57 percent are not processed correctly.
So the error rate is going up. I guess I want to know your
reaction to that, what actions you are taking.
And let me just throw in a couple of other things. I have a
bill, Service Members and Veterans' Empowerment and Support
Act, which would improve the claims adjudication process, and
it basically deals with this notion that currently only
veterans with a PTSD diagnosis are eligible for relaxed
evidentiary standard.
But a different diagnosis, which is common with MST, like
anxiety or depression, those are not eligible.
So, I have gotten some feedback from the VA on the bill,
but I would really like to work with you to move this forward.
You know, unless you have another plan for getting these
numbers up, we just have to make sure that all of the veterans
filing for compensation for mental health condition related to
MST have access to the same relaxed evidentiary standard.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Ms. Pingree. I think that would help a lot.
So, I will let you talk.
Secretary McDonough. Good. Well, thanks very much, and I
appreciate the attention you pay to this issue because it gets
to something else I think you saw at the Portland CBOC, which
is we also have to make sure that our facilities and our
programming and our decision making are reflective of,
hospitable to, and welcoming of the fastest growing
demographic, which is women veterans.
Now, it is not just women who are survivors of MST. It is
women and men, but how we do on MST claims sends a really
important signal to our women veterans who are survivors and to
our men veterans who are survivors.
So here is what we have done year to date. We have
adjudicated 10,179 MST cases and we have granted in 78 percent
of those cases.
Now, it could still be that we are not granting rightly in
the 22 percent whose claim is not being found in favor of, but
the way we are trying to get better on that is we have
consolidated MST claims into eight regional offices with
specific teams with experience on these claims and, therefore,
better understanding of understanding how to resolve these
claims.
So that has been since May 2021.
Later this month, we are moving to a virtual regional
office that handles all of these cases and just these cases,
and that will be run out of San Juan.
So I hope as we specialize in these cases, we get better on
the error rate.
The last point is we are constantly trying to get better.
We are in the midst this month of a full training effort and
updated effort of our claims providers. I think we are in touch
with you. I know we are in touch with one of your colleagues on
the authorizing side, Ms. Luria, about coming to help us as we
are thinking about this.
But as you say, we also have to be constantly updating our
clinical practice. I just saw a big story about the fact that,
by the way, standing to reason survivors of military sexual
trauma are more likely to have hypertension.
And so we ought to be factoring that new science and those
new findings into our practice at VBA as well.
So all of this is us trying to get better. All of this is
us trying to incorporate more science and more understanding of
the phenomenon into our practice, and your keeping the pressure
on us by maintaining the attention on it helps us as well.
We have just got to get this right.
Ms. Pingree. Okay. I am out of time, but when we get a
chance, I want to, you know, push you a little bit on the
evidentiary standard as well.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Ms. Pingree. Because I greatly appreciate the training and
the thought you are giving to this, but we will get a chance to
work on that and talk to you about that as well.
Secretary McDonough. Good.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Pingree, and thanks
for your advocacy on this important issue.
The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for five minutes of
questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary McDonough, for appearing before
the committee today to discuss your FY 2023 budget request.
As a veteran who represents a sizable veteran population in
middle and Southwest Georgia, I appreciate your service to our
Nation and to veterans.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I am looking forward to hosting you in
Columbus, Georgia, for the opening of the new state-of-the-art
Poydasheff clinic. The veterans in Columbus and the
Chattahoochee Valley deserve the finest health care we can
offer them. I am glad to know that they will be getting this
new state-of-the-art clinic that they can use for decades to
come.
I supported the VA MISSION Act that required your
department to provide recommendations to the AIR Commission,
and I believe the department has made a good-faith effort in
conducting market analyses that compared the current health
capacity to the expected future needs.
However, the Government Accountability Office recently
published a report that identified several shortcomings in the
data collection methods that were used because they were not
done before the pandemic. I am sorry. They were not done since
the pandemic.
Secretary McDonough. Right.
Mr. Bishop. So while we know that such decisions will need
to be made, we can only properly do so if we know that the data
is reliable and predictive.
Can you commit to following through on the GAO's
recommendations to improve the completeness of that community
are data and communicate to the commission the information
about that data's reliability and any updates used in the
assessments?
Secretary McDonough. Yes, thank you, Mr. Bishop.
I really look forward to the trip down to Georgia myself. I
really appreciated the time we got to spend together last
month.
You know, I appreciate the GAO study. I had actually
commissioned a red team to look at the market assessments a
couple of months before the GAO study red team of health care
experts, both VA health care experts as well as general health
care experts, because my fear was that the market assessment
data was dated, so much of it going back to 2019.
That red team told me and told us, and I shared it with our
committees, you all and the authorizers, that indeed as we
feared, the data is dated.
And so, without any other option, because there was no
delay option in the statute, the statute is quite clear on what
we needed to do. We have devised a program, going forward where
we will update that market assessment information and provide
it concurrently to the commission as it is meeting.
I wish I could have ensured I had the benefit of better
data on which to make my recommendations, but you know, the
statute being what it is, you know, I do not get to choose
which laws I follow and which I do not. I had to proceed as I
did.
So I hope that we can and we intend to get them updated,
timely information on which they can assess our
recommendations, and so you have my commitment on that.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Let me shift quickly to the Carl Vinson VA Clinic in
Dublin, Georgia.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Which recently had a lapse in sterilization
protocol and exposed several thousand veterans, potential
exposure----
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. To blood-borne illnesses, such as
Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Can you provide us with an update on how the VA
responded, corrective measures or alternative service provided,
provision that was given, any testing results and whether any
of the veterans contracted illnesses and whether or not the
facility's use was discontinued, and if so, when will that use
resume?
Secretary McDonough. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.
Yes, this was obviously a very troubling development, but
as a highly reliable organization, we at VA got to the bottom
of it.
You know, we became aware of the potential challenging
situation where sterile processing equipment was not used
appropriately or was not deployed appropriately to, you know,
clean surgical and other equipment, colonoscopy equipment, for
example.
We contacted every vet who would have gotten care and been
exposed to that equipment in the window of concern. We have had
many vets--I do not have the specific numbers, but I will get
you those before the end of the day--how many vets have come in
to get tested for the blood-borne illnesses that you just
listed, and others to make sure that they were not exposed.
So far, we have no evidence of anyone having contracted any
of those diseases.
Programming at the facility was suspended, but I am
embarrassed to admit to you, Mr. Bishop, that I do not know if
it has restarted. I believe it has, but I will get you that
concrete answer also before the end of the day.
But the sterile processing service had been suspended for a
period. I think it is back now running again, and anybody who
needed to be referred to a different facility or into the
community in the meantime was accommodated obviously consistent
with clinical best practice.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I think my time has expired.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Trone, you are recognized for five minutes of
questions.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and please feel
better, please.
Secretary McDonough, it is wonderful to see you. We are so
fortunate to have you leading the VA. I tell all my
constituents we just got a homerun there. The time we spend
together, unbelievable.
The CBOC Congresswoman Pingree talked about, we toured a
CBOC together, state-of-the-art. Just great to have these
throughout the country.
The work of the AIR Commission, that is going to be
fantastic. The changes you will make adjust things like
Congresswoman Lee brought up, since COVID, but work overall, we
have got to get behind it, support it, and you know, be there,
not be political on it, but just do what is right for our vets.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Mr. Trone. That is the story.
I know it is not going to surprise you, but my questions
focus on mental health. The new 988 line is fantastic,
activated in July. It is especially important, given the Army
lost more active-duty members to suicide in 2021 than we have
since 2001. So we really need this 988.
And my first question is your budget request states the 988
expansion is going to lead to one and a half million more
calls. What help can we do to help you?
You need help on recruiting, you know.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Trone. Retaining employees.
America is faced with this great resignation that we have
seen. It is hard to get psychologists, psychiatrists,
therapists, hard as the dickens to get them.
You feel good about that and then also if you have to shift
people, we have so many other important things that you are
working on: suicide prevention.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Trone. How are you going to get it all done?
And can we help if needed?
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Secretary, if you could just
pause for one moment, I have to quickly go vote in the
Oversight Committee.
Mrs. Lee, if you could take over the chair for a moment,
the next person to ask questions will be me when we go around
again, but I will be right back.
Mrs. Lee [presiding]. Okay.
Secretary McDonough. Okay. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank
you, Mrs. Lee.
And, Mr. Trone, it is great to see you. I really enjoyed
our visit in Montgomery County and up into Frederick County. I
think it was great.
I think that CBOC in Gaithersburg is a classic example of
the kind of access that I think everybody has been talking
about from Mrs. Lee to Mr. Rutherford to Ms. Pingree, including
that we are providing gender-specific care in that facility.
There is not a full-time gynecologist, but there is
gynecologic access and expertise specialization on a regular
basis there.
That is what our fastest growing demographic of women vets
expects. That is why the President's budget anticipates the
largest ever investment in gender-specific care for women vets.
That is why he has asked for that money in this request. And I
am really looking forward to the opportunity.
On 988, you are right that our budget anticipates fully
implementing the 988 switch-over. You know, some providers have
begun using it. We will be fully switched over as of July 16 of
this year.
As you said, we expect call volume to increase 122 to 154
percent, meaning the Veterans' Crisis Line could see an
additional 835,000 to 1,054,000 calls for a total of as many as
1.7 million calls.
I have got to tell you this Veterans' Crisis Line, the team
there, I am so proud of them. I am so impressed by them. That
is very difficult work. Many have been doing that from home,
you know, working all day, going upstairs with no distance from
work, going straight to dinner, the dinner table.
I cannot tell you how proud I am of them, how inspired I am
by them.
We began hiring up for this effort last year, and we need
to increase our full-time equivalents or our workforce by 460
people. We anticipate needing 2,568 employees on the Veteran
Crisis Line.
The way you guys can help us is to give us this budget. We
have the money and the billets and the authorities in the
budget to get it done, period, full stop. Next paragraph.
You are absolutely right that also all of those other
specialists, psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, our
counselors in our Vet Centers, which a Vet Center is an
absolute gem where we are providing constant quick access to
mental health care for our veterans.
We just need more mental health professionals, and we have
talked about this in this committee before. I have talked about
it with the authorizers as well.
We envision partnerships with HHS and with DOD, including
through USO's, which I think is also in your district, Mr.
Trone, to make sure that we are turning out more mental health
care providers.
Until we do that, we will just keep moving Peter and Paul
among different health care facilities. They will go from DOD
to VA to colleges and universities, to community hospitals. We
just need more mental health professionals, and that is going
to cost us money, and we have just got to get on it.
Mr. Trone. And congratulations on eliminating the three
copays also. That is another great step to get our vets
comfortable to come in and say, ``I need some help.''
Secretary McDonough. Agreed.
Mr. Trone. So same problem it presents though,
unfortunately.
Secretary McDonough. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Trone. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [presiding]. Mrs. Lee, thank you very
much.
Mrs. Lee. You are welcome.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am back.
And the gentleman yields back.
Mr. Secretary, I think a few of us might have another round
of questions and we should wrap up by 12:30, our planned end
time, if that works for you.
I want to begin by asking you, because I know you know that
the committee is focused very seriously on increasing
investments in women's health, and that has been a priority for
you as Secretary.
We need to ensure that the VA is dedicating funding
specifically for women's needs. I am pleased to see the budget
requests $757 million for gender-specific care and another $134
million for the programmatic office.
Can you talk about how this funding will be used to
incentivize women veterans to get their care at VA, to make
them feel their needs are met, to address longstanding concerns
that women veterans have raised about issues like harassment at
VA facilities, never mind the military sexual trauma that some
of them have been through, and also the lack of providers?
And then are you proposing efforts to expand the care and
services that VA offers to women veterans with these resources,
or is your focus more on outreach to women about the services
that are available?
Secretary McDonough. Yes. So I think there is like a
combination of if we build it, they will come, like we just
talked a minute ago about a visit that I took with Mr. Trone
and Senator Van Hollen to a CBOC right here in Gaithersburg,
suburban Maryland, where we are providing mental health,
primary care, gynecology services, mammography.
So, there is a certain amount of this, and this is
underscored in the President's budget, that we need to provide
the services that women veterans want and need.
So, the women's health programming budget allows us to
invest in the technology, equipment, that is, and the people,
so specifically, gender-specific care providers, to ensure that
in our facilities we provide the services that women veterans
want, one.
Two: the context and the atmosphere in which we provide it
is critically important. So sadly, very often we have found it
productive to provide a separate entrance to the Women's Health
Pavilion or the Women's Health Clinic so that women do not risk
being cat-called or approached in saying, ``Hey, are you here
with your husband?'' or, ``Are you here because your dad is a
vet?'' when, in fact, the fastest growing demographic of
veterans in the VA system are women veterans themselves.
So the context in the environment, the milieu is important.
The budget also recognizes that, and you know, as we saw in
Gaithersburg, as we see in the D.C. VAMC, we have innovations,
including separate entrances for women vets.
I hope we quickly get to the day when that is not
necessary, but it is still necessary now.
Lastly, specific programming is also really important. So,
for example, the budget envisions eliminating copays for birth
control. It is crazy that we--it is a missed opportunity for us
to demonstrate how much we want women veterans in our care if
we continue to charge a copay for birth control.
Relatedly, we have an antiquated way of how we fund
assistive reproductive technologies, including IVF. So our
budget envisions and plans for changing the current statute and
practice that ties VA to DoD practice, that limits us to only
providing assistance to married heterosexual couples and limits
our ability to provide services to veterans with certain
conditions.
So we just have to do a better job of this.
The last thing is we also envisioned fixing this
permanently as a new authority rather than continuing to fix it
year by year, recognizing fixing it year by year on your bill,
on an appropriations bill; recognizing that the reproductive
cycle does not happen on the fiscal year.
And so we just have to get beyond the situation we find
ourselves in.
We are also, incidentally, looking at the model because I
know that this continues to be a source of frustration for many
women veterans.
I hope that is responsive to the question, Madam
Chairwoman.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, a thorough response. I
appreciate it, and I appreciate your proposal to finally
decouple the VA's IVF policy because it is inequitable. It does
not make any sense, and we really have to make sure that across
the board there is equity when it comes to access to health
care for our veterans.
Apparently, there is another vote that I have to go back to
or with.
Judge Carter, you are recognized for five minutes. I will
be back before your five minutes is up.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Secretary, there are more than 22,000
veterans in Texas enrolled in the VA's Burn Pit Registry. About
4,200 of these live in my district.
On their behalf, I appreciate your continued efforts to
address the needs of the veterans exposed to toxic substances.
The additional investment of $225 million for claims
processing, health care services, and research will do a lot of
good for those people.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Carter. What does the research show about the long-term
health effects related to these toxic exposures?
Is there a direct link between exposures and rare cancers?
Are there chemicals that we know cause cancer?
Do the VA and DoD cooperate on the search and investigation
of this issue?
And what have you learned from the review conducted last
year on the process VA used to determine a service-connected
condition?
Secretary McDonough. Judge, thanks very much.
Let me start with the Burn Pit Registry itself, which I
think has been a source of frustration for many vets. I know it
is a source of frustration for me.
We have to do a better job of making sure that vets who
sign up for the Burn Pit Registry get an opportunity; that we
get in touch with them, and that we start getting data from
them.
I think too many have lingered without hearing from
anybody. Oftentimes then those who do get an opportunity to be
seen do not actually get a full clinical exam.
So, we have announced over the course of these last couple
of weeks that people who are on the registry and come in for an
exam and want a full clinical exam, we will ensure that they
get that. That will be a challenge, but I think we owe that to
them.
We are, I think, making good progress on a new model for
how we establish presumptions. I anticipate sharing that new
model with the committee later this spring.
The model, we have finished our work on it internally at
VA. We have now shared it with the Office of Science and
Technology Policy at the White House, where they will use their
independent expertise to validate, or not, our model for how we
consider new presumptions for service connection of certain
conditions with toxic exposure.
An important part of that as it relates to your question
about whether we collaborate with DoD, an important part of
that is an interagency process run by the White House that
includes DOD, VA, HHS, Labor, and sub-agencies or subcomponents
of each of those departments around the one table.
We have now met seven times since I have been here to make
sure that we are sharing best available science, and we are
generating new science to answer unanswered questions.
And it is based on that collaborative basis rather than
just waiting for National Academies of Science, Engineering and
Medicine to give us literature reviews.
We are leaning on that interagency group to generate
additional science, and it is based on that that we are able to
make the three presumptive connections that we did last year;
sinusitis, rhinitis, and asthma.
And it is partly based on that process that we are in the
process of rulemaking on nine rare respiratory cancers. We
anticipate finishing rulemaking here sometime in the near
future. I have got to be careful what I say about the
rulemaking process, I think. So, I will not say much more than
that.
But over the course of this year, we will also then look at
lung cancers, brain cancers, and constrictive bronchiolitis.
You know, we are developing new technology, by the way, to
identify that very ill-defined though, debilitating, condition.
Later this month in the New England Journal of Medicine,
there will be a report from two of our clinicians and
researchers about constrictive bronchiolitis and how we
diagnose it.
So, we are full speed ahead on this, Judge. I feel like we
are making good progress on it, but my guess is you still hear
some frustration from your vets in Texas and Round Rock, I know
that I still hear frustration, and we will not rest until we
get to the bottom of all these claims.
Mr. Carter. You know, having experience with Agent Orange
with my brother-in-law who was a Vietnam vet, a pilot in the
Air Force, went on to be a Delta pilot, and retired from Delta.
Then he got a brain cancer. They call it a ``ghost
cancer.'' You find it in one part of your brain, you treat it,
it seemed to disappear, and then it would pop up someplace
else. So it was a lot of treatment.
I mentioned to Kurt, my brother-in-law, or actually my wife
mentioned to Kurt, could all of that be caused by Agent Orange?
and it was the typical, I think, response from an awful lot of
veterans, ``Oh, they never sprayed where I was. Don't worry
about it.''
And Kurt went to a VA website, and he saw the map of where
the spray was. Tuy Hoa Air Force Base in Vietnam was the second
heaviest area to protect the aircraft.
So, then he looked at your sheet that tells you all of the
little cancers that were available, and sure enough, and I
cannot tell you what the--all I know is ``ghost cancer.'' It
has been called that, but it was there.
The fact that the VA came in, stepped in, and took over the
medicine part of the treatment he was getting at Sloan
Kettering, New York. It was great godsend to my brother-in-
law's family.
Secretary McDonough. Great.
Mr. Carter. He was one of the greatest guys I ever knew.
And so, I commend you highly for the great things you did
for Kurt Brown, my brother-in-law, but he was a typical
American warrior. He just assumed he was not anywhere where
that happened. He just had bad luck.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Carter. But you were there for him, and I pray that a
lot of people are assuming these burn pits are going to be
questionable, but I am not sure. So, we have got to be on top
of this so the guys who have something really bad wrong can
have a place to go look.
Secretary McDonough. That is right. I could not agree more,
Judge Carter.
And I'll just say one thing. Too often I hear the same
thing that I heard about Mr. Brown, which is the vet assuming
that ``oh, it did not happen to me,'' or, ``I do not want to go
on because I might take somebody else's care,'' or, you know,
``Somebody is worse off than me.''
I urge our vets to please come file a claim and let us work
this out. It is not going to come at the expense of anybody
else. We will get to the bottom of it.
Mr. Carter. Thank you for that. It is very great, sir.
And in New York City it is a big problem because it is a
big city.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Carter. And the big VA place is over in Brooklyn. Very
quickly we got service, and I was real happy about that.
Secretary McDonough. That is great.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back.
And, Judge Carter, I appreciate your sharing your story
about your brother-in-law. A lot more of this is pretty cut and
dry about the impact. It would be hard to comprehend how burn
pits could not have a detrimental impact on veterans.
And I know the Secretary firmly agrees with that as well.
Secretary McDonough. Absolutely.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If there are any words I know I can
put in your mouth, Mr. Secretary, it is those.
Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Pingree, you are recognized if you have a second round
of questions.
Ms. Pingree. Yes, I do. Yes, thank you so much.
And, again, thank you for your continuing attention to our
questions.
One last thing on the MST. I just wanted to mention that we
hear a lot of veterans about the lack of quality and their
discomfort. With the Compensation and Pension Exams,
particularly those that are not done through the VA, about ten
percent look like they are done through VA providers. I know in
Togus, in Maine, 106 exams were done by contract providers
while just 22 were performed in house.
I am sure some of that happens because you are trying to,
you know, move the process more swiftly, but we hear from a lot
of people who would really prefer if they had the opportunity
to ask for their exam to be done in house by a VHA provider.
So I want to get to another question. So I am just going to
put that out there on the list of things like evidentiary
standards, and I hope we can follow up and just pursue that.
Secretary McDonough. You can count on that.
Ms. Pingree. One thing I really want to get to is PFAS. It
is a major issue in Maine right now. We have got a lot of
challenges going in our agricultural sector because, frankly,
we have been forward-thinking about looking for PFAS, and so we
have seen a lot more than we wish we had.
But we also know that happens on military installations,
and we have the Brunswick Naval Air Station in my district. So
we are familiar with some of the issues that could happen
regarding military installations.
I know the DOD has identified hundreds of these around the
country that potentially have hazardous PFAS, and I just have
concerns that we are not doing enough to address the exposure
with the veteran populations who have served in these
installations.
You touched on the idea of the VA's new pilot model in your
testimony for dealing with military environmental exposure, and
it specifically mentioned that you are increasing your veteran
outreach.
But we hear a lot from veterans about the installation that
they have served, at where they may have lived with their
families, and that they have tested the facility for higher
levels of PFAS. So, they are concerned about their own health.
But could you expand a little bit on what the VA's efforts
are to improve outreach and whether they will include outreach
to PFAS exposed veterans?
Secretary McDonough. Yes. As it related to toxic exposure
generally, we are trying to increase outreach, and that is
through all of our standard ways, to include making sure that,
for example, as I said, when somebody takes the step of filing
for the Burn Pit Registry, that they see some result therefrom.
I think in too few cases that has happened heretofore.
So why do I not take for submission to you kind of what our
comms plan is with veterans around toxics and around PFAS? That
is one.
Two: this is a major priority for the President. And he
stood up for the first time in the Interagency Working Group on
PFAS, and you can imagine that obviously EPA is a key mover and
shaker in that, but so is DOD and so is VA.
And we are working very closely with the Council on
Environmental Quality and OSTP, as well as, you know, the DPC
at the White House to make sure that as a government we are
looking at this holistically.
So we share your concern about it. We are trying to get our
hands around it as a government and an administration
holistically, and VA has a fundamental role to play in that as
well.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, I will follow up with those
questions that we had for you. I know there are a lot of people
who want to ask questions and your time is limited.
So I yield back, but thank you so much.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Ms. Pingree. And I look forward to working with you on
these issues.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So, I just held a town hall last night, and one of the top
questions, and I mean it came up a lot, was homelessness and
obviously issues that we are having around the country.
And I know that you cannot address all of them, but I am
encouraged to see that the President's budget includes a total
request of $2.7 billion for veterans' homeless programs.
Can you elaborate a little bit on how the program or what
the VA plans to use this funding increase for and specifically
for veterans in rural areas like my district?
I am specifically interested in continued investment in
mental health and the HUD VASH program.
Secretary McDonough. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
This is a major priority for us. I know it is a major
challenge for California. I know it is a challenge in
Bakersfield.
We have set a goal this year to get 38,000 veterans,
homeless veterans, into permanent housing this calendar year.
After January and February, we are at about 4,500. At that
rate we will not meet my goal. I am told, but I have not yet
seen the March numbers, but I am told that those numbers are
accelerating off of the January because of Omicron, February
coming out of Omicron, relatively slower months.
That is the goal. The question is how do we do it. We have
a strategy that I think has been proven over time and, in fact,
proved by the fact that we were able to, as a country, reduce
homelessness among veterans by half from 2009 to 2016. And we
call that strategy Housing First.
So, we have to get a vet under a roof before we can expect
the vet to begin to address the issues that may have led him to
be homeless in the first instance. As you say, mental health
disorder, substance use disorder, joblessness, being involved
or justice system involved, being involved with the justice
system.
Our whole strategy is to get a vet into housing first and
then make sure that we provide the wrap-around services that
help him stay in housing.
Sometimes that means getting a veteran into a transitional
house. So maybe get him into residential treatment for
substance use disorder or get him into a ``Tiny House,'' as for
example on a Greater Los Angeles facility in L.A., in West
L.A., before we get him or her actually into permanent housing.
The long pole in the tent on permanent housing, I am told,
is not just housing stock. It is case managers to ensure that
landlords understand that when a vet has a HUD-VASH voucher,
that they can have the full faith and confidence in Uncle Sam
meeting the obligations of that voucher.
And too often we have landlords who are suspicious or
misunderstand how the voucher works. So it has got to be
incumbent on us to ensure that we explain, and when we do
explain that to landlords, including in low housing, high
demand areas like Southern California, it actually works.
So, we have set a goal, and this will kind of cross into
rural communities, too, to reduce the time it takes to exercise
a voucher to 90 days. We want to make sure that in half of all
cases where we get a vet into permanent housing by using a HUD-
VASH voucher, we execute that within 90 days.
Now, that may strike you as slow. It does strike me as
slow, but frankly, in some places, including L.A., for example,
because of the complicated nature of both our programming and
the Housing Authority's overlapping authorities, 90 days is
pretty fast, which takes me to my last point.
We just need to make sure that we are using all of our
authority to get case workers on the street, on individual
vets' cases, and that is in Bakersfield or in rural
communities, and in L.A. proper.
There is an authority that is available to us that says if
we are not filling those case manager jobs with government
employees, then we need to go fill them with contractors. So we
are exercising that contract authority now in the hopes that
that gets us more peopled on the street and, therefore, getting
more people using their vouchers in a more timely way.
Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that, especially the contractor
perspective because that was something that we really struggled
with. I know we talked about that in previous hearings.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Valadao. So I appreciate the answer.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Trone, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Trone. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just had one more quick follow-up. I have got a second
CBOC up in Western Maryland, really in Hagerstown, in the heart
of an areas where there is so much addiction and opioids and a
lot of mental health distress, and most of my deaths come from
that rural area.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Trone. I have 42,000 vets, and what does it take
timewise, just a best guess, from taking a CBOC that has been
there, that is kind of antiquated and they made a decision to
close it and then opening up a brand new CBOC, which they made
a decision to do so.
What is the time frame it takes to do that?
Secretary McDonough. It is a good question. Why do I not
get you a piece of paper, Mr. Trone, that kind of lays out like
not how a bill becomes a law, but you know, how a building
becomes a new CBOC? We must have that, and that would be
better, more informative than what I can give you. So, I will
get you that today.
Let me just ask for your help on one thing, and I raised
this earlier. A lot of times the CBOCs are in leased buildings,
so not even new buildings that we built or new buildings that
are built that we then leased back.
You might have heard Mr. Case talk about this, and you
would have also heard--I forget who else raised this earlier.
Oh, Mr. Valadao in Bakersfield.
It is so frustrating. Once we get through our internal
project-by-project prioritization list, which we have to work,
you know, geography-by-geography. A lot of factors go into
that. It is called the ``SCIP Process.''
Once you get through that and then you want to go lease a
building. We start all brand new because of the way we have to
get legislative authorizations for each individual lease, and
then CBO scores it in some outrageous fashion that ends up
meaning that we are now 31 leases behind, going back to 2015,
2016.
So there is this big tail at the end of that process in a
place like Hagerstown because of the way we do our internal
business. That delays these buildings, you know, in some cases.
In Honolulu, it was almost a decade. In Bakersfield, it is
approaching a decade.
And so we just have to fix that, and I think we can fix it
on the toxic exposure bill that the Senate is now considering
that you all voted on a couple of weeks ago, and I hope when
that gets to conference or wherever that goes, and we can make
sure that this lease fix is included in it.
Mr. Trone. That would be a huge win. You do not have a
business background. I have done hundreds of leases all over
the country. I know what it takes from when you find a site to
get it open, and it is a slow, tough process, and then you add
government, God bless you, on top of that.
So my concern in Hagerstown is I spoke to the folks and,
you know, we are connected together. They have got one year
left on the existing lease, and they are highly confident they
will be open and running in 12 months.
And I was a bit skeptical, and so I just want to make sure
we do not have a loss of care, you know, if they cannot get
this 12-month turnaround done.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Trone. And then I can maybe get an extension on the old
lease so I can take care of my constituents.
Secretary McDonough. We will make sure that there is no
slip from cup to lips there, Mr. Trone. I will look into this
specifically.
Once all the rigmarole is worked out, we are highly
efficient at getting into the new building. So let me just
check into it, and I will get back to you, but I am confident
that I can give you assurance that we are not going to have a
slip from cup to lips there. We will make sure that there is no
loss of services.
Mr. Trone. Awesome. That is all I have.
I yield back. Thank you, sir.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Slip from cup to lips. Is that a
Minnesota expression, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary McDonough. I think I got that from my mother who
is from South Boston. So I think that might be Boston.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is not a Long Island
expression. I will tell you that. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
Okay. Excuse me. Let me get may act back together here.
Secretary McDonough. Too much talk about Long Island.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I know. You can never talk about
Long Island too much.
Okay. Mr. Rutherford, we are not going to talk about Long
Island. We will talk about Jacksonville now.
Mr. Rutherford. All right.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are recognized.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And do you know what? I have to say I have always
considered it a great pleasure to serve with Mr. Trone because
he is so focused on mental health, and I can tell you as a
former police officer, I too have had a great focus on mental
health almost my entire adult life as a result of what I had to
deal with.
Secretary McDonough. I bet.
Mr. Rutherford. So when I came to Washington, one of the
main focuses that I had was actually helping our veterans with
their mental health issues and get the PAWS Act passed so that
these therapy dogs could help our veterans.
We succeeded finally. Maybe it took Mr. Trone coming up
here to get it done for us, but we got that passed, and I know,
Mr. Secretary, that this is a concern of yours, too.
And so I know February 21st was supposed to be kind of like
the go live date for implementation of this program. It looks
to me like we are running a little behind. Now, I know they
said, well, they have selected some sites, but we do not have
any agreements, contractual agreements, signed yet.
And I know this is of interest to you as well.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Rutherford. So, can you tell me how much longer do you
think it will be before we can actually start these programs
and start helping our veterans?
Secretary McDonough. Yes. You know, the President's budget
envisions obviously fully funding the PAWS Act, fully funding
the Sergeant Fox local grant program, I think, which is enacted
in the John Scott Hannon mental health bill a couple years ago.
These kinds of innovative, new, community-level programming
options are really exciting opportunities for us. We see them
as such, but we are also relatively new at grant making of this
type in those communities. So we have been quite deliberate
about it.
We, I think, just announced a week before last the five
pilot sites.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Secretary McDonough. I think you are right that we have not
yet then landed the contracts from RFIs, or RFPs, in those five
sites.
I am embarrassed to say this now for the third time. I do
not have the answer to this specific question for you, but I
will get you that answer today as to when we can expect those
awards to be made in those five pilot sites, and then
importantly, when we can expect the programming to start.
So, I will get you that answer by the end of the day today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, because I have a lot of
people, you know, in Jacksonville particularly because we have
Canines for Warriors, which is in my district.
Secretary McDonough. Yes.
Mr. Rutherford. And they are very active, and we are eager
to go to start helping, you know, our veterans around the
country.
Secretary McDonough. Great.
Mr. Rutherford. But thank you very much.
And with that, Madam Chair, I will yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
I think my own window is closing in a moment. I am trying
to hold it together here.
Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Lee. Okay. Hopefully, this will not be the full five
minutes.
But thank you, Mr. Secretary.
As former chairwoman of the Technology Modernization
Subcommittee, I obviously felt very strongly about the rollout
of the Electronic Health Records Modernization, and since your
12-week review last year, we have seen the rollout in Spokane
still has some continued difficulties.
I know you inherited this problem, and we certainly do
appreciate your team's regular updates on this issue, but some
problems still remain, and we need to ensure that the VA
addresses them quickly and effectively, especially with these
Go Live from Walla Walla and Ohio coming on this spring.
And so I just wanted to ask how does the FY 2023 request of
$1.76 billion account for the ongoing issues we have seen in
the rollout at Mann-Grandstaff in Walla Walla.
Secretary McDonough. Yes. Thanks very much.
So this is a slightly smaller request than I think was
anticipated in the initial. So the first thing is it recognizes
that the rollout is much slower because of how challenging
Mann-Grandstaff has been.
Let me just say publicly again how much I appreciate the
work of our team on the ground in Mann-Grandstaff. They have
done really important work in helping the rest of us understand
the nature of this challenge.
The second thing is we just had three more IG reports. We
have closed those recommendations back to the IG in Mann-
Grandstaff, but we are still going to keep learning from that,
and we are staying in touch with the Mann-Grandstaff team.
I know they just testified in the House yesterday, many of
them, along with Walla Walla professionals, and I know a Deputy
will be going out there soon to meet with them, I think, later
this month.
Third, Walla Walla is only ten days in, but it is going
actually on the higher end of expectations. That does not mean
it has been flawless, but we are rolling, and that is because
we learned the lessons from Spokane.
And the same will be true in Columbus at the end of this
month, and then as we go to new facilities after that.
But what we are going to do is let the data and the
expertise drive this. We are not going to try to force some
timeline.
We are going to try to learn lessons, and between, you
know, Kurt DelBene as our Assistant Secretary for OI&T and Dr.
Terry Adirim as our Program Lead, we are taking this very, very
seriously.
We are learning the right lessons, and we will stay on top
of it.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
And then, you know, back in my facilities in the district,
I have been hearing a lot of concerns and struggles with
outdated IT infrastructure. This has resulted in difficulty
being able to deliver services to veterans, but also has opened
up the VA to cyber vulnerabilities.
In fact, I recently just introduced a bill to improve VA
cybersecurity.
How does your budget request aim to secure these much
needed technological upgrades at the VA in advance of these
further rollouts?
Secretary McDonough. Yes, thanks very much.
So, we are asking for $400 million for cyber. It is an $80
million increase over last year. So, this is a very serious
priority for us.
We are obviously instituting the President's plan for us to
get to Zero Trust architecture. We will not do that all in this
budget, but we will get a good way down that chain.
And, you know, we have had important but modest increases
in IT infrastructure over the course of the last couple of
years. This includes important upgrades of the kind of material
that you have had frustrations within your district.
And importantly, the Infrastructure Modernization Program
is funded by this request as well. So it is a big priority for
us.
We, frankly, need to continue those increases in the out-
years, but we feel good about this request.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
And that is all I have. Thank you for your time.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mrs. Lee.
Mr. Secretary, that concludes our budget hearing, and we
just really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.
I have to commend you on how thorough your responses have
been, how responsive your responses have been. That is not
always the case in this budget hearing.
And sometimes these hearings are a wrestling match, and
instead this one was collaborative like it should always be.
Secretary McDonough. Great.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, on behalf of the committee, we
appreciate it. I am sure that we will have more questions in
the future and look forward to working with you as we move the
MilCon VA chair's mark through the process.
Secretary McDonough. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. With that, you are welcome.
And I thank all the members for their well wishes and
understanding my spluttering.
So with that, the hearing stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 27, 2022.
MEETING VETERANS' FULL NEEDS: UPDATE ON WOMEN'S HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH,
HOMELESSNESS, AND OTHER PROGRAMS
WITNESSES
ERICA SCAVELLA, M.D., ASSISTANT UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH FOR CLINICAL
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
DAVID CARROLL, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUICIDE PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
PATRICIA HAYES, PH.D., CHIEF OFFICER, OFFICE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH,
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
BENJAMIN KLIGLER, M.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PATIENT CENTERED
CARE AND CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing of the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee is called to order.
This is a hybrid hearing, so we need to address a few
housekeeping matters.
For the members joining virtually, once you start speaking,
there is a slight delay before you are displayed on the main
screen. Speaking into the microphone activates the camera,
displaying the speaker on the main screen. Do not stop your
remarks if you do not immediately see the screen switch;
however, if the screen does not change after several seconds,
please make sure you are not muted.
To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker
is being displayed, we ask that you remain on mute unless you
have sought recognition. Myself, or staff I designate, may mute
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition
to eliminate inadvertent background noise.
Members who are virtual are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the staff to send you
a request to unmute yourself. Please then accept that request
so you are no longer muted.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That email
address has been provided in advance to your staff.
I am really thrilled to actually be here together in person
and to see everyone's smiling faces. I really apologize for my
tardiness. I was attending the funeral of Secretary Madeleine
Albright, and I appreciate everybody's understanding,
especially our witnesses.
Today's hearing will give us a chance to hear from the
experts leading some of VA's critical program offices.
I am pleased to welcome for the first time before the
subcommittee Dr. Erica Scavella, Assistant Under Secretary of
Health for Clinical Services. She is accompanied by Dr. David
Carroll, Executive Director of the Office of Mental Health and
Suicide Prevention; Dr. Patricia Hayes, Chief Officer of the
Office of Women's Health; and Dr. Benjamin Kligler, Executive
Director of the Office of Patient Centered Care and Cultural
Transformation.
We are glad to have you all here with us today to discuss
the Department's budget request for fiscal year 2023 and how it
affects these critical programs.
As I said to the Secretary at our last hearing, it is
really heartening to see this budget invests in so many key
areas that make a difference in the lives of veterans. This
hearing will give us a chance to dive deeper into those areas
and discuss how the budget anticipates supporting further
efforts to meet all of our veterans' needs, as well as how the
committee's work in these areas has had an impact over the past
several years.
In fiscal year 2022, we provided $840 million for gender-
specific care and women's health programs, an increase of $111
million over the comparable fiscal year 2021 number. We
provided $13.2 billion for mental health programs, an increase
of $2.9 billion above the prior year. And homelessness programs
were increased by $246 million, for a total of $2.2 billion.
I am so proud, as I think we all are, to have led the
subcommittee in investing in these critical programs that have
seen such a significant expansion of need. This is a
subcommittee that has been very intentional about the
investments that we have made in these important programs. I
think many of us for many years observed traditional attempts
to help improve the health and quality of life of our veterans
to not nearly as much success as these programs most definitely
do.
So, for example, we have women who are the fastest-growing
demographic of veterans seeking care at the VA. We absolutely
must make sure that there are care teams in place to meet their
needs, that facilities are safe and welcoming spaces, and that
veterans feel truly welcome in a healthcare system that values
them.
We need to reach a point at which women's healthcare is not
an afterthought but an intrinsic, well-planned part of the
basic healthcare delivery system. And I have been encouraged by
the progress that VA has made in this area in recent years, and
I look forward to hearing more about what is to come.
We have also seen increased need in mental health programs
and homelessness programs, as veterans continue to be at too
great a risk for unstable housing, suicide, and substance
abuse. The pandemic exacerbated many of these issues, and while
the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan Act gave VA needed
resources to boost them through the darkest days of the
pandemic, there will clearly be a lasting impact on our
veterans in years to come.
So I look forward to discussing how we can sustain those
efforts and ensure that we continue to make progress in
addressing these challenges.
And I am also pleased to know that today's hearing will
give us a chance to hear about some of VA's forward-looking
initiatives, like the Whole Health program, which I know is of
great interest to many of the members of this subcommittee.
This subcommittee has sought to give VA resources to
steadily expand the Whole Health program to additional sites so
that more veterans can benefit from its approach to a model of
care that goes beyond treating the physical symptoms of
diseases and considers the physical, mental, emotional,
spiritual, and environmental needs of veterans as well. This
approach has been shown to have significant benefits for
veterans and has the potential to reduce healthcare costs
overall.
So thank you all for being here today, for your service to
our Nation's veterans. I am looking forward to a dynamic
conversation.
And I am now pleased, in person, to yield to our ranking
member and my dear friend, Judge Carter, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it sure is nice to
be recognized today when we aren't wearing masks. And, you
know, we miss the smiles and everybody's smiles.
Thank you for scheduling this hearing.
We all hear from our veterans about their healthcare, about
the facilities, about what they think is good, what they think
is not good. It is time for us to dig in to some of those
things. And I think we are doing a great job, though we can
always do better. In fact, in any human endeavor, there are
always things you can do better if you work at it.
So thank you. You are our expert witnesses. We are very
proud and happy to have each of you here to keep us informed.
And let's work on issues that we might all make better.
With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
As I don't see Chair DeLauro or Ranking Member Granger, we
will certainly go to them if they arrive at any point in the
meeting.
So, Dr. Scavella, your full written testimony will be
included in the record, and you are recognized for 5 minutes to
summarize your remarks.
Dr. Scavella. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My
colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss how VA
provides a unified approach to veteran care by leveraging all
of our capabilities, including those in women's health, mental
health, homelessness, and whole health.
I am accompanied today by Dr. Benjamin Kligler, Executive
Director, Office of Patient Centered Care and Cultural
Transformation; Dr. Patricia Hayes, Chief Officer, Women's
Health; and Dr. David Carroll, Executive Director, Office of
Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.
Our commitment in VA is to protect, promote, and restore
veterans' health and well-being, to empower and equip them to
achieve their life goals, and to provide state-of-the-art
treatments as needed.
VA provides a continuum of forward-looking outpatient,
residential, and in-patient services across the country. Our
services are integrated in order to assure that a veteran is at
the center of their care and that they receive those services
when and where they need them. Both physical and mental health
issues, including opioid and substance use disorders, require
integrated and veteran-centric approaches to treatment.
Our Nation's veterans are strong, capable, valuable members
of society, and it is imperative that we ease their transition
back into civilian life and provide them with continued support
over their lifetime.
VA is leading the Nation in transforming the healthcare
system from a system designed around episodes of illness and
disease management to one that is based on partnership between
the veteran and VHA to ensure that they receive the benefits
that they are entitled to. We are focused on whole health to
ensure that the veteran receives the care that they deserve.
We recognize that our Nation's veterans experience
difficult times, and, since its launch in 2007, the Veterans
Crisis Line has answered nearly 5.9 million calls, responded to
over 704,000 text messages and chats, and has responded in time
to ensure that we are rapidly and actively responding to
veterans in need.
We are simplifying access to the Veterans Crisis Line
effective this July by limiting and reducing the numbers that
need to be dialed to a 988 emergency phone number that can be
reached for veterans who are in crisis. They reach out using
the 988 line, and then they press ``1'' to receive the VA.
We also launched the Keep It Secure national campaign,
focused on lethal means safety related to the safe storage of
firearms, targeting the majority of veterans who actually use
firearms as the way to commit suicide. So we know that if we
can put time between their access to their firearm by keeping
it locked up, keeping the ammunition in a different location,
and give them time between that thought and that action, that
we can save lives.
With your guidance and support, VA has worked diligently to
address VA's most pressing social need, which is homelessness.
Secretary McDonough has committed to housing 38,000 veterans in
permanent housing this year, and we are working to make that a
reality.
We have some innovative programs, including the Supportive
Services for Veteran Families, to provide emergency housing
when needed and also to look at some nontraditional ways of
encompassing those things that place veterans at risk for
homelessness.
We also provided housing in the form of individualized
residential facilities, as opposed to congregate settings, to
make sure that our veterans were protected against COVID-19.
And we also vaccinated over 108,000 veterans during this time
period while veterans were facing homelessness. So we were able
to make impact both in ensuring their safety in the housing and
also providing them vaccinations.
VA remains committed to ending veteran homelessness by
ensuring that every veteran has permanent, sustainable housing,
with access to high-quality healthcare. And we have programs in
place to address the other things that do affect our veterans
when they are facing homelessness, such as employment, the
ability to be contacted, and the ability to take care of their
families.
Our Whole Health program is also expanding. Our initial
evaluation at 18 initial flagship facilities addresses the
national epidemics of chronic pain and opioid use, and we have
demonstrated that there has been a decrease in use through the
use of our Whole Health techniques. Dr. Kligler will give more
about that during his testimony.
Finally, we know that women are choosing VA and that, since
2001, we have increased our enrollment from just over 159,000
veterans to over 600,000 veterans who are women. We know that
we must continue to address the needs of this population as we
provide care.
VA has a goal to reach all veterans where they are to
provide the care that they need at the place that they are in
their lives. We are committed to providing the world-class care
that they are entitled to. And we look forward to answering
your questions during this hearing.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Trone [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. Scavella, very much
for that testimony.
To lead off, Ranking Member Carter, would you like to go
first?
Mr. Carter. Go ahead.
Mr. Trone. Okay. Great. Thank you very much.
Thanks to the witnesses for joining us today and to Chair
Wasserman Schultz and Ranking Member Carter for holding this
hearing intrinsic to women's health and well-being.
As you all know, substance use disorder among our veterans
is very high. The VA budget request notes that over half a
million vets were seen last year in VA facilities for a
substance use disorder. The request also notes that the number
of VA providers who had the X waiver to prescribe medication
for opioid use disorder has increased by almost 20 percent
since 2020.
Dr. Carroll, how does the number of providers in the VA
health system who are waivered compare with the number that
should be waivered in order to ensure we have enough providers
to prescribe this medication?
Mr. Carroll. Thank you for the question, sir. We would be
happy to get back to you on the record with the specific
numbers, in terms of waivers.
But just to put it within context, we are continuing to
move forward with our implementation of evidence-based,
clinical-practice-guideline-concordant care, which includes,
you know, prescribers, which includes moving out our care for
substance use disorder and opioid use disorder out of specialty
clinics into primary care clinics, and we have seen an increase
in the amount of prescribing.
Our opioid overdose education and naloxone prescribing
program has been recognized nationally as a best practice by
the Joint Commission and has received national awards.
Mr. Trone. I think that is all good, but we have to get
back--the X waivers, we have to get that going. I was just in
Atlanta for an addiction conference all week last week. And so
what barriers exist there in getting additional providers on
the X waiver?
Mr. Carroll. We are working with our other Federal partners
across the system, all of the other Federal Cabinet-level
agencies, to have appropriate regulation and licensing and so
forth for that legislation as well.
Mr. Trone. Okay. We would encourage you to continue to
focus on the X waiver to eliminate that.
It is critical also, as you mentioned, that primary care
providers be able to provide medication for opioid use disorder
so patients don't have to wait for an appointment with a
specialist to get started. How is the VA integrating treatment
for substance use disorder into primary care?
Mr. Carroll. That has been our SCOUTT initiative, which is
moving our opioid use treatment out of specialty care, as I
said, into our primary care clinics. That program was started a
number of years ago, and it continues to increase every year.
We are also expanding our care for substance use disorder
and opioid use disorder overall by hiring additional staff to
focus on getting peer support available for veterans out in
primary care clinics and our residential programs, working on
our supported employment programs so we are treating the whole
veteran, not just a particular condition, but also making sure
that they can get back into or maintain stable employment
during that time.
Mr. Trone. That is great. Those peer supports are so
important.
The last question. The VA budget request notes that, last
year, on average, 31 days passed between when a vet was
determined to need residential treatment for substance use
disorder and when they were admitted as an in-patient. I mean,
I think we can do better than that.
So talk to us about how we are going to do better than 31
days. When someoneis ready to go, we have to be able to have a
spot for them to go.
Mr. Carroll. We agree, sir, and that is of great concern to
us.
There have been a number of challenges this year, or the
last couple of years, with the COVID pandemic. It has affected
our residential programs, in particular, in terms of making
sure that they are safe for veterans and that we have the
staff.
And, also, the days between screening and admission, we
focus on what the veteran needs and making sure that they have
the time to get their life in order if they need time to come
into our programs, but to make sure that we can do it safely
and that we have the staff available to take care of them.
Mr. Trone. Okay. Thank you very much.
I yield to Judge Carter for your questions.
Mr. Carter. I thank you.
Just to do a quick follow-up, a curiosity, as I listen to
what your testimony was. Do you have any indication, that 31-
day delay, how many people committed suicide?
Mr. Carroll. We don't have that specific information, sir.
We don't track that. We track all-cause mortality. But we would
be happy to look at the data and see if we can break it down by
cause of death. But our suicide death data tends to run--you
know, it is not in real-time, necessarily. But we are tracking
that very carefully.
Mr. Carter. Just curious.
Mr. Carroll. Yeah.
Mr. Carter. You know, when you have an addiction and you
are all messed up and then they tell you, ``Wait,'' that can be
tough. But I realize you all have done a great job on wait time
on an awful lot of things, and you are commended for that.
Because I have been around for a while, and I remember.
You know, in Texas, we have about 22,000 veterans enrolled
in the Burn Pit Registry. I have 4,200 of them in my two-county
district, in my current district. I appreciate the proposed
increases for programs and research related to military
environmental exposures within fiscal year 2023.
Explain how the VA intends to do additional funding, or if
this additional funding is provided, what are you going to do
about research? Do you believe veterans are aware of the Burn
Pit Registry, or is more outreach needed? And how does the VA's
previous research inform the VA's decisions to expand
presumptive conditions related to environmental exposure?
Dr. Scavella. Thank you for that question.
We are committed to ensuring that we are looking at these
concerns, and our clinicians are trained to evaluate symptoms
that would present and that patients may describe when they are
seeing their providers at VA. So we are able to do both the
diagnosis and determine what course of treatment they should
proceed with.
In addition to that, related to your second question about
service connection specifically, we are looking at those
presumptive disorders to determine how they should be
evaluated, and we do have services in place to do those
evaluations. That does take place under the benefits arm of
Department of Veterans Affairs.
I am going to pause and see if Dr. Hayes has anything to
add to that.
Ms. Hayes. Certainly.
Thank you, Representative Carter.
I think one of your questions is how we let veterans know.
We have had a very active campaign, particularly for women
veterans, to get the word out to their providers, to the VSOs,
that we need to focus on trying to get that word out each
time--for example, the first round of presumptives we brought
out, we did a major campaign--posters, social media. We want
the veterans to know.
And we want them to understand the two parts of it: that
the Burn Pit Air---what we call the Airborne Hazards Registry
is an important part for them to sign up for and to get those
tests and evaluations, and it contributes--they contribute to
the overall research that will lead us to understanding what
has happened to these veterans with the airborne hazards.
But the other part is us training up the primary care
providers to understand that these things are out there, that
we need to get veterans tested, evaluated, and maybe they need
pulmonary testing, lung tests.
This is the training that we are doing for the veterans who
are in our system. But we are doing a lot of outreach to let
other veterans know to come in and get these services.
Mr. Carter. A question I have been curious about: I have
had some Marines and soldiers tell me that burning the sewage
and the waste was a punishment tour.
Ms. Hayes. Wow.
Mr. Carter. Somebody got mad at you and made you go burn
that stuff.
What area does a burning burn pit affect people? Do you
have any idea?
Dr. Scavella. So we are doing a lot of research in this
area, as you heard. We have some presumptive diagnoses at this
point. However, there are some other concerns that we are
looking into to ensure that we have a full understanding about
all the risks of the different types of products that were
being included in these burn pits. And we do have some
presumptive diagnoses already in place, but we are continuing
to partner with our research colleagues to continue to look at
this.
But the most important thing I think is that, while we are
trying to determine some of the causality related to this, that
we are providing the care that the veterans need, that they
have earned, and that they have a right to by ensuring that our
providers are both taking care of them in primary care, which
is typically the area that they seek us initially, and then we
refer out to specialists, sub-specialists, as necessary, to
provide them the care that they have earned.
Mr. Carter. And I am sure that a soldier knows more than I
do, but the reason I ask that question is, if you are out in
the field fighting a war and you are in a group camp someplace,
there is waste disposal that takes place, and it is typically
burn pit. Also, big areas have big burn pits. And so the
question that is going to come up in a soldier's mind is, was I
ever close to that burn pit?
My brother-in-law just died from brain cancer, and he was
convinced he had never had any Agent Orange until he finally
looked at the map, and Tuy Hoa Air Force Base was treated every
3 days. But he had no idea; he was flying. And his brain cancer
was covered. And the VA came through like champs for him, so I
commend you for it. But he just assumed, because he was flying,
he wasn't affected by Agent Orange--and it wasn't true--because
they were keeping people away from that Air Force base with
that Agent Orange.
So I guess we need to--the soldiers are generally going to
make presumptions that they were either too close or not close
enough, and you have to get them educated. Because these
cancers are all serious cancers. And you can't count them after
they get it; you have to count them before they get it so maybe
you can do something about it.
I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [presiding]. Thank you, Judge Carter.
And I am sorry for your loss.
So I want to focus on women's health. We have endeavored in
this subcommittee to really lean in on making sure that, given
that women are the fastest-growing group of veterans served by
the VA, that it was really important. Because, a few years ago,
the services provided by the VA were haphazard, woefully
inadequate, and certainly not focused on gender-specific care.
So that has changed significantly, and that is to the credit of
the team of people here.
In fiscal year 2022, we specifically provided $840 million
for gender-specific care and programmatic efforts to enhance
women's health. That was an increase of $30 million above the
budget request. Again, I know we are all proud of that and it
was very intentional.
So, Dr. Hayes--if you don't mind if I ask Dr. Hayes
questions directly--what are some of the efforts that this
additional funding are enabling you to under take to improve
women's healthcare?
And I would also just like to know, sort of in subheading
questions, given widespread healthcare provider shortages, have
you had a problem staffing your gender-specific care programs--
you know, the women's health program managers and other
administrative staff?
Ms. Hayes. Madam Chair, thank you for your interest and for
your questions about women's health and our women veterans as
we serve.
As was noted, we have this large increase in women, and we
have been very excited to have the increase in the budget that
has allowed us to launch some major programs addressed at the
gaps in women's healthcare.
So, in 2021 and 2022--and, as you mentioned, the 2022
budget--over the last years, we have executed $150 million that
went directly out based on the field's request for the funds.
The primary focus of that money has been hiring providers,
including primary care providers, gynecologists, also some
mental health providers, nurses, and other support staff.
The second wave of funding that we were able to get out was
able to help us fix gaps in equipment. And by equipment for
women, we are thinking about upgrading the mammography
equipment to state-of-the-art, getting things like new DEXA
scan equipment, but not only that. We are paying attention to
things like women with low mobility, our spinal-cord-injured
veterans, and making sure that the exam tables, the clinic
appointment, et cetera, is fitting their needs.
So we have continued this. Every sixth month, we roll out
another program request, meaning you have to keep up if you are
out there in the field. You have to be regularly assessing,
what do you have? Where are your gaps? Because the number of
women coming in is so high--about 3 in 10 of the folks who come
in the door are women--and so we are regularly saying,
``Assess, ask, assess, implement, you know, get the money, make
sure you are continuing to go.''
So we funded, as I said, 813 staff out of the last 2 years.
We expect the funding budget for this particular part of the
program--which we call WHISE, Women's Health Innovation and
Staffing Enhancement. The funding for the WHISE program for
next year is going to be about $107 million. And we are
challenged to implement that fast enough, to execute it fast
enough. So we are running as fast as we can in that area.
You point out a very important issue, which is in primary
care, which is the majority of these providers. There is an
ongoing shortage in primary care providers. There is an ongoing
retirement. There aren't enough people in medical school. You
know all these things we are telling you in the healthcare in
the U.S. So, yes, we are challenged.
We have exercised every recruitment advantage that we can.
We are not just sort of letting the places out there try and do
it all on their own, but we are using the VA HR recruitment
offices, which have a high level of effort going out there.
We are basically enhancing the message that, if you would
like to take care of women, there are women in the VA to take
care of. I think part of the thing that we have had to try and
overcome is the message that people have had for a long time
and the idea that everyone who is in the VA as a patient is a
male. And so just trying to convince people in medical
schools--we go to medical conferences, we go to large-scale
events to try and get that message out.
We still have some gaps, and one of the ways that we
continue to address the gaps is to train our primary care
providers who are maybe not taking care of women through our
mini-residency program. We give them intensive training to
upgrade their skills to take care of women.
So, yes, there are concerns. We are continuing to push the
recruitment. But that is an ongoing challenge for all of us, so
we are just going to continue to work on it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Not that we don't love our male
primary care providers, but, you know, it is important to be
able to be treated by someone who maybe is living your
experience personally as well as who has treated your patient
type, you know, for a length of time.
What I am going to do--I am just going to ask one other
quick question. And then they are going to call votes at about
3:30, and there are 10 of them. So I don't want to leave the
witnesses waiting to have us come back for a second round. So
we will try to quickly go through our first round, and then we
will do tight second-round remarks until we have to go. Okay?
All right. Thank you.
So the other thing I just wanted to ask you about is the
construction projects. VA is prioritizing maintenance and
construction projects that expand access to gender-specific
care for women veterans. But if you could both, Dr. Scavella
and Dr. Hayes, give us an update on what VA is doing to ensure
that facilities are designed to meet the needs of our women
veterans.
I mean, I know I have been in a lot of VA facilities where,
you know, the population is combined, it is really
uncomfortable. And it is getting better, but do you feel like
facility improvements for gender-specific care are getting
adequate prioritization?
Dr. Scavella. Thank you for that question. I will answer
briefly and then pass it off to Dr. Hayes.
But one of the things we are doing with new construction is
ensuring that we have waiting rooms that are specifically for
gender-specific care so that women are waiting in an area with
other women for that particular care. We have found that they
have enjoyed that and like that opportunity.
So they have essentially a women's health suite in all of
our new construction. In our older facilities, we are doing as
best as we can to make dedicated areas----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And forgive me for interrupting you,
but what percentage would you say have evolved to that finite
gender-specific area?
Dr. Scavella. That is a great question. I will actually
have to take that one for the record. I don't know the answer
to that question, unless Dr. Hayes happens to know it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Dr. Scavella. I will pass off.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Ms. Hayes. About 50 percent of our facilities have
dedicated women's clinics. We think that, because a woman needs
to go everywhere in the facility, though, that we have to
upgrade everything across the board, that someone feels welcome
when they walk in the front door and they feel welcome when
they go to cardiology or some other specialty clinic.
So it is both a culture change and a major sort of attitude
in culture change and it is a development of specific things
like lactation support spaces and making sure that there are
the right bathrooms and the family bathrooms and the various
services that we need.
We have recently developed reports on this for Congress as
to what we have done with the budget in the last 2 years in the
$20 million assigned in the budget for what I call welcoming
spaces. We want women to have the sense of ``I belong here''
when they walk in the front door.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And prioritization?
Ms. Hayes. Prioritization is part of that----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In terms of prioritizing gender-
specific construction.
Ms. Hayes. Yes. In the major construction, the SCIP
projects, projects that address the needs of women and the
needs of privacy are given extra scoring in the SCIP projects.
So, not only do they get more scoring, my team is involved in
actually reviewing the SCIP projects so that we can assure
that, yes, this project is going to help develop these gender-
specific areas. And, together, that gets a higher scoring than
it would without those projects being focused on women.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
I thank the members for your indulgence.
And, Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you
holding this hearing.
You know, my wife gets her care through the VA. I get my
care through the VA. My oldest daughter gets her care through
the VA.
I just want to reiterate what the chairwoman said. It is
great that we are putting resources towards it, but it would be
even more powerful for us to see exactly where those resources
are going to ensure that, like you mentioned, every healthcare
facility has the resources needed for women in particular.
I want to ask, to all panelists: You know, I represent 42
percent of the border. And there was an article that came out
earlier today about the VA being involved in the border crisis.
And the question is, are any VA employees from your respective
departments being diverted to assist with vaccinating or other
services for migrants at the southern border?
Dr. Scavella. I will take that question initially.
I would have to get you specifics on that. We have
supported the fourth mission, which is supporting the American
healthcare system. So I can't specifically speak to that
particular initiative per se. However, if there is a need to
take care of other initiatives outside of Department of
Veterans Affairs, we do have mission assignments.
But we can get back to you specifically--unless any of my
colleagues have any data?
Okay. I didn't think so.
So we can get that back to you. We can take that for the
record.
Mr. Gonzales. It is a very frustrating part on my end. I
hosted my 10th delegation at the southern border on Monday, and
I asked this specific question. I have asked it before to the
VA; I have asked it to the administration. And they told me
that there was none, you know, there was no plan in place. And
then 2 days later I read this.
So I want to make sure that--I understand the fourth
mission. I support the fourth mission. I think all that is
fantastic. I just want it to be transparent in what we are
doing, so we can make sure that resources aren't diverted from
the areas that are important; veteran care isn't going to be
watered down in response to it.
So thank you. I look forward to seeing your response.
Dr. Carroll, as stated in the testimony, the CARES Act
provided funding that the VA used to procure and distribute
over 50,000 disposable smartphones.
The question is, has veteran access to these smartphones
made an impact in the amount of contacts to the Veteran Crisis
Line?
Mr. Carroll. So we do not--a veteran can contact the
Veterans Crisis Line anonymously, so we do not track whether or
not the individual calling is a veteran. We invite their
revelation of that, or an Active Duty servicemember. Or we
would not necessarily know if it is a smartphone that we
distributed.
But the smartphones I think were distributed by the
homeless program, and Dr. Scavella can perhaps speak to that.
Dr. Scavella. Yes. Thank you, Dr. Carroll.
So, yeah, we did distribute over 59,000 smartphones in
connection with our homeless program services. We wanted to
make sure that we were providing the opportunity for veterans
to both be contacted related to healthcare or mental healthcare
issues, employment issues, and the other issues that typical
people are contacted about related to obtaining a permanent
place of residence. So we did issue over 59,000 smartphones in
connection with that.
We do recognize that veterans have multiple needs, so those
experiencing homelessness may also be experiencing problems
with mental health, healthcare conditions, as well as childcare
needs. And so we do know and recognize that those phones may be
used for multiple different things.
But we are not necessarily tracking how people are
contacting us. We just wanted to make sure that we provided a
means of contact for those vulnerable populations as they were
navigating homelessness, employment, and healthcare and mental
healthcare issues.
Mr. Gonzales. Yeah, no, I understand the initiative, and I
think it is a valid initiative.
I am a cryptologist by trade, and I look at data. You know,
the data tells you the answer on what is happening. This
subcommittee, in particular, has been very generous in the
amount of support that it has given, and I think, for many of
us, we just want to see what those results netted. So, that
way, we can be able to go: Did it work? Did it not work?
Not every program works, and some programs work better than
others. And when you are making decisions on what is going to
be appropriated or not, I want to be able to look back and go,
these 59,000 phones equated to--fill in the blank. And, that
way, we can go: Do we need more phones, or do we need to do
something else, right? Do we need to use something else?
So I would just once again say, that piece is critical as
we go forward.
I don't have time for another one, Madam Chair, and I want
to be respectful of time, so I will yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you all for being here.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, for holding
this.
I want to focus specifically on veterans who die by suicide
in the VA system. We know that we have a statistic of about 6.8
for every 100,000 veterans. And I think we all recognize that
is inexcusable, and the goal should be zero.
My bill, Leave No Veteran Behind Act, was signed into law
as part of the COMPACT Act in 2020, and it requires the VA to
reach out to those veterans who had not been in contact within
2 or more years.
Dr. Carroll, I will address this to you. It has now been
over a year since the COMPACT Act was signed into law. Could
you talk about how the implementation is going? What concrete
actions have been taken to reach out to veterans so far? And
where do we stand in measuring the impact?
Mr. Carroll. Ma'am, we would be happy to answer that
question, and we appreciate your bill, but I am going to pass
this to Dr. Scavella, who has had direct oversight of this
particular piece of the legislation.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
Dr. Scavella. Thank you, Dr. Carroll.
And thank you for that question.
We are committed, first of all, to making sure that we
provide the best care for our veterans. With regards to section
204 of the COMPACT Act, we were required to contact vulnerable
veterans who have not received care from us in the past 2
years, as you stated.
We identified 2.9 million veterans out of our 9.2 million
enrolled veterans. And we reached out to those veterans
initially via email and reached successfully approximately
648,000 of them and then provided postal mail to the remaining
approximately 2.2 million veterans.
We are in the process of looking at those contacts to see
who has responded by reaching out to schedule an appointment
with us. And based upon that net of those who have not, we will
be reaching out to them. This will be a field-based effort to
reach out to them to ensure that they are invited to come in
for an appointment.
But we did identify 2.9 million veterans in that vulnerable
cohort. Thank you for that.
Mrs. Lee. Do you know how many of those 2.9 million have
actually gone and accessed care after the contact?
Dr. Scavella. So we are still in the process of looking at
those numbers as we speak. I think we recently briefed some
Members of Congress about this on Monday afternoon. We are
looking to see where that net is at this point.
We just completed the final mailing in February, and we are
doing a lot of data review to ensure that we have the
appointments made.
That act, that requirement, it requires an employee to have
access to the medical record to do that comparison.
Mrs. Lee. Okay. Just, if there are any specific resources
that we need to provide to make sure that all parts of that
bill are implemented, could you let us know that?
Dr. Scavella. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Mrs. Lee. I also--and I don't know if--I have Dr. Carroll,
but it might be you. I hope you understand or are familiar with
the Zero Suicide Initiative and its track record across this
country, including--it has been funded under a grant program
with HHS.
Are you open, Dr. Carroll, to exploring the feasibility and
the effectiveness of a Zero Suicide model within the VA?
Mr. Carroll. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, we are familiar, I am
familiar with the Zero Suicide effort, and we have looked at it
very closely.
The Zero Suicide prevention program has seven pillars on
which it is founded. And in reviewing the programs and services
and approaches that we have within VA, we feel that we have
efforts under way that address all seven of those pillars
within our system.
We are always open to looking at what more we can do, as
Ranking Member Carter said. We are always ready to do more in
our efforts, and so we will continue to monitor this and to see
what else we can do.
We are launching a grand challenge around suicide
prevention in the month of May. That will be called Mission
Daybreak, where we are actually looking at technological
innovations that would support our early identification of
veterans who may be at risk, who would help us enhance our
Veterans Crisis Line work as well as advance the field of
lethal means safety.
So that is just one example, but we are continuing to
monitor what would help inform and improve our efforts.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Yeah, of course, this is part of my bill,
the Suicide Prevention Demonstration Project Act. And I would
love to see it roll out across the VA and take this type of
approach.
Is there anything Congress can do to help advance a Zero
Suicide pilot program and support veterans' mental health more
broadly?
Mr. Carroll. As I said, we are always open to explore
evidence-based work and to pilot. We have a number of pilots
under way. And we appreciate your support and direction, and we
will be happy to have further conversation about that.
Mrs. Lee. Okay.
And then, finally, what barriers exist to being able to do
that?
Mr. Carroll. To do specifically the Zero Suicide----
I am not aware of any barriers. I think we would need to
have a plan in place to make sure that we can collect the data.
Our suicide prevention 2.0 effort, as we call it, that is our
public health model, is based upon a model where we are
continuously evaluating data.
As Representative Gonzales said, we are trying to evaluate
everything that we do. So we would need to make sure that we
have a clear plan in place to conduct an evaluation to
determine its effectiveness and what the cost would be to carry
that forward.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
And I yield, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentlelady yields back.
Next, I will recognize Congressman Valadao, who is
participating via Zoom.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to our guests for making the time today for us.
First question. Veterans in Bakersfield and Kern County
region of my district often tell me their struggles getting
down to the Greater L.A. VA Hospital for medical care that they
can't receive at the local clinic. Their almost-2-hour drive is
often 3 hours or more due to the unpredictable L.A. Traffic.
Has there been any discussion around Kern County veterans
being associated with the VA Central California Healthcare
System instead?
The Fresno VA is almost equal distance and regionally much
easier for those veterans to get to. I know it is something
that could happen quickly and it could take a lot of planning
to make happen, but the Fresno VA could absorb the increase in
patients.
But I am curious to hear your thoughts on the process and
if it is even possible. Do people have the ability to make a
decision to try--like, if you live in Kern County and you are
required to be part of the L.A. One, can you ask for a waiver
to go into Fresno, for example? What is the best way to
approach this?
Dr. Scavella. So thank you for that question.
We are always committed to making sure that veterans have
the option and the choice to do what they like to do. So our
goal is always to try to make sure that we are meeting the
veterans' needs and wishes as to where they would like to
receive their care.
Regarding the specific issue that you have described, we
would invite more conversation to have some more discussions
about the specific needs of the veterans in your area. We do
understand that some of the rural areas and, also, that
particular corridor in California, that it is very difficult to
traverse. So we would ask to have further conversations about
that so that we can make sure that we are meeting the needs of
the veterans in your constituency.
Mr. Valadao. I am curious what you mean by--because it is a
pretty basic question. Obviously, Fresno is closer to
Bakersfield than L.A. Is the concern that there is a capacity
issue in Fresno? Or is it a cost, or is it the flexibility of
it? What is the issue here?
Dr. Scavella. So I don't think there is a concern related
to cost. I think there may be a concern related to flexibility
based on the structure of our networks. But I have not looked
into this matter very closely, so I don't want to provide
incorrect information.
So I would like the opportunity to take this back and look
at it for the record and to give you accurate information. But
we would like to make sure that we are meeting the needs and
requests of our veterans.
Mr. Valadao. And so part of that question I want to make
sure that you answer for the record, as well, is: Is this
something you guys are looking into, to give veterans the
flexibility?
I assume there are veterans in Kern County who have no
problem going down to L.A. And probably enjoy going to L.A.,
and there are others who probably look up to Fresno and think,
you know, it would be a lot easier for me, personally, to go to
Fresno.
This is something I would like to get a question on the
record as well, is: If this is something that is possible, what
do we need to do to make it happen? If it isn't, and if it is
never possible, why?
So I appreciate that and look forward to getting those
answers on that.
Mr. Valadao. The second question is, I am very concerned
about the VA recruitment and retention. Back in March, it was
noted the VA healthcare system had 50,000 vacancies.
Do you have any additional data you can provide on how
those vacancies break down by field or type? And what is
currently being done to recruit and retain talent at the VA?
And what more can be done to ensure these positions are being
filled by high-quality candidates who want to stay in the VA
for long periods of time?
Dr. Scavella. So thank you for that question as well.
Regarding the specific data, we will have to take that for
the record. But our goal is to make sure that we are recruiting
and retaining the highest talent capable of providing excellent
care to our veterans. So our goal is always to make sure that
we have the best human resources employees in place in order to
make sure that that is a reality.
We are also thankful that we have legislation in place that
will help to recruit and retain the best nurses through the
RAISE Act. And we do need to then look at the other spectrum,
which is ensuring that we can keep housekeepers in place and we
can keep physicians in place, as well as the other complements
of the healthcare team.
So we are working with human resources to make sure that we
bring the talent there, to ensure that we have the talent in
place to recruit and retain the highest talent.
But specifically related to the data, I will take that back
so that we can get you that specific information about
vacancies and specifically by type of employee.
Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I appreciate that.
And my time is up, so I am going to yield back and let the
chairwoman know that if I have any more questions I will put
them in for the record. So thank you very much for hosting this
today.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Valadao.
The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Case, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
And just for the members' information, they are going to
call votes, 12 votes, at 3:45. So we will go until, you know--
usually the first votes are about a half-hour. So we will go
through, you know, to try to finish our questions, and then we
will adjourn.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, Dr. Scavella, I just wanted to commend the
testimony, the written testimony, which is long and thorough.
So certainly anybody that wants a good understanding, a deeper
understanding of what you guys are all up to, here it is right
here. So I appreciate that.
I just wanted to--some factual questions. You said earlier,
and it is in your testimony, that women veterans utilizing the
VHA are now at 600,000. And your testimony says that that has
tripled since 2001, from 160,000 to 600,000, which is, of
course, a huge increase. And we have to meet that demand.
But I guess my question is, is that proportionately more or
less than the overall increase? In other words, are women
veterans using disproportionately higher than male veterans? I
don't know what the figure is--I don't know what the
denominator is, if that is the right way to put it.
Dr. Scavella. Correct. So thank you for that question.
So, yes, women veterans within the Department of Veterans
Affairs has more than tripled since 2001. So we have more than
tripled that initial rate that we counted back in 2001. We are
over 600,000 veterans. If I misspoke and gave the wrong number
earlier, I apologize.
Regarding the rate of increases, Dr. Hayes said earlier, at
this point, women who are enrolling--or veterans who are
enrolling in services at Department of Veterans Affairs, 3 in
10 are women. So that is what is changing.
And then we look at the numbers of women who are serving in
the military services and the Department of Defense, and we see
that they are also representing a higher percentage of the
veterans--or, of the servicemembers.
Mr. Case. Are they more than 3 in 10 or less than 3 in 10,
the total number of women----
Dr. Scavella. I don't know the total number. I am going to
pass it off to Dr. Hayes, since this is her area.
Mr. Case. I mean, you know what I'm asking.
Ms. Hayes. Yes, I do know what you are asking, and you are
correct that the Active Duty pipeline, right now, 19.6 percent
of military Active Duty are female, about 20 percent of the
Reserves and Guard are female.
What is going on are a couple of factors. Women and men are
enrolling from the Gulf War at about the same rate, okay? But--
Mr. Case. Proportionately.
Ms. Hayes. Enrolling. But using--women are coming in and
continuing to use us. So, if we want to talk users, 600,000.
Enrollees, in women, about 900,000.
What is of interest, perhaps, is the market penetration.
For women, the market penetration is 41 percent. For men--this
is overall, all areas. For men, it is 44 percent.
It has been narrowing for a number of reasons. Men are
aging and passing out of the--but more women--the current post-
deployment and enrollment is higher for women than it has ever
been. Is it really more than the men? A little bit. You know,
our younger men are also enrolling.
They are not always using us at the same rate. The women
are using us more. They need to use us more. They like to use
us more. They stick with us longer. So, you know, there is
lower attrition.
All those things kind of go into when we look at what is
the population that we need to plan for and serve on a day-to-
day basis. It is growing. And we could look at various parts of
the numbers. I can lay it all out for you in a PowerPoint.
But your basic question is really important. Yes, women are
using us more and at sort of a faster rate. And it is projected
that in 9 years women will have increased 32 percent over
today; men will have declined by 4 percent. So, again----
Mr. Case. That is a function of demographics also.
Ms. Hayes. Absolutely.
Mr. Case. You have more men at the senior levels that are
passing on.
Ms. Hayes. Absolutely.
Women are younger. Right. Right. But we don't expect as
high--we expect sort of equal enrollment of the younger
veterans, because they all are coming in at a pretty good clip
right now.
Mr. Case. Okay. Well, in any event, women are choosing to
use the veterans healthcare system, which is good news, right?
Ms. Hayes. Yes. It is very good news.
Mr. Case. Okay.
Ms. Hayes. Choosing to use, choosing to stay with us.
Mr. Case. Right. Okay.
And then, you know, just to kind of--I will tell you what,
I am going to defer that question until I may get another one,
because it is a little bit longer than 40 seconds.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Rutherford, via Zoom, recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
And I thank the panelists all for being here today and
touching particularly on this very important issue of mental
health.
Actually, since I have been in Congress, I have been
focused on getting service dogs to veterans suffering with
PTSD, and last year we made a big step. We got the PAWS Act
passed with the Veterans Therapy Act. And that is going to
allow the training for those service dogs, and they can adopt a
dog at the end of the training.
I would like to ask a question, and whoever could answer. I
understand that the agreements will be finalized between the
pilot sites that have been chosen and the service dog
organizations within the next month. What methodology are we
using to evaluate the success of these pilot programs? And does
the VA now have enough funding to run a really meaningful pilot
program?
Mr. Carroll. Thank you for the question, sir. This is David
Carroll. I would be happy to respond to that. And we appreciate
the support of this group and Congress in getting the PAWS Act
passed.
I am happy to report to you that we are in the process of
finalizing the memorandums of agreement between the five pilot
sites and the three K-9 training organizations. These are three
accredited K-9 training organizations. And they will be
complete soon. We have actually started to screen veterans at
two of the five sites. We expect by the end of May there will
be training cohorts under way at three of the five sites, and
the other two sites will come on board by the middle of June.
As far as the methodology to evaluate the pilots, we are
looking at what is outlined in the legislation and being
responsive to that, in particular looking at clinically
relevant outcome data for what is the impact on veterans'
conditions. We are also looking at veteran satisfaction as well
as what the impact is on veterans' engagement in the rest of
the mental health and healthcare system. So trying to do a very
comprehensive evaluation.
We are basing it on doing it through our Veterans Outcomes
Assessment methodology in large measure. Our experts in
research design from the health sciences research and
development arm of VA are leading the evaluation of the pilot.
And the General Accounting Office is going to be coming
alongside and partnering with us in terms of doing an
assessment of the pilot program overall. So there is, I think,
a fairly robust and comprehension evaluation that is planned.
And then, finally, your question about funding. The
Veterans Health Administration has provided the funding to get
these pilots launched this year. And in the President's budget
request for next year, there is money that will go for the
support of staff at our field facilities to work with the
veterans in this program as well as to make sure that we can
complete the evaluation and have the resources necessary to do
that.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much.
And, listen, I know from some of the statistical
information that we have been provided before to this committee
that suicide rates actually among those who have contact with
VHA--actually see those numbers going down, which is a really
good thing. But the problem is, obviously, it is rising for
those who are not seeking help from the VA.
And so, kind of going along with the PAWS program here
also, how are we--can you talk a little bit about your
outreach? How are we contacting these veterans? They really
aren't coming to us; we are going to have to go to them.
Dr. Scavella. Thank you for the question.
There are multiple partnerships with other Federal agencies
related to this particular aspect. We are also reaching out to
veterans as part of the COMPACT Act that we just described a
few minutes ago, making sure that those veterans who haven't
come to us for care within the past 2 years, that they do.
But we do recognize that there are some veterans who may
not be included in that cohort that we need to reach out to.
And that is where we are being creative with other Federal
entities to make sure that we have other sources of referral.
We are partnering with our veteran service organizations to
identify veterans who may be in need who may not be enrolled,
as well as other Federal partners, to ensure that we are known
for providing the care.
And we also do have a lot of public service campaigns on
television. I actually saw one recently. So we do try to think
outside of the box to make sure that we are reaching out to
this vulnerable population of veterans.
Mr. Rutherford. All right. I thank you. Because I think
that is going to be a significant number.
But I see my time has expired, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
The gentleman yields back.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes. It is 3:26. We have about
20 minutes. And I think we have enough members to just do the
5-minute round, and then we will wrap up.
So I want to return once again this year to the IVF
benefit, the fertility benefit that we include in our bill each
year, that I am hoping once again to be able to try to make a
permanent benefit, but, for now, we have just renewed it each
year.
It was really good to see that the Secretary--you know, the
President, through the Secretary--has proposed decoupling the
VA's policy related to IVF from the Department of Defense
policy, because the Department of Defense policy is blatantly
discriminatory. It blocks the use of donated sperm or eggs. It
prevents same-sex couples from being able to take advantage of
this benefit even if they have a service-connected infertility.
And it blocks unmarried couples, among others.
So, Dr. Hayes, how would this new proposal make this
service more equitable among veterans and address existing
disparities?
And just to clarify, because I know we tried to find a way
to include at least some progress in our bill last year, but
congressional action--this is not something that VA can do by
rule, right? Congressional action is required to address the
inequities, is my understanding.
Ms. Hayes. Yes, Madam Chair, we are very pleased to be able
to present in this year's budget the option of legislation that
would authorize VA to be able to provide IVF care to service-
connected veterans, veterans who have endured serious illness,
injury that has caused them to be infertile as a barrier to
their family building.
I think it is really important to understand that, anytime
there is infertility, it is a problem for a couple, and VA, by
law, only has authority to provide medical treatment to the
veteran. And so we cannot change the law on our own to include
all veterans and their partners. We need Congress's assistance
to be able to provide the necessary medical care to both
members of the couple.
The proposal, as will soon be available to you in full, is
service-connected veterans. It is an open definition of
``partner'' and ``significant other.'' It allows for the most,
we feel, appropriate ways to help veterans build their family.
So, if a veteran is so severely injured as to be unable to
produce their own sperm or their own eggs, they should be able
to take advantage of donated eggs, donated embryos to be able
to further their family.
So, essentially, we are trying to do what we would do
without the DOD--I mean, setting aside the original DOD policy,
which is currently our law, and allowing us to move forward
with fully, you know, operationalized treatment.
Right now, we are handcuffed all the time. I talk with
veterans who have the most, you know, tragic stories to tell me
about what has happened to them in their lives during their
military service and saying to me, why can't VA help? And we
can't help without a law that will authorize this treatment.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Can you share any data on how many veterans have sought to
use this benefit but been found ineligible--''ineligible,''
meaning that they need it, they qualify for it in terms of
their service-connected infertility, but because of the
discriminatory policy on the DOD side they have been unable to
access it--and why they were ineligible?
Ms. Hayes. I regret that we do not have data on who was not
able to come forward through the approval process. The approval
process is set up in such a way that someone goes through a
checklist and has to meet all of the requirements of the
checklist before they are referred on to the IVF specialist
approval group that just make sure that they meet all the
eligibility requirements. So we do not have that data.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Well, I know something that we
can include in our bill this year, so that we make sure we can
get that data.
So you haven't been able to do anything about your data
collection to improve or ensure that you are capturing
information on veterans who are turned away.
Ms. Hayes. No. We would have to talk with you about the
difficulties and barriers in being able to do that. To be able
to measure something that doesn't occur is----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, there are certainly ways to do
it. I mean, if you only do it as a checklist and you don't meet
the criteria on the checklist, then you just change what you
ask, and indicate, you know, why someone wouldn't be eligible.
And, then, how about the outreach? Because I know one of
the challenges we have discussed--and then I will wrap up--is
that a lot of veterans who are eligible don't even know that
this is a benefit that they can access.
Ms. Hayes. Yes. We realize this barrier. We have continued
to provide social media access. I have been working very
closely with a number of service organizations and a group of
women veteran representatives who want this message to get out.
As well as, you know, a lot of men don't know that this is
a possibility. So we have gone beyond this, sort of, women's-
health type of outreach and done considerable outreach through
VA.
But we have a lot more to do, and we will continue to do an
extensive outreach program.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I look forward to continuing to work
with you all on this.
And, with that, my time has expired.
I am going to turn the gavel over to Mr. Case, because I
have to ask questions in the other subcommittee.
Mr. Case [Presiding]. Judge Carter, you are recognized for
any further questions.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, sir.
As you all probably know, the American Rescue Plan provided
$17.1 billion to VA, most of it for healthcare. The VA is
expected to obligate $12 billion in 2022, the remaining $4.3
billion in 2023.
How does the ARP funding interact with your budget request?
Would the second bite for fiscal year 2023 be higher or lower
without the ARP funding? Is it realistic to believe that VA
will obligate $12 billion in the remaining 6 months of the
fiscal year?
Dr. Scavella. So I will take that one, that question. Thank
you for the question.
Our goal is to try to make sure we obligate all funds that
are provided to us by Congress and to do so expeditiously. The
pandemic has proven to be troublesome in some areas for making
sure that we are able to effectuate some of the programs that
we want to put out.
So it is our goal to use the moneys provided through this
subcommittee and others. However, if there is a specific
program that you are asking us to speak about, that would be
helpful for me to answer this question.
Mr. Carter. No, not really. I am just----
Dr. Scavella. Okay.
Mr. Carter. It seems like that is an awful lot of money in
a short period of time. And that has to be in our thinking
process as we look at this for the next round. Because that is
a lot of money. I am not very good at math, but it is almost
$30 million.
Dr. Scavella. Yes.
Mr. Carter. So that is a lot. And it is hard to obligate it
all. You know, I am personally not for building slush funds.
Other people are, but I am not, okay? And that is the reason I
ask that question.
Another question real quick, and I will be probably
through.
The VA has used a lot of good technologies. You are ahead
of the game, a lot of people. I commend you for it. But with
the growing interest in artificial intelligence to identify
veterans' risk for, say, suicide or other things, how are you
utilizing that type of technology? What types of technology
would be the most useful for VA healthcare providers? And are
you working with VA service organizations and technology
companies?
Dr. Scavella. So thank you for that question. I will pass
that one on to Dr. Carroll.
Mr. Carroll. Sure. Thank you, ma'am.
And great question, sir. Thank you.
I think I would highlight again the grand challenge that we
are launching in the month of May that is seeking input from
across the Nation, from, you know, private-sector, nonprofit,
government collaborators, it could be VSO groups, to help us
understand what the technological advances are in artificial
intelligence, in other sorts of resources that we can use to do
a better job at early identification of veterans who are at
risk for suicide.
And it goes to, we don't know what we don't know, and we
are really seeking subject-matter expertise in that space; also
to help us understand what technological advances there may be
to advance lethal means safety for someone who is at risk; as
well as helping us understand how on our phone systems or our
social media systems that we can better identify in a way that
respects privacy and in a way that still engages people in
resources, how we can do a better job at that.
So I think this is a great opportunity to not--we are not
relying on ourselves; we are really relying on the subject-
matter expertise across the country to help us figure that out.
And we are very happy to support that, with your support behind
us. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Well, that seems to be the new world we are
going into, so I wanted to bring it up.
I yield back.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Representative Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have been hearing from women in my community,
particularly single mothers, that there are just far too many
barriers for them to be able to access care at the VA. One
mother described her inability to make it to the VA for an
important medical appointment primarily because of childcare.
And we know that these barriers are far from new and that the
VA has been aware of them.
So I would like to know, Dr. Hayes, if you could comment on
some concrete actions that the VA has taken in the last year to
address some of these enduring barriers to access for women.
Ms. Hayes. Yes. I will overwhelmingly say, yes, that the
issues of childcare are a barrier for women, for male veterans
with children, for couples with children.
This is a serious problem that is difficult for VA on its
own to address, in part because of the overall issues out there
in the world, with an 18-percent decline in the availability of
childcare centers.
We take very seriously this as a barrier. We are working to
analyze and implement our requirement under the Deborah
Sampson/Isakson-Roe law, which requires us to establish
childcare assistance at VA medical centers within the 5-year
timeframe.
We know that--we were actually very cautious, because,
while we know there are certain pockets where these are
problems--I shouldn't say ``cautious.'' I should say we have
been very deliberate in trying to figure out how best to use
the money in order to establish childcare assistance that will
be most helpful to veterans.
So there are a number of options in the legislation,
including reimbursement or stipends. There is the option for us
to build childcare centers at VA medical centers. There are
other options allowed in the legislation.
We have spent our time so far doing some in-depth need
analysis. And what is that? That has been actually interviews
with veterans, and having--on our VSignals program, veterans
who have appointments actually get an email asking them, did
you need childcare for this appointment? How would you like us
to deliver it? You know, would you rather be reimbursed for it
or would you rather bring your child to a VA dropoff center?
So we are in the middle stages of that data. We are going
to present to the Secretary this summer the various options.
And the Secretary will make decisions about how best to
implement the childcare assistance program to veterans.
And at that point is when we will have a cost analysis. You
know, right now, there is no cost analysis that can be relied
on for a very big program. And we are very conscious of wanting
to do something that is going to meet the needs of veterans. It
won't help us if we put a program in place that may cost a lot
of money, may take a long time to set up, but doesn't meet
veterans' needs.
So, in terms of the overall sense of what is going to be
available to veterans when they come to medical appointments,
that is what we are working on.
Mrs. Lee. Uh-huh.
Ms. Hayes. There are some other additional helps to
veterans that are through the homeless program for those who
are very low-income. I know Dr. Scavella is familiar with some
of the attributes of that program and perhaps wants to fill in
a bit.
Dr. Scavella. Yes, so we do have some funding related to
homeless veterans. The Supportive Services for Veteran Families
specifically has some partnerships in local facilities that
allows veterans to have access to childcare services. And we do
know that they are in place. They vary in length of
eligibility, but they are there if veterans choose to seek
those services.
And that was one of the things that is really great about
that program, in that it does have lots of innovative uses to
support the entire veteran and their family to ensure that we
can provide all the things that wrap around to support
permanent housing.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
Yeah, I mean, you know, I am liking the initiative of
building women-centric holding areas, welcome areas, et cetera,
as well as looking at opportunities within the community and
within the VA to deal with childcare barriers. You know, my
community has one of the worst childcare access rates in the
country, so that is a barrier that many people deal with.
I want to flip now to the HUD-VA Supportive Housing
Program. Can you provide an update on how this program is
tailoring its case management and supportive services to meet
homeless women? You addressed it a little bit, but could you
expand a little bit more on how we are using that program to
address women's needs?
Dr. Scavella. Yes. So thank you for that question.
So, yeah, so one of the other things that that program
specifically allows us to do is to be able to move into spaces
that, again, are nontraditional. So the HUD-VASH program has
funding that is available to hire social workers who can
specifically help veterans with navigating healthcare
appointments both within VA and in the community.
There are also other programs that allow for the provision
of other types of services, supporting veterans justice
programs, essentially helping any justice-involved veterans to
have access to those types of services should they need them,
and then just making sure that we are providing the healthcare
and the mental health services that veterans need.
So lots of innovative practices within that program that
allow us to essentially meet veterans where they are and to
provide the care that they need.
Mrs. Lee. Great.
And, then, is there anything that we could be doing more of
in Congress to help?
Dr. Scavella. I would honestly say that the programs that
you have put in place, these programs specifically to support
homeless veterans, the different populations within that
cohort, elderly veterans, frail veterans, veterans with serious
medical illnesses or mental health issues, those things, as
well as women, all of the things that are provided for that we
can think kind of outside of the box and innovatively to
support, I would honestly say I think the funding that you have
provided and what is projected for 2023 should meet that.
I don't think there is an unmet need. We just need to make
sure that we are continuing to partner with our local partners
to make sure that we effectuate those programs.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
I am sorry. I ran over my time. Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mrs. Lee.
Dr. Scavella, I represent Hawaii, 2,500 miles from the
continental United States. And although the city of Honolulu
has solid, centralized VA and TRICARE capacity, still it
presents problems, that we are 2,500 miles from the continental
United States. And that is before we start talking about the
other islands of Hawaii, which are separated not by roads and
trains and buses but by ocean, so the only way to get there is
by air.
And, indirectly, I represent really the larger Indo-
Pacific, so places with significant veterans populations, like
the Philippines, like Guam, the CNMI, Palau, the compact
countries, American Samoa, where we have significant veteran
populations. Philippines, I think, is 30,000, if I am not
mistaken. And even a small country like Palau, with a total
population of 20,000, has significant numbers of veterans.
American Samoa, reportedly--and I think this is accurate--has
the largest pro rata population of veterans in our entire
system.
And so I have been, you know, very interested in how do we
use whatever tools are at our disposal--modern technology,
innovative ways of thinking--to push healthcare out there, to
give flexibility out there?
For example, going back to the Philippines, where I just
was the week before last, St. Jude's, which is one of the best
private hospitals in the Philippines, in Manila, is used on a
TRICARE basis by our veterans apparently pretty successfully,
to the point that veterans from other parts of the Pacific go
there for their own care, as opposed to in some cases flying to
Honolulu, which is fine. Wherever they can get the care is
great.
But all of which is to ask you: In the President's budget
and in your own thinking, where are the next chapters of
getting healthcare to parts of this country that do not live in
cities, do not live in the centers of your administrative, you
know, districts? Telehealth we have talked about repeatedly,
CBOCs, et cetera, et cetera. What is the big picture on that,
and where should we be going now?
Dr. Scavella. So thank you for that question.
I think we have to think innovatively, as you have just
described. We have programs in place to deliver tablets so that
we can provide different types of video-assistive care to
veterans.
So telehealth is definitely a modality that we would like
to leverage. And we know that there are ways to potentially use
that to surround even care that requires procedures in a
facility. So I think we have to leverage that and think about
that. We partner with our Office of Rural Health to look at
different solutions related to that.
And I think the most important thing is for us to continue
to have conversations so that we understand the needs of the
population that you represent as well as those other areas that
you just described, to ensure that we are meeting those needs.
Those are very challenging areas, and we definitely understand
that. So we will continue to partner with you.
Mr. Case. I mean, what are the frontiers of telehealth? Are
we approaching the edges of the frontiers? Is there still room
to grow there? What are the next chapters of telehealth to
solve this issue?
Dr. Scavella. So I think there is still room to grow there.
We know that it is limited by the connectivity, essentially.
So, you know, we would really need to understand if there are
barriers to telehealth because there is not broadband. So those
would be things we would need to look into.
And I know that there were some provisions in some of the
American Rescue Plan related to that. And so I know that we
would need to take a look at that and see where the
shortcomings may still be.
But I do believe there are probably lots of capabilities,
but we just need to continue to think outside of the box to
make sure we are providing the care that veterans in those
areas need and deserve.
Mr. Case. And, then, just in term of primary care in these
communities, more remote communities, I mean, are we still kind
of expanding the scope of practitioners that can actually
provide, you know, effective services to VA participants in
those communities, as opposed to kind of a ``you have to have
an M.D. After your name to provide the services'' model?
Dr. Scavella. So there are lots of different types of
healthcare practitioners that can serve in this particular
space that you are describing of primary care. So we are
looking at that as well. We do have providers that are not
physicians providing primary care, and that is definitely
something we will continue to do.
There is a shortage in this country, as you are aware, of
healthcare providers. So really going into spaces to encourage
people to go into this particular area, to make sure that we
are recruiting that pipeline early on, to ensure that we have
people providing all types of services that wrap around, that
support veterans and the American public.
So I would say that we would need to do many different
things. But, you know, physician-specific care for certain
things is not necessarily required, nor is it what we practice
within VA. We do have multiple different types of licensed
independent providers who are providing care, especially in the
space of primary care.
Mr. Case. Okay. Well, thank you so much. I think the VA has
done a good job of trying to think innovatively about pushing
care out, rather than requiring people to come to the care. And
that is going to be necessary to reach many, many of these
populations.
So thank you very much.
I think I am turning this back to my chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [presiding]. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much for your testimony, for the work that
you are doing. Really, how you make sure that the oversight of
caring for our veterans and making sure that we don't do things
in this little box that is the way we have always done them
just because that is the way we have always done them is so
critical to the quality of life of our veterans. And we have
work to do, obviously, as evidenced by your responses, but it
is clear that you recognize that.
And so, Dr. Scavella, Dr. Carroll, Dr. Hayes, Dr. Kligler,
thank you so much for participating today. I know we all
appreciate our conversation and look forward to getting the
answers back for the record that you were not able to respond
to today.
The committee staff will be in contact with your budget
office regarding questions for the record. I know we have a
number of questions to submit, and I would imagine that other
members of the subcommittee will as well. So, if you would
please work with OMB to return the information for the record
to the subcommittee within 30 days from Friday, we will be able
to publish the transcript of today's hearing and make informed
decisions for fiscal year 2023.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I want to remind members that our
next hearing is tomorrow, tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock, to
discuss the Department of the Air Force installations and
quality of life.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
Thursday, April 28, 2022.
AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS AND QUALITY OF LIFE UPDATE
WITNESSES
EDWIN H. OSHIBA, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR
INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND ENERGY, U.S. AIR FORCE
BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM KALE, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, U.S. AIR
FORCE
BRUCE HOLLYWOOD, ASSOCIATE CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER, U.S. SPACE FORCE
CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE JOANNE BASS, U.S. AIR FORCE
CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE SPACE FORCE ROGER TOWBERMAN, U.S. SPACE
FORCE
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing of the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee is called to order.
Thank you all for participating in this hearing about ``Air
Force Installations and Quality of Life Update.''
Before we begin, as this is a hybrid hearing--I like when
Luke does this better--as this is a hybrid hearing, we must
address a few housekeeping matters.
For the members joining virtually, once you start speaking,
there is a slight delay before you are displayed on the main
screen. Speaking into the microphone activates the camera,
displaying the speaker on the main screen. Do not stop your
remarks if you do not immediately see the screen switch. If the
screen does not change after several seconds, please make sure
you are not muted.
To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker
is being displayed, we ask that you remain on mute unless you
have sought recognition. Myself or staff I designate may mute
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition
to eliminate inadvertent background noise.
Members who are virtual are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the staff to send you
a request to unmute yourself. Please then accept that request
so you are no longer muted.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and the
ranking member; then, members present at the time the hearing
was called to order will be recognized in order of seniority,
alternating between majority and minority; and, finally,
members not present at the time the hearing was called to
order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
And this subcommittee has already come to order.
Good afternoon.
Today, we welcome Air Force and Space Force installation
officials and senior enlisted personnel to discuss the fiscal
year 2023 budget quality-of-life issues as well as receive an
update on the installations.
Today we have before us Mr. Edwin H. Oshiba, Acting
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations,
Environment, and Energy; Brigadier General William Kale, Air
Force Director of Civil Engineers----
General Kale. Right here.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. There you are. Thank you.
Mr. Bruce Hollywood----
Space Force Associate Chief Operations Officer.
You win the prize for coolest name.
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne Bass.
Good to see you.
And Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force Roger
Towberman.
Good to see you as well.
Thank you all for joining us today to testify about some
very critical issues. We certainly have a lot to discuss.
Today, we look forward to engaging with the Department of
the Air Force on a host of important subjects that impact our
Airmen and Guardians.
I was very pleased that the fiscal year 2023 President's
budget request was delivered to Congress in a timely enough
manner that allows us to discuss the request in depth at this
first hearing. I was also happy to see the fiscal year 2023
request was larger than what I saw as an inadequate fiscal year
2022 request.
But I do have to say that I am once again concerned with
what has now become a tradition of the budget request which I
hope we break: looking to reduce the funding of military
construction in comparison to the previous years' enacted
levels.
Mr. Secretary, I mean, we have a really serious problem
with infrastructure. It is incomprehensible that we are
submitting budgets that are lower than the previous enacted
bill. This trend not only impacts the mission-readiness of our
forces but also the quality of life of servicemembers and their
families.
The fiscal year 2023 budget request for the Department of
the Air Force is $2.85 billion. That is $930.5 million less
than the fiscal year 2022 enacted level of $3.8 billion. That
is a 25-percent cut.
And I recognize that the fiscal year 2022 spending bill
offered a particularly high mark for spending compared to
recent years, but that is because it was necessary. And this
type of high funding should be the rule, not the exception.
In this committee, you know, we don't debate so much DOD
spending. You know, what we spend on equipment and warfighters
and all of that stuff happens in the DOD bill. In this bill, we
all acknowledge, and we work so well together, because we have
a huge infrastructure problem, and we all know that we really
can't appropriate enough any time soon to catch up with the
backlog, nor to catch up with the problem that we have with the
failing quality of our infrastructure.
So military construction, we have to underscore, is so much
more than just building infrastructure and building bases. It
is providing modern, efficient facilities that can weather
increasingly destructive natural disasters. No one knows that
better than me. It is reducing our carbon footprint through
energy resilience. It is building child development centers. It
is remediating contaminants left behind by our services like
PFAS. It is providing quality housing for our servicemembers
and their families.
Reducing military construction funding when there is an
overwhelming backlog of required priorities and when 30 percent
of our infrastructure is in fair or poor condition is simply
not good government.
Beyond the fiscal year 2023 budget request, we also look
forward to discussing quality-of-life issues and an update on
installations.
Sexual assault is still rampant across all services--and I
don't use that term lightly--including the Air Force. The
subcommittee will seek out answers as to why it is still so
prevalent and what the Air Force is doing about it.
We will talk about child development centers, which provide
young children of our servicemembers safe, comfortable
childcare, and yet they are still not receiving the proper
prioritization by the Department.
We will look for explanations as to why privatized housing
continues to struggle with oversight and quality assurance and
what the Air Force is doing to ensure support for its
servicemembers.
This hearing will address ongoing Air Force efforts to
identify and remediate PFAS contamination across their
installations, as well as replace the harmful AFFF firefighting
foam that spreads so much of it into the land and water
resources.
Additionally, I hope to receive a full report on disaster
recovery and what the Department is doing to ensure our
facilities are equipped to survive increasingly intense storms
as a result of climate change.
As you can see, we have many important issues to discuss. I
really believe this hearing is a great opportunity to identify
those crucial areas where we can do more to serve those who
serve us, and we look forward to an open and honest
conversation.
And now I would like to recognize, and recommend to you, my
dear friend, Ranking Member Judge Carter, for opening remarks.
Mr. Carter. And let me also confirm everything that the
chairwoman said. We have terrible issues that are going on
across the board, and we just can't be reducing our budget. We
are too small every year, and getting smaller is not good.
But I am pleased we are having the hearing today and we are
having our fiscal year 2023 budget request from our U.S. Air
Force and our Space Force. And we are proud of both of you.
This subcommittee understands the important connection
between the installations and readiness and quality-of-life
programs for our airmen, guardians, and their families. I look
forward to the discussions we are going to have here today and
to talk about the budget request and how we balance priorities.
I would like to thank each of you for being here today and
for your support for and dedication to our Nation's Airmen and
Guardians.
I yield back my time.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
It seems like we are attached to the hip because we are.
And you will find, Mr. Secretary, that there is not a lot of
difference of opinion among any of us. We have a very, very
small number of issues in this committee that we don't share
the same opinion. And we are really here and we look at
ourselves as your advocates.
So thank you to all the witnesses for taking the time to be
here and to share your expertise.
Due to the number of witnesses, for opening testimony we
will start with Acting Assistant Secretary Oshiba and move down
the list as follows: Brigadier General Kale, Mr. Hollywood,
Chief Master Sergeant Bass, and Chief Master Sergeant
Towberman.
Without objection, all written statements will be entered
into the record, and you will be recognized for 5 minutes to
summarize your opening statement.
Acting Secretary Oshiba, you are now recognized for your
opening statement.
Mr. Oshiba. Thank you, Chair Wasserman Schultz, Ranking
Member Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
I am honored to be here today with Brigadier General Kale,
Mr. Hollywood, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Bass, and
Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force Towberman--dedicated,
selfless servant leaders and partners representing over 700,000
airmen and guardians in the Department of the Air Force.
Together, we thank you for the opportunity to testify today
and provide updates to our installation investment priorities.
Our Nation faces an array of complex challenges in a
rapidly evolving global environment. In addition to the threats
imposed by pacing adversaries and other state and non-state
actors that would exploit opportunities to further their
interests, transboundary challenges, such as climate change,
also demand our attention.
In addressing these challenges, the fiscal year 2023 budget
request supports the new National Defense Strategy by
contributing to integrated deterrence, campaigning, and
building enduring advantages. Coupled with the Department's
guiding principle of ``one team, one fight,'' we can and will
overcome these challenges and provide installations which
underpin our Nation's security.
Accordingly, we view our installations as foundational to
enabling and projecting air and space combat power. The
Department remains committed to ensuring they are ready by
investing in the right capabilities, at the right time, in the
right place, with a diverse, inclusive team of trained and
equipped Airmen and Guardians, resilient against natural and
manmade threats, and balanced to be effective, efficient, and
optimally postured.
Since 2019, the Department's infrastructure investment
strategy has guided our efforts to make our installations ready
and resilient through decisions meant to balance effectiveness
and efficiency. The strategy informs policy and investment
decisions supporting weapons system modernization and combatant
command priorities, while balancing the need to recapitalize
our aging infrastructure and facilities, which improve the
quality of work and life for our Airmen, Guardians, and their
families.
Additionally, our strategy emphasizes adoption of smarter
business practices by investing at the optimum point in
infrastructure lifecycles, using smarter acquisition methods,
strengthening installation planning, and leveraging
partnerships and third-party investment.
We are cognizant that climate change and the resulting
effects have and will continue to severely impact our
installations and the missions they enable. Climate change
effects are accelerating, and the time for action is now.
The Department is nearing release of our climate action
plan. It will lay out objectives and key results to address the
challenges of changing climate through improving operational
energy efficiency, enhancing installation resilience,
diversifying energy sources, and developing a climate-literate
force.
We also continue to emphasize continued quality-of-life
investments in housing dormitories, child development centers,
and other support facilities. We appreciate your support for
the additional child development center projects in the fiscal
year 2022 budget. And we will continue to balance operational
priorities with preserving the readiness and resilience of most
important resource, our Airmen and Guardians.
Additionally, the Department is committed to ensuring our
privatized housing projects provide safe, quality, well-
maintained housing for servicemembers and their families. With
the help of Congress, our project owners are in the progress of
implementing the tenant bill of rights. And we added over 200
government housing management positions to maintain our focus
on improved oversight, long-term project health, and
sustainment of the privatized housing inventory.
Finally, we remain firmly committed to executing robust
environmental programs and protecting human health. Regarding
PFAS, no one on or off our installations is drinking water with
PFOS or PFOA concentrations above the EPA lifetime health
advisory attributable to our operations. We developed a robust
framework to identify and remediate impacted areas within our
legal authorities, as well as continue to proactively work and
communicate with local communities and partners at all levels.
In summary, your Department of the Air Force is committed
to preserving ready, resilient installations. Our platform is
to enable and project combat power. We employ a strategy which
balances operational effectiveness and resource efficiency as
one team to win our one fight.
Madam Chair and Ranking Member Carter, thank you again for
the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
General Kale, your full written testimony will be included
in the record, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
General Kale. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Wasserman
Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished member of the
subcommittee.
On behalf of your 51,000 military and civilian airmen
engineers who are responsible for sustaining our Air and Space
Force's installation and power-projection platforms around the
world, I am honored to appear before you today to discuss our
fiscal year 2023 Air Force military construction budget
request.
I would like to begin by thanking the subcommittee for
their steadfast support and generous military construction
funding contained within the Fiscal Year 2022 Consolidated
Appropriations Act. Your leadership and your staff's mentorship
is making the Air and Space Forces better.
I am especially thankful for the fiscal year 2022 NDAA
section 2802 technical amendment which enables us to award over
a billion dollars' worth of natural disaster recovery projects
to Tyndall Air Force Base in the next few months.
I look forward to working with the subcommittee on our
fiscal year 2023 Air Force military construction budget request
and tackling new challenges to improve the program.
Our fiscal year 2023 military construction budget request
supports the 2022 National Defense Strategy through
accelerating the recapitalization of two legs of our nuclear
enterprise, supporting combatant command infrastructure
requirements in the European and Indo-Pacific theaters, and
investing in our airmen and their families.
Our fiscal year 2023 budget request remains consistent with
last year's record-breaking request, but I acknowledge it is
below what you enacted last year.
We have also taken great strides in process improvements to
create a more stable military construction program with better-
defined requirements that will increase the number of projects
awarding in the year of appropriation, which significantly
enhances our ability to keep projects on time and on budget.
However, we continue to work through numerous external
influences affecting this portfolio, be it from increased
global market prices for commodities and labor, ongoing impacts
from the COVID-19 pandemic, the effects of changing climate,
and continuing resolutions.
In the face of these challenges, the Air Force continues to
balance risk and installation investment with the necessity to
modernize and meet our most critical mission needs. Over time,
though, this has resulted in atrophied facilities and
infrastructure.
In order to mitigate some of this risk, we optimize the use
of our military construction and FSRM funding accounts. These
two funding streams serve as the foundation of sustainable Air
and Space Force's installations. Through a combination of well-
timed MILCON projects and continued FSRM funding, we are able
to bring on new weapons systems and combatant command
capabilities while sustaining day-to-day maintenance and repair
in order to maximize the lifespan of our facilities.
While we remain focused on the health of our
infrastructure, we always keep in mind that our installations
are more than just a place where our airmen work; it is where
many of them live and their families call home. Bottom line:
Both military construction and FSRM investment into our
critical quality-of-life facilities plays a vital role in
ensuring the well-being of our airmen and guardians, which is
integral to our mission success.
Lastly, over the past year, I have been able to see our
airmen engineers around the world in action, implementing the
programs your subcommittee appropriates. It is eye-watering to
see the obstacles they overcome every day to accomplish their
mission. They are making great strides to implement reforms
this subcommittee expects and delivering highly complex
requirements our mission demands.
I particularly want to highlight the heroics and humanity
of our airmen engineers on the front lines of Operations Allied
Refuge and Welcome. From Kabul to Al Udeid, to Ramstein, to
Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, to Holloman Air Force Base,
our airmen engineers played a vital role in the care, bed-down,
transition, and future resettlement of thousands of refugees. I
am extremely proud of the performance of these airmen.
Thank you again for your continued support and the
opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering your
questions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, General.
Mr. Hollywood, your full written testimony will be included
in the record, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hollywood. Good afternoon, Chair Wasserman Schultz,
Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of your United States Space Force for our military
construction program and quality-of-life initiatives.
We are the Department of Defense's newest military service,
established to organize, train, and equip space forces to
protect America's interests in space and provide space
capabilities to the Joint Force in accordance with the new
National Defense Strategy.
The military construction program and quality-of-life
initiatives are vital to our mission and to the guardians and
airmen who work, live, rest, and play on our Space Force bases
and stations.
Established in 2019, our Space Force is rapidly taking the
necessary strategic steps to appropriately transition the
management of our installation resourcing. As one of two
services within the Department of the Air Force and in line
with our Department's guiding principle of ``one team, one
fight,'' we will remain intertwined with the Air Force as it
provides foundational installation support to the Space Force.
We will continue to team and collaborate with the Office of the
Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and
Environment and the Office of the Director of Civil Engineers
in the Headquarters Air Force's Deputy Chief of Staff for
Logistics, Engineering, and Force Protection.
To remain a lean service, as Congress directed, and in
accordance with the Chief of Space Operations' planning
guidance, the Space Force leverages current Air Force
installation support processes, and we are active partners in
the Department's facility and infrastructure readiness
initiatives.
We are strategically examining our bases that may be
impacted by climate change and planning resilience in our
mission operations while protecting the guardians and airmen
stationed in potentially vulnerable locations. Additionally, we
are participating in the energy and water resilience
conversations within the Department.
This past year, the Space Force developed its own process
for prioritizing requirements with a deliberate, collaborative
planning effort that accounts for our operational and community
priorities. We focused on infrastructure improvements in areas
to reduce our risk to mission and reduce risk to the force by
improving quality of life for our guardians, supporting airmen,
and their families.
With the $68 million provided in fiscal year 2022, the
Space Force will: construct an addition and improvements to the
Schriever Space Force Base Fitness Center, ensuring guardians,
airmen, and families' readiness and resilience at that base; we
will construct an emergency power plant fuel storage facility
at Cavalier Space Force Station, ensuring 24/7 no-fail mission
operations. We will also design the Headquarters Space Rapid
Capabilities Office at Kirtland Air Force Base and design a
secure integration support lab with land acquisition at Maui.
Our fiscal year 2023 request includes $79 million to build
a dormitory at Clear Space Force Station, enabling Space Force
mission growth and securing the vital interests of our Nation
through the bed-down of a new mission system. We will advance a
resiliency project to stabilize a road prone to landslides at
Vandenberg Space Force Base. And we will support planning and
design efforts to ensure our future success.
The military construction program, quality-of-life
initiatives, and relationships with Mr. Oshiba's office and
Brigadier General Kale's office are critical to performing our
mission and to the well-being of our guardians, supporting
airmen, and their families.
Thank you for your time today and the opportunity to
testify. I look forward to our dialogue.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Chief Hollywood.
You yield back.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass, your full testimony will be
entered into the record, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Good afternoon, Chair Wasserman
Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for your continued interest and
support in the quality of life of the men and women who serve
this great Nation.
I am honored once again for this opportunity to address the
needs of our Air Force as well as speak with you on issues that
impact our airmen and their families. I also appreciate the
opportunity to be here with this distinguished panel,
especially my dear friend and wingman, Chief Towberman, who,
for the record, has been an airman longer than he's been a
guardian.
Over the last year, despite the challenges of COVID, I have
been able to continue meeting our airmen and their families
during my travels, see them in action, and watch them get after
our Nation's business, listen to their stories, their concerns,
and the unique challenges that they face as members of our Air
Force family.
I am honored to be their voice and their chief, and I do
not take this responsibility lightly. As America's sons and
daughters serving in challenging times at the forward edge of
an impending strategic competition, we all owe them our very
best.
More than any weapons system program or piece of hardware,
our airmen are the greatest competitive advantage that we have
over our enemies. For the past 75 years, the United States Air
Force has stepped up and answered our Nation's call without
hesitation and without fail, and it falls on us to ensure that
they have the resources required to be able to serve.
Recent events have shown us that strategic competition is
not some distant pondering; in fact, it is knocking on our
door. And in order to continue being the Air Force that our
Nation needs, we must prioritize the resources our
servicemembers need, to include quality-of-life programs that
help us to retain those airmen and their families. Our Air
Force and airmen must remain ready, willing, and able to
deliver air power anytime, anywhere. And in an All-Volunteer
Force, we can never, ever take that for granted.
Over the past year, I have seen so many examples of our
airmen working tirelessly to modernize and accelerate the
changes that we need in our Air Force. They understand that
rapidly evolving challenges, new domains of warfare, and near-
peer competitors will define future state operations. And how
we recruit, train, develop, retain, and transition them are key
to readiness.
We are moving out in the right direction, and I am certain
we will need your continued support, as this is a whole-of-
Nation effort.
As we move forward in our strategy and focus on the Air
Force of 2030 and beyond, there is much to be done. Secretary
Kendall and General Brown spoke on much of this yesterday. In
addition to that, we must continue to focus on foundational
requirements and airman programs that focus on the airmen
themselves--their development, modernizing training, and an
environment where every single airman can reach their full
potential.
We must also maintain the proud and rich heritage of what
it means to be in a military service, while ensuring a culture
and a climate where every airman feels valued and free from
sexual assault, harassment, discrimination, violence, or
anything that runs counter to our core values.
I will be the first to admit that we have a lot of work to
do here, and this is something that we can never take our eyes
off of. I am deeply concerned about suicides, sexual assault,
harassment, and all things that impact our airmen, their
families, and our force. And there is not a day that goes by
that I don't think about their health and welfare.
Recently, Chief Towberman and I stood up the Fortify the
Force Initiative Team to help identify and tackle barriers that
keep our airmen from getting the help that they need. This
working group and the Department of the Air Force is committed
to dismantling any stigmas that surround mental health
treatment and creating a culture where airmen seeking help is
not shameful. We believe that this is imperative to our future
success.
We also deeply appreciate the sacrifices of our military
families. They give so very much in their own right, and the
same care and support that we provide our airmen must be
extended to them. Whether it is spouse employment, childcare,
or quality of our schools, ensuring our families have the
access and support that they need when they need it is
critically important.
On that same note, we can never turn a blind eye to aging
and excess infrastructure. Our installations are not only key
in our warfighting mission but, as General Kale said, they are
where we call home.
Years of competing priorities and fiscal constraints force
us to manage risk in infrastructure, and we cannot continue to
do so at the expense of airmen's quality of life. Whether it is
in the dormitories, housing, workplaces, or where our airmen
recreate, they need places, and they need safe places, where
they can come together as a community. Those things impact
airmen retention, and retention is inseparably linked to their
quality of life--an investment we must continue to make.
Thanks again to this subcommittee for your leadership. As
you make the tough decisions concerning our defense budget,
please continue to keep our airmen and their families at your
forefront by providing a budget that is timely, sustainable,
and appropriate. That impacts the decisions that we as a
service have to make every single day.
We continue to be grateful for your continued support to
the men and women that serve our great Nation, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Trone [presiding]. Thank you very much for your
insights. They are much appreciated.
Lastly, Chief Master Sergeant Towberman, your full written
testimony will be included in the record. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Chair Trone now, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished
members of this subcommittee, thank you for asking us here
today. Thanks for everything that you have been doing for us.
Thanks for your opening comments. And thank you for allowing me
the opportunity to talk to you about your Space Force and the
Guardians and loved ones who make up our service. I couldn't be
more honored or humbled to be their voice.
From every one of us, which is now 7,108 in uniform and
6,738 civil servants and their loved ones, thank you for your
service to our country and your steadfast leadership and
support of our military and our quality of life. We are excited
about our future and working hard every day to make it as
bright as possible. We simply can't be successful without your
help.
Without question, the most important and decisive
warfighting advantage in the history of the world is the
advantage of the human beings who make up our military. No
weapons system, no technology, no strategy sets us apart
further or more definitively.
Within that set, our most advantageous subset is the all-
volunteer, highly technical, and deliberately professionalized
enlisted force that Chief Bass and I represent. By every
measure we have, their skills, talent, and experience continue
to grow, as does the empowerment and autonomy we give them.
This drives necessity and responsibility to grow our commitment
to them at a commensurate rate. They are, without question, our
most important weapons system.
Like all weapons systems, they must be acquired and they
must be maintained. Their quality of life is part and parcel to
that effort and should never be thought of as something we do
for them, but, rather, a necessary and essential component of
our operational readiness and warfighting advantage. While
their direct pay and compensation is critically important and
best when sufficient and predictable, we must not ignore the
rest of the ecosystem that makes up their value proposition.
This is not yesterday's enlisted force. For our Space Force
enlisted recruits of this year, they average 22 years of age,
with significant life and work experience to offer. They are
more talented and more sought after than ever before. Thirty-
six percent of them have completed successfully some college.
Fourteen percent have 4-year degrees or higher. And over half
of those degrees are in our highly sought after STEM fields. In
short, they have choices.
And we are seeing leading indicators that young Americans'
propensity to serve in the military may be waning. Real
recruiting and retention challenges could lie ahead if we
ignore those indicators. We must do what we can to become an
employer of choice. And, to that end, these discussions about
quality of life are vitally important.
Because much of our quality-of-life ecosystem is provided,
as you have heard, by the United States Air Force, I would like
to take this opportunity to publicly thank our sister service
and my fantastic teammate, Chief Bass, for their outstanding
support. And for the thousands of Airmen who enable our mission
every day, we couldn't win without you, and I thank you from
the bottom of my heart.
Because we are moving quickly in uncharted space--pun
intended--I would also like to publicly thank Congress and the
Department of Defense for the flexibility and authorities you
have given us, specifically for things like grade allocations,
end strength variance, and hiring authorities. These things
continue to be vital to our success, and we will continue to
use them both responsibly and to our Nation's advantage.
I would also like to thank you in advance for helping
establish a single component of regular and Ready Reserve
forces, which is so absolutely necessary to our mission
success.
Since we spoke in this forum last year, we released our
human capital plan, ``The Guardian Ideal''--I have a copy if
you would like it--which includes our Space Force core values
and other aspirations for our force. We are committed, next, to
operationalizing those values of connection, courage,
commitment, and character and putting together our Guardian
Value Proposition, which we believe will resonate loudly with
current and future guardians.
Unfettered access to and freedom to maneuver in space
simply will not happen without our most important weapons
system, our guardians. I look forward to working with all our
teammates to find predictable, executable ways to invest in our
quality-of-life ecosystem and create that employer of choice in
the United States Space Force.
I thank you again for today's important conversations to
that end and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Trone. Thank you very much, Chief, for your remarks.
We will now proceed in the standard 5-minute rounds,
alternating sides, recognizing members in order of seniority as
they joined or were seated at the beginning of the hearing.
Please be mindful of your time and allow the witnesses time to
answer within your 5-minute turn.
I now yield myself 5 minutes.
Thank you for joining us today, both the Air Force and the
Space Force.
Chief Bass, let's start with you and something you already
talked about, and that is: We know mental health is so
important to our servicemembers and impacts their quality of
life. A few questions in this area. I know we both care about
it, and I appreciated you discussing it in your testimony, you
know, the mental health of our junior airmen.
So, according to the Air Force, 26 percent of the airmen
were seeking care for some mental-health-related reason. That
is an old number, 2014, so I can only imagine with COVID what
that number has risen to.
So, as the leader of our enlisted airmen, could you expand
upon how you use your leadership position to advocate for the
mental health of our airmen, including reducing stigma and
other barriers to treatment?
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Acting Chair, thank you so much
for that question.
I will be honest with you. I am concerned about it deeply
all the time, especially the impacts that we have had with
COVID.
I would offer that I don't think that this is necessarily a
junior airmen challenge more than it is holistically and
something that impacts every single airman, every guardian, and
every loved one that we have.
And I think that, you know, to the impacts from COVID, I
think we have yet to see what those second- and third-order
impacts are going to be.
And so, to that end, we have been working really hard on
mental health, more importantly mental wellness, and really
getting left of trying to take a holistic look at how can we
fortify the airmen themselves, build them up to be strong,
resilient, and able to take on any task that they can.
We believe that this is a holistic look. We are looking at
a total force fitness model, where, whether it is mental
health, whether it is utilizing our Chaplain Corps, SG
community, other opportunities for our airmen, loved ones, and
guardians to be able to connect and have community with each
other, we think that it really takes all of that.
I am deeply concerned about the shortage of mental health
that is not only in our service but across the Department of
Defense and, quite frankly, across all of our Nation. And so
how do we, again, get left of the situation so we can build up
and build resilient people so that perhaps they don't
necessarily need that mental health.
You know, when I talk to our mental health providers--and I
talk with them often--they typically tell me, out of every 10
airmen that come into our facilities, that out of 10 of them,
only about 2 of them need clinical support. The other 8 really
just need to know that they are cared about.
And so, to that end, we are working really hard on our
leadership development that we have going on. We are working
hard--that is why I mentioned, you know, myself and Chief
Towberman provided that Fortify the Force Initiative Team, so,
from a grassroots effort, we can start to hear from our airmen,
how can we get after the stigma of mental health and be able to
apply some initiatives to that.
We also have an initiative focused on ``no wrong door.''
Like, our airmen can go into a central location, and whether it
is the chaplain, whether it is our mental health techs, or
whether it is a life counselor, they are not going into a wrong
door. We will ensure that there is a warm handoff and that that
person can be taken care of.
Whiteman Air Force Base has a fantastic model in their life
center where they are doing that. And, again, we are trying to
create more of that and--sir?
Mr. Trone. Touch on some unique stressors. And I think the
key we are trying to get--we always talk about physically fit.
We are trying to have our folks mentally fit.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Absolutely.
Mr. Trone. That should be the goal. And that eliminates
stigma, when you talk about it in that way.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yeah.
Mr. Trone. So unique stressors on the airmen that other
folks don't see.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. So, sir, from my vantage and my
experience, most of the challenges that our airmen are having
are all relationship. And so, you know, they are typically
relationship, finance, or whatever, but, for the most part,
they are relationship.
And so, to that end, how do we build in some training and
how do we build in that connective tissue, starting from basic
training or OTS, all the way up, to make sure that our airmen
are starting to have those conversations, you know, to help,
again, fortify them for the challenges that are going to come
writ large.
Mr. Trone. And we have to work on the infrastructure where
the airmen live, you know, with their families. Because if we
don't get that infrastructure right, you know, that is going to
lead to all kinds of problems down the line.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yes, sir.
Mr. Trone. Thank you for that. We appreciate that.
Quickly, Mr. Oshiba, you know, I have only been in this
business 3 years, but I have been in real business 37 years.
And, then, my budget was my own.
What trouble are you having with the continuing resolutions
that we have continued to have year after year as you work on
the infrastructure investment strategy, extending across
multiple fiscal years? How do you deal with that problem?
Mr. Oshiba. Thank you for the question, Chair Trone.
That is--some would probably characterize continuing
resolutions as one of the more damaging things that can happen
to national security. It introduces doubt and, in some cases,
just volatility into how we do our business.
One of the things that we have seen, I think, over time is,
there is sort of this cost premium that gets added on because
of this uncertainty in the budget, both in terms of what that
number will end up being and when that money will arrive. And I
realize we are in the MILCON Subcommittee here, but this is
extremely acute particularly when you talk about what happens
on the O&M appropriations side, in our FSRM accounts.
One-year appropriation, many of the vendors know that. Many
of the vendors know that, by the time we get an appropriation,
now we are into the third, sometimes fourth quarter of the
fiscal year when we are ready to award our projects. And there
is a cost premium to that, because they know that that
appropriation is going to expire at the end of the fiscal year.
In other cases, particularly with the MILCON budget, what
we see is delays in scheduling, which could impact things like
new mission bed-downs or, in some cases, just recapitalizing
projects, extended bids that expire that have to be redone,
which, again, adds time to how we execute particularly our
MILCON projects. And, as you all well know, time in this
economic environment means cost. And so being able to get past
that would be extremely helpful.
I don't know, General Kale, if there is anything else you
want to add?
General Kale. I would just say real quickly that, you know,
in this environment, what we are really seeing is the bid
periods are really getting cut short, because the contractors,
they are fearful of the risk. And if we have to extend that bid
period, it is a lot more expensive than if we were able to
award projects on time. And that is the challenge that is
exacerbating our situation right now.
Thank you.
Mr. Trone. The bottom line is, our failure to pass a budget
on time costs us all, together, collectively, billions of
dollars, and we have to do better.
So I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
And thank you for taking over for me temporarily.
Judge Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Carter. All right.
Well, welcome, everybody.
Let's talk about the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent
program. I think you are all aware that the recapitalization of
our Ground Based Strategic Deterrent is a massive project. For
fiscal year 2023, the budget requests $444 million for six
projects. Over the next 4 years, the FYDP has--there is $2
billion in planned projects.
First, are you on track? Second, can you execute $98
million provided in 2022 in a timely manner? Third, will you be
able to execute $44 million--2--$444 million? And, finally,
what are the plans to keep the program on track? It is a big
deal.
Mr. Oshiba. Ranking Member Carter, thank you for that
question. You are absolutely right; that is a big, humongous
project.
I guess I would say, overall, we are on track. The projects
in fiscal year 2022 are nearing award. We are planning, working
together hand-in-hand with the program office on this very
unique relationship we have.
This is a very different kind of program, when you think
about how we typically do MILCON projects. In this case, thanks
to support, again, from Congress and getting some special
legislation on how we are going to execute this massive
program, we are tied at the hip with the program offices so
that, as the weapons system develops, the projects are designed
to support it right along the way.
You are exactly right; there is close to--over $2 billion
across the FYDP. But, again, I think that partnership that we
have established both at the program offices and down within
our execution arm at the Air Force's Civil Engineer Center in
Texas is--I have never seen it better. And so I am very
confident and optimistic that we will stay on track.
And, again, I don't know if General Kale wants to add
anything else to that.
General Kale. I agree with everything that Mr. Oshiba said.
This is a once-in-every-other-generation-type program, and I am
hugely proud to be involved with that. And I know the team is
working hard with that.
Two things that concern me most with this program. We do
have tight timelines, and it is really important that we are
able to bring this capability. What is interesting about this
capability, it is locked, you know, tight with the weapons
system. So the MILCON and the weapons system, it is unlike any
other scenario, where they are very closely interlinked.
The two things that I am most worried about is, you know,
number one, you know, when we have delays with the CRs, that
can have a huge impact to this program in particular. And we
would ask to work with the committee here for help on that.
And then, number two, you know, this is a very highly
technical and complex program, and there will be times where,
you know, we are going to have potential cost implications. And
with the reprogramming limits at, you know, $2 million and such
a low percentage, that can add a significant time increase to
that program. And, you know, similar scenario with the natural
disaster reprogramming. We would like to work closely with the
Congress so that you have trust from transparency of what we
are doing to ensure that we can keep this program on track.
Thank you.
Mr. Carter. I am all for that.
And let me say, I think there is not a member of this
committee or any of us who work in the area of defense that
like CRs. We do our diligent best to get a bill out, and the
House gets a bill out always, almost always, by July. And it is
just crazy how this place slows down to a crawl at the end of
the fiscal year. But I guess part of that is politics.
The subcommittee strongly supported rebuilding Tyndall and
Offutt after the natural disasters that occurred. Will more
funding be needed? Will it be needed in 2023? In 2024? And when
will all the projects be completed so we all can have a party?
General Kale. Well, first, I have to thank the subcommittee
here for the amazing support on this. And I will say, I think
the way that we are working together, with us showing you all
the good, the bad, and the ugly, letting you know what is going
on, I think that has been able to ensure that this program is
going well.
Yes, we do need more funding in fiscal year 2023. That
amount is included in our unfunded priorities list. We have
worked with your staff to provide specifics on that. And, as of
right now, the way the market is working and how things are
going, I suspect that we will also need some money in fiscal
year 2024 for that. I can't give you an exact amount right now
on that, but we will work with your staff on that.
You know, as far as, you know, when this program will be
complete, you know, we are looking in fiscal year 2027-2028
timeframe is when everything, you know, will be done program-
wise. And we have shared that schedule with your subcommittee
and can provide more specifics if required.
Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Well, you know, you were fortunate with the
time it happened. You happened to have a Secretary of the Air
Force that everybody in Congress knew, because she was one of
our colleagues. And so, when she came in here and said it is
serious, we took her at her word.
But we are looking forward to getting that project--keeping
it on track going forward.
I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
The gentleman yields back.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
So, obviously, we appreciate you being here.
And I mentioned in my opening remarks that I think we all
share the frustration that the budget request reduces spending
compared to what we enacted. I mean, I think we have sent
pretty strong messages about how we feel about funding in this
bill, and I am wondering if there is anyone listening in your
department.
The Air Force has requested $2.85 billion. That is $930.5
million less than fiscal year 2022 enacted, which was $3.8
billion total. And that is a 25-percent reduction from one year
to the next.
So, Acting Secretary, welcome to your first MILCON-VA
hearing.
Mr. Oshiba. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So I understand that the fiscal year
2022 appropriations bill was just enacted last month. But can
you explain briefly how important the high level of funding was
for the Department and just a sample of what you would be able
to accomplish with that?
Mr. Oshiba. Thank you for the question, Chair Wasserman
Schultz. Just to clarify, when you talk about that high level
of funding, you are talking about the fiscal year 2022 enacted?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The enacted, yes.
Mr. Oshiba. It was incredibly helpful for us in a lot of
different ways. You know, you mentioned the importance of
quality of life, and, certainly, we are deeply appreciative of
the additional funds provided for child development centers. We
will be able to get after five of those using those fiscal year
2022 dollars.
We talked a little bit about the natural disaster recovery
and $130 million that was appropriated, as well, to support
that effort. You know, you mentioned climate change in your
opening statement. That is something that is very near and dear
to me. And I think one of things that we are seeing,
particularly with the work we are doing at Tyndall and Offutt,
is our ability to incorporate climate resiliency features into
the construction, you know, designing facilities with--with
resiliency incorporated.
And I think that will be extremely important moving forward
as a, sort of, model, a foundation, for construction that we
would want to do into the future.
Those are just a few highlights. But, again, I cannot thank
you enough.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And I didn't ask the question
gratuitously so that you would thank us. I genuinely wanted you
to walk us through a little bit of that.
So now can you explain to the committee why you are asking
for dramatically less money than we appropriated to you in
fiscal year 2022? And do you have less needs in fiscal year
2023 than what we are aware of?
Mr. Oshiba. That is a great question, Chair.
So I guess I would start off by saying, as I mentioned in
my opening statement, we are pivoting toward a pacing adversary
that we really haven't seen in the past two decades. And that
requires us to modernize our force, and it lays in some hard
choices in terms of what we have to do inside of our Air Force
budget--actually, Department of the Air Force budget.
And we do deeply care about our installations, and we care
about what it provides to enable combat power going into the
future, but we do have to make some of those hard choices. And
while we recognize the fact that there are other requirements
out there that continue to build over time and there is a risk
associated with that, again, we have to balance those risks
against the other priorities within the Department.
One thing I would add to that--and I mentioned the
infrastructure investment strategy that we have had ongoing for
the past couple of years now--3 years, to be exact. There are
portions of that strategy that get after what I call non-
resource policy changes to ensure that the dollars that we do
spend are targeted toward the most cost-effective and the most
mission-driven requirements that we have.
Things like different kinds of acquisition practices--
category management is one of them--investing dollars in the
part of the lifecycle of the facility's infrastructure that
yields the most effective change, while reducing overall
lifecycle cost--those are other areas in which we are striving
towards so that the dollars that we do receive from you, again,
go the farthest.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It seems that your hard choices
always come at the expense of the quality of life of your
servicemembers, of your airmen. You know, when you make hard
choices like that, when we travel around the world to take a
look at the infrastructure needs of your service, we see
rusted-out doors that are supposed to be protecting billions of
dollars' worth of equipment--planes and other vital equipment
that protects our national security interests, and it both
endangers your airmen who use those facilities and need to make
sure that they function properly, or you are looking at
barracks that are decrepit and decaying and that we are making
your airmen live in, or you are not requesting funding for
child development centers when you have 15,000 people on a
waiting list for those child development centers. And, you
know, they are not designed, obviously, to only get childcare
in those facilities, but, you know, you are falling woefully
behind. It is not right.
And, yeah, there are hard choices, but having the quality
of life of your airmen suffer for as long as you make them
suffer is not right, which puts us in a position--look, I am
thrilled to be able to be the ones that say, no, no, no, you
haven't asked for enough, you are not taking care of your
people. And, by the way, this is equal opportunity, because it
happened in the previous administration too. But this committee
ends up having to step up, which we are glad to do, but we
shouldn't have to.
So I will stop there and defer to my next colleague. But
before I do that, I just want to let you know, they are about
to call votes in a few minutes, and we are going to come back
so we can confer. And we are going to recess--it is one vote--
we will go vote, and we will come back and finish.
So, with that, Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you
holding this hearing and appreciate all the panelists.
You know, I retired a master chief, and, to the
chairwoman's point, quality of life is--it is operational. You
know, it absolutely transitions over to operation readiness. So
thank you for what you all are doing.
I would also say, you know, I have the privilege of
representing Lackland Air Force Base, Laughlin Air Force Base,
and former Air Force Base Kelly. And my grandfather was an
airplane electrician at Kelly, and my wife served boot camp at
Lackland Air Force Base. And it is just an absolute honor.
I would ask the Secretary or anyone on the panel, I would
love to take a visit to Laughlin Air Force Base, so, you know,
let's coordinate. To the chairwoman's point, we have a lot of
aging infrastructure, and it seems as if Laughlin in particular
is the last to eat, if you will. And I just want us to spend
some time and devotion doing that. You know, I would love to
get on your calendar sometime.
I want to start by--I want to start with Chief Bass.
You stated in your testimony that nearly 25 percent of Air
Force family housing is below standard. How many of the 3,477
homes are privatized homes?
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Thank you, Rep. Gonzales, and
thanks for your service while you did.
Sir, I am going to have to get back to you on the record
with respect to how many of those are privatized, unless----
General Kale. I can answer that. It is zero.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Fantastic.
General Kale. That number was based off of overseas
government-owned housing. And of the 3,477, 1,400 are
unoccupied, and 2,000 are occupied, but they are safe to live
in.
Of the 2,077 that are occupied, we plan to divest 671 of
them, and then we are planning to provide projects for almost
1,400 of them. And we will be working with the subcommittee
here, because that is a significant plan that we are going to
have to----
Mr. Gonzales. Yeah. I appreciate that. I just got back from
a trip to Italy and Greece, and I was looking at Army housing,
but that is another thing too. And I know this subcommittee is
planning additional trips.
A lot of times, there is nobody that directly represents
these overseas bases, and they fall through the cracks just
equally as well. So, to the chairwoman's point earlier, any
inputs you all have not only on the bases here at home but also
the infrastructure abroad is greatly appreciated.
My next question is for Chief Towberman.
I was pleased to read last week that Lackland Air Force
Base will host Space Force's first all-guardian boot camp class
next month. Once again, I would love to visit with you anytime
that happens. You know, please, you know, I would love to do
more there. I am very excited that, you know, finally, Space
Force is starting to get its feet underneath them.
My specific question is, what installation requirements
does Space Force need in order to grow the force to an expected
8,600 by 2023?
Chief Master Sergeant Towberman. Well, thanks for the
question. And thanks for the offer to come down there,
Congressman. And, certainly, you are happy--I am going to go
down for the graduation. I will have my office reach out, and I
am sure you would be welcome.
Mr. Gonzales. Great.
We are excited about that opportunity. It will be the first
time that Guardians are all of their training instructors, an
all-guardian course, and all those new recruits will go through
together.
So it is pretty exciting for us, culturally, to be still
there, where they do such a good job, at the gateway to the Air
Force, because they give us all the logistics and all of that
stuff and that remains, but for us to kind of instill our own
culture on that new team.
So, for the next year, I think we are set on that front. We
have all of the places where we need folks and all of the
things that we need.
I think, as we move forward and there are basing decisions
and things to be made as we move forward--but for right now, I
feel very comfortable with the footprint that we have and with
the installations and facilities that we have.
Mr. Gonzales. Okay. Great.
One point and then one final question.
You know, we were able to get a new child development
center at Lackland Air Force Base over this last budget, and
that was great. Randolph Air Force Base, I was pleased to see
that they have a child development center on the list as well,
and we are going to make that a priority.
My last question is for the Assistant Secretary.
You know, last--one of the installations I visited was
Laughlin Air Force Base. You know, at the time, the base
expected to receive funding to construct a new suite of officer
quarters in fiscal year 2023. It stated this was AETC's number-
two on the MILCON priority list.
Laughlin is a critical pipeline for Air Force pilots. Can
you talk about why this vital project was not included in the
President's budget?
Mr. Oshiba. Congressman, thanks for the question. I don't
have the details for that specific one, so we will have to take
that for the record.
Mr. Gonzales. Fantastic. Thank you.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Bishop, virtually, you are recognized for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Ranking
Member Carter, for hosting this hearing today.
And thank you to the witnesses for testifying.
I am particularly interested in learning more about the Air
Force's recent request in the budget to divest the Combat
Readiness Training Center in Savannah, Georgia.
The CRTC's fourth- and fifth-generation fighter training
capability cannot be replicated anywhere else in the Air
National Guard. And the CRT has unparalleled access to the
airspace, the ranges, the emitters that are required for the
high-end, advanced training for the fourth- and fifth-
generation fighters that were necessitated by the 2017
enterprise range plan and the 2020 enterprise range plan.
Our air dominance is a critical capability for both today
and tomorrow's wars. And, additionally, the CRTC is able to
provide training at low cost to the Air National Guard and
outperforms all of the other CRTCs in both utilization and
efficiency. And divestment of the Georgia CRTC will result in
the loss of the Air Force's ability to host and train
tomorrow's high-end fight today.
In order to assist the Georgia CRTC's mission, this
committee appropriated funds for a new, state-of-the-art hangar
that is scheduled to finish construction later this year. If
the Air Force divests the CRTC, what, then, is the plan for
this new, $24 million fifth-generation fighter hangar at the
CRTC in Savannah? And how did this infrastructure factor into
the decision to divest of the CRTC?
You built a new operation facility for C-130s in 2018 at a
cost of $9 million and a new $13.5 million ramp in 2016 for
those aircraft, and now you want to abandon that to make use of
a $24 million hangar that was constructed for fifth-generation
fighters? I mean, what is the logic in that?
Mr. Oshiba. Congressman, thanks for the question.
I am aware of that situation. I had a conversation this
morning with members of the Air National Guard Readiness
Center. We are going to continue that conversation so that I
can fully understand the rationale as well.
I served on Active Duty for 26 years. I have actually been
to Savannah, Alpena, Volk Field, and Gulfport, so many of your
CRTCs. So I understand the value that it brings, not just for
the Guard component, but also for the Active Duty, who have an
opportunity to go there and train on their wartime skills.
So that is definitely something we will continue to--I will
continue to investigate. And happy to meet with you separately,
if you would like, and provide you some additional details.
Mr. Bishop. Yeah. I am just--this is the only CRTC that
really is capable of the fifth-generation fighters. It requires
secure maintenance facilities and secure hangars, and, of
course, we are just about completed with the construction of
that. It seems like an awful waste of resources now, to have
that capability relegated to some lesser requirement.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Bishop, did you--was that a
response that you needed from someone?
Mr. Bishop. Well, let me just follow up, then.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Mr. Bishop. On the issue of housing, let me ask Mr. Oshiba,
does the Department of the Air Force have the necessary
authorities to properly manage the private housing partners?
And if you don't, what authorities would you need for this
committee and for Congress to give you in order to have
effective oversight?
Mr. Oshiba. Congressman, thank you very much for the
question.
We do have the authorities necessary to provide the
necessary oversight. We have recently hired 218 additional
government oversight members for our government housing offices
as well as to serve as resident advocates. We just finished
hiring the last of those 218.
All of them go through training for a week--for a week of
training before they assume their positions. And then we
provide monthly recurring training to ensure that they have the
skills necessary to represent the occupants of these homes,
these families that live in the privatized homes across the
Department.
So I think----
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Oshiba [continuing]. We do have the resources.
Mr. Bishop. I think my time is about to expire, but I would
like to follow up with you on the CRTC issue. That is very
concerning to me. And I would like to get with you and your
folks as soon as we can possibly get together on that.
Mr. Oshiba. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
The gentleman yields back.
As votes have been called, as I said, the subcommittee will
stand in recess, subject to the call of the chair. And members
will just go vote--it is one vote--and we will come right back.
The subcommittee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The subcommittee will come to order.
We will return to the member questioning.
And, Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
questions.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all our panel here for taking the time today.
And I know it has been touched on quite a bit, but this is
something that is important, that is affecting a lot of our
districts. So I hate to be repeating ourselves, but it is
important that we do emphasize the importance. In fiscal year
2022, the MILCON budget provided historic increases for family
housing modernization, and I hoped to see the fiscal year 2023
continue in that trend.
It was noted that a majority of these funds will be
contracted out to privatized housing companies to modernize
existing housing units. As we all heard in a hearing a few
weeks ago on privatized military housing, there are still many
outstanding concerns with some of the units these companies
manage. I have had a lot of issues. And I know in my district
it is Naval Air Station Lemoore, but I have been to a few bases
around the State of California that also have other issues.
So what are doing to ensure the money being spent on
housing modernization is resulting in the quality of homes our
servicemembers obviously deserve?
And I have a few followups, so if this could be quick,
hopefully.
Mr. Oshiba. Thank you, Congressman. I will try to be quick
about that.
We do have a very stringent oversight process with our team
down at the Air Force's Civil Engineer Center who kind of
oversees the entire--not just the privatized housing program
but also the government family housing program as well.
I guess one thing I would share with you that we have
learned over a period of time is that some of these deals, when
they were put together, going on almost 20 years now, the
financial structure of these deals were probably, what I would
call, somewhat high-risk.
They were based on assumptions made in terms of what we
would see in terms of the trajectory of the basic allowance for
housing. We financed them with a lot of equity that the
companies that took over the housing put into the deal.
And we conveyed a lot of old homes. You know, out of the
50-something-thousand privatized homes we have, 18,000 of them
were conveyed, sort of, as is. And when you think about what
those as-is housing were, many of them were old Capehart
housing built in the mid-1960s to late 1970s--or, I mean, early
1970s.
That is what I experienced when I was stationed down in
Georgia, and it has been something that we will have to address
in the years coming up.
Mr. Valadao. And this followup might be a better question
for the record, but what do you see--what do you have--I am
sorry. Do you have a revised breakdown of the condition of all
the base housing units across the Air Force installations? For
example, what percentage of houses have been updated in the
past decade, and what percentage are still in need of
modernization?
I assume that is probably for the record.
Mr. Oshiba. Yeah. If we could get that for the record.
Mr. Valadao. So, then, I will move on. The fiscal year 2023
budget did not have a request for construction funds for brand-
new housing. I know we have talked about this a bit last year,
but several bases don't seem to have enough housing available.
And since we last spoke, has there been any conversations on
how we can provide alternative or temporary housing solutions?
The reason why I'm asking this question is, earlier this
year, or late last year, I went up to Beale Air Force Base,
north of Sacramento, and spent some time up there. There was
some really old housing there. It was all torn down because it
was in really bad condition. I think there was 1,500 units, if
I remember correctly. Tore them down; they built 500 new ones.
So, obviously, there is a shortage there.
And then you include the situation with COVID where people
were moving out to rural areas. That added some more pressure
to the housing situation there. And then you bring up the fires
that we had burning down some of the homes along the foothills
there and up into the mountains. That added even more pressure,
and that made it just the more difficult for our airmen that
are living in that area, servicing that base.
So what is being done to help with those? And why aren't
there some new houses? Why don't get back to at least the
numbers that that base used to have?
Mr. Oshiba. Yeah. Congressman, that is a great question.
So one of the things that we continue to do is what is
called a housing requirements market analysis, or HRMAs. And we
do those periodically to ensure we understand what is happening
in the local housing market.
It has been the Department's policy for some time now that
we will continue to count on the local communities to provide,
sort of, that first source of homes. And as we have all
experienced over the past several years, that market has
changed quite a bit.
And so what we are doing is, in certain areas that we know
that the housing market is extraordinarily volatile, we are
going to go back in and do these housing market analyses to
determine, what is the real requirement, what is the conditions
out there, so that we can address shortfalls in housing, not
just in numbers, but in some cases in cost.
Mr. Valadao. All right.
Well, I know we are coming up on the time. I think I will
have another opportunity to follow up. But I appreciate the
time, and I will yield back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you want to continue. You
probably will not have----
Mr. Valadao. I will continue then.
So, this year, I have spent a lot of time visiting various
National Guard and Reserve facilities in central California. I
have been quite surprised at the state of repair some of the
facilities are in.
How do you prioritize modernization of the Guard and
Reserve facilities?
Mr. Oshiba. Congressman, for the Guard and Reserve
facilities, they are allocated a certain portion of our overall
budget for both MILCON and for FSRM based upon their plant
value relative to the entire plant value of the Department of
the Air Force. And, certainly, we do adjust that based upon
unique requirements or things that they might bring in.
But internal to both the Guard and Reserve components, they
do their own prioritization, if you will, ensuring that they
are addressing the needs that they see fit. And as we have
brought on the Space Force, it is very much the same way.
Mr. Valadao. All right.
I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
And I yield myself 5 minutes.
So, on Tuesday, April 26th--a day that will also live in
infamy--the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs'
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--and I know you know
this was coming--released a report suggesting that Balfour
Beatty has continued to engage in similar and, quote, ``ongoing
mistreatment,'' unquote, of military families since the last
known cases of fraud in 2019. The panel's probe covered homes
at Fort Gordon, an Army base in Georgia, and Sheppard Air Force
Base in Texas.
Acting Secretary Oshiba, as discussed in this
subcommittee's recent MHPI oversight hearing--military
privatized housing--and subsequently in a Senate Subcommittee
on Investigations report released on Tuesday, Balfour Beatty
has allegedly continued the same types of fraud and
mistreatment that got them into trouble between 2013 and 2019.
One specific location cited was Sheppard Air Force Base in
Texas.
Is the Air Force aware of the situation? And what are you
going to do to address it?
Mr. Oshiba. Thank you very much for the question, Chair
Wasserman Schultz.
So I watched that hearing in its entirety on the 26th. And
we are certainly very aware of what Balfour Beatty was found
guilty of, if you will, over the past couple years. And we have
also put in place oversight specifically for BBC, as well as
another owner as well, based upon what we have seen over a
period of time. So we understand what they have done----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, I am sorry. Let me just make
sure I get that right. So you have a different company that has
also subsequently been found to have engaged in mistreatment?
Mr. Oshiba. It is what we have seen in terms of their
performance. So let me correct the record for that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Mr. Oshiba. So we understand what BBC has done. We have put
in place a performance improvement plan, if you will, to
continue that oversight specifically to ensure that that does
not happen again. We review their third-party audits, both
financially as well as their work-order management, and will
continue to oversee that while they are on probation through
2025.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
So my recollection is that Balfour Beatty already paid
something like $65 million in fines for the previous violations
and mistreatment and outrageous treatment of servicemembers in
military privatized housing. And now they have been caught
doing it again.
What is the pain point for the Air Force? I mean, you know,
when is, and are we at, the point where the Air Force believes
that Balfour Beatty has finally done enough harm to revisit the
housing partnership and severing ties between Balfour Beatty
and the Air Force?
I understand all of the twisting and intertwined,
complicated contracts and all of that. But they don't appear
that they are ever going to get it. And they appear to be--and
other companies might apparently do, as well--doing everything
they can to cut corners, save money, abuse their great
privilege that they have been given to take care of our
servicemembers and their families, and they are mostly only
interested in making money on the backs of the suffering of the
people who we house in the housing we have turned over to them.
Mr. Oshiba. Chairwoman, you know, as I mentioned, we
provide specific oversight over this housing--or this
privatized owner to a degree that I would say goes beyond what
we do for others as well, given what their perform has shown in
the past given the findings of the Department of Justice----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, apparently not.
Mr. Oshiba [continuing]. And we will continue to do that.
We will continue to provide----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Apparently not. No, no, no, no. This
is a real question. What's the pain point? Have you begun
discussing severing ties with them and no longer continuing to
do business with this company that doesn't care, that, you
know, $65 million was a rounding error, a cost of doing
business, and now they have done it again? And are they going
to be subject to more, you know, penalties? They certainly
should be.
I mean, incentivize--my definition of incentives, at least
in my experience, is through money. We are not giving them
money, I hope, to make sure this doesn't happen again. What do
you mean by ``incentives''?
Mr. Oshiba. For the record, or a correction to what I
stated before: It is a performance improvement plan that they
are on. And that's, again, not an incentive. It is just
basically additional oversight we provide, specifically to look
at the results of their work-order performance management, the
results of the audit both on their finances by a third party as
well as the audit on their work-order performance.
We will continue to do that. We will continue to work with
investigative organizations via the Department of Justice or
others that may look into this. And, if necessary and if
proven, certainly that is an action we would be willing to
take.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What is an action you would be
willing to take?
Mr. Oshiba. Look at different alternatives, to include
potentially terminating them. But I think it has to be founded
on fact and evidence that are provided by investigative
organizations.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How many more facts do you need?
They have horrendously abused the trust that we invested in
them. They have mistreated our servicemembers. They allow them
to live, you know, endlessly in poor conditions. They don't fix
things. They don't follow up. They have terrible communication.
You have a retention problem. We have had two whole
hearings on this. And you are losing people who would otherwise
commit their careers to the Air Force but they don't want to
commit their family members to the godforsaken housing that
apparently there's not a commitment to ensure gets better.
Mr. Oshiba. Chair, you have my commitment that we will
continue to provide that oversight that is necessary to ensure
that they deliver on the terms of their project.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are they still getting incentives
during the performance improvement plan?
Mr. Oshiba. I do not know specifically, and that is
certainly something I can check into.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. See, the problem with you not
knowing specifically is that we take the question for the
record and then we don't get the answer on the record. So can
someone check now? We will be here for a few minutes.
So I would like someone to check now whether or not they
are still getting incentives during their performance
improvement plan, and has the Air Force paid incentive fees to
Sheppard Air Force Base during the time period of November 2019
to January 2022.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass, while we are waiting for the
answer to that question, our recent subcommittee hearing on the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative discussed continued
quality-of-service issues and unacceptable housing conditions.
What is the Air Force doing to ensure that its
servicemembers and their families are being supported when
living in privatized housing? And how is the Air Force making
sure that the right people are in the right positions to help
servicemembers when they are seeking help with their housing
issues? Because it didn't seem like much has changed from our
first hearing to our most recent one.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yeah. Madam Chair, thanks for
your concern of our airmen. I am deeply concerned too, and
mostly deeply concerned because, you know, while we might think
sometimes, centralized, that things are going well, we find out
otherwise when we go and talk with our airmen.
I will tell you that the challenges that we have had over
the past several years have really, as Mr. Oshiba identified,
put a spotlight onto those project owners. And so, with that
spotlight, we have really empowered our command teams as well
as the tenants more than we ever have before, with our command
teams now being able to actually, you know, institutionalize,
if you will, groups where they can come together to be able to
find out what are the challenges that airmen are going through.
We have also put people in position within those housing
locations as advocates to be able to allow our airmen to be
able to get after some of those things.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right, I know that. But it has not
gotten better. Something is not working.
And the problem with something not working is that Balfour
Beatty, in this instance, even though they knew they were
paying a fine kept doing what they were fined for, like, 4 more
years, that we know of, and it is probably continuing to this
day.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yeah.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So something is not working.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. I would offer, Madam Chair,
that, you know--right?--that depends. In some of our locations,
actually, you know--and, oh, by the way, I have had an
opportunity to live on many of our installations, coming from
Keesler Air Force Base, where we had significant mold issues
there as well, and some other locations, Goodfellow Air Force
Base, where I again was a tenant on base--I would offer that it
really depends.
We are not where we need to be. A lot of that is challenges
with, again, the project owners that we have to hold
accountable. But in many of our locations, things have gotten
better. I got a firsthand experience of witnessing the mold
situation at Keesler get better.
And so it will take time, it will take investment, it will
take us holding those project owners to the test. But I will
tell you, there is not an installation that I go to that the
command teams are not involved and concerned about the welfare
of every single one of their airmen.
And what we can control in terms of being able to make sure
that our airmen that do have to get displaced or the guardians
that might have to get displaced, we are taking care of them as
much as possible to relieve the pressure and the stresses that
it is causing them as well as their families.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, we have heard testimony from
them, and I don't think that you have done enough.
And I would just like to know, Chief, if you repeatedly
violated the standards that were expected of you, and your
boss, you know, your next person up who supervises you puts you
on a performance improvement plan, and in spite of that
performance improvement plan you continue to do what you were
put on the performance improvement plan in the first place for,
what would happen to you?
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. In that scenario, Madam Chair,
if it was about me and my boss, I would probably not have a
job.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So why are we continuing to allow
Balfour Beatty to have contracts and put our trust and millions
of dollars into their pockets and allow that to continue?
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Madam Chair, I--you know, we
will definitely have to take some of this for the record. I am
not an expert in contractual law, but I----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I understand.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass [continuing]. Definitely want to
be able to come back to you with things that, again, matter for
our airmen and their families.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, I will tell you that I am
going to be looking towards what language we can include in
this bill and working with Chairman Smith in the Armed Services
Committee and our fellow ranking members to address this.
Because if you don't take care of our servicemembers, then we
will.
Okay.
Perfect timing.
Mrs. Lee. I know. My goodness.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So I yield back, and I recognize
Mrs. Lee for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Lee. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank you to all the witnesses today.
I represent southern Nevada, and I work closely with the
leadership and the fine men and women at Creech and Nellis Air
Force Bases. And, unfortunately, they face a longstanding issue
of the insufficient dormitory space.
This runs contrary to the Air Force's requirement that
first-term airmen reside in dorms for 3 years until they earn
the requisite rank. Nellis currently is 486 dorm beds short,
forcing them to move young enlisted members out of the dorms
after just 12 months.
Although Nellis's deficit is greater than many bases, this
shortage of dormitory space exists across the Air Force, and it
forces junior airmen into difficult financial situations.
And while this committee works to pursue solutions for
specific bases through the military construction process, it is
clear that we need a broader solution here, or else our
servicemembers will continue to struggle in a housing market
that is often prohibitively expensive and difficult to
navigate. And that certainly is true in southern Nevada.
Mr. Oshiba, I wanted to ask you: We know that this problem
is not true. What is the Air Force doing to address this
current mismatch between capacity and the guidance?
Mr. Oshiba. Congresswoman, thank you very much for the
question.
We are aware of the shortfall in the Nellis and Creech
area. We do have two dorm projects that we are currently going
through the requirements for, in terms of doing the programming
into the FYDP.
In the meantime, we are working with the community, in our
personnel community, to increase their basic allowance for
housing and basic allowance for subsistence to ensure that they
can compensate for the increased cost of housing. You know, the
BAH rate at Nellis went up 12 percent between 2021 and 2022
specifically to account for that.
And we continue to work with the communities to see if
there are other options available beyond just the typical
MILCON construction, if you will, just to understand, because
it is a long process, as you well know of getting things built.
Mrs. Lee. What is the timeframe on these dorm projects?
Mr. Oshiba. We don't currently have it in our Future Years
Defense Program. Right now it is just being developed as a
potential future project.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Congresswoman Lee.
Mrs. Lee. Yes.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Thank you so much. If I can add
a few points on that.
You know, until those solutions are had, where we actually
have some MILCON and things going to be able to take care of
our servicemembers, we are actively trying to figure out some
creative ways to get after this. And so we appreciate the
community's support that they are doing. We are looking at
partnering with Nevada State, as they have some capacity, and
so we are looking at that. We have seen that model work out
well at Angelo State University out near Goodfellow Air Force
Base. And so we are trying get creative about that.
You did mention the airmen who are getting out within 12
months. Typically, they stay into the dorms upwards of 3 years.
I will tell you, that is not necessarily uncommon at any of our
Air Force bases. But prior to our airmen going out, the intent
always is--and I have a college kid--the intent always is, one,
they are going to be able to take care of themselves
financially. And so there is a lot of leadership oversight with
their first sergeants, with their commands teams, to make sure
that we are sending out the right airmen who are financially
ready, who are responsible and able to go out and do those
things.
But, again, you know, our first priority is really to those
airmen and making sure that we are not putting them in a
dilemma. But we appreciate the community support that we are
getting from those locations, and we need more of it.
Mrs. Lee. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, housing is an issue in
southern Nevada. So, happy to hear that you do additional
wraparound support, because what we don't want to see is airmen
see their careers derailed because of having to navigate this
situation.
I am going to turn to suicide prevention really quickly. I
welcomed the establishment of the review committee in the NDAA.
Nellis Air Force Base is one of the eight installations
selected for visits as part of this review. I know we are going
to expect the report here soon.
Mr. Oshiba, can you speak to the concrete steps that the
Air Force has taken in the last year to address mental health
and suicide prevention and what tangible programs or steps we
can expect in the coming year?
Mr. Oshiba. Congresswoman, I apologize, but I don't have
the details specific to that. I am not sure if either of the
chiefs do?
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Sure. I would like to take that
on.
Mr. Oshiba. Thanks.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Congresswoman, you know, as I
mentioned in my opening statement--I don't think you were able
to be here--but, you know, there is not a day that goes by that
I am not deeply concerned about suicide. But, more importantly,
how do we get left of that, and how can we take care of our
servicemembers and their families in a better way.
So we are taking a broader, holistic look at mental health
in all forms, right? The wellness of them physically, mentally,
spiritually, socially. We have 17 of our bases that have a True
North program, if you will, where we have embedded support at
those locations.
For all of our other installations, what we are trying to
do is just have a menu of options for those installation
commanders to be able to have all the supporting agencies where
they need them when they need them. And we are also promoting
that we try to get all of those supporting agencies under one
roof, where there is no wrong door for our airmen to walk into
and get the help that they need. Lots of efforts.
The other one that I did mention in my opening comments
that I am championing with my teammate Chief Towberman right
here is, we established a grassroots effort called Fortify the
Force Initiative Team. And that team is really comprised of
airmen, guardians, loved ones, veterans of all sorts really
starting to come up with, what are the stigmas associated with
mental health, and how can we as a force be able to get after
that? We are killing any of the bureaucracy from their ideas
and their thoughts by allowing us to champion these things.
And so we look forward to the progress we are going to make
with that, again, getting after the total force fitness, ma'am.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
You know, I was out at Creech, and one initiative that I
thought was incredible was that they have a chaplain on site
who is there, available. So it is part of the daily operating
procedure. It is not a, you go and ask for it. It basically is
part of what their operations are.
So I thought that was a good way to break down the stigma
and make sure that people understand that mental health is
primary health and it is part of their job.
Madam Chair, I have one more question. Can I ask----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you can ask it quickly.
Mrs. Lee. I will ask it quickly. Sorry. Only because this
is a big issue.
Creech Air Force Base--irregular work schedules, lengthy
commute. Nevada obviously has a childcare shortage issue, as
the rest of the country.
And I wanted to know, either Mr. Oshiba or Chief Master
Sergeant Bass, what actions can we expect from the Air Force in
the coming year to materially improve childcare options,
especially for a location like Creech?
Mr. Oshiba. Congresswoman, I will take maybe a first swing
at it, and maybe the chief can add in.
We are putting in place several different programs to
provide some additional assistance beyond just, sort of, what I
call the brick-and-mortar CDC solution.
Childcare Fee Assistance program, $21.3 million budgeted in
fiscal year 2022 specifically for that. To date, you know, we
haven't denied any fee assistance to any eligible military-
connected family, and we are committed to maintaining that
support for our Department of the Air Force families moving
forward.
The 2023 budget request includes $31 million--so we are
going to increase that--for childcare fee assistance. And that
increase, again, reflects the continued growth of the program
participation, which I think is just another alternative to the
traditional brick-and-mortar efforts that are out there.
And I know one other thing that particularly within the
personnel community and services community that we are looking
very hard at--and we sort of touched on it in different
places--was, sort of, this nationwide shortage of childcare
providers and if there are things that we can do. And we are
looking at things like, how can we increase wages so that we
are competitive with the market? Or, in certain places, we are
increasing that wage above market rates, again, to ensure that
we attract and retain the kind of childcare providers we need
for our families.
Chief.
Chief Master Sergeant Bass. Congresswoman, you know, again,
not a day that goes by that I'm not thinking about childcare. I
had two children myself that, as a dual military family, we had
to have--they went into childcare from the day they were born.
I would offer two challenges that we have. One is capacity;
one is being able to hire the right staff and being able to
have that staff.
Where we are still waiting on capacity when it comes from
things that are--you know, Mr. Oshiba is working on, we are
really focused on, well, then, how do we get the staff, the
right staff, into the seats? And so a lot--we have a working
group that is very focused on that very thing, providing
incentives.
But the challenge that we have is, you know, COVID didn't
do us any favors with respect to hiring people. The health
protection levels, the staff availability, quarantines--all of
those things were not helpful.
Nonetheless, you know, our managers are out there at every
one of our installations, you know, really beating the streets,
trying to be able to hire the right people. And, oh, by the
way, you know, they are challenged with they are competing
against, you know, downtown locations or competing against
McDonald's and, you know, other places that really do offer
fantastic incentives.
But we have taken a really strong look at our internal
hiring processes, making sure that they are effective but they
are, you know, as easy as we can make them to be able to
onboard some of the best people.
But we have done, also, a lot of other pretty good things
to take care of them. We have militarychildcare.com. We have
provided home community care that takes care of our Guard and
Reserve brothers and sisters. We have a childcare coordinator
on every single one of our locations who their whole job is to
figure out the people especially on those different work
schedules, to be able to help get after that.
With respect to Creech, I am concerned about those parents
who have their--you know, who have to drive 35, 45 minutes
away. But I will tell you, I am very proud of the folks at
Nellis and what they have done to be able to get after that,
because Nellis has to take on those childcare responsibilities.
They have done a lot of work to be able get after family
childcare at homes. They have coordinated where I believe there
was upwards of 150-ish families and childcare locations in the
northwest part of Las Vegas to help limit some of that
downtime, to be able to take care of them. They have
established MOAs with the YMCAs who try to help get after
childcare.
So, again, a big challenge, but opportunities for us to,
again, capitalize on our communities. And we are taking hard
looks at this, ma'am.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for indulging.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome. That is how we roll
here. And thank you for your excellent line of questioning.
Mr. Oshiba, I assume you have an answer to the questions I
asked you about performance incentives still being given----
Mr. Oshiba. Madam Chair, I do.
So I can confirm that, at least for the Air Force, for the
Air Force projects, we have not issued any performance
incentive fees since 2019, and none have been approved since
that point in time.
And we will continue----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. For any company? For either Hunt or
Balfour Beatty?
Mr. Oshiba. For BBC specifically.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. For Balfour Beatty.
Mr. Oshiba. Right.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And that is directly related
to their past unacceptable performance?
Mr. Oshiba. Directly related to the past performance as
well as our--and, again, we continue to monitor their
performance through that third-party auditor who was put in
place so that there is no potential for doctoring anything or
for any kind of bias.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And we will check with the
rest of the services as well. And if you could, for the record,
let us know about Hunt, because they obviously engaged in the
same kind of conduct.
Mr. Oshiba. Ma'am Chair, we will check.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I thank the members for their participation, as well as our
witnesses. That concludes today's hearing.
Your updates and perspectives are going to be very valuable
to us as we start to prepare the chairwoman's mark for 2023. We
appreciate all of your service. And I trust that we have
thickened your skin a bit today, but it is better than tearing
it off. So, you know, there is that.
The committee staff will be in contact with your budget
office regarding questions for the record. I know we have a
number of those to submit, and I would imagine other members of
the subcommittee do as well. So, if you would work with OMB to
return the information for the record to the subcommittee
within 30 days from Monday, we will be able to publish the
transcript of today's hearing and make informed decisions for
fiscal year 2023.
I want to remind members that our next hybrid hearing, on
research at the Department of Veterans Affairs, is on
Wednesday, May 11, at 2:00 p.m.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]