[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 5

  Impacts of VAs Research Efforts on 
Veterans................................
                                                                      1
  Army Installations and Quality of Life
                                                                     47
  Navy and Marine Corps Installations 
and Quality of Life Update..............
                                                                    123
  Members' Day Hearing..................
                                                                    223
                                                                    
                                                                    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           ______

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
          
   

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
49-964                    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

                              ----------                              

                                           Wednesday, May 11, 2022.

              IMPACTS OF VAS RESEARCH EFFORTS ON VETERANS

                               WITNESSES

DR. PATRICIA HASTINGS, CHIEF CONSULTANT, HEALTH OUTCOMES MILITARY 
    EXPOSURES, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
DR. RACHEL RAMONI, CHIEF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, 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 start 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 apologize for being a few minutes late. I had a markup in 
another committee and we were voting. But I also apologize to 
our witnesses in advance, because we now have very compressed 
time to conduct this hearing. They are going to call votes in 
about 10 minutes. And it is an extremely long series, so I 
don't anticipate that we would be able to come back.
    We are going to get through as much of this hearing as we 
can. There are only a few members here. We are going to--I am 
going to ask each member to take no more than 2.5 minutes for 
your questions. I think we are likely only to get to one round 
of questions, maybe two, if other members don't come. And, you 
know, it is not a reflection of the commitment that we have to 
the research that is so important at the VA; it is just the 
voting gods are not smiling on us today.
    So today's hearing will give us a chance to review VA's 
research efforts and how they impact veterans. I am pleased to 
welcome for the first time before the subcommittee Dr. Rachel 
Ramoni, chief research and development officer at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. She is accompanied by Dr. 
Patricia Hastings, chief consultant for the Health Outcomes 
Military Exposures Program at VA, who we welcome back.
    We are glad to have you both here with us today to share 
your insights on the various research efforts VA undertakes to 
improve the health of its veterans. The research programs at VA 
are a critical part of sustaining the world-class care that 
veterans deserve and have come to rely upon. These efforts 
allow VA to stay on the cutting edge of new treatments, develop 
and test improved medical devices, and enhance our 
understanding of the medical conditions and injuries that 
affect veterans.
    As veterans live longer and recover from injuries that may 
have been fatal in decades past, these programs are critical to 
ensure that VA has the tools and treatments it needs to give 
veterans, not only the best medical care, but the best possible 
quality of life.
    I have long admired VA's work in areas like improved 
prosthetics and spinal cord research that help veterans recover 
from the types of injuries that, unfortunately, are far too 
prevalent among our servicemembers. But there is another area 
that I am glad to see VA doing more in, and that deals with 
developing a better understanding of how military service can 
affect veterans in ways that are less immediately obvious than 
a limb loss or other external injury.
    First, I am really pleased to see VA's focus on mental 
health and brain health within the research program, including 
both traumatic brain injury, which is an area that we have come 
to realize plays a significant role in long-term health 
effects, as well as suicide prevention and other mental health 
needs.
    And, second, an area that is so critical to veterans of 
multiple generations is that of toxic exposures during military 
service. From Agent Orange to burn pits to PFAS, far too often 
our servicemembers and their families are exposed to dangerous 
chemicals as part of their military service. And the 
frightening reality is we don't always see the health effects 
right away, but they come back years later in the form of 
cancers, breathing problems, and neurological conditions, just 
to name a few. And the only way to understand how these 
conditions are connected to military service is by actually 
doing the research and the population studies.
    So I am very glad that that is an area of focus in fiscal 
year 2023 in both Dr. Ramoni's efforts at the Office of 
Research and Development and in Dr. Hastings' work at the 
Health Outcomes Military Exposures program, otherwise known as 
the HOME program.
    The fiscal year 2023 budget request for the medical and 
prosthetic research account addresses a number of priority 
areas that have been of great interest to the committee, and I 
am glad to see the continued recognition of the importance of 
the research program.
    Investing in VA's research program has been a top priority 
for me and for many Members on both sides of the aisle, and we 
have been able to make significant investments in this program 
over the past several years. In fiscal year 2022, we provided 
$882 million, an increase of $67 million over the prior year's 
funding, and the largest year-to-year increase in recent 
history. And I know the subcommittee was very proud of that.
    This year's request of $916 million is an increase of $34 
million over last year's funding. I look forward to hearing 
what your plans are for this program in fiscal year 2023 and 
how this funding would be used to make progress for veterans. 
And I also look forward to the chance to discuss some of the 
overarching work of the research program and other related 
efforts at VA.
    So thank you both for being here today to discuss these 
important issues.
    And for our two members that just joined us, obviously, 
votes are imminent. We have a very compressed timeframe. We are 
going to limit questions to 2.5 minutes, and we will see how 
far we can get.
    So, with that, I am pleased to yield to our ranking member, 
Judge Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I 
appreciate you arranging this hearing.
    Thank you for our two VA witnesses joining us today. I am 
glad we are having a hearing, because I am particularly 
interested in research related to burn pits and toxic 
exposures, as well as the use of animals in experiments. The VA 
has been a leader in research, helping veterans and all 
Americans.
    Thank you, Dr. Ramoni and Dr. Hastings, for your 
leadership. Please make sure the VA research community knows 
that we appreciate their work and their contributions.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Judge Carter yields back. Thank you 
so much.
    Dr. Ramoni, your full written testimony will be entered 
into the record, and you are recognized to summarize your 
remarks for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Ramoni. Madam Chairwoman, under the circumstances, 
would you like to just proceed to questions or would you like--
--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think because we are really not 
going to get a lot of substance in here in terms of the 
members' questions, that it would be good for you to review 
your testimony publicly, and then we will do as much as we can 
on the questions.
    Dr. Ramoni. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Dr. Ramoni. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz 
and Ranking Member Carter and members of the subcommittee. On 
behalf of my colleague Dr. Patricia Hastings, who is chief 
consultant for Veterans Health Administration's, or VHA's, 
Health Outcomes and Military Exposures team, and myself, I want 
to express our gratitude for the opportunity to discuss how 
VHA's research programs improve the health of those who served.
    VHA's Office of Research and Development, which I am 
privileged to lead, has primary responsibility for managing the 
Department's research appropriation and sets policy for 
Department research activities.
    For nearly a century, VA has had a research program 
dedicated to enhancing the well-being of veterans through 
scientific discovery. Because we are embedded within the VA 
healthcare system, both operationally and culturally, as an 
intramural program that exclusively funds eligible VA employees 
qualified to do research, the science we support is firmly 
grounded in the experience of clinicians and researchers 
working directly with veterans in our medical centers. It 
really is an extraordinary system in which to conduct 
biomedical research.
    Our greatest distinction is, of course, our mission to 
serve veterans. Over 9 million former servicemembers are 
enrolled in VA healthcare. Caring for these individuals and 
those who preceded them has resulted in one of the richest 
healthcare datasets in the world. When paired with the skilled 
researchers and modern scientific computing, the opportunities 
for veteran-centered discovery are vast.
    The Office of Research and Development's capacity to do 
good for veterans extends well beyond data science, of course. 
We support the full range of research approaches, from basic 
science to rehabilitation research. This fact could not be more 
evident than in recent times.
    During the past 2 years, many of our researchers stepped up 
in the fight against COVID-19, including offering veterans the 
opportunity to participate in vaccine and therapeutics trials.
    Our researchers published the initial groundbreaking work 
alerting veterans and the Nation to the potential scope and 
dimensions of what is now referred to as long COVID. These 
publications are among the nearly 600 articles that VA 
investigators have contributed to the COVID-19 knowledge base.
    The President's fiscal year 2023 budget requests $916 
million Medical and Prosthetics Research appropriation, which 
builds upon your historic fiscal year 2022 investment.
    Setting funding priorities is an essential part of 
stewarding the substantial public funds. The Office of Research 
and Development follows a multistep process for identifying 
priorities, taking into account the input of many stakeholders, 
as is detailed in a 2020 Government Accountability Office 
report.
    In fiscal year 2023, we continue to cultivate veteran-
centered priorities, including, but certainly not limited to, 
precision oncology, brain health, suicide prevention, mental 
health and, of course, military environmental exposures.
    Every year, VA researchers make tremendous contributions to 
expanding our body of knowledge. In fiscal year 2021, for 
example, our scientists authored nearly 14,000 research 
articles. Their work fuels the continuous cycle of research, 
evidence-based policymaking, clinical care and evaluation, 
which steadily improves veterans' care.
    Dr. Hastings' Health Outcomes and Military Exposures team 
is also integral to the process of using scientific evidence to 
inform military environmental exposures policy and healthcare. 
Both she and I appreciate the subcommittee's continued support 
in our collective mission to serve veterans through the 
thoughtful use of taxpayer dollars.
    Dr. Hastings and I look forward to answering your 
questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Dr. Ramoni.
    And, Dr. Hastings, you are here in a support role today, or 
are you also giving----
    Dr. Hastings. I will answer any questions you have and talk 
about military environmental exposures as you wish.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, great. Thank you.
    I am going to ask the two key questions that I wanted to 
ask together so that we can make this go a little faster.
    My first question really surrounds how VA interacts with 
other agencies in terms of your research efforts. For example, 
I know we have had discussions with Dr. Hastings in the past on 
VA's work in studying man-made toxic chemicals known as PFAS. 
And in many ways, VA and the Department of Defense were really 
letting other agencies, like the EPA, take the lead, despite 
those issues directly impacting servicemembers who later enroll 
in VA.
    So my first question is, Dr. Hastings, on PFAS 
specifically, has VA now been able to take more of an active 
role in researching the health effects on veterans?
    Dr. Ramoni, what interagency collaborations are you 
participating in related to PFAS?
    And then my other question is related to our women 
veterans. That is an area of focus for the subcommittee, making 
sure that we have the gender-specific needs of our veterans 
met. How do you ensure, Dr. Ramoni, that women veterans are 
adequately represented in VA's research?
    We have felt that at times VA has treated women veterans as 
an afterthought. For example, the subcommittee directed VA to 
ensure adequate funds were set aside for research into women's 
prosthetics. So, obviously, women's bodies are fundamentally 
different from men's. So if you could answer both of those 
questions, I would appreciate it.
    Dr. Ramoni. Thank you very much. I will start with the 
question of women veterans and then hand it over to my 
colleague, Dr. Hastings, to begin in the PFAS discussion, and 
then finally talk about our partnerships.
    So you are absolutely right that meeting the needs of women 
veterans who have lost limbs is not simply a case of 
miniaturizing solutions that work for men. With the support and 
encouragement of Congress, we continue to conduct research on 
the needs of women veterans with limb loss and have recently 
licensed an ankle-foot, for example, developed at one of our 
medical centers which can quickly be adapted to different heel 
heights, including high heels.
    Our Technology Transfer Office also has assisted in 
licensing new 3D printed fingers that are more suitable to 
women veterans' needs, and we have funded a follow-up study to 
see how well those work for our women veterans.
    And, obviously, to succeed in providing world-class care 
for veterans, we have to succeed in providing world-class care 
to women veterans. More women than ever are serving our country 
in the military. So, for example, together with the National 
Oncology Program Office, we will help to build the Breast and 
Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence, including a center 
for women's cancer research.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Dr. Hastings. And, ma'am, as a 33-year veteran and a 
female, I absolutely understand the issues for gender in the 
military. And we do work with the War Related Illness and 
Injury Study Center very closely, and they actually, by ratio, 
see more women than men.
    We also make sure that in all our studies we oversample 
women and that they are integral, because in order to 
understand the veteran population, we also have to understand 
the subdemographics, women being one of the fastest growing. So 
absolutely.
    We are working very closely with Dr. Patricia Hayes, who is 
the head of Women's Health, as you know. And, in fact, we are 
looking at taking one of our WRIISCs and making it a 
coordinating center for the women's health issues and making 
sure that we have this tertiary care available to our female 
veterans.
    With regards to PFAS, we actually--and this is after 
talking to you last year--have a PFAS study that has been stood 
up by VA's toxicologist, who is in my office. We are very 
excited about that. It is going to be looking specifically at 
the subsets of occupational exposures. And we also have put 
together a fuel study, because we think those are two things 
that really need to be more work, more in depth, more 
understanding.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good. I am glad to hear that. Thank 
you very much. My time is expired.
    And, Judge Carter, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Ladies, I am pleased to see the VA is expanding its 
research on burn pits and toxic exposures. How does this relate 
to the Burn Pit Registry? How is VA coordinating with the 
Defense Department? And are there any direct links between 
cancers and other diseases to exposure to burn pits?
    And, finally, a lot of our members are interested in a 
Parkinson's disease study. You requested $16 million for the VA 
to study Parkinson's disease as it relates to our military. 
Does this budget assume a $16 million increase in the 
Parkinson's disease program?
    Dr. Ramoni. Again, Representative Carter, thank you for 
asking your question. It is my understanding that you would 
like to know about our continued commitments to Parkinson's 
disease research.
    And, of course, we have a large body of research going on 
in Parkinson's disease, including deep brain stimulation, which 
holds so much promise for providing real answers to people with 
Parkinson's disease in terms of their function, as well as 
large clinical trials on some of the things that accompany 
Parkinson's disease, like Parkinson's disease-associated 
psychosis.
    So we do look forward on expanding that portfolio of work. 
And I will get back to you and take a question for the record 
about the exact plan we have for fiscal year 2023, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Dr. Ramoni. And for the second part, I will cede to my 
colleague.
    Dr. Hastings. Thank you.
    Absolutely, sir, we are studying burn pits. With regards to 
a number of studies that we have, burn pits are central. We are 
trying to find answers. We are working very closely with the 
congressionally directed Medical Research Program, and we are 
working specifically with brain, breast, lung.
    As you know, we have put forward 12 presumptions related to 
burn pits and particulate matter pollution this year, and nine 
are the rare respiratory cancers and three are the asthma, 
rhinitis, sinusitis.
    We right now are looking at constrictive bronchiolitis, and 
that is at the Airborne Hazards Open Burn Pit Center of 
Excellence at the War Related Illness and Injury Study Center 
in New Jersey. And thank you very much for all your support of 
that. The work they are doing there is amazing, and I would 
invite any of you to visit at sometime. I would be very pleased 
to set that up.
    We are looking at the cancers with relation to burn pits, 
and we are looking with ATSDR at lung cancer right now and hope 
to have a report early fall to be able to give to you.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Judge Carter yields back.
    I now yield 2.5 minutes to Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
    Let me thank the witnesses for coming. I too am very 
interested in the toxic exposure and the burn pits. I 
appreciate it.
    And to move on to another subject, let me go to women's 
healthcare. The budget request indicates that women account for 
30 percent of the increase in veterans that are enrolled in the 
past 5 years. Do your research efforts reflect this trend? Are 
you increasing the amount of women-specific research in your 
portfolio, and what are some of the challenges that you face in 
researching women's healthcare? Are there enough women in your 
datasets to draw scientific conclusions?
    Dr. Ramoni. So thank you, Representative Bishop, for your 
question about the representation of women in biomedical 
research. Indeed, it is a problem across the board in 
biomedical research that women are underrepresented. And we are 
letting women know that they are welcome in biomedical research 
by, for example, having outreach tailored to them.
    So when the Million Veteran Program reached out in this 
way, women veterans raised their hands in record numbers. For 
the first time in the month following this outreach campaign, 
we had more women enroll in the Million Veteran Program than 
men, which is pretty remarkable.
    In fact, we also continue to expand work that will reach 
women veterans in rural and urban isolation areas. One of the 
challenges of researching women veterans is that, even though 
the numbers are increasing, they are dispersed widely across 
the system.
    So side by side with clinical counterparts in VHA, we are 
expanding access to women-centric telehealth services, focused 
initially on diabetes prevention, cardiovascular disease risk, 
and perinatal depression prevention in a program called Empower 
that is currently in four VISNs.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you very much, and I will 
yield back. I have only 25 seconds left.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields 
back.
    Now I would like to recognize Mr. Gonzales for 2.5 minutes.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you for your testimony, Dr. Ramoni. My first 
question is, you know, you have got six different priorities 
here that you all tackle, all very important. To the suicide 
prevention piece, are you all researching how veterans receive 
their care or respond to their care?
    And I ask that question because you have different veterans 
from different generations. And a lot of the older veterans are 
accustomed to going to the brick-and-mortar type of healthcare 
facility and having that one-on-one interaction, but a lot of 
younger veterans in the Iraq and Afghanistan era, they don't 
want to talk about their time at Fallujah or their time, you 
know, in Afghanistan, for say. They want a little bit more 
private kind of relationship with their provider, get the meds 
they need, get the help they need and kind of move along.
    Are you all doing anything as far as how veterans are 
responding to the care?
    Dr. Ramoni. So thank you for your question, Representative 
Gonzales. Of course, suicide prevention is one of the 
Secretary's priorities. And we are steadily increasing our work 
specifically focused on suicide prevention over the years.
    I will have to get back to you for the record on how 
veterans respond to different types of outreach by generation, 
but I do want to tell you about a Precision Mental Health 
Initiative that we are undertaking to better tailor treatment 
to veterans on the basis of biomarkers, that is, on the basis 
of brain scans, genetics, and so on and so forth, working 
closely with the Office of Mental Health and Suicide 
Prevention.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you for that, and happy to chat about 
it more. I would say that, you know, I got a call from a 
veteran a couple months ago going, hey, I am in a really dark 
spot. It is the middle of the night. It was like a Saturday. I 
am in a really dark spot. You know, is there anyone at the VA 
that you could, you know, connect me with?
    And I go, I am happy to do that; however, like, you need 
help right now. And there was a lot--there are a lot of 
nonprofits out there. One in particular is called Sound Off, 
and they do this zero kind of connection; meaning, the patient 
doesn't know who the physician is and the physician doesn't 
know who the patient is. It is a very private way. It is 24 
hours.
    And I just relayed that as an immediate option, with the 
long-term option of being, you know, going through the 
traditional VA route. And I would say that was something that 
he was looking for. He is like, fantastic, I was thinking I was 
going to have to wait until Monday, I am trying to get through 
the night.
    So I just leave that with you, if there are maybe different 
ways we can look at how we can tackle, you know, reaching 
veterans.
    And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields 
back.
    Ms. Pingree, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for 
having this hearing and for doing your best to manage to fit it 
all in.
    And thank you very much, Dr. Ramoni. It is good to have you 
here. And I apologize I haven't been able to participate. Like 
everyone else, I am going back and forth between a few 
different hearings.
    But I just want to bring a quick issue up. One of the areas 
where I think the VA could be doing more research is into the 
medical benefits of cannabis for veterans. My home State is one 
of the States that has legalized both medicinal and 
recreational use of cannabis.
    And we just hear a lot, I mean, a lot from veterans in our 
State, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, who are 
choosing cannabis in lieu of opioids and other treatments, or 
to address things like PTSD. So I just want to be responsive to 
their concerns.
    There are a lot of efforts in Congress going on right now, 
you know, to expand the VA's research into the benefits of 
medical cannabis, and we had some report language in fiscal 
year 2019 urging the VA to utilize it.
    But can you just give me a little update about how many 
research initiatives the VA has completed or you are 
undertaking? I understand that there are 134 new projects that 
could be done with the funding from fiscal year 2023. If we 
provide those funds, how many could you do? Would more funds 
help?
    I will just let you take it from there, but it is just an 
area where I feel like we could be more responsive.
    Dr. Ramoni. So, first, I will say that we will leave no 
stone unturned when it comes to finding answers for veterans. 
And we absolutely have a role to play in the veteran-centric 
use of medical cannabis. We feel that our research should 
augment the work being addressed by NIH and other institutes to 
focus on the specific use among veterans.
    We have currently completed four and started nine studies 
on cannabis and cannabinoids that are funded by VA research, 
including two clinical trials that have recently started up. 
There are an additional approximately 40 studies across VA 
funded locally or by non-VA sources.
    One particular area of interest for us is that while 
cannabis seems to have--I have heard the same stories you have 
about it being very useful. There are some concerning factors 
in the literature too, such as episodes of psychosis. And so we 
would like to look into those to ensure safety.
    Ms. Pingree. That is great. Well, I know we don't have a 
lot of time right now, but I appreciate your answer, and I will 
follow up. I would love to see the list of what you were 
talking about, get a little better sense of what research is 
being done, what is being funded locally, and also the concerns 
that you raised.
    So I will yield back, but thank you so much for being with 
us today and for the work that you do.
    And thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Pingree. The 
gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
    And just so members know, they are going to call votes in 
about 5 minutes. Of course, we have a pretty lengthy period of 
time. So I am going to go another round of 2.5 minutes, because 
I think we will have time to do it. And thanks for everyone 
being so understanding.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you to our guests for being here today, our 
panelists.
    Quick question. A recent Air Force study found that pilots 
were 23 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer than the 
nonflying servicemembers, and 19 percent more likely to develop 
prostate cancer than the U.S. general population.
    While the DOD is researching why these cancers rates are so 
startling across the Force, impacted servicemembers will depend 
on the VA to provide critical testing and therapeutics to 
detect and treat this ever-present cancer.
    Can you provide an update on the VA research efforts on 
testing therapeutics for prostate cancer? Is this a program 
adequately funded to keep pace with the rising rates of 
prostate cancer among our veterans?
    Dr. Ramoni. Thank you, Representative Valadao, for your 
question. Indeed, prostate cancer is the most common nonskin 
cancer within VA. And we were fortunate to get a generous 
donation from the Prostate Cancer Foundation of $50 million, 
which has allowed us to stand up what we call the Prostate 
Cancer Centers of Excellence across the country, which has the 
acronym POPCaP.
    So we are continually expanding that work, and we have 
augmented those with our own genitourinary cancer, including 
prostate cancer, centers in the middle of the country. And we 
are actively ramping up the clinical trials available to 
veterans in VA for prostate cancer. So that is squarely one of 
our primary interests, obviously being the most common cancer 
in VA.
    Mr. Valadao. I know I have gotten that one from a few 
constituents in the district. Obviously, with Naval Air Station 
Lemoore in my district, a lot of pilots, and it is something 
that is talked about quite a bit. And I have got a few more 
seconds.
    Over 60 cancers disproportionately impact those who have 
served in the military, and many are considered rare cancers. 
Research to identify and treat rare cancer can be difficult, 
resulting in fewer clinical trials and lack of treatment 
options.
    There have been an increasing--there has been an increasing 
focus on precision medicine to understand the specific 
molecular driver for each patient's cancer, to help inform the 
best treatment options.
    What is the Department doing to increase adoption of 
molecular diagnostics for our veterans fighting these difficult 
cancers?
    Dr. Ramoni. So I will be short and sweet in saying that the 
National Oncology Program Office, as a consequence of the first 
moonshot, made available genetic testing across the country. 
And we work very closely with them.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
    Dr. Ramoni. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields 
back.
    Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    It is good to see you, Dr. Ramoni and Dr. Hastings. Thank 
you for all your work.
    I come from Nevada. We have 200,000 veterans in my State, 
and we all know too well the impact of opioid dependency on 
veterans and their families. We know that veterans experience a 
higher prevalence of pain and are twice as likely to die from 
accidental opioid overdose.
    Fortunately, we have some great promise in the osteopathic 
manipulative treatment as an alternative to opioids. OMT is 
nonpharmacological and noninvasive and has shown some great 
potential for reducing pain intensity. From my conversations 
with doctors at Touro University in Henderson, Nevada, I have 
been impressed by OMT's potential for supporting veterans in 
managing pain and reducing opioid dependency.
    And I understand, Dr. Hastings, you are a doctor of 
osteopathic medicine by training. So I would like to get both 
of your thoughts here. Would you please share with us the VA's 
work so far related to OMT and other opioid alternatives.
    Dr. Ramoni. So I will start by saying that we have a range 
of studies on nonpharmacologic approaches to pain management. 
And we want to be able to direct veterans to nondrug options 
that work. So we have a collaboration with the DOD and the 
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health at NIH 
to explore nonpharmacologic approaches. That has been ongoing 
for several years, thanks to your support. And we are just 
getting started with a large clinical trial for back pain, 
looking at approaches ranging from enhanced physical therapy to 
yoga to spinal manipulation.
    And I will pass to Dr. Hastings, who is the osteopath.
    Dr. Hastings. We study it with our surveys. And we actually 
look at substance abuse very closely and have some interesting 
findings with that. National Academy just did a review of 
opioids. And you are absolutely correct, there needs to be 
other therapies that are available, and those can range from 
nerve blocks to osteopathic manipulative treatments and--as it 
is affectionately known, Crunch.
    But it does work very good with--very well with 
musculoskeletal pain, also works with visceral pain. And it is 
one of those therapies, it is a physical medicine method that 
can take care of pain. So I do believe it should be looked at 
more.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Love to follow up with you and just make 
sure that we are eliminating or helping, Congress can help 
eliminate some barriers so that we can proceed with that.
    I yield.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentlelady yields 
back.
    Mr. Trone, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you to our witnesses joining us here 
today. As a cancer survivor, I have benefited enormously from 
the results of medical research, and I am a huge proponent of 
supporting research through appropriations.
    Our over 400,000-plus servicemembers have been diagnosed 
with traumatic brain injury, or TBI, in the past 20 years. Vets 
who have experienced a TBI are more likely to experience 
depression, sleep disorders, PTSD.
    So, Dr. Ramoni, could you please discuss how the VA's, you 
know, TBI researchers collaborate with the Hannon Act suicide 
prevention researchers?
    Dr. Ramoni. Thank you, Representative Trone. It is an 
interesting way that people do divide up the body. And we have 
to sort of knit it together when we take on comprehensive 
problems, like traumatic brain injury and its impacts on brain 
and mental health.
    And so the Hannon precision mental health component has 
really allowed us the opportunity to bring together the Office 
of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention with some of our large 
studies looking at brain health over time. And that is thanks 
to the generous support from this committee that we have been 
able to undertake those.
    So in the coming months, we will, for example, make 
available a broader set of data that are related to both mental 
health and brain health and allow researchers to begin 
exploring the yet to be identified underpinnings of why it 
seems that there are so many people with brain health 
conditions who also, as you said, are living with these other 
conditions at the same time.
    Mr. Trone. And how does your research on TBIs and 
depression influence the VA's Suicide Prevention Program?
    Dr. Ramoni. So I will have to get back to you for the 
record for the specific description, but we have at this point 
an executive committee with the Office of Mental Health and 
Suicide Prevention where we interact regularly about the 
intersection of our work. And, of course, there are the MIRECCs 
across the country, many of which receive substantial VA 
research funding from my office.
    Mr. Trone. And the VA budget request states diversity, 
equity, inclusion and research is a priority for fiscal year 
2023. How does the VA plan to increase diversity in----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Trone? Mr. Trone?
    Mr. Trone [continuing]. Trials, particularly for TBIs, 
where vets may not even realize that they experienced one?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I apologize. Your time has expired, 
because we are under a compressed timeframe because they have 
called votes. So we are going to come back to you, but I 
limited every member to 2.5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, madam.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
    I will just ask my question really quick, because we have 
gone through round one.
    I have spoken with the Secretary and was really pleased to 
see the focus on oncology, cancer treatment, and research, 
including $81 million within the research program. I also am a 
cancer survivor, but, you know, cancer is obviously one of the 
very prevalent diseases that afflict veterans.
    So can you go into more detail about the new initiatives 
that the funding would support with the oncology program?
    Dr. Ramoni. Yes. I myself have personally been involved 
with the precision oncology effort because it is so central to 
what we do. The first thing that it is helping to support is 
something we call the Lung Precision Oncology Program, where we 
are working to get the best cancer care available across the 
country to all veterans, no matter where they live. So every 
VISN has a hub, and there are a total of 80 hubs and spokes 
across the country. So that is number one what we are doing.
    I mentioned previously the focus on cancers that 
predominantly affect women, including breast cancers and 
gynecologic cancers. That will be standing up over the next 
year and into fiscal year 2024.
    And in addition, we are focused not just on providing 
precision cancer care once somebody has cancer, but the early 
detection of cancer. So, for instance, one of the signature 
efforts of the LPOP, or Lung Precision Oncology Program 
efforts, is lung cancer screening and making that more 
available to veterans wherever they live.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I will yield back.
    Judge Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Over the past 10 years, the VA research program 
has increased by $300 million, 52 percent. The fiscal year 2023 
budget requests another $34 million increase. If enacted at the 
requested level, the VA's research budget will have grown 57 
percent over 10 years.
    Why does the VA need a $34 million increase in research? 
How much do you intend--what do you intend to do with this 
increase? And how much funding do you expect to carry over to 
fiscal year 2023?
    Dr. Ramoni. Appearing before the Appropriations Committee, 
that is a very appropriate question, Representative Carter.
    And so we have outlined in our budget request the areas 
that we intend to expand, which include brain health, which 
include precision oncology, includes expanding our research 
enterprise footprint. And the reason that we need additional 
funds to do this work is because we are focusing ever more on 
what is now my second strategic priority, which is to increase 
the substantial real world impact of VA research.
    So I think in a previous time, we were judged mainly on our 
publications, how many articles were published. And you heard 
me cite the substantial contribution, the 14,000--14,000 
articles.
    But I think, hearing veterans and in speaking with 
Congress, I think you also want to know what changes are 
happening within the VA. And so working in partnership with 
people like Dr. Hastings and working with the Oncology Office 
on the national--on the Precision Oncology Program is part of 
the work that we are establishing with the additional funds to 
give you more bang for your buck.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Dr. Ramoni. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter. The 
gentleman yields back.
    Mrs. Lee, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    I want to turn to toxic burn pit exposure. And I am really 
excited to hear about the VA's efforts to leverage internal and 
external partnerships for toxic exposure research.
    I just had a roundtable just this past week with several 
veterans in Nevada. And so many of them who are younger who 
were in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is their number one concern.
    We have a premier research institute in Nevada, Nevada 
Desert Research Institute, and they are standing ready to help 
with these breakthroughs. In fact, they have been studying the 
interaction of genetics and toxic exposure as it relates to 
negative health outcomes, and they are preparing an impressive 
research program that would leverage some datasets to learn 
more about the effects of genetics and burn pit exposure on the 
risk of cancer and other diseases.
    So I wanted to ask both--I guess this is a combined 
question. Dr. Ramoni, could you speak to VA's integrative 
approach to promoting and establishing these types of research 
partnerships? And then to Dr. Hastings, could you discuss VA's 
interest in driving forward this type of genetics toxic 
exposure research?
    Dr. Ramoni. So I will speak more broadly about our 
partnerships approach. So I have not explored the Nevada Desert 
Research Institute in particular, but if it is an academic 
institution, we have, as you know, many, many partnerships with 
academic affiliates. And should people wish to become part of 
VA and become eligible for funding through VA, those are folks 
that we would be happy to fund their VA research.
    But I want to highlight the point you are making, which is 
that this topic is too broad to cover on our own. And so it is 
only through partnerships that we are going to make this 
progress. And we are fortunate in this space to have laid a 
good foundation, as I think my colleague, Dr. Hastings, can 
cover.
    Dr. Hastings. Absolutely. There is a concern that veterans 
have with military environmental exposures and a concern for 
themselves, but it also extends to concerns for their family, 
especially their children. And this has been something we have 
seen since Vietnam, and we have researched it.
    And, in fact, for the Gulf War and Health Series, the last 
one we did, we asked them to look at the genetic components of 
military environmental exposures. And the conclusion we came 
to--more work needs to be done, but we really need a national 
birth defects registry to be able to do that effectively. And 
that was one of the things that stymied us. And if we had a 
national birth defects registry, we could do a great deal more, 
not only for veterans, but for the Nation.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. And I yield. I am over time.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for 2.5 minutes and to 
wrap us up.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Ramoni, I am proud San Antonio is the home to the VA's 
Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center at the Audie 
Murphy Medical Center.
    What resources do you need in order to make sure that that 
facility remains successful?
    Dr. Ramoni. So thank you, Mr. Gonzales. As a proud 
Laredoan, it is wonderful to see south Texas represented.
    I believe that our budget outlines the resources we need to 
strengthen our partnerships across the country. Certainly, 
south Texas being home to so many veterans is an important area 
for us. And the GRECCs, as you mentioned, are an especially 
important group, given the population that VA serves in terms 
of older veterans.
    And I would like to take for the record your question so I 
can get back to you with specific responses. But I also would 
like to highlight the deep partnership we have with the 
National Institute on Aging. And that partnership is a benefit 
not only, of course, to us in ORD, but the offices that support 
the GRECCs as well.
    Mr. Gonzales. Great. My final question is, how does the VA 
coordinate the research between all 20 medical centers with 
these Centers of Excellence?
    Dr. Ramoni. Oh, you are absolutely speaking my language 
now, because I used to be the head of a coordinating center for 
the Undiagnosed Diseases Network, as Ranking Member Carter 
knows.
    It is a great interest of mine, and that is where some of 
the funding for next year will go, to have enhanced 
coordination across these centers in terms of their research 
portfolios. So, for example, the executive committee that we 
have established with the Office of Mental Health and Suicide 
Prevention exactly does that in terms of coordinating across 
the MIRECCs. And I look forward to expanding that to 
coordination with the GRECCs, which are another incredible 
piece of infrastructure across the VA.
    Mr. Gonzales. Great.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
    I want to thank everyone for accommodating our very 
compressed timeframe, and apologize for speeding through what 
would normally be a more leisurely approach to this hearing.
    This concludes this afternoon's hearing. I want to thank 
both Dr. Ramoni and Dr. Hastings for participating in our 
discussion today. I look forward to continuing to work with you 
both.
    As we move forward for our witnesses, 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, 
given that we were not really able to ask the usual number of 
questions that we can under a more expansive timeframe, and I 
would imagine other members of the subcommittee do as well.
    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.
    And I would like to remind members that our next hearing is 
tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. to discuss the Department of the 
Army installations and quality of life.
    With that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
   
    

                                            Thursday, May 12, 2022.

                 ARMY INSTALLATIONS AND QUALITY OF LIFE

                               WITNESSES

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JASON T. EVANS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY 
    FOR INSTALLATIONS MANAGEMENT (G9), DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MAJOR MICHAEL A. GRINSTON, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF 
    THE ARMY
RACHEL JACOBSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS, 
    ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing on the Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee will come to order.
    Thank you all for participating in this hearing about Army 
installations and quality of life update.
    Before we begin, 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 
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 or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    And the subcommittee will come to order. Good morning.
    Today, we welcome Army installations officials and senior-
enlisted personnel to discuss the fiscal year 2023 budget, 
quality-of-life issues, as well receive an update on 
installations.
    Today we have before us Ms. Rachel Jacobson, Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy, and 
Environment; Lieutenant General Jason T. Evans--there you are--
Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army for Installations Management; 
and Sergeant Major Michael Grinston, Sergeant Major of the 
Army.
    Thank you all for joining us today to testify about some 
very critical issues, and we certainly have a lot to discuss, 
as we usually do.
    Today, we look forward to engaging with the Department of 
the Army on a host of important subjects that impact our 
soldiers. I was very pleased that the fiscal year 2023 
President's budget request was delivered to Congress early 
enough to actually allow us to discuss the request indepth at 
this year's hearing instead of spending a lot of time guessing, 
like we had to do last year.
    I was also happy to see the fiscal year 2023 request is 
larger than what we saw as an inadequate request last year. 
However, as with other services, I am once again concerned with 
what has now become a tradition--an unfortunate one--of the 
budget request looking to reduce the funding of military 
construction compared to the previous years' enacted levels. 
This trend not only directly impacts the mission readiness of 
our forces but also the quality of life of servicemembers and 
their families.
    The fiscal year 2023 budget request of the Department of 
the Army is $1.85 billion, which is $1.2 billion less than the 
fiscal year 2022 enacted level of $3.1 billion. That is an 
unacceptable 39-percent cut--39-percent cut.
    Now, I recognize that the fiscal year 2022 spending bill 
offered a particularly robust mark compared to recent years. 
However, with so much important MILCON work to be done, higher 
funding should be the norm, not the anomaly.
    I shouldn't have to remind everyone that the military's own 
estimate is that 30 percent of our military infrastructure is 
in fair or poor condition. It just doesn't make any sense to 
me. Even though Defense spending overall has increased every 
single year, military construction somehow gets left in the 
basement.
    MILCON is so much more than building new firing ranges and 
forts. It is providing resilient state-of-the-art facilities 
that can weather increasingly destructive storms; I know that 
from firsthand experience. It is reducing our carbon footnote 
and combating climate change. It is building child development 
centers and hospitals. It is cleaning up the environmental 
messes our bases have left behind. It is providing quality 
housing for our servicemembers and their families, all of which 
ensure military readiness.
    Reducing military construction funding when there is an 
overwhelming backlog of required priorities is not only a 
threat to our Nation's security, but also really bad 
government. And, also, it is not doing right by our soldiers 
and our servicemembers and servicemen and -women.
    But this hearing will go beyond just this fiscal year's 
budget request. Today, the subcommittee also looks forward to 
discussing quality-of-life issues and also an update on 
installations.
    Sexual assault is still rampant cross all services, 
including the Army, which has the highest rate of assault 
reports. The subcommittee will seek out answers as to why that 
is still such a significant problem and what the Army is doing 
to remedy it.
    We will talk about child development centers, which strive 
to provide young children of our servicemembers safe and 
comfortable childcare, and yet they are still not receiving the 
attention they deserve from the Department of the Army.
    We will look for explanations as to why privatized housing 
continues to struggle with oversight and quality assurance, 
including the ongoing fraud scandal by one of its leading 
housing companies, and ask what the Army is doing to ensure it 
supports its servicemembers while holding its housing partners 
accountable.
    We will discuss what the Army is doing to protect its 
servicemembers in threatening locations and how it is improving 
its policies for those servicemembers who are becoming parents.
    Additionally, we look forward to hearing how the Army is 
addressing the ongoing remediation of PFAS contamination and 
transfer of closed installations to their local communities.
    Obviously we have many important issues to discuss. As it 
is the ongoing mission of the subcommittee, this hearing is yet 
another great opportunity to identify how we can do more to 
serve those who serve us. We look forward to a candid, 
productive conversation.
    And now I would like to recognize my friend and colleague, 
Judge Carter, for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    And thank you and welcome, everybody.
    It is a great pleasure today to meet with our ground 
pounders, the Army. These are the guys and gals that do the 
tough work every day.
    I say this with no disrespect to the Marines. We will see 
them next week. But there is no Nation that can defeat our 
combined joint land forces, and together, they proactively and 
ably defend our Nation's interests in liberty.
    But, specific to the Army, I am pleased that we were able 
to provide significant increases in fiscal year 2022 to support 
the Army's military construction, family housing needs.
    I wish this administration, just as I wished the previous 
administration, would emphasize more military construction in 
their budget request, as our chairwoman just explained. 
Facilities and infrastructure makes soldiers better fighters, 
also supporting their families and their happiness back home.
    In closing, I want to thank the Army's witnesses today and 
look forward to our discussion.
    Go Army. Beat Navy.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
    So I appreciate all the witnesses that are here joining us 
today and sharing your expertise.
    For opening testimony, we will start with Assistant 
Secretary Jacobson and move down the list as follows: 
Lieutenant General Evans and then Sergeant Major Grinston.
    Without objection, all written statements will be entered 
into the record, and you will be recognized for 5 minutes to 
summarize your opening statements.
    Assistant Secretary Jacobson, you are recognized for your 
opening statement, summarizing it for 5 minutes.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member 
Carter, and members of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear 
here today with Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Grinston and 
Lieutenant General Jason Evans to testify on Army quality-of-
life issues and to present our fiscal year 2023 budget request 
for installation and infrastructure.
    Our fiscal year 2023 budget will help fund improvements to 
family housing, barracks, and childcare facilities. I also want 
to express our deep appreciation for the additional $1.4 
billion in MILCON appropriations in fiscal year 2022, which 
will enable the Army to continue investing in these essential 
priorities.
    The Army's most valuable asset is our people. We rely on 
our soldiers to protect our Nation. It is our obligation to 
treat our soldiers and their families with dignity by providing 
safe, high-quality, affordable housing. We must not break trust 
with those who serve us so very well.
    I take very seriously any report of substandard conditions 
that compromise the life, health, and safety of soldiers and 
families.
    I have reviewed the recent Senate report citing 
mismanagement by Balfour Beatty Communities. I have also 
watched the related hearing. The findings contained in the 
report and highlighted in the hearing are very disturbing, 
especially concerning conditions at Fort Gordon in Georgia.
    The day after the report was released, I wrote to Balfour 
Beatty indicating that I had directed an immediate 
investigation at Fort Gordon to be overseen by the commanding 
general of the Army Materiel Command.
    We are also performing an audit of Balfour Beatty's 
property management records at Fort Gordon, and we are 
suspending any requests for incentive fees at this time.
    When a privatized housing provider fails to meet its 
performance obligations, the Army will be aggressive in using 
all tools available to hold the provider accountable.
    I have asked the Army's general counsel to provide me with 
a comprehensive legal opinion outlining all enforcement options 
available under law. Included in that analysis will be an 
assessment of when we can amend contracts with privatized 
housing providers to give us additional leverage as necessary. 
And, if we conclude from this assessment that we need 
legislative authorities to strengthen oversight and impose 
greater consequences, we will work with Congress towards that 
goal.
    In the meantime, we have made progress in implementing 
housing reforms directed by Congress. The Army has fully 
implemented the tenant bill of rights, providing soldiers and 
their families with real negotiating power. And the privatized 
housing providers have committed to investing $3 billion over 
the next 10 years to make needed improvements across the 
portfolio.
    We are also making improvements to Army managed barracks. 
Over the last 3 years, we invested $2.4 billion. And, going 
forward, we will continue to improving barracks--to improve 
barracks for unaccompanied soldiers. And we are investing in 
Army-owned housing as well.
    As part of our quality-of-life commitments, in fiscal year 
2022, the Army will build several new child development 
centers. Where on-base childcare is not available, we are 
providing subsidies so that Army families can obtain childcare 
in the local community.
    Quality of life also means ensuring our installations are 
resilient in the face of climate change. Severe weather, heat 
waves, and wildfires disrupt training and operations, displace 
military families, damage Army assets, impose national security 
threats by compromising readiness. That is why the Army became 
the first service to release a climate strategy that details a 
comprehensive plan to protect installations against climate 
hazards, enhance our readiness, and reduce our greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    The Army places a high value on environmental protection 
for our soldiers and their families, as well as our neighboring 
communities. We are addressing PFAS by making sure we continue 
to test Army-owned drinking water systems and take immediate 
action if we find exceedances of EPA's health advisory levels. 
We are also working with DOD and the other services to identify 
substitutes for AFFF, and we will phase out its use in 
accordance with NDAA requirements.
    Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Carter, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for your continued support to our 
soldiers, civilians, and their families.
    I look forward to your questions.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Assistant Secretary.
    Lieutenant General Evans, your full written testimony will 
be entered into the record, and you are recognized for 5 
minutes to summarize your remarks.
    General Evans. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member 
Carter, and distinguished members of the committee, on behalf 
of 1 million soldiers and 2.2 million family members, thank you 
for your continued support of our Army and for supporting our 
fiscal year 2023 budget and providing over a billion dollars in 
additional funding for key programs such as barracks, family 
housing, and childcare facilities.
    The Army's budget for installations is aligned with the 
priorities set by the Army's senior leaders: people, 
modernization, and readiness.
    In this year's fiscal year 2023 budget, we are requesting 
$8.1 billion for the Army installations infrastructure; $1.9 
billion of that is military construction, and $6.2 billion of 
that is facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization.
    Our MILCON request is focused on improving soldier and 
family quality of life. It also includes projects to improve 
readiness and modernization for all components, at various 
locations throughout the United States.
    To make the best use of the funding allotted to the Army, 
we are working to balance sustainment, restoration, 
modernization, and demolition across all components, especially 
as these projects typically have a faster impact on improving 
our facilities than just a military construction solution.
    The Army relies on a multipronged strategy to provide 
childcare and plans to construct seven additional CDCs by 
fiscal year 2026. We also seek to expand and retain our 
existing CDC staff and increase the number of family childcare 
homes. For families who don't have childcare on post, the Army 
fee assistance subsidy will increase from 1,500 to 1,700 in 
fiscal year 2023.
    I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the importance of 
the Army's quality of life and military construction 
initiatives. At every installation, we endeavor to take care of 
our soldiers and families by ensuring access to quality 
facilities, housing, and childcare. And, to do that, we need 
your continued support by providing timely, adequate, 
sustainable, and predictable funding so our installations will 
remain ready and resilient and provide the quality of life our 
soldiers and families deserve.
    Again, thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, General Evans. I 
appreciate your remarks and your service.
    And, lastly, Sergeant Major Grinston, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes to summarized your statement, and your full 
written testimony will be entered into the record, without 
objection.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
invitation to speak on behalf of 1 million soldiers, their 
families, and the Army civilians who make up your all-volunteer 
force.
    First, I want to say publicly how proud the Army senior 
leaders are of our soldiers and their commitment to reassuring 
our NATO allies and supporting our Ukrainian partners.
    Over the past few months, we have visited soldiers in 
Germany, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania. We would like to thank 
all those host nations for welcoming our soldiers and providing 
so much to help sustain our presence in Europe.
    Never before has the United States Army moved so many so 
quickly. What many people don't see, however, is the impact on 
the families. We visited Fort Stewart, Fort Bragg, and Fort 
Riley to listen to spouses and ensure we are taking care of 
them. Hearing their passion and emotion underscored the 
importance of providing additional resources to support them 
during this time.
    These soldiers and families, our people, are what make us 
so lethal and effective, ready to surge when called upon to 
defend America and enduring national interests, and fight and 
win the Nation's wars. That is why we must remain--they must 
remain our top priority. Our focus on people means providing 
quality housing, healthcare, childcare, spouse employment 
opportunities, and efficient PCS moves.
    I want to thank you for all the work this committee has 
done to support the Army in these areas.
    Last year's appropriations bill demonstrated that 
commitment to your soldiers and their families. The Army needs 
cohesive teams that are highly trained, disciplined, and 
mentally, socially, and physically fit. Soldiers should be able 
to serve in any environment without the effects of harmful 
behaviors, like sexual harassment, sexual assault, and suicide.
    The Army's top enlisted leaders have dedicated countless 
hours to this aim through a monthly solution summit. This 
meeting brings together leaders from around the globe to 
identify early trends and discuss lessons learned from their 
individual prevention initiatives.
    A no-cost solution from this summit was moving sexual 
assault and sexual harassment training in initial military 
training from week 2 to within the first 72 hours, 
significantly reducing abusive sexual-contact cases. The Army 
is doubling down on our prevention efforts through a holistic 
approach, focusing on not only leader development, but also the 
institutional factors that shape the overall environment.
    During a recent trip to Alaska, we identified shortfalls 
affecting overall quality of life that the Army senior leaders 
are currently addressing. We are surging behavioral health 
professionals, chaplains, and military family life counselors 
to Alaska, some arriving as soon as May 15th. Preventing 
harmful behaviors is the focus. However, I acknowledge that 
world-class trauma-informed response is also necessary.
    It is okay and encouraged to seek behavioral health when 
concerns arise. Likewise, the Army encourages reporting from 
victims and survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment 
so victims get the services they need and offenders are held 
appropriately accountable.
    We are investing in soldier support programs and 
initiatives, such as the Sharp Fusion Center Pilot, to provide 
the necessary response for our soldiers. My goal remains to 
have prevention efforts so effective, there is less need for a 
response.
    As your Sergeant Major of the Army, it is humbling to serve 
our soldiers, families, and civilians and to be their voice 
here today. The advocacy of this subcommittee is a reminder 
that our Nation stands with them.
    They have overcome great adversity, but their service 
reminds the world of one thing: Our men and women are ready 
now, and that will never change.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Sergeant Major. And, on 
behalf of the committee, thank you for your service and for 
your leadership in representing the thousands of enlisted men 
and women that serve in the United States Army.
    So thank you all for your remarks. We will 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 times to answer within your 5-minute 
turn.
    I want to start with the obvious, and that is what I 
mentioned in my opening remarks, that I find it unacceptable 
that the annual budget request is yet again looking to reduce 
spending compared to last year's enacted funding levels. Each 
year, the President's request seeks to increase overall Defense 
spending. But, for some reason, military construction is 
usually left out.
    The Department of the Army is facing the most dramatic cuts 
of all the services. The Army has requested $1.85 billion, 
which is $1.2 billion less than the fiscal year 2022 enacted 
level of $3.1 billion. As I said, that is a 39 percent cut from 
one year to the next.
    So, Assistant Secretary Jacobson, welcome to your first Mil 
Con, VA hearing. Understanding that the fiscal year 2022 
appropriations bill was only enacted in the omnibus when it 
passed in March, can you briefly explain how important that 
high level of funding was for the Department and a sample of 
what you will be able to accomplish briefly with that funding?
    Ms. Jacobson. Madam Chairwoman, that additional funding 
will allow us to make immediate improvements in Army-owned 
housing, barracks, childcare facilities, and other 
modernization and sustainment and resilience efforts across our 
installations.
    I am going to ask General Evans if he has additional detail 
to add to that.
    General Evans. Madam Chairwoman, first of all, we were 
grateful for the additional $1.2 billion, which allowed us at 
least 30 more MILCON projects. As the Secretary articulated, in 
terms of childcare facilities--and this is across all compos--
readiness facilities, and family housing.
    To address your question on what was enacted versus what 
was appropriated, I think you will find, Madam Chairwoman, 
since 2021, each budget, when you look at our infrastructure 
investment, which also includes facilities sustainment, 
restoration, and modernization, along with military 
construction, we have increased that budget request each year.
    And, also, we have been able to take advantage of the 
chief's UPL list, which has allowed us, at least in the last 
two, additional billion dollars investment, 46 projects in 
2022, and then another 46 projects at $1.3 billion for 2023. 
And all of those requests are filled with childcare centers.
    In 2021, you were gracious enough to support the three 
childcare centers, one in Alaska, two in Hawaii. And then, 
again, in 2022, you supported childcare facilities at Fort 
Knox, Fort Leavenworth, and now we have one in Fort Polk for 
the 2023 UFR. We were also to get a number of barracks projects 
across the compos in those UFR requests.
    And so, ma'am, each--each year, we base our budget request 
on Army priorities, and we think, right now, in terms of people 
and modernization and readiness, we are serious about the money 
that you appropriated in addition and the money that we ask for 
each year in addition to the previous year.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I mean, there are words and actions, 
and I am a show-me person, not a tell-me person. And a 39-
percent cut is the action. So, I mean, you can tell us that, 
you know, you are serious about making sure that you take care 
of the infrastructure needs of the Army, but your budget 
request doesn't represent that seriousness.
    I would like to also have you explain to the committee, 
Secretary, why the Department's fiscal year 2023 request is 
dramatically lower than what we enacted in fiscal year 2022.
    Are you suggesting that the Army simply has less needs in 
this fiscal year?
    Ms. Jacobson. Madam Chairwoman, the budget process is, of 
course, finely tuned, and it balances the Army's top 
priorities--Department's top priorities--people, 
modernization----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. I know.
    Ms. Jacobson [continuing]. And readiness.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I know, but why does MILCON always 
get the short end of the stick? I know there is a lot of 
priorities----
    Ms. Jacobson. Yeah.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. But we balance those 
priorities every single fiscal year.
    Ms. Jacobson. Some of those same construction modernization 
efforts are funded through the facilities sustainment and 
restoration and modernization moneys. So MILCON alone doesn't 
reflect the total investment in housing, modernization of 
infrastructure, childcare centers, and so forth.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Since you mentioned housing, 
does the Department consider family housing a need worthy of 
funding? And I am asking because the Army's budget request cuts 
family housing funding in fiscal year 2023, but you had the 
gall to list over $320 million worth of family housing projects 
on the unfunded requirements list submitted to Congress this 
year.
    Ms. Jacobson. Madam Chairwoman, the housing investments are 
a top priority, and barracks especially are funded largely 
through facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization 
accounts, as well as military construction. And, in the last 3 
years, the last 3 fiscal years, we have invested $2.4 billion 
in barracks recapitalization.
    For Army-owned housing, in the last 3 fiscal years, we have 
invested $900 million on construction, and the budget now 
includes requests for additional funding for Army owned housing 
in Italy and in Germany.
    The privatized housing, of course, is financed by those 
privatized housing companies.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I am a little over my time, 
but, if they are a priority, again, you can speak words here, 
but money talks, as the expression goes.
    If they are a priority, why are they on the MILCON unfunded 
priorities list? If they are a priority, then they would be in 
your budget request asking us to fund--I mean, the unfunded 
requirements list is what we have to go to if we have the money 
and how far down the list we can fund. That does not 
demonstrate that they are a priority.
    Ms. Jacobson. Madam Chairwoman, the balance between the 
unfunded priorities list and what goes into the original budget 
is a finely tuned process, and I am going to ask General Evans 
if he has anything to add to that.
    General Evans. Ma'am, I think what you are seeing on the 
fiscal year 2023 UPL lists, those cost-to-completes for housing 
were in a budget request previously. Those are on the UPL list 
because they are cost overruns. As you may know, ma'am, we have 
been experiencing about a 24 percent because of materials and 
labor----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. I know those entry costs.
    General Evans [continuing]. And so that is why they 
migrated over to the UPL list, because they are very important, 
particularly when you are talking about the preponderance of 
Army-owned housing is overseas. And I think what you will see 
there is you will see Kwajalein, you will see Vicenza, and you 
will see Baumholder long overdue. And so we made that a 
priority on the UPL list, and we are starting to experience 
even more cost overruns with 6 percent increase in----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I am just reclaiming my time.
    It is difficult to understand why you wouldn't prioritize 
completing a project over starting another one. I mean, that is 
not how we do things in our own households, and that isn't, to 
me, efficient, nor is it providing good, comprehensive, 
completed service to the needs of our--of our servicemembers.
    Okay. My time has expired. I appreciate the indulgence.
    Judge Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    And, in fact, if you add in the unfunded requirements, we 
are $3.3 billion short.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah.
    Mr. Carter. That is a lot of money. And we are all about 
making the Army still the most lethal force on the face of the 
globe and a place where our families--Army families can be 
comfortable and feel that they are not forgotten by our 
country. And there is some of that going on right now, 
especially with the housing challenges we have got.
    And so I realize everybody's charging hard about that, but 
the real world is that we have still got a lot of issues out 
there. And one of them that I just really enjoy talking about 
is motor pools.
    Now, I realize you are doing them off budget here, so I am 
happy about that. But--and I am sure the sergeant major knows 
this, and I am pretty sure the general knows this. At Fort 
Hood, we had motor pools where you can't pull the engine off an 
Abrams tank indoors. You have to do it outside. It is not good 
watching them pull it in close to zero-degree weather, and 
there is a lot of busted thumbs and unhappy soldiers.
    I have also seen it even worse when the temperatures are 90 
to 100 degrees outside, and you can fry an egg off the top of 
the engine that they are working on. That is why motor pools is 
a work environment for a soldier, and that work environment is 
not good.
    Now, we are--I realize both--I learned from the general and 
from Ms. Jacobson that you are doing this off other money. But 
things bog down a lot, and we feel like--I agree with my 
chairman. If we are going to be military construction, we ought 
to be doing this where we have oversight over it and can do it.
    And so I wish that we could convince those who do the brain 
thinking on budgets that military construction projects should 
be properly funded under military construction, not off budget. 
That is just--I preach along with my chairman.
    But that's the thing I wanted to--those guys working on 
that hot engine out there in the sun at Fort Hood, it is 
criminal. You have got to work with gloves on, or you burn your 
hands. And, you know, if you have got to put gloves on to 
protect your hands, you have always got the possibility of 
something slipping when you are dealing with that big of an 
engine, plus you can't get into the detail, and, therefore, you 
have got a real problem. Somebody gets hurt.
    And then there are--you have got a soldier not only not 
able to do his job, but maybe seriously injured. And I have 
watched them juggle things out there. You set a wrench down. 
And, with a bare hand, you try to pick it back up, and you have 
got to drop it. We have got to cover where you go under. It 
still doesn't work.
    So we have got to make the highest priorities about these 
workplaces. And I would like a little comment from all of you. 
I know we are off budget on that and doing something, but we 
have to hear the complaints about that, and this is our job. 
And how do we move to that?
    I will start with Ms. Jacobson.
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you so much. Oops.
    I thank you so much, Representative Carter, and thank you 
for your support. And Fort Hood obviously is a very special 
place. I have heard a lot of folks talk about it since my short 
time at DOD, and I know your support for it has been highly 
appreciated.
    With respect to the motor pool modernization--and I know my 
colleagues here will have a lot more to say about it--the new 
design is--will both protect soldiers and provide safer 
conditions and make sure that new equipment can more readily--
that can accommodate new equipment. And so, with the new 
design, the problems that you--the challenges that you 
highlight should be alleviated.
    But I will turn to both of my colleagues for any----
    Mr. Carter. Let me say that I--I have been--we have a new 
design. You can pull a great--great track on ceiling that will 
pull an engine. It is wonderful. I just want all of those to be 
that way.
    Ms. Jacobson. Right.
    Mr. Carter. General.
    General Evans. Sir, thank you again for your support. And 
you are absolutely right. Motor pools are critical to readiness 
of our Army.
    I visited those motor pools that you are speaking of at 1st 
Cav Division at Fort Hood. While Fort Hood didn't compete in 
the 14 motor pools across the Army we have in the program, 
Judge, again, we are using restoration and modernization to get 
at that. And we will be able to get at that using the new 
construction standards, as we have talked about before, having 
the 5-ton crane and the 10-ton crane, the appropriate tools and 
the climatization and get soldiers outside inside. But we are 
committed to getting the motor pools in a place where soldiers 
can work safely and effectively.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, General.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman Carter, thank you.
    And I have been one of those soldiers that has had to pull 
an engine outside in extremely hot weather and in extremely 
cold weather. And, yes, it is extremely challenging. And I 
agree with you that I want the same thing that you want, is all 
those motor pools have the overhead capacity. So we completely 
agree.
    That is why we--we absolutely have to have, you know, 
timely, adequate, and predictable and sustainable funding so 
that our facilities investment plan can actually get to where 
we want for all our soldiers to have that.
    There is going to be times that soldiers are going to have 
to do that. And I have been in those places. We probably need 
them to always wear gloves, no matter if it is hot or cold. I 
know things will slip, but, when you work with heavy machinery, 
we want them to wear gloves so we don't lose fingers and things 
like that. So it is a safety issue. So please wear your gloves.
    But, Judge--Rep--Congressman Carter, I agree. I want the 
exact same thing, that all those motor pools look the same.
    Mr. Carter. Well, the one we have, you know, the good one, 
it is just beautiful. And all of our soldiers are so pleased 
with it. But then the other guys feel like they are not second-
class citizens; they are last-class citizens where they are 
working. I just can't help but keep preaching on this. We have 
got to get that fixed.
    And just drive down Tank Destroyer Road and see our money--
how much heavy equipment we are dealing with at Fort Hood. And 
these guys are--they see it, and they all do--it all has to be 
worked on all the time. And, therefore, those people in the 
small World War II motor pools really feel like second- and 
third-class citizens and--as they serve in this Army.
    So I am going to keep yelling about it until we have got 
motor pools for every soldier on Fort Hood, a thing to be proud 
of.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter. You are a 
remarkable advocate for your people, always. And the gentleman 
yields back.
    And, Ms. Lee, you are recognized for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being 
here.
    I want to focus on access to timely mental healthcare. That 
has been an issue, as previously I served on the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee. But, given the immense amount of stress that 
our servicemembers, especially in Nevada--our National Guard as 
well--are under, and then what we have seen in terms of over 
30,000 of those who have served since 9/11 have died by 
suicide, which is four times more than the number of deaths in 
military operations over that period, so we felt this loss 
acutely in my home State.
    And, unfortunately, the Army and other branches have 
struggled to provide mental healthcare in a timely manner. The 
IG report has said that the DOD has consistently not met the 
Federal standards for outpatient mental health access, 
including wait times for urgent care that shouldn't exceed 24 
hours, but we have heard of month-long wait times for 
nonemergency mental health appointments, as recently as this 
spring.
    And so it goes without saying that we owe this to our 
servicemembers, and I am committed to working to improve that 
standard. And, with that, Sergeant Major Grinston, I would like 
to ask: Can you speak about the impact that you have witnessed 
on mental healthcare wait times on servicemembers' well-being 
and readiness?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congresswoman, thank you. This is 
not just a good question; it is a very extremely important 
question.
    The impact to our soldiers and their wait times, we have to 
do better. We have seen those wait times. I have had a lot of 
soldiers explain this, that we need to do better, but we also 
need to do better as a Nation.
    Currently, we are about 78 percent of our authorizations. 
That is what we have filled. We are working with DHA to get 
more authorizations, but we actually have to fill to those 
authorizations we have. In other words, we are short.
    Mrs. Lee. Sure.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. So we have got to work with DHA to 
get that. That will help us out and get those wait times lower. 
But we also have to use all the capabilities that we have, 
meaning we have to utilize our military family life counselors. 
We have to use our chaplains--those are licensed counselors--so 
that we can triage the mental resiliency of our soldiers and 
get them the care that they need so that at least they are 
seeing someone.
    But we are absolutely working with DHA to get to our 
authorized, and then get above that authorization. But, right 
now, we are short of our authorizations. But we have to do 
better.
    There is--one thing I will say, Congresswoman, is that, if 
a soldier has an emergency, they should not wait, and that is 
inexcusable. We have to get them to the emergency room and get 
them the care. If they are going in through a routine 
appointment trying to do emergency care, we as leaders have to 
do better to make sure that they are going to the right spot.
    And so the impacts are there. We did see our suicide 
numbers for the last 2 years go up. And, this year, we can say 
that they are down. But we have put a lot of effort into that, 
and that is not an excuse to take our foot off the gas to get 
us to the appropriate behavioral health that we need.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. Yeah, I am--you know, access to 
practitioners obviously is something we are struggling across 
this country, something that we deal with in civilian 
circumstances as well.
    Ms. Jacobson or Lieutenant General Evans, on top of that, 
what are the other barriers that we can assist with to reduce 
this wait time and open up access? What other issues can we 
help you address?
    General Evans. Ma'am, I don't have anything that I could 
offer. Just in addition to the Sergeant Major of the Army's 
comments, you are exactly right. We are all competing in 
America for the same kind of skill set, the behavioral health. 
And I know that the Army Surgeon General is using incentives to 
incentivize to get--bring people on Active Duty to serve as 
behavioral health specialists.
    Mrs. Lee of Nevada. Okay. Thank you.
    I don't think I have enough time for another question, so I 
will yield.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you, Assistant Secretary Jacobson, General Evans, and 
Sergeant Major Grinston, for testifying before this committee 
today.
    I know that we all share in your commitment for supporting 
our soldiers both abroad and at home. I look forward to 
discussing all installation quality-of-life concerns affecting 
our Army and what we can do to address them. And I want to echo 
our chairwoman and ranking member on some of the concerns 
obviously with the budget request for the--it is disappointing, 
but we will focus on other stuff for right now.
    Ms. Jacobson or General Evans, I represent several Army 
National Guard and Reserve facilities in central California. 
Over the past year, two facilities in Bakersfield reported 
break-ins resulting in loss of property, including vehicle 
parts, tools, and other items that could easily be resold.
    My office reached out to the facilities to see how we could 
help, and, after some site visits, we were surprised to learn 
that these facilities lacked some very basic security measures, 
including cameras and taller fencing.
    I can only assume that there are many other facilities also 
lacking these very basic protections. While the value of these 
losses might be small compared to the totality of the DOD 
budget, I am concerned about the overall readiness issues they 
present. For example, several vehicles were missing their 
batteries. And, in the event of an emergency, they would be 
useless.
    Are you aware of the prevalence of these security issues 
across the country, and is there anything you might need from 
this committee to ensure that our installations, including the 
Guard and Reserve Components, are secure to the best of our 
abilities?
    And, additionally, does the Army collect any data on the 
status of Guard and Reserve facility infrastructure?
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you very much, Congressman Valadao. And 
thank you especially for mentioning the Guard, of course, and 
the Reserves. And we provide as much support as available to us 
for the Guard and Reserves. They are very important components 
to us, and we want to make sure they have that--what they need.
    The security issues have been brought to our attention, and 
they are being taken very seriously. And we do need to employ 
more security measures to avoid the kinds of thefts you have 
described, because it compromises readiness, and we really 
can't afford a compromise of readiness. But I will ask General 
Evans to amplify on that and if Sergeant Major has any other 
comments.
    General Evans. Sir, you are exactly right. It is very 
concerning. We will work with the Army National Guard to 
provide them any additional sustainment funds or R&M funds they 
need.
    Basic security is a line item in sustainment. It does 
involve fencing and intrusion systems, but we will work with 
the Army National Guard to make that a priority. And we do 
assess Army National Guard and the USAR facilities just like we 
assess the Active Component each budget cycle so that we know 
what they need based on their facility investment strategy and 
the conditions of their facilities, sir.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate that. I had the opportunity to 
see quite a few bases over the years, and some abroad and some 
obviously here in--on lower 48, and there is obviously a lot of 
frustration. So, when we see the numbers being requested, we 
know that there is the need. We know that there is a 
requirement, and hopefully we are meeting that.
    The Army announced--this one is for Sergeant Major 
Grinston. The Army announced an overall reduction in total end 
strength of--from 485 soldiers to 473,000 in fiscal year 2023, 
so I think the need to focus on quality over quantity.
    Can you provide a bit more insight into this decision? 
Specifically, what career fields are you prioritizing, and how 
are you addressing your recruitment techniques to find the 
high-quality talent you are looking for to support our future 
force?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, thank you for the 
question.
    You know, we want to maintain the all-volunteer force. We 
want to maintain the quality of soldiers that are coming in. We 
don't want to lower--the quality versus quantity means we don't 
want to lower those standards. We have a certain level 
standard. We want you to have a high school diploma or 
equivalency.
    That is why we are saying we want to maintain that quality. 
What we really need is we need everyone's help. We are seeing 
the amount of individuals that qualify for the military to go 
down. So a couple----
    Mr. Valadao. Could we clear up that number?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Sure.
    Mr. Valadao. Give a little more details there?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir. Twenty-nine percent of 
Americans qualified and could come into the military, meaning 
they didn't have a disability, they were eligible through--you 
know, they were physically fit enough to actually come in the 
military. That was 29 percent of all--all American citizens.
    That is now 23 percent. So the pool is shrinking of those 
that are qualified, that could pass the aptitude test, that can 
physically come into the military. And, as we see that pool 
shrink, that just makes it harder, because we all want those 
same American citizens. We want them to come in in the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force.
    We also want them to be college athletes. We want them to 
go to--so that pool, as it gets less and less, it just becomes 
extremely hard for us to recruit because the overall bench is 
less and less in American citizens. And that is why we want 
to--we want to maintain our quality and not--and say we are 
going to bring people that aren't really eligible to come into 
the military, and that is what we mean by doing--maintain the 
quality.
    What are we doing to ensure that we can maintain our goals 
as much as we can? We have to meet soldiers where they are at. 
We have a social media influencer recruiting drive that is 
going on. We have done Army days, and we have got to get out 
and make sure that our country knows that, you know, we are 
still a reliable employer.
    And what I mean by this is that a lot of our soldiers that 
are coming in right now are from military families. We need 
to--this doesn't need to be a military business. This needs to 
be an American business where everyone says it is okay to join 
your Army.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, thank you.
    My time is up, so I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman's time is expired. The 
gentleman yields back.
    And, Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for 5 minutes of 
questions. Mr. Bishop is participating virtually.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Let me welcome Assistant Secretary Jacobson, Lieutenant 
General Evans, and Sergeant Major Grinston.
    Let me go to the issue of our privatized housing 
initiative.
    Ms. Jacobson, do you support overall the way that we 
structure our contracts with military privatized housing 
partners to ensure that we can hold them accountable when they 
fail to provide safe and healthy housing for our soldiers and 
when they defraud the Federal Government?
    Ms. Jacobson. Oops.
    Congressman Bishop, thank you so much for that question, 
and thank you also for your support.
    As you are aware, the contracts are very complex with these 
privatized housing companies, and there are several governing 
agreements, including the operating lease.
    Part of my review right now in the wake of the Balfour 
Beatty incident is to ask the general counsel to give me a 
better understanding of all enforcement authorities and 
oversight authorities I have within the context of those 
contracts.
    Obviously we have implemented a lot of oversight reforms as 
directed by Congress, and those reforms are clearly within the 
scope of those contracts, so that we now have, at echelon, 
going all the way to the top and throughout the chain of 
command, much better oversight. We are performing more 
inspections. We are meeting more frequently with the CEOs.
    And, importantly, the tenants have a voice now, and they 
can dispute, as needed, either formally or informally. They 
have access to maintenance records.
    But we have to do more, and we certainly have to keep 
assuring that the privatized housing companies remain 
accountable. And so, for this reason, I want to understand my 
authorities better.
    Mr. Bishop. Can general counsel perhaps give you some added 
provisions that will give you some teeth for enforcement? If 
you just take that for consideration.
    Let me switch to Sergeant Major Grinston and ask: Since the 
Army has implemented all 18 of the tenets of the tenant bill of 
rights at all of the Army installations, have you seen 
improvement in military family satisfaction with military 
housing because of that?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Hi, Congressman. Thank you for 
that question.
    I think, in the next few weeks, there will be a survey that 
actually lets us know exactly what the families--we don't have 
that finalized yet and to come out, so there is a survey that 
we do that says whether they are--agree, and it is good living 
in family housing.
    Since I ask, just talking to families across--and I do a 
lot of that--I would say generally yes and no, meaning the 
majority of the families really like the new tenant bill of 
rights. They liked having the authorities. But it will take 
some time for that to come into play. We can implement it and, 
it takes a little while to have a universal lease, for everyone 
to understand it as you move from one location to the next. So 
I believe----
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We will be monitoring----
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir?
    Mr. Bishop [continuing]. That, sir. Thank you very much.
    In the last three NDAAs, the most--and the most recent 
appropriations bill, we requested congressional briefing and a 
written report from DOD on food insecurity in the military, and 
we are still waiting for the briefing and the report.
    My colleagues and I have the impression that the military 
and its branches are not taking this seriously. Do you think 
food insecurity is an issue for soldiers and their families, 
and are you assisting DOD in compiling the report?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir. We clearly take food 
insecurities seriously. No soldier or family should be, you 
know, wanting or needing food and go without and having to do 
that.
    So we are clearly working with Department of Defense. We 
have a weekly meeting with the Department of Defense to discuss 
the--what was put in this year's NDAA on the basic needs 
allowance so that we can get that DOD-I out so we can 
identify--once DOD tells us the parameters that we do, we can 
go ahead and put out our orders to see how we can get that 
money to our families as fast as we can. And we are working 
with DOD as much as we can.
    But it is not just the basic needs. It is also about 
financial literacy. It is about teaching soldiers how to manage 
their money. It is also teaching them how to get appropriate 
food in the commissary so they have healthy choices.
    So we are working with the Department of Defense on the 
money. We are also working internally to make sure that our 
soldiers know how to financially do the--manage their budget. 
But it is not just about finances. There is many other factors 
of that, and, yes, we are working with all involved leaders and 
the Department of Defense.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. My time has just about expired, but 
let me thank all three of you for your efforts on behalf of our 
servicemembers in the United States Army. I am an Army veteran, 
and I just say hooah.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Thank you for 
your service as well.
    Gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Gonzales, you represent your--excuse me. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, panelists, 
for being here today.
    You know, you really stepped in it earlier, Sergeant Major, 
when we were talking about quality of soldiers. You know, my 
father was in the Army. My grandfather was in the Army. I 
thought I was going to go join the Army.
    And, when I went to go sign up to join the Army, I was a 
half credit away from graduating, and I dropped out at that 
time. And the Army didn't have a program for me.
    So I ended up going to the Navy. And guess what? I served 
20 years in the Navy. I retired a master chief, and now I am a 
Member of Congress.
    So, when you talk about quality of folks, I think you can't 
always just look at the--you know, the bean counting in it. You 
have got to look at different options.
    And, also, by the way, I went and got my associate's. I got 
my high school diploma when I was stationed in Pensacola, 
Florida. I got my associate's, my bachelor's, my master's, and 
I started my Ph.D. before joining Congress.
    I say all that to go--look, please--look beyond just maybe 
some of the things that we traditionally look at as far as high 
school diploma equivalency.
    My priority--my priorities for the Army MILCON construction 
projects for fiscal year 2023 include a request for $15 million 
to construct a new fire station at Fort Bliss to support the 
new William Beaumont Army Medical Center. Without this fire 
station, Fort Bliss will not have the adequate facilities to 
protect the new hospital.
    I look forward to the Army's report on the mobilization 
force generation installations as required by fiscal year 2022 
omnibus. Addressing deficient rapid deployment capabilities for 
armored units is imperative in the event the Army needs to send 
equipment to the Pacific theater.
    Fort Bliss' railhead currently only has one track, which I 
recently visited and was able to see personally, which could 
cause deployment delays of up to 4 weeks if China were to 
attack Taiwan. This report is due to congressional Defense 
committees within 90 days of March 16th's enactment, and I want 
to ensure the Army will meet this deadline.
    My first question is for Lieutenant General Evans. In the 
coming days, a Federal judge would decide if Biden's 
administration can lift title 42 authorities. Actually, it came 
out yesterday that that may be delayed.
    But my question is: You know, Fort Bliss has been central 
into a lot of this immigration crisis, not only what happened 
in Afghanistan, but also what is happening on the southern 
border. As you know, now they are currently housing some 
unaccompanied minors.
    So my question is: If title 42 were to be lifted now or 
whenever it is lifted, periodically Fort Bliss is required to 
help address some of this influx.
    Is the administration preparing for, once again, to use 
Fort Bliss to help shoulder the burden of the influx?
    General Evans. Sir, thank you for the question.
    I don't have a specific answer for that, but I do know, if 
we are called on by the Secretary of Defense or the President 
to participate in that, then the Army will do as they have 
before, but I don't have a specific----
    Mr. Gonzales. Sure.
    General Evans [continuing]. Answer to that question, and I 
can take that for the record.
    Mr. Gonzales. Sure. What I would say is Fort Bliss is a 
great facility, and it is a warm and welcoming community, and 
people want to help. That is not the problem.
    I think the problem is when they don't know what is 
happening; then, all of a sudden, the truth gets spun and 
turned into something else. So the more transparent the Army 
can be on the forefront, if something were to happen, whether 
it is Ukrainian refugees or whether it is migrants, whatever it 
is--I hear from my constituents, and they are just looking for 
transparency.
    So I would just--you know, if that is coming down, anything 
you can get ahead of, certainly it would be welcomed.
    General Evans. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Gonzales. My next question is about UFRs. And, you 
know, the chairwoman hit it right on the head. You know, we 
were talking about the resources given. I am not even trying to 
get to UFRs. I am looking at how do I even get programs on the 
UFR list, right? And, when you ask for less money, you know, we 
can't even get the programs that aren't on there.
    In particular, construction of a new dining facility for 
Camp Bullis has been indefinitely delayed. The current dining 
facility was constructed in 1930 and lacks adequate air 
conditioning, no bathrooms on site, and employees must leave 
the facility to access food storage units. The soldiers 
training here do not have the means to dine off base, and there 
are no other food options on Camp Bullis, leaving the facility 
as the only option.
    Completely unacceptable. This is not--this particular 
project is not included in Army's FYDP or its UFR list. When 
does the Army plan to request funding for this project?
    Ms. Jacobson. Thank you--whoops.
    Thank you, Congressman Gonzales, and thank you for your 
support. The Camp Bullis dining facility was an fiscal year Air 
Force MILCON project because it is part of the Joint Base San 
Antonio, so we checked with Air Force about what is happening 
with that. And the project amount is $18.5 million, and the 
bids have been received, and they are currently being 
negotiated. But we are happy to provide an update with you. We 
will check in with the Air Force and provide an update on that.
    Mr. Gonzales. Great. Thank you.
    My time has expired. Madam Chairwoman, I yield.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
    And next up, we have Mr. Case. You are recognized for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Case is participating virtually.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Secretary, first of all, thank you for your response 
to my letter on the REPI program in Hawaii. I appreciate that 
response. And we will certainly be following up with you, but 
appreciate the prompt response and the commitment to what is a 
critical program in Hawaii to not only provide full and 
adequate buffers to Army and other training facilities but also 
to the long and good relationship that has existed between the 
military and the civilian community in Hawaii. So just a simple 
thanks on that.
    And then, General Evans, I want to follow up on our 
discussion of the other day--thank you for that--on the Hawaii 
Infrastructure Readiness Initiative.
    As you know, in 2019, the Army committed to a 10-year 
program of a billion dollars of upgrades in military facilities 
throughout Hawaii. Many, many facilities need that upgrade. And 
things were going along fine for a few years, including one of 
the childcare centers that you referenced, so appreciate that 
very much.
    But, as you know, the current budget did not include any 
HIRI projects on it, which is causing us great distress, 
because HIRI was supposed to be a commitment over and above the 
normal military construction requirements of our country, given 
the seriousness of the situation and the critical importance of 
the Indo-Pacific.
    And my colleague, Senator Schatz, engaged General 
McConville on this subject. He is a member of the comparable 
subcommittee over on the Senate side, and he asked him straight 
up whether we had your commitment to continue with HIRI even 
though this budget itself does not have HIRI projects in it.
    And I do note that, on your unfunded priorities list, you 
do have some HIRI projects as well as--oh, I take that back. 
Actually, it is in your future year funding programs, if I am 
correct.
    So I am just asking you the exact same question that 
Senator Schatz asked of General McConville: Are you committed 
to HIRI, and do you expect to deliver a billion dollars of HIRI 
projects within the 10-year window?
    General Evans. Sir, thank you for the question.
    Absolutely, we are committed to HIRI and the infrastructure 
and the importance of the Hawaii infrastructure there. So, sir, 
you are absolutely right. We have six of the HIRI projects 
funded already, and six more in the FYDP, and we have a couple 
in the unfunded priority list, which, from 2019 to a 10-year 
period, we are looking at about a billion dollars, probably 
$916 billion; $495 million of that is in the program.
    In addition to that, we also are looking at the quality of 
life in terms of barracks, and we have a 10-year plan to invest 
$851 million in barracks. But, sir, you have my commitment.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you so much, General.
    And, General, I want to follow up on the line of 
questioning by our chair, because it is distressing to me as 
well that the reduction in the actual presented budget was so 
significant.
    And you and I talked about this exact issue in terms of the 
escalation and the cost of already approved projects. I think I 
recall you saying that the figure was as high as 30, 31 percent 
escalation in one year in some theaters, especially in my 
theater, where the cost of construction is higher to start 
with.
    If I understand what you are saying to this committee, you 
are essentially saying that you did not submit in the normal 
budget the cost escalation part of the projects that are 
already approved. In other words, your budget came in with new 
projects. But you left to the unfunded priorities list the cost 
escalation from previously approved projects, and your 
expectation is that Congress will undertake to increase those 
amounts to keep those projects underway.
    And, if that is the case, then I am back to the same 
question that the chair has been asking, which is: Where are 
the priorities here, because that would indicate to me that 
you, the Army, were under very severe budget constraints 
internally in the Department of Defense to come up with some 
form of budget, and essentially military construction projects 
were, in fact, sacrificed for other priorities throughout, but 
you didn't want to take the existing projects off the table?
    And so I--first of all, tell me whether that is a correct 
assessment, at least of the facts, but then, to comment, I 
don't think that is the right way to budget.
    General Evans. Sir, thank you for the question.
    So, between 2021 and 2022, we were experiencing--the Corps 
of Engineers was experiencing a 24-percent increase of cost due 
to labor and materials and the supply chain.
    Now we are experiencing a 30 percent increase due to fuel, 
and that is causing some of the bids--new bids for the 
contractors not to hold the bid, particularly why we come back 
for an authorized reprogramming.
    You did see the costs to complete. Those are very important 
projects. There are housing projects in there; particularly, 
the overseas housing projects. And it was important for us to 
make sure that we include those back in there because we are 
committed to people and the quality homes.
    And so, yes, we are experiencing the cost, and we are using 
the chief's requirement to submit a list of unfunded 
requirements, and that is why you have seen the cost to 
complete on the UPL list, sir.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
    I am out of time, so I will yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Case. The gentleman 
yields back.
    Mr. Trone, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
    And Mr. Trone is participating virtually.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to 
the witnesses.
    The leaked draft of Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade 
was deeply troubling. It shows that we need to do more to 
protect reproductive rights.
    I was extremely pleased to see the Army released a new 
Directive on Pregnancy that eliminated the requirement for unit 
commanders to pre-approve a servicemember's leave to seek an 
abortion.
    Sergeant Major Grinston, can you please, like, talk a 
little bit how this policy change will support recruitment and 
retention?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman Trone, thank you for 
the question.
    We were really proud of the Parenthood, Pregnancy, 
Postpartum. There is a lot of--more information in there than 
just pregnancy. It is about parenthood. It is long overdue. It 
takes a long time to get there, and it is pretty long for an 
exhort, 15 pages. It is a lot of detail.
    So it really says that, you know, we are putting our people 
first. It says people first. So, if you are people first, you 
have got to give them enough time to go through fertility 
treatment without moving them to one, like, location to the 
next. If our people are first, we have to give them time to 
recover from their pregnancy. If our people are first, then we 
have to have time for them not to go on CQ on a moment's notice 
if they are a single parent, so they--they have to pick up 
their children.
    So we believe--this is just, you know, putting our people 
first, and it remains the commitment to our soldiers and 
family. And, if we do that, it is going to help with retention 
and recruitment.
    Mr. Trone. Yeah. You and I spoke about this individually, 
and I couldn't be more pleased with your philosophy on people 
first. It is absolutely the way to go, especially our women, 
with more and more women in the military.
    The new guidance also standardizes convalescent leave for 
women who experience a miscarriage or stillbirth.
    Sergeant Major, could you describe how this policy will 
contribute to the servicemembers' well-being and what mental 
health services are available for parents after a pregnancy 
loss or a stillbirth?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir.
    This means a lot to those families. I mean, that is a loss 
to a family, and how do you equate that it is not good enough 
for them to take some leave?
    So that is why it is in the parenthood policy, is that--
depending on the length of carrying that child. There will be 
times that you will take leave, and it is a graduated scale. 
Again, it is about putting our people first. So this is 
important that we acknowledge this and allow our soldiers and 
families to execute that leave.
    Now, as for the mental resiliency and what is available, 
all the behavioral health that we can get and the mental 
resiliency we have, just like I said before, military family 
life counselors, behavioral health appointments, all that is 
still available to any of our soldiers if they are in need. And 
they are encouraged to utilize those services.
    Mr. Trone. I thank you so much for all of that. It is great 
work.
    Maryland has a military--major military footprint, and we 
also care about restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay. 
Storm water runoff is a significant, persistent cause for 
pollution in the bay. The cause is not unique to military 
facilities. Impervious surfaces--roads, homes, schools need 
storm water management. As one of the largest landholders in 
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the Department of Defense and the 
Army plays a vital role in controlling storm water runoff. 
Climate and its related impacts have increased the intensity.
    That is why, in the fiscal year 2022 NDAA, MILCON approps 
approved additional authority to invest in storm water 
infrastructure like programs like the Energy and Resilience 
Conservation Investment Program.
    Ms. Jacobson, how is the Army utilizing these programs to 
invest in storm water infrastructure at installations in the 
bay watershed, and how do they contribute to readiness, the 
DOD's climate adaption plan?
    Ms. Jacobson. Congressman, thank you very much for that 
question.
    We are addressing climate resilience on a number of fronts, 
both on installations and off installation, as you suggest, by 
participating regionally in efforts such as addressing the 
Chesapeake Bay and storm water runoff.
    I don't have specific examples or specific numbers for you 
today on what we have invested in the Chesapeake Bay for storm 
water runoff, but I will promise to get those to you.
    And we are also--by the way, Fort Detrick is also 
contributing to our climate resiliency as the location for a 
solar energy facility with battery energy storage as part of a 
public-private partnership with Ameresco, and it not only helps 
us with our energy storage at the base and energy independence, 
but it also will save $125,000 a year, and it is expected to be 
operational in 2023.
    So there are so many ways right now that we are trying to 
address climate change, and storm water runoff is certainly an 
important component.
    And we will get you information on that. I promise.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, ma'am. I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
    We will start a second round, and we will proceed until--
until members are done with questions.
    Sergeant Major Grinston, I notice that you did not answer 
Mr. Trone's question related to abortion services in your 
answer on the long-prepared Parenthood in the Army policy
    I want to explore that with you a little bit more, because 
these are important healthcare services, and making sure that 
all of the healthcare needs surrounding parenthood and whether 
or not to become a parent are important.
    So I am sure you are aware that, on Monday, May 2nd, an 
initial draft majority opinion was leaked that appears to 
indicate that the Supreme Court is likely voting down--
overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
    If that opinion goes unchanged in its final form, there 
will be massive ramifications for women, including those in the 
armed services. Women in the military already have a higher 
rate of unintended pregnancy than civilian women. Currently the 
Defense Health Agency has the limited authority to only provide 
abortions in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to a woman's 
life. For those female soldiers in States with restrictive 
abortion laws, their options for safe abortions may be 
completely erased if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
    Sergeant Major Grinston, what will the Army do to protect 
and support their female servicemembers and their families if 
Roe v. Wade is overturned?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for 
the question.
    We didn't have that addressed in the Parenthood policy. We 
couldn't foresee what was going to happen with Roe--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Roe v. Wade, and still can't see 
what is going to happen with Roe v. Wade.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. Forgive me.
    He asked you a specific question that included in the 
Parenthood policy for you to comment on your--how it impacts 
abortion services. And I am asking you: Have you prepared, in 
potential anticipation, of what you would do if--to make sure 
that healthcare services comprehensively were available to your 
servicemembers if that happened?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for 
the question.
    And the answer is yes. We are drafting policies that ensure 
that we take care of our soldiers in an appropriate way. Those 
policies have not gone to the Secretary of the Army. We are in 
collaboration throughout the--usually in the ASA, M&RA realm 
through my office, so we are in collaboration. There are drafts 
if it were to be overturned, but that will be a decision for 
the Secretary of the Army to sign that policy.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you. It is good to know 
that you are preparing in anticipation of that possibility.
    What will the Department do to offset, Sergeant Major, the 
expected impact on recruitment and retention of qualified 
female troops who currently make up 20 percent of the Active 
Duty force?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairwoman, thank you for that 
question also.
    What we would do to offset the recruitment, it is still to 
continue to recruit as many eligible servicemen and Americans 
that we can to come in the military. Again, we do not want to 
disadvantage anyone in our force--men, women--or alienate 
anyone that is eligible to serve in the military. We will 
continue to recruit as best as we can with the policies that we 
have.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you could keep us posted on the 
draft policies as they move through the process, that would be 
helpful.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairwoman, absolutely.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Speaking of discriminatory laws, I was really gratified to 
see that the Air Force recently informed its servicemembers 
that it will support their families with medical and legal help 
if they are affected by dozens of new bigoted State laws 
restricting LGBTQ rights, including relocating families if the 
need arises.
    You know, as Mr. Gonzales mentioned, you know, he ended up 
in the Air Force because there wasn't a forward-thinking 
progressive policy when he had an education issue. And, you 
know, it is important that we are making sure that we are 
taking care of our servicemembers and protecting them from, you 
know, discrimination.
    So what I am asking is: The Air Force is going to provide 
assignment, medical, legal, and other resources available to 
support airmen, guardians, and their families if they are in a 
State that has those discriminatory laws, and the Army 
currently has no such policy.
    Sergeant Major, why is that? And is the Army going to 
consider such a protective policy?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Madam Chairwoman, the first 
question is why--we are aware of the policy, and we are 
drafting--that is--both those are policies, are the ones 
looking at. It is the same policy. It could be an adapted, the 
way that we--that the Air Force would do to relocate them. And 
that is going to be the draft--as we look at how can we do 
this, that could be one option, and that is--that is--that same 
policy drafting and that requirement would be the same as--for 
the abortion. I believe it would be one policy, but, again, we 
don't have the policy before it goes to the Secretary of the 
Army yet.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am glad to hear that.
    Assistant Secretary Jacobson, what is the current status of 
PFAS testing and clean-up at Army bases, both active and 
closed? The subcommittee, in fiscal year 2022, provided an 
additional $150 million for PFAS remediation. How is the 
Department using its portion of the funding?
    Ms. Jacobson. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the 
question, and thank you for the PFAS-specific funding.
    The Army obviously is doing everything we are required to 
do to address PFAS. Where we are a provider of drinking water 
that exceeds the EPA health advisory standards, we are 
replacing the drinking water. We are remediating. We are using 
the CERCLA process for the remediation, which is a policy that 
EPA endorses. And we have already completed preliminary site 
assessment at 337 installations where Army or National Guard 
may have used or stored or released PFAS.
    And then the next step will be a remedial investigation, if 
warranted, where we will evaluate the risks to human health 
both on base and in the surrounding communities.
    We are also going to phase out AFFF, the firefighting agent 
that was the source of many of the PFAS releases, in accordance 
with the congressional directive, so we are----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What is the timeframe for that? How 
long are they--to phase out?
    Ms. Jacobson. Well, the Congress requires us to phase it 
out and to no longer use it, I believe, by end of fiscal year 
2024.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Jacobson. And the Department collectively is looking at 
alternatives and working with industry to look at alternatives 
so we have something else to use as a firefighting foam, but 
PFAS will no longer be used.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Judge Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    You know, I spent 20 years as a problem solver for the--as 
a judge, so listening to that recruitment thing, I have got an 
idea here I want to think--want to run by you.
    Right now, if you accumulate student loan while you are 
serving in the military, the Army assists you in that student 
loan payment, as I understand it. Isn't that correct?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes, sir. If you join the military 
and you have a student loan, there is a student loan repayment 
program also. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. So, if you have a student loan, they pay it--
you pay a portion of that student loan debt?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. It depends on the contract. So I 
have a soldier in my office, went to--I won't say where he went 
to university. He went to university. He had accumulated a 
debt, and there is a student loan complete--not part of it. A 
complete repayment of the student loan depending on the 
contract that you come in. And so we'll pay all of it.
    Mr. Carter [continuing]. Pays it?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Yes.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. Well, that--one of the things I want to 
tell you, my son was a scholarship athlete in football, and my 
student--my chief of staff were scholarship athletes in 
football. And, unfortunately, we have an awful lot of young 
football players in college that are getting their food, 
housing, and books paid for, but they are still borrowing 
money, because they are saying: I will pay it back when I get 
in the NFL.
    Well, the number of people that actually get into the NFL 
is about 1 percent maybe, or maybe a half a percent that get in 
the NFL.
    And then you get a kid that has played 4 years of football, 
and he has got just as much debt as--as just about anybody else 
does.
    You know, that ought to be some kind of an incentive 
program, because one of the things about college athletes, 
especially when they get right out, they generally like the 
idea of staying fit. They may lose it after a while, but 
generally want to do that. And you offer that to them. You 
offer them the ability to keep fit and keep learning in the 
Army.
    And, if you could do something about student loan debt in 
addition to that required, you know, in the contract, might be 
a good recruiting tool, because at least half of the graduates 
on the football team--no--three-fourths of them have student 
loan debt, and they don't have a way to pay it off. And many of 
them don't graduate from college. They don't have a way to pay 
it off. It may be a pool of people you could get in the Army. 
Just a thought.
    That is all I wanted to say. I didn't have a question.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman's time has expired, 
yields back.
    Mr. Valadao, you are recognized to bring us home, 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Quick question, and I know it has been addressed a little 
bit earlier by the Representative from Nevada, but one benefit 
of the pandemic was increased access to telehealth services for 
soldiers, specifically for mental and behavioral health. I 
frequently heard from servicemembers who struggled to get 
appointments, and with many mental health issues, time is 
precious.
    Does the Army intend to maintain access to telehealth 
services for our soldiers, and are there any programs you are 
hoping to expand?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, thank you for the 
question.
    The answer to increased telehealth is--or access is 
absolutely. And any programs we are trying to expand, we are 
working, again, DHA. That was a program we wanted to--want to 
utilize telehealth more, and I can give you one very quick 
example, is in Alaska.
    Sometimes we have found it really hard to get a contract, 
behavioral health, to go up in those conditions, and then 
expand telehealth to those individuals in Alaska for--a 
behavioral health specialist didn't want to go there. 
Currently, we are sending two green suiters right now, but 
utilizing telehealth more, especially for those remote and 
isolated areas. And that is what we are trying to expand 
through DHA.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. And then many military spouses 
believe that the military lifestyle, including frequent moves, 
deployments, and long hours that keep servicemembers from 
assisting with parenting and living in areas with poor local 
labor market conditions has negatively affected their 
employment opportunities. I am glad to see that the Army is 
prioritizing addressing this concern for our military families.
    What programs have you been working on, and what can 
Congress do to help ensure our military spouses remain 
competitive in their civilian job market?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, thank you for that 
question.
    PCS moves, we are really--we actually want to limit those 
PCS moves. That is why we are really trying to work hard on the 
integrated personnel and pay system Army, and how does that 
help us stabilize soldiers and families? If we can manage 
talent with a system in the long term, so, if you want to stay 
in California, you can stay in California, go to the NTC, and 
then go back and be a recruiter in California. So you are still 
there, and you kind of stabilize your family if you want to 
stabilize.
    We need an integrated personnel pay system to help us to do 
that on--for the PCS moves. We got a new PCS move-out to help 
with that.
    But, on the spouse employment piece of that question, State 
reciprocity as a family member moves from one State to the next 
is also helpful so that they don't have to relicense. We have 
got 42 States that say: We will validate or accept some of your 
license as you move as a spouse from one State to the next. 
That will help us out.
    The more States that say, ``I acknowledge that license from 
whatever State''--I have actually had a behavioral health 
specialist move from Washington State to a different State--I 
won't say where--but they didn't accept their license.
    So the more we can have States acknowledge those licenses, 
help us with spouses get employment faster. We also have spouse 
employment initiatives where, if you are staying in the GS 
system, we will accept you before you get to that next duty 
location. We are encouraging that.
    We are encouraging home-based businesses for spouse 
employment. You can go right down the road to Fort Belvoir, and 
we set up an office, computer. So, if a spouse wants to have a 
home-based business, but the other spouse may be staying at 
home for COVID; then you need a quiet place to stay.
    So we are encouraging all these type engagements for spouse 
employment. And, if you would like further information, I could 
give you even more information after the testimony.
    Mr. Valadao. I appreciate it.
    Thank you, Madam. That is all I have got, so I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    I do have one other question that I wanted to--I wanted to 
make sure we focused on, and that is the issue of sexual 
assault.
    Sergeant Major, sexual assault continues to be a problem 
for DOD, including the Army. In the fiscal year 2020 annual 
report on sexual assault in the military, 3,250 reports of 
sexual assault were filed in the Army, the most of any service.
    Can you explain why the Army continues to have such a high 
number of sexual assaults?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairwoman, thank you for the 
question.
    There is no excuse for our numbers to continue to get 
higher for sexual assault. What I have done is, those countless 
hours that I mentioned in my opening statement, is, last year, 
we--we brought all the nominative sergeant majors that, if you 
work for a general officer, I brought them in in a forum and 
asked them: How do we solve sexual assault better? We saw the 
numbers in fiscal year 2020.
    And, at the end of that, I said: I want zero sexual assault 
for the Army.
    And that is a bold move, but I think what I learned is, if 
you don't go for zero, you will stop short of what you need to 
do.
    And, ever since then, every month--we look at not just 
sexual assault, sexual harassment. Where we see higher sexual 
harassment, you are going to see more sexual assault. So that 
is not a good indicator, but at least we can start there before 
we get to the sexual assault.
    So, every month, every senior enlisted leader that is in 
charge of an installation around the globe gets on the net, and 
we look at our numbers. And we look at it not as a way of got 
you, but as a prevention, every month, and say, What have you 
learned? What are your prevention initiatives, and that is that 
one initiative.
    When a soldier goes to basic training, we were given that 
training at the 2-week mark for abusive sexual contact. Well, 
the new citizen didn't know that locker room antics is not 
allowed. That is illegal in the Army. And that--you know, a 
good game on the rear end, that is abusive sexual contact.
    Putting that right upfront, we have seen about a 60-percent 
decrease in abusive sexual contact. That come from that forum 
every month where we were looking at and say: How do we prevent 
this? Where is it happening?
    So that is what we are doing about it. It is not acceptable 
for those numbers to go up, and my ultimate goal is to have 
zero sexual assault in the Army.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. What new steps? Because you 
have a--this has been a problem for a long time. We have 
identified--we identified it and exposed it and have shined 
spotlights on it for a long time, and your numbers are still 
really high.
    So what new steps is the Army taking to tackle the 
continually high rate of sexual assaults? How are your efforts 
evolving year over year? How will those steps be effective in 
finally reducing the prevalence and culture of sexual assaults? 
This is a major culture problem. It is not just a matter of, 
oh, good, people don't slap each other on the butt anymore to 
say good job. You need concrete, programmatic, consistent, 
effective efforts.
    What are those?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairwoman, thank you for your 
question. And I completely agree.
    So, 3 years ago, I did say This is My Squad, and that is 
the culture that I said--and the chief of staff of the Army, we 
said we want in the Army. This is how you treat people, with 
dignity and respect, on a daily basis, every day. And we 
acknowledged that it would take a lot of time.
    One of the concrete programmatic steps that we are doing 
right now, the pilot that we are running is the Fusion 
Directorate pilot, where you are going to bring all the--it is 
still a response, is you bring everyone into--the SHARP victim 
advocates. You have the special victim prosecutors are all 
going to be in one location. So, if you were to be a victim, 
you could go into that area.
    So having the Fusion Directorate pilot--that is one 
programmatic that we are looking at.
    The second one is a prevention strategy. The Secretary of 
Defense has authorized us to have 20--2,000 prevention 
specialists, and we are looking at a prevention strategy to 
say: How do we just look at prevention? And it is all 
prevention.
    The theory of This is My Squad isn't about sexual assault, 
sexual harassment, suicide, domestic violence. It is about 
prevention of things. If we create the culture, we won't have 
any of those. And it won't just be sexual assault. It will be 
all the other things.
    So the programmatic is the prevention strategy. We are 
working to have a prevention directorate, and we don't--is it 
going to be through the G-9 or the G-10 or some record, but we 
are looking at a complete prevention strategy with the 
prevention workforce that the Secretary of Defense has 
authorized us, and a Fusion Directorate.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Secretary Jacobson, what more can be done to ensure the 
installations are safe for all genders, and what are you--what 
leadership role are you taking to ensure that there is 
movement?
    Ms. Jacobson. Madam Chairwoman, this obviously has to be a 
whole-of-Army approach. And, for our part, to the extent that 
installations and living situations pose potential security 
problems, such as inadequate locks on doors, inadequate 
cameras, inadequate lighting, that is something we are looking 
at. And, anytime we hear of that, we are trying to address it 
as soon as possible.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I mean, you know that 
shouldn't be necessary, right? We--that is----
    Ms. Jacobson. It is basic. It is basic. You are--I----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. There shouldn't be predators that 
are lurking to assault a fellow, you know, soldier in the Army, 
and that it is--locks aren't our problem.
    Ms. Jacobson. I couldn't agree more, and we are all 
bringing our respective expertise and subject-matter experts 
within our portfolios to address this problem, because it is 
unacceptable.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But it is not working. You might be 
bringing all--if you are bringing all your expertise, then you 
have the wrong expertise.
    Ms. Jacobson. We will coordinate with Sergeant Major Mike 
Grinston and others to make sure we are doing more on the 
installation standpoint----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
    Ms. Jacobson [contining]. To ensure----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would like a more detailed 
answer----
    Ms. Jacobson. Okay.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. As to what game-
changing, culture-changing steps are being taken, because we 
have talked about this every single year that I have been chair 
of this, or ranking member of this subcommittee, and the needle 
is going in the wrong direction.
    Ms. Jacobson. Understood.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Chairwoman, may I?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. If you don't mind. Just on the 
infrastructure, again, going back to monthly summit, what we 
found on the prevention side, we have developed a QR code so, 
when you do go in the barracks, it is just not about going to 
see who is doing sexual assault. We can have a detailed list of 
questions, and it is on a backboard.
    So, when I go into the building, a leader says: I am going 
to scan in, and then here is the things that I need to check on 
that--in that building.
    And then we can overlay that--and the 82nd Airborne 
Division has done this--where I go in the barracks, and then: 
Where is the crime happening?
    So that is how we are looking at it from a holistic point 
of view from the barracks, if--and crime being someone broke in 
in the car in the parking lot. The leader was in that building. 
Okay. Why didn't you check the parking lot? So----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Uh-huh.
    Sergeant Major Grinston [continuing]. We can see this, and 
that is how we are using data informed in our barracks. It is 
as simple as putting a QR code. Then it is backboned into the 
system and giving the crime reports. All those mesh together.
    So that is the innovation that we are looking at. We have 
not been doing that all Army-wide, but that is in a prevention 
so that we can see where our leaders are in the buildings, and, 
if there are crime in that, then how do we adjust where we are 
going that matches the crime?
    But we have to keep doing this, and we have to have data 
informed when we go look at the barracks. And that is one of 
those initiatives that we are trying to do Army-wide.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I am certainly glad to hear 
that.
    We used to do this hearing with all of the sergeant majors 
and enlisted leaders and the Assistant Secretary, but we wanted 
to focus on the individual services and your problems, your 
challenges, you know, and how we could more sharply focus on 
each individual service.
    When we did have the conversation about sexual assault in 
the military generally when we did the multiservice hearing, my 
recollection is that the Air Force, the Navy--really the Air 
Force--not the Navy so much, had made a difference--had moved 
the needle, had a program in place that actually reduced sexual 
assaults.
    Do you all talk to each other? Have you--and I have asked 
this question, too. Do you consult with other branches of the 
service who have effective programs in place that seem to be 
making at least some difference so you can make sure that you 
can limit those?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Absolutely, Madam Chairwoman. Jo 
Bass, the chief master sergeant for the Air Force, and I talk 
frequently.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Uh-huh.
    Sergeant Major Grinston. We have even established the 
monthly meeting to actually go--we find we have similar issues. 
We are constantly talking, and I am willing to--any thoughts 
and services on how we could do this better, and we are 
constantly learning from other services.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
    I laid a bridge down in anticipation of your arrival.
    Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair. They always have you 
running around in this place.
    I want to thank you for mentioning the sexual assault 
stuff, because it is extremely important. You know, my wife is 
a servicemember, and I will tell you. I mean, there is not a 
servicemember that doesn't have a story of some sort or 
another, so it is absolutely a critical area.
    You know, Sergeant Major, on that note, you know, Fort Hood 
Independent Review Committee provided 70 recommendations to 
improve the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Prevention 
Program. Last year, in a similar committee, or a similar 
hearing like this, it was stated that 23 of those 
recommendations were implemented.
    When can we expect the Army to implement all 70 
recommendations?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, thank you for your 
question.
    Right now, the update is we have 45 of those 70 
recommendations have been fully implemented. I can't give you 
the exact date that we will get through. We would hope to do 
that as fast as we can.
    We established the People First Task Force to actually look 
at every one of those recommendations. As you know, there were 
9 findings, 70 recommendations, and the Secretary at that time 
accepted all those.
    Our goal is to be complete by fiscal year 2024 with all the 
70 recommendations, and some of this is caveated on the 
independent review by the Secretary of Defense.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you for that update. And, you know, it 
is clearly important to the chairwoman. It is important to this 
committee. I would suspect to ask that same question next year 
when you all come forth. It would be great if we could say all 
70 have been implemented, and then a--you know, what is that--
what benefits--you know, what is that outcome? What does that 
outcome look like?
    My next question is for Assistant Secretary Jacobson.
    You know, I had the pleasure of visiting Vicenza, and 
General Evans spoke about that earlier. You know, I recently 
visited Army Garrison Vicenza as part of a bipartisan 
congressional delegation. The family housing there was built in 
the 1950s and inadequate for today's military families.
    It is my understanding that base housing there is being 
completely rebuilt. The Army included several costs to complete 
requests in fiscal year 2023's unfunded priority list.
    Can you provide an update on this project? Being stationed 
abroad is already difficult. The Army needs to ensure these 
families have safe and adequate housing.
    Before you answer, I will just add, you know, we have got--
we have got over 100,000 soldiers, Army, or soldiers, sailors, 
Marines, airmen deployed in Europe--100,000. That is a lot of 
people. And a lot of times we think of bombs and BBs and all 
these other things, but healthcare and housing and child 
development, all that is critical to a family.
    You know, and one of these facilities that I visited in 
Vicenza, you know, 700 square feet for a family of four. I 
mean, it is just not ideal living conditions. I know there is a 
plan in place, several different projects. I was mostly 
concerned with the third phase of that project, but I would 
love to get an update.
    Ms. Jacobson. Certainly, Congressman Gonzales.
    I will start, and then I will ask General Evans to 
supplement.
    Obviously the Army is directly responsible for Army-owned 
housing, and the housing in Italy, of course, is our 
responsibility.
    This budget request for fiscal year 2023 includes $95 
million for Vicenza, and another $57 million, by the way, for 
Germany. And, in the past several years, three fiscal years, we 
have invested close to a billion dollars on construction 
improvements and maintenance for Army-owned housing.
    So I am going to ask General Evans to supplement that.
    General Evans. Sir, to your point, that construction will 
basically replace about 280-some units and replace it with over 
400 units, which will provide more space for the family 
members. And we put it in a cost-to-complete because it is a 
priority for us.
    Mr. Gonzales. Excellent. I don't want to see that project 
slide in any form or fashion. This committee is certainly 
committed to ensuring that not only our bases at home are 
adequate, but also our bases overseas.
    I mean, oftentimes there isn't a Member of Congress that is 
looking out for, you know, Japan or Korea or, you know, 
wherever it may be, you know, Italy, or wherever it may be, and 
just know that we want to do those things. But please provide 
us any of those inputs.
    If there is other facilities that may be worth us visiting 
or learning more about, I think we would be welcome to hearing 
that as well.
    General Evans. Yes, sir. We will keep you updated on the 
timeline of the construction project.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you.
    And thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me a second round.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome. My pleasure.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Judge Carter, I understand you have another question.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Sergeant Major, would you speak to us about Project Athena?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman Carter, absolutely.
    Project Athena is a Total Army analysis, assessment of an 
individual soldier all the way from the beginning of service 
until they end service.
    So we didn't have a complete analysis of assessments on how 
we look at soldiers, and we learned this from the Battalion 
Commanders Assessment Program and the Brigade Commanders 
Assessment Program. You come in and you do these cognitive, 
noncognitive assessments.
    Project Athena starts that all the way from the--you know, 
when a soldier comes in the Army, they will do some kind of 
assessment. And then you will get to the basic leader course, 
and you will do an assessment.
    And these are nonbinding. So it is--we want them to be 
truthful about how they see the world or how they are feeling 
and what is going on.
    And I will give you an example of this assessment. What you 
get back from the basic leader course is two things: Am I self-
aware, or am I socially aware?
    So, if you fill out the assessment correctly, it will give 
you some feedback and say: Well, you are maybe lacking in 
social awareness or self-awareness.
    And then you can be assigned a coach. And that is all 
throughout.
    So, if you are honest with your assessment--it just goes to 
you to tell you those are the two things that it is assessing, 
social awareness and self-awareness. And you say: Well, I am 
lacking in social awareness. You can say, I would like a coach.
    And then what we are doing, the Army coaching program, 
having some of the NCOs out of the basic leader course go to 
the coach--coaching, and then ultimately is to make our 
soldiers better throughout.
    And then, at some point, those assessments will be binding. 
As an example, if you get to--and we are starting the First 
Sergeants Assessment Program. In other words, if you go in and 
you have a poor assessment as a first sergeant, we are not--
before you be a first sergeant--won't let you be a first 
sergeant. So it is helpful in Project Athena if you are honest 
with yourself on the assessment program all through your 
career. And then, when you do those assessments--and they are 
binding. It shouldn't be any surprises for you. If you have 
used the coaches, you will have--it is ultimately to make the 
soldiers better and see themselves, and also, at some point, to 
make better leaders in the Army.
    Mr. Carter. And I may have this wrong, but, after the bad 
situation we had at Fort Hood, it is my understanding that Fort 
Hood--and maybe corps-wide, they are doing a program where they 
basically talk to every soldier about not only what the rules 
are, what the consequences are, and also, if something is 
happening to you or you think something is happening to you, 
how you deal with that situation. Is that true?
    Sergeant Major Grinston. Congressman, yes. It actually was 
expanded all the way to the FORSCOM units and pretty much I--
the way I explain that, it is inside the continental United 
States, all those allocated forces, not Army National Guard, 
Army Reserve, following Forces Command, and that is called 
Foundational Days.
    It may be a topic on what to do with sexual assault, sexual 
harassment, and what are the rules, and how do you deal with 
that?
    They set aside a day where leaders--going back to This is 
My Squad, leaders have a time that they have got allocated by 
the FORSCOM commander to just talk to their people. It is like 
find out what is going on with your parents? But that is--or 
just say: You know, what is--what is going on with you?
    So the Foundational Days are FORSCOM-wide. If you are just 
talking about sexual assault and sexual harassment, those 
programs at Fort Hood, what is--what they do is called the--
they brought all the resources in one location, and they have 
all the company unit elements, as they go to Fort Hood, will go 
through their people first center that is right there on Fort 
Hood, and then they will explain all the rules and what to do 
exactly if you are harassed in sexual assault and sexual 
harassment.
    Mr. Carter. You know, when I was a judge, we had a juvenile 
program we put together called Know the Truth, Know the 
Consequences. Don't Choose Crime.
    And everybody laughed about it, because it said truth or 
consequences, you know, is--but the real world was it worked. A 
lot of kids did things--stupid things because they were just 
stupid. And, if you actually told them what the stupid acts 
they were doing, it may--our numbers changed substantially.
    It scared a lot of kids, like we would send them a birthday 
card when they turned 17 and say: Congratulations. You are now 
eligible to go to prison if you commit a crime. Happy birthday.
    Mr. Gonzales. That is a great idea.
    Mr. Carter. And, you know, it is a real wake-up call for a 
kid. You are no longer a juvenile at 17. As far as we were 
concerned, you are going to prison. Happy birthday. And it 
shows a picture--you see this birthday cake behind bars. It was 
a great--kids never forgot it. Fact. Okay. But those things 
work.
    So telling--a lot of people do things because they just 
don't know any better, to be honest with you. And that is--from 
a man's point of view, worldwide. That goes on, that they don't 
know--we don't always know the things that offends women. I 
think that is a--that is a clear--not just in the Army. 
Everywhere.
    People just don't--they make light of things that a woman 
may not think is light. And that is just--I don't know how you 
change that culture, but you have got to--you have got to 
educate somebody that, no, no, no, that is offensive; you may 
not think it is offensive, but that is offensive. And most 
decent human beings will change their behavior if they know it 
is offensive.
    So we need to know the truth and know the consequences for 
American males all--well, for males all over the world, quite 
honestly.
    But our program worked. It is just a thought. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is an appropriate note on which 
to close out this hearing.
    And that does conclude today's hearing.
    Thank you to all our witnesses for participating. Your 
testimony here today will allow us to better craft the fiscal 
year 2023 appropriations bill.
    As always, we appreciate your service and look forward to 
continuing this important work with you and to hearing back 
from you on the questions that were unable to be answered for 
the record.
    Our staff on the committee will be in contact with your 
budget office regarding those questions for the record, and I 
know we have several questions to submit. And I would imagine 
other members of the subcommittee do as well.
    If you would please work with OMB to return the information 
for the record to the subcommittee within 30 days of receiving 
them, we will be able to publish a transcript of today's 
hearing and make informed decisions for fiscal year 2023.
    I want to remind members that our next hybrid hearing is 
the Navy and Marine Corps Installations and Quality of Life 
Update on Wednesday, May 18th, at 10:30 a.m.
    And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    

                                           Wednesday, May 18, 2022.

     NAVY AND MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS AND QUALITY OF LIFE UPDATE

                               WITNESSES

LIEUTENANT GENERAL EDWARD BANTA, DEPUTY COMMANDANT OF INSTALLATIONS AND 
    LOGISTICS FOR THE MARINE CORPS, U.S. MARINE CORPS
MEREDITH BERGER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR ENVIRONMENT, 
    INSTALLATIONS AND ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SERGEANT MAJOR TROY BLACK, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE MARINE CORPS, U.S. 
    MARINE CORPS
MASTER CHIEF RUSSEL SMITH, MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE NAVY, 
    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
VICE ADMIRAL RICKY WILLIAMSON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR 
    FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing of the Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
subcommittee will come to order. Thank you all for 
participating in this hearing about the Navy and Marine Corps 
installations and quality of life update.
    Before we begin, 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, 
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 a 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 e-mail address to which members can send anything 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or 
markups. That e-mail address has been provided in advance to 
your staff.
    The subcommittee has come to order. Good morning. Today we 
welcome Navy and Marine Corps installations officials and 
senior enlisted personnel to discuss the fiscal year 2023 
budget, quality of life issues, as well as receiving update on 
installations.
    Today we have before us, Ms. Meredith Berger, Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy for Environment, Installations and 
Energy, Vice Admiral Ricky Williams--Williamson, excuse me, 
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Fleet Readiness and 
Logistics, Lieutenant General Edward Banta, Deputy Commandant 
of Installations and Logistics for the Marine Corps, Master 
Chief Russel, Master Chief Russel Smith, Master Chief Petty 
Officer of the Navy, and Sergeant Major Troy Black, Sergeant 
Major of the Marine Corps.
    Thank you all for joining us today to provide testimony on 
some very critical issues. We as always have a lot to discuss, 
and I look forward to a productive conversation.
    Today we look forward to engaging with the Department of 
the Navy on a host of important subjects that impact our 
sailors and Marines. I was very pleased that the fiscal year 
2023 President's budget request was delivered to Congress early 
enough to allow us to discuss the request in depth at this 
year's hearing, and I was also happy to see the fiscal year 
2023 request is larger than what we saw as inadequate last 
year.
    However, as with other services, I'm once again concerned 
with the budget request's perennial reduction of funding for 
military construction compared to the previous year's enacted 
levels. This trend not only directs impact--directly impacts 
the mission readiness of our forces, but also the quality of 
life of service members and their families.
    The fiscal year 2023 budget request for the Department of 
the Navy and Marine Corps is $4 and a half billion, which is 
$399 million less than the fiscal year 2022 enacted level. 
That's an 8 percent cut.
    Now, I recognize that the fiscal year 2022 spending bill 
offered a particularly high mark compared to recent years, 
however, with so much important MILCON work to be done, higher 
funding should be the norm, not the anomaly.
    This is especially important as we continue to see enormous 
cost increases in projects due to inflation, supply chain 
issues, and labor shortages. MILCON needs are rapidly 
increasing, and the budget should be a reflection of the best 
way to address those needs.
    While the Navy and Marine Corps don't have the most 
egregious cuts below last year's levels, you still should not 
rely on Congress to continuously bail you out.
    I shouldn't have to remind everyone that the military's own 
estimate is that nearly a third of our military infrastructure 
is in fair or poor condition. And repeatedly, whenever I ask 
people who are in front of our subcommittee why the cuts 
continue to be proposed, the answer is just a, well, it's a 
matter of priorities.
    Well, the quality of life of our service members should be 
a high priority, and the readiness of our troops should be a 
high priority. And, toys, for lack of a better term, should not 
be a higher priority than making sure that the quality of where 
our troops live, the readiness in terms of preparing them 
through training centers and other infrastructure investments, 
caring for their children, all of those things impact a service 
member's ability to do their job, and it shouldn't be an 
afterthought or just discarded the first time something else 
becomes more important.
    You know, even though defense spending overall has 
increased every single year, military construction continually 
faces attempted reductions. MILCON isn't just about weapon 
warehouses and warfighting.
    It's about constructing modern, resilient installations 
that can withstand increasingly more powerful natural 
disasters, and no one knows that better than Judge Carter and 
I, and other members on this committee.
    It's combatting climate change and reducing environmental 
impact. It's building child development centers, schools and 
hospitals. It's remediating land and water contaminated by 
harmful chemicals like PFAS. It's providing quality housing for 
our service members and their families.
    As all the services has said in these--have said in these 
hearings, and I assume the Navy and the Marine Corps will say 
today, that the most valuable asset they have is their people.
    Well, you know, as the expression goes, words matter, but 
action matters more. The recruitment, retention, comfort, 
health, protection, and readiness of those people starts with 
MILCON. And there is a more colloquial way to say that as well, 
which I will spare you in a public setting.
    Reducing military construction funding when there is an 
overwhelming backlog of required priorities is not only a 
threat to our nation's security, but it's just bad government.
    That being said, this hearing will also go beyond just this 
fiscal year's budget request. Today, the subcommittee also 
looks forward to discussing quality of life issues and an 
update on installations.
    Sexual assault is still rampant across all services, 
including the Navy and Marine Corps. The subcommittee will seek 
out answers as to why it's still such a significant problem and 
what the Navy and Marine Corps are doing to remedy it.
    We'll talk about child development centers, a high priority 
of our committee members, which strive to provide young 
children of our service members safe and comfortable childcare 
but are still not receiving the attention they deserve from the 
Department.
    We will look for explanations as to why privatized housing 
continues to struggle with oversight and quality assurance, 
including the ongoing fraud scandal by one of its leading 
housing companies, and ask what the Navy and Marine Corps is 
doing to ensure it supports its service members while holding 
its housing partners accountable.
    We'll talk about what the Navy and Marine Corps plans on 
doing about the concerning rise in suicides among sailors and 
Marines, as well as the worrying discriminatory state laws that 
impact, impact all service members.
    And additionally, we look forward to hearing how the Navy 
and Marine Corps are addressing the ongoing remediation of PFAS 
contamination and the transfer of closed installations to their 
local communities.
    As you can see, we have many important issues to discuss, 
and as it's the ongoing mission of this subcommittee this 
hearing is yet another great opportunity to identify how we can 
do more to, to serve those who serve us. We look forward to a 
candid and fruitful conversation.
    And now, I'd like to recognize my friend and colleague, 
Ranking Member Judge Carter for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to 
everybody. Welcome. We're glad to have you here. We're glad to 
see the Navy and the Marine Corps witnesses here today. It's--
today the hearing is going to conclude a review of the 
services' fiscal year 2023 budget requests.
    As we prepare to write our bill, we face many challenges, 
including cost increases, inflation, and how to address the 
large backlog of the inadequate military facilities and 
infrastructure. We didn't arrive at this situation overnight, 
and there's no one thing, one thing or one group that is 
responsible.
    While I regrettably must agree with--that the Defense 
Department has underfunded military construction, I believe it 
is incumbent upon this subcommittee to rectify that. And 
therefore, as my wife told my son when he had chosen to play--
go to spring practice instead of go to baseball his junior 
year, and she said--and then he wanted to play baseball, my 
wife said, ``If you don't ask, the answer's no.''
    Well, you got to ask if you want something and tell us 
these things, and we'll fight the fight.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman, for leading this subcommittee. I 
look forward to continuing to work with you and our colleagues 
to do our best for our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
Marines and guardians and veterans in fiscal year 2023.
    Be sure and ask if you got something we need to know about. 
I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I don't--thank you. The gentleman 
yields back. Thank you, Judge Carter, for your remarks. I don't 
see either Chairwoman DeLauro or Ranking Member Granger.
    Appreciate all the witnesses taking the time to be here and 
sharing your expertise. For opening testimony we'll start with 
Assistant Secretary Berger and move down, move down the list as 
follows, Vice Admiral Williamson, Lieutenant General Banta and 
Master Chief Smith, and then Sergeant Major Black. Without 
objection, all written statements will be entered into the 
record, and you'll be recognized for 5 minutes to summarize 
your opening statements.
    Assistant Secretary Berger, you are now recognized for your 
opening statement to summarize your remarks.
    Ms. Berger. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you Ranking 
Member Carter, and distinguished members of the committee. It's 
my pleasure to be here today to testify on the Department of 
Navy's' installations and qualities of life.
    Secretary Del Toro has identified three enduring priorities 
for the Department of Navy, maintain and strengthen our 
maritime dominance, empower our people, and strengthen our 
partnerships. And we've requested priorities that support--
excuse me, we have requested resources that support these 
priorities.
    Our 95 Navy and Marine Corps installations across the 
country and around the world play an integral role in enabling 
the capacity, lethality, modernization, and readiness of our 
Naval forces. They are the shore platforms that support and 
project our maritime dominance.
    The Department fiscal year 2023 budget requests nearly $3.8 
billion for military construction projects, a $1 billion 
increase over our 2022 request.
    With these resources, we'll continue to optimize our Naval 
shipyards, enable operating capability of platforms such as the 
Columbia-class submarine and the F-35, modernize our support 
infrastructure, and support the relocation of Marines from 
Japan to Guam.
    This budget also invests in facilities that empower our 
people and improve quality of life for our sailors, Marines, 
and their families through the construction of new family 
housing in Guam, a new child development center in San Diego, 
and barracks complexes in Japan.
    This budget request also continues our commitment to 
improve oversight of our privatized housing for families. I 
appreciate this committee's persistent attention in this area, 
and I am committed to working with you to ensure our service 
members and their families have the safe and healthy homes that 
they deserve.
    With an eye towards partnerships and alliances, Marine 
Corps and Navy installations are uniquely situated to build 
relationships in the local communities that host them. We work 
together to collaborate on shared challenges, to develop 
regional plans that enable military readiness and support 
community priorities, and to partner with local Governments to 
obtain installation support services.
    Finally, as members of this committee know and, and the 
chair acknowledged in her opening remarks, we've all seen how 
climate change, sea level rise, and extreme weather directly 
impacts the readiness of our installations. This budget request 
continues the Department of Navy's longstanding approach to 
incorporate resilience into how we operate, plan, construct and 
recapitalize our installations.
    We are also building resilience to flooding and storm surge 
through shoreline restoration projects, and deploying nature-
based solutions across our ranges and installations.
    I'd like to thank the committee for your steadfast support 
and attention to issues most critical to our Marines and 
sailors and for your partnership with the Department of Navy. I 
look forward to answering your questions and engaging today.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Secretary Berger, 
appreciate your, your remarks and, and your service.
    Vice Admiral Williamson, your full written testimony will 
be entered into the record, and you're recognized for 5 minutes 
to summarize your remarks.
    Admiral Williamson. Thank you, ma'am. Congresswoman 
Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished 
members of the subcommittee, in conjunction with the other 
members of the panel I appreciate the opportunity to provide an 
update on the quality and resilience of our Navy installations.
    On behalf of our sailors and their families, thank you for 
your continued support of the Navy, its military construction 
program, and our 71 installations around the world which enable 
us to strengthen readiness and to support the delivery of more 
lethal platforms.
    Additionally, thank you for your ongoing focus on the 
Navy's quality of life programs, which are critical to the 
overall success of our Navy.
    In December of last year, the chief of Naval operations 
issued a call to action for every Navy leader to apply a set of 
Navy-proven leadership and problem-solving practices that 
empower our people to achieve exceptional performance.
    For my organization we have fully embraced this call 
because this is how we have always done business, constantly 
self-assessing and benchmarking as part of an effort to get 
real, and self-correcting our discrepancies to get better.
    To meet the challenges of strategic competition in an 
evolving threat environment, we must enable global logistics 
with a resilient shore infrastructure and be honest about our 
current performance. Maintaining our advantage at sea requires 
transformational change ashore to support and sustain the fleet 
of the future.
    We recently released the Naval Global Strategy Ashore, 
which is the Navy's strategic direction for the Navy shore 
enterprise aligned with the National Defense Strategy. Our Navy 
requires shore platforms to be capable of supporting full 
spectrum, multi-domain conflicts with near peer competitors, 
while also protecting against and responding to and recovering 
from attacks or disruptions intended to degrade operations.
    This strategy provides a roadmap for identifying and 
resourcing all shore operations, activities, and investments 
enabling fleet warfare capabilities that are aligned with the 
CNO's navigation plan.
    Navy installations located in the United States and around 
the world are essential shore platforms from which Naval forces 
train, deploy, maintain forward presence to enable geographic 
combatant commanders to meet operational requirements.
    A modernized and ready organic industrial base is a vital 
component of readiness. The Navy is leading the efforts to take 
an enterprise-wide approach to optimize infrastructure at 
shipyards, depos, and logistic complexes, which repair and 
modernize our ships, submarines, and aircraft.
    The shipyard infrastructure optimization program, SIOP, is 
a critical program to prepare the nation's four public 
shipyards to meet the future needs of the Navy's nuclear-
powered submarine and aircraft carrier force.
    Funding applied to our installation also supports climate 
resilience, which is an important component of the installation 
mission readiness. The Navy works to ensure installations and 
infrastructure are resilient to a wide range of challenges, 
including extreme weather events.
    It is a privilege to testify before the committee today and 
I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Admiral Williamson, 
appreciate your remarks and your service.
    Lieutenant General Banta, your full written testimony will 
be included in the record, and you're recognized for 5 minutes.
    General Banta. Good morning, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, 
Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished members of the 
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Marine 
Corps fiscal year 2023 military construction budget request 
today.
    First, I'd like to thank you for the funding for last 
year's budget request and our unfunded priorities list. That 
funding, which totaled over $2 billion, accelerates our 
commandant's force design initiative, supports quality of life 
projects, and invests in the Marine Corps' ability to fulfill 
its Title 10 obligations now and in the future.
    Our installations play a key role in meeting the challenges 
facing our nation. The Marine Corps' overseas installations are 
especially critical as advanced Naval bases in support of Naval 
and joint operations. We need modernized infrastructure that is 
resilient against threats ranging from kinetic attack to 
cybersecurity breaches to damage from extreme weather.
    To meet these challenges, the Marine Corps has requested 
over $1.2 billion for military construction projects in fiscal 
year 2023. This year's request has a broad focus and includes 
projects that invest in several key areas, including life, 
health, and safety issues, quality of life projects, and 
infrastructure support for new platforms.
    Over half of this request is focused in the Pacific, 
including four projects on Guam that will help posture the 
22,000 Marines located west of the International Date Line in a 
fighting stance.
    The quality of life for our Marines, sailors and their 
families is integral to the readiness and effectiveness of our 
force. A new child development center at MCAS Miramar will be 
complete this summer, and three more projects are planned in 
the fit-up.
    The Marine Corps is in the process of renovating 12 
barracks in fiscal year 2022, and we plan to renovate 15 more 
in fiscal year 2023, which will improve the lives of 
approximately 4,000 Marines.
    Last year the Marine Corps' focus on family housing 
included implementation of the remaining provisions in the 
Tenants Bill of Rights. The Marine Corps continues to work with 
its housing partners and the other services to ensure that our 
housing is safe and meets the needs of our residents.
    This year, we plan to invest over $230 million in family 
housing construction and operations, including building family 
housing units on Guam.
    The Marine Corps strives to invest in, in resilient 
installations that enable operational readiness. Recent 
infrastructure investments include projects that reduce our 
reliance on fossil fuels and off-base energy grids.
    For example, Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany is the 
first Marine Corps net zero installation. The base generated 
more power through green energy sources than it consumed in 
calendar year 2021 and provided about 8 megawatts back to the 
local grid.
    The Marine Corps has also invested in microgrids at five 
installations that can power mission-essential functions for 
more than two weeks, ensuring continuity of operations.
    Finally, the Marine Corps is investing in the modernization 
of its organic industrial base. These projects optimize 
existing facilities, construct new facilities, and improve 
workflow processes and productivity at the Marine Corps' two 
depots.
    The Marine Corps is currently undergoing a significant 
transition in how it is organized, trained, and equipped to 
meet current and evolving threats from our peer adversaries. 
Our operational capabilities are adapting to meet threat 
changes, and we need to invest in next generation 
infrastructure to match the Marine Corps' evolving 
capabilities.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today 
and for your oversight, input, and support as we determine the 
infrastructure requirements that will best position the Marine 
Corps for mission accomplishment.
    I look forward to working with you to sustain our 
warfighting capability and the readiness of our--of our power 
projection platforms, and I look forward to your questions. 
Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, General Banta, and thank 
you for your service.
    Master Chief Smith, you're recognized for 5 minutes to 
summarize your opening statement, and my apologies for not 
greeting you properly when I came in. You're recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Master Chief Smith. Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking 
Member Carter, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
I'm honored to speak to you on behalf of the sailors who serve 
our United States Navy. I've appreciated this opportunity over 
the past four years as an enlisted sailor unique to my position 
to speak to Congress with very unambiguous language.
    Our budget request will perpetuate our readiness to fight 
near peer competitors, and my testimony allows me to highlight 
our greatest priorities.
    Continuous fleet engagement with sailors and their families 
indicates that mental health, childcare, competitive 
compensation, continuing education, and sailor quality of life 
issues are at the forefront of concern.
    An increasingly unstable geopolitical environment has led 
to greater demands for our Naval forces. Sustained, adequate 
funding ensures that we stand ready whenever and wherever our 
nation requires it.
    Our people are the X factor, the decisive advantage that 
cannot be seen when comparing forces on paper. To attract and 
retain a capable force, we must invest in them on par with our 
investment in aircraft, ships, and the submarines we trust them 
to operate.
    While our ships have deployed at a consistent pace over the 
past 34 years, we do so today with just over half the sailors 
we had then and just--and less than half the ships.
    This Optempo has significantly increased challenges to 
mental health and quality of life for our sailors. You 
rightfully expect our sailors deliver--to deliver, and they 
absolutely endeavor to, but they need critical support. 
Emerging from pandemic constraints, we face some of the 
perennial challenges, such as critical shortfalls in childcare 
and mental healthcare capacity.
    The post-COVID environment has also created some new 
challenges, most formidably with recruiting. An abundance of 
altruism amongst this generation portends continued success in 
meeting recruiting goals, but the cost of that effort is, is 
climbing.
    John Paul Jones once said, ``Sailors mean more than guns in 
the rating of a ship,'' implying that the value of combat units 
lies in the quality of the sailors.
    Sailors' living and working conditions directly equate, and 
their living conditions directly equate to combat readiness, 
and are as important as technical training, parts availability, 
and operational sets and reps, the flight hours and steamy--
days we need to be ready.
    The pandemic exacerbated an already critical need for 
greater mental healthcare capacity, as it has for many 
Americans. We've closed some gaps with creative approaches, but 
still battle to better support our sailors. Except for the most 
egregious cases, those at the precipice of suicide, appointment 
times average five weeks.
    I can personally attest to this as I sought care last year, 
last spring, and I had to use a private provider at my own 
expense, something our sailors should never have to endure.
    We are leveraging the most successful models to maximize 
efficiency. An example of this is the San Diego Base Mental 
Health Operational Outreach Division or the MHOOD clinic, which 
serves as a hub for regional resource coordination between the 
chaplaincy, fleet and family support, and many levels of 
clinical treatment caring for approximately 100 walk-ins each 
week.
    Scaling this success and increasing close access to support 
services, including on board ships and at the waterfront 
optimizes readiness. It builds trust with units and commanders 
and reinforces that there is no wrong door for sailors seeking 
care.
    We've had some success, but few outcomes remain achievable 
through efficiencies alone. Mental health programs must 
continue to receive support and recognize we are in a fierce 
competition with the civilian sector for the talent that 
facilitates it.
    A shortage of quality--of affordable quality childcare 
remains a significant issue. Today the demand is as high as 
ever, and the pandemic reduced available options and led to 
cost for private care practically unaffordable for the junior 
sailor income.
    Military construction generated over a thousand new spaces 
and increases to the subsidy assistance programs have defrayed 
the cost, however, the demand still far outstrips the supply, 
leaving a shortage of 4,700 spots in fleet concentration areas 
and an average of 128 days on the waitlist for childcare.
    A key component of combat readiness is retaining our 
workforce. The U.S. Naval Community College will grow critical 
thinking skills and advance fleet performance yield warfighting 
advantages and increase job satisfaction and retention.
    We also continue to improve our advancement and assignment 
processes. The detailing market assignment policy great--places 
greater emphasis on sailor desire, comparing available billets 
with optimal assignment timelines and eventually paying 
compensation. By better recognizing and promoting true talent, 
we are ensuring our best performers feel incentivized to stay 
Navy.
    To fight and win across the maritime domain will always be 
the Navy's top priority best served by ensuring sailors are 
trained, equipped, and their critical needs met able to focus 
on the fight. Our equipment is amongst the best in the world 
but requires trained and resilient sailors to operate it. Our 
sailors will enable victory over an enemy of superior numbers 
and cannot be taken for granted.
    Years from now I believe we will look back and, and--on 
this time and understand this to be an inflection point for the 
Navy. The demands on our service are high, as are the stakes.
    I am grateful to the Congress for their continued strong 
support to ensure sailors are equipped to defend the nation, as 
we can all agree that do more with less is no longer a viable 
course of action in today's security environment.
    It's an honor to be here before you, my final time 
representing our sailors, and I thank you for your unwavering 
support for the men and women of the United States Navy.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Master Chief, and thank 
you for your service, and really wish you Godspeed on, on the 
way to your next endeavor.
    Last, but certainly not least, Sergeant Major Black, your 
full written testimony will be included in the record, and 
you're recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your remarks.
    Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, thank you. Chairwoman 
Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member Carter, and distinguished 
members of the subcommittee, I'm honored to speak to you today 
on behalf of your United States Marine Corps. Your care and 
attention to our Marines and our families is not lost on me, 
and we all appreciate all the endeavors and efforts you have 
provided to us in order to meet our challenges.
    As you know, warfighting is the single most important thing 
to our corps. The Marine Corps is your crisis response force 
because we're required to be a nation's most ready when least 
ready.
    And since I met, last met with you last year, the Marine 
Corps has been called upon to respond to many crises. From 
aboard amphibious ships the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 
along with special MAGTF crisis our Central Command responded 
last year in Afghanistan, conduct the largest non-combatant 
evacuation operation in U.S. history.
    We lost 11 Marines, one Navy corpsman, and one soldier in 
that operation and 16 other Marines were wounded, but we 
brought to the United States 100,000 people from Afghanistan. 
The Marines also supported in, in CONUS the assistance to those 
refugees.
    Simultaneously, a 7.2 earthquake hit Haiti, and Marines 
responded aboard the USS Anchorage in support of that, 
delivering security and 113,000 pounds of support to the 
Haitian people.
    Last year, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit again aboard 
Navy ships simultaneously provided full combat logistics and 
combat support to Central Command and Africa Command.
    Our 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit operating in the Indo-
Pacific in support of deterrence against our adversaries and 
providing support and security to our partners and allies. In 
Southern Command the Marine Corps took part in exercise UNITAS, 
an annual exercise involving 19 partner Marine and Navy 
organizations.
    And most recently, the United States Marine Corps 2nd 
Expeditionary Force was deployed in support of exercise Cold 
Response in Norway strengthening alliances in Europe.
    And today, like every day, there are over 30,000 Marines 
forward deployed and forward stationed in support of our 
nation's defense. Your Marines are currently engaged with our 
partners and allies across the globe, and we thank you for 
their support.
    In addition to the stressors that are associated with these 
deployments and the operation commitments of the Marine Corps, 
life stressors continue to impact our Marines. Marines are 
subject to the same exact stressors as all Americans.
    With regard to suicide, this past year we had a 30 percent 
decrease in deaths by suicide, however, with this decrease we 
were still focused on getting even lower in impact--and how we 
impact suicide prevention. Our education and training in those 
aspects and the leadership that's provided to mitigate the 
suicide behaviors is paramount.
    Sexual assault, sexual harassment remain a challenge within 
the military and the Marine Corps. These behaviors all affect 
the quality of life of our Marines, and they are not tolerated.
    I'd like to thank this Congress for your continued support 
with prevention programs and resources to help us mitigate 
mental health challenges, suicidal behaviors, and sexual 
assault cases, however, we are always looking for ways to 
improve.
    Our Marine Corps doctrinal publication on warfighting talks 
about the human dimension. Success in the battlefield is 
through the moral, mental, and physical success of our Marines.
    As such, one of the things the Marine Corps has taken on in 
the last couple years is develop a holistic human performance 
program that addresses all of these issues in one holistic 
program.
    This strategy is ongoing, and I look forward to bringing 
you updates in the future of how we've collected all of our 
resources, placed them in one strategy that would impact the 
moral, mental, physical, spiritual, and social fitness of our 
corps.
    As mentioned previously by, by my peer, the master chief 
petty officer of the Navy, our true advantage against our 
adversaries is our people, not equipment, not things. It's time 
for us to begin to treat our people like we do those equipment, 
like we do those things.
    This Congress continues to support and gives us advice on 
how to best do that, and I personally thank you. I thank you 
also for the recent resources to construct new child 
development centers, barracks, and privatized military housing 
that do improve the quality of life for our Marines.
    However, one of the top reasons that Marines leave our 
service is due to their poor living conditions. We must 
continue to seek resources in order to approve--improve those 
conditions.
    The Marine Corps is also thankful to the support to our 
commandant with force design specifically, talent management.
    This is the recruit and retention conversation that we 
continually have, how we continue to find the very best Marines 
to serve, how we continually find ways to retain those very 
best Marines, train and educate them to be able to compete and 
overwhelm our adversaries, and this is only through our talent 
management procedures and practices that we are conducting.
    Lastly, we want to continue to foster healthy commands with 
leaders of irreproachable character and then make it known to 
our friends and partners that war is what we do best. We are 
the Marines. We train, we fight, and we win period.
    Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, thank you for your 
continued support. For all members of this Committee, I look 
forward to your questions and discussion. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Sergeant Major 
Black. Thank you for your service, and thank you all for your 
testimony. We will proceed in the standard five-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 to 
answer within your five-minute turn.
    I want to begin today, Assistant Secretary Berger, by 
welcoming you to your first MILCON VA hearing, and I recognize 
that the fiscal year 2022 MILCON, the whole appropriations bill 
and the Omnibus was only enacted in March. But every single 
year the president's request seeks to increase overall defense 
spending, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, but I would say 
for some reason, but I really kind of know what you are likely 
to respond, military construction is consistently neglected.
    The Navy and Marine Corps have requested $4.5 billion. 
That's $400 million less than fiscal year 2022 enacted level of 
$4.9 billion. That is an 8 percent reduction from one year to 
the next, and given the testimony of Sergeant Major Black there 
are really significant quality of life needs, and those quality 
of life needs when not addressed affect retention. And we want 
to make sure that no matter what branch of the service that we 
recruit and retain our best and brightest, and they don't feel 
very respected or appreciated or as prepared as they should be 
without making sure that they don't have distractions from 
their quality of life.
    So can you talk about what impact the level of funding that 
we provided in fiscal year 2022 had and then explain to the 
Committee why the Department's request for fiscal year 2023 was 
dramatically lower than what was enacted in fiscal year 2022? 
And does that indicate, because it's certainly in the message 
that we would receive, that the Navy and Marine Corps simply 
have less needs in fiscal year 2023?
    Ms. Berger. Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, first thank 
you for the additional funding that you were able to put in 
last year. It is funding that we will use and use well and 
purposefully. The request that we put in this year while lower 
than enacted is higher than the request that we put in last 
year. And so as ranking member said, we are telling you more of 
what we need, and so we did put in that higher request for that 
reason.
    Some of the highlights that you will see in the ways that 
we are using this funding are for SIOP, which will give us a 
once in a lifetime opportunity to recapitalize our shipyards. 
This is important for our people and our quality of life 
because this is how we will make sure that they are equipped to 
succeed in terms of mission. We have barracks that are coming 
in at Kadena in Japan. This goes straight to the heart of what 
you talked about, making sure that people have the places to 
live that are in a place that is comfortable for them and 
supports their ability to live, train and be equipped to fight.
    We are looking across at other opportunities as well to 
ensure that we are providing people with the things they need. 
The childcare center that will go in at San Diego is one of 12 
across the FIDAP, and so as we look to make sure that people 
have what they need so that they can focus on their work those 
are some of the highlights in the way that you will see us 
spending.
    We are also taking a hard look that MILCON as one of our 
tools and making sure that we are using resources wisely and 
well in both the Navy and Marine Corps.
    Now I turn to my colleagues to give them an opportunity to 
expand but are looking at how we look at our portfolio as a 
whole so that we are using our MILCON wisely and well and along 
the other types of funding that we have to make sure that we 
are taking care of our installations and supporting our people.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you. As we turn to the 
vice admiral and the general I would like you to give the 
Committee a sense of how you are held back by--and I realize 
the requests are not--they are sent up, and you are here 
defending what was ultimately in the president's budget, but 
how are we going to actually make sure we protect the quality 
of life and address the needs of the military, particularly 
your branches of the service, with continually seemingly lower 
requests than what you actually need? For both of you, the 
admiral and general, whoever wants to go first.
    General Banta. Chairwoman, thanks very much for the 
opportunity to comment on this. So as Secretary Berger 
mentioned we are making investments this year in our quality of 
life to include maintaining our CDCs, investing in family 
housing and renovating barracks. And we had barracks----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I don't have much time.
    General Banta. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So if you can answer my questions 
specifically because it is a lower request, 8 percent lower. 
You definitely have more needs than what was in your request.
    General Banta. Yes, ma'am. It is part of the balanced 
approach that we take across our portfolio. So it does meet our 
immediate needs. We recognize that there is more to do, and we 
would certainly appreciate continued support from the Congress 
as we go forward.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. As I said in my opening 
statement, we can't budget where you ask for less than you need 
counting on us to give you more that is more closely aligned to 
your need. That is not fair, and it is not fair to your service 
members, and it is not fair to us in terms of how we prepare 
our mark for consideration. Admiral Williamson.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am. As Secretary Berger said 
and General Banta, the same hold true for us. Not to give you 
the prioritization but one thing that I want to emphasize to 
you is obviously we take the care of our sailors and their 
families very seriously. One of the things that we have 
implemented and is I believe reflected in our budget submittal 
you mentioned it. My chief taught me a long time ago a ship is 
just a hunk of steel. What makes it lethal are the sailors that 
go in it.
    So having that discussion and applying that to our 
operational outcome has forced us to look internally and make 
the choices necessary, as we will discuss, in childcare, 
housing, some of these other things where you see the increase 
in our budget request.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And just before I yield to the 
ranking member, if Master Chiefs Smith and Black can both 
answer how these requests impact the quality of life of the 
people you represent.
    Master Chief Smith. Madam Chairwoman, I think both Sergeant 
Major and I both very clearly stated in our opening statement 
that we place the highest premium on people. And to the ranking 
member's comment in the beginning about ask, I have been 
bringing it up at this Committee every year I come in here. We 
need money for a firefighting trainer to ensure our ships are 
ready to prevail in combat because the next fight is going to 
be--it is going to start there, and we are going to need that. 
But getting that built, getting that on the list and staying on 
the list because of the low threshold of what gets built with 
the small budget that we have has been painstaking.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sergeant Major.
    Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, first I concur with the Master 
Petty Officer of the Navy, but in every conversation I have 
ever had when it comes to our people one thing, need to put 
more resources towards quality of life for our Marines and 
their families. Installations are large. I think we all know we 
are dealing with a lot of infrastructure that has aged. So how 
do we get rid of some of that infrastructure? How do we replace 
it or just not replace it?
    The cost to maintain however is not part of that resource 
that we have, so it becomes a case of too much, too little to 
sustain it and then what we need to deal with it. That rolls 
over on how the workspaces our Marines work in, the spaces that 
our families live in, their recreation. All those things are 
impacted by these decisions. Just reinforcing what the Master 
Chief Petty Officer of the Navy said. In every conversation I 
have ever been I have said we need more to get after that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, this is why we have the chief 
enlisted leaders here as well because we need to make sure that 
we get a balanced perspective, and that helps us prioritize. So 
I appreciate it. My time has expired, and the Ranking Member is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Did you give us information about what--did you have any 
information about firefighting equipment and the cost? Get it 
to us. We will take a look at it.
    Master Chief Smith. Sir, I do have that information. I 
think that EN-4 probably has the finite information you are 
looking for with cost, but approximately $240 million is the 
ask for the damage control and firefighting trainer. What we 
have right now is a facility that can only demonstrate it 
cannot train or qualify because it has got a crack in the 
foundation, and it has to be raised and rebuilt.
    They cannot put sailors on air, so they can't face fire the 
way you would in a training scenario that would allow us to 
qualify those sailors. So sailors go out to the Bonhomme 
Richard. They arrive in the week before the fire. They are not 
qualified damage control firefighters and have to be removed 
from the situation rather than be contributing to a firefight 
they are not qualified to be in.
    Mr. Carter. Well, if you get us that information, if we get 
lucky--you know, we can always get lucky and maybe can help. I 
got a couple questions for you and Admiral Williamson. The USS 
George Washington I just read an article about unfortunate 
suicides aboard the George Washington while undergoing midlife 
restoration. It appears that the living conditions aboard the 
ship are a contributing factor in affecting the morale of the 
sailors. Question is what is going on? Why are the living 
conditions poor? What has the Navy done, and why does it seem 
the ship's leadership hasn't been actively involved?
    Master Chief Smith. Sir, thank you for the opportunity to 
answer that. Frankly, as you probably are aware, there was 
quite a bit of social media furor over a non-statement that I 
didn't make, but what it did unearth was some real significant 
frustration with the conditions that sailors are exposed to 
there and, frankly, in a lot of other places.
    I think that it is too early to tell you that there is a 
problem with leadership because, frankly, that isn't what I 
smelled when I walked aboard. I had a talk with the crew that 
was very frank. I was very complimentary of what they have to 
do and the conditions they have to endure because to be honest 
with you as a sailor who has been through several dry dockings 
it is the hardest thing, far harder than deployment to go 
through a yard period where you are in dry dock.
    I dutifully own the decisions of our service to prioritize 
the way they do, and when I said things like, ``I can't get 
you. I can't build you,'' it is me recognizing that there are 
no resources apportioned for that. But sailors do need those 
things. They do need quality places to live. They need places 
to get out of the heat zone so to speak in a yard period and 
escape it. There are some challenges that come with the 
geography of Newport News and parking that just don't look 
easily solvable, and the pragmatic answer is just to be honest 
with them and acknowledge and validate how they are feeling, 
the frustration that they are facing while still telling them 
that, frankly, if they don't do what they do the George 
Washington doesn't have another 25 years of life to defend this 
nation.
    So I think we will probably know more after they take a 
little bit deeper look into what is going on in general on the 
ship. We have already moved some folks off. There were some 
sailors who did not want to leave the ship. CNO and I talked 
about this yesterday. But those who are willing to and wanted 
to were moved off recognizing that they are going to be in the 
yards quite a bit longer than maybe they originally thought.
    Mr. Carter. So is it Newport News is the problem?
    Master Chief Smith. I wouldn't say that Newport News is the 
problem but the geography of the base and where it is at. The 
fact that there are two carriers in RCOH which does not happen 
often makes it really, really pressurized when it comes to 
parking facilities of all sorts and the ability to take care of 
sailors the way we would choose to if we could.
    Mr. Carter. Are they working on the ships, or are they just 
living there while somebody else works on the ships?
    Master Chief Smith. No, no, no. They are working, sir. 
Everybody that is there has jobs, frankly, which is the 
frustration. It is not what they were paid to do by the Navy. 
It is not why we hire them. It is what they do to maintain 
their equipment much like a race car driver might be very 
interested in the mechanics that go on underneath the hood 
before they take it out on the track. Our sailors have a job to 
do that also involves maintaining the equipment that they fight 
with.
    Mr. Carter. Well, that is an unfortunate suicide rate 
there. And the George H.W. Bush had the same issues with 
suicide. It just seems to me that maybe you ought to be looking 
into that and come up with some idea to save those lives. 
Admiral, do you want to comment?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. I absolutely agree. In my 
previous life, I was an engineer, and I have done several 
availabilities, and I absolutely agree with MCPON. That is 
probably some of the most challenging times we have. I also 
agree with MCPON that it is not Hampton Roads itself but the 
conditions. Obviously, we are looking at that in SIOP. How do 
we build back better? How do we build what is necessary to 
accommodate two ships and availability going forward not only 
for the maintenance of the ship but also the maintenance the 
sailor?
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you. That is not real satisfactory, 
but at least I have got some glimmer into what is going on. By 
the way, I live in Williamson County in Texas named after a 
hero of the battle of San Jacinto, so you have got a good name.
    The issues on the firefighting equipment we got some extra 
last year. You might get some this year. We always pray for it, 
and maybe we could do something about that because I know fire 
onboard ship is a really, really, really, really bad thing, and 
you have got to be able to be well trained on that. And if we 
are not getting the equipment for them to train we have got to 
do it somehow. I am going to at least start to work on that for 
you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields 
back. The Chair of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, you are 
recognized for five minutes, and welcome to MILCON VA.
    The Chair. Well, thank you very, very much, Madam Chair, 
and I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I want to 
thank our witnesses for testimony this morning.
    As the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, Congresswoman 
Wasserman Schultz and myself you know that we are committed to 
do all that we can to help improve the quality of life for our 
service members and their families. On February 17 of this 
year, a recall was issued on Abbot Nutrition's infant formula 
product due to bacteria contaminated products at the company's 
Sturgis, Michigan, plant. That has related in infant deaths and 
hospitalizations.
    I have been closely tracking all the national infant 
formula shortage as has a member of this subcommittee, 
Congressman Sanford Bishop, who chairs the Agriculture 
Subcommittee of Appropriations. And we were tracking that and 
the recalled product with food safety at the forefront. And 
while we introduced and emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill to address the domestic supply of the formula we would 
also to address the long-term root causes of the issue so that 
we can try to prevent this from happening again.
    And military families are not exempt from the challenges 
that face other American families, and I am eager to hear from 
you about how we can address the infant formula shortage issue 
for service members and their families.
    Just two questions which I would like to pose to Assistant 
Secretary Berger and anyone else who might want to join. What 
challenges are military stores having in restocking their 
shelves? How can we better support them in securing infant 
formula for service members' families, and what are your 
departments hearing regarding the current experience of service 
members and their families in securing infant formula?
    Ms. Berger. Congresswoman, this is an issue of which I am 
aware, but I also know that our senior enlisted have very good 
visibility on the topic, and I would like to yield for their 
expertise for our responses.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you.
    Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, good morning. Sergeant Major 
Black here, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. This is a great 
topic, and this current challenge with baby formula just 
highlights a greater challenge that we are having, and I will 
give you one example.
    Primarily, I would use the conversations that the 
Commandant and I have had on travel when we get out to our 
distant locations, things that are outside the Continental 
United States, Okinawa for us, Guam for us, at the end of the 
supply chain, as it were. In those locations, we learned a few 
things during COVID, and that was at the end of the supply 
chain there is less and less opportunity for families to have 
what they need. This is just another in a series of those 
challenges.
    Now, how that supply chain works the myriad challenges 
there are to maintain that and to get supplies where we need to 
be to sustain our families is a very complicated one, Ma'am. I 
think that is something we should probably come back with a 
more detailed description of. But what I can tell you having 
visited those locations, Ma'am, there are challenges, and there 
are things we need to get after. This current challenge with 
the formula is just one of those.
    The Chair. Well, I know, and I see Congressman Bishop on 
the phone and on the Zoom. He chairs the Ag Subcommittee, and 
this issue is important to that subcommittee, and to that end 
there is a hearing tomorrow that he is holding with the 
director of the FDA, Dr. Califf. But what we need to know from 
you is how--we need to work together with you as to how we are 
really providing for our servicemen and women here, and I am 
sure they are frantic about being able to get a product so that 
they can feed their babies.
    And so we would really like to know what the situation is 
with the military and then work with you as to how we can 
address it so that that becomes part of the answer to this 
very, very serious crisis. Families should not have to choose 
between supply and safety, and we want to make sure that when 
we are talking about families we are including our military 
families as well.
    We would very much appreciate a report from you or 
information from all of you that can provide us with what 
information we need to work in conjunction with addressing this 
problem.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I am happy to yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Gentlelady 
yields back.
    Mr. Gonzales, you are recognized for five minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate your 
leadership on this hearing. I am going to focus on the USS 
George Washington because when we think about housing we 
traditionally think about brick and mortar but not life onboard 
a ship. For me, my toughest time in the Navy was when I was in 
three section duty as a senior chief on the Michael Murphy. You 
are either on duty, getting off duty or about to get back on 
duty, and it was very difficult for my family.
    I am going to lean on you, MCPON, because, one, there is no 
more stars we can give you. There is no more medals we can pin 
on your chest, and I think you can give me some straight 
answers. One is how many sailors have passed away during your 
time as MCPON?
    Master Chief Smith. Sir, I don't have the exact number of 
how many have passed away since August 28, 2018. I read all the 
sitrep messages that come through that discuss suicides. As 
somebody who myself as a young kid was in that same situation I 
can empathize and sympathize, and it is why we place the 
highest priority on our people.
    Mr. Gonzales. Right. Right. What about you, Sergeant Major? 
How many Marines have died while you have been Sergeant Major 
of the Marine Corps?
    Sergeant Major Black. Over 150.
    Mr. Gonzales. Thank you. This is very important. Sailors 
dying is the last member we want any family member to have to 
deal with. MCPON Smith, out of the sailors that died onboard 
the USS George Washington how many were living onboard the 
ship?
    Master Chief Smith. It is my understanding that four were 
living onboard the ship.
    Mr. Gonzales. Okay. I have been told that sailors 
eventually had the option of moving off the ship is what pretty 
much stopped the suicides from occurring. Why did it take three 
sailors committing suicide in a week to find them habitable 
housing?
    Master Chief Smith. The ability to--first of all, the 
actions of the crew and the horrible circumstance of suicide 
did not wake someone to the problem to make them say now we 
need to move people offboard. Recognizing that they were going 
to be in the yards a lot longer and knowing that instead of 
moving them off and then trying to move them right back on a 
month later that now we are projecting I think it is March of 
2023 that we can put them somewhere they will be put and 
minimize the churn, frankly, of moving them on, moving them 
off, moving them on because that is also incredibly disruptive. 
I think it is telling that some sailors did not choose to move 
off.
    Mr. Gonzales. I have limited time here. If you lose one 
sailor or marine or airman or soldier or guardian, I mean, that 
should be a wakeup call to any leadership. If there is a DUI, 
if there is a sexual assault, anything in that line, that is a 
red flag that says something is wrong. Three people in a week 
is a glaring issue. What I am getting at is we can't just 
continue to run the same plays and expect different results to 
happen, finding ways around it. This isn't going to be the last 
ship that is in the yards, and how do we prevent that next ship 
from having these same issues?
    My next question is for you, MCPON. The Navy sent a Special 
Psychiatric Rapid Intervention Team, SPRINT, to the USS George 
Washington in late April. These teams provide short-term mental 
health short to requesting commands after traumatic events. Who 
requested this team, and when did they arrive?
    Master Chief Smith. Command requested the team, and they 
arrived within, I believe, 48 hours of being requested. I would 
have to go back and look.
    Mr. Gonzales. Okay. That is fair. How many personnel are on 
this team?
    Master Chief Smith. I can't tell you. It depends on the 
size of the unit. It depends on what the need of the command 
is, what the ask is. It is tailored to the issue at hand.
    Mr. Gonzales. Was this SPRINT team able to connect with any 
sailors--was the SPRINT team able to connect any sailors with 
local resources for long-term mental healthcare?
    Master Chief Smith. Yes.
    Mr. Gonzales. Do you know how many sailors?
    Master Chief Smith. I don't know off the top of my head.
    Mr. Gonzales. Okay. To me, basically, the damn broke. 
Sailors were dying. The SPRINT team to me is what stopped that, 
and it took the leadership a while to figure out to use a 
SPRINT team. I would love to learn more about it. I would love 
for us to study how we can get ahead of this. Do you know the 
cost? How many SPRINT teams could have been deployed? Do you 
know the cost of the SPRINT teams?
    Master Chief Smith. I don't know the exact cost because 
again it's scalable. It depends on the circumstance. So it is 
going to be more depending on the size of the unit and what the 
ask is. What I can tell you is that as soon as the ask was made 
the team was put together, and they were sent down there to 
talk to the crew. It is not the only thing that was done, and 
it was not the third suicide that prompted it because we always 
make the offer for help and assistance as soon as something 
like that happens on a unit. There is an investigation that 
will I believe look into the command climate and other things 
that may have been contributing factors, but it is too early to 
tell, and I don't have the results of that. So I can't----
    Mr. Gonzales. And I know I am out of time, but I will just 
say when we think of housing we traditionally think of brick 
and mortar. It isn't that way in the Navy. It isn't that way in 
the Marine Corps. It isn't the way in services, and I want to 
prevent--how can this committee help prevent the next suicide, 
the next death from occurring regardless of service?
    Madam Chair, I am out of time, and I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Would you like a response, or are 
you finished?
    Mr. Gonzales. I am finished. Second round.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The Gentleman yields 
back.
    Mr. Case, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Case. Master Chief, I do want to follow on my 
colleague's questions because we can talk installations and 
buildings and a lot of things, but when you lose three sailors 
like that it breaks your heart, and it makes you ask the 
question that I have asked, which is what are we doing or not 
doing in this Congress?
    I had a very long talk with Sergeant Major Black yesterday 
about this, and I asked him the simple question what are we 
missing? Are we missing that conditions are different or that 
personnel are different or that command is different or that 
installations are different? Why are we still losing good 
people? And let me just make one other point. And I am asking 
it not only broadly as a member of Congress, not only as a 
member of the Appropriations Committee but today as a member of 
the Military Construction Committee.
    So I think from that perspective is, well, take care of 
housing and childcare and facilities that can actually maintain 
and improve the quality of life. But I have to ask myself the 
question is that it? I mean, is that all I can do on this 
subcommittee at least? So I need that same straight answer. 
What am I missing?
    Master Chief Smith. So the best answer I can give you, sir, 
frankly, sailors are no different than we were. We have 
different priorities. We have different skills and attributes, 
but sailors are no better or worse than we were when I first 
came in. They still have the same basic human needs. When a 
sailor takes their own life, it breaks my heart because there 
are a lot of things that we do to try and keep people on the 
team, and we need every member we have on our team.
    I have myself been in a place where I struggled, and I had 
teammates who swelled up around me. I lived on my first two 
ships. We don't do that anymore. We have home port ashore. But 
there are lots of things that have to converge. Some of it is 
on our end. Our chief petty officers, our senior NCOs need to 
do more to lean in and be that first care provider, to be that 
first compassionate shoulder that says what's going on that 
recognizes a change in pattern that lets you know that 
something is different, and something needs to be done.
    I had a friend, Commander Joe Price, who was one of my 
junior officers when I was at SEAL Team 4 in the mid 1990s, and 
when I ran into him again he was getting ready to take over as 
the CO of SEAL Team 4, and we met over in the Far East, and I 
had a great couple of days with him, and when I left and went 
back to the fleet as a command master chief on the destroyer 
and I heard that he had taken his own life as the CO of that 
team in theater, it blew me away because I had just seen him. 
And I still to this day wonder, did I miss something? Is there 
something I didn't see?
    Suicide is a massive problem for us because it's the one 
thing we can prevent absolutely by getting inside people's 
headspace and connecting to them. And we talk a lot at the deck 
plate level about the connectedness. There's no app, there's 
no--honestly, better barracks will help. Quality of life issues 
absolutely make a difference. But the way we need to get after 
this is mostly on our end. We need to connect in a way that we 
haven't done in a couple of decades, because electronics have 
taken us away from that human interconnection that helps us 
understand what's going on in a teammate's head.
    But to the point that you asked: What can you do? Sir, I 
have to be honest with you, the priorities, as the Chairwoman 
pointed out--and the Sergeant Major and I prioritize people--
it's really hard for the Navy because they're not toys, they're 
weapons. These are the things we use to fight. We are--a navy 
can't fight without a ship or an aircraft, a submarine, or the 
things we use as implements of war. And that's a conundrum 
because we have to buy those things, and the technology that 
comes in them matters.
    But a ship is not--when you commission a ship, they say, 
now bring her to life. And it is when the sailors rush in that 
that actually happens. And we do place the highest premium on 
people. I would probably make different puts and takes to make 
sure that I had the shore facilities. We had a secretary who 
used to say constantly, infrastructure equals readiness. If you 
look back to the shore and there's no pier, if you look back to 
the shore and there's no logistics team like we have been 
experiencing on both--in both theaters, we are not able to 
fight.
    The Truman, after they got the RAS that--I went out to the 
Truman last week and one--right before I got there they had a 
RAS that brought them up to 32 percent. They have 600 pallets 
on the way that will make them whole on about the 1st or 2nd of 
June. But it has taken that long to get supplies because of a 
confluence of problems and issues, some preventable, a lot of 
them not. But nobody cares, I promise you, more than the 
quality of life of our sailors and Marines than the two of us 
sitting at the ends of this table.
    Mr. Case. Thank you for your honest answer.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Valadao, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all 
our witnesses today for your time and testimony.
    I want to echo what my colleagues have said today that 
regarding suicide and mental health, in preparing for today's 
hearing I was reviewing some of the questions from last year, 
and my first question was on mental health, and I am obviously 
incredibly concerned again. We need to discuss these tragic 
losses of life.
    I don't know if the problem lies in funding, culture, 
access or that we are simply just not asking the right 
questions. But from some of the testimony today, obviously it 
is all of the above. But we need to do more because what we are 
doing is obviously not enough.
    On the George Washington, there was 2,700 soldiers from 
what I--or sailors on there from what I understand. Four 
hundred of them were staying on the ship itself. And from what 
I've read, almost 300 have been given accommodations off the 
facility or off the ship. There's still about 100 left.
    What is the situation with those 100?
    Master Chief Smith. It is my understanding there is about 
184 that still reside on the ship, and what I got in the 
conversation I had indirectly, because I was not there 
yesterday, is that they chose to stay on the ship. So to be 
honest with you, as somebody who does not like a long commute, 
I have suffered through conditions on ships because I would 
rather not deal with a longer commute. But it is my 
understanding also that those sailors were all offered a place 
to move off to.
    Mr. Valadao. So they do have access to some facility if 
they wanted to--if they chose to leave the ship right now?
    Master Chief Smith. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Valadao. Okay. And then you mentioned a review of the 
situation there. From what I have read, it looks like it might 
not be ready till March of next year. Is that accurate?
    Master Chief Smith. It is my understanding that March of 
23, but I will find out and I will get a better answer back to 
you.
    Mr. Valadao. Okay. Is there any way we can speed that up if 
it is accurate that it is March?
    Master Chief Smith. I would probably have to defer to a 
whole lot of other folks that do ship maintenance to answer 
that. But I will get you an answer. We will take that for the 
record, sir, and answer that.
    Mr. Valadao. And then my colleague here mentioned having 
people on--having access to folks to talk to, that our sailors 
have the ability to talk to. I married into a Navy family, and 
obviously I have a lot of friends, Naval Air Station Lemoore 
being in the district, a lot of constituents and friends who 
are sailors and have spent a lot of time away from family not 
having access to ways of communicating with their family.
    Has that changed much over the years? Is that something we 
are looking into?
    Master Chief Smith. The ability to communicate with----
    Mr. Valadao. With their own family. Obviously we want them 
to have access to people who are experts, but if they have--if 
they don't have that, at least having access to talk to their 
own family to give them some sense of home.
    Master Chief Smith. So over Thanksgiving I went out to the 
USS Carl Vinson, served them Thanksgiving dinner, and when we 
were out there noted that they have something called O3b, which 
provides near constant access to the internet. Obviously 
operational concerns, they do shut if off from time to time.
    But sailors could Facetime from their personal device at 
sea. And we have something called Star--Starlink? Starlink 
which is going to be far cheaper and we're able to put it on 
smaller platforms, and that is going to be coming in the--and 
incidentally, the Carl Vinson saw a dramatic drop in suicide-
related behaviors after they installed O3b.
    Mr. Valadao. And so with people having access on--you 
mentioned it, but that--making sure that sailors are not giving 
away any sort of critical mission details is obviously a 
concern. But we have not seen any concerns on that front yet.
    Master Chief Smith. Well, to be honest with you, as a CI 
person, there is always risk and that scares the crap out of 
me. But frankly, the way the ship has managed it with what we 
call missions control, MCON, they have done a great job.
    Mr. Valadao. And the Starlink you mentioned is the one that 
I think we have all heard about from the private side, right?
    Master Chief Smith. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I appreciate that, and that 
is something obviously that there is a lot of concern from all 
of us.
    Master Chief Smith. To the point, sir, that you made, the 
best part about that is with O3b, Vinson saw a dramatic drop in 
suicide-related behaviors. There is something to being able to 
be connected when you are away from home.
    Mr. Valadao. Well, and even just in the last few days I 
have had at least one spouse mention that they have not 
communicated with their spouse in probably four weeks. So----
    Master Chief Smith. Not every unit has it, but they do have 
things like sailor phones, email and lots of other ways to 
communicate currently.
    Mr. Valadao. All right. Well, I appreciate that.
    Ms. Berger, on base housing, it is great to hear that you 
are prioritizing visiting our bases. I can personally attest to 
that that you gain much deeper understanding of the issues 
facing our servicemembers by seeing these facilities firsthand, 
and I am sure you would agree that there is much to be done.
    In your testimony you mentioned you are working on a review 
of the unaccompanied housing facilities and a 10-year plan to 
address those facilities that are in unsatisfactory condition. 
Can you tell us about what you have seen so far?
    Ms. Berger. Yes, I have had the opportunity to visit some 
of the unaccompanied housing and see firsthand, and as you 
noted, leadership eyes on is important. We are taking a look, 
as directed under the NDA, to make sure that we have a 10-year 
plan with a focus first on those that are in the worst state of 
repair. So our Q3/Q4 and making sure that we prioritize those 
first and will provide the report to Congress as requested with 
more detail.
    Mr. Valadao. Any idea when that report will be done?
    Ms. Berger. I will need to check but I think it is this 
summer that we will have it.
    Mr. Valadao. Okay, and I appreciate that because I think 
all of us are very interested in the results of that.
    And I'm sorry, I didn't notice the time. I have added time, 
so I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields 
back. I'm adding leeway just because of how critical some of 
these topics really are.
    Okay. Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for five minutes of 
questions. And Mr. Bishop is virtual.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 
Let me just emphasize the concerns that were raised by our 
Chairwoman, Ms. DeLaurio. She and I introduced legislation to 
try to address the situation with the infant formula, and I 
understand that it is a great deal--it has a tremendous impact 
on morale and welfare of our Navy personnel if they have 
problems at home of feeding their babies. And of course a 
shortage of the infant formula, the safety of the infant 
formula is something that has got to be vitally important to 
the quality of life of our military personnel.
    I would like to ask you if you would just comment on 
whether or not you have heard of concerns from servicemembers 
and families with regard to that, and if during the last 
several weeks where it has come to the forefront there has been 
any response at all with respect to Navy personnel. Is AFIS and 
do the commissaries have access to adequate infant formula? Is 
it a problem with our military families just as it is with the 
broader general public?
    Sergeant Major Black. Congressman Bishop, thank you again 
for the question, sir. Sir, I will just make a comment that I 
mentioned before. The current challenge with baby formula 
highlights a longer problem that has been going on for some 
time, mostly COVID-related originally, complicated by our 
supply chain challenges during that period and now it is being 
highlighted once again with the baby formula issue.
    Here is what I would offer, sir, as another just 
reinforcement of that point. The commandant and I traveled to 
Okinawa here a couple of months ago. That is about at the end 
of our supply chain when it comes to support to our families, 
the commissaries and exchanges in this thing. In those 
locations it did not just occur in the last couple of weeks 
where there was a shortage of necessary items.
    So baby formula currently is an issue, but the overall 
challenge, sir, is not something new. So in a greater sense, 
the supply chain challenges that we have are the root cause at 
this point of these challenges for our families in disparate 
locations.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Please know that we are doing our 
darnedest to try to get this bull by the horns and get it 
addressed.
    Let me turn to climate change for a moment. Could I ask you 
to--the panel to comment on concerns with regard to changes in 
naval operations as a result of climate change, and what has 
the Navy and the Marine Corps done--what have they done to 
implement resiliency for you with respect to climate change and 
sea levels which have accompanies that? How is that impacting 
naval operations and what are the projections and how are you 
going to handle it?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman Bishop, the Department of the Navy 
has identified climate change and its impacts as a mission-
critical focus. It is something that impacts everything that we 
do from acquisition to execution of mission, and it is a 
warfighting imperative.
    We have identified critically in-trouble installations on 
both coasts, and we are looking across the enterprise at how we 
can be more resilient. This includes our buildings, the way 
that we are building and assessing the resilience. We have put 
installation resilience plans into effect across the Navy and 
we'll be soon complete on the Marine Corps.
    This is something that touches at every point, and I want 
to make sure to leave some time for my partners here to comment 
specifically on how impactful it is to them.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the 
question. Obviously a lot of our Marine Corps and Navy bases 
are very close to coastlines, so mission readiness is 
absolutely vital and being able to combat against any threat 
that impacts that mission and our bases.
    We work very closely with our commands. We have a climate 
change handbook which allows us to better plan our base design. 
We've increased work with academia and the local communities 
who also in those areas suffer from the same things. And that 
is a result of our--results in us looking at higher standards, 
whether it be earthquake, hurricanes, whatever the case may be.
    In addition to that, we also use the climate assessment 
tool, which gives the commander the potential impact to his 
base and also some degree of the exposure of his base.
    We are also leveraging technology. The United States Naval 
Academy is a fantastic example of this where they have actually 
built a digital twin which shows the impact to climate--
potential climate change over time. We are looking at being 
able to expand that to our other bases. And I can give you more 
examples but I want to be courteous of the time, ma'am.
    Mr. Bishop. Marine Corps?
    General Banta. Thank you, Congressman. Just to add to what 
both Admiral Williamson and Secretary Berger said, completely 
concur with the impact that it has to our installations and the 
importance of resiliency in the face of climate change.
    I would offer you as an example the rebuilding of Camp 
Lejeune in the wake of Hurricane Florence, building to all the 
latest unified facilities criteria, rebuilding in areas that 
are out of the 100- or 200-year floodplain, and then also 
leveraging other things like installation master planning 
efforts and microgrids to improve the resiliency of our power 
systems and our water systems aboard our installations to 
better protect against the effects of climate change. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I believe my time is expired, but I 
thank you for your responses.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 
The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Rutherford, who is participating virtually, you are 
recognized for five minutes of questions.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
    I would like to follow up on Congressman Bishop's line of 
questioning on some of the shoreline repair projects. Assistant 
Secretary Berger, I understand there is an issue where some 
shoreline repair projects using sheet piling are designated as 
construction projects where--that require millions of dollars 
while other projects using riprap are classified as repair 
projects and only require O&M dollars. And my understanding is 
that the use of sheet piling is more cost effective, requires 
less of a footprint actually, and is actually more--has less 
environmental impact.
    So last year, Assistant Secretary Shaffer said the 
department was working on classifying the definition--
reclassifying, I guess, the definition so that shoreline repair 
projects would be more easily accessible to installations. Can 
you tell me, are these discussions still continuing and are you 
going to expand the definition of what qualifies as a repair 
project?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman Rutherford, I first agree that 
shoreline resilience is essential to making sure that we 
enhance our resilience. I was remiss, as long as we are on this 
theme of climate and resilience--the Navy, the Department of 
the Navy is soon to release its climate strategy, and you will 
see a lot of the items that you all are identifying reflected 
in there as we continue to move forward very purposefully on 
focusing on this type of resilience in the aggregate.
    To your specific question, sir, I would need to go back and 
get you a firm answer on that. I do not know where the 
definition exchanges, but I am glad to follow up on that and 
give you a fuller answer.
    Mr. Rutherford. That would be great. I know Marine Corps 
Support Facility Blount Island specifically has some work that 
could certainly use a redefinition.
    And so let me ask this question as well. The last time I 
visited Naval Station Mayport, they briefed me on the projects 
that they have developed to address resiliency issues on the 
base there. And it is my understanding if they were able to 
bundle all of their resiliency projects, it would cost $180 
million in military construction.
    However, MILCON process requires them to request each 
project individually. Are you looking at ways that we can 
actually bundle these projects so that we can get better cost 
savings out of it?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, in terms of our acquisitions 
strategies in general, we always look to make sure that we are 
getting the best return on value for dollars. And so if there 
is an opportunity to package any of these projects that are 
pursuing, whether because they are near in geography or they 
are of similarly suited need where we might be able to find an 
efficiency there, it is certainly something that we pursue.
    This is also a place where we can make sure that we are 
considering our small business partners and taking a look to 
make sure that we are connecting those opportunities which can 
often be more of a challenge. So we use an eye towards that as 
well to make sure that we are inclusive of the people who can 
provide support services to us.
    Mr. Rutherford. Okay, thank you. And I would like to jump 
back to privatized military housing. I know earlier, Vice 
Admiral Williamson and Lieutenant General Banta, we had a 
hearing earlier this year on the issues with military 
privatized housing, and quite frankly I was shocked to hear how 
many children are falling out of windows. And I know in the 
fiscal year 2018 NDAA, the Navy was working to implement the 
Evan's Law that came out of that bill to retrofit these windows 
of privatized military housing facilities.
    But I understand we have even had one child fall out of the 
building that had the retrofit. Is anyone looking to make sure 
that the retrofit is going to be sufficient to stop children 
from falling? Obviously it is not right now because we have 
already had one fall out. Again, can either of you answer that, 
what we are doing on that?
    Admiral Williamson. Sir, this is Admiral Williamson. I am 
sorry, I was not tracking that incident, but you are absolutely 
right. If that did occur after we put the required compliance 
to prevent that, we absolutely will have to go back and take a 
look at it. So I will be happy to come back to you, do the 
research and provide you any information I can find.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much. And Madam Chair, I 
think my time is expired.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford. The 
gentleman's time is expired.
    Ms. Pingree, you are recognized for five minutes of 
questions.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you so 
much to all of the witnesses. I appreciate your service and 
your testimony today. I apologize, I have been going back and 
forth to other hearings and have not had a chance to listen to 
all the questions, but let me ask a couple of things.
    I want to talk about something in the SIOP. As you might 
know, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is in my district in Kittery, 
Maine, and I want to address climate change issues there which 
I know a couple of your recent questions have also done.
    Naval shipyards obviously are very vulnerable to sea-level 
rise, and a 2016 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists 
found that without efforts to prevent or reduce flooding, 
Portsmouth would be permanently impacted by increasingly 
frequent and severe tidal flooding, and the threat of storm 
surge may become intolerable for shipyard operations.
    Fortunately, I know there are efforts underway at 
Portsmouth to address resilience need and to mitigate flood 
risk. Additionally, this subcommittee included language in the 
fiscal year 2022 report urging DOD to prioritize efforts to 
improve the resilience of military installations and to 
encourage installations to develop plans that take into account 
future and current--current and future risks from extreme 
weather, including sea-level rise.
    So, Admiral Williamson, as part of the SIOP, I understand 
the Navy has formulated detailed area development plans 
intended to guide the key improvements at each shipyard based 
on modeling information developed as part of the shipyard's 
data collection efforts. How is the Navy incorporating data and 
modeling around climate risk, including sea-level rise, into 
these plans and to what extent will the Navy prioritize 
infrastructure upgrades that specifically address installation 
resiliency?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much for the 
question. Obviously, as we build the detailed plans to build 
the shipyards back, the resilience of the shipyard is 
absolutely a priority. I will give you a great example of the 
dry dock in Norfolk that is currently being constructed. We 
exceeded the NDAA language in the build-back. We went to the 
300-year floodplain.
    As you mentioned, using data--I talked about the Naval 
Academy and the modeling they did based upon the project sea-
level rise there. How do we leverage that data and apply it to 
all the shipyards to get a more holistic view of when we 
develop our projects that not only are we in accordance with 
the UFC standards but also in accordance with resilience as it 
pertains to those shipyards.
    Additionally, I think for all the shipyards we are very 
dependent along--on the local community. So also looking and 
partnering with the local community, local academic as I 
mentioned, ODU down in Norfolk, the University of Hawaii in 
Pearl Harbor, to gain better understanding and leverage their 
learning so that when we put back the shipyard that it will 
last for the next 100 years and also be resilient to any 
potential earthquake, flooding, hurricanes, all those things.
    Over, ma'am.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you, and I so much appreciate that this 
is part of the focus because those of us who are in coastal 
communities and coastal states are certainly worried about 
this.
    My other question is about the Portsmouth dry dock 
extension project, and I might run out of time but I am--if we 
don't get a chance to answer, I will be happy to get your 
answer afterwards.
    In the current plan, there is the ongoing multi-mission Dry 
Dock Number 1 modernization project, which I think we all know 
is critical to East Coast maintenance and repair capabilities 
for the Virginia-class submarines. We all know how critical 
those investments are, and years of underfunding in the 
shipyard infrastructure facilities and capital equipment, most 
of which is past its expected service life, has left all four 
shipyards in poor condition.
    I want to talk about the serious challenges the Navy has 
had in accurately assessing what this effort will cost. The 
initial price tag of 21 billion over 20 years looks to be a 
significant underestimation. The GAO recently reported that dry 
dock costs alone have already exceeded the expected level by 
over 400 percent.
    For Portsmouth in particular, we know the naval cost 
estimate for the multi-mission dry dock project was well off 
the mark, and without the additional funding that this 
Committee was able to provide for fiscal year 2022, the project 
could have been disrupted due to the Navy's miscalculation.
    I am just interested to know what specific lessons the Navy 
has learned from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard dry dock 
modernization project in terms of improving its cost estimates, 
and how is the Navy applying these lessons learned to ensure 
that cost estimates for the future improvements--the funding 
for Portsmouth and other dry dock projects--are as accurate as 
possible?
    I just used up the last minute of my time, so I know we 
will move on to another member, but I really would appreciate 
if you could follow up in writing on that particular question.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much and I yield back, Madam 
Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentlelady yields 
back, and I assume you will be able to answer her question for 
the record. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Crist, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Berger, I was pleased to see in your testimony 
that the Navy is investing in energy, climate and cyber 
resiliency in Fiscal Year 2023. As you know, there are Navy 
installations across Florida like in Pensacola, Key West, 
Jacksonville, where the storm surges could inundate these 
installations, and floodwaters.
    You touched on this briefly in your testimony, but can you 
expand on the investments the Navy is making to rapidly respond 
to extreme weather events?
    Ms. Berger. Yes, Congressman, and thank you for the 
question. Being from Florida, I know we both really appreciate 
the impacts that happen when we see the impacts of climate 
change.
    Mr. Crist. Where in Florida are you from?
    Ms. Berger. Fort Lauderdale, sir.
    Mr. Crist. Excellent. Beautiful Broward.
    Ms. Berger. Yes, beautiful Broward.
    Mr. Crist. Please continue. Thank you.
    Ms. Berger. Yes, sir. But I grew up knowing about those 
impacts, and so recognize them very forcefully and sharply as I 
think about it in the context of the Department of the Navy.
    And so the investments that we are making go across the 
spectrum. It is to harden our installations when we do have the 
opportunity to be strengthening, rebuilding, repairing when we 
see those impacts. It is creating opportunities for resilience 
in terms of our energy so that if we do see a storm impact come 
through, there is opportunity for both storage and that 
resilience so that we can continue with mission.
    It is making sure that we are thinking about what it means 
to be operating in this environment, everything from salinity 
to temperature to other impacts that we see on our 
installations, and we are investing across the spectrum as we 
think about this, and I mentioned the strategy that is coming 
out.
    We think about this as climate readiness is mission 
readiness, and we see this as a warfighting imperative because 
we think about our installations as the place from which we 
launch, and in every way that they are impacted, we are further 
challenged in the way that we execute.
    And so for that reason, those are the types of investments 
we are making: our energy resilience, making sure that we have 
that independence when we are impacted by storms, strengthening 
those installations and ensuring that the people who live 
there, work there, train there and launch from there are able 
to succeed in their mission.
    Mr. Crist. Excellent.
    Hurricane Michael caused considerable disruption to 
shipbuilding operations in Panama City, Florida. There are many 
shipbuilding hubs, just not on the Gulf Coast but across the 
country, that face similar risks. It is only a matter of time 
before we may see major damage to a shipyard from a hurricane 
or similar extreme weather event.
    What are we doing to improve resiliency at shipyards, 
especially those where we are building vessels vital to our 
national defense security?
    Please.
    Ms. Berger. Yes. As Admiral Williamson mentioned in terms 
of shipyard resilience, that is a consideration as we do our 
planning in SIOP. We have to plan against floodplains, storm 
surges and some of the impacts that I just mentioned.
    I have had the chance to travel to shipyards where we are 
seeing this building, and they are considering similar 
resilience efforts as we consider as the Department of Navy. 
And so whether it is in our public shipyards where we are 
focused in working more in our partners' private shipyards 
there. Similarly looking at opportunities to share energy 
resilience and otherwise strengthen there.
    Also lifting things up off the ground to make sure that it 
is at that higher flood plain. So, as I've had the chance to 
interact with our shipbuilding partners in the private sector 
as well, I have seen similar resilience measures to those types 
of considerations that Admiral Williamson mentioned in his 
testimony.
    Mr. Crist. Wonderful. Thank you very much. As a point of 
personal privilege, please give your father my regards, and I 
yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back. We are 
going to begin our second round. I would anticipate us wrapping 
up at 12:30. Master Chief Smith and then Sergeant Major Black, 
sexual assault continues to be a problem for DoD, including the 
Navy and Marine Corps--I would say especially Navy and Marine 
Corps.
    In fiscal year 2020 in your annual report on sexual assault 
in the military, 1,724 reports of sexual assault were filed in 
the Navy and Marine Corps. I really would like to explore with 
you why there is such an exceedingly high number.
    Additionally, when breaking out the Marine Corps statistics 
in fiscal year 2020 in that report, sexual assault report rates 
skyrockets to 5.9 reports of sexual assault per 1,000 marines, 
which is the highest rate of any service, and the highest level 
since the Marine Corps started reporting in 2010.
    So, starting with you, Sergeant Major Black, can you 
explain to the subcommittee why that number is so high, and for 
both of you, what is the problem in the Navy and the Marine 
Corps and sexual assault, and you're not being--I don't feel 
like in the time that I've either been the chair or the ranking 
member that there has been an approachable reduction on the 
contrary in sexual assault in your service.
    Sergeant Major Black. Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for the 
question. Sexual harassment and sexual assault continues to be 
a top priority in the Marine Corps. I know you expect me to say 
that.
    Quite frankly, I am not satisfied with the numbers myself. 
I can tell you the continued support of this and all other 
members who are--who are concerned about these actions and sign 
up for our services is beneficial. I'd point to some of the 
recent changes that I think are going to help us, like the 
change through military justice, and how we're going to now be 
able to work through our sexual assault cases in particular 
through the judication process and investigatory process. Those 
will help. I think the continuing education that we provide to 
our leaders and individual marines will continue to help.
    I'm never satisfied with the conversation that because 
reporting goes up, there's more trust, and because the actual 
number of sexual assaults has not necessarily come down. 
However, I do know there is continued trust in the chain of 
command because there are more reporting. Few go unnoticed, few 
go unaddressed, and few go unadjudicated. In fact, none go 
unadjudicated, and I can provide separate numbers specific to 
our adjudications, ma'am, if you'd like in writing at the end 
of this.
    I think that what we should not do is have a discussion 
about what we should not be doing, and what we should not be 
doing is taking our eye off this ball. I'm not giving you a 
satisfying answer either, because the numbers haven't shown 
that there is actually anything occurring, ma'am.
    But I can tell you from me personally, and I'm married to a 
retired marine, and I live every day with the experience of 
what a woman's career in the Marine Corps looks like. She's a 
retiree and we've got two children. We've had a whole entire 
career inside the Marine Corps, and I can tell you right now 
that if--that we should continue to--continue to press this 
issue, because until we get the numbers going in the opposite 
direction, ma'am, I'm not satisfied any more than you all with 
where we're going.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sergeant Major, what new steps is 
the Marine Corps taking to tackle what is an unacceptable--
there's no sexual assault that's acceptable, but yours of any 
branch is unacceptably high. How are your efforts evolving year 
over year? What are you doing when you have, you know, a 
problem as serious as this, then you have to do something 
disruptive, and I'm not hearing you talk about any specific 
steps that you're taking to try to make an appreciable 
difference in reducing sexual assaults.
    Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, first, I'd like to offer you a 
long list of things that the Marine Corps is doing, but that's 
a long, extended list, ma'am, and I don't think our time 
provides that. But I will tell you is that, again, as you talk 
about----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Then instead answer what you're 
doing to change the culture of the Marine Corps so that it's 
ingrained in everyone that sexual assault is absolutely 
unacceptable----
    Sergeant Major Black. And the change----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. And not tolerated?
    Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, the change in our Marine Corps 
is that our leaders are telling the marines what is right and 
wrong. I believe also the continued understanding of how we 
respect each other, no matter what our gender, etcetera, is, is 
part of the solution here, ma'am.
    And I think that it's continued changes that we have--that 
we've seen in military justice is--are going to help. 
Culturally, ma'am, I don't--I don't--I don't see systematic 
challenge. What I do see is in individuals that don't 
necessarily understand what is right and wrong. We need to 
continue to get after those individuals, but ma'am, I don't 
want to sit here in front of you and tell you that the marine 
corps has a----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sergeant----
    Sergeant Major Black [continuing]. Sexual issue.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. Major, this isn't about 
individuals, this is about your culture.
    Sergeant Major Black. Mm-hmm.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you have individuals--too many 
individuals that don't understand that sexual assault is 
unacceptable, and that they don't have the right to do whatever 
they want with another--with a woman. Then you've got a culture 
problem. So, is there anything being done programmatically to 
address the problem in the Marine Corps on this subject?
    Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, the cultural challenges as you 
describe are individual issues. The culture of the Marine Corps 
is not one where sexual assault, ma'am, is acceptable. These 
are individual issues.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Then you're recruiting the wrong 
people, and not screening--if you're saying that by individual 
you mean that you've got people who don't understand that are 
marines, that they can't just do whatever they want to a woman.
    And so, that would--that begs the question, do you have a 
screening problem, and are you recruiting the wrong type of 
marine who doesn't understand that sexual assault is a really 
serious problem and won't be tolerated?
    Sergeant Major Black. We're continuing to look at our 
recruiting process, ma'am, for many reasons. We do. I can tell 
you the--we--we take the very finest that we have, and we 
recruit them, and we bring them in to be marines, and they 
become great marines. But there are individuals, ma'am, that 
once we have them, we have to--we have to continue to change 
the way that they are--the way that they think.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, we're going to really--I'm 
going to need you to come in and talk with me in my office more 
specifically about this.
    Sergeant Major Black. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Because your answers are really just 
not acceptable.
    Sergeant Major Black. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Master chief.
    Master Chief Smith. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate the 
opportunity to talk. Frankly, to start with, and I'll echo what 
sergeant major said, no answer is going to be good when we have 
numbers that are trending the wrong direction, frankly. We 
continue to drive culture and ethics lower into our leadership 
training to the point where we are now discussing these things 
more robustly inside the boot camp envelope. It starts actually 
in the delayed entry program for sailors that are in it. And 
then in boot camp and beyond, at every level of leadership 
training we now talk more specifically and deliberately about 
culture and ethics and getting ahead of it.
    We did a task force which met with some scrutiny from 
members of this committee last year when I was questioned 
called Task Force One Navy, and through it we learned that do 
have a lot of simmering issues, to include racism, to include 
bias, to include misogyny.
    And frankly, what Task Force One Navy informed us, and 
frankly, junior sailors have asked for is a change to our core 
values. Because as you pointed out when you started, words 
matter, and bringing respect, which is already mentioned in two 
of our three core values, up to the top line and making it a 
fourth core value is something that the CNO has on his plate, 
and he's preparing to talk to the Secretary of the Navy about.
    I'm not going to tell you that just adding a word to the 
core values is going to make everything better, but when we 
start to institutionally talk more about--as sergeant major and 
I have talked at these conferences we do on the national 
discussion on sexual assault, you don't assault someone you 
respect.
    You don't sexually assault someone you respect, and 
learning to treat our female teammates, and frankly, male on 
male sexual violence happens as well, and is very unreported, 
but all of these things, if you respect your teammates, you 
don't hurt them. You value them, and you look to fold them in. 
It's that--it all ties together with what we talked about with 
regards to suicide, connectedness, and belonging, and feeling 
like you have a place on the team, and you are valued. And so, 
we are preaching and teaching that at every level of leadership 
opportunity that we have.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I'll say the same, and I 
appreciate your more empathetic answer, but I'd like an 
opportunity to talk with you further about this, because 
culturally, there's something wrong if individuals don't 
understand that sexual assault is unacceptable.
    I'm just going to take one additional minute to ask this 
question and then--and then I'll turn it over to Judge Carter, 
as you know on Monday, May 2nd, an initial draft majority 
opinion was leaked which will likely result in the Supreme 
Court voting down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. If the 
opinion goes unchanged in its final form, there will be massive 
ramifications for women, including those in the armed services.
    Women in the military already have a higher rate of 
unintended pregnancies than civilian women. Currently, the 
Defense Health Agency has the limited authority to only provide 
abortions in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to a woman's 
life.
    For those female soldiers in states with restrictive 
abortion laws, their options for safe abortions might be 
completely erased if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Last week, 
the Army told this subcommittee that they were drafting police 
to address this situation. Master Chief Smith and Sergeant 
Major Black, are the Navy and Marine Corps also working on a 
policy to protect and support female service members and their 
families if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Master chief?
    Master Chief Smith. Ma'am, I would just say that I think 
ahead of any change in the law, it would be premature for me to 
comment on what the Surgeon General, the CNO, and the Secretary 
may be doing within the Navy and Marine Corps.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I'm just asking if there's any 
policy being worked on now in anticipation of that possibility?
    Master Chief Smith. Ma'am, I'd have to take that for the 
record and go back and talk to the Surgeon General and some 
others in my chain of command to find out and get back to you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Sergeant major?
    Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, likewise, with no specific 
change to the law, I'm not aware, but we cannot--we can come 
back off the record, ma'am, and answer that question for you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, and then I would just ask both 
of you, what will the department--will the department do to 
offset the expected impact on recruitment and retention of 
qualified female troops if this does--if the decision is handed 
down, who currently make up 20 percent of the active duty 
force?
    Master Chief Smith. Again, ma'am, ahead of any change in 
the law, I have no idea what this might do to retention or 
recruitment. I think we'll have to take a hard look at that if 
the law actually changes.
    Sergeant Major Black. Ma'am, again, likewise, I'm not 
certain with what Roe v. Wade has to do with our recruitment 
and how that would affect retention, ma'am. I just don't know 
at this point. We have no data to support that.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You already have really restrictive 
policies, and in states where access to abortion care might be 
completely eliminated, obviously it would be really difficult 
and impact retention because the percentage of female troops 
that end up unexpectedly pregnant is higher than the average 
population. So, you would be disproportionate--if you weren't 
aware of that already, you would be disproportionately 
impacted. So, it is something that you should definitely go 
back and suggest be looked at more carefully. Thank you for 
your indulgence, Judge Carter. You're recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Army and Air Force 
have reported that they are expecting projects for fiscal year 
2023 to cause between 25 and 30 percent more. What increases 
does the Navy anticipate? Why wasn't the increase factored into 
the budget request? As you begin preparing for 2024, will you 
factor in inflation in your request? Ms. Berger?
    Ms. Berger. We, remember, are mindful of a moving inflation 
target and supply chain impacts and others that can impact the 
cost. We are watchful of that, and especially as we look 
forward, continue to monitor it, but do see that we have had 
that impact. 2022, we're seeing that impact now as we look at 
the nadir, and we'll continue to be watchful of that in terms 
of what inflation impacts will be considered, but we have taken 
that into account, but anticipate that we'll need to be 
watchful of anticipated things and mindful of that.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, because that's your job. We need you 
to help us keep up with that stuff. Ship yard--the shipyard 
infrastructure program will cost billions and billions of 
dollars, and will take up to 20 years. I understand the cost of 
these--they're for big projects. However, I'm concerned about 
20 years.
    And we just heard in the big committee about what's going 
on in the Pacific, because quite honestly, that's--that--that 
20 years, that timeline is not acceptable, and what can we do 
to get that better? I don't want us to lose sight of our 
original goal and get sidetracked. Just tell me what you think 
about the timeline.
    Is it realistic, and can we speed it up if Congress can 
provide additional funding in 2023, could you use it, or are 
there other ways the subcommittee can support a program such as 
just for planning and design funding that can speed the process 
along?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the 
question. As the (inaudible) matures, obviously the dry docks 
were a must. We had to do that. We had the Virginia-Class in 
port coming out. That, we absolutely must do. But when you look 
at the other two LOEs associated with the dry docks, obviously 
the recapitalization of our infrastructure, that we being 
equipment, what we--what the workers actually use, but then the 
actual optimization piece. As we develop our area of 
development plans, and those become more mature, we're 
beginning to get a clearer vision of what the critical path is.
    We have to build the shipyard while we're maintaining the 
ships that go through the shipyard. As we mature that process, 
I do believe there are some tremendous opportunities to pull 
things to the left. As a matter of fact in our budget, we have 
set aside a lot of resources for PND money, as we begin to see 
clearer. Additionally, I believe as we mature that, and the--we 
understand better the market, obviously right now you mentioned 
inflation had a tremendous impact on some of the projects.
    We've looked at that going forward to keep those on track. 
We've added money into the projects. Additionally, we've also 
found that adding additional PND money and getting to about a 
30 to 40 percent design is also very critical in ensuring that 
we maintain--maintain our momentum.
    We're also very grateful of the ads that you provided us 
last year that helped us move. We're also looking at our 
environment studies. We're looking at all the digital threads--
the digital threads that we're developing now which should add 
to that maturity and allow us to come back to Congress with 
full transparency and what that plan is going to look like in 
the future, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Well, you know, we--we could get in the future 
in a situation where no new starts can be now funded. 
Therefore, we need to get----
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter [continuing]. Behind getting every one of these 
four shipyards as a beginning point. So, where it's not stuck 
if we're stuck with a CR somewhere down the line, well, there's 
no new starts.
    So, I encourage you, and I encourage the Secretary to look 
hard about what we can do to assist you, and quite honestly, we 
are way behind in shipbuilding as compared with our potential 
enemy in the Pacific. And they're just rolling them out faster 
than you can imagine. And they may be junk, but they're rolling 
them out.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. And we've got to--we've got to be able to be 
ready when the time comes. Have you--if anything is going to 
keep me up at night, that's going to be it.
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. So, put your--get your thinking cap on and 
think of ways we can begin to look at every shipyard to get at 
least some kind of start on the thought process so when we run 
up against the CR, which we all hate, then we can still have an 
issue to do some things, okay?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman's time has expired. He 
yields back. Mr. Case, you're recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Madam Chair, Secretary Berger. We've 
all been through a long, and difficult and intense six months-
plus on the Navy bulk fuel storage facility at Red Hill.
    Thank you for your own efforts. We obtained through this 
Congress and through the President funding for fiscal year 2022 
$1.1 billion-plus, which is rapidly being used. The President 
came back for fiscal year 2023 in his budget coming out of DoD 
with a $1 billion request for fiscal year 2023, but to my 
knowledge, we don't have the details of exactly what will be 
requested, and towards what so that we can make informed 
decisions. At least I haven't seen it yet, but do you know 
whether there is a--what is the status of the further 
evaluation of the request on the Red Hill funding at $1 
billion, which by the way, I completely support.
    I think we're going to be north of $1 billion even in 
fiscal year 2023 as we sort through this really, really 
difficult process of, you know, stabilization, remediating, 
defueling, and closing Red Hill, which is all happening in a 
very short period of time, and locating alternative bulk fuel 
storage facility, or other capabilities for our country? So, a 
straight appropriator's question. Where is--where is the 
detail?
    Ms. Berger. Congressman, just a quick thank you for the 
time we got to spend together in Hawaii. I really appreciated 
your perspective, especially as we're at the front end of what 
will be an enduring and purposeful focus on making sure that we 
remediate and follow everything through to its end in keeping 
with Secretary of Defense's direction, but also the 
environmental commitments that we have there that are 
critically important.
    As to the funding, this is a place--and thank you for the 
funding that we got this year as well to be able to get after 
some of these really critically important focuses. Going 
forward, we'll have environmental remediation to do. We will 
have support of closure per the Secretary's direction.
    We'll have community aspects to focus on, to include health 
and environmental wellness and other aspects. And so, I will 
take back and work with OSD who is the overall overseer of this 
funding. And so working purposefully with them, but also we'll 
make sure to get you the details that you're looking for.
    Mr. Case. And do you have the expectation that it will be a 
$1 billion--it will continue to be a $1 billion request in this 
fiscal year 2023 for the totality of Red Hill out of DoD?
    Ms. Berger. Out of DoD, I don't want to speak for DoD, 
since it is ultimately a Department of Defense request, but it 
is something I can take back to make sure you get a good 
answer, sir.
    Mr. Case. Okay, and also just obviously this subcommittee 
has a significant piece of that, but I'll--so obviously do 
other subcommittees, especially at the--thank you.
    Ms. Berger. Yes.
    Mr. Case. Admiral Williamson, back to SIOP, and I 
appreciate all of your interaction and efforts on SIOP, on the 
shipyards, endorse everything that Congressman Pingree talked 
about. Looking forward to your answer to her question.
    On Pearl Harbor in particular, we of course are a part of 
SIOP. Drydock three, is a major improvement necessary for the 
next class of subs? We're on a tight time table. We've worked, 
I think, well with you. You have it in your budget, you have it 
in your out years. I think we're, you know, not--I want to--I 
don't want to say on track on these projects, but certainly 
it's coming along. The waterfront production facility was a 
critical part of SIOP for Pearl Harbor which was left out all 
together of this budget, and future year defense planning.
    Over on the Senate side last week, my colleague and co-
conspirator on this Congress, sorry, Senator Hirono directly 
asked Assistant Secretary Stefany to commit to a review of the 
waterfront production facility, which is--which is designed for 
efficiencies and cost benefits over the long run, and you've 
been to Pearl Harbor and you know that you can build a world 
class drydock, but if you don't have the production facilities 
that go with it, then you're going to lose the efficiencies of 
that drydock, much less the utilization of it. And so, can I 
ask for your commitment similarly to the Senate side to go back 
and take a look at the waterfront production facility as to--as 
to putting it back on your tracking in future years?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the 
question and the support, obviously, for the Pearl Harbor Naval 
Shipyard. As a way of an update, the plan in engineering as you 
know is done this year. We're going into design next year with 
construction to start in 2027. We're looking right now very 
actively at balancing not only the waterfront support facility, 
but also that with the construction of the drydock. It's very 
critical that we don't get those two things in contrast with 
each other, but you have my commitment, sir, to come back to 
you with a more detailed answer.
    Mr. Case. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman yields back. Mr. 
Valadao, you're recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Madam Chair. Another issue that's 
obviously going to have an impact on morale is inflation and 
supply chain. Master Chief Smith, Sergeant Major Black, either 
one can respond to this, but inflation and supply chain 
concerns have driven up prices around the country, and our 
service members are feeling the pain just as much as the rest 
of us.
    As some of my constituents have expressed concerns about 
rate rising, food and supply costs at the commissaries, and our 
blue star families surveyed noted that 14 percent of the 
enlisted active duty families are concerned about food 
security. From a quality of life and force readiness 
standpoint, are there any other additional flexibilities or 
resources you may need to ensure our military families' basic 
needs are being met?
    Sergeant Major Black. Sir, thank you for that question. 
I'll go first, because it's an additional portion of what Mr. 
Bishop had asked. Sir, the answer to that is all yes. Inflation 
impacts all of us. It impacts us in this room.
    It definitely impacts our junior service members, and our 
youngest marines right now feel the hardest impact to 
inflation. And inflation cost is found in our food cost, 
whether it's in a commissary, which generally is below the 
outside the base market, but definitely outside the base, 
because while a lot of our marines live out there as well. 
Challenges with BHH rates, another one impacted by--impacted by 
inflation.
    The challenges of flexible BHH rates that move as the 
housing market does, obviously, those two things don't align. 
Those are impacts to our families. The challenges in our supply 
chain. I mentioned our disparate locations, which obviously 
would be a concern of all of us in this room, being here in the 
United States that there's more access.
    When you're in a location such as--and again, I'll mention 
Okinawa or Guam that's as far away as you--as you can be from 
the proverbial flag pole, things get there last, and when they 
get there, they're at a greater cost. So, inflation impacts--
that whole spectrum goes from childcare costs, it goes down to 
all of those things we spoke--we spoke about here.
    Those are costs to our families. That cost to our 
families--we have a saying in the Marine Corps, and I think all 
the services share it. You might recruit a marine, but you 
retain a family. You know, if we can't get a handle on those 
costs that are ``emburdened'' by our families, then that's 
going to impact our retention. So, there's kind of a holistic 
look at it, sir.
    Master Chief Smith. Sir, thank you. The frankly--the danger 
in going second is he said most of the things that matter, but 
frankly, I can't----
    Mr. Valadao. The same thing goes----
    Master Chief Smith [continuing]. Overstate----
    Mr. Valadao [continuing]. With our questioning here. I 
mean, it's just--we got a lot of great questions, and obviously 
it was (inaudible).
    Master Chief Smith. I can't overstate how important the 
commissaries are to our folks, because that does put affordable 
food in front of them, and gives them the opportunity to 
purchase it.
    Mr. Valadao. Yeah, that's an issue that we've been 
struggling with here, and it affects a lot of us on a lot of 
different fronts, but obviously the costs is something that has 
to have a huge impact on the--on all of our enlisted sailors, 
marines, airmen, everyone. So, next one on the infrastructure, 
Vice Admiral Williamson, is maintenance facilities' maintenance 
backlog, and I know this has been touched upon already, but it 
is something we really need to push on.
    Our backlog is hovering around $21.9 billion. While the 
fiscal year 2023 budget request includes $3.5 billion for 
facility sustainment and restoration, I'm concerned that we are 
critically behind in our maintenance. And while I welcome and 
encourage new construction, we must prioritize facility 
sustainment and modernization. Otherwise, our investments 
rapidly lose their value and degrade overall readiness.
    I did have a trip a few years back that we travelled to 
Okinawa and Japan and saw some of our facilities, and still 
surprised by the deterioration of some of the buildings, I 
mean, to the point where the guys were actually having chips 
and flakes of metal fall on them as they were working on 
engines, because the roof was so deteriorated. What's the plan? 
What's--how are we moving forward from this, especially since 
the request was so low?
    Admiral Williamson. Yes, sir. And thank you very much for 
the question. I absolutely concur, and part of the strategy 
that I talked about in my opening comments is actually aimed at 
exactly what you talk about. Our self-talk is we have so much 
infrastructure we can't afford it. My first question is, okay, 
what did you demo? So, how do we systematically look at the 
infrastructure we have, and related to an operational outcome.
    As we look at those mission capability chains, that should 
give us some insight in what's needed and not needed, because 
I'm not simply going to be able to get $21 billion sustaining 
what I have. Additionally moving forward, our self-talk. We've 
got to get innovative about this. Our self-talk is, I build a 
building that has a life expectancy of 67.5 years. I have 
carriers in our hangars and our inventory that are approaching 
100 years of life, and yet I'm putting the brand new generation 
aircraft in it.
    We talked about an impact to the sailor. You know, I have 
to leave and go through another hangar to use the head. I'm 
working in, you know, an unlighted facility. It's time for 
those to go. So, can I buy back ten of those for the same price 
as a brick of mortar would cost me? Could I still meet the 
fleet's requirements? Those things will also help us drive down 
and better highlight which pieces of critical infrastructure we 
need to sustain.
    Additionally, I think, you know, we talked about SIOP. 
We're about to spend a lot of taxpayers' money on SIOP. How 
much is it going to cost us to own it and sustain it properly 
for the next 100 years? Those are all things we're doing to get 
after it. We have to drive down our footprint, and also be very 
focused on our investments, and also be very innovative in our 
approaches to being able to solve this problem, certainly.
    Mr. Valadao. My time is up, so I appreciate it, and I yield 
back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. The gentleman yields 
back, and Mr. Bishop, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Marine 
Corps logistics base in Albany, Georgia, is a lateral component 
of the Marine Corps logistical operations, and it houses the 
command and has the headquarters. It's home to the Marine Corps 
logistic command's maintenance center, and they recently 
achieved the platinum level in the Secretary of the Navy's 
Energy Excellence awards, which will be officially declared net 
zero emission status I think next week. I'm very proud of their 
efforts in combatting that, so I just kind of wanted to 
highlight that and give them a salute. But General Banta, you 
included Albany's consolidated communications facility at the 
Marine base as one of your MILCON unfunded priorities.
    I believe very strongly that the facility is worthy of an 
investment of taxpayer dollars, as it will serve the, as the 
installation service notes, to support innovation in the realm 
of robotics and industrial technology. It is one of my top 
priorities for the Marine Corps, and I'd like to get some 
indication from you as to how we can get that moved up to your 
higher priorities so that we can get that--get that done.
    Another priority of mine is to support the Albany base's 
agreement to co-locate an Army reserve center from the 81st 
Regiment's division of government reserves. The Army Reserves 
will manage the construction, but we'll be depending upon the 
Marine Corps to provide the necessary oversight in project 
support so that they can meet the project timelines and 
milestones. It's an efficient and effective use of our MILCON 
funds across services, and I'd like to have your comments on 
those items if you could.
    General Banta. Congressman, thank you very much for the 
question, and also for acknowledging our--Logistics Base 
Albany's accomplishment as the first net-zero installation for 
the Marine Corps. It's certainly worth acknowledging, so thank 
you for that. To your point about the relative positioning of 
the projects on Albany in terms of moving it up.
    Our unfunded priority list is prioritized based on those 
projects that provide the greatest value back to the 
commandant's priorities, particularly with force design and 
with supporting the budget themes that he has. So, I could come 
back to you perhaps with a more detailed discussion on that, 
but right now, we feel that it's appropriately cited on our 
unfunded priority list relative to the other projects. In terms 
of the Army Reserve unit coming to Albany, I am aware of that 
issue. I don't have that much information on it right now.
    If it would be okay, I would like to be able to take that 
for the record and come back, but I do agree that if there are 
opportunities where we can co-locate DoD commands aboard 
installations and it makes sense from both a fiscal 
perspective, and is a better use of tax payer dollars, then we 
should consider that. Sir, I hope that is sufficient for an 
initial answer to your question. I'd be happy to come back to 
you with more details.
    Mr. Bishop. Well thank you very much. I would like to--I do 
have some follow up with you in that regard. Maybe we have some 
discussions about how we can be able to establish the 
justifications for moving it up. So, perhaps the commandant can 
perhaps look at--take a second look at it. And of course, it's 
my understanding that there's already an agreement to locate 
the Army reserve center on the base.
    It's just a matter of meeting the timelines and having all 
of the support in place, and the necessary logistics to meet 
the project timelines. I just kind of wanted to bring it to 
your attention, and lift it up to make sure that the Marine 
Corps did all that it could do to make sure that the trains run 
on time in getting that done.
    General Banta. Congressman, thank you. I'll make sure that 
we get back to you with information on both of those issues.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. My time is about to 
expire, so I will yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. The gentleman 
yields back. I believe there are no other members who are 
planning to ask a question in the second round, and so that 
concludes today's hearing. I wanted to thank all of our 
witnesses for participating and for their service. Obviously, 
your testimony here today will help us as we begin to craft the 
fiscal year 2023 appropriations bill. We appreciate your 
service, and look forward to continuing this important work 
with you.
    The committee staff will be in contact with your budget 
office regarding questions for the record, and then we'll have 
several questions to submit as came up, and you have some 
follow up for us as well, and I'd imagine other members of the 
subcommittee will have additional questions to submit for the 
record.
    If you'd please work with OMB to return the information for 
the record to the subcommittee within 30 days of receiving 
them, we'll be able to publish this transcript of today's 
hearing and make informed decisions for fiscal year 2023. I 
want to remind members that our next hybrid hearing is the 
MILCON VA member day which is tomorrow, May 19th, at 9:00 a.m. 
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
  
    

                                            Thursday, May 19, 2022.

                          MEMBERS' DAY HEARING

                               WITNESSES

HON. VERONICA ESCOBAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TEXAS
HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    NORTH CAROLINA
HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 
    JERSEY
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This hearing of the Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agency Subcommittee 
will come to order. Thank you all for participating in this 
fiscal year 2023 Member Day Hearing.
    Before we begin, as this hearing is hybrid, 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 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 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.
    For members participating virtually, you will notice a 
clock on your screen that will show how much time is remaining. 
At one minute remaining, that--the clock will turn 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 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.
    Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to today's fiscal 
year 2023 Member Day Hearing for the Military Construction, 
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
    The hearing today will ensure that members have an 
opportunity to provide input into this bill this subcommittee 
will produce for fiscal year 2023. We are pleased that we have 
three members here to discuss a variety of MilCon VA programs. 
This hearing is vital for us as appropriators; it provides us 
the opportunity to zero-in on the issues our colleagues are 
dealing with, and help them address important issues through 
our committee's work.
    Every year we work incredibly hard to include as many 
member priorities as possible in our bill, and hearing from 
members today will help us focus on what is important to 
members this year.
    Last year, we were able to address many important issues 
and robustly fund key programs such as mental health, gender-
specific care, and homelessness programs at the VA, child 
development centers, and PFAS remediation at DOD. And for the 
first time in many years, this committee brought back community 
funding project requests that allow members to direct--to 
direct spending to the highest priority MilCon projects in 
their districts.
    This year I am optimistic to continue building on the 
progress we have made on the subcommittee over the past few 
years. We will continue to prioritize the quality of life of 
our service members and their families, and provide the 
healthcare and benefits veterans have earned and deserved.
    I am confident this hearing will help the subcommittee as 
we begin to craft our fiscal year 2023 bill, and I look forward 
to today's testimony and continuing this productive dialogue.
    And now I turn to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member 
Judge Carter.
    Judge Carter. Thank you. Welcome both of you. I think that 
we have one more coming. This is a great job of the chairman 
and we have--where we allow members to come in and talk about 
the issues that affect their districts and give us some input 
about their needs. We welcome you being here, and we will do 
the very best, based upon the funds we have, to fund the 
projects you are--you want to discuss.
    We are underfunded, in my opinion, and we have been 
underfunded for many years. And hopefully we will--won't stay 
that way, but we will certainly do our best, and we work hard 
to please the members who come in with requests.
    So thank you for being here. I look forward to what you 
have to say, and I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you Judge.
    So without objection, all written statements will be 
entered into the record. Please summarize your remarks in five 
minutes or less. Our first witness is Congresswoman Veronica 
Escobar. You are recognized for five minutes.
                              ----------                              --
--------

                                            Thursday, May 19, 2022.

                                WITNESS

HON. VERONICA ESCOBAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TEXAS
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Wasserman 
Schultz and Judge Carter, Mr. Ranking Member. I really 
appreciate this opportunity to be here before you today.
    I have the incredible privilege of representing Fort--El 
Paso, Texas, a proud border city that is home to an incredible 
veteran population and Fort Bliss. Today I want to discuss two 
of my requests for the subcommittee that are critical to our 
community:
    The first request is regarding the construction of a new VA 
health center in El Paso. I would like to thank the 
subcommittee for allocating $150,000,000 for this project in 
the fiscal year 2022 omnibus. That funding will be critical for 
concurrent design and early site development, including 
utilities and a central utility plant. I would respectfully ask 
the subcommittee to support the President's fiscal year 2023 
budget request for the final $550,000,000 that would be used 
for the actual construction of the healthcare center.
    The El Paso VA is critical, not only to veterans in El 
Paso, but veterans in Southern New Mexico and must--much of 
West Texas. For years the El Paso VA and the William Beaumont 
Army Medical Center have engaged in agreements that have 
benefitted both facilities because they were located right next 
to each other. The completion of the new William Beaumont Army 
Medical Center across town presents an opportunity for the VA 
to take advantage of the move and construct a healthcare 
facility next to the new William Beaumont that continues this 
relationship which is critical to the health and well-being of 
our veterans. This new healthcare center would allow the VA to 
provide a state-of-the-art facility that delivers quality care 
for our veterans who deserve nothing less.
    My second request is related to Fort Bliss. Fort Bliss is 
the second largest installation in the Army and serves as a 
critical joint mobilization force generation installation. 
Since I came to Congress, I have advocated for Fort Blisses' 
infrastructure needs with senior Department of Defense 
leadership. Among their most pressing needs are a new railhead 
and a new permanent and transient party barracks. Unfortunately 
the existing railhead is inadequate for the multiple missions 
and assets Fort Bliss supports, and the barracks provide poor 
living conditions for service members stationed there.
    While these priorities are not included in the fiscal year 
2023 budget, I am heartened by a letter I received from the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army, stating that there are 
investments slotted for Fort Bliss in the Army's fiscal year 
2024-2028 Investment Plan.
    Additionally, I am encouraged by this year's budget request 
from the Department, which includes $15,000,000 for a new fire 
station at Fort Bliss, specifically for the new William 
Beaumont Army Medical Center. The medical center was built in a 
more remote location of Fort Bliss that does not have a fire 
station nearby and filling this request will dramatically 
increase the safety of the medical center. I see this request 
as the Department's first step toward modernizing Fort Bliss, 
and I would respectfully ask the subcommittee to include 
funding for this project in your final bill for fiscal year 
2023.
    I, again, thank the subcommittee. I thank the chairwoman 
and the ranking member for their leadership, and I thank you 
for this opportunity and consideration of my requests. I yield 
back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Congresswoman Escobar. I 
do want to--I do not have any questions, but I do want to say 
that I do not know anyone who has been a more vocal and 
passionate advocate for Fort Bliss, and the service members, 
and their families who live there. Obviously, you know, across 
all of our services, we have needs. In our subcommittee, I 
think you will find, that we have probably the most unified--I 
won't even see--say bipartisan--but the most unified 
subcommittee where we work really closely together to try to 
address, you know, as much of, if not more so, because we 
generally even, no matter what party the White House is, we go 
beyond generally what anyone in the White House has requested 
because, as Judge Carter said, so often even the President's 
budget request does not ask for enough.
    So we are the subcommittee that kind of says--that kind of 
understands that the other subcommittee focused on the military 
maybe gets a little more attention, and so it puts a little bit 
more weight on our shoulders.
    So thank you for your advocacy because I know whether it is 
publicly or privately, you are a constant advocate for your 
people, and it is really admirable.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
    Judge Carter.
    Judge Carter. And I confirm everything that the chairwoman 
has said, and we do work extremely well together because we 
have a mission that takes care of the lives of soldiers, and 
that is important. And Fort Bliss is a third corps, of course I 
am an advocate for third corps, so we will certainly--if the 
opportunity arises, which we are always very hopeful, we will 
do what we can. That is about, I guess, that is the best we can 
say.
    Ms. Escobar. I am grateful to both of you.
    Judge Carter. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
    Okay. We now recognize Congressman Hudson for a return 
visit. This is becoming an annual get together and we 
appreciate the opportunity to hear from you. So without 
objection, your written statement will be entered into the 
record, and you can summarize your remarks in five minutes. You 
are recognized.
                              ----------                              --
--------

                                            Thursday, May 19, 2022.

                                WITNESS

HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    NORTH CAROLINA
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Wasserman-Schultz 
and Ranking Member Carter, and other members of the 
subcommittee. I really appreciate this opportunity you give us 
every year, and I always do look forward to it, and appreciate 
very much your commitment to our men and women in uniform, and 
their families, and our veterans.
    I am here to talk, again, about the critical military 
construction needs for Fort Bragg, North Carolina. As many of 
you know, Fort Bragg is the home of the 82nd Airborne Division, 
which makes up our Nation's Immediate Response Force, as well 
as the 18th Airborne Corps, United States Army Special 
Operations Command, the Joint Special Operations Command, and 
the U.S. Army Forces Command.
    If you think of any major military operation in the last 
century, there is a good chance that a unit or command from 
Fort Bragg was involved. In fact, just in the last three years, 
the 82nd Airborne's Immediate Response Force has received four 
no-notice deployments:
    First on New Year's Day in 2020 when the American Embassy 
was under attack in Baghdad.
    Second, in August of last year during the draw-down in 
Afghanistan and subsequent evacuation mission of the Hamid 
Karzai International Airport.
    The third and fourth were in February and March of this 
year to support NATO allies in the wake of Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine.
    Simply put, these commands and their units are the tip of 
the spear when it comes to defending our Nation and our allies. 
In my previous appearances before the subcommittee, I have 
discussed key investments needed across the installation and 
highlighted the lack of attention that the conventional forces 
have received.
    This year I would like to advocate for two projects that 
will benefit conventional forces, military families, and their 
children:
    The first is construction of a multi-purpose training 
range, or MPTR, which is found in the President's fiscal year 
2023 budget request. Currently Fort Bragg has a requirement for 
four multi-purpose training ranges but has zero. As a result, 
deploying units must travel to off-post or out-of-state 
locations to complete required training for areas such as 
mounted gunnery and mobile protective firepower. This means a 
lack of training on certain weapon systems that are critical to 
unit readiness. Especially now as we train Ukrainian soldiers 
and NATO allies on key systems being used to defend against the 
Russian invasion, we cannot have our soldiers unfamiliar with 
the operations of these platforms.
    The construction of a multi-purpose training range would 
enable these units to maximize their training time instead of 
wasting time in transit to off-post locations. This could 
potentially save lives by preventing vehicle accidents such as 
a rollover which could occur in transit. It will also save fuel 
costs, as well as maintenance dollars, by decreasing the wear 
and tear on their unit vehicles. I implore you to see what is 
at stake here as Fort Bragg needs this investment to be able to 
respond to the next global crisis.
    The second project I would like to advocate for is the 
construction of a new child development center, a project that 
can be found in the Army's last FYDP. I think we can all agree 
that the last thing members or our military should be concerned 
about is being able to provide childcare while a spouse is 
working, or service member is deployed.
    Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, you alluded to this need in 
your testimony during last week's Quality of Life Hearing, and 
I appreciate your advocacy. I certainly appreciate the 
attention you have given on this issue and hope the Department 
of Defense will do the same. According to military families I 
have spoken with, Fort Bragg's Child Development Centers have a 
waiting list that can--that can span months or even up to a 
year. This is because of the sheer volume of personnel at our 
installation.
    You know, Judge Carter and I like to talk about which--who 
has the largest installation. I believe Fort Hood has more 
land, but we have 53,700 troops and 4,000 civilians working at 
Fort Bragg, as well as special requirements including the high 
operation tempo really puts a lot of pressure on the 
facilities. As you may know, Fort Bragg's Child Development 
Facility and personnel are one of the few in the Army that are 
capable and qualified to provide childcare for special needs 
children. Because of this, many soldiers with children who have 
special needs choose to be stationed at Fort Bragg, create an 
even greater need for on-post childcare spaces.
    I believe our military's recruitment, retention, and 
overall readiness are harmed when a military's family cannot 
find quality childcare for their children. The recent 
conversations I have had with families at Fort Bragg has only 
reinforced this. The existing deficit of childcare spaces 
creates an unnecessary hardship on soldiers and civilians at 
Fort Bragg. The last thing we want to do is force families to 
use unauthorized childcare facilities, seek off-post 
facilities, or end their service.
    I understand we do not have unlimited resources to provide 
for our men and women in uniform. Additionally, I do not envy 
you for the tough decisions you have to make; however, I 
implore you to consider funding these two projects as you begin 
crafting the fiscal year 2023 Military Construction VA Bill. 
Supporting our troops' readiness and their families is so 
critical.
    Again, I want to thank both of you, Chairwoman Wasserman 
Schultz and Ranking Member Carter, for your commitment to our 
men and women in uniform, and I sincerely appreciate you 
allowing me to come back and testify again today. And I would 
like to, again, invite you both to Fort Bragg. I know we had 
trips planned and the pandemic kind of messed that up, but it 
would really be an honor to host you this year if we can work 
out a trip. I would love for you to come down and see it, 
again, for yourself. Thank you and I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Congressman 
Hudson. And I know I definitely have committed to you that I 
want to take you up on that offer. And yes, we did get waylaid 
by two-plus years of COVID, so--although I am not jumping out 
of a plane. But--when I get there--but I definitely want to 
come. I will watch you do it.
    Mr. Hudson. Okay.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That would be okay.
    Mr. Hudson. That is fair.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And you really have been a 
passionate advocate for Fort Bragg, and I will say--I do not 
have a question, but I will say that we are quite focused on 
quality of life in this subcommittee, particularly for service 
members' families. It was frustrating for us last year that 
there were no child development centers that were requested. We 
funded seven of them, so it really is a priority of this 
subcommittee to make sure. I mean, if you have to worry about, 
you know, who is taking care of your child, no matter what job 
you have, then you are not fully focused on making sure you can 
do your job. And if there is anyone in America that we need to 
make sure are able to really focus on their jobs and not worry 
about who is caring for their children, it is our service men 
and women. So thank you for your advocacy.
    Judge Carter.
    Judge Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Hudson, the 
situation with childcare, we are on top of that. We are--this 
committee is bound and determined to make sure we have good 
childcare and looking for places we can get them funds to have 
good childcare.
    You know, something I think the American people do not 
really understand is that the--today's soldier goes to war with 
a phone in his pocket. And he gets his calls from--just like 
all of us do--and all of us get away from home and our spouses 
call us and say, ``Oh, I need this'' or ``Kid's got this 
problem or that problem.'' The soldier of the--of yesterday did 
not have the communication device. So this puts additional 
concerns and worries on the men and women who are out in the 
frontlines ready to fight, and may be in the fight; that is 
unacceptable.
    And so I support our chair who is an--a very strong 
advocate for childcare and so am I. We will do the best we can 
and hopefully we--you know, last year we--after, when the world 
finally, finally got to be the real world, we got some 
surprises, and maybe we will again this year. But I am not 
that--not going to bet my--bet the farm on that. Let me put it 
that way.
    But in real life I agree with you and have when we have 
talked in the past. You need the training centers very badly. I 
worry about all of the posts that we have where we have--our 
soldiers have to travel to faraway places to get the right 
training. I think if we have the available area, and the 
available money, we should build them on-post training to make 
them a better soldier. I also believe that they should not have 
to worry about their children.
    So you have got good issues, and we will keep on top of 
them, and we will do the very best we can, Richard, that is the 
best I can say.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you for joining us.
    Next, appearing virtually, is our colleague, Congresswoman 
Mikie Sherrill of the great State of New Jersey. Without 
objection, Congresswoman Sherrill, your written statement will 
be entered into the record. Please summarize your remarks in 
five minutes. You are recognized.
                              ----------                              --
--------

                                            Thursday, May 19, 2022.

                                WITNESS

HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 
    JERSEY
    Ms. Sherrill. Well thank you so much, Chairwoman Wasserman 
Schultz, Ranking Member Carter. I really appreciate the 
opportunity to speak to the subcommittee today about an issue 
that we all know to be incredibly important: our Nation's 
commitment to our veterans. So I come before you to speak about 
certain programs which I believe, with robust funding and 
strong bill and report language, will make a real tangible 
difference in the lives of veterans and their families.
    There is not a single member of this committee who does not 
know that we need to take serious actions to address the 
problems presented by toxic exposure. Burn pits have been 
called our generation's Agent Orange. I know you all share my 
determination to avoid repeating our past mistakes. And we have 
all heard from our VSOs and our veterans' communities about the 
long-term health implications of exposure to burn pits, and 
about the hurdles that so many of our veterans have faced in 
receiving benefits from the VA. Some members in this body have 
personally been exposed, and many of us have friends or loved 
ones who are suffering from chronic problems because of 
exposure.
    That is why I am urging you to include my submitted report 
language regarding burn pit population surveillance which would 
allow the VA Centers of Excellence to evaluate the emerging 
technologies that use x-ray imaging equipment to create 4-D 
models of lung functions, and could allow doctors to identify 
respiratory illnesses and other lung ailments far earlier. This 
evaluation would give us necessary data to see if these 
technologies could be used by our VHA to severely cut down on 
long-term illnesses caused by burn pit exposure.
    I would also like to urge you to fund new construction at 
the Lyons VA Medical Center, a project I submitted as a 
community-funded project. These funds would allow the Lyons VA 
to expand their community living center, adding 20 private 
rooms for senior veterans who need longer-term care. You all 
know the value of the VA's community living centers, which 
provide nursing home levels of care for senior veterans in a 
setting they can be comfortable in with activities, family 
spaces, pets, and friends.
    As our veteran population ages, the VA expects an increased 
need for nursing home level of care. Funding this expansion for 
the Lyons VA would allow them to grow to meet this need and 
provide a greater opportunity for patient-centered care and 
private room settings. This new facility would not only enhance 
my region's veteran services, but it would also create steady, 
long-term jobs in my community.
    So I have worked closely with many of you on the committee 
to ensure that our veterans receive every benefit to which they 
are entitled, and that they receive the highest possible level 
of care when they need it. As a veteran, I know firsthand that 
caring for our veterans is not a partisan issue, but one that 
we can all get behind.
    Thank you for the work that all of you do to make sure our 
VA is strong, and our veterans are supported. I sincerely 
appreciate it, and I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
 
    
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Congresswoman 
Sherrill. And in particular, thank you for your service to our 
country. I know you are a veteran yourself and served our 
nation for many years. We appreciate your service to your 
constituents as well.
    The issue of toxic exposure is one that this committee has 
taken on. We appreciate our authorizing committee, the VA Full 
Committee, but the dollars come from this subcommittee, and we 
are trying to make sure that we can cover the needs of all of 
our veterans. And as we move forward with the PACT Act, which 
certainly is an appropriate piece of legislation badly needed, 
we are also going to have to make sure that we have the 
resources to not undercut the other needs of our service 
members and our veterans, and that is the challenge that we are 
facing.
    But we will definitely review your language request 
carefully and make sure that we can do everything we can to 
provide your request.
    Judge Carter.
    Judge Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair and Congresswoman 
Sherrill. I am a strong advocate for having never giving any 
veteran the idea that they are getting a second class of 
healthcare. If we have got the--if the technology is out there, 
we have then--we will bend over backwards to try to get the 
funds if they are available for treatments that are world class 
and in this new--well I would say epidemic that we are dealing 
with on burn pits, and the lung function issues that we have, I 
would love to try to get the money together for that treatment 
you are talking about. I could probably use it myself. I have 
got asthma.
    But the real world is we are on a tight budget. Maybe the 
Gods of Money out there someplace will smile upon us again this 
year, and we will get some extra funds to deal with it, and 
some other things.
    But I really--I met you the other day. We are--really am 
thankful for you and your service and how you stand up for the 
right things, both in our military and their readiness, and for 
our veterans and those who have served us in the past. I am 
going to compliment you there on that and thank you for the 
service you have given to our country. And I am going to enjoy 
working on you--with you on several projects this year.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Judge Carter.
    Thank you, Congresswoman Sherrill for your presentation and 
we look forward to working with you as we move forward to 
prepare the chair's marks for--mark for fiscal year 2023.
    Well that concludes this morning's Member Day Hearing. I 
would like to thank all the members for taking time out of 
their busy schedules to testify. Your testimony is crucial to 
better understand the issues in each of your specific districts 
because no one knows our districts better than we do and we 
really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.
    I always encourage members not only to come to Member Day, 
but to talk with us in advance of submitting requests, and you 
know, as they are--as we are preparing the committee's mark for 
each fiscal year, because making sure that we understand each 
member's priorities and our legislative process really affords 
us the opportunity to talk with one another.
    I am always amazed at how sometimes few members actually 
follow up after the submission of their request and do not kind 
of underscore and highlight. And I have definitely had this 
conversation with Congresswoman Sherrill. So I am glad you are 
here because, you know, in a world of a very large-mouthed 
funnel, you know, we are in the--we have to make hard 
decisions, as Judge Carter said, and it is--it is just really 
important that we understand members' priorities, so it helps 
us prioritize. So thank you all so much, and as we work to 
craft out our fiscal year 2023 MilCon VA Bill, we will be sure 
to reach out if we have any questions on all of their requests 
to the subcommittee.
    And with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]